It's okay to white, identity politics and white supermacy

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Vrex360:
Anyone else catching the underlining implication of this statement?

Yes, the fact that there are people who are qualified for positions or education who are rejected due to their race, while others who otherwise would not have been accepted are for the same reason. There's a reason why an Indian man pretended to be black to get into higher education.

Affirmative action as it exists is not "two people of equal qualifications having one chosen over the other due to race", it's "people requiring different levels of competency for the same position due to race".

You can rant all day about hypothetical situations where someone who's a white man has somehow managed to avoid the open discrimination that we face in an official, coded into regulation capacity that constitutes a rare actual form of institutional racism that exists in the real world instead of the minds of fringe radicals, but I'm not interested in hypothetical situations that are at best case-by-case, but instead the open, official and impossible to defend discrimination against whites and Asians that exists today in the real world. Whites and Asians have to work harder to reach the same end point due to discrimination, the debate isn't about whether that's the case but whether it's right or wrong (and given how it harms every demographic, including the ones it is supposedly in place to help, I'd say it's wrong).

You don't like the stereotype that women and non-whites got in easier then their white male counterparts? Then remove the barriers that make that unconscious assumption exist in the first place, because if it wasn't a fact that women and those who aren't either white or Asian have an objectively easier time getting to the same end point as white men and Asians do, then there wouldn't be a rational real world reason for it, which at the moment there very much is whether you like it or not.

50 years ago the argument that we need to prioritise non-whites and women over men of equal qualification is a subject that was open to debate (even if it's inherently incompatible with the idea of equal opportunity and putting an end to discrimination), but we aren't discussing that when we discuss the real world application of affirmative action. We're discussing how it is now, how it's applied now, how it effects the world now, and that is, without anything short of accusing every single institution of higher education, government and much of the private sector of employment fraud, the issue of discrimination against whites, Asians and men to differing degrees.

Now tell me, even if we do make the racist and sexist assumption that whites and men should face some level of discrimination for being born, what have Asians done to deserve it? Why do they have to pay for being successful in a system that's been just as discriminatory towards them as it has other minorities?

So is it not ok to be white then?

WeepingAngels:
So is it not ok to be white then?

Whiteness is a social construct invented to subjugate others. It is inherently supremacist. So, whiteness is not OK. Having lighter skin is fine, though.

WeepingAngels:
So is it not ok to be white then?

Dunno about you but I feel pretty ok with it, if I could go back before I was born and pick my race, sex, nationality, etc. like designing an RPG character I would definitely choose White male again, maybe try Canadian or Australian for Nationality, but then again I do like owning way more than the reasonable amount of guns, somebody might have to sell me on trying a different nationality. I am biased of course, maybe in 200 years being White won't be ok, but I fully intend to ride this gravy train right into the grave.

Zontar:

Vrex360:
Anyone else catching the underlining implication of this statement?

Yes, the fact that there are people who are qualified for positions or education who are rejected due to their race, while others who otherwise would not have been accepted are for the same reason. There's a reason why an Indian man pretended to be black to get into higher education.

So that's an example of a brown person who's changed his identity to 'black' as a direct result of 'affirmative action bullshit'? Because he, a brown Indian man, could not get a job with his name and country of origin?

But wait I'm confused I thought this was something that happened exclusively to white people? It kind of sounds like an example of exactly the shit I'm talking about (a brown person with an ethnic sounding name having almost zero chance) and kind of disproves the idea that this is some kind of anti-white deliberate discrimination no? It just sounds like an Indian man was able to find a nice little loophole.

Like you single handedly just killed your earlier assertion that this is an exclusively 'anti-white' policy. Quite the own goal there.

But hey you actually sourced something for once so humble applause is in order.

Affirmative action as it exists is not "two people of equal qualifications having one chosen over the other due to race", it's "people requiring different levels of competency for the same position due to race".

And before its existence it was the same thing except black people almost always lost.

You can rant all day about hypothetical situations where someone who's a white man has somehow managed to avoid the open discrimination that we face in an official, coded into regulation capacity that constitutes a rare actual form of institutional racism that exists in the real world instead of the minds of fringe radicals,

Yep that was a sequence of words all right. And dude do you have any how many white people are in the workforce? At my last job it was like 80% white. Most of the top fields are filled with white people and white guys specifically. You know what I almost never see? Brown people in management roles, women in offices that are mostly male getting higher then assistant manager and so on and so on.

You make it sound like white people literally need to have the word 'SCUM' branded into their skin or something. As it stands though the job market, while being shit for everyone but that's another topic, is still filled with white people applying for, and getting, jobs.

but I'm not interested in hypothetical situations that are at best case-by-case,

You literally just showed me a single case study.

but instead the open, official and impossible to defend discrimination against whites and Asians that exists today in the real world.

Not defending it, don't think it's okay.

Merely pointing out that its origins and the mindset that cause it come from an effort to right historical wrongs, not just tear white people down out of malice.

Whites and Asians have to work harder to reach the same end point due to discrimination,

Which is what minorities and women have to go through all the time and have needed to do so for decades now. Again I loathe affirmative action and I don't like seeing its effects but honestly dude I'm just not seeing what your seeing.

the debate isn't about whether that's the case but whether it's right or wrong (and given how it harms every demographic, including the ones it is supposedly in place to help, I'd say it's wrong).

And I have said repeatedly it is wrong. I just think currently it may be one of the only ways to actually give black people a chance to enter high paying work fields. I want it gone too in the long run but it would be nice to know that once it is gone that things won't just revert back to the openly racist hiring habits of the 60's and before then. I notice you did not provide me a solution then for what happens when racist companies can just go back to dismissing black people right away?

You don't like the stereotype that women and non-whites got in easier then their white male counterparts? Then remove the barriers that make that unconscious assumption exist in the first place,

It would still exist. It existed before affirmative action and it would exist afterwards.

because if it wasn't a fact that women and those who aren't either white or Asian have an objectively easier time getting to the same end point as white men and Asians do, then there wouldn't be a rational real world reason for it, which at the moment there very much is whether you like it or not.

I wouldn't call constant sexual harassment or hostile work environments or bigoted remarks 'easy', which is a thing many employees of color or women have to endure on a daily basis.

50 years ago the argument that we need to prioritise non-whites and women over men of equal qualification is a subject that was open to debate (even if it's inherently incompatible with the idea of equal opportunity and putting an end to discrimination),

Because again fifty years ago the odds of a woman or a person of color even getting as far as having a job was something of a minor miracle.

but we aren't discussing that when we discuss the real world application of affirmative action.

Yes but you also can't divorce it from the historical context either.

We're discussing how it is now, how it's applied now, how it effects the world now, and that is, without anything short of accusing every single institution of higher education, government and much of the private sector of employment fraud, the issue of discrimination against whites, Asians and men to differing degrees.

Your right. I despise it and the effect its happening. But in some instances it may literally be the only way people of color can find work. What solution do you have for what to do about it that would actually guarantee people of color would still have a decent shot at getting work? These things don't have easy solutions. Welcome to being on the left where being forced to consider all people means you can't just reduce these cases to simple soundbytes and have to explore the complexities and nuances of the issue at hand.

Now tell me, even if we do make the racist and sexist assumption that whites and men should face some level of discrimination for being born,

I literally never said that.

I can't help but notice you totally ignored all of this:

I look at affirmative action as a flawed way of getting there, I think of it like a crutch after a leg is broken. It's unstable, wobbly and frustrating as Hell. But I don't have an alternative because my leg in its current state is shattered beyond repair. So I grit my teeth and struggle on despite it, content in the knowledge that as awful as it is my leg will eventually heal and then I can walk properly on two strong healthy legs and create a nice safe balance. This crutch is shit, but it is not permanent. I view affirmative action as a clumsy but perhaps necessary reaction to a longstanding societal racism that is now starting to bite back on white demographics who up until this point had been unknowingly benefiting from the very racist sentiments that caused affirmative action to rise in the first place. Oh hey that's like a kind of privilege but one only white people really got to experience.They should really come up with a name for that.

You seem to view it as some kind of deliberate act of malice, a vengeful display of hatred and bigotry and a sign that white people are to be purged and slaughtered wholesale just for existing. Because apparently us people on the left just love to cackle wickedly and masturbate to the sight of white people not getting employed and have an agenda in place far more sinister rather then just wanting black people to actually get a foothold in society. In turn that this 'agenda' is by far and a way the worst possible example of discrimination in the entire Western Hemisphere and completely negates disproportionate levels of police violence, longer incarceration sentences for the same crimes, laws drafted specifically to make it harder for African Americans to vote, policies and political parties dedicated specifically to making your life harder and whole subsets of humanity having to fight tooth nail and claw for literally generations to get to a point where things are 'less shit' only to then turn around and see the people who benefited while they suffered suddenly declaring that things need to be back to the 'good old days' they used to be much to their horror.
Because all of that is just fake news and a grandiose conspiracy that will be used as justification for the evil white genocide massacre that will definitely start any day now. There is literally no racism in the world except against white people and the white identity is at risk.

Note the bolded section here.

Tell me do you reckon the African American schoolchildren who have to be taught in class what to do to avoid being shot if a policeman stops and frisks them might feel like they are being discriminated against for 'being born'.
Do you reckon the various hispanic people and people who just looked brown that were arrested and detained in modern day concentration camp setting by Joe Apario felt that they were being punished 'for being born'? (How do you reckon they felt when Trump pardoned him, reckon they felt loved huh?)
When random Muslims and Indians walking down the street get mobbed by people in MAGA hats and severely beaten do you reckon THEY felt like they were being punished for being born?
When the black father went to hospital to get treatment for his sick newborn daughter and was viciously attacked by yet more redcaps do you think HE felt like he was being punished for being born? Or his daughter?

Earlier in this thread I showed you a collection of dozens of examples of egregious crimes like this, you didn't say a word in rebuttal. I pointed out that Donald Trump, the guy you idolize shrugged these crimes off at best and at worst encouraged them. I talked at length about the ways in which systemic racism can manifest and the difference between a universal 'black' identity and a universal 'white' identity. Not a peep.
And I showed you that the people behind this little meme which is the reason we are all here right now are the same people who helped kill a woman and then gloat about it smugly. Those same people who's memes and talking points I see in your posts too many to count.

Instead you ignored all of that and started ranting about affirmative action, one of the few areas in society in which yes white people do as a consequence fare worse then black people. I explained the complexities of that, adding my general distaste for it, and you took my words out of context to accuse me of harboring an anti white agenda and putting words in my mouth I never said.

You want to accuse me of being anti white and that I'm justifying 'workplace discrimination' fine. But I can play that game with you too.

what have Asians done to deserve it?

It's not about 'deserve'. This isn't a malicious punishment. It is a problem with government oversight.

Why do they have to pay for being successful in a system that's been just as discriminatory towards them as it has other minorities?

I dunno, payback for all the Godzilla attacks maybe?

In all seriousness no idea. I might try and research some history on Asian Americans a bit later on. If I had to take a wild guess I would say it is the assumption that since most Asians are descended from people who immigrated to America by choice the overriding assumption is that very few of them live in poverty. Granted the stereotype of the overworking Asian is pretty damn racist.

But I'm not just going to shrug my shoulders and say 'must be a liberal cuckspiracy' or something. There's probably a reason that is much more complex.

PsychedelicDiamond:

Vrex360:
snip

You know... I like you. Just wanted to put that out there. Reading your post made my day a whole lot better.

Thanks, glad someone read it. Took so much time and effort and I broke a two year silence.

Saelune:

Vrex360:
Super Snip

After Psychedelic Diamond complimented this post, I went back and read it, all of it... (wow thats alot too).

You deserve to know that atleast some people read it. Dont know how many people who disagree with you will bother though. But even I who agree completely with you had some self-reflection reading this.

Mainly the part about black identity versus white identity. Even I racially identify as Irish, Italian and Spanish with some Gypsy thrown in as opposed to black people who dont have the luxury of that information most of the time.

Thank you too. I do honestly think it is important to understand what when fascist types talk about 'whiteness' they aren't talking about specific pale color of skin (after all what constitutes 'white', I know people who are Caucasian but have such a natural olive shaded tan people mistake them for being middle eastern) nor about European cultures but rather this nebulous 'idea' of whiteness.One that yes was founded on a concept of supremacy.

WeepingAngels:
So is it not ok to be white then?

It's okay to be pale skinned, it is okay to be proud of your European heritage (my family were proud Scotts). But 'white' as a concept has historically only existed to identify one ethnic group as being 'greater' then the other. And while the words being said are fairly innocuous the context surrounding who it was behind them (and the fact that they were posted in the dead of night on the front door of Native Studies buildings where only very recently there had been deliberate incitement in the form of leaving racist jack o lanterns) is what people take issue with.

I elaborate a lot of it in the post the people above reference so go to that if you're curious.

WeepingAngels:
So is it not ok to be white then?

I could be wrong, but I think that there is an inherent difference between being 'white' and 'black' (wait for it...) is that 'white' people can often trace their family lineage back to specific countries of origin, if not individual bloodlines. Therefore, 'white' becomes Irish, or English, or mostly German with a bit of French, etc.

Whereas the 'black' identity comes out of being born of displaced peoples, who can't easily trace their specific ancestry, and thus created a new cultural identity.

If I'm coming across as offensive, I apologize... I was just trying to clarify the inherent difference. If I'm incorrect, someone please chime in.

Vrex360:
But wait I'm confused I thought this was something that happened exclusively to white people? It kind of sounds like an example of exactly the shit I'm talking about (a brown person with an ethnic sounding name having almost zero chance) and kind of disproves the idea that this is some kind of anti-white deliberate discrimination no? It just sounds like an Indian man was able to find a nice little loophole.

You evidently have not only never seen me discuss this matter here, but also never actually discussed this matter with anyone who doesn't agree with Affirmative Action given the fact it's nearly impossible to have a discussion about it without people bringing up the fact whites and Asians are actively discriminated against because of a line of reasoning that doesn't hid its overt racist nature and only tries to justify itself using the logic that because whites and Asians are successful we collectively need to be taken down a peg, because a black kid from a rich family can't possibly be able to reach higher education only off his his abilities and a poor white kid who worked his way up to being able to qualify but not with enough overqualification to overcome the negatives of discrimination based on race surely didn't need it. While it may sound hyperbolic it is effectively what current proponents of Affirmative Action are supporting, whether the reality that public and private institutions make no effort in hiding has to say about is one they like to accept or not.

This isn't a zero sum game where just because one group is discriminated against that others cannot be either, and so again I'll ask why you seem to think it's okay for Asians to be discriminated against given even the racist reasoning behind why it should be the case for whites does not work with them.

And before its existence it was the same thing except black people almost always lost.

One indefensible wrong does not justify another, at the most possible extreme there may be an argument for discrimination when faced with those of equal qualification, but that's a separate discussion unrelated to this one given the nature of Affirmative Action.

Yep that was a sequence of words all right. And dude do you have any how many white people are in the workforce? At my last job it was like 80% white. Most of the top fields are filled with white people and white guys specifically. You know what I almost never see? Brown people in management roles, women in offices that are mostly male getting higher then assistant manager and so on and so on.

Who could have guessed that in a country that's three quarters white and has most of its ethnic minorities concentrated in isolated communities even within its "diverse" areas that a random workplace would have a demographic makeup that's fairly in line with that of the country? And that in lines of work where men are the ones who overwhelmingly make the choice to enter that you'd see that reflected in those who make it despite most lines of work actively discriminating against them?

And who could have thought that because of this state of affairs that somehow changes the fact that what is encoded into laws and regulations suddenly isn't such? Next thing you know you'll take this line of reasoning and tell me Rhodesia was a free and equal society due to the fact most of those who worked in the public sector where black.

You literally just showed me a single case study.

Yes, I did show you a real world example of something. How does that relate to your hypothetical?

Not defending it, don't think it's okay.

Merely pointing out that its origins and the mindset that cause it come from an effort to right historical wrongs, not just tear white people down out of malice.

But you are defending it, and no one's discussing the thought process behind its foundation, it's not like Planned Parenthood where it was outright evil (since that went from an attempt to kill blacks and Hispanics before they where born to a legitimate institution). If you don't think it's okay, then why bother posting at all when nothing I've stated at any point had to do with its foundation and only to do with how it is applied? Because this seems like yet another case of a user here reading subtext in something I wrote that wasn't even hinted at and could not rationally be reached by someone reading it.

Which is what minorities and women have to go through all the time and have needed to do so for decades now. Again I loathe affirmative action and I don't like seeing its effects but honestly dude I'm just not seeing what your seeing.

Yes, once upon a time women and minorities had to work harder to reach the same end point. Now, two generations after that stopped being the case I think we're well passed the point where holding women and non-Asian minorities to a lower standard to reach the same point can be justified, especially since it's not exactly going to help anyone to keep it up. Hurts those hiring for obvious reasons, hurts minorities who are qualified due to the stigma, and it hurts minorities who are not qualified because they burn out very quickly.

And I have said repeatedly it is wrong. I just think currently it may be one of the only ways to actually give black people a chance to enter high paying work fields.

But that just isn't realistically going to happen. Even ignoring the fact that despite 50 years of it and Asian Americans having to go from being even poorer overall then blacks to being the richest demographic in the US has shown it doesn't work at all, even if you do want to use the government to force blacks to succeed the simple fact of the matter is Affirmative Action is a case of too little, too late because once blacks reach the point they can benefit from it they've already past the point they can be helped on that front.

You want to solve the issue, use the bloated education budget smarter, make it so incompetent teachers can be fired without them having to resort to doing a straight up crime in low income area schools, get them while they're young and give them the skills they need so that when they do reach the point in their lives Affirmative Action would have kicked in it won't be needed because the problem the program has objectively failed to accomplish anything to solve will have at the very least been ameliorated.

It's not perfect, but at this point outside of reversing AA to change who gets discriminated against there's nowhere to go but up because the status quo will never, ever realistically accomplish anything, and the past 50 years of trying has shown that. To think that AA continuing as it exists will improve things for blacks is insane. Which is probably why next to no successful blacks (outside of sports, politicians and music/acting) advocate for it and most of them do the exact opposite.

It would still exist. It existed before affirmative action and it would exist afterwards.

Why would it exist in a time where most whites accept the fact that women and minorities are just as capable as anyone else and that people should be judged on their individual merit and not as a group? The US has a dramatically different culture then what it had 50 years ago.

And even if that was the case, even moving to hiring blacks when the choice is between a white and black of equal qualification would still be an improvement over the status quo.

I wouldn't call constant sexual harassment or hostile work environments or bigoted remarks 'easy', which is a thing many employees of color or women have to endure on a daily basis.

