Whitesplaining

[The United States of North Amerigo]

I'm pretty sure you merely mentioning this case does not fall under the definition of "whitesplaining". I'm also pretty sure it has nothing to do with the topic.

Today The Gateway Pundit is a leading right-of-center news website. The Gateway Pundit has 6-7 million visits (Sitemeter). It is consistently ranked as one of the top political blogs in the nation. TGP has been cited by Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Drudge, The Blaze, Mark Levin, FOX Nation and by several international news organizations. Jim Hoft was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013. Jim Hoft will receive the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016.

Sounds like an objective news source doesn't it?

"Its right leaning! Therefore I am going to deny the incident exists!" Even though the proof is LITERALLY in the article. And then you telegramed me telling me that it was fake and that it was white people perpetuating black people as thugs.

I can't even... Literally.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Sounds like an objective news source doesn't it?

"Its right leaning! Therefore I am going to deny the incident exists!" Even though the proof is LITERALLY in the article. And then you telegramed me telling me that it was fake and that it was white people perpetuating black people as thugs.

I can't even... Literally.

It was posted without context, further information regarding the participants or what had transpired previous to the incident, or follow-up information. It was simply "Look at these black people beating up this defenseless white woman." For comparison's sake here's the same video as part of a non-biased news report (by a Fox affiliate, no less). It shows that this did not occur in a vacuum, and interviews members of the community to show how it's part of a larger story.

Worse than that, though, was that there was literally no reason to link to the video, as it had literally nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. It was simply to show black people doing something bad to a white person, and to, one would assume, make black people as a whole seem less worthy of respect, of thoughtful approaches, or of being listened to. It was race-baiting in an ugly, hamfisted manner, and you should be ashamed of trying to use that video in such a way.

[Olerand]

So...What concretely is it?

What are the limits of White condescension -that is, how does one determine what is a condescending opinion from a White person, and what is not?

[The United States of North Amerigo]

"Its right leaning! Therefore I am going to deny the incident exists!" Even though the proof is LITERALLY in the article. And then you telegramed me telling me that it was fake and that it was white people perpetuating black people as thugs.

I can't even... Literally.

It was posted without context, further information regarding the participants or what had transpired previous to the incident, or follow-up information. It was simply "Look at these black people beating up this defenseless white woman." For comparison's sake here's the same video as part of a non-biased news report (by a Fox affiliate, no less). It shows that this did not occur in a vacuum, and interviews members of the community to show how it's part of a larger story.

Worse than that, though, was that there was literally no reason to link to the video, as it had literally nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. It was simply to show black people doing something bad to a white person, and to, one would assume, make black people as a whole seem less worthy of respect, of thoughtful approaches, or of being listened to. It was race-baiting in an ugly, hamfisted manner, and you should be ashamed of trying to use that video in such a way.

If you read my quote as well as my link none of the above makes sense.

Smh. Social justice at its finest.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It was posted without context, further information regarding the participants or what had transpired previous to the incident, or follow-up information. It was simply "Look at these black people beating up this defenseless white woman." For comparison's sake here's the same video as part of a non-biased news report (by a Fox affiliate, no less). It shows that this did not occur in a vacuum, and interviews members of the community to show how it's part of a larger story.

Worse than that, though, was that there was literally no reason to link to the video, as it had literally nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. It was simply to show black people doing something bad to a white person, and to, one would assume, make black people as a whole seem less worthy of respect, of thoughtful approaches, or of being listened to. It was race-baiting in an ugly, hamfisted manner, and you should be ashamed of trying to use that video in such a way.

If you read my quote as well as my link none of the above makes sense.

Smh. Social justice at its finest.

What I'm saying is that it has absolutely nothing to do with this topic, and there was no legitimate reason to post it other than to paint black people in a negative light. That's not social justice, it's a refusal to get distracted by red herrings and a criticism of your debate technique. If I'm wrong, then please let me know what this has to do with whitesplaining, or any permutation of it.

Here's some music for you while you attempt to formulate a workable answer.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

So...What concretely is it?

What are the limits of White condescension -that is, how does one determine what is a condescending opinion from a White person, and what is not?

The same way that one determines rudeness, or civility, or any other approach to interaction.

[New Rob Halfordia]

If you read my quote as well as my link none of the above makes sense.

Smh. Social justice at its finest.

