NONE!!!!! I've seen it play out on this board, especially during the primary and to a lesser extent still exists.

Frames things beautifully in ways I've been trying to articulate. Thanks.

which in essence, proves the point of this article.

smh.

Are you really surprised. Don't forget who runs this place and who most of the audience is. We have to have special sections on here to truly post the things we want that are much more difficult to be hidden/alerted.

White male liberals, if I'm not mistaken. And the site took off as all those white liberals protested the disastrous Bush Admin and Iraq War.

The victim shtick isn't working -- no one is being relegated to colored water fountains by all those white liberal DUers. It's an open site -- anyone can join and participate (as long as they play by the many, many rules).

That is the key. And the fact that it was alerted proves that point a bit. These bastions of White liberalism need to work on issues of intersectionality. That is what I have seen to be the biggest issue. This board is not the place that allows a truly free open dialogue for issues that may cause very differing opinions and anyone's feelings that are a little bit hurt get to hit the "report" button. I've never flagged a post here and I think maybe have only once ever voted in jury to hide a post. If you don't agree with the poster then fine. Challenge their viewpoint and have a civil discussion. As long as there aren't personal attacks I don't see why any post would be flagged.

But I have found that with some White liberal acquaintances, particularly White males. All is good so long as I'm towing the line with their viewpoints, but the minute I challenge them or make them the slightest uncomfortable then they show a side of privilege that makes me keep them at arm's length.

Spot on.

and derisively referring to any group of people as this, that, or the other doesn't sit well with many (especially when the dialogue mirrors right-wing talking points). I didn't alert, but I'm not surprised someone did. It's not about hurt fee-fee's (I know someone is just itchin' to swoop in with that idiocy), it's about civility and respect. DU has survived over a decade with an endless supply of controversial issues, and God knows how many members have discussed and challenged without having posts hidden. If someone wants to engage in serious discussion, are insults the way to start? Social media is full of personal attacks and it's clear the site admins want civility, hence the new jury system.

Where is there an insult anywhere in the OP post? You said that you aren't surprised someone alerted this post. Why aren't you surprised? I see no insults in anything that was posted. I see a truth about a certain group of White liberals that is very true. No one's house is completely free of issues and those issues should be talked about openly without threat of being shut down under the guise of "civility" There is nothing uncivil about what was said and the only people that would take issue with it is those for whom it rings true.

white men or some such nonsense, but "smug" isn't exactly a compliment. And there's no "certain group of White liberals" referenced in that little hit-piece, it's "white liberals." I know white liberal-bashing is trendy these days, but it'll pass. The entire piece screams "issues" and I find it amusing that members of DU, a community for "politically liberal people," are lapping it up without question.

Because, frankly, when one group operates within a conflict-theory framework that black people are in conflict with white people, women are in conflict with men, black women are in conflict with white women, trans* people are in conflict with gay people, and an absolute myriad of other conflicts originating solely from factors that people have no control over, while other groups are not, then arguments are always going to devolve into name-calling and umbrage-taking.

When a person's argument is inseparable in their mind from who they are as a person, they'll inevitably judge anyone who disagrees with the ideas they put forth as not just wrong, but bigoted against their identity. Frankly, that's the cancer that's killing the left in this country, and it has to stop.

I try to see it as a way to encourage understanding, and attempting to see it from another point of view. If we don't listen, we don't learn. And that is the cancer that is killing us.

How about refute it if you dont like it or dont agree with it?

I think the alert actually proves the point of the article!!!

And Again...

Apparently, we're not allowed to poke fun at Trump at any way without triggering this oppressed group or that oppressed group.

See, we're a big bunch of shitlords because we dared to laugh at Trump's naked likeness and tiny penis.

singing "Love me, I'm a Liberal" from You Tube, but it's got a WORD in it that will be jumped on by every hissy fit throwing word jumper on the site and I can't afford another hide. Never mind it was recorded in the early 60s when things were different and free speech was what we were all trying to defend, that WORD makes the whole video EEVUL, so you guys will just have to look it up over there.