Yes, "many" do, just as many men do, as well as other forms of harassment (in fact men take the brunt of online abuse when researchers actually take the time to compile who gets how much, another case of reality and perception by society being at odds).

This line of reasoning is very easy to argue as being an example of the soft bigotry of low expectations that we constantly see placed on women and minorities as well, because apparently they're so much more susceptible to abuse then white men are. Which I wouldn't argue for because while I did grow up with a "learn to take it" attitude since outside of my home there was never anyone to defend me outside of myself, but I've seen way too many white men who are part of the ranks of Tumblr's easily triggered snowflakes to buy into the idea we're inherently better at taking it then others.

Because again fifty years ago the odds of a woman or a person of color even getting as far as having a job was something of a minor miracle.

And we aren't 50 years ago, the world has changed even if failed programs like Affirmative Action have seemingly done their best to try and ensure that wasn't the case.

Yes but you also can't divorce it from the historical context either.

Yes, you very easily can. You don't leave a broken bridge up just because it was needed when it was built, you fix it or replace it with a new one. "Historical context" is a bullshit term that I've yet to ever see used to do anything other then deflect form the real issue to try and focus instead on something that's irrelevant.

Your right. I despise it and the effect its happening. But in some instances it may literally be the only way people of color can find work.

Then change it to forcing minorities to get picked if they're equally qualified instead of holding them to a lower standard, because if you need to be held to a lower standard to get the position/job/education, they shouldn't be getting it and should instead be doing something else.

I literally never said that.

Like it or not you're defending Affirmative Action and not in the "we need to change it to make it work" type of way even if you don't want to admit it. Taking a line of thought to its logical conclusion is just that, the logical conclusion.

Note the bolded section here.

What you mean the one that pretends that blacks get longer sentences due to race and not due to repeat offence, that the Voter I.D. laws that everyone except white liberals (as a group) support are racist because of the legitimately racist assumption that unlike every other race as well as blacks in other Western nations American blacks are somehow incapable of getting their hands on the type of I.D. they literally cannot get by without (especially if they're receiving welfare), a statement about malevolent politics that I can't tell who it's aimed at given the fact that like most groups (most whites included) it applies to both major parties and any statement otherwise is partisanship divorced from the realities of the effects policies have had over the past 50 years regardless of which side they came from, and another racist implication against blacks that they're all freaking out because most whites want the government to stop actively making our lives worst by reversing malevolent policies (most of which where implemented not in the pre-Johnson period of "black improvement" but instead in the post-Johnson period of "black stagnation" to boot)? Because I didn't want to touch that with a 10 foot pole due to the fact that it's really not worth discussion what is at best histrionics and at worst a series of lies by omission with racist undertones.

Tell me do you reckon the African American schoolchildren who have to be taught in class what to do to avoid being shot if a policeman stops and frisks them might feel like they are being discriminated against for 'being born'.

To be honest that seems like a case of local politics seeping into education given the fact that next to no one gets shot from stop and frisks, that the vast majority of blacks shot by police are criminals (even the most conservative in the numerical sense estimates put it at 90%) and if they cut the political bullshit out they'd be far better using that time to tell kids how to not get killed in gang violence since that not only dwarfs the number of blacks shot by police for any reason regardless of innocence or guilt, it's the number 1 cause of death amongst black men age 16 to 34.

It's up there with French schools up here pretending the issue that kids need to learn about is how dem evil Anglos destroyed this province.

Do you reckon the various hispanic people and people who just looked brown that were arrested and detained in modern day concentration camp setting by Joe Apario felt that they were being punished 'for being born'? (How do you reckon they felt when Trump pardoned him, reckon they felt loved huh?)

Joe Apario is an extreme case, but given his replacement has been an equally extreme man who has taken the stance that a series of laws he's legally bound to enforce should go unenforced to the objective determent of his community, I think the problem is more that Arizona is insane more then anything else, and the fact that due to different law enforcement agencies refusing to enforce America's already ludicrously lax immigration laws (by first world standards) you're going to get extremists who will try and enforce things by going too far to begin with. Apario is a symptom of a problem with law enforcement either by choice or by dictate not being able to enforce the law despite the fact that the communities have have to deal with the consequences of those laws not being enforced are demanding it to the point Apario is appealing while those who are unaffected by it stand on an imaginary moral high horse and tell the plebs to suck it because they want their slave labour to keep making cheap food and goods.

When random Muslims and Indians walking down the street get mobbed by people in MAGA hats and severely beaten do you reckon THEY felt like they were being punished for being born?

Earlier in this thread I showed you a collection of dozens of examples of egregious crimes like this, you didn't say a word in rebuttal.

And how about people in MAGA hats being assaulted by blacks for supporting a moderate candidate, being dragged out of cars and beaten to the point where the use of lethal force to put an end to it would be completely justified? Or of whites who are kidnapped and tortured by blacks with it broadcast over the internet for the world to see only for the justice system to not declare the open and shut case of a hate crime to be the only thing it was because the justice system wants to continue to pretend the reality of overt anti-white racism in different parts of the country doesn't exist and keep it off the official records even if literally not a single person alive is unaware of the facts?

We can use isolated incidents as examples until we're blue in the face, there's a reason why most conservatives and liberals who haven't abandoned liberalism for anti-liberal progressivism have chosen to stick with the raw numbers instead of isolated examples. Raw numbers that show blacks as being 400% over-represented in those who commit homicide due to the gang wars, see Asians (which includes Muslims in those statistics) as the only group with significant over-representation in mass shootings, see the number of blacks killed by police for any reason dwarfed by those killed by other blacks for other reasons be so large as to seem like a rounding error, and other numbers that point towards blacks and other groups having major cultural problem that despite where it has occured and how much the government at all levels has had people who pass the policies that the left claims will solve the issue have not managed to fix anything over the past 50 years (with some going so far as to argue that the gradual drop in homicide between the 90s and now stems from abortion and not fixing the problems in black culture that cause the problems to begin with, such as the glorification of the gangster life style and the rigid attempts at maintaining cultural conformity in the inner cities to name what I believe to be the most significant factors of them all).

I pointed out that Donald Trump, the guy you idolize shrugged these crimes off at best and at worst encouraged them.

You may choose to believe this, that won't make it true.

And I showed you that the people behind this little meme which is the reason we are all here right now are the same people who helped kill a woman and then gloat about it smugly. Those same people who's memes and talking points I see in your posts too many to count.

And Sander supporters have killed 6 or 7 people the last time I counted (can't remember if the one who tried to assassinate members of the GOP at that ball game got someone or if he was the only fatality) and a member of BLM killed 8 people. While I hate Sanders and the hate group that is BLM are you telling me that these acts in a vacuum are enough reason to do so? That independence in my province should be despised because of the FLQ? That Islam should be hated because of ISIS? Or does it only apply when it's white people who are perceived as right wing (I say perceived because I've yet to see a white nationalists who isn't a socialist).

It's not about 'deserve'. This isn't a malicious punishment. It is a problem with government oversight.

It's not a problem of government oversight, it's just that the collectivist metric used to determine how AA should work automatically makes Asians have to face discrimination because crunching the numbers dictates it. Asians are better off then whites and AA is based on how well each group collectively is doing (because fuck poor whites and Asians apparently).

In all seriousness no idea. I might try and research some history on Asian Americans a bit later on. If I had to take a wild guess I would say it is the assumption that since most Asians are descended from people who immigrated to America by choice the overriding assumption is that very few of them live in poverty. Granted the stereotype of the overworking Asian is pretty damn racist.

It's not an assumption to state that most Asian Americans aren't living in poverty, it's the reality of the situation. It's just too bad that those who are the worst for it because they're treated as if they're from the most financially well off background in the country, since collective wealth of a group is the largest factor in AA.

Chinese, Korean and Japanese Americans where worst off then blacks where overall in the lat 1940s, yet despite not receiving any beneficial programs to help them they've managed to claw their way up to being above whites on average. It has nothing to do with race, and we especially see this with African immigrants as they do significantly better then their American born counterparts to the point that there's now calls to discriminate against them by African American interest groups.

the December King:

If I'm coming across as offensive, I apologize... I was just trying to clarify the inherent difference. If I'm incorrect, someone please chime in.

Not that it's offensive, but given the fact that America has for 80 years been trying to push the idea of the melting pot (which is incidentally the reason why it's one of the few Western nations that didn't implement a failed multiculturalism policy) the reason whiteness as an idea exists in the US stems from the simple fact that the barriers that exist between European groups was one that the government and other interest groups wanted to see removed, and so active measures where taken to do just that (and the first world war seeing German Americans abandon their language and much of their culture in large numbers also helped).

Whiteness as a concept disconnected form the millennia old idea of what being white was (that is to say, the old European idea of what man was back when each race saw other races as another breed instead of the same) exists to get rid of barriers between groups and was ironically pushed most strongly by those who today are pushing against the idea now.

Zontar:

Vrex360:
But wait I'm confused I thought this was something that happened exclusively to white people? It kind of sounds like an example of exactly the shit I'm talking about (a brown person with an ethnic sounding name having almost zero chance) and kind of disproves the idea that this is some kind of anti-white deliberate discrimination no? It just sounds like an Indian man was able to find a nice little loophole.

You evidently have not only never seen me discuss this matter here,

Oh Zontar I have seen you discuss many topics.

but also never actually discussed this matter with anyone who doesn't agree with Affirmative Action given the fact it's nearly impossible to have a discussion about it without people bringing up the fact whites and Asians are actively discriminated against because of a line of reasoning that doesn't hid its overt racist nature and only tries to justify itself using the logic that because whites and Asians are successful we collectively need to be taken down a peg,[/quote]

Speaking as a fellow white person I have never said that. I don't think white people need to be 'taken down a peg'. Only that as frustrating and awful as affirmative action is, it still doesn't count as a deliberate attempt to harm whites out of malicious intent. Meanwhile a lot of conservative policy often really does disproportionately effect persons of color and everyone knows that.

because a black kid from a rich family can't possibly be able to reach higher education only off his his abilities and a poor white kid who worked his way up to being able to qualify but not with enough overqualification to overcome the negatives of discrimination based on race surely didn't need it.

Well luckily that scenario doesn't happen often since the majority of extreme wealth comes from very white families, Hell most of the people with that level of power and privilege are people who come from 'old money' and let me tell you those people are so white that if you put them all in a room the reflective shine could blind you.

While it may sound hyperbolic it is effectively what current proponents of Affirmative Action are supporting, whether the reality that public and private institutions make no effort in hiding has to say about is one they like to accept or not.

I agree that this is the end result rather then intent.

Doesn't change the fact that this isn't a deliberately racist effort so much as a clumsily handled attempt to right historic wrongs and the fact that it happens to Asians and Indian people kind of demonstrates that.

This isn't a zero sum game where just because one group is discriminated against that others cannot be either,

Except for the part where you specifically described this an an Anti White policy.

From where I stand it's just a mishandled attempt to write historic wrongs that does more harm then good.

and so again I'll ask why you seem to think it's okay for Asians to be discriminated against given even the racist reasoning behind why it should be the case for whites does not work with them.

And again I'll say I don't.

And before its existence it was the same thing except black people almost always lost.

One indefensible wrong does not justify another, at the most possible extreme there may be an argument for discrimination when faced with those of equal qualification, but that's a separate discussion unrelated to this one given the nature of Affirmative Action.

Yep that was a sequence of words all right. And dude do you have any how many white people are in the workforce? At my last job it was like 80% white. Most of the top fields are filled with white people and white guys specifically. You know what I almost never see? Brown people in management roles, women in offices that are mostly male getting higher then assistant manager and so on and so on.

Who could have guessed that in a country that's three quarters white and has most of its ethnic minorities concentrated in isolated communities even within its "diverse" areas that a random workplace would have a demographic makeup that's fairly in line with that of the country?[/quote]

And yet somehow despite all this they are still somehow among the most oppressed and discriminated against people in the entire world.
That is some impressive doublethink you've got going on there.

And that in lines of work where men are the ones who overwhelmingly make the choice to enter that you'd see that reflected in those who make it despite most lines of work actively discriminating against them?

If it's primarily men entering that line of work then they would be hired by other men in which case who the hell is discriminating against them.

And who could have thought that because of this state of affairs that somehow changes the fact that what is encoded into laws and regulations suddenly isn't such? Next thing you know you'll take this line of reasoning and tell me Rhodesia was a free and equal society due to the fact most of those who worked in the public sector where black.

You literally just showed me a single case study.

Yes, I did show you a real world example of something. How does that relate to your hypothetical?

Wow Zontar that was pretty bold coming from you. Given that moments where you actually source things are the exception rather then the rule.

But you are defending it, and no one's discussing the thought process behind its foundation,

No I'm not. I think the practice is inherently flawed. And yes actually YOU are because you keep trying to frame it as a malicious act of bigotry.

it's not like Planned Parenthood where it was outright evil (since that went from an attempt to kill blacks and Hispanics before they where born to a legitimate institution).

Oh God Dammit quit it with the Alex Jones Breitbart garbage. That shit was disproven in 2015!
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/14/432080520/fact-check-was-planned-parenthood-started-to-control-the-black-population
While Sanger by today's standards could be considered racist, back in the standards of race relations in the 1920's she was practically a progressive and she believed black and Hispanic people should have the rights to decide how many children they had just like anyone else should be able to, that's the whole point of 'Planned Parenthood' that people don't have to have children just because they accidentally get pregnant.
But the right wing fearmongering machine (that just so happens to also love to make it harder and harder for abortion clinics to operate in the United States) managed to take this simple perspective of equality and use it to drum up fear and paranoia to make it more likely to win public support to help them shut down places like Planned Parenthood which believe me is their intention.

If you don't think it's okay, then why bother posting at all when nothing I've stated at any point had to do with its foundation and only to do with how it is applied?

Maybe I'm desperately trying to get you to acknowledge that racism against dark skinned people is bad without some caveat having to be added after the fact? Or that when I am talking about human rights abuses getting pardoned by the guy who you probably pray to an altar of every night your only response is to say that white people (sometimes) face discrimination in the workplace when (sometimes) a black person applies for the same condition despite your open acknowledgement of the fact that despite this across most of the West white people still dominate the majority of workplaces and generally don't struggle to find work.

Because this seems like yet another case of a user here reading subtext in something I wrote that wasn't even hinted at and could not rationally be reached by someone reading it.

Because dude you opened with the assuming line of:

And 50 years later it's now its own form of hiring discrimination where people who are qualified for work and education are passed over for those who are not due to the colour of their skin.

It's very easy to read an implication there and you know it.

As it stands I see all sorts of subtexts in your posts all the time. Things you get angry at, things you don't get angry at, things that go unsaid when people respond to you and the little memes and jokes you slip in there for good measure.
You really suck at concealing your power level.

Which is what minorities and women have to go through all the time and have needed to do so for decades now. Again I loathe affirmative action and I don't like seeing its effects but honestly dude I'm just not seeing what your seeing.

Yes, once upon a time women and minorities had to work harder to reach the same end point. Now, two generations after that stopped being the case I think we're well passed the point where holding women and non-Asian minorities to a lower standard to reach the same point can be justified, especially since it's not exactly going to help anyone to keep it up.

Difference between you and me Zontar is I never just assume that people of color or women entering the workplace didn't work hard to get there.

Hurts those hiring for obvious reasons, hurts minorities who are qualified due to the stigma, and it hurts minorities who are not qualified because they burn out very quickly.

True.

And I have said repeatedly it is wrong. I just think currently it may be one of the only ways to actually give black people a chance to enter high paying work fields.

But that just isn't realistically going to happen. Even ignoring the fact that despite 50 years of it and Asian Americans having to go from being even poorer overall then blacks to being the richest demographic in the US has shown it doesn't work at all, even if you do want to use the government to force blacks to succeed the simple fact of the matter is Affirmative Action is a case of too little, too late because once blacks reach the point they can benefit from it they've [b]already past the point they can be helped on that front.[/b[

Might have to elaborate on what you mean by this last part.

You want to solve the issue, use the bloated education budget smarter, make it so incompetent teachers can be fired without them having to resort to doing a straight up crime in low income area schools, get them while they're young and give them the skills they need so that when they do reach the point in their lives Affirmative Action would have kicked in it won't be needed because the problem the program has objectively failed to accomplish anything to solve will have at the very least been ameliorated.

Well I agree with that at least. I would like to see significantly higher funding going to inner city schools. Most kids in inner city schools have to deal with sub par learning equipment and resources that leave them really ill equipped to go out into the world which means when it comes time for higher education or job hunting they are kind of screwed. That's the thing Zontar one of the reasons affirmative action still exists is because the scope just isn't equal on a broad level.
That said I don't think a reduction in education spending is a good idea and it always worries me whenever I see conservatives suggest a reduction in education because something about it just feels very Orwellian.

It's not perfect, but at this point outside of reversing AA to change who gets discriminated against

Beginning to suspect that wouldn't bother you too much.

there's nowhere to go but up because the status quo will never, ever realistically accomplish anything, and the past 50 years of trying has shown that. To think that AA continuing as it exists will improve things for blacks is insane. Which is probably why next to no successful blacks (outside of sports, politicians and music/acting) advocate for it and most of them do the exact opposite.

I dunno things actually seem less shit for Black people nowadays then they did only a few decades ago.

Why would it exist in a time where most whites accept the fact that women and minorities are just as capable as anyone else and that people should be judged on their individual merit and not as a group? The US has a dramatically different culture then what it had 50 years ago.

Because things like systemic racism and sexism don't just go away and can be considered socially acceptable?
Because we don't actually live in a meritocracy and the politicians who like to peddle that either are themselves or are in bed with particularly wealthy and powerful groups who like to benefit from being at the top and don't like to acknowledge how that happened?
It would be great to live in a totally equal world Zontar but we don't.

And even if that was the case, even moving to hiring blacks when the choice is between a white and black of equal qualification would still be an improvement over the status quo.

In an ideal world there would be no reason not to hire someone on merit alone but we don't live in that world yet.

This line of reasoning is very easy to argue as being an example of the soft bigotry of low expectations that we constantly see placed on women and minorities as well, because apparently they're so much more susceptible to abuse then white men are. Which I wouldn't argue for because while I did grow up with a "learn to take it" attitude since outside of my home there was never anyone to defend me outside of myself, but I've seen way too many white men who are part of the ranks of Tumblr's easily triggered snowflakes to buy into the idea we're inherently better at taking it then others.

Okay here is my rebuttal.
Yes, it takes a strong willed person to rise above bigotry, racism and constant demeaning sexual harrassment.
But they shouldn't have to.