What I'm saying is that it has absolutely nothing to do with this topic, and there was no legitimate reason to post it other than to paint black people in a negative light. That's not social justice, it's a refusal to get distracted by red herrings and a criticism of your debate technique. If I'm wrong, then please let me know what this has to do with whitesplaining, or any permutation of it.

Here's some music for you while you attempt to formulate a workable answer.

I already knew where that link led to before clicking on it...

[Yumyumsuppertime]

What I'm saying is that it has absolutely nothing to do with this topic, and there was no legitimate reason to post it other than to paint black people in a negative light. That's not social justice, it's a refusal to get distracted by red herrings and a criticism of your debate technique. If I'm wrong, then please let me know what this has to do with whitesplaining, or any permutation of it.

Here's some music for you while you attempt to formulate a workable answer.

I already knew where that link led to before clicking on it...

Okay, so I'm a bit predictable at times. I'll own that.

[Olerand]

So...What concretely is it?

What are the limits of White condescension -that is, how does one determine what is a condescending opinion from a White person, and what is not?

The same way that one determines rudeness, or civility, or any other approach to interaction.

All of which are subjective opinions. If a White American (and let's be clear, this is the epitome of Americano-Americanism, or perhaps the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world also wishes to dabble with intensified identity politics as in America) were to disagree with a non-White American's opinion, is that whitesplaining? Or must it be condescending? Or perhaps insulting?

What is it, concretely?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The same way that one determines rudeness, or civility, or any other approach to interaction.

All of which are subjective opinions. If a White American (and let's be clear, this is the epitome of Americano-Americanism, or perhaps the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world also wishes to dabble with intensified identity politics as in America) were to disagree with a non-White American's opinion, is that whitesplaining? Or must it be condescending? Or perhaps insulting?

What is it, concretely?

No, yes, and not necessarily intentionally so.

Yes, it's somewhat subjective. Most adults are able to negotiate such matters as rudeness, civility, condescension, and such despite their subjective nature, so this doesn't need to be any different.

[Olerand]

All of which are subjective opinions. If a White American (and let's be clear, this is the epitome of Americano-Americanism, or perhaps the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world also wishes to dabble with intensified identity politics as in America) were to disagree with a non-White American's opinion, is that whitesplaining? Or must it be condescending? Or perhaps insulting?

What is it, concretely?

No, yes, and not necessarily intentionally so.

Yes, it's somewhat subjective. Most adults are able to negotiate such matters as rudeness, civility, condescension, and such despite their subjective nature, so this doesn't need to be any different.

But judging from the intensified social media campaigns that spring up for the sole reason of tearing someone down, and which have become increasingly frequent and important in the Anglo-Saxon world, as I am sure you know; doesn't the subjectivity of something so central to identity politics, a potentially career or life ruining subject in America and co., make it, perhaps, very dangerous?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No, yes, and not necessarily intentionally so.

Yes, it's somewhat subjective. Most adults are able to negotiate such matters as rudeness, civility, condescension, and such despite their subjective nature, so this doesn't need to be any different.

But judging from the intensified social media campaigns that spring up for the sole reason of tearing someone down, and which have become increasingly frequent and important in the Anglo-Saxon world, as I am sure you know; doesn't the subjectivity of something so central to identity politics, a potentially career or life ruining subject in America and co., make it, perhaps, very dangerous?

No, as it's no more potentially career or life-ruining than any other gaffe. Hillary Clinton did so recently, as did Matt Damon. While Clinton's riding lower in the polls, you'd be hard pressed to find a link between that and her awkward meeting with BLM activists, and Damon had a moment of embarrassment in the press that is quickly fading. I'm not sure of anyone who's career or life has been seriously threatened for being called on on being unintentionally condescending to a black person or anyone else.

[Olerand]

But judging from the intensified social media campaigns that spring up for the sole reason of tearing someone down, and which have become increasingly frequent and important in the Anglo-Saxon world, as I am sure you know; doesn't the subjectivity of something so central to identity politics, a potentially career or life ruining subject in America and co., make it, perhaps, very dangerous?

No, as it's no more potentially career or life-ruining than any other gaffe. Hillary Clinton did so recently, as did Matt Damon. While Clinton's riding lower in the polls, you'd be hard pressed to find a link between that and her awkward meeting with BLM activists, and Damon had a moment of embarrassment in the press that is quickly fading. I'm not sure of anyone who's career or life has been seriously threatened for being called on on being unintentionally condescending to a black person or anyone else.

