this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2026
393 points (94.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
8942 readers
311 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Democrats are just as racist as the Republicans, they are just better at hiding it, just look at their bipartisan support for the border wall, ICE, and more.
https://www.leftvoice.org/racism-is-bipartisan/
Dems and others hate when you point out there only mad at trump for certain things because he doesn't do them with decorum or behind the scenes. He just announces it wildly as doing the terrible things most do behind the curtain.
Like Venezuela and Iran. Not mad at attacks on other countries out of nowhere, but upset it wasn't done after telling congress or letting congress say go for it
They know that doing it all in the open pushes us towards socialism. If we can see the strings, we can cut them
Now playing The War on Drugs - I Don't Live Here Anymore
No way.
There's a massive difference between being proud of being actively racist (MAGA), defiantly believing it's not possible to be racist in 2026 because MLK ended racism (garden variety Republicans), forgetting about certain invasions and genocides based on (social) media coverage (which is based on expected viewership for ad revenue, which is based on skin color) (garden variety Democrats), and someone who I would describe as generally "not racist," i.e. you, I assume if for no other reason than expedience of this discussion.
Pretending all three of the other groups are identical is not productive, intellectually dishonest, and makes fighting or educating them harder.
I believe they meant establishment politicians, not necessarily voters, which I agree with. If you support the same invasions, regime changes, racial profiling and prison slavery, etc, I don't think you get to claim moral superiority for being smarter in how you conduct yourself.
Your country was built by genociding multiple indigenous peoples and enslaving black people and treating them like property, to this day it's still very oppressive to both of these demographics, in addition to many other groups deemed undesirable by both liberals and fascists in power.
I still don't buy it.
You two are saying Bernie Sanders, famously pictured getting arrested for marching with MLK, is as racist as people like Strom Thurmond, who filibustered the Civil Rights Act, Tim Scott who said welfare is worse for black people than slavery, or Vivek Ramaswamy who said white supremacy doesn't exist?
Ain't no way.
Being okay with genocide anywhere makes you a massive racist yeah, Bernie might perform radical politics but he's still a Zionist who betrayed his voters for the last couple of years on his refusal to speak for Palestinians and for decades by arming Israel.
You're thinking of the world in naive binary Good vs. Evil, handing elections over to the people who, instead of doing a shitty job of fighting genocide (Dem.), would enthusiastically perpetuate it (Rep.).
TL;DR:
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/dccd0d0b-9624-43a4-af69-c71d4839b19c.png
Not to mention that isn't even the discussion we're having. You missed (or pretended to miss) the part where we're talking about comparison.
Which is hotter, tea that is 55C or 60C? If your answer is "They are both hot," you are being obtuse and I hope you at least realize that, even if you can't stop yourself.
Jesus Christ, were we even living in the same universe during the last 3 years? Joe Biden was unquestionably more enthusiastic about supporting genocide than Donald Trump ever was.
Which one is the guy who announced we're going to pave over Palestine to open a resort?
Did you think he was going to give the Palestinians American visas and comp their moving fees?
The page you're providing covers a long history. It does a great job at trying to push for a new independant party, but does a very poor job at arguing that Right and Left are the same.
Everything before "New Forms for Old Racism: Great Rebellions and the Policies to Sustain Modern Segregation" was in the early 1900's or older when things were bad as hell. Having only the last 1/3 of the article covers the present day skews the whole thing.
If you want to say right and left are the same, look at actions:
Who propped up DEI? Who dismantled it?
Which side pushed for civil rights acts? Which pushed against them?
Which side desegrated the military?
Which side preformed DOJ investigations into police departments with patterns of racial discrimination?
Which side started The My Brother’s Keeper initiative, aimed at improving outcomes for boys and young men of color.
How about The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act addressing wage discrimination, including racial pay gaps.
or The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act passed by the Democratic House in 2020 (though blocked in the Senate).
or The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act restoring protections against racial voter suppression.
You can find what feels like an unending list of democrat initiatives that dampen racsim, flipping to the republicans you can find a handfull at best.
The one they wouldn't do away with the Jim Crow Filibuster to pass? I don't count things that democrats worked with republicans to block as accomplishments.
yeah, sounds horrible.
Sounds like something democrats made sure didn't pass.
They prefer their filibuster over protecting democracy.
That's just not true. They are obviously not even close to the same. They are both racist (and even both very racist), but actively engaging in white supremacy IS WORSE and I shouldn't have to explain why. You can argue that they are both bad, but I think the side that is okay with a former police officer chasing a black man down with his truck and shooting him might be worse.
I get that you want to equate these two, that any amount of racism is somehow just as bad, but it just fucking isn't, and I'm tired of this "both sides" bullshit when one side has active lynchers in its midsts and brandishes at the sight of a black person. Make an argument that calls out the "tough on crime" narrative that passively destroys the lives of racial minorities, but don't call them the same. That's such a weenie position.
Curious what you think "tough on crime" means and how it's separate from "white supremacy" and the police killing black people. How is "tough on crime" passive? Do you think the effects of "tough on crime" on the lives of racial minorities were not intentional?
Yeah, considering I went over how there are Republicans that have actively lynched people for their race, I think I covered that pretty well, but let's pretend I didn't because not everyone can understand things the first time.
Tough on crime is passive because it is not about saying white people are superior, a thing Republicans do. It is also not actively telling people that Muslims are worse than dogs, a thing Republicans do. While the mechanisms of the state actively target minorities to a significantly higher degree, this is passively racist because it relies on underlying connections to tie minorities to crimes.
See, the sad part about your argument is that Republicans platform and actively defend the people who shoot minorities and actively defend the people who do so. Motherfuckers out here pretending the people who shoot up black churches and synagogues are anything other than Republicans, are hilariously bad faith. Anyone who thinks the Democrats are somehow just as racist as hate crime doers and defenders has shit for brains. That's active racism, and yeah, it's fucking worse.
Unless you think killing minorities and telling people to kill minorities is better than just saying "we're tough on crime". Do you think that?
This analysis only makes even a slight amount of sense if you actually don't know what "context" or "a system" are. These two forces are not in opposition, they're on the same side. It's the same racist system being sustained in two slightly different ways and a critical aspect of that is the (fake) appearance of opposition which you have completely bought into. You're also pretending a lot of democrats aren't literally impossible to tell apart from republicans even within your framing, which isn't the case. For example, Joe Biden.
Actions speak louder than words. The Democrats may say they oppose these things, but functionally they do absolutely nothing to actually oppose the Republicans. What has the Democratic party done to oppose the Republicans beside be pathetic and bend the knee to their every whim? People still get deported under both parties, as stated in the above post, so functionally racism is still government policy regardless. When people make the point the parties are the same, the point we're trying to make is that electoralism under the American system will accomplish nothing. Only be standing against the party duopoly(which mind you, is effectively a one-party state) and pushing for regime change can racism be stamped out.
Also, both parties still bomb West-Asians just as much. So they're also equally racist in that regard.
This is just the epitome of the white liberal misunderstanding of racism and how it functions. Yes these things are the same. This is why people refer to "active racism" as you call it, as "going mask off".
The polite veneer that Democrats place over their support of racist policies is the reason MLK and Malcolm x cautioned against the "moderate whites".