Whenever I see posts whining about how we spend so much time coddling poor innocent precious snowflakes who can't handle being bullied and they just need to get over it I just find myself thinking that all we are really doing is coddling the people doing the bullying. When online forums for instance refuse to ban certain individuals or subforums that frequently delight in tearing down and hurting vulnerable people for sick laughter and jokes and instead call out the people being bullied at their hands for being too 'sensitive' and demanding 'special treatment', who's actually getting the special treatment? Who's actually being coddled?
Especially when inevitably one of these guys, now filled with a sense of immortality and entitlement, finally does cross a line and gets in trouble for it? When Milo Yianoppotamus (misspelled on purpose) finally crossed a line deliberately harassing Leslie Jones with fake screenshots he knew were fake and twitter banned him he cried it up like a whiny baby and screamed and threw his shit. Same with every gross subreddit that finally reaches peak toxicity and gets banned (latest example r/incels) they suddenly get really hostile and outraged that someone dared to actually call them out on their bullying.
And that also applies to the workplace too. I was disgusted when I found out there was a guy at DC comics who was so toxic, so grabby and creepy with female employees that the company actually moved his office away from where the women worked. If he was that gross he shouldn't have still been allowed to work there! But apparently nothing about that was fire worthy.
Likewise the argument of just ignore it and be thick skinned only serves to empower the bullies and harassers, who get away with it initially, are able to do it to other people afterwards and can even test the boundaries of how far they can take it without repurcussions and then when one is finally fired for repeatedly attempting to reach up a female coworkers skirt or for leaving bananas on a noose on a black coworkers desk they can then say 'what's the matter bro it's just an edgy meme'.

If the Harvey Weinstein thing taught me anything its that shutting up and letting it go doesn't solve anything, it just allows it to continue and get worse. Speaking out against it stops it. Efforts to deal with it stops it. #Metoo kind of demonstrated that people are sick of being quiet and not talking about it.

Yes it takes strength to be able to deal with harassment and bullying day in and day out. That doesn't mean we shouldn't still condemn it when it happens and make efforts to prevent it. It is unnacceptable in the workplace and believe it or not it does take its toll.

The only people who the attitude of shrugging and saying 'eh they must not be thick skinned enough' actually benefits are just the privileged people who don't have to worry about it.

Because again fifty years ago the odds of a woman or a person of color even getting as far as having a job was something of a minor miracle.

And we aren't 50 years ago, the world has changed

But racism still exists.

You don't leave a broken bridge up just because it was needed when it was built, you fix it or replace it with a new one. "Historical context" is a bullshit term that I've yet to ever see used to do anything other then deflect form the real issue to try and focus instead on something that's irrelevant.

Again I agree with that. I'd just want to see the system changed the right way and sadly that may be many generations away from happening.

because if you need to be held to a lower standard to get the position/job/education, they shouldn't be getting it and should instead be doing something else.

But enough about President Trump.
Amirite?

*Rimshot*

Like it or not you're defending Affirmative Action and not in the "we need to change it to make it work" type of way even if you don't want to admit it.

I actually am. Like a lot.

Taking a line of thought to its logical conclusion is just that, the logical conclusion.

Which has informed so many of my opinions about you.

What you mean the one that pretends that blacks get longer sentences due to race and not due to repeat offence,

Source?

Also while I'm here wanna see conclusive data that even though whites and blacks consume marijuna at roughly equal levels Blacks are far more likely to get arrested and face serious prison time?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/?utm_term=.8b9cd5a0e098

https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu-thewaronmarijuana-rel2.pdf

http://mashable.com/2016/03/22/black-people-jail-marijuana-legalization/#uLAYqzA0wsqq

And don't act like its the severity of the crime either. Brock Turner literally raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster and he only spent three to six months in prison. When a white guy can fucking rape someone and receive less prison time then a black guy can for smoking weed what would you call that?

that the Voter I.D. laws that everyone except white liberals (as a group) support are racist because of the legitimately racist assumption that unlike every other race as well as blacks in other Western nations American blacks are somehow incapable of getting their hands on the type of I.D. they literally cannot get by without (especially if they're receiving welfare),

I no I don't doubt that people can get eligible voter ID's. Just that it is often signifac

a statement about malevolent politics that I can't tell who it's aimed at given the fact that like most groups (most whites included) it applies to both major parties and any statement otherwise is partisanship divorced from the realities of the effects policies have had over the past 50 years regardless of which side they came from,

It was about what the phrase 'Make America Great Again' might sound like to someone who lived through the worst years of the civil rights movement and only just started to believe things would be okay. When white people look to the past with nostalgia, black people look on with fear.

and another racist implication against blacks that they're all freaking out because most whites want the government to stop actively making our lives worst by reversing malevolent policies (most of which where implemented not in the pre-Johnson period of "black improvement" but instead in the post-Johnson period of "black stagnation" to boot)?

Actually that was more geared towards Donnies stupid travel ban and the on going disaster that is ICE agents arresting and detaining Mexican American citizens. To say nothing of the people excitedly lobbying to forcefully exit all immigrants and form a 'white homeland' who have managed to worm their tendrils into the Trump administration quite nicely.

at best histrionics and at worst a series of lies by omission with racist undertones.

Hey I think we just found Trump's 2020 slogan.

To be honest that seems like a case of local politics seeping into education given the fact that next to no one gets shot from stop and frisks, that the vast majority of blacks shot by police are criminals (even the most conservative in the numerical sense estimates put it at 90%)[/quote]

Except when they AREN'T!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell_shooting_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Amadou_Diallo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trayvon_Martin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/philando-castile-police-acquitted-all-charges-shot-killed-black-man-minnesota-officer-a7794401.html
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/31/16232880/georgia-police-cobb-county-video
https://www.vox.com/cards/police-brutality-shootings-us/us-police-racism
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/05/texas-police-shoot-dead-15-year-black-teen-170502055158877.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/nyregion/new-york-officer-wayne-isaacs-acquitted.html
http://nypost.com/2017/10/12/nypd-cops-dna-found-on-teen-accusing-them-of-rape/

Seriously dude you're really just going to ignore this shit?

and if they cut the political bullshit out they'd be far better using that time to tell kids how to not get killed in gang violence since that not only dwarfs the number of blacks shot by police for any reason regardless of innocence or guilt, it's the number 1 cause of death amongst black men age 16 to 34.

"It doesn't matter that black people as young as fifteen are often being detained, brutalized and raped and killed by police even after following all the cops instructions, because theres lots of gang violence in poor black neighbourhoods and that totally negates any concern by the fact that black people literally can't turn to the police for safety in their own neighborhoods."

And again dude statistically the number of pot busts quadruple the number of violent crimes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/marijuana-arrests.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/12/police-arrest-more-people-for-marijuana-use-than-for-all-violent-crimes-combined/?utm_term=.d5632866551a

Which is kind of a petty crime to literally risk death over.

Do you reckon the various hispanic people and people who just looked brown that were arrested and detained in modern day concentration camp setting by Joe Apario felt that they were being punished 'for being born'? (How do you reckon they felt when Trump pardoned him, reckon they felt loved huh?)

Joe Apario is an extreme case, but given his replacement has been an equally extreme man who has taken the stance that a series of laws he's legally bound to enforce should go unenforced to the objective determent of his community,[/quote]

Well so far he's taken down 'tent city' gotten rid of the chain gangs and actually seems interested in due process more then just 'your brown, get in prison'. Also again Arpaio actively refused to investigate over 400 cases of sex crimes occurring in his jurisdiction so I fail to see how even at his best Arpaio was actually in any way helping his community.

I think the problem is more that Arizona is insane more then anything else, and the fact that due to different law enforcement agencies refusing to enforce America's already ludicrously lax immigration laws (by first world standards) you're going to get extremists who will try and enforce things by going too far to begin with.

Not an excuse for leaving people in holding cells at ludicrously hot heats or tying them all to chain gangs or his stupid 'tent city'.

Apario is a symptom of a problem with law enforcement either by choice or by dictate not being able to enforce the law despite the fact that the communities have have to deal with the consequences of those laws not being enforced are demanding it to the point Apario is appealing while those who are unaffected by it stand on an imaginary moral high horse and tell the plebs to suck it because they want their slave labour to keep making cheap food and goods.

No Arpaio is what you get when people just throw up their hands and happily look the other way so that people in authority can pretend they are king of the world and can do whatever they want provided they do it to brown people. In turn Trump's pardoning of Arpaio tells me he and his base don't have a problem with a guy disproportionately terrorizing Mexicans and using modern day concentration camps to detain them and that in turn authority like that should never be questioned.
There's a word for that and it rhymes with pashist.

When random Muslims and Indians walking down the street get mobbed by people in MAGA hats and severely beaten do you reckon THEY felt like they were being punished for being born?

Earlier in this thread I showed you a collection of dozens of examples of egregious crimes like this, you didn't say a word in rebuttal.

And how about people in MAGA hats being assaulted by blacks for supporting a moderate candidate,

First of all, sources?

Second of all Donald Trump is a 'moderate candidate' in the same way a giant suckling roast pig on a stick is a 'vegetarian snack'.

being dragged out of cars and beaten to the point where the use of lethal force to put an end to it would be completely justified?

Like?

Or rather I'll show you mine and you can show me yours?

1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3521583/Uber-driver-repeated-Trump-s-Make-America-Great-slogan-shooting-dead-six-people-Kalamazoo.html
2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3748428/Cannibal-killer-Austin-Harrouff-19-wearing-Make-America-Great-Trump-hat-stormed-murdered-random-couple.html
3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/21/trump-says-fans-are-very-passionate-after-hearing-one-of-them-allegedly-assaulted-hispanic-man/?utm_term=.2d69dafacbf0
4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/14/trump-trump-trump-yells-attacker-as-he-beats-hispanic-man-muslim-student/?utm_term=.327a48d638fe
5. http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAKING-NEWS/Black-Man-Stabbed-In-Olympia-In-What-Police-Say-May-Be-Racially-Motivated-Hate-Crime-2584308
6. http://gawker.com/trump-supporter-charged-with-assault-after-beating-prot-1766090832
7. http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/militia-terror-plot-fbi-kansas_us_58014995e4b0162c043c1e90
8. https://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/drunken-pittsburgh-man-sucker-punches-oblivious-indian-man-he-mistook-for-sand-nr/
9. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-president-hate-crime-gay-man-attacked-homophobic-chris-ball-calgary-santa-monica-a7411116.html
10. https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/trump-artist-punched-face-nude-painting-los-angeles-378062381.html?_osource=nbcnews_twitter
11. http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/15177-trump-supporter-who-punched-protester-next-time-we-might-have-to-kill-him
12. https://thinkprogress.org/donald-trump-my-fans-were-right-to-beat-up-black-protester-32639e4da487/
13. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/69-year-old-woman-punched-in-the-face-at-trump-rally.html
14. https://patch.com/new-york/bed-stuy/bed-stuy-school-kids-harassed-driver-yelling-f-black-lives-they-dont-matter
15. https://www.thedailybeast.com/black-protester-beaten-at-trump-rally-ready-to-sue-for-hate-crime
16. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/30/after-alleged-groping-teen-trump-protester-pepper-sprayed-by-trump-supporter-outside-wisc-rally/?utm_term=.10c25643086e
17. http://bangordailynews.com/2016/11/21/news/bangor/council-members-denounce-alleged-pro-trump-attack-as-hate-crime/
18. https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Muslim-Employee-Hijab-Delta-Sky-Lounge-Kicked-Harassed-Flyer-Shouts-Trump-is-Here-Now-411924555.html
19. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/a_list_of_violent_incidents_at_donald_trump_rallies_and_events.html
20. https://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-supporter-allegedly-tries-to-run-over-latino-dem-candidate-whos-also-a-retired-marine/
21. https://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/this-is-for-donald-trump-white-man-repeatedly-punches-hispanic-worker-in-the-back-of-the-head/
22. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-supporter-arrested-punching-person-clinton-event-article-1.2842182
23. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/man-punched-and-choked-protesters-at-north-carolina-trump-rally-2016-9?r=US&IR=T
24. https://globalnews.ca/news/3049756/man-beaten-at-donald-trump-rally-for-holding-republicans-against-trump-sign/
25. https://thinkprogress.org/black-family-says-white-hospital-volunteer-assaulted-them-used-the-n-word-and-invoked-donald-trump-3b175dde48a5/#.teurfz7ja
26. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/christopher-von-keyserling-republican-grab-woman-genitals-groin-pussy-greenwich-connecticut-town-a7530856.html
27. https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/suspect-in-quebec-mosque-attack-quickly-depicted-as-a-moroccan-muslim-hes-a-white-nationalist/
28. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdYHdbWduNs
29. http://fox17online.com/2016/11/17/police-investigating-assault-on-cab-driver-ethnic-intimidation/
30. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/florida-man-faces-hate-crime-charge-mateen-mosque-arson-article-1.2792764
31. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/sarasota-man-says-he-was-attacked-for-being-gay
32. https://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/there-was-blood-everywhere-trump-supporter-arrested-after-attacking-gay-men-at-sydney-mcdonalds/
33. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/lgbt-activist-kidnapped-raped-man-france-donald-trump-mocked-anger-a7627001.html
34. http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/william-celli-arrested_us_56782b8fe4b0b958f6573d35
35. http://www.dailywire.com/news/10612/report-transgenders-truck-set-fire-after-being-frank-camp#
36. https://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/get-the-fck-out-of-america-btches-crazed-trump-fan-attacks-muslim-women-pushing-baby-strollers/
37. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3902902/Iowa-cop-killer-Scott-Michael-Greene-proud-Donald-Trump-supporter.html
38. http://dcist.com/2016/05/police_are_searching_for_a_suspect.php
39. https://itsgoingdown.org/olympia-wa-fascist-shoots-windows-downtown-yells-hail-trump/
40. http://time.com/4991724/richard-spencer-speech-shooting/
41. http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/richard-preston-arrested-shooting-gun-charlottesville-rally_us_59a20a39e4b06d67e3380e37
42. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/james-alex-fields-new-charges-charlottesville-car-attack/

But I'm sure all of this will be dwarfed by the massive amount of Antifa stuff you've found right?
Or is literally all of this 'fake news'?

Or of whites who are kidnapped and tortured by blacks with it broadcast over the internet for the world to see only for the justice system to not declare the open and shut case of a hate crime to be the only thing it was because the justice system wants to continue to pretend the reality of overt anti-white racism in different parts of the country doesn't exist and keep it off the official records even if literally not a single person alive is unaware of the facts?

Or we can talk about the time three white guys raped a black guy with a coathanger and the judge didn't want to sentence them too harshly because he didn't want to ruin their lives by forcing them (the rapists) to have to be sex offenders?

We can use isolated incidents as examples until we're blue in the face,

Blue like a filthy democrat.

Difference is mine show a trend, yours are isolated incidents.

there's a reason why most conservatives and liberals who haven't abandoned liberalism for anti-liberal progressivism have chosen to stick with the raw numbers instead of isolated examples. Raw numbers that show blacks as being 400% over-represented in those who commit homicide due to the gang wars,

Yeah and if you understand the various systemic disadvantages that lead black communities into poverty and crime suddenly you can't just walk away with the statement: 'therefore black people are inherently genetically violent'.
Which you and I both know what the implication.

see Asians (which includes Muslims in those statistics) as the only group with significant over-representation in mass shootings,

And white men. Please don't act like they are an anomaly.

https://www.bustle.com/p/white-men-commit-mass-shootings-more-than-any-other-group-why-arent-we-talking-about-that-2759738

see the number of blacks killed by police for any reason dwarfed by those killed by other blacks for other reasons be so large as to seem like a rounding error, and other numbers that point towards blacks and other groups having major cultural problem that despite where it has occured and how much the government at all levels has had people who pass the policies that the left claims will solve the issue have not managed to fix anything over the past 50 years

I mean it helps that Republicans have been working hard to dogwhistle racist policies and that the war on drugs (to say nothing of Nixon and the crack cocaine debacle) harsh crackdowns on drug users actually makes the problem worse for various reasons.

(with some going so far as to argue that the gradual drop in homicide between the 90s and now stems from abortion and not fixing the problems in black culture that cause the problems to begin with, such as the glorification of the gangster life style and the rigid attempts at maintaining cultural conformity in the inner cities to name what I believe to be the most significant factors of them all).

Oh yeah I hate the way the gangster lifestyle is glorified too. No arguments here. I also hate the way people associate heroism and masculinity with gun violence because it has the same effect.

I pointed out that Donald Trump, the guy you idolize shrugged these crimes off at best and at worst encouraged them.

You may choose to believe this, that won't make it true.

Oh my God:

(See also reference article 3 on my list above.)

I do have to compliment you on your ability to so effectively gaslight yourself but like the real world is like, real.

And Sander supporters have killed 6 or 7 people the last time I counted (can't remember if the one who tried to assassinate members of the GOP at that ball game got someone or if he was the only fatality)

GOP Senator shooter guy got no one.
The Portland guy got two people but he had changed his stance and went from supporting Bernie to Trump

and a member of BLM killed 8 people.

Source?
Not that I don't believe you I just have heard this before but I've never seen anything conclusive on its front.

But also get this the Vegas shooter? Loved Trump: http://www.newsweek.com/las-vegas-gunman-was-trump-supporter-happy-stock-market-701597

While I hate Sanders and the hate group that is BLM are you telling me that these acts in a vacuum are enough reason to do so? That independence in my province should be despised because of the FLQ? That Islam should be hated because of ISIS? Or does it only apply when it's white people who are perceived as right wing (I say perceived because I've yet to see a white nationalists who isn't a socialist).

Difference is the Alt Right does not exist in a 'vaccum'. The 'purity' of a white homeland and the purging of all non whites, 'degenerates' and eventually even non fascists is in fact at the center of its belief structure and goals. Maybe not everyone who is Alt Right will go around plowing their cars into people or shooting guns into a crowd but the toxic racist and misogynistic sentiment is inherent to the Alt Right because it just IS fascism under a different name. 1.6 billion people practice Islam and they range in levels of extremism or moderateness and I know many of them in my own life, they are ordinary people no different to you or me. Hell just recently we had a whole Islamic school's worth of little kids at the place I work come in and again they just acted like normal kids and tired teachers having to look after them all day. Just ordinary people who just happen to be of a religious faith that I am not of but with literally no reason to think that they are a threat to me. Doesn't mean ISIS aren't still an army of repugnant murdering raping cowards who need to be destroyed.

You can't do that with the Alt Right. There is no revisionist version of the Alt Right dogma. Even the people who might claim they are just in it 'for the memes' are still helping to amplify a very poisonous and very targeted message of hate. And as it continues to gain traction and when I see ideas that used to only get talked about as the masturbatory fantasies of wanna be Gobbels' in their mum's basement suddenly come out of the mouth of the President of the United States and hell yes I'm scared. They've left the shadows and they are going out and trying to do harm.
You don't have to be a conservative to be Alt Right, hell I've actually buried the hatchet with a lot of conservatives I know because even they are horrified by the extremity on display with these Alt Right fucks. And while I don't think it's too late for some Alt Righters to redeem themselves, if the events of Charlottesville didn't wake them up to exactly what it was they were actually standing for I just don't buy that anything will.

