Comments by "Chompy the Beast" (@chompythebeast) on "" video.

@justwantresults8768 "No race but the human race" has been discarded because while it's essentially true in many ways, it dances around the fact that "race" doesn't really refer to such as it's used in America, and "race" in that sense is very much a factor in our society, whether we like it or not
12
@Poseidon650 "If kids dare to discuss the forbidden topic, I will cry 'Marxism! Anti-white!' and demand intellectual heads."
9
@justwantresults8768 Yes, race is an entirely social construct, that much is not under doubt or question. The issue is with the slogan "Only one race, the human race" and its variants, however, because asserting that "race doesn't exist" is different from asserting that it does exist, but entirely as a social construct. Basically, it came to be associated with (white, privileged) people saying things like "I don't see color", a narrative which seems to suggest an eye for equality, but effectively ends up means that race is utterly disregarded as a factor in sociopolitical estimations. Obviously, such a conclusion inherently supports extant power structures, especially ones with racial biases or inequalities. In short, it's not helpful. The problem with insisting on arguing for its use in the most well-meaning way is that it essentially constitutes a fairly academic quibble: If we just changed the word "race" to something else in this context, that argument naturally would fall away. So planting flags that insist on unrealistic changes to the way hundreds of millions of people speak colloquially really can only derail the more important conversations. Thus, while it's important to keep in mind the fact that yes, race is a social construct, and that racism is not founded in the hard sciences, we shouldn't insist on suggesting that it isn't "real" or that it "doesn't exist", because that morphs quickly into a white supremacist dogwhistle
9
@dr.floridamanphd The white supremacist, Red Scare-inspired kind of snowflake bullshit
8
@spitxfire99 I'm saying that you're clearly afraid of Marxism, as if this were the Red Scare. Martin Luther King Jr. leaned Marxist himself as well, there is nothing shocking about this
8
@HACSSuperbMiner Of course you know what it is they can't say, there's already dogwhistles all over this thread. It's about Jewish Marxist conspiracies, and "race realist" statistics about Black people, etc. You know, racist bullshit
5
@spitxfire99 I did say "Red Scare-inspired", didn't I?
4
Mikeusa "Globalist" lol you're all over here with that blatant dogwhistle, just say "Jewish", comrade. I'm not talking about a charity, I'm talking about an on-the-ground movement
4
@spitxfire99 You seem to be arguing that it's impossible to be Marxist and patriotic, loaded as that word can be. The Red Scare wasn't/isn't merely about undue fear and paranoia, but about an absolutist (and extremely negative) attitude towards socialism and socialists themselves. I do not think I share your views on that matter, though I respect of course your wise inclination to be skeptical of the framing that prominent members of the media choose to employ. To be frank, I too found this treatment rather on the leftist side of the spectrum. I suppose I just had a different reaction to that conclusion than you did. But again, I have nothing to criticize in your prodding Oliver's (or anyone else's) framing and narrative
3
@onetwothreefour3957 When you have to invent as much nonsense as this, maybe you don't really have a point to make?
3
Well, a few things you could do to combat systemic racism (and thus CRT panic) is support BLM and anti-police brutality movements, spread propaganda (signs, pamphlets, posters) in their support in your community, and if you live in places where these laws exist or are being considered, actively protest and campaign against them by all means available to you
3
@MrFlatage Are you seriously trying to grill someone on YouTube for proof of their American passport? Were you also one of those "birthers"going on about Obama's birth certificate?
3
Yikes, you're getting some pretty ugly (and sadly predictable) reactionary replies. If someone thinks discussions about systemic racism are "anti-white", they're telling on themselves, they're literally admitting that they find mere discussions about things like policing that center on Black experiences or just don't center them for once are an existential threat to their very way of life. Just wanna express solidarity, friend, and say you should come see the ocean sometime, we can get some chowdah
2
@justwantresults8768 Thank you, that's kind of you to say. I'll check out that interview. Have a good week and weekend
2
@nmvhr Ah, what? Do you have something you'd like to add to the discussion here?
