Pumpkin spice lattes are racist

[ferri]

Pumpkin spice lattes are racist<---- Topic! Get back on it please! Thank you.

[rustled]

We're seeing a lot of what Trevor Phillips recognized he'd been a part of creating. He realized why there's a growing tidal wave of dislike for the "liberal metropolitan elite", and he understands what we are seeing now are the consequences of liberal metropolitan elitist snobbery and superiority he helped create.

What we're seeing is a temporary rise in wilfull ignorance and anti-intellectualism. This too shall pass.

Are you suggesting Trevor Phillips, former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and head of the Commission for Racial Equality, is willfully ignorant and anti-intellectual?

If so, you are talking about a man who worked as hard as he did to move his entire country away from racism and now says "I wonder if the way we got here has unleashed forces that could undo everything we achieved". Which, IMO, seems to show far more willingness to be brutally honest about racism, anti-racism and the unintended consequences of liberal metropolitan elitism than most.

To my mind, he is the antithesis of willful ignorance and anti-intellectualism.

Refusing to buy pumpkin lattes while talking down your nose to others about racism isn't going to solve anything. Both are simply more liberal metropolitan elitism. Phillips sees how the new anti-racism is as inflexible as the old racism, and is creating its own backlash, and he is brave enough to say it. Those who respond to his blunt honesty with accusations of "willful ignorance and anti-intellectualism" are doing precisely what he's talking about.

[The Green Barbarian]

What we're seeing is a temporary rise in wilfull ignorance and anti-intellectualism. This too shall pass.

Well we saw 8 years of willful ignorance during the Obama administration, and now we are seeing it with groups like Ultra-violet. I hope you are right though that this will pass someday. I was watching a PBS show on the Vietnam war the other day and they were showing a lot of clips of celebrities being interviewed on Dick Cavett right after Nixon was elected, and there was a lot of doom and gloom and jokes about Republicans and Nixon from the Hollywood left back then too. And yet Nixon was the one that ended a horrible war started by a Democrat president, and escalated under another Democrat president.

Not much seems to change, Hollywood types will always be mad when there is a Republican in the White House, and will always think they are smarter than everyone else.

[The Green Barbarian]

Idiots like those in UltraViolet, yes, they are on the left and the left has to take responsibility for that. .

Thank you.

[Ka-El]

Not much seems to change, Hollywood types will always be mad when there is a Republican in the White House, and will always think they are smarter than everyone else.

To be fair, it is the Republicans who make them feel that way.

[Verum]

Idiots like those in UltraViolet, yes, they are on the left and the left has to take responsibility for that. .

Thank you.

Interestingly, I did not see a single leftist defence on this site of this silly claim as to the racism of pumpkin spice lattes, but it's quite common to see rightists defend Trump, border wall, Muslim ban, etc. and such stupid things from the right. At least boycotting pumpkin spice lattes will probably have a health benefit, but the amount of money that Trump is wasting and going to waste, for ego projects is indefensible and yet commonly defended on here.

Fiscal conservatism, the best kind of conservatism, demands that such ego projects are roundly condemned by right thinking conservatives. Instead, in the US the "left" seems to be the more fiscally conservative and economically progressive these days.

[Poindexter]

Verum wrote:
Interestingly, I did not see a single leftist defence on this site of this silly claim as to the racism of pumpkin spice lattes, but it's quite common to see rightists defend Trump, border wall, Muslim ban, etc. and such stupid things from the right. 

That's because most of us here have been made out to be socialists but are simply fiscally conservative, socially responsible voters. From my vantage point I'm willing to acknowledge the wackiness going on at both ends of the spectrum. The right however doesn't seem to be able to do this because for them politics is absolute and requires a religious type of faith in everything the Republican party says they stand for.

[rustled]

Interestingly, I did not see a single leftist defence on this site of this silly claim as to the racism of pumpkin spice lattes, but it's quite common to see rightists defend Trump, border wall, Muslim ban, etc. and such stupid things from the right. At least boycotting pumpkin spice lattes will probably have a health benefit, but the amount of money that Trump is wasting and going to waste, for ego projects is indefensible and yet commonly defended on here.

Fiscal conservatism, the best kind of conservatism, demands that such ego projects are roundly condemned by right thinking conservatives. Instead, in the US the "left" seems to be the more fiscally conservative and economically progressive these days.

Of equal interest are the defence of boycotting Starbucks as a way to stick it to Trump, and the usual smug responses intended to shut down the discussion ("fake news", "willful ignorance","anti-intellectualism", etc.).

Yes, indeed, there's plenty of insanity in right-wing extremism, and Trump is providing plenty of terrific examples. However, sticking strictly to the topic of this thread, the insanity of suggesting pumpkin spice lattes are racist is simply the tip of a rather massive iceberg, the bulk of which is actually pretty prevalent in this thread. And as with all icebergs, the tip is not the real problem. The real problem is what lies beneath. (Insert dramatic music here: duh duh duh duuuuh.)