And given I have twice now given you the opportunity to just say that the Charlottesville Nazis were bad and both times you deflected from the question and tried to make it about 'Antifa' instead I worry about you. A lot.

Also don't think I didn't see the classic deflect move there with the socialist comment. Nice try.

Zontar:

You evidently have not only never seen me discuss this matter here, but also never actually discussed this matter with anyone who doesn't agree with Affirmative Action given the fact it's nearly impossible to have a discussion about it without people bringing up the fact whites and Asians are actively discriminated against because of a line of reasoning that doesn't hid its overt racist nature and only tries to justify itself using the logic that because whites and Asians are successful we collectively need to be taken down a peg, because a black kid from a rich family can't possibly be able to reach higher education only off his his abilities and a poor white kid who worked his way up to being able to qualify but not with enough overqualification to overcome the negatives of discrimination based on race surely didn't need it. While it may sound hyperbolic it is effectively what current proponents of Affirmative Action are supporting, whether the reality that public and private institutions make no effort in hiding has to say about is one they like to accept or not.

So. We know in my country that in terms of degree achievement and long-term attainment (say, ~20 years into career), a pupil from a state school will be approximately equal to a pupil from a fee-paying private school with results 2 grades higher (i.e. state: ABB v. private: AAA).

Equal opportunity laws ban offering lower university entrance grades to the state school pupils, even if (statistically) they are as competent as private school students with better grades. There are however various mechanisms that can be used to improve access to high grade requirement degrees for students from less advantaged backgrounds. I take it you think it is right that state school pupils be barred from degrees (and thus careers) they are actually capable of, and the techniques used to get round this also unjust?

Vrex360:
Speaking as a fellow white person I have never said that. I don't think white people need to be 'taken down a peg'. Only that as frustrating and awful as affirmative action is, it still doesn't count as a deliberate attempt to harm whites out of malicious intent. Meanwhile a lot of conservative policy often really does disproportionately effect persons of color and everyone knows that.

So it's harmful, but because only the "fuck white people" crowd wants it to harm whites, the fact that unless 90% of the population is lying about their moral compass it goes against what are today core values of society that somehow still makes it worth defending (even if one pretends they aren't defending it)?

And yes, I'm aware that like liberals there are plenty of conservative policies that have harmed minorities. How does that justify continuing AA as it exists given the fact it's one of those policies?

Well luckily that scenario doesn't happen often since the majority of extreme wealth comes from very white families, Hell most of the people with that level of power and privilege are people who come from 'old money' and let me tell you those people are so white that if you put them all in a room the reflective shine could blind you.

See here's the problem with collectivists, they use the line of reasoning that because whites are one of the two primary groups that make up the richest people in the US (along with Jews) that somehow justifies open discrimination against whites who are poor.

There's a reason why the anti-liberal progressive left is mocked by liberals, conservatives and liberatarians as genuinely thinking a broke homeless man has more privilege then people with a roof over their heads.

I agree that this is the end result rather then intent.

Doesn't change the fact that this isn't a deliberately racist effort so much as a clumsily handled attempt to right historic wrongs and the fact that it happens to Asians and Indian people kind of demonstrates that.

The formation wasn't racist in intent, keeping it after it has objectively failed and shown itself to harm every demographic just to spite white people, that, that is racist. Tell me, how is it a policy that helps quite literally no one in the long term is kept in place? And why is it defended most strongly by the progressives who push for modern Jim Crow laws?

Except for the part where you specifically described this an an Anti White policy.

From where I stand it's just a mishandled attempt to write historic wrongs that does more harm then good.

Genetic fallacy. It wasn't born out of malicious intent but it's kept alive because of it.

And again I'll say I don't.

Then stop defending the policy, and stop pretending that you haven't been doing so.

And yet somehow despite all this they are still somehow among the most oppressed and discriminated against people in the entire world.
That is some impressive doublethink you've got going on there.

The only doublethink here is attempting to pretend that one of the few cases of systemic and institutional racism that still exists in the US isn't real despite the fact that the hard coded example of it within the system has been pointed to.

And let's not pretend that any demographic, at all, in the US who isn't from another country truly knows the meaning of the term "oppression". That line of thinking is what caused armchair soviets to think that Trump is a fascist despite the fact the books that define what fascism is at all levels are easy to access and he doesn't fit the bill any better or worst then people like Clinton or Obama or Bush and the like.

If it's primarily men entering that line of work then they would be hired by other men in which case who the hell is discriminating against them.

The law and regulations. You know, this thing that sort of binds your hands when hiring people?

Also most HR departments have women these days. Not that that's important but id does sort of harm the "men hiring men" narrative you're trying to push.

Wow Zontar that was pretty bold coming from you. Given that moments where you actually source things are the exception rather then the rule.

You mean like a black guy getting shot by a cop who wasn't a criminal? Because that's the exception rather then the rule too.

No I'm not. I think the practice is inherently flawed. And yes actually YOU are because you keep trying to frame it as a malicious act of bigotry.

The entire justification that is used today to keep the system alive as it is is bigotry, so of course I'll call its defence exactly what it is. Quit using the genetic fallacy to pretend that just because it wasn't born of malice that it somehow isn't kept alive by it.

Oh God Dammit quit it with the Alex Jones Breitbart garbage. That shit was disproven in 2015!

And yet you quote NPR, which has no standards what-so-ever and considers me a terrorist because I had the audacity to want journalists to be held to something resembling standards. Not exactly something one who isn't partisan can call a reliable news source given how often their reporting is at odds with reality.

Maybe I'm desperately trying to get you to acknowledge that racism against dark skinned people is bad without some caveat having to be added after the fact? Or that when I am talking about human rights abuses getting pardoned by the guy who you probably pray to an altar of every night your only response is to say that white people (sometimes) face discrimination in the workplace when (sometimes) a black person applies for the same condition despite your open acknowledgement of the fact that despite this across most of the West white people still dominate the majority of workplaces and generally don't struggle to find work.

So what you're saying is that you have what was initially a completely agreeable point that you went about making in a way that makes it impossible for a rational person to agree with due to how its framed because of the latter part, namely the fact you somehow think that in nations that are between 70% and 99% white that whites make up a majority of those in the workforce is somehow a surprise and proof of anything, and that despite the fact it is objectively, demonstrably and measurably not true that blacks somehow need to work harder to reach the same point as whites even though AA literally flips that on its head to the point where it requires one to assume no one is applying it in practice to even begin to believe there's truth to the statement.

Yes, discrimination against blacks like that against anyone else is bad, now stop pretending they have to work harder to reach the same place as everyone else because you're stuck 50 years in the past and refuse to acknowledge how the world has changed since then.

It's very easy to read an implication there and you know it.

As it stands I see all sorts of subtexts in your posts all the time. Things you get angry at, things you don't get angry at, things that go unsaid when people respond to you and the little memes and jokes you slip in there for good measure.
You really suck at concealing your power level.

You know that just because you, like many on the far left, have issues of projection, doesn't actually translate to much of anything in the real world, right?

Difference between you and me Zontar is I never just assume that people of color or women entering the workplace didn't work hard to get there.

I don't assume they didn't work hard to get there, I acknowledge the objective fact that the barrier for them to get in is lower. Some take this fact and use it to justify thinking women and minorities got in when they shouldn't have (because some do). You know what's a ludicrously easy way to fix that? Make AA not literally spell out that women and those who aren't white or Asian need to be held to a lower standard.

Might have to elaborate on what you mean by this last part.

The reason AA doesn't work is because the skills one needs to learn to make it in university and/or the work force are ingrained into us in lower education, if you don't have it you don't have it and AA isn't going to help you. It's the reason why blacks who enter higher education who had test scores in the area between where blacks are admissible and where whites or Asians are admissible drop out at the highest rate of any group, while those who score above that drop out at rates comparable to other groups; those in that range simply do not have the skill set needed to keep up with everyone else because they didn't learn it in lower education.

That's the thing Zontar one of the reasons affirmative action still exists is because the scope just isn't equal on a broad level.
That said I don't think a reduction in education spending is a good idea and it always worries me whenever I see conservatives suggest a reduction in education because something about it just feels very Orwellian.

You'll never see "equality on a broad level" no matter how much problem solving you do, we aren't carbon copies of each other who are born on a blank slate and have how we're raised be the beginning and end of who we are. Environment is a major factor, yes, possibly the largest one, but someone born brilliant can have a sibling who's an absolute idiot despite coming from the same background.

And given how the US spends more per capita on education then any other Western nation, cutting wasteful spending seems like it won't hurt much of anything given that there's no way to defend current levels of spending as it is. The DOE for example has failed spectacularly, as the very year it was opened correlates with when the improvement of education turned into a 40 year long period of stagnation. And why do schools need such extravagant things like Olympic swimming pools and other things that are clear cases of spending money just because it's there.

You could practically cut half America's education spending without effecting the quality of it at this point. Maybe not that far, but massive cuts can be made without changing things quality wise, hell pretty much any foreign alternative system that's better would also be cheaper.

Beginning to suspect that wouldn't bother you too much.

You evidently don't know me particularly well.

I dunno things actually seem less shit for Black people nowadays then they did only a few decades ago.

Well outside of the gradual reduction of the black-on-black homicide rate there hasn't been much improvement in the numbers side of things.

Because things like systemic racism and sexism don't just go away and can be considered socially acceptable?
Because we don't actually live in a meritocracy and the politicians who like to peddle that either are themselves or are in bed with particularly wealthy and powerful groups who like to benefit from being at the top and don't like to acknowledge how that happened?
It would be great to live in a totally equal world Zontar but we don't.

None of that changes the fact that AA is systemic racism and sexism and you aren't going to solve anything by keeping it alive and well and refusing to even entertain the idea of putting a new code into place that actually makes things meritocratic by law. But then, given how many progressives are also white supremacists who think that meritocracy will lead to white dominance, I'm not surprised that the far left is so against the idea of merit instead of race based selection.

In an ideal world there would be no reason not to hire someone on merit alone but we don't live in that world yet.

Yes, we don't live in an ideal world. And keeping AA as it exists in place is keeping systemic racism and sexism alive and well.

Okay here is my rebuttal.

With regards to Harvey, it's ironic that those who have the biggest problem with sexual harassment in public are the ones who conspired to protect people who did it.

As for Milo, you do realize what he did to Leslie Jones was posting a picture of her that was next to an image of a gorilla, which while in poor taste is more tame then much of the stuff Jones herself posted in that same week. The complaints stemmed from the impossibly open and shut case of a double standard Twitter has where conservatives are openly held to a lower standards then progressives.

But racism still exists.

Yes, but it's not as prevalent as it was 50 years ago and for the love of god can you stop pretending that if we got rid of racist laws that society would suddenly regress 50 years? Because just because progressives are pushing for a modern Jim Crow doesn't change the fact liberals and conservatives don't want that to happen and still outnumber progressives by 10 to 1.

Again I agree with that. I'd just want to see the system changed the right way and sadly that may be many generations away from happening.

You can't solve a problem over and span of time if you aren't going to touch the problem at all, and AA is part of the problem, not a solution to it.

Also while I'm here wanna see conclusive data that even though whites and blacks consume marijuna at roughly equal levels Blacks are far more likely to get arrested and face serious prison time?

The reason blacks are more likely to be arrested for it is because it's rarely as a single charge, it's on top of other charges that tend to be why they where arrested in the first place. And the longer sentencing stems in part form that and in part from repeat offences, which both lead to longer sentencing. If you want to change that, change the way the judiciary treats repeat offence and multiple charge crimes.

Brock Turner literally raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster

No, he didn't, it was sexual assault because under the law where he was you need to penetrate for it to be rape and as horrible as what he did was he didn't stick his dick in her. Hate it all you want, but if you want a longer sentence you'll need sexual assault to have stricter maximum sentencing.

I no I don't doubt that people can get eligible voter ID's. Just that it is often signifac

Like I said, the idea that Voter I.D. is racist seems to be a white liberal thing given how they're the only demographic who on a whole opposes it.

It was about what the phrase 'Make America Great Again' might sound like to someone who lived through the worst years of the civil rights movement and only just started to believe things would be okay. When white people look to the past with nostalgia, black people look on with fear.

Then why, exactly, did this reaction not exist when Reagan used the exact same slogan in 1980 in response to the shitshow that was the 70s, much as how it was used in 2016 to a decade of economic uncertainty?

It's another case of hysteria and nothing more.

Actually that was more geared towards Donnies stupid travel ban and the on going disaster that is ICE agents arresting and detaining Mexican American citizens. To say nothing of the people excitedly lobbying to forcefully exit all immigrants and form a 'white homeland' who have managed to worm their tendrils into the Trump administration quite nicely.

Oh boy, a fringe radical group that Trump's called out in the past exists, he must obviously support them! /s

The travel ban also is odd given the fact it didn't effect most Muslims by a very large margin, and ICE agents going after illegal immigrants isn't "arresting and detaining Mexican American citizens", it's "arresting and detaining Mexican citizens" in accordance with the law. Like it or not there are 14 million illegal immigrants in the US (just over half of whom are from Mexico) and there's no justification for allowing them to stay, other then to slap legal immigrants in the face and call them morons for going through the hard process of earning one's way into being allowed in.

Hey I think we just found Trump's 2020 slogan.

Well is did describe Clinton's campaign so I suppose it's likely whoever he goes against in 2020 will do the same.

Seriously dude you're really just going to ignore this shit?

I don't, I look at the big picture instead of looking at incidents and extrapolating that to mean it's the rule.

Also, why are Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin on that list? Not really helping your cause when a criminal who was shot in a justifiable act and someone who beat a man half to death before being shot by that man (and who had the prosecution of the case against that man found to have hidden evidence of the man's innocence). BLM loves to hold these two up, and the wonder why people think they're full of it. Then again outside of Tamir Rice I can't think of any names BLM pushes that where innocent, and even that case was a situation where the outcome was the only logical one given the mistakes made by Rice.

And again dude statistically the number of pot busts quadruple the number of violent crimes

Then maybe black communities should stop demanding "tough on crime" police and the war on drugs should come to an end.

Well so far he's taken down 'tent city' gotten rid of the chain gangs and actually seems interested in due process more then just 'your brown, get in prison'. Also again Arpaio actively refused to investigate over 400 cases of sex crimes occurring in his jurisdiction so I fail to see how even at his best Arpaio was actually in any way helping his community.

Given how he's openly allowing the source of much of the crime and violent crime in the area to keep going on account of the criminals committing them being allowed to go unimpeded (a policy he ran on and somehow won in the only election in the entire state that reflected the polls taken before it) colour me shocked that crime hasn't gone down in the area.

Then again the "fuck borders, violent criminals in now!" mentality wouldn't exactly help crime go down even if he bothered to fight it.

Not an excuse for leaving people in holding cells at ludicrously hot heats or tying them all to chain gangs or his stupid 'tent city'.

And that isn't an excuse for allowing the largest source of violent crime in that area to be allowed to exist despite its outright criminality in even being present there.

First of all, sources?

Second of all Donald Trump is a 'moderate candidate' in the same way a giant suckling roast pig on a stick is a 'vegetarian snack'.

Just because you're so far left that you think Trump is an extremist doesn't change where the rest of society stands.

And here's some sources:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/black-captors-torture-white-victim-rant-against-trump-cpd-says/

But I'm sure all of this will be dwarfed by the massive amount of Antifa stuff you've found right?
Or is literally all of this 'fake news'?

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize literal terrorists who've been vandalising and assaulting people in my city for a decade now despite no sign of the type of people they claim to be against existing out here needed to have some deeper justification to dislike, and that your copy-paste of a list taken straight from a far left hate subreddit needed to be countered.

Did you know that if I took every single case of black on black homicide in the US last year and listed them all I couldn't post it in a single post due to the character limit? It's also funny how of all those news stories the only one the far left loves to focus on is the white woman who may have been a case of manslaughter.

Or we can talk about the time three white guys raped a black guy with a coathanger and the judge didn't want to sentence them too harshly because he didn't want to ruin their lives by forcing them (the rapists) to have to be sex offenders?

Got a source on this one? Because I'm legitimately amazed you'd brink up examples before that don't help your case but one that did would be ignored. Or is this a case of another thing from 50 years ago that would be rightfully dismissed out of hand if I saw where it came from?

Difference is mine show a trend, yours are isolated incidents.

That's not how statistics work and only someone who's never taken a semester of stats 101 could pretend otherwise.

I mean for fuck sake you pretend police shooting blacks is a major issue when even the lowest estimate put 90% of such incidents as justified ones done against criminals and the total number regardless of innocence or guilt is marginal compared to black-on-black homicide (not that I'm surprised, black lives only matter when a white man takes it it would seem).

Yeah and if you understand the various systemic disadvantages that lead black communities into poverty and crime suddenly you can't just walk away with the statement: 'therefore black people are inherently genetically violent'.
Which you and I both know what the implication.

Holy shit that's one low opinion you hold of blacks. It's their fucking culture and I've been saying this for years now, not that I'd expect someone who only started reading my posts yesterday to be aware of that but holy shit the projection and racist implications of that projection are... actually to be expected of the modern far left now that I think about it.

And white men. Please don't act like they are an anomaly.

I don't think you know what an anomaly is, because not only am I not acting like they're an anomaly, you're the one doing just that. In fact I and others have specifically pointed out the only anomaly for mass shootings are Asians. Whites are slightly less likely to commit mass shootings based on demographic make up of the country, blacks slightly more (but neither is outside what would be expected), Hispanics significantly less likely (an anomaly) and Asians specifically more likely (another anomaly).

I mean it helps that Republicans have been working hard to dogwhistle racist policies and that the war on drugs (to say nothing of Nixon and the crack cocaine debacle) harsh crackdowns on drug users actually makes the problem worse for various reasons.

As much as I hate the war on drugs I'd like to point out that it was black democrats who pushed for it the hardest and that the black community keeps voting for people who promise to take a tough on crime approach.

It may have failed but there's a reason why it goes on.

Oh yeah I hate the way the gangster lifestyle is glorified too. No arguments here. I also hate the way people associate heroism and masculinity with gun violence because it has the same effect.

Yet you don't see the same result between the two, and this is made clear when you look at the homicide rate by race and notice that whites and Hispanics (who are placed in the same demographic box for it) are in line with Canada's homicide rate as well as many other first world nations.