Interesting. So, for now, whitesplaining is still permissible. With the sharp spike in the American identity politic wars of late, we shall see how long this status quo lasts.

One could point out that such divisive identity fights are harmful to the nation at large, and to public discourse particularly, but identity politics having been adopted by both the right and the left in the Anglo-Saxon world, I don't presume such a warning will mean much.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No, as it's no more potentially career or life-ruining than any other gaffe. Hillary Clinton did so recently, as did Matt Damon. While Clinton's riding lower in the polls, you'd be hard pressed to find a link between that and her awkward meeting with BLM activists, and Damon had a moment of embarrassment in the press that is quickly fading. I'm not sure of anyone who's career or life has been seriously threatened for being called on on being unintentionally condescending to a black person or anyone else.

Interesting. So, for now, whitesplaining is still permissible. With the sharp spike in the American identity politic wars of late, we shall see how long this status quo lasts.

One could point out that such divisive identity fights are harmful to the nation at large, and to public discourse particularly, but identity politics having been adopted by both the right and the left in the Anglo-Saxon world, I don't presume such a warning will mean much.

It's as permissible as any other form of impoliteness, and since it's often not as obvious as other forms, it tends to go unnoticed if the recipient doesn't speak up. It's also been around in various forms since the bare beginnings of the abolitionist movement.

This isn't a fight. It's simply a way of saying "Look, don't talk down to me. You may have knowledge on this subject, and I respect that, but I'm a witness to it. Don't pretend that you have a better insight than I do as to what is or isn't racist, or tell me how I'm supposed to feel about it or react to it." It's not some sort of huge thing, and I'm not sure why you think that it will become one. It isn't meant as an attack so much as a way of communicating to someone that there might be a better approach to discussing racism with someone who has actually experienced it.

[Olerand]

Interesting. So, for now, whitesplaining is still permissible. With the sharp spike in the American identity politic wars of late, we shall see how long this status quo lasts.

One could point out that such divisive identity fights are harmful to the nation at large, and to public discourse particularly, but identity politics having been adopted by both the right and the left in the Anglo-Saxon world, I don't presume such a warning will mean much.

It's as permissible as any other form of impoliteness, and since it's often not as obvious as other forms, it tends to go unnoticed if the recipient doesn't speak up. It's also been around in various forms since the bare beginnings of the abolitionist movement.

This isn't a fight. It's simply a way of saying "Look, don't talk down to me. You may have knowledge on this subject, and I respect that, but I'm a witness to it. Don't pretend that you have a better insight than I do as to what is or isn't racist, or tell me how I'm supposed to feel about it or react to it." It's not some sort of huge thing, and I'm not sure why you think that it will become one. It isn't meant as an attack so much as a way of communicating to someone that there might be a better approach to discussing racism with someone who has actually experienced it.

No, whitesplaining is most certainly the newest manifestation of the American identity wars. This importance given to race, to racial issues, to racial divides, to racial distinctions, to opposing points of view, to new terms exactly like Whitesplaining is not going to go well for America at large, for its minorities, for its White majority, for public discourse, or any sense of social solidarity in the nation.

American leftists who encourage this divide, and then are shocked when the American public is unwilling to implement a Welfare State for fear of the "Other" (Blacks most often, perhaps Hispanics recently) taking their hard earned money, are the perfect depiction of what the Left is going to end up being reduced to.

[Alien Space Bats]

Here's some music for you while you attempt to formulate a workable answer.

I already knew where that link led to before clicking on it...

Okay, so I'm a bit predictable at times. I'll own that.

Although I think that only the CIA's enhanced interrogation teams would actually make someone sit and list to that tune for THE FULL TEN HOURS. You're a real bastard, Mr. Cheney...

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It's as permissible as any other form of impoliteness, and since it's often not as obvious as other forms, it tends to go unnoticed if the recipient doesn't speak up. It's also been around in various forms since the bare beginnings of the abolitionist movement.

This isn't a fight. It's simply a way of saying "Look, don't talk down to me. You may have knowledge on this subject, and I respect that, but I'm a witness to it. Don't pretend that you have a better insight than I do as to what is or isn't racist, or tell me how I'm supposed to feel about it or react to it." It's not some sort of huge thing, and I'm not sure why you think that it will become one. It isn't meant as an attack so much as a way of communicating to someone that there might be a better approach to discussing racism with someone who has actually experienced it.

