The following is a comment on Libertarian Party vice-presidential nominee Spike Cohen’s YouTube video, “Mr Bearded Truth 34 – It is simply not enough to be passively in favor of DACA…” posted by a user named James Taylor:
Dude, you have an opportunity to discuss this “ACTIVELY anti-racism” controversy honestly, but you blew it. Everybody knows what she means and that her heart is right where it needs to be. Its not a question of whether she meant what she said. She is 100% sincere and genuine. rather its a question of did she REALLY say what she means? There is no need to dig in your heels and pretend that what she said was not extremely vague and subjective. Whether or not it is prudent to be “active” or “passive” is not a matter of logical deduction. It is a matter of judgement on a case by case basis. Sometimes, being passive in a situation actually is the right thing to do and telling me it is NOT is presumptuous at best and creepily Orwellian at worst. Dont tell me 2+2=5 especially in a situation where I have to make the judgement call on how to conduct myself in a group of potentially hostile people. Bottom line, these hot button issues are not appropriate to be just casually blurted out on twitter where there is a character limit. These are complex issues and deserve in depth discussions. These are not bumper sticker enthymemes. These topics deserve MUCH MORE RESPECT THAN THAT. Dont be naive and pretend that “anti-racism” isn’t already an ideology with particular meaning behind it. If you sincerely don’t know, that is fair enough. But the politics of race in the present moment is not simple because there is a very loud and vocal minority that is really making a mess of things. AND YOU ARE NOT HELPING by labeling people racists or in your cowardly way, “anti-anti-racists” who otherwise, by and large, support Jo. Furthermore, Jo is NOT getting flack from the “RIGHT”. She is getting flack from that wing of the libertarian movement/ party that takes the philosophy seriously. I mean, if she was running as a DSA candidate, Jo’s words would take on a completely different meaning with all kinds of dog whistles and unstated premises built into it. Dont pretend you dont know that. You are better than that. But, again, its not that nobody understands what she means. Rather its about how she said it. Its tedious, i know. But it is important to maintain the separation. To craft our OWN rhetoric rather than appropriate the rhetoric of our philosophic antithesis. Not in regards to the merits/demerits of racism (it is 2020 afterall, nobody is on favor of racism) but our antithesis in regard to all of the completwly unrelated and false conclusions that that vocal minority tries to smuggle in with it through the back door. The topic should not be treated with such carelessness in this day and age.
I wanna add something or rather ask a question. Do you understand WHY a positive right cannot come with a mandate? Its the same reason why in contract law, specific performance is generally not an option. The example i gave earlier of a potential situation where a person might CHOOSE not to be “actively anti-racist” may be considered as a form of “efficient breach”. Anyway, the arguments in support of the criticism of Jo are not well understood by yourself and others whose knee-jerk reaction is to come to her defense. That is noble of you and worthy of respect. But, judging by this video it is clear you dont really understand the nature of the criticism, which is made crystal clear by you pulling the really lazy and tired “racist” card.
Third Party Observer – Krzysztof Lesiak, founder