I’m back! Have you had a chance to catch up on Biden’s capital gains proposal?

If you post about it in the Biden thread, I will comment on it. Mostly confused how it's become a thing for you.

No. Diversity is human. Candace Owens is frightened.

I don't know much about Candace Owens but from reading her wiki she seems to be doing fine-- but I'd guess she's mostly just a political opportunist.

But what about people like Adolph Reed who buck the race orthodoxy but from the left? Also frightened or could there be different mechanisms for them? Or about someone like John McWhorter who is an Obama supporting liberal?
Three black people from the across the spectrum-- left, center, right, who all will share some similar disdain for Kendi style views-- they are all just frightened?

Yeah, that's why reparations aren't really an option to eliminate inequalities either. We'd just end up with 100% of black households with more wealth than 50%, 75%, 90% (or whatever) of white households.

I'll answer this myself: no, Candace Owens, Adolph Reed, and John McWhorter are not all just "frightened" by the authentic blackness of Ibram X. Kendi-- and that's the most ridiculous anything that's been posted in this thread since we had the Lebron/eugenics discussion. I think this tops it though.
Owens is a conservative, Reed is a Marxist, McWhorter is a classical Liberal, and Kendi I'm calling a neoliberal.
The idea that black people who reject racialist narratives are victims of "stockholm syndrome" and that it's "sad" is pretty much the most offensive thing that's been posted in this thread. I suspect that black conservatives like Owens are your only real examples of these stockholm syndromed blacks, and that you aren't prepared to put black Marxists or capital L Liberals like McWhorter in the same box as her.
But yes, black people are capable of independent thought and of coming to their own conclusions about issues regarding race. Calling all blacks who reject racialized ideologies Uncle Toms is highly insulting, but it is also absurd because you end up having to lump people like Reed and Owens together when they couldn't be further apart.

I was referring to black "conservatives"

You really had fun there, though.

Referring specifically to black conservatives makes it only slightly less absurd but no less insulting.

As an FYI Candace Owens is just the worst type of opportunist.

She started her career trying to be a voice on the left and could not separate herself from the other more serious pundits there who were also POC.

She then found there is a huge appetite on the extreme right for any POC who will denigrate and demean other POC and their causes by using the voice they feel often prohibited from doing.

She is happy to take their money and do their bidding and has shown there is no low she won't go to get that check.

The Trouble With Uplift: How black politics succumbed to the siren song of the racial voice
Adolph Reed piece that deals with some issues of black gatekeeping. He doesn't offer up a position on whether or not heterodox black voices are stockholm syndromed, although I do imagine he would say that that's real bad.
He starts by discussing the 1989 film Glory-- which I have not seen nor seen most of the films he discusses, save Django, and the accusation that Glory was "white saviourism" because it features (in complete historical accuracy) a black civil war regiment that was led by white officers. On the white savior motif he writes:

But “white savior” objections to Glory and Free State are a different matter. Those films hinge largely on the prominence of black agency, which race-first critics apparently deem irrelevant. Their objection is not that blacks’ agency is absent; it is rather about who is represented as leading their efforts. Decisions by blacks to support nonblack candidates or social policies not expressed in race-first terms are interpreted as evidence of flawed, limited, misguided, or otherwise co-opted black agency. The idea that blacks, like everyone else, make their history under conditions not of their own choosing becomes irrelevant, just another instance of insufficient symbolic representation

And he goes on from there with the way in which black voices are policed and of how the question of "who gets to speak for black people" has been addressed historically. It's a fairly lengthy piece and I only glossed over some parts of it so I'll need to read it again, but the takeaway (as should be expected from a Marxist) is that black voices are policed in the service of capitalism.
Although he does also conclude that ideas like Dbeat's are the essence of racism:

This presumption rests on the unexamined premise that blacks share a common, singular mind that is at once radically unknowable to non-blacks and readily downloaded by any random individual setting up shop as a racial voice. And despite what all of our age’s many heroic narratives of individualist race-first triumph may suggest to the casual viewer, that premise is the essence of racism.

If that was directed at me, I'm 38 years old. I get it. Not really what I was talking about.

If you have a point, just be direct.

You're very long-winded. That's not being thorough. That's being passive-aggressive.

It's interesting, because I actually think the left is scared of black intellectuals on the right. They ignore them, or begrudge them.

When ever the media talks about black economist, they only include kensian lefties, or ones who buy into CRT concepts.

See:

Source.

How T. Sowell isn't on that list is beyond me.