However, it skewers the smug beautifully.

http://www.youtube.com Type "Love Me, I'm a Libeeral" in the search box.

Newbie question: How can you tell?

1) When a post gets alerted on, the jury system automatically assembles six DUers to review the alerted post. It's possible this particular poster was part of the jury.

2) It's also possible that a juror simply told this poster.



Oh, there is a third way, I suppose:

3) Maybe this poster is the one who alerted on it? Doubtful, but still... it is another way to know about an alert.

======================

Only quibble I have is that Black Americans began voting for Democrats in 1934, after 2 years of FDR's New Deal - not 1960s as author wrote.

i'm not clear on how many liberals in elite institutions who talk about micro-aggressions and white privilege and so on would actually endorse the negative portrayal of blacks in the media.

personally, i think hollywood in particular is horrendous on this front, and the news media is not much different. i see how liberals tie into hollywood, but i don't see how liberals tie into the news media. however many liberals there are in front of the camera, they know they have to appease their right-wing bosses.

There is another problem with responses from liberals contributed to the demonization of protesters that the far RW general assembly was using to gut the state budget funding and exploit RW racism.

I would love to see more posts from you.

And it continues. The faculty have held teach-ins and many of us have also been working to take the conversation off campus and into the broader community.

I was looking for "The Invisible Man" by HG Wells, and somehow got "Invisible Man" by Ralph Ellison.

Books and ideas really can rock your world.

describing the origin of the book -

http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/black-history-month/videos/ralph-ellison-origins-of-invisible-man

Since Ellison wrote "Invisible Man" I wonder how much has really changed?

“I was never more hated than when I tried to be honest. Or when, even as just now I've tried to articulate exactly what I felt to be the truth. No one was satisfied” ― Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man

And an interesting story behind that endeavor given Ellison did not want his book made a production in any other media.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/theater/the-staging-of-ralph-ellisons-invisible-man.html

I just downloaded it to my iPad. I don't generally like reading books in electronic form, but what the heck?

Last edited Sat Aug 20, 2016, 04:06 PM - Edit history (1)

A Black Woman wrote this, so White Liberals can't.call her a racist, but I am sure they will find another way to smear her.

She nailed it with this:

The truth is that Liberalism is about making elites feel better about themselves and their lives without requiring the underlying action of significantly improving the lives of African-Americans.

from CONSERVATIVE writers!! That the "left" is quick to offer words and slogans, but no actual answers or work for improvement.

the liberal candidate?

The problem is that too many Liberals are not concerned with Economic Justice. They give it lip service, but are too beholden to status quo economic system we have, that allows them to maintain their lifestyle. There is also a great deal of contempt for Blue Collar people, regardless of their skin color.

and this whole thread has been interesting. All these points are valid. My perspective on economic justice comes from growing up with affirmative action. A lot of people would bash this idea, but in the industries I worked in over the last 40 years, it proved to be great at economic diversity. I never thought someone who obtained a job, no matter the reason, was unqualified or undeserving. We live in a society where there is always a pecking order. Affirmative action tried to move certain groups up that chain and in many places, that happened and with good results, both socially and economically. Our society, by design is always going to be unbalanced. Any programs that can tip the scales in a broad sense are a good idea. Those that don't benefit, and there are always those people, will always be upset they didn't tip in their favor. I could be considered one of them, but I would rather see the positive side to it. So when you say it's just lip service, that is a little to0 broad of a brush you are using.

Hits the nail

White college students who speak of “white privilege” are recognizing that there is a disparity in opportunity according to skin color and support changes to fix that. The writer says this is "while not having to do anything or, more importantly, give up anything." - I am sorry, but whites are not responsible for the color of their own skin.

"They say they feel black peoples’ pain because they took a trip to Africa to help the disadvantaged," - That is doing something or giving something up, contradicting the previous statements.