No, whitesplaining is most certainly the newest manifestation of the American identity wars. This importance given to race, to racial issues, to racial divides, to racial distinctions, to opposing points of view, to new terms exactly like Whitesplaining is not going to go well for America at large, for its minorities, for its White majority, for public discourse, or any sense of social solidarity in the nation.

American leftists who encourage this divide, and then are shocked when the American public is unwilling to implement a Welfare State for fear of the "Other" (Blacks most often, perhaps Hispanics recently) taking their hard earned money, are the perfect depiction of what the Left is going to end up being reduced to.

What in the everloving world are you talking about? Race has always been important in American life. At one point, it even determined whether or not you could be owned by other people, or had effective protections under the law. Even after that, it determined where you could go in town, where you could shop, eat, walk on the sidewalk, sit on the bus, or drink from a water fountain. To this day, it plays a role in how likely you are to get a job, to be pulled over by the police, to go to jail, to be called on in class, to be steered towards college preparatory classes, or to be assisted while in a store.

American leftists don't encourage this divide. We simply recognize its existence. The racial issues aren't going to go away just because white people refuse to acknowledge them. This whole "Blacks and Hispanics taking white people's hard earned money" thing is a distraction from the very real issues that black people, especially young people, face when it comes to employment and educational opportunities, it's blatant race-baiting, and it's also not the subject of this thread. I"m enjoying this conversation for the most part, but please don't throw distractions like that out there. It's disingenuous and insulting.

[Alien Space Bats]

American leftists who encourage this divide, and then are shocked when the American public is unwilling to implement a Welfare State for fear of the "Other" (Blacks most often, perhaps Hispanics recently) taking their hard earned money, are the perfect depiction of what the Left is going to end up being reduced to.

I think it's more telling that you go directly to the "Welfare State" canard; that says far more about YOU than it does about leftists.

In the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown and the years of lingering unemployment that followed, I could make a really good public policy argument that the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (more commonly known as the Welfare Reform Act of 1996) was a bad idea, what with its lifetime limits on public assistance and the rest. In retrospect, the only way we got through serious problems at the height of the so-called "Great Recession" was by repeatedly extending unemployment benefits and expanding food stamps to an unprecedented extent. Otherwise, we would have had the joy of repeating the experience of the Great Depression, with hungry people knocking on people's doors and asking for food (which given modern social tendencies, would have been truly lovely: In the 1930s, homeowners fed such people; here in the 21st Century, they'd have shot them on their doorsteps, right through the storm door).

Yet in spite of conservatives grumbling about liberals wanting to "expand the Welfare State", there was not one attempt made (at least of which I am aware) to repeal that 1996 law. We struggled and strained and bent the system, but at the one moment in recent history when there might have been actual support for expanding "the Welfare State", we didn't. We expanded health care, but health care is "welfare" only by the most political of standards; and even then we didn't expand it for poor urban blacks; we expanded it for working families, the majority of whom are WHITE.

Isn't it funny how that worked?

No, I think you rather miss the whole nature of the current battle over issues of race and racism. It's not about welfare; indeed, it's hardly even about poverty (although urban poverty IS at least one of that herd of elephants sitting in the middle of our collective room; one need only look back at the reality of life on the ground in Whitechapel at the end of the 19th Century to see the relationship between crime and poverty, even in an all-white society). It's come down to a bunch of conservatives (all of whom insist they're not racist, BTW) arguing, in essence, that the right to BE a racist is sacrosanct, while their opposite numbers on the left demand that we actually treat people with equal dignity regardless of the color of their skin. Thus the Black Lives Matter movement doesn't demand more public assistance for poor black families, more development money for our inner cities, or even reduced tax breaks for urban businesses (in the Jack Kemp/Rick Santorum mold) to help bring jobs back into blighted neighborhoods; rather, they just make a simple request: "Please stop assuming that every young black man you encounter represents a deadly threat to your continued existence and put away your God-damned gun. Take a moment or two to reflect before you seek a 9mm ending to whatever situation you may find yourself in; it's probably unnecessary."

Or, in the most succint form possible: "Please stop killing our kids. Is that too much to ask?"

And yet somehow, by the time conservatives get done talking about things, it's all about welfare. Oh, and how much crime there is in the inner cities, and how blacks are sufficiently respectful and deferential to authority, all of which naturally (yeah, "naturally" — kind of like breathing, and just as fast and easy) leads police to take reflexive lethal action to save their own lives. And how the dead inevitably had it coming.