I do have to compliment you on your ability to so effectively gaslight yourself but like the real world is like, real.

You quote a bunch of mined soundbites (one of which was from MCNBC, a news outlet so bad even the Clintons call it out as unreliable) and ContraPoint?

With sources like that I wonder if even liberals make it into your recommendation feed.

GOP Senator shooter guy got no one.
The Portland guy got two people but he had changed his stance and went from supporting Bernie to Trump

So he changed his stance... yet none of the outlets that would have loved nothing more then that reported it... and he went on a spree... because he'd won.

That makes sense, totally not an Atlanta Black Star "blacks are still getting lynched" level claim.

Source?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers

Was off, turns out it was 6, not 8.

But also get this the Vegas shooter? Loved Trump

Yeah and the Sandy Hook shooter supported Obama, what's your point? I doubt that Sandy Hook was done because of the fact what's-his-face supported Obama, and the Vegas shooting makes no sense if it was done because that guy supported Trump.

And given I have twice now given you the opportunity to just say that the Charlottesville Nazis were bad and both times you deflected from the question and tried to make it about 'Antifa' instead I worry about you. A lot.

Uh, what? You've brought it up once and I didn't think it was worth responding to because, well it's pretty fucking self evident why I wouldn't take issue with saying that Nazis are bad when it's a case of them being actual Nazis (which, for reference, is only about 5% of the time when it comes to the modern far left claiming someone is a Nazis, for fuck sake conservative Jews are being accused of being Nazis now).

You're worried about me for not defending a small group of assholes to instead focus on a larger group of assholes who have media support, have members of the government who support them, have rich assholes financially supporting them, who attack people in my city regularly in the name of stopping acts that they are the only ones committing in my city, who in Boston saw a group of hippies, BLM supporters and an Indian American Democratic politician get together for a free speech rally and said "you see that example of a free liberal democracy? We need to show up at it outnumbering them literally 100 to 1".

There's no deflection towards Antifa, the mentality behind it and the acts by it and its supporters is what's led to a small fringe of neo-Nazis coming about in the first place. Some may lie that it's the other way around but given how that implies that neo-Nazis have access to time travel and one neo-Nazi is as dangerous as a hundred far left terrorists, unless someone can prove that it is the case (a ludicrously tall order that has yet to be accomplished by anyone, which is why it's only believed by the religious left) I'll focus on the ones who are significantly more likely to beat the living shit out of me for existing.

That's the thing about self interest, if something is more likely to be a threat to you, you focus on it more.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm never responding to your posts again if they're so long it'll take over an hour to properly do so. Holy shit is this a waste of time that isn't worth it.

WeepingAngels:
So is it not ok to be white then?

Sure it is. But if you need to be reminded of that in America, and you're a natural-born white citizen, you'll probably need to consult a mental health professional to treat that inferiority complex of yours.

Zontar:

So it's harmful, but because only the "fuck white people" crowd wants it to harm whites, the fact that unless 90% of the population is lying about their moral compass it goes against what are today core values of society that somehow still makes it worth defending (even if one pretends they aren't defending it)?

Defending the idea behind it and how it should work in theory. Not defending it in practice.
Again I'm a white straight man, do you think I have to personally give myself ten lashings a day for my 'sins'? Do you think I look in the mirror and start clawing at my unholy impure pale skinned face? Like seriously dude 'you're just anti white' is such a simplified smokescreen its not even funny.

And yes, I'm aware that like liberals there are plenty of conservative policies that have harmed minorities. How does that justify continuing AA as it exists given the fact it's one of those policies?

It doesn't. Just that I've yet to see you in any thread on the escapist call out shit like this unless there's some way you can blame the left for it.
Hell your President Donald Trump got to where he was solely through inherited wealth and just making people pay him big money to put his name on sub par products and companies and nearly bankrupt himself numerous times. Literally the only way he got to where he was was a lower bar for him then everyone else.
How do you rationalize that?

See here's the problem with collectivists, they use the line of reasoning that because whites are one of the two primary groups that make up the richest people in the US (along with Jews)

Power level showing again bro.

that somehow justifies open discrimination against whites who are poor.

Speaking as a poor white person.... no?

White people tend to be among the most wealthy and yes that doesn't mean there aren't poor white people. But if you want to know who you should really be angry at, be angry at the rich white people and the politics that favor their needs over others. Republicans don't give a shit about poor white people, just so long as they can use boogeymen to scare them into voting republican. It still blows my mind how many poor white areas actively voted against healthcare reforms that they objectively NEEDED. Again the on going disaster with the healthcare bill is going to cause way more harm to middle class white America then any amount of 'affirmative action' yet you champion the side that wants to make life much much harder for poor white people. I can't rationalize that.

There's a reason why the anti-liberal progressive left is mocked by liberals, conservatives and liberatarians as genuinely thinking a broke homeless man has more privilege then people with a roof over their heads.

Okay first of all fuck libertarians. They annoy the fuck out of me. They are on par with the people who shrug and say 'hey both sides are objectively as bad as each other so let's not care about anything and make fun of the people who do care while the terrible status quo is able to get shittier and shittier.'

But I digress...

Odd from where I stand homelessness is an issue that leftists talk about a lot.
And by the way while there are plenty of white homeless people do you know what color a lot of homeless people are?

The formation wasn't racist in intent, keeping it after it has objectively failed and shown itself to harm every demographic just to spite white people, that, that is racist.

Prove that it's actually out of spite.

Tell me, how is it a policy that helps quite literally no one in the long term is kept in place? And why is it defended most strongly by the progressives who push for modern Jim Crow laws?

I don't know. You'd have to ask one.

Genetic fallacy. It wasn't born out of malicious intent but it's kept alive because of it.

Goalpost moving. Earlier when I pointed out that the crux of Affirmative Action was not now and still is not out of malicious hatred of white people you argued that it still had that effect however unintentionally.
You just moved your goalpost... into the path of my ball.

Interesting strategy.

Then stop defending the policy, and stop pretending that you haven't been doing so.

Stop defending fascism and stop pretending that you haven't been doing so.

The only doublethink here is attempting to pretend that one of the few cases of systemic and institutional racism that still exists in the US isn't real despite the fact that the hard coded example of it within the system has been pointed to.

It's not done to punish white people but to help black people. It still sucks but maliciousness isn't really at play here. And again white people in the US have benefited for generations from decades and even centuries old policies that favoured white people specifically and even though the policies are gone, the effects of them still linger. Hence why Affirmative Action came into power in the first place.
I want it gone but it would be nice to know that once its gone black people from impovershed areas would still have a chance at higher education and jobs that pay well. Right now I just don't know if that can be guarenteed.

And let's not pretend that any demographic, at all, in the US who isn't from another country truly knows the meaning of the term "oppression".

Well I mean if there's one thing you and I have in common Zontar its that neither one of us can be considered oppressed.

That line of thinking is what caused armchair soviets

Ah the old Communism deflection trick. Was wondering when that would show up.

to think that Trump is a fascist despite the fact the books that define what fascism is at all levels are easy to access and he doesn't fit the bill any better or worst then people like Clinton or Obama or Bush and the like.

Let's see:
Is a massive egomaniac
He wants total control over everything and gets really shitty when he realizes that a President is still bound by like, laws and stuff
Demands 'loyalty' from his cabinet members, not to the party or even the country but to HIM specifically
Doesn't want anyone listening to any news that doesn't glorify him
Pals around with and hero worships dictators
Advocates police brutality
Had a really hard time just condemning the Charlottesville Nazis without making it about 'the other side'.
Uses specific ethnic minorities as easy targets to project his supporter's anger onto
Keeps repeating extremely nationalist talking points and expresses almost isolationist views
Pardons people who basically commited human rights violations against ethnic prisoners.

The only thing that keeps Trump from being a full blown fascist is he's too damn stupid to be any good at it. The next far right candidate who tries to follow in his footsteps might not be.

The law and regulations. You know, this thing that sort of binds your hands when hiring people?

And without it companies could freely dismiss any job application with a female or ethnic name without having to give an explanation?

Also most HR departments have women these days. Not that that's important but id does sort of harm the "men hiring men" narrative you're trying to push.

I was just quoting what YOU said.

You mean like a black guy getting shot by a cop who wasn't a criminal? Because that's the exception rather then the rule too.

Yikes. Glad to see you think a minor shoving, smoking weed, minor vandalism, petty shoplifting or 'looking suspiscious' is a penalty worthy of death dude.

The entire justification that is used today to keep the system alive as it is is bigotry, so of course I'll call its defence exactly what it is. Quit using the genetic fallacy to pretend that just because it wasn't born of malice that it somehow isn't kept alive by it.

So your now saying it IS a direct malicious attempt on white people and not just a misguided attempt to help others? Seriously stop throwing your goalpost onto my ball.

Oh God Dammit quit it with the Alex Jones Breitbart garbage. That shit was disproven in 2015!

And yet you quote NPR, which has no standards what-so-ever and considers me a terrorist because I had the audacity to want journalists to be held to something resembling standards.[/quote]

Is this a gamergate thing or is this something else?

Not exactly something one who isn't partisan can call a reliable news source given how often their reporting is at odds with reality.

But I notice you didn't actually have anything to say about my source that discredited your Planned Parenthood was made to kill black people bullshit. Ah the way of the right, if something disproves the point your making simply call it 'fake news' and suddenly you don't have to acknowledge it at all.

So what you're saying is that you have what was initially a completely agreeable point that you went about making in a way that makes it impossible for a rational person to agree with due to how its framed because of the latter part, namely the fact you somehow think that in nations that are between 70% and 99% white that whites make up a majority of those in the workforce is somehow a surprise and proof of anything, and that despite the fact it is objectively, demonstrably and measurably not true that blacks somehow need to work harder to reach the same point as whites even though AA literally flips that on its head to the point where it requires one to assume no one is applying it in practice to even begin to believe there's truth to the statement.

I just find it hard to rationalise how someone can be a member of a group that is the overwhelming majority in their country, represtned in the top tier of wealth and politics, be represented in the majority of all high paying work fields and where 90% of all media is catered specifically to appeal to them but still feel like that means they are oppressed just because of a few outlier examples of systemic bullshit. I'm willing to bet if I had a magic wand and offered all white people to switch around and be in the place where black Americans are and vice versa all the same guys bitching about being oppressed would suddenly and inexplicably say 'oh no thank you'.

Yes, discrimination against blacks like that against anyone else is bad,

Man that took a lot of effort to get you to say.

now stop pretending they have to work harder to reach the same place as everyone else because you're stuck 50 years in the past and refuse to acknowledge how the world has changed since then.

Except for the fact that like, they do.

As it stands I see all sorts of subtexts in your posts all the time. Things you get angry at, things you don't get angry at, things that go unsaid when people respond to you and the little memes and jokes you slip in there for good measure.
You really suck at concealing your power level.

You know that just because you, like many on thelshitty. far left, have issues of projection, doesn't actually translate to much of anything in the real world, right?

You sir are the king of projection.

I don't assume they didn't work hard to get there, I acknowledge the objective fact that the barrier for them to get in is lower. Some take this fact and use it to justify thinking women and minorities got in when they shouldn't have (because some do). You know what's a ludicrously easy way to fix that? Make AA not literally spell out that women and those who aren't white or Asian need to be held to a lower standard.

Considering a lot of Minorities come from poor impoverished homes in the inner city with subpar access to education I'd hardly call it a 'lower barrier'.

The reason AA doesn't work is because the skills one needs to learn to make it in university and/or the work force are ingrained into us in lower education, if you don't have it you don't have it and AA isn't going to help you. It's the reason why blacks who enter higher education who had test scores in the area between where blacks are admissible and where whites or Asians are admissible drop out at the highest rate of any group, while those who score above that drop out at rates comparable to other groups; those in that range simply do not have the skill set needed to keep up with everyone else because they didn't learn it in lower education.

Say Aegma had a pretty good post about all this. AA etc. You gonna respond?

And given how the US spends more per capita on education then any other Western nation, cutting wasteful spending seems like it won't hurt much of anything given that there's no way to defend current levels of spending as it is. The DOE for example has failed spectacularly, as the very year it was opened correlates with when the improvement of education turned into a 40 year long period of stagnation. And why do schools need such extravagant things like Olympic swimming pools and other things that are clear cases of spending money just because it's there.

They don't and I'd love to see some of that money go to more impovershed schools instead. But forgive me for thinking education is important, more so then ever right now. When there are governments desperately trying to gaslight their citizens into just listening to spoonfed garbage then having education is essential.

You could practically cut half America's education spending without effecting the quality of it at this point. Maybe not that far, but massive cuts can be made without changing things quality wise, hell pretty much any foreign alternative system that's better would also be cheaper.

Yeah I doubt that's true.

Beginning to suspect that wouldn't bother you too much.

You evidently don't know me particularly well.

Perhaps not but you really haven't shown me much to assuage my assumptions at this point/

I dunno things actually seem less shit for Black people nowadays then they did only a few decades ago.

Well outside of the gradual reduction of the black-on-black homicide rate there hasn't been much improvement in the numbers side of things.

You know ever since the civil rights movement black on black violence has been a topic of discussion right? Like its not that black people aren't putting in efforts to reduce that.

None of that changes the fact that AA is systemic racism and sexism and you aren't going to solve anything by keeping it alive and well and refusing to even entertain the idea of putting a new code into place that actually makes things meritocratic by law.

Well I mean if that were the case Trump would never be able to be president so that's a win.

Just curious though would that also apply to things like socio economic class? Because that can be a huge factor in inequality regardless of race. To create a truly meritocratic society we would need to abolish all wealth so everyone was on an even playing field. Otherwise a meritocracy is still a myth.

But then, given how many progressives are also white supremacists who think that meritocracy will lead to white dominance, I'm not surprised that the far left is so against the idea of merit instead of race based selection.

Wow the projection is strong in this one.
Seriously I'm somehow both anti white and a white supremacist? Or I want to keep white people down and give black people a chance because I think without it white people would rise up and be superior? Which is something I should want if I am like a white supremacist but for some reason I'm actively fighting against my goals...

WHAT?!

Yes, we don't live in an ideal world. And keeping AA as it exists in place is keeping systemic racism and sexism alive and well.

And without it there would still be those things.

Okay here is my rebuttal.

With regards to Harvey, it's ironic that those who have the biggest problem with sexual harassment in public are the ones who conspired to protect people who did it.[/quote]

Once the truth came out his company fired him, his wife left him, the academy ditched him, multiple studios and agencies and actors severed ties with him and he now lives as something of a pariah. In the process he opened the doors wide and suddenly all the creeps of Hollywood are getting destroyed. Turns out talking about this stuff actually makes it go away.

You know what happened when a prominent right wing man was accused by dozens of women of harassment, sexual assault and even rape? Going as far back as the seventies? And who was caught on tape admitting and even bragging about doing it?
They made him president.

As for Milo, you do realize what he did to Leslie Jones was posting a picture of her that was next to an image of a gorilla, which while in poor taste is more tame then much of the stuff Jones herself posted in that same week. The complaints stemmed from the impossibly open and shut case of a double standard Twitter has where conservatives are openly held to a lower standards then progressives.

No. The gorilla was where it started, it got worse then that.

He openly encouraged harassment against her with direct elements of racism and sexism and his gross followers flocked to his call. He crossed a line when he started making fake screenshots of Leslie Jones supposedly tweeting vile homophobic stuff which put him in the hot seat for libel. This was far from the first time he had pulled shit like this to the point where he has actually been caught in the past boyly suggeting to people that if they don't do as he says he'll sick his supporters on them. If anything the fact that Yianoppolis went so long unpunished to the point where he genuinely seemed to think he was untouchable is all the evidence I need that when people bitch about liberals needing their 'safe spaces' what they actually want is a 'safe space' of their own where they can bully to their heart's content and no one will call them out on it The comprehensive detail on it all is right here: https://www.vox.com/2016/7/20/12226070/milo-yiannopoulus-twitter-ban-explained

And if you think that shit's just ordinary right wing discourse then well, fuck the right wing.

Yes, but it's not as prevalent as it was 50 years ago

Disagree, that'a why the Southern Strategy still works. That's why Donald Trump was able to get elected and that's why in Australia I have to listen to the insufferable voice of Pauline Hanson whenever I turn on the news. If racism wasn't real these people would still have political careers because a tentpole of their political message was always 'brown people are scary'.

and for the love of god can you stop pretending that if we got rid of racist laws that society would suddenly regress 50 years? Because just because progressives are pushing for a modern Jim Crow doesn't change the fact liberals and conservatives don't want that to happen and still outnumber progressives by 10 to 1.

I'll stop doing 'that' when you stop pretending Trump didn't campaign on racism. How's that?

You can't solve a problem over and span of time if you aren't going to touch the problem at all, and AA is part of the problem, not a solution to it.

True. But right now lowering the barrier (your words) to make it easier (your words) to get black people into workplaces might be the best way to do that.

The reason blacks are more likely to be arrested for it is because it's rarely as a single charge,

Source? I have a pretty conclusive set of statistics in place there.

it's on top of other charges that tend to be why they where arrested in the first place.

And even in areas where pot is legal black people still find themselves getting arrested for it. Again white people and black people both smoke weed but only one is routinely targeted by police.

And the longer sentencing stems in part form that and in part from repeat offences, which both lead to longer sentencing. If you want to change that, change the way the judiciary treats repeat offence and multiple charge crimes.

Source?

Brock Turner literally raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster

No, he didn't, it was sexual assault because under the law where he was you need to penetrate for it to be rape and as horrible as what he did was he didn't stick his dick in her. Hate it all you want, but if you want a longer sentence you'll need sexual assault to have stricter maximum sentencing.[/quote]

Semantics semantics. It was still a violation of another human being without consent and had those Swedes not turned up it probably could have gotten a lot worse.

How about a longer sentence then 'caught smoking weed while black?' is that too much to ask?

Also it's seriously still bullshit he got away with such a small punishment for such a serious crime. As the prosecution pointed out he deliberately sought out a girl so drunk she couldn't form sentences, understand where she was or what was happening nor speak or walk unassisted and couldn't keep her eyes open and then he dragged her off to an area where people couldn't see them, hidden in the shadows and violated her while she was unconcious, going to far as to drag her limp body around at points. This wasn't just some consentual poorly thought out drunk hookup that the girl couldn't remember the next day (Which he and his attorney had the balls to try to claim), this was straight up predation and it deserved a greater punishment then it got.
Even if a black man is a repeat weed offender, his punishment shouldn't be more severe then a white guy who did THAT.

Like I said, the idea that Voter I.D. is racist seems to be a white liberal thing given how they're the only demographic who on a whole opposes it.

Got a source for that? Proving that literally only white liberals oppose it? Because I can find you a video of a black woman opposing it and explaining why in two seconds.