"The White Liberal culture encourages talking about diversity and shaming others for their alleged racism, but many times they themselves work in environments that are mostly white." - They are not responsible for who their employees employ. I do not think that the demographics of the workplace is a factor white liberal candidates consider when applying for a job.

"When questioned they’ll defensively state that they promote strictly on merit. Black people aren’t suggesting that we want someone unqualified to get the position, but I find it telling that they assume that we are not qualified." - I have never met a white liberal who assumes black people are not qualified. I have met plenty of conservatives and libertarians who think that, but not liberals.

"These same Liberals are quick to be against school choice, while their kids go to private or well-regarded public schools. Leaving poor black children behind in underperforming schools and providing less opportunity to improve their lives is inconsequential to keeping true to their white liberal politics." - Yes, that is often true, but do wealthy black parents send their kids to private or well-performing schools or to underperforming schools? Again, I am sorry, but white people did not decide to be white. That is how they were born, and the white liberal is FOR equality for all, not against. To make out that white liberals are racist is ridiculous.

"White Liberals have hijacked the conversation about diversity, political correctness and what topics we should be outraged about - white liberals tend to embrace equality for all, no matter what color a person is." If that is highjacking the conversation, then good.

Even if they did some volunteer work.

One of the most important things you can give to anyone or anything.

view those trips to africa and other poor nations they should just not do it.

i'm not impressed by any of it.

it's different from people such as doctors who give up higher pay and a certain type of lifestyle to spend their life in poor countries.

Good grief. Often times those experiences lead to lifelong choices and changes of perspective that have effects reaching far beyond the scope of a journey lasting a few months.

But you're right, no one who isn't in it for the long haul should do anything. It's not helpful anyway.

That's one problem. It overgeneralizes.

The second problem is rather more backgrounded. Most white liberals spend virtually no time thinking about the issues others obsess about and assume white liberals also think about. They're busy with school, work, social lives, entertainment, sleeping, personal grooming, eating, etc., etc. To the extent they think, much of it is merely nodding in accord with people who they view as authorities. Because that's quick and easy and psychologically satisfying, and allows them to get back to school, work, social lives, entertainment, sleeping ... Many got their opinions out of a box, all prepared and ready for installation.

Statements like "... I find it telling that they assume that we are not qualified" in response to, "When questioned, they'll defensively state that they promote strictly on merit" are overstating the point. Nobody's making the assumption that (all) black applicants aren't qualified; presumably they've looked and haven't found the top candidate among their applicant pool. What they may do is just choose "white" if given a simple black/white choice of equally qualified candidates. I'd have had a problem with that 20 years ago, but since then have seen so many justifications for not only why some (non-dominant) groups tend to pick in-group members but why this is such a great thing to not generalize the justifications to whites, as well. The argument against it then becomes, "It's wrong because it doesn't help us." Then again, many employers and decisions just go with the most successful applicant without doing outreach. A number of schools' admissions programs had this "problem"--one school I know of had admissions folk saying that to meet their informal quotas they'd have to admit nearly every black applicant but be highly selective for Asian admits. In other words, they didn't want to have the student body self-select, they wanted to engineer diversity but balked when it meant reducing cohort competence. Tough call--and, yes, in that case it was saying that many of the Af-Am candidates were less qualified. (The dichotomy in this article, "qualified" vs "unqualified" as the only two choices, is fallacious.)

As with many such articles, I'm left wondering if the real problem isn't a lack of power and control over others. "White Liberals have hijacked the conversation about diversity, political correctness and what topics we should be outraged about." It's them there white liberals versus us and we resent that they're telling us what we should think. No, really, for the most part white liberals aren't telling other liberals/progressives what they should think, at least not any more than simple peer pressure and push for group conformity would lead them to. Mostly they're talking to each other, which is fine. "We" (I'm quite obviously not in the rather exclusive "we" I think the OP is in) can think whatever the OP's "we" wants, but that's going to be a separate conversation. And "we" has the same power to dictate to "them" that that "them" has to dictate to the OP's "we".