Yeah, that.

Or, in other words (again succinctly): "Shut up and bury your dead."

I find the whole "whitesplaining" a tad less that useful, for a host of reasons that I've already mentioned (and one BIG one in particular: There has to be a DIALOGUE between blacks and whites, because whites can't tell blacks what it's like to live as a black person in America [having no real hands-on experience in the matter], blacks can't tell whites why the latter come to think and feel the way they do, and how that thinking might be made to change [never having been inside the heads of white Americans]). But I think there is nonetheless something to be learned here: It's easy to project yourself into someone else's head; but it's also damnably perilous. Is more welfare REALLY what black activists and their white liberal allies want? If so, why aren't they asking for it? Why are they focussing on shootings and widespread public perceptions of black criminality? Why are they talking about education and employment? And why are they talking about respect?

That's why I suggest that you check your premises: Are you sure that you're not arguing with your own inner STEREOTYPE of liberal activism, rather than ACTUAL liberal activism itself?

[Olerand]

No, whitesplaining is most certainly the newest manifestation of the American identity wars. This importance given to race, to racial issues, to racial divides, to racial distinctions, to opposing points of view, to new terms exactly like Whitesplaining is not going to go well for America at large, for its minorities, for its White majority, for public discourse, or any sense of social solidarity in the nation.

American leftists who encourage this divide, and then are shocked when the American public is unwilling to implement a Welfare State for fear of the "Other" (Blacks most often, perhaps Hispanics recently) taking their hard earned money, are the perfect depiction of what the Left is going to end up being reduced to.

What in the everloving world are you talking about? Race has always been important in American life. At one point, it even determined whether or not you could be owned by other people, or had effective protections under the law. Even after that, it determined where you could go in town, where you could shop, eat, walk on the sidewalk, sit on the bus, or drink from a water fountain. To this day, it plays a role in how likely you are to get a job, to be pulled over by the police, to go to jail, to be called on in class, to be steered towards college preparatory classes, or to be assisted while in a store.

American leftists don't encourage this divide. We simply recognize its existence. The racial issues aren't going to go away just because white people refuse to acknowledge them. This whole "Blacks and Hispanics taking white people's hard earned money" thing is a distraction from the very real issues that black people, especially young people, face when it comes to employment and educational opportunities, it's blatant race-baiting, and it's also not the subject of this thread. I"m enjoying this conversation for the most part, but please don't throw distractions like that out there. It's disingenuous and insulting.

I never, and would never, deny the importance of race in America, that is self-evident.

Leftists do encourage the divide with terms like Whitesplaining, making a distinction between the races in America. That is undeniable. By making and continuing to encourage this distinction between the races in America, Liberals create a sense of "Other" in the White majority's eyes vis à vis most often Blacks. Terms like Whitesplaining, when heard by the White majority, create a sentiment of us and them between themselves and non-White citizens.

That America has racial issues is undeniable, that it needs to face them equally so. But with terms like Whitesplaining, where the majority population is targeted in no uncertain terms and felt to feel even more awkward when speaking about race, and speaking about race is an extremely awkward topic in America, the Left only broadens the divides and further fragments the sense of social solidarity -and America has little of that- between American citizens.

American leftists who encourage this divide, and then are shocked when the American public is unwilling to implement a Welfare State for fear of the "Other" (Blacks most often, perhaps Hispanics recently) taking their hard earned money, are the perfect depiction of what the Left is going to end up being reduced to.

I think it's more telling that you go directly to the "Welfare State" canard; that says far more about YOU than it does about leftists.

In the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown and the years of lingering unemployment that followed, I could make a really good public policy argument that the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (more commonly known as the Welfare Reform Act of 1996) was a bad idea, what with its lifetime limits on public assistance and the rest. In retrospect, the only way we got through serious problems at the height of the so-called "Great Recession" was by repeatedly extending unemployment benefits and expanding food stamps to an unprecedented extent. Otherwise, we would have had the joy of repeating the experience of the Great Depression, with hungry people knocking on people's doors and asking for food (which given modern social tendencies, would have been truly lovely: In the 1930s, homeowners fed such people; here in the 21st Century, they'd have shot them on their doorsteps, right through the storm door).