Ok. I mean I would have posted that piece anyways and I came across it randomly-- but I didn't need to throw in the quips at you. I do think your views are generally correct and well grounded and stuff and I'm glad you're posting here. So I don't mean to be too aggressive or passive aggressive in response to what you said-- but it did strike a bit of a nerve. I mean I'm biracial and not 'authentically black' although I'll still be taking the reparations money. But I could care less if people want to consider me an uncle tom and definitely did not want Fly to be banned when he called me one. But I'm still black enough to take offense for the others like my father who actually is a black conservative-- I think he stopped voting for Democrats with the advent of Reagan. But maybe he is afraid of being black-- he did marry a white woman after all.
But still-- just the idea that there should be some sort of unified black response or unique black voice is wrong. To your original point: it most certainly is the case that black people have been forced to think about race in very different ways than white people-- and polls show that they do. I myself, as a mixed race person have been forced to think about race in different ways than white or black people, and that almost certainly plays a large part of why I hold much of the concept in such contempt.
But the idea that there even is such a thing as an essentially black voice, or black opinion on race is very problematic. The fact that this "authentic" opinion should also happen to be one the most promoted by the ruling class makes it especially problematic.
Maybe I still don't get what you were trying to say originally. Candace Owens was definitely not in my mind at all before you brought her up, and I don't think she's been mentioned in this thread until now. Although I do I agree with Cuepee that she seems rather shameless and it isn't my intention to defend her. I mean I have no clue about her or her motives or whether she's a true believer or whatever-- it doesn't matter. I do doubt that it's "fear of being too black" that drives her though. I do love psychoanalysis I will not lie. I think if you're a conspiracy person you have to like Freud because he's the og psychological conspiracy person-- but "fear of being too black" has a whole lot to unpack-- like what being "too black" even means. I could keep going...

I think we're just misunderstanding each other. I'm mixed. My black Puerto Rican dad is a Republican. My wife is white. I attended very white institutions of higher learning. I raise three kids in this world. I get that race is complex.

I didn't mean to communicate that all people of color should stand in line. On the contrary, I generally reject unification. Not for diversity. I don't give a crap about diversity. I encourage genuine feelings from informed thought.

I really hate the word "conservative" because it's been bastardized. I'll just say that the black Trumper, the black Fox News viewer, whatever is preaching self-sustainability and bootstrap-lifting to people they know have no boots. They're carrying water for their oppressors unlike others.

It's slimy. It's disingenuous. And, yeah, it's self-hateful. There's another term that works better than Uncle Tom but I'd probably get banned for it.

A couple different directions I could go here, but one sort of interesting point about the oppressor/oppressed stuff when it comes to wealth inequality that I just learned, is how the white-black wealth divide is basically entirely driven by the top 10%.
The top 10% of whites have so much more wealth than the top 10% of blacks, that if we were to eliminate the wealth gap-- what that would mean would be putting the top 10% of blacks in line with top 10% of whites.
And the top 10% of blacks already hold 72% of black wealth. Eliminating the wealth gap neoliberal style means elevating the exact people that you're talking about-- which are the already rich blacks, and with a heavily identity based politics that is anti-discrimatory but not at all redistributionist, then they are a pushing a class politics that benefits the rich in the same sorts of ways that Candace Owens does when she goes on Fox.
Nikolé Hannah-Jones has to be familiar with the actual left critiques of the 1619 project-- like how MLK and things like the poor people's campaign is written out of the narrative-- and she has to be aware that the New York Times is a billion dollar business that prints stuff that is in the interest of the ruling class. And when someone like Kendi is getting paid 20k to give an hour talk, I have to wonder whether he's a true believer or not as well.
I'm fine saying that there can be a special place in hell for black conservatives although it sounds like we'd be consigning both of our fathers there. So on that point I think we agree, but watch out for the "liberals" too because for some of them there is a whole capitalist apparatus behind them.
I'll add that unification of POC is a good idea-- but with the poor white people as well, on class lines to demand actual redistributionist policies and reforms that benefit them. This will of course never happen.
Tldr-- identity politics is class politics for the rich and Nikolė Hannah-Jones can be compared to someone like Candace Owens who also supports capitalism and the the capitalist oppressors but in a different way.

Toddler, the guys who hate “racial lenses” and chuff when “racialism” gets injected into the conversation sure love trotting out their token black allies.

I'm neither a liberal nor a leftist.

Sorry that black people who aren't racists give you the sads.

Wait until you find out that there are lots of black conspiracy people who might not be approaching it from a Marxist perspective but still know how the divide and conquer works.

The black conspiracy folks are great. Except the anti-Semitic ones. They're ****ed up.

And yet the prevalence of conspiracy theory in the black community is likely linked to actually being targeted by the system.

I wonder what vegas thinks about that

For sure. And there is plenty of room for some racialized narrative. But there are big differences between narratives that place the blame on the system, versus narratives that put the blame on "white people"-- one is punching up and the other is sideways. It's complicated by the fact that the system is of course largely white people. But I think there are many black people who have no trouble navigating the nuances there. It's what I do at least.

I agree with you re the term Uncle Tom. That said, Owens is a grifter. She used to be a Progressive then claimed she became a Conservative "overnight" which is ridiculous as nobody changes their entire political outlook literally overnight.

You can be a black conservative and put forth your views and be honourable, even if others disagree with your political viewpoint.

When you start immediately defending the likes of the Ahmaud Arbery murder and claiming the likes of Chauvin didn't receive a fair trial however, such as Candace did, then you're a grifter, plain and simple as well as an apologist.

https://youtu.be/HT41gzsN7Ik
This is good and the economics/WBM stuff is definitely helping to paint a much fuller picture than I had previously of all of this as a political phenomenon.