The problem is that if the OP's "we" has that conversation, since it's not the majority or a large minority of the population, it's likely to be a sidebar. And that's a serious issue because it means that "we" lacks power and control. Such is life. (I mean, if my particular minority group had the power to control the conversation we'd be happy, too. But we don't. That was true when I was an American in Brno, it's true for me in America.)

I do agree though that there's a smug elitism amongst white liberal cultures - notably in Academia where the whole "safe space" madness started.

but I think "microaggressions" are bullshit. I don't believe in policing other people's words, life is too short to sweat the small stuff.

in the article, she denigrates the concept of microaggressions, but then lists microaggressions that are commonly inflicted by smug white liberal college students as examples of what is wrong with the smug white liberal. With respect to those microaggressions she lists, I agree with her. They suck.

But with respect to policing other people's works, if someone used the n word here, you'd be fine with it? How about if someone called Hillary the c word?

per the forum's rules. You can't really ban anyone IRL however.

banned, would the use of that language be fine with you?

I've had several "n"-words lobbed at me IRL. I usuallt handle it with fists or at the very least, a nasty and angry verbal spat back.

My point is, I or anyone else can't control what comes out of someone's mouth, we can only control our response to it.

But the fact is that you only object to policing the words that YOU have deemed unworthy of policing.

I, personally, feel that if a group says to me, "I find your referring to me as (questionable term) to be offensive," it is not for me to say to them, "No, it's not offensive." It's for me to be a reasonable person and avoid using those terms when I am in company with those people, and to seriously consider avoiding those terms in general.

"Word policing" is generally defined here as a group finding descriptors used about themselves to be offensive, and people from outside the group telling them to stop being offended.

In fact, there really isn't much word policing. There's just people being obnoxious toward groups they don't belong to.

Hey, baby, I'm gonna tap that shit! Oh, sorry - my hand slipped!

Maybe I missed something, but it seems that the person that wrote the article is judging an entire group, based on the words and actions of a minority of people in said group.

I'm white and I well aware that the majority of white people, and yes liberal white people too, immediately become defensive when discussing racial injustice. We need to talk less and listen more.

"White privilege" is an original sin ascribed to an entire group of people based on something they have no control over and did nothing to deserve.

When you apply that manner of broad brush, ascribing negative qualities based entirely on skin color, that makes you a racist.

racist, too comfortable, and privileged white majority is too cowardly and hasn't the morals to actually change.

We should stop being defensive when the issues involving race are brought up. The immediate defensiveness that too many of us have immediately shuts down the conversation we should be having.

We should realize that we will never know what it is like to be living in this country while black. We can attempt to put ourselves in their shoes but we will never fully understand it.

We should listen more, empathize, and learn to recognize and understand that systemic racism exists.

Until we can do all of the above, we are not helping to stop it.

We are talking about white liberals. The Democratic Party is not a "white" party. It is a party for equality for all. It is a party that embraces all people no matter what color, religion, age, sexuality, gender. To suggest that white liberals who overwhelmingly support progressive policies and Democratic politics don't empathize with blacks at best insulting.

arguing with the author. Is there anything in her piece that you agree with? Or did you just stop reading when you saw the words "white liberals" and got offended?

I really do believe there is something that I can not explain which impedes the ability to empathize. A complete lack of empathy. I forgot which SC nominee hearings but that weasel person Sessions from AL was worried about the nominee being "empathetic".

I've lived in the DC area most of my life, including a long stint in PG County. I've gone to school with blacks, played sports with blacks, ridden public transportation with blacks, worked with blacks, socialized with black coworkers, volunteered with blacks. After nearly four decades of this interaction, I think I have a *fairly* good understanding -- note *fairly.* I see successful, educated blacks around me every day, with close-knit, supportive families. I also see the total opposite and wonder where it all went wrong (it *ain't* the fault of smug white liberals).