Circumstancial evidence sure but since you routinely use 'over 90% agree with me' without a source I thought I would just show you a black person speaking out about Voter ID laws. On her own she means very little and I acknowledge that but hey still more then you've provided.

Then why, exactly, did this reaction not exist when Reagan used the exact same slogan in 1980 in response to the shitshow that was the 70s, much as how it was used in 2016 to a decade of economic uncertainty?

During the seventies there was quite a lot of civil unrest and still was in the eighties it was very fresh in people's minds, the problems hadn't been 'solved' (to use the term loosely) by that point which meant you could argue that by making America Great Again it would in turn help solidify the message people like Dr King stood for. As for why Reagan didn't cause the same response? Easy. When Klan members tried to connect to his cause, Reagan disavowed them. When racists tried to use him as a platform, he told them to go away. Reagan's idea of 'make America great again' took a stance that racism and white nationalism and so on were in no way reflective of 'American Values'. Don't get me wrong, the Gipper definitely harbored racist politics but during his campaign he was just much better at keeping all of that hidden, whereas Trump put it out in the open over and over again which made the racist undertone of 'Make America Great Again' suddenly have a much more different context. Where Regan's 'make America great again' did not welcome racism into the discuss (openly), Trump embraced it wholeheartedly. When Trump refuses to just say 'I don't like the Klan' encourages racist ideas from his supporters, retweets white surpremacist memes and expresses nostalgia for the good old days when protestors would be carried out on stretchers, to say nothing of the racist violence his supporters carry on with and the fact that ol' Donnie Boy kept advocating it and well....

It's another case of hysteria and nothing more.

Says the guy who believes in Pizzagate.

Actually that was more geared towards Donnies stupid travel ban and the on going disaster that is ICE agents arresting and detaining Mexican American citizens. To say nothing of the people excitedly lobbying to forcefully exit all immigrants and form a 'white homeland' who have managed to worm their tendrils into the Trump administration quite nicely.

Oh boy, a fringe radical group that Trump's called out in the past exists, he must obviously support them! /s[/quote]

The fact that it took Trump so long to HAVE to call out fascists and the fact that he clearly knows that they are his 'base' pretty much speaks for itself now.
And as far as ICE goes well.....

Well I mean he's pro police brutality so there's that: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/07/29/u-s-police-chiefs-blast-trump-for-endorsing-police-brutality/?utm_term=.3920b267155d

The travel ban also is odd given the fact it didn't effect most Muslims by a very large margin,

Well I mean not the ones in countries Trump has business ties to.

and ICE agents going after illegal immigrants isn't "arresting and detaining Mexican American citizens", it's "arresting and detaining Mexican citizens" in accordance with the law.

Often through use of excessive force and violence. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/07/29/u-s-police-chiefs-blast-trump-for-endorsing-police-brutality/?utm_term=.3920b267155d

Which by definition is NOT lawful.

Like it or not there are 14 million illegal immigrants in the US (just over half of whom are from Mexico) and there's no justification for allowing them to stay,

Also no justification for brutally beating them and even shooting them or ripping them and their families (including children born into America) out of their homes and back to a country they have no connnection to. A lot of these people came to America as really small children and lived their entire lives in America. That's a justification to let them stay because if you have lived in America for twenty of your twenty four years of life I'd say you have more connection to America then to Mexico.

other then to slap legal immigrants in the face and call them morons for going through the hard process of earning one's way into being allowed in.

You know legal migrants get bullshit handed to them as well right? Joe Arpaio targeted plenty of legal migrans in his crackdowns too. And legal immigration can be such a difficult and convoluted minefield with so much stacked against you. People who immigrate illegally often don't have a choice. http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/undocumented-mexicans_n_5709141

Hey I think we just found Trump's 2020 slogan.

Well is did describe Clinton's campaign so I suppose it's likely whoever he goes against in 2020 will do the same.

"I won't cause a nuclear apocalypse with a tweet."

Also seriously the senator races pretty much showed that even in purple or red states they are starting to come around to democrats precisely because of all the Nazi shit.

Look at Gillespie, ran like Trump and lost bad to a demoncrat.

I don't, I look at the big picture instead of looking at incidents and extrapolating that to mean it's the rule.

No you don't.

Also, why are Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin on that list? Not really helping your cause when a criminal who was shot in a justifiable act and someone who beat a man half to death

Trayvon Martin looked suspicious and Michael Brown punched a man. Hardly justification for DEATH.

before being shot by that man (and who had the prosecution of the case against that man found to have hidden evidence of the man's innocence).

Yeah your right, Michael Brown did steal some cigars and shove a guy. Guess he deserved to die. And Trayvon Martin had the audacity to buy skittles while being black and got into a confrontation with a guy who held him at gunpoint because he 'looked suspicious'.

BLM loves to hold these two up, and the wonder why people think they're full of it. Then again outside of Tamir Rice I can't think of any names BLM pushes that where innocent, and even that case was a situation where the outcome was the only logical one given the mistakes made by Rice.

Just because a person is not strictly speaking 'innocent' of any crime at all doesn't mean they deserved to be shot and killed. Shoplifting is not an offense worthy of death!
Again 'due process' is still a thing is it not? We aren't quite at fascist police state level yet where police are also on the spot executioners. Though again it kind of sounds like you want that to be the case.

Then maybe black communities should stop demanding "tough on crime" police and the war on drugs should come to an end.

Or maybe the police in those areas could actually stop wasting time on petty drug busts and small timers and actually go after the bigger suppliers or something?

Well so far he's taken down 'tent city' gotten rid of the chain gangs and actually seems interested in due process more then just 'your brown, get in prison'. Also again Arpaio actively refused to investigate over 400 cases of sex crimes occurring in his jurisdiction so I fail to see how even at his best Arpaio was actually in any way helping his community.

Given how he's openly allowing the source of much of the crime and violent crime in the area to keep going on account of the criminals committing them being allowed to go unimpeded (a policy he ran on and somehow won in the only election in the entire state that reflected the polls taken before it) colour me shocked that crime hasn't gone down in the area.

Then again the "fuck borders, violent criminals in now!" mentality wouldn't exactly help crime go down even if he bothered to fight it.

You have a source for that right? And I'm sorry but given the choice between being lax and letting people in Jails (not prisons there is supposed to be a substantial difference between the two) die owing to extreme head and negligence as well as direct racial profiling I know where I put myself. It's really hard not to look at this as you justifying Arpaio's pardon as well as his crimes right?

Just because you're so far left that you think Trump is an extremist doesn't change where the rest of society stands.

I live in Australia. Our politics are a bit different granted but I can still spot an extremist when I see one.
Literally every morning of late I wake up, surprised slightly that I am indeed awake and that there is still a world outside. Because every day I see Trump push Earth closer and closer to Armageddon with his twitter feud with Kim Jong Un.
Like I said before after Trump I actually have to rethink my position of what I used to consider extreme right wing. Fuck I actually feel nostalgic for George W. He was dumb and extreme in a way that was almost charming in hindsight. Trump is a fucking loon.

And I'm not far left, there is plenty of stuff on the left that I don't like. But that's a topic for another time.

And here's some sources:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/black-captors-torture-white-victim-rant-against-trump-cpd-says/[/quote]

Wow, golly gosh.
Like two whole sources. Man I guess Antifa is just running riots in the street and devouring helpless conservative children left right and center right?
I mean I only have over forty different examples of Trump supporters committing violent crimes directly in the NAME of Trump, guess I should just hide away. I'm sure the guy who deliberately swerved his car to attempt to hit a group of black schoolchildren after calling them N*ggers and declaring that Donald Trump was going to get rid of them all was just an innocent concerned citizen and there is nothing to be worried about Trump's message that I could find literally scores of examples of Trump supporters performing violent racist and misogynistic acts means nothing in the face of literally ONE video and ONE article you managed to find.
What was that you always say? That politicians shouldn't be concerned about white terrorists since they are "statistically" less likely. Well I guess Antifa isn't a big deal in the face of vigilante mobs literally hunting down artists and brutally beating them or assaulting comedians on stage.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize literal terrorists who've been vandalising and assaulting people in my city for a decade now despite no sign of the type of people they claim to be against existing out here needed to have some deeper justification to dislike, and that your copy-paste of a list taken straight from a far left hate subreddit needed to be countered.

I have provided you forty different examples of exactly the kind of people 'Antifa' (a mindset I don't support btw) opposes and your response has just been to dismiss them off hand.

The news sources themselves aren't tainted by the stink of 'leftist dogma' or whatever. So maybe instead of constantly whining about where they came from you can actually address them directly? Your insistence not to, the 'fake news' defense, is very weak.

Did you know that if I took every single case of black on black homicide in the US last year and listed them all I couldn't post it in a single post due to the character limit?

Did you know that wouldn't in any way take away from the fact that far right violence is directly involved with Trump's campaign and you have failed to even come close to presenting as many examples as I have?
Black on Black crime is both a much more complex issue then just 'de blacks be violent yo' which is the stance you're clearly on board with but that's for a different part of this conversation.

It's also funny how of all those news stories the only one the far left loves to focus on is the white woman who may have been a case of manslaughter.

If that piece of shit who deliberately sped up his car and rammed it at full speed towards a group of counter protestors, so hard and so fast that multiple people were thrown several feet into the air and Heather Heyer was killed by blunt force trauma (not a heart attack as the parasites keep claiming) manages to get away with manslaughter.
Then that's white privilege.
I'm sorry but a brown guy named Ali would already be incarcerated by now and you would be calling for his head.

And they love to focus on that one because its the most recent! Before then there was Dylan Roof.

Or we can talk about the time three white guys raped a black guy with a coathanger and the judge didn't want to sentence them too harshly because he didn't want to ruin their lives by forcing them (the rapists) to have to be sex offenders?

Got a source on this one? Because I'm legitimately amazed you'd brink up examples before that don't help your case but one that did would be ignored. Or is this a case of another thing from 50 years ago that would be rightfully dismissed out of hand if I saw where it came from?

See I actually already linked it in my very first post on this thread (you know which I quoted you in so you have no excuse not to have seen it). Hurts my feelings to know you didn't even read that.
But still here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/football-player-hanger-assault-avoid-prison_us_585ac1d0e4b0eb586484dd02
And yes it was in the far away distance time of 2016.

I mean for fuck sake you pretend police shooting blacks is a major issue when even the lowest estimate put 90% of such incidents as justified ones done against criminals

Where is your GOD DAMNED source? 90% is an absurdly high rate of agreement. And according to you that's the lowest percentage. Like seriously if it's that universally agreed upon there wouldn't even BE movements like black lives matter.

and the total number regardless of innocence or guilt is marginal compared to black-on-black homicide (not that I'm surprised, black lives only matter when a white man takes it it would seem).

Because when a white man does take them, he usually gets away with it. That's what is at the core of Black Lives Matter. That a black teenagers life should be worth more then some trigger happy cops reputation.

Holy shit that's one low opinion you hold of blacks.

Okay seriously stop calling them 'blacks'. Try African Americans.

It's their fucking culture and I've been saying this for years now, not that I'd expect someone who only started reading my posts yesterday to be aware of that but holy shit the projection and racist implications of that projection are... actually to be expected of the modern far left now that I think about it.

You understand I was being sarcastic right? Okay you can not be that dumb.

Fun fact Here is a list of American cities that are predominantly black and have lower crimes rates then the national average:
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ny/elmont/crime
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/md/fort-washington/crimehttps://www.neighborhoodscout.com/va/stafford-courthouse/crime
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/va/stafford-courthouse/crime

All predominantly African American, all essentially parts of 'black culture' yet with lowered crime rates. Almost like there's more to crime rates then merely black people existing.

Because things like the ghetto and urban crime are able to get out of hand owing to population density and poverty. Combined with lack of access to proper education and the prevalence of drugs in the inner cities as well as poor efforts by police as is the case in Chicago according to at least one report: https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/925846/download all factor into causing black crime rates.
Saying 'it's just their culture' is really only one step above saying 'its their biology' and since pretty much every fascist actually believes the latter while dogwhistling it as the former my sarcastic comment kind of cut through the core of your argument to see the gooey center.

I don't think you know what an anomaly is, because not only am I not acting like they're an anomaly, you're the one doing just that. In fact I and others have specifically pointed out the only anomaly for mass shootings are Asians. Whites are slightly less likely to commit mass shootings based on demographic make up of the country, blacks slightly more (but neither is outside what would be expected), Hispanics significantly less likely (an anomaly) and Asians specifically more likely (another anomaly).

Yet still literal tonnes of people got shot by white people not only this year, but last year, the year before that and the year before that and so on.

As much as I hate the war on drugs I'd like to point out that it was black democrats who pushed for it the hardest and that the black community keeps voting for people who promise to take a tough on crime approach.

Source?

It may have failed but there's a reason why it goes on.

Yeah it's called the Southern Strategy.

Yet you don't see the same result between the two, and this is made clear when you look at the homicide rate by race and notice that whites and Hispanics (who are placed in the same demographic box for it) are in line with Canada's homicide rate as well as many other first world nations.

Anders Brevik called 'Call of Duty' his 'training simulator. I think toxic masculinity is real and it effects white people just in a different way.

You quote a bunch of mined soundbites (one of which was from MCNBC, a news outlet so bad even the Clintons call it out as unreliable) and ContraPoint?

With sources like that I wonder if even liberals make it into your recommendation feed.

*Headdesk*

DO YOU DENY THAT DONALD TRUMP SAID THOSE GOD DAMNED WORDS?!

That is video footage of Donald Trump openly endorsing and advocating violence against protestors at his rallies. Regardless of if the source was MSNBC, CNN, FOX, ABC or even just a grimy handicam being operated by a registered sex offender it MAKES NO DIFFERENCE because it is still video footage of the man HIMSELF saying those words.
That is my source. Donald Trump's mouth!

Unless you would like to argue that wasn't Donald Trump? Maybe it was Hillary in cunning disguise? Perhaps it was a brilliantly lifelife animatronic puppet that someone was operating in the background? Maybe Donald Trump has an evil clone and he's been getting all the news coverage while the good wholesome Donald Trump you support is just trying to do right by people? Or maybe it's just those pesky reptilians again?

Or maybe you know he said those things and rather then acknowledge that he said those things you want to bitch about the sources who point out that he said those things.
In that case dude you'd probably sleep better at night if you just admitted that he said those things. Denial at this point is kind of amazing.

GOP Senator shooter guy got no one.
The Portland guy got two people but he had changed his stance and went from supporting Bernie to Trump

So he changed his stance... yet none of the outlets that would have loved nothing more then that reported it... and he went on a spree... because he'd won.[/quote]

I think we're talking about two different people. I'm talking about the guy who stabbed two people on a train because they looked Muslim. He was by all accounts a far right nutjob who did support Bernie but switched allegience to Trump after Trump won. Thought from what I can tell he also wanted to kill Trump and Hillary.... I dunno you can't rationalize that level of crazy.

Source?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers

Was off, turns out it was 6, not 8.[/quote]

Okay I'll grant you that one.

But also get this the Vegas shooter? Loved Trump

Yeah and the Sandy Hook shooter supported Obama, what's your point? I doubt that Sandy Hook was done because of the fact what's-his-face supported Obama, and the Vegas shooting makes no sense if it was done because that guy supported Trump.

I know there's no reason I just find it funny because all the usual alt right sources were scrambling to find a way to make that guy Antifa and it turned out no actually he was a trumpster.
That said the Vegas Shooting does actually seem to have been done specifically because the guy was bonkers and since he's dead we may never actually know a motive. And hell his motive could have been 'I need to shoot people because I saw the devil in my cereal that morning'.
Hence why I support gun control.

Uh, what? You've brought it up once and I didn't think it was worth responding to because, well it's pretty fucking self evident why I wouldn't take issue with saying that Nazis are bad when it's a case of them being actual Nazis (which, for reference, is only about 5% of the time when it comes to the modern far left claiming someone is a Nazis, for fuck sake conservative Jews are being accused of being Nazis now).

You say that but I see you repeating their talking points over and over again and constantly making excuses for them and even in the face of genuine examples of white right wing terrorism you immediately try to shift the blame to Antifa, which is the perfect escape tactic that fascists use all the time.

You're worried about me for not defending a small group of assholes

Several hundred thousand strong?

to instead focus on a larger group of assholes who have media support, have members of the government who support them, have rich assholes financially supporting them,

What you mean the alt right? Excused by fox news, have their own media network and echo chamber of support and who the God Damned president had to be pressured to call them out by name?

who attack people in my city regularly in the name of stopping acts that they are the only ones committing in my city,

Source? Not that I don't believe you but I can't find anything on the subject.

who in Boston saw a group of hippies, BLM supporters and an Indian American Democratic politician get together for a free speech rally and said "you see that example of a free liberal democracy? We need to show up at it outnumbering them literally 100 to 1".

Because people see through the bullshit now and see a 'Free Speech Rally' as what it actually was. This rally came after Charlottesville, where the whole world got a glimpse of what happens when these people are allowed to congregate in huge numbers and rally. People get hurt or even killed. Sure maybe these guys are 'Alt Lite' and not 'Alt Right' but as I have said many times, fascists love to conceal their true intentions and since 'Free Speech rallies' have been used as a dogwhistle for Nazi meetups before it's not surprising that in the wake of that people responded badly. It wasn't opposition of 'Free Speech' anymore then these stupid 'it's okay to be white' flyers is evidence of Anti White sentiment. It was because after Charlottesville people recognized the dogwhistles and knew exactly where they were coming from.
Again you say you aren't one of them and you condemn them but you keep making excuses for them.

There's no deflection towards Antifa, the mentality behind it and the acts by it and its supporters is what's led to a small fringe of neo-Nazis coming about in the first place.

"It's not the Nazis fault they're nazis. It's Antifa's fault they're nazis! Why aren't we focusing exclusively on Antifa?"

That is what a deflection looks like.

Some may lie that it's the other way around but given how that implies that neo-Nazis have access to time travel and one neo-Nazi is as dangerous as a hundred far left terrorists, unless someone can prove that it is the case (a ludicrously tall order that has yet to be accomplished by anyone, which is why it's only believed by the religious left) I'll focus on the ones who are significantly more likely to beat the living shit out of me for existing.

Well I mean like technically the first case of Antifa fighting Nazis was you know... World War 2.

But more broadly do you have a reliable source that 'Antifa' actually predates all modern forms of Neo-Nazism or is this another moment for an awkward pause.

That's the thing about self interest, if something is more likely to be a threat to you, you focus on it more.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm never responding to your posts again if they're so long it'll take over an hour to properly do so. Holy shit is this a waste of time that isn't worth it.

Hey how the fuck do you think I feel.