Yet in spite of conservatives grumbling about liberals wanting to "expand the Welfare State", there was not one attempt made (at least of which I am aware) to repeal that 1996 law. We struggled and strained and bent the system, but at the one moment in recent history when there might have been actual support for expanding "the Welfare State", we didn't. We expanded health care, but health care is "welfare" only by the most political of standards; and even then we didn't expand it for poor urban blacks; we expanded it for working families, the majority of whom are WHITE.

Isn't it funny how that worked?

No, I think you rather miss the whole nature of the current battle over issues of race and racism. It's not about welfare; indeed, it's hardly even about poverty (although urban poverty IS at least one of that herd of elephants sitting in the middle of our collective room; one need only look back at the reality of life on the ground in Whitechapel at the end of the 19th Century to see the relationship between crime and poverty, even in an all-white society). It's come down to a bunch of conservatives (all of whom insist they're not racist, BTW) arguing, in essence, that the right to BE a racist is sacrosanct, while their opposite numbers on the left demand that we actually treat people with equal dignity regardless of the color of their skin. Thus the Black Lives Matter movement doesn't demand more public assistance for poor black families, more development money for our inner cities, or even reduced tax breaks for urban businesses (in the Jack Kemp/Rick Santorum mold) to help bring jobs back into blighted neighborhoods; rather, they just make a simple request: "Please stop assuming that every young black man you encounter represents a deadly threat to your continued existence and put away your God-damned gun. Take a moment or two to reflect before you seek a 9mm ending to whatever situation you may find yourself in; it's probably unnecessary."

Or, in the most succint form possible: "Please stop killing our kids. Is that too much to ask?"

And yet somehow, by the time conservatives get done talking about things, it's all about welfare. Oh, and how much crime there is in the inner cities, and how blacks are sufficiently respectful and deferential to authority, all of which naturally (yeah, "naturally" — kind of like breathing, and just as fast and easy) leads police to take reflexive lethal action to save their own lives. And how the dead inevitably had it coming.

Yeah, that.

Or, in other words (again succinctly): "Shut up and bury your dead."

I find the whole "whitesplaining" a tad less that useful, for a host of reasons that I've already mentioned (and one BIG one in particular: There has to be a DIALOGUE between blacks and whites, because whites can't tell blacks what it's like to live as a black person in America [having no real hands-on experience in the matter], blacks can't tell whites why the latter come to think and feel the way they do, and how that thinking might be made to change [never having been inside the heads of white Americans]). But I think there is nonetheless something to be learned here: It's easy to project yourself into someone else's head; but it's also damnably perilous. Is more welfare REALLY what black activists and their white liberal allies want? If so, why aren't they asking for it? Why are they focussing on shootings and widespread public perceptions of black criminality? Why are they talking about education and employment? And why are they talking about respect?

That's why I suggest that you check your premises: Are you sure that you're not arguing with your own inner STEREOTYPE of liberal activism, rather than ACTUAL liberal activism itself?

Welfare State? That is the issue? Is the ultimate goal of the Left, all across the world, not the creation of a Welfare State?

I am unsure as to why you had to remind me of the coded language used by American conservatives to argue against social welfare in the United States on the background of race relations, I am aware, I stated as much.

The American Left, presumably, wants to expand the Welfare State -or in America's case, create one-, as the Left everywhere does. When it encourages identity politics, in the opposite direction of the conservatives, with terms like Whitesplaining, it broadens the divide between the races and weakens the social links and ties between citizens in America, making them less likely to accept a broader range of social protection measures that conservatives will claim are being used by minorities. It's a fairly simple concept frankly.

All the other issues you listed are systemic in America, and will not disappear without major social policies addressing the rampant poverty in American society, and in minorities in America particularly. These policies will only come about through an American Welfare State. Which will never occur if the White majority feels no sympathy or solidarity between itself and minority communities. Terms like Whitesplaining, again, create a divide that Whites, and White conservatives, will use to argue against a Welfare State, leaving you, and your faction, and your activists, and your supporters, grasping at nothing and trying to bring change out of thin air.

Basically, the views of White American society, who holds the reigns of power, will never become sympathetic and feel solidarity with racial minorities with exclusionary terms like those the Left uses today. If you want to end poverty in America, or in its minority communities; or make police act better towards racial minorities, these changes will only come about through a sense of national solidarity between Whites, Asians, Blacks etc. This solidarity will not spring out of terms like Whitesplaining.

EDIT: Evidently, I speak of the Reformist Left. The Revolutionary Left does not care for a Welfare State, it wants a revolution. If that is the case with this Left, then good luck.