At least conservatives have the balls to slam liberals and mean it. This weasely "not all" or "it wasn't directed at you" is lame. The HuffPo piece screams personal issues: some white liberal done the author wrong, and she's taken out her poison pen to slam an entire group. I happened upon a conservative blogger who picked up Johnson-Huston's piece, and her beef is with smug white liberals living in Brooklyn lofts. LOL Jesus, what a pair.

Huh, I just decided to do some digging:

You're going to attempt to bash this woman on what you view as "some white liberal done the author wrong, and she's taken out her poison pen to slam an entire group".

Did you even read the article you linked to?

I notice a pattern here of when black people share an opinion, it is immediately knocked down by many white people. The article is in fact addressing you if your above opinion is what you came away with after reading not only her article, but her impressive bio as well.

I did some more digging as well.

stereotyping is wrong unless the subject is white people and/or LEO

but sadly, many white liberals jumped on and assumed she did.

And that is the problem.

Too many of us white people have this defense mechanism that kicks in when the see the words "white people".

We need to stop jumping to defensiveness and start listening more.

Black people and white people are not monolithic. We are not at war with each other.

But yes, too many white people fail to admit that systemic racism exists. That was her point.

...who asserted that they should be able to have their own group conference of entirely black women, no men or whites allowed. Because that way they would feel safe to say what they liked, and everyone in the group would understand what they were saying and why. And the very, VERY liberal whites agreed and encouraged this. Being a personal example, I know it's not right for me to assert that all black women are for "safe spaces" or that they alone created that term and idea and put it forward on college campuses. But I will say that it seems strange to me that "safe spaces" is viewed as a white liberal, um, conspiracy. It didn't in my experience, start out that way.

I think my main issue with this is that it doesn't tell me how African-Americans would be better served by white liberals. Should white liberals back out and do nothing, letting African-Americans fight out the unfairness perpetuated by white privilege in their own way? Should white liberals consciously and actively sacrifice (if so, what?)? Should they go into those poor neighborhoods and prove their dedication to equality (If they work in those neighborhoods to make them better, how do they avoid being viewed as patronizing?)? Should they research any job they're taking and back out of applying if the employer seem unlikely to hire an equally qualified African American?

What, exactly, should they do? White privilege certainly exists, and every person born into it needs to be aware of it and do what they can to eradicate it. But it seems that the attempts by those liberals that the writer has met have failed. While it shouldn't be the job of the black person to "help" the white person, it is the job of the person who can see clearly to point out to the blind person what they're missing and how to better navigate their path. I'd find this essay more useful if it wasn't just a rant to white liberals to "wake up! You're racists!" and a little more "Here's how you can start not being racists." Because, at the very least *SOME* of these white liberals may be honest and may want to do better. How can they if they're just told that their efforts are a failure and there's no hope for them?

They claim to care deeply about the poor and disadvantaged but never would actually interact with them.

We're all works in progress. Anybody who thinks they're a finished product at the peak of whatever it is that they pride themselves on achieving desperately needs to be reminded that they're not.

Conservatives will think like that too, we are stupid liberals who just don't know or understand the world. There is the purer-than-thou left. I guess we need to learn to listen to other people long enough before judging them. With all those interrupting pundits on TV, it has become fashionable to do the opposite.

blatantly sexist, vulgar smears, then tell you to "go the fuck away" when you call them on it

Let's just have them be conservative white assholes instead.

and not sure it's all linked together as closely as the author suggests.

Some of the issues she touched upon: urban gentrification and "soft" college students have nothing to do with liberalism.

I'm a person of color, and whenever someone (always always always white) tells me that I am guilty of gentrification and yuppiness because of where I live, I always ask them where is the right place to live. They can never give me an answer and usually a light bulb goes off in their head as to how there is no correct answer to dictate who deserves to live where. I was judged for living in the suburbs and being from a rural area and now live in the only urban area that I can barely afford mainly because I've always wanted to see what city living is like.