Seriously, though, I'd be very surprised if there's any willingness to consider how anyone ever got anywhere near "pumpkin spice lattes are racist".

[Verum]

Of equal interest are the defence of boycotting Starbucks as a way to stick it to Trump, and the usual smug responses intended to shut down the discussion ("fake news", "willful ignorance","anti-intellectualism", etc.).

Yes, indeed, there's plenty of insanity in right-wing extremism, and Trump is providing plenty of terrific examples. However, sticking strictly to the topic of this thread, the insanity of suggesting pumpkin spice lattes are racist is simply the tip of a rather massive iceberg, the bulk of which is actually pretty prevalent in this thread. And as with all icebergs, the tip is not the real problem. The real problem is what lies beneath. (Insert dramatic music here: duh duh duh duuuuh.)

Seriously, though, I'd be very surprised if there's any willingness to consider how anyone ever got anywhere near "pumpkin spice lattes are racist".

Can you please point out where significant numbers actually defended boycotting Starbucks over this issue? Compare that with the numbers here who defended the far-right protesters in Charlottesville and their right to march. Which do you think is a bigger problem? Which side is quick to turn to claim that they are legally allowed to do what they do, no matter how abhorrent it is?

If the worst that the left is doing is some silly boycott of Starbucks, while the right tacitly aligns itself with the thugs who march to assert their racist, anti-Semitic dogma, which is the bigger problem? If Trump is a response to the left engaging in this kind of behaviour, what kind of response would be suitable from the left to Trump, the far-right, etc.? Should they clone Stalin? Of course not. The right is not to blame for the actions of the left and nor is the left to blame for the actions of the right.

[Poindexter]

rustled wrote:
Seriously, though, I'd be very surprised if there's any willingness to consider how anyone ever got anywhere near "pumpkin spice lattes are racist".

To be fair, I believe the group in question isn't the one who says pumpkin spice is racist, they just say that buying your favourite fall flavour pays rent that eventually profits Trump. The part about pumpkin spice being racist was taken from an Abbotsford woman's doctorate paper and it more specifically explained the pitfalls of using specific products to target a particular gender or race.
https://personalliberty.com/academic-pu ... te-racist/

[rustled]

rustled wrote:
Seriously, though, I'd be very surprised if there's any willingness to consider how anyone ever got anywhere near "pumpkin spice lattes are racist".

To be fair, I believe the group in question isn't the one who says pumpkin spice is racist, they just say that buying your favourite fall flavour pays rent that eventually profits Trump. The part about pumpkin spice being racist was taken from an Abbotsford woman's doctorate paper and it more specifically explained the pitfalls of using specific products to target a particular gender or race.
https://personalliberty.com/academic-pu ... te-racist/

ultra.jpg

Do you sometimes wonder how we got to the place where someone would write that thesis, and a journal would actually publish it?

Or to a place where anyone could suggest that by boycotting businesses whose only real association with Trump is through the rent they pay for their office or storefront, they're actually taking a stand against Trump and racism?

What's creating an environment where these things actually happen?

During the US election, I suggested enough people were fed up enough with being talked down to, with being told their concerns were stupid or unimportant or "on the wrong side of history" (when their concerns largely revolved around simply having a decent standard of living in a first world country!), they'd vote for anything that offered the possibility of their concerns being heard. Phillips points to the intense dislike of the "liberal metropolitan elite" in the UK, and the backlash as people have come to realize the risk of shutting people up. It's not a UK problem, it's not a US problem. It's a global one.

That is the iceberg, the mass of PC anti-racism doctrine that allows foolishness like "pumpkin spice lattes" to get past the starting gate, and, far worse, also allowed Rotheram to happen. Just as it was once the mass of "they're not like us" racism that allowed both idiotic and dreadful things to happen on the other extreme.

I think it's terrific Phillips is willing to talk about this. I hope well-meaning people will listen. If the UltraViolet "pumpkin spice latte" campaign sparks that, it will have done some genuine good in the world.

[Verum]

Do you sometimes wonder how we got to the place where someone would write that thesis, and a journal would actually publish it?

Or to a place where anyone could suggest that by boycotting businesses whose only real association with Trump is through the rent they pay for their office or storefront, they're actually taking a stand against Trump and racism?

What's creating an environment where these things actually happen?

During the US election, I suggested enough people were fed up enough with being talked down to, with being told their concerns were stupid or unimportant or "on the wrong side of history" (when their concerns largely revolved around simply having a decent standard of living in a first world country!), they'd vote for anything that offered the possibility of their concerns being heard. Phillips points to the intense dislike of the "liberal metropolitan elite" in the UK, and the backlash as people have come to realize the risk of shutting people up. It's not a UK problem, it's not a US problem. It's a global one.

That is the iceberg, the mass of PC anti-racism doctrine that allows foolishness like "pumpkin spice lattes" to get past the starting gate, and, far worse, also allowed Rotheram to happen. Just as it was once the mass of "they're not like us" racism that allowed both idiotic and dreadful things to happen on the other extreme.