[Liriena]

Their skin colour has "something" to do with them being racist, much in the same way that being heterosexual has something to do with being homophobic: in a social and cultural context of hegemonic heteronormativity, one's position within society and culture as a member of the hegemonic group, or the groups under said group's hegemony, necessarily play a part in one's prejudices.

The characteristics of the sorts of explanations that might be referred to as "whitesplaining" are not intrinsic to one's skin tone, but our skin tone and heritage do more often than not play a part in what position we have in our society and culture, and how we relate, as part of a socially and culturally defined group, to other groups.

The term "whitesplaining" exists to describe a situation in which someone belonging to a group that has historically held hegemonic power over a certain society and culture condescendingly explains the problems faced by a socially and culturally marginalised group to someone belonging to that same group. The problem lies in that there is a tacit reinforcement of that same hegemonic power, given that the "explanation" entails a delegitimisation of the marginalised group's perspective on the problems it's facing and an attempt to impose a prejudiced perspective in its stead.

If you think that me acknowledging the cultural and social power disparity that often comes with our skin tone and ethnic heritage is "prejudiced" or "racist" on my part, you are free to think so.

The problem there is that "whitesplaining" presumes that the targeted group (white people) have some conflict of interest, or at best an ignorance on the issue. Now while you've made it very clear that it only applies in some contexts to some people, it still nonetheless labels all caucasians with the same brush. If you're talking about a racist group such as the KKK then why don't you just say "KKKsplaining"? But of course you're not talking about the KKK, you're talking about a modern and select mix of indivduals or sociopolitical groups which the movemnt views as racist. The danger there is that labeling their actions with such broad terms as "white-splaining" creates an 'us vs them' culture which perpetuates the very racism that the movement claims to be against.

Taking the "being heterosexual has something to do with being homophobic" example: "Heterosplaining" again alienates would-be allies, such as an example in another thread where someone within an LGBT group turned away the help of a heterosexual for no better reason than them being heterosexual, presuming them to be patronizing when all they were doing was only assisting a gay friend to find the local LGBT group.

While I don't think that "heterosplaining" would be a good term to use, it does at least have the accuracy of having two distinct and self-evident groups: people who are heterosexual and people who are gay/bisexual. "Whitesplaining" however, is based on the very arbitrary notion of race. Whitesplaining can see a white person and assume that they are an obelisk of 1950's style American anti-black racism. Yet how does the accuser know that the "white" person is even related to such an era let alone implicit in it? For all they know the white person could have suffered ethnic tensions in Eastern Europe, they might be Latino or they might be a direct decedent of such racial tensions in 1950's America yet has no ideological link to them. You see once you get into the details such blunt terms as "white-splaining" can appear very crude and counter-productive. It creates the false notion that it is one heritage vs another, as if racism is caused by nature rather than nurture. How do you expect to create fairness and equality in society if we're too busy drawing arbitrary barriers between eachother?

What previous position? I'm pretty sure I've been speaking in terms of "some people, sometimes" for as long as I've been on this thread.

And like I said before, using an anti-semitic word against only 'some jews, sometimes' doesn't negate the fact that perpetuating racist terms is morally wrong.

All "bigots", yes, but with different backgrounds, and different positions in our society and culture. Prejudice is not something that develops on a purely individual basis. It is often widespread and involves cultural and social power relations. If we want to understand prejudice, we cannot pretend that "bigots" are just lone wolves who individually decided to hate certain groups.

Of course they're not (normally) lone wolves, but they're not race-wide hiveminds incapable of individual responsibility either. If you commit a crime, you can't just say "well it's not my fault, it's my heritage".

in this particular case we are referring to condescending speech regarding matters of culture spoken by someone belonging to a culturally and socially defined group, white people, that has historically had hegemonic social, cultural, economic and political power over certain regions of the world, and directed to someone belonging to a culturally and socially defined group, such as African Americans, that has historically been socially, culturally, economically and politically marginalised.

Except that you can't know what their family history is, as we're all different. And even if you can trace a line to some historic racist event, people should still be held accountable based on their actions rather than that of their ancestors. Suggesting that one's opinion is any less valid because of their ethnic history is, ironically, racism itself.

It's a specific context with a specific problem requiring specific terms.

Yes, specific terms rather than ones which (intentionally or not) paint an entire ethnic group in the same brush.

Point conceded.