Other issues she mentioned: politicians making false promises, talking down to poor people or minorities, are probably more to do with who has power and influence rather than race or ideology. I definitely appreciate her frustration with politicians and how she wants more action to improve peoples' lives instead of just promises.

The point of sharing social media stuff is not about self-congratulatory absolution of privilege, but more about that's our new method of sharing information and communicating with each other to raise awareness of issues and spur people to action. This stuff leads to policy changes and laws because it encourages votes on referendums and contacting elected officials to make changes on behalf of people who have less influence. In my neighborhood, I have seen people of Asian, white, latino, and other backgrounds demonstrating and handing out materials about black lives matter. A lot of good people of all types empathize and want our police to stop executing black people.

I am white and choose not to live in a white neighborhood, because elements of my family are very racist and they need to accept that is not how I or my wife live. I think you provide a well-balanced response.

Sorry, but it's true. These are the types that are waiting for the next Internet dog-pile. Context be damned - they'll dox and ruin the lives of anyone who doesn't fit into their little bubble of "acceptable opinions."

These people are as much of a threat to free speech as religious Republicans. They might even be worse. Their thought policing is dystopian in nature. They're "Anonymous," Tumblr social justice warriors, and many more. Their extremely minuscule tolerance for even the tiniest difference in opinion is frightening. Their actions to minimize disagreement are even worse. If he could, Stalin would reanimate and sprout a third thumb up in approval.

It's sad but is a true reality these days.

all "White Liberals" into this neat little box u have created for them. And it also infers and confirms the Right wing argument that White Conservatives are not the problem with racism. Sorry, Hate is Hate no matter how u spread it around.

... we realize we are a deeply flawed species, flawed nation, flawed political party, and that we are human and therefore flawed individuals.

Most of us understand that only way to grow (and become less flawed) is to look at ourselves critically and honestly (individually and collectively), identify both our strengths and weaknesses and move forward from there.

If you do not believe this is your issue why the offense taken? As a white liberal I look at information like this as a reminder to take stock in all of my actions and the actions of the groups I am politically affiliated or identify with .... I do not take umbrage, nor do I believe this is directed at me personally.

Hey you! I've missed you!

That is why she is addressing white liberals. What she is saying is that it's time for our party to stop talking the talk, and start walking the walk.

it makes much more sense, but I think it could still have been articulated better. Not all "White Liberals" are the problem.

53- year-old college professor who agrees. I know all types of liberals and democrats, even two families living in Africa walking the walk. She's really describing a lot of DU.

You won't catch ME whitesplaining

...as long as they don't have to smell them.

this article seems to be flying right over a bunch of heads here.

Bravo! Worth every word.

I don't see these criticisms discussed nearly enough on DU.

problem comes from what this article is defining as white smugness.

Most of the arguments that are being forwarded in this article against "smug white Liberals" are the same arguments that Conservatives levy against Liberals.


Acknowledging the existence of white privilege and microaggression is not white smugness. White privilege exists, and microaggressions do chip away at the psyches of those they are aimed at. Too damn often, they are aimed at African Americans. Sorry but they just are. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging microaggressions.

Sometimes Liberals call things racist, homophobic, misogynistic, bigoted because they are racist, homophobic, misogynistic, or bigoted. The act of calling out those conditions is not an example of smugness among white liberals. The acknowledgment of those conditions is crucial to the eradication of those conditions. Labeling those who do call out those conditions as "smug white liberals" is a self defeating practice for Liberals whether they be black or white.

Likewise, being against "school choice" is NOT an example of white Liberal smugness. "School choice" is an entirely Conservative effort to take the funding out of public schools and money into corporate pockets. It is the fastest route to defunding the public school system.

I see that many here are very much in favor of this article, but I smell a rat. Substitute the word "Liberal" for the phrase "smug white Liberal" and you could be reading a transcript of a Bill O'Reilly rant.

The article is a grocery list of every RW stereotype against liberals.

positive, I was wondering if I was going nuts.