I think it's terrific Phillips is willing to talk about this. I hope well-meaning people will listen. If the UltraViolet "pumpkin spice latte" campaign sparks that, it will have done some genuine good in the world.

I watched Phillips' documentary as I have always had respect for him, even if I didn't always agree with him. I think he is actually a smart commentator on this particular topic. He did not suggest that racism isn't extant or that even the left is blowing it out of proportion. He did suggest that our strong aversion to racism has resulted in us being too quick to judge at times. It's also clear that his opinion is that that the attempt to silence racist voices has not actually killed it off.

It's interesting how he characterises UKIP as hearkening back to the "glorious" old days, since this is essentially what so many of the right in the US are doing, despite the fact that the old days were generally worse for most people and particularly so for minorities. It is such ignorance which creates the bigger problem. I know people hate being told they are ignorant, but the truth is too important to ignore.

It could be argued that his claim that we need to face up to the truth when it comes to who is committing what crimes should be applied to other areas too, such as exposing the blatant ignorance of UKIP, Trump supporters, etc. Interestingly, one rarely hears the right argue for that particular type of truth, in fact they whine about the liberal elite when it gets brought up.

Imagine a group which belittles the snowflakes on the left for wanting safe spaces, but want a huge safe space free from criticism of their ignorance. Wouldn't it be scary if they were in control of the White House?

[rustled]

Of course people don't enjoy being told they're ignorant, so why do it? What is to be gained by shifting the focus away from the objective of problem solving, and making it about personal characteristics instead? I'd say there's nothing to gain, and everything to lose. Isn't that what Phillips was saying?

It's also interesting to me that you cannot help circling back to holding the right to account. The right's lack of ability to see themselves for what they are is not the topic.

The topic at hand is the consequences of having taken anti-racism to such a level that someone can actually suggest boycotting Starbucks' pumpkin spice lattes to fight Trump's racism, and others will actually agree this boycott makes sense.

Perhaps this topic is simply too uncomfortable for some to discuss, and complaining about "the right" is simply a way to avoid considering how we may have contributed to the problem of anti-racism gone too far.

[Verum]

Of course people don't enjoy being told they're ignorant, so why do it? What is to be gained by shifting the focus away from the objective of problem solving, and making it about personal characteristics instead? I'd say there's nothing to gain, and everything to lose. Isn't that what Phillips was saying?

It's also interesting to me that you cannot help circling back to holding the right to account. The right's lack of ability to see themselves for what they are is not the topic.

The topic at hand is the consequences of having taken anti-racism to such a level that someone can actually suggest boycotting Starbucks' pumpkin spice lattes to fight Trump's racism, and others will actually agree this boycott makes sense.

Perhaps this topic is simply too uncomfortable for some to discuss, and complaining about "the right" is simply a way to avoid considering how we may have contributed to the problem of anti-racism gone too far.

Maybe the ignorance is the source of the problem and therefore to solve the problem the truth has to come out. People need to be made aware of how their actions, either through over sensitivity, or their outright racism, is based in ignorance.

As for solely focusing on the left in this discussion, to do so is pointless. Why limit this thread to bashing the left? I know that some people take comfort in doing so, but would you expect a thread criticising Site C to not allow counter points bringing in information about the problems with alternatives? Should a thread about the Libs not compare them to the alternatives? To criticise one thing without allowing reference to the alternatives is essentially a pointless act of masturbatory argument. It might feel good, but it's not getting you anywhere.

[rustled]

Maybe the ignorance is the source of the problem and therefore to solve the problem the truth has to come out. People need to be made aware of how their actions, either through over sensitivity, or their outright racism, is based in ignorance.

As for solely focusing on the left in this discussion, to do so is pointless. Why limit this thread to bashing the left? I know that some people take comfort in doing so, but would you expect a thread criticising Site C to not allow counter points bringing in information about the problems with alternatives? Should a thread about the Libs not compare them to the alternatives? To criticise one thing without allowing reference to the alternatives is essentially a pointless act of masturbatory argument. It might feel good, but it's not getting you anywhere.

I can see why it's easier to shift focus to the ignorance of racists, rather than examining the consequences of anti-racism gone too far. I can also see why you think it's bashing the left to ask those who identify themselves as such to consider the consequences of their own actions around anti-racism, in light of how far the extremists have now taken it with their "pumpkin spice latte" Starbucks boycott to fight Trump racism, and the support this boycott has received.

You are, of course, free to compare anti-racism to "the alternatives" all you wish, but to me this only indicates just how much more comfortable you are discussing "the problems with the alternatives" than you are with examining the consequences of anti-racism gone too far. Still, I'd like to think others here may be willing to stick to the topic itself.

As to the rest of you post, well, as it rather seems designed to shift us even further away from the topic, I'll certainly leave you to do that entirely on your own.