Goodbye farewell our feet are saying goodbye.

Seanchaidh:

Whiteness is a social construct invented to subjugate others. It is inherently supremacist. So, whiteness is not OK. Having lighter skin is fine, though.

No. This is the sophist's argument for "intellectually grounded" racism. You can't treat "whiteness" in isolation of people who can't help but physically manifest it, since it pretty clearly refers to having a lighter skin, and you can't treat it in isolation of its counterparts in differentiation ("Black and Brown Bodies" etc.) It's not just the failure of the vulgar masses to make the distinction, but in fact a basic feature of thinking that can't be overcome by even the most rigorous cognitive contortionism.

I think someone mentioned Hegel in passing in one of the extended harangues I prefer to just lightly skim for signs of substance. Apropos of that, we may want to consider that the basic principles of the "dialectic" as understood in idealistic terms are that a thesis produces an implicit antithesis merely by being formulated, and the contradiction can only be transcended by a synthesis between them, not by some misguided attempt to forcefully remove one side. "Lighter-skinned" people can't have a conceptual void where "darker-skinned" ones have a "blackness" or a "latinx-ity" or some such formulation, especially since this is at present held to be a salient point in their ontological status. I'm not saying it would be wrong, I'm saying it is impossible. So there is no feasible way to reject such a "social construct" while maintaining a "racial consciousness" in any shape or form, and it's hard to see how we could suddenly become unconscious of the idea.

To say "whiteness" was "invented" is an extreme of subjective constructionism that I'm not willing to endorse, as it seems it was already there as a result of a particular evolutionary path and was simply seized on for purposes of broadly political generalizations. That is, there were latent, natural qualities that were reified into an artificial principle. If we truly wanted to disconnect the natural fact from the artificial principle, we should maybe pursue the sane option of stopping the hysterically insistent re-reification process of whatever valence we are currently engaging in when we spout off about the imagines properties of capitalized "Whiteness".

Edit: Might as well address a couple of other points I'm seeing repeated on this thread.

First, meritocracy. It's not a "myth", nor is it something that truly exists as a functioning system anywhere that I'm aware of. What it is is an aspiration, a principle to work towards, despite the inherent corruptibility of human organizations. To dismiss the ideal as a delusion or an outright deception is to cynically settle for collectivist entitlement that undermines both whatever positive incentives there are for excellence and the emotional rewards of achievement, as well as the fundamental purpose of work itself: to produce something.

Secondly, many of the current applications of Affirmative Action are in fact grotesque perversions of the very purpose it was enacted for in the first place. As I understand it, the idea was to enable people from traditionally deprived demographics to gain positions that had been denied them due to prejudice and lack of means. However, what seems to be happening a lot is that elite educational institutions simply create parallel tracks to formal qualifications for people of preferred groups, thereby debasing their own certification authority in a way that is not missed by those who ostensibly benefit from the process. This happens not just by enforcing different admission standards, but nowadays even by the founding of entire new "academic" disciplines to cater to various identity groups by fetishization, encouraging them to perform a "consciousness" of "oppression" instead of training them for such high level thinking as the "liberal arts" have traditionally claimed to advance. These kind of Participation Degrees only escalate the resentments of the students unable to either acknowledge or fully deny the disrespect inherent in such low expectations, so that their lashing out against the standards of established fields intensifies to the point of demands for "decolonization" of even the sciences.

The real problem is much too serious to be fixed by cosmetic measures at the age of college admission. If we're not going to go #FullRacist and imply different "races" are incapable of similar levels of performance, we need to face the fact of the conditions of impoverished children of all colors (those privileged rural whites of Nowork County, man!), which include malnutrition, awful schools and unstable family situations (of various causes, including the need of parents to work several jobs in order to provide some food on the table), probably leading to a deep cultural pessimism and alienation not helped by exaggerated and melodramatic claims of racial oppression. You can't just take a kid like that, tell them not to worry about "colonialist" skill sets and just act out their rage, then hand them a degree and expect good adjustment. But this massive problem would require extraordinary effort and resources to address, so by all means let's keep superficially signalling our love for the Oppressed of the Correct Color and our implacable enmity of those of the Wrong one.

StatusNil:

Seanchaidh:

Whiteness is a social construct invented to subjugate others. It is inherently supremacist. So, whiteness is not OK. Having lighter skin is fine, though.

No. This is the sophist's argument for "intellectually grounded" racism. You can't treat "whiteness" in isolation of people who can't help but physically manifest it

Pale skin is not what I'm talking about.

Seanchaidh:

Pale skin is not what I'm talking about.

I know, but as I said, you cannot "disentangle" (as we used to say back in the day) pale skin from the "thing" you are talking about.

Anyway, I ran out and fetched a quote from someone else in order to maybe clarify what I'm driving at a little. It's by an Arendt, though not the respected intellectual Susan Arendt, but rather by someone called Hannah. There were in fact a great many relevant quotable passages by this person just an Internet search away, but since we're talking "Whiteness", here's the one I picked this time:

"As far as the Jews were concerned, the transformation of the "crime" of Judaism into the fashionable "vice" of Jewishness was dangerous in the extreme. Jews had been able to escape from Judaism into conversion; from Jewishness there was no escape. A crime, moreover, is met with punishment; a vice can only be exterminated."

-The Origins of Totalitarianism

No doubt many entertain the suspicion that I'm cherrypicking this out of a vast work that would totally support their knee-jerk conformism to rhetorical fashions if read in its entirety. So I invite any and all to study this text at their leisure, with the caveat not to treat it as a "How-To" manual, like some readers treat 1984.

StatusNil:

Seanchaidh:

Pale skin is not what I'm talking about.

I know, but as I said, you cannot "disentangle" (as we used to say back in the day) pale skin from the "thing" you are talking about.

They're in completely different categories, so they can in fact be prised apart. Allow me to demonstrate:

One is a phenotype. The other is a bundle of social statuses and privileges roughly associated with people who present that phenotype. The former is fine. Pale skin is an arbitrary characteristic, like green eyes or curly hair. The latter is not. Whiteness is a collection of systematic differences in how human beings are situated or treated which rests on an explicitly racist justification. Making whiteness a socially meaningful component of identity was done in order to justify treating others as second class citizens (or worse). And it's funny, it didn't start very well identified with the pale skin phenotype-- Irish, Italians, and Jews (and others, this is not in any sense an exhaustive list) all had to "become" white despite already being pale. If advocates of race pseudoscience and the inventors of whiteness were able to "disentangle" pale skin from whiteness before it was even entangled in the first place, we can manage it.

Seanchaidh:

They're in completely different categories, so they can in fact be prised apart. Allow me to demonstrate:

One is a phenotype. The other is a bundle of social statuses and privileges roughly associated with people who present that phenotype. The former is fine. Pale skin is an arbitrary characteristic, like green eyes or curly hair. The latter is not. Whiteness is a collection of systematic differences in how human beings are situated or treated which rests on an explicitly racist justification. Making whiteness a socially meaningful component of identity was done in order to justify treating others as second class citizens (or worse). And it's funny, it didn't start very well identified with the pale skin phenotype-- Irish, Italians, and Jews (and others, this is not in any sense an exhaustive list) all had to "become" white despite already being pale. If advocates of race pseudoscience and the inventors of whiteness were able to "disentangle" pale skin from whiteness before it was even entangled in the first place, we can manage it.

I believe I already addressed this argument in my original reply, with sincere and complete doubt if memory serves. I don't think there is anything I could add as the kind of person who would never invoke vulgar analogies involving, say, beer and the bartender's urine for cheap amusement. That is, until such a time as you can provide a clear, practical model for achieving this feat of selective cognitive separation, on a societal level no less.

Practically speaking it's human nature to want to be in the majority, and there will never be equality or at least equal representation because it's an irrational pipe dream. The world is too big and geographically diverse for everyone to be "the same", even by cultural standards let alone physiological. The sooner we acknowledge that the better suited we'll be to finding actual best case compromises.

Will minority-controlled governments and societies grant the same privileges and patronage to whites when they're the minority? White people better hope so, because little by little that's where it's headed.

StatusNil:
I believe I already addressed this argument in my original reply, with sincere and complete doubt if memory serves.

Doubt is an attitude, not an argument.

hanselthecaretaker:

Will minority-controlled governments and societies grant the same privileges and patronage to whites when they're the minority? White people better hope so, because little by little that's where it's headed.

Yeah, those folks saying that minority's aren't actually disadvantaged better hope that's actually the case.

hanselthecaretaker:
actual best case compromises.

*cough*

Anti-capitalist egalitarian politics, not segregation, is the clear answer.

StatusNil:
You can't treat "whiteness" in isolation of people who can't help but physically manifest it, since it pretty clearly refers to having a lighter skin, and you can't treat it in isolation of its counterparts in differentiation ("Black and Brown Bodies" etc.) It's not just the failure of the vulgar masses to make the distinction, but in fact a basic feature of thinking that can't be overcome by even the most rigorous cognitive contortionism.

Sure, but whiteness isn't only having light skin. If it was, it would genuinely be meaningless. As pointless as pointing out that someone has lobed or unlobed ears. "Whiteness" is the organizing principle by which people with light skin are assumed to be the same in certain ways partly because they have light skin, despite the fact that in reality there is no reason to make that assumption at all. Whiteness, for example, references a person's heredity by which their whiteness has been transmitted, thus it references the historical conditions in which their ancestors, those who passed on their whiteness to their children, lived including the historical power relations which existed between those individuals and others. Whiteness in a racist society references a social position, not a skin colour. In short, whiteness is the means by which having light skin is bound up in a history of European supremacy and the racialized thinking which that supremacy imposed upon the world.

So, on that basis we can draw a very easy distinction between the physical possession of light skin and whiteness as the commodified meaning ascribed to having white skin. No evidence exists to demonstrate that people with particular skin colours are in any way inherently predisposed to be different from each other (or that those with similar skin colours are predisposed to be the same). Thus, having light skin cannot really be good or bad, what it is is meaningless. Whiteness, however, isn't meaningless.

StatusNil:
"Lighter-skinned" people can't have a conceptual void where "darker-skinned" ones have a "blackness" or a "latinx-ity" or some such formulation, especially since this is at present held to be a salient point in their ontological status.

In a very literal sense, sure, but in reality ontological statuses can be contextually marked or unmarked. For example, I don't have smallpox. Noone in the world, as far as we know, currently has smallpox as the last recorded case was decades ago. However, people without smallpox can't have a conceptual void where people with smallpox have smallpox. Now, since if I did have smallpox it would be quite important, one can assume it's equally important for me that I don't since those are the only two possible states and I must be one or the other, and yet I don't ever feel compelled to talk about how I don't have smallpox outside of this example. I don't even think about the fact that I don't have smallpox. If I did, I'd probably talk and think about it a lot more.

The reason is that not having smallpox is a presumed property of any hypothetical human subject, whereas having smallpox is a deviation of that normal hypothetical person from the expected model of how a human should function. In racial taxonomy, any form of non-whiteness tends to function as a marked category, it's the thing that says something about people and thus is a relevant modifier to their status as human beings. By contrast, it is very seldom relevant to say that a person is white save to make visible the particular nature of a form of embodied experience which is usually taken as general or as "normal" for human beings.

StatusNil:
To say "whiteness" was "invented" is an extreme of subjective constructionism that I'm not willing to endorse, as it seems it was already there as a result of a particular evolutionary path and was simply seized on for purposes of broadly political generalizations.

There are different ethnic groups living in Africa today who refer to each other as "white" and "black" despite both being "black" in our racial taxonomy. "Whiteness" was never a neutral description of skin colour, and even if it was it is an inaccurate description. No human being, save perhaps the very very sick or the dead, is actually "white".

The thing is, social constructions are not "unreal", they are not necessarily lies or illusions. They can be attempts to describe an empirically observable reality which, as far as we know, very literally exists, they are still constructed through the imposition of meaning onto those empirical phenomena, and the rejection or cutting out of alternative or "irrelevant" meaning.

In this sense, "whiteness" was invented at the point where having light skin began to signify something beyond merely having light skin. There are a bunch of theories as to when this was, in fact I would guess that whiteness has probably been invented and reinvented many, many times in many different contexts. One possibility is in post-reconquista Spain and the persecution of the Moriscos, former Muslims and Jews who converted to Christianity to avoid being expelled (and were often suspected of being insincere or practising their former faith in secret). This lead to a conflation of having darker skin with being potentially non-Christian or subversive, and because Morsicos would obviously claim to be Christians, it came to function as evidence in and of itself of something being wrong with a person. "Whiteness", by contrast, showed an unblemished European ancestry and thus served as an assurance of Christianity in and of itself.

There were forms of proto-racism in the classical and medieval world, but they generally amounted to repetitions of ancient Greek climatic and dietary determinism. That is to say, Greeks believed that people from the North made good slaves not because they had light skin, but because they came from a cold climate which cooled their vital humours and made them naturally docile and effeminate. There's no concept that a person is fundamentally different because they have light skin, except that it often marks them out as a foreigner or a person from a different environment.

Seanchaidh:

StatusNil:

Seanchaidh:

Whiteness is a social construct invented to subjugate others. It is inherently supremacist. So, whiteness is not OK. Having lighter skin is fine, though.

No. This is the sophist's argument for "intellectually grounded" racism. You can't treat "whiteness" in isolation of people who can't help but physically manifest it

Pale skin is not what I'm talking about.

Then why use the word "Whiteness"? To help you understand what others and I are thinking off, take the feminist term "toxic masculinity".
Pretend you've never heard that term before. Pretend someone is saying it to you for the first time. Now, what's the line of thinking that forms in your brain? I'm going to guess here that you might think "Masculinity is toxic, according to this person".
Oh no no no, says the other person. I'm not saying that! So you ask them to clarify, and they will rattle off a list of behaviours that are and get this...not exclusive to men, as in women can do these (perceived to be) negative behaviours as well.
My response to all that is to ask why use the term "toxic masculinity"? Why be against this list of behaviours and yet use a term that strongly suggests it is a set of behaviours restricted to one gender and one gender only? Why does that person use the term "toxic masculinity" if they honestly are not attempting to raise a bias against men?

So I ask you when you speak against whatever it is you mean by the term "whiteness", why it is you use that word? If you honestly think its okay to have pale skin, why be against whatever lies behind the term "whiteness" and yet still use that word? What is it other people are most likely to think of you, when they hear/read you speaking out against "whiteness"?
Wouldn't it seem the height of racism for a hypothetical person to speak out against something he calls "Blackism", but to insist that having black skin is fine? Wouldn't you think that person to be a racist?

evilthecat:

StatusNil:
You can't treat "whiteness" in isolation of people who can't help but physically manifest it, since it pretty clearly refers to having a lighter skin, and you can't treat it in isolation of its counterparts in differentiation ("Black and Brown Bodies" etc.) It's not just the failure of the vulgar masses to make the distinction, but in fact a basic feature of thinking that can't be overcome by even the most rigorous cognitive contortionism.

Sure, but whiteness isn't only having light skin. If it was, it would genuinely be meaningless. As pointless as pointing out that someone has lobed or unlobed ears. "Whiteness" is the organizing principle by which people with light skin are assumed to be the same in certain ways partly because they have light skin, despite the fact that in reality there is no reason to make that assumption at all. Whiteness, for example, references a person's heredity by which their whiteness has been transmitted, thus it references the historical conditions in which their ancestors, those who passed on their whiteness to their children, lived including the historical power relations which existed between those individuals and others. Whiteness in a racist society references a social position, not a skin colour. In short, whiteness is the means by which having light skin is bound up in a history of European supremacy and the racialized thinking which that supremacy imposed upon the world.

So, on that basis we can draw a very easy distinction between the physical possession of light skin and whiteness as the commodified meaning ascribed to having white skin. No evidence exists to demonstrate that people with particular skin colours are in any way inherently predisposed to be different from each other (or that those with similar skin colours are predisposed to be the same). Thus, having light skin cannot really be good or bad, what it is is meaningless. Whiteness, however, isn't meaningless.

StatusNil:
"Lighter-skinned" people can't have a conceptual void where "darker-skinned" ones have a "blackness" or a "latinx-ity" or some such formulation, especially since this is at present held to be a salient point in their ontological status.

In a very literal sense, sure, but in reality ontological statuses can be contextually marked or unmarked. For example, I don't have smallpox. Noone in the world, as far as we know, currently has smallpox as the last recorded case was decades ago. However, people without smallpox can't have a conceptual void where people with smallpox have smallpox. Now, since if I did have smallpox it would be quite important, one can assume it's equally important for me that I don't since those are the only two possible states and I must be one or the other, and yet I don't ever feel compelled to talk about how I don't have smallpox outside of this example. I don't even think about the fact that I don't have smallpox. If I did, I'd probably talk and think about it a lot more.

The reason is that not having smallpox is a presumed property of any hypothetical human subject, whereas having smallpox is a deviation of that normal hypothetical person from the expected model of how a human should function. In racial taxonomy, any form of non-whiteness tends to function as a marked category, it's the thing that says something about people and thus is a relevant modifier to their status as human beings. By contrast, it is very seldom relevant to say that a person is white save to make visible the particular nature of a form of embodied experience which is usually taken as general or as "normal" for human beings.

StatusNil:
To say "whiteness" was "invented" is an extreme of subjective constructionism that I'm not willing to endorse, as it seems it was already there as a result of a particular evolutionary path and was simply seized on for purposes of broadly political generalizations.

There are different ethnic groups living in Africa today who refer to each other as "white" and "black" despite both being "black" in our racial taxonomy. "Whiteness" was never a neutral description of skin colour, and even if it was it is an inaccurate description. No human being, save perhaps the very very sick or the dead, is actually "white".

The thing is, social constructions are not "unreal", they are not necessarily lies or illusions. They can be attempts to describe an empirically observable reality which, as far as we know, very literally exists, they are still constructed through the imposition of meaning onto those empirical phenomena, and the rejection or cutting out of alternative or "irrelevant" meaning.

In this sense, "whiteness" was invented at the point where having light skin began to signify something beyond merely having light skin. There are a bunch of theories as to when this was, in fact I would guess that whiteness has probably been invented and reinvented many, many times in many different contexts. One possibility is in post-reconquista Spain and the persecution of the Moriscos, former Muslims and Jews who converted to Christianity to avoid being expelled (and were often suspected of being insincere or practising their former faith in secret). This lead to a conflation of having darker skin with being potentially non-Christian or subversive, and because Morsicos would obviously claim to be Christians, it came to function as evidence in and of itself of something being wrong with a person. "Whiteness", by contrast, showed an unblemished European ancestry and thus served as an assurance of Christianity in and of itself.