2
 @GLRneverDies Take your empty threats elsewhere, "Christian"
2
@kaip310 No, the idea is to look at the situation critically, and to simply include undeniable factors like race and class into the teaching of history and social studies. The sort of thing we do all the time in academia, and the sort of thing people find easy and non-offensive when it's about places far removed from themselves in time, place, or culture―that is to say, it's easy for us to be critical in our examinations of, say, British feudalism, but when that same methodology is applied to American studies, certain groups find the same academic rigor to be suddenly offensive in the extreme
2
Smash white supremacy
1
@jamesticknor1134 Ethnic enclaves like rural 99% white towns in America are the very places one would expect supremacist ideologies to take hold naturally, simply by lack of exposure and by being steeped in an innately white supremacist culture, ie the United States. This just sounds like the very denial of systemic racism that John is talking about here. Your theory is all but untenable unless you simply reject the white supremacy legally and culturally enshrined in many American institutions, and such a denial would only demonstrate how important it is that kids learn in school the important things that they might find difficult learning on their own
1
Andrew Sokolowski I disagree, I think at least learning about Marxism is important for a balanced historical perspective, and is thereby life-affirming. America doesn't want it taught because it doesn't want a single student to find wisdom in any of what they read, of course, but educated minds should be able to have access to the knowledge to make decisions for themselves
1
@kaip310 There is no reason to obscure the true nature of the violence between European colonists and Indigenous Americans at all. There is no narrative within CRT wherein honest discussions of even scalping would be "inconvenient". Those discussions too can lend to constructive dialogue about why these things happened in the first place, and thus, hopefully, how to avoid them in the future. I appreciate your concern for the most well-balanced approach to these very important issues which inform our day-to-day lives. In fact, it seems to me that your questions and your skepticism would all be quite welcome in the context of a classroom CRT setting, provided of course that the students are at least as ready to listen as they are to speak
1
@factanonverba7547 Marxism is perhaps best described as a type of socialism. It is not 1:1 the same as "communism" because there are other schools of communism and socialism. It's a bit like how Protestants are Christians, but "Protestant" doesn't express the totality of Christianity because there are other sects
1
@factanonverba7547 I didn't intend to discuss the practicability of a vast ideology, but it seems sort of like you just mixed "Marxism" with all of "Communism" again. Marxism, for example, sure as hell isn't so-called Mao Zedong Thought. I have no idea how "beta neurolinks" and a theoretical Marxist Home Shopping Network factor into the differences between a single "branch" of communism and others, either, I'm afraid, so I can't really respond to that
1
@factanonverba7547 I follow you, comrade, and in fact I find your anti-consumerist and ultimately anti-Neoliberal angle quite agreeable. But I don't think that you have here systematically disproven the efficacy of all conceivable forms of communism by not deigning to acknowledge sectarian and ideological differences under its broad banner, is all. I don't mean to try any "No True Scotsman" type thing in defense of the ideology, but surely we can agree that there are many forms of (to return to a previous example) Christianity which look shockingly dissimilar to one another―all I'm saying is that the same is true of communism, or really any broad-category, worldwide ideology with a few years under its belt. In any case, I hope you're having a good week and that that rolls into your weekend
1
Andrew Sokolowski Everybody knows what globalism is. It's also used as a dogwhistle to blatantly refer to Jewish people by antisemites, as was the case here. Whether you're trying to pull the old "plausible deniability" or whether you genuinely don't know a dogwhistle when you see one, you're wrong, but you're not gonna fool people here either way
1
Andrew Sokolowski Dogwhistles are reality, ya bonehead. Words can clearly have different meanings in different contexts. They're ways of saying bullshit that get passed filters and that let people in the know know what's up, and even if we don't call them "dogwhistles" that tactic is as old as language and politics themselves. Denying that words clearly work like that sometimes is just to empower the bigots using them. Globalism, by the way, is superior to nationalism. You'd have to be right-wing to like either version of this take, but they 100% meant to refer to Jewish people. They're elsewhere in this comment section using the word in nakedly antisemitic contexts. If you seriously don't see or understand that, you're naive. But I think you do understand, you're just playing stupid
1