There were forms of proto-racism in the classical and medieval world, but they generally amounted to repetitions of ancient Greek climatic and dietary determinism. That is to say, Greeks believed that people from the North made good slaves not because they had light skin, but because they came from a cold climate which cooled their vital humours and made them naturally docile and effeminate. There's no concept that a person is fundamentally different because they have light skin, except that it often marks them out as a foreigner or a person from a different environment.

Sure, but whiteness isn't only having light skin.

Okay, but isn't this racism? Isn't this seeing a person with white skin, and then, in your mind, attaching all sorts of baggage onto them?

"Whiteness" is the organizing principle by which people with light skin are assumed to be the same in certain ways partly because they have light skin, despite the fact that in reality there is no reason to make that assumption at all.

I find you saying this to be strange, because surely this is something that I and others who are against the entire concept of "whiteness" being a thing to say, and yet straight after this sentence, you go on to justify assuming people with white skin to be the same in certain ways.

Whiteness, for example, references a person's heredity by which their whiteness has been transmitted, thus it references the historical conditions in which their ancestors, those who passed on their whiteness to their children, lived including the historical power relations which existed between those individuals and others.

See what I mean? You see a person with white skin, and immediately, in your mind, you assume that person to have inherited some sort of power over non-white people, that their own direct ancestors had a historical power base over non-white people.
I ask you though - how is it you know this for a fact of that white person you see? I'm a white person, is this assumption of yours justified? What do you know about me?

Whiteness in a racist society references a social position, not a skin colour.

So why then, just up above did you say ""Whiteness" is the organizing principle by which people with light skin..."
If "Whiteness" now does NOT reference a skin colour, why reference a skin colour at all when talking about it?

In short, whiteness is the means by which having light skin is bound up in a history of European supremacy and the racialized thinking which that supremacy imposed upon the world.

What if the white person you see is NOT European? What if the white person you are talking to has never been to Europe, holds little to no interest in Europe? Do you still think all this of that person? Still think of that white person as somehow being caught up in "a history of European supremacy"? If yes, how is this NOT being racist, in that you are being biased against a person for their skin colour and what their hypothetical ancestors may have done?

So, on that basis we can draw a very easy distinction between the physical possession of light skin and whiteness as the commodified meaning ascribed to having white skin.

Apologies, but most, if not all, of what you wrote prior to this actually supports this assertion. You are no doubt aware, on at least some level of your conciousness, that prejudging someone negatively when the only thing you know about them is their skin colour is bad. Which is why, at least in my eyes, you are writing this and attempting to frame what you are doing as somehow NOT prejudging someone based on their skin colour.
Yet, what you have written in the opening paragraph of Post #130 is literally nothing more than prejudging someone based on their skin colour. You say that white people are judged, by their skin colour, to have inherited some sort of quote unquote original sin of "European supremacy" and a power difference over non-whites.
Now, try and think about this. You and others are no doubt trying to fight against this "whiteness", you see it as a Bad Thing (tm) in society. How do you identify someone who typifies "whiteness"? Try and answer that for me, WITHOUT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM REFERENCING SKIN COLOUR.

By contrast, it is very seldom relevant to say that a person is white save to make visible the particular nature of a form of embodied experience which is usually taken as general or as "normal" for human beings.

There is a viral video on Youtube, I'm going to see about linking it here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i6J2fcrKi8
You've probably seen it before. In modern society, in those who are attacking "whiteness", simply having white skin is now synonymous with being racist, EVEN IF YOU'VE BEEN WORKING AGAINST RACISM. This is what the quote unquote "anti-racists" on the ground are thinking.

There are different ethnic groups living in Africa today who refer to each other as "white" and "black" despite both being "black" in our racial taxonomy. "Whiteness" was never a neutral description of skin colour, and even if it was it is an inaccurate description. No human being, save perhaps the very very sick or the dead, is actually "white".

So if the word "white" does not reference colour, why use it? What if I prefer to refer to myself as white? Am I to take it then that you think of me as being "very very sick or dead"?

In this sense, "whiteness" was invented at the point where having light skin began to signify something beyond merely having light skin. There are a bunch of theories as to when this was, in fact I would guess that whiteness has probably been invented and reinvented many, many times in many different contexts. One possibility is in post-reconquista Spain and the persecution of the Moriscos, former Muslims and Jews who converted to Christianity to avoid being expelled (and were often suspected of being insincere or practising their former faith in secret). This lead to a conflation of having darker skin with being potentially non-Christian or subversive, and because Morsicos would obviously claim to be Christians, it came to function as evidence in and of itself of something being wrong with a person. "Whiteness", by contrast, showed an unblemished European ancestry and thus served as an assurance of Christianity in and of itself.

...I'm sorry but are you attempting to say that in those societies, in those time periods, a person of darker skin who is being mistreated because wider society views people of his skin colour as being non-Christian would say "I'm actually white!" and somehow, wider society would stop and say to each other "You know what...he is. He's a Christian, if he's White (tm), he has an unblemished European ancestry"? They'd ignore what their eyes are telling them and immediately lump him in with their fellow white people?

Are you or are you not referring to skin colour? I honestly can't tell with you. On the one hand, you are, then you go off to say you aren't.

That is to say, Greeks believed that people from the North made good slaves not because they had light skin, but because they came from a cold climate which cooled their vital humours and made them naturally docile and effeminate. There's no concept that a person is fundamentally different because they have light skin, except that it often marks them out as a foreigner or a person from a different environment.

And the visual mark to look out for when said Greek is looking for a slave would be...?

RikuoAmero:
To help you understand what others and I are thinking off, take the feminist term "toxic masculinity".
Pretend you've never heard that term before. Pretend someone is saying it to you for the first time. Now, what's the line of thinking that forms in your brain? I'm going to guess here that you might think "Masculinity is toxic, according to this person".

Why would you think that? 'Toxic' modifies the noun (masculinity). If someone said 'black cat', would you think all cats are black?

RikuoAmero:
I ask you though - how is it you know this for a fact of that white person you see? I'm a white person, is this assumption of yours justified? What do you know about me?

Maybe not everything is about you personally?

Baffle2:

RikuoAmero:
To help you understand what others and I are thinking off, take the feminist term "toxic masculinity".
Pretend you've never heard that term before. Pretend someone is saying it to you for the first time. Now, what's the line of thinking that forms in your brain? I'm going to guess here that you might think "Masculinity is toxic, according to this person".

Why would you think that? 'Toxic' modifies the noun (masculinity). If someone said 'black cat', would you think all cats are black?

Does the term "black" when applied to "cat" indicate a list of behaviours that one thinks are quote unquote bad?
Now, about toxic masculinity. If we ask people like at femmagazine, https://femmagazine.com/feminim-101-what-is-toxic-masculinity/
" physically strong, unsentimental, and assertive".
They think these traits or behaviors are quote unquote bad, but that's not all! It's not enough to say that in their eyes, being "physically strong, unsentimental, and assertive" is bad. They call it Toxic Masculinity.
In other words, they link these traits to those who are masculine. To men.
Now if as you say you and others are not trying to denigrate men...why use the term Toxic Masculinity? Why use the term Whiteness? Why not just say the list of traits/behaviours or whatever it is you think are quote unquote bad, without trying to tie them to one specific demographic of society?

Have a look again at the femmaganize page I linked to. Look at the picture they have up on top. What are they showing?
They're showing a man who is white who is working out, keeping himself fit...and then plastering it with warning symbols.
As if being physically strong and white is in and of itself bad, something to be afraid of, that one would be better off not being.

BeetleManiac:

RikuoAmero:
I ask you though - how is it you know this for a fact of that white person you see? I'm a white person, is this assumption of yours justified? What do you know about me?

Maybe not everything is about you personally?

Me asking this about myself is to force those who talk like that to immediately think about how they sound to someone they are directly talking to.
It's one thing to think about "whiteness" and how it is bad. It's another thing to be speaking to a person with white skin about they inherited "a system of European supremacy".
I have white skin. You are talking to me (at least I presume so?) Have I inherited "a system of European supremacy"? Is my having white skin something that on some level I should be ashamed of?

RikuoAmero:
Does the term "black" when applied to "cat" indicate a list of behaviours that one thinks are quote unquote bad?

Nice dodge. However, both "Black" and "Toxic" are adjectives, they describe the noun they are connected to. When someone says "Black Cat" they mean a cat with the trait black, when they say "Toxic Masculinity" they refer to Masculinity that is toxic. Your understanding of English grammar has to be atrocious (as in, worse then a five year old) for you to be unable to distinguish between cats in general and black cats, that is to say cats that has the trait black, in particular. Now, considering your level of writing on this forum I am quite certain you can see and appreciate the distinction between Cats and Black Cats. So your inability to do the same when the words involved are Toxic and Masculinity means you're either suffering from a very specific grammatical deficiency (unlikely) or you have an ax to grind with the concept of Toxic Masculinity that makes you unable to apply low level logic to it in a rational and dispassionate way.

RikuoAmero:
They think these traits or behaviors are quote unquote bad, but that's not all! It's not enough to say that in their eyes, being "physically strong, unsentimental, and assertive" is bad. They call it Toxic Masculinity.
In other words, they link these traits to those who are masculine. To men.
Now if as you say you and others are not trying to denigrate men...why use the term Toxic Masculinity? Why use the term Whiteness? Why not just say the list of traits/behaviours or whatever it is you think are quote unquote bad, without trying to tie them to one specific demographic of society?

Because those traits you described are often seen as role models for men. Just look at any 80's or 90's action movie to see a hero that embodies the strong, unsentimental but assertive and capable man stereotype. Women who are strong, unsentimental and assertive are considered unfeminine, butch or, in the best case scenario, tomboys. Your entire paragraph here hinges on the assumption that you and whoever you are addressing has no understanding of social dynamics, social roles and socialization at all. It requires you and the reader to ignore the absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence available that shows us that gender roles and gender expectations very much is a thing.

Now, those traits are obviously bad when exhibited by women too. However, women are not socialized to embrace and internalize them, because women are socialized to internalize the opposite traits, to be empathetic, passive and pretty. So why discuss those traits as bad for women when women are taught to not exhibit them in the first place?

RikuoAmero:
Have a look again at the femmaganize page I linked to. Look at the picture they have up on top. What are they showing?
They're showing a man who is white who is working out, keeping himself fit...and then plastering it with warning symbols.
As if being physically strong and white is in and of itself bad, something to be afraid of, that one would be better off not being.

As an aside, did you actually read the article or did you just skim it looking for the things that would trigger you the most? Because the article absolutely addresses what toxic masculinity is and why it doesn't apply to all men.

RikuoAmero:
I have white skin. You are talking to me (at least I presume so?) Have I inherited "a system of European supremacy"? Is my having white skin something that on some level I should be ashamed of?

In order-

1. Yes, same as I did and I'm white as Christmas morning in Siberia.
2. No, that's stupid and no one of consequence is saying that.

So you deny that American society treats black people differently than it does white people?

RikuoAmero:
Have a look again at the femmaganize page I linked to.

Okay, I called your bluff. Here are some quotes from the article that has so deeply wounded you:

It is important to underline that toxic masculinity relates to the cultural perspective given to masculinity, not the biological traits of the male gender. It is founded upon societal norms that frame cisgender men as the domineering gender, creating harmful stereotypes that incite violence and sexism across cultures. In addition, toxic masculinity disregards non-conforming genders, and imposes gender binarism, the belief that only two genders exist.

Given the place of men of color relative to white males in the United States' social hierarchy, there is an added pressure to act hypermasculine so as to gain the dominance they feel they lack in society. Because men of color do not often have the same opportunities as white males, such as job prospects, they feel they lack control and must make up for this perceived loss of masculinity through exaggerated stereotypical masculine behavior.

Society uses the popular belief that "boys will be boys" to disregard, or deny, the existence of toxic masculinity. However, comments that reinforce the social hierarchy by placing traditional masculinity above femininity cannot be ignored.

So here are a few questions for you. Do you consider yourself a mature, masculine man? Do you consider masculinity to be inherently better than femininity? Do you believe that masculinity should be a societal default against which other genders/gender identities must be compared? Do you believe that crying or watching a rom-com is emasculating?

RikuoAmero:

Does the term "black" when applied to "cat" indicate a list of behaviours that one thinks are quote unquote bad?

Though it's just a coincidence in my example, actually it does (so unlucky for trying to be smart I guess!).

Fully black (no other colour) cats are much harder for cat shelters to rehome because of the superstitions surrounding them and the image often presented in the media (think of witches' cats, and the stereotypical Halloween black cat with the arched back). Some people get hung up on the strangest of things.

RikuoAmero:
Okay, but isn't this racism? Isn't this seeing a person with white skin, and then, in your mind, attaching all sorts of baggage onto them?

Yes, but people do that anyway. We are constantly, constantly reading and interpreting people's behaviour through a set of learned baggage which we've all inherited from the culture we live in, and that's because, contrary to the overly simplistic reading of "social constructivism", the the baggage actually exists. It is real. It has a concrete demonstrable impact on how people live and actually how they behave. There are huge demographic differences between people of different racial groups.

In an overt sense, Racism would be looking at those differences and presuming (consciously or unconsciously) that they stem from inherent differences of ability or temperament between racial groups and that this is just how the world is and that it's natural and normal. The problem with refusing to recognise that these differences exist at all is that it's a pretence which can very easily cover or conceal unconscious racism. When someone says "I don't see race", are they saying that they don't see the immense economic and social differences which result from race? Are they saying that they don't see the ways in which being of a particular race may benefit them? Neither of those things is good, and neither is incompatible with racism, because once we refuse to see race as the product of human behaviour, what's left to explain these differences except an unacknowledged idea of race as an inherent property of people?

The baggage isn't something we can just ignore, it predates us being born by centuries and will be around long after we die. As we grew up we learned to understand a world which was created by previous generations of racists. The way out of the baggage is to actively oppose it and to view it as the unnatural imposition that it is, while also recognising that it has enormous and very real consequences, and yes, this means us white people have to see ourselves as having a particular "white" experience which isn't just the generic human experience, but is specific to white people. That sucks, but it is how everyone who is not lucky enough to be in the unmarked category already lives.

RikuoAmero:
I find you saying this to be strange, because surely this is something that I and others who are against the entire concept of "whiteness" being a thing to say, and yet straight after this sentence, you go on to justify assuming people with white skin to be the same in certain ways.

Well, again, that's because I don't see whiteness as something which isn't real or is just a "fake" concept which can be dispelled by wishing it away. It's real in the same sense money is real. That piece of paper in your wallet is ultimately just a piece of paper with markings on it, there's no reason to ascribe any value to it at all, and yet it undeniably has value. People need money to live, having money can enable people to concretely do far more than people who don't have money, money is essential to the distribution of material goods. Money is real because its effects are real, but the value of money is not inherent to the objects to which it is assigned.

Similarly, race is real because its effects are real, but the properties of race are not inherent to raced bodies.

RikuoAmero:
See what I mean? You see a person with white skin, and immediately, in your mind, you assume that person to have inherited some sort of power over non-white people, that their own direct ancestors had a historical power base over non-white people.

Well, firstly because that is almost certainly true.

And secondly, because regardless of whether it is true or not, the person has still benefited from those historical power structures, because those structures have repeated so often that they have become normalized. Again, we all understand what race means. We all understand that "whiteness" means Europeanness and that Europeanness is the basis of our "civilized" society by reference to other "uncivilized" societies. It's inherent to our understanding of the culture we live in and, in a sense, who we are as people. That is baggage. It's baggage we inherited when we grew up in a racist society. It's baggage which was forcibly imposed upon most of the world through the project of colonialism and the "white man's burden".

Now, we are not passive slaves to the culture we grew up in. We have choices, but our society has shaped and dictated the limits of those choices to some degree. We cannot choose to live in world without race, we can't choose to stop seeing it or to have it magically not exist any more, but we can choose whether to passively accept the normative assumptions which come with race or to actively resist them. Unfortunately, you can't resist something without acknowledging that it exists.

And again, if what bothers you is the idea of being a specific kind of person, rather than just a general person who is utterly unintelligible and above any kind of judgement, can I ask where you got the impression that anyone gets treated that way?

RikuoAmero:
So why then, just up above did you say ""Whiteness" is the organizing principle by which people with light skin..."

I'm a bit tired, so I'm going to use a fairly weak analogy.

Is the word "cat" a cat?

There may or may not hypothetically be a cat in the room I am sitting in. What colour is the cat's fur? What colour are its eyes? Does it have long fur our short? What is the sound of its purr? What does it smell like? Does it like to be tickled?

You, presumably, don't know, because me saying "a cat" does not actually convey knowledge of the physical body of the cat (which doesn't exist, I wish I had a cat). Conversely, a physical cat could not be the concept of a cat. After all, a single cat can physically exist and be observable as a cat, but the concept of a cat doesn't just apply to that one cat, it could also apply to any cat. Two cats could have completely different colour fur, for example, and still be cats. That's because the concept of a cat is not a physical object, it's a way of organising and distinguishing what a cat is supposed to look like, and what things are and are not indicative of a cat.

In this analogy, light skin is the physical body and whiteness is the concept. Light skin may be part of how we recognise whiteness (although not always, some non white people can be just as pale as your typical white person, while white people can be quite dark and can tan), but "whiteness" goes way beyond merely having light skin and into the deeper level of what light skin means.

RikuoAmero:
What if the white person you see is NOT European? What if the white person you are talking to has never been to Europe, holds little to no interest in Europe? Do you still think all this of that person? Still think of that white person as somehow being caught up in "a history of European supremacy"?

If a person has no European ancestry, then are they actually white?

I mean, a lot of people from other parts of the world can pass as white because they may have features which are generally associated with being "European", but that's called being "white passing", not being "white". The racial taxonomy here was specifically invented to single out ethnic Europeans as the ideal form of humankind. It doesn't matter if a person has never personally been to Europe, what matters is that they are like people from Europe. They are the same as people from Europe because they are the same race, and they are different from people whose ancestors came from other parts of the world and who are thus of different races. Again, in reality two people of European ancestry can be completely different, just as two cats can have different coloured fur and yet still be cats. As far as the concept of whiteness is concerned, however, it doesn't matter. They share in the (overwhelmingly positive) associations of being the same, not just as to each other, but as all white people who have ever existed.

RikuoAmero:
You say that white people are judged, by their skin colour, to have inherited some sort of quote unquote original sin of "European supremacy" and a power difference over non-whites.

Yes, and I say it because it is empirically true. I could post a picture of Africa after the Berlin conference as a really obvious example.

Again, because this seems to be the recurring sticking point, racism is not just some silly lie, it's an idea which was imposed physically upon the entire world and put into practice as a material order. West Africans did not sail up the coast to buy slaves from the Western coast of Europe. The Chinese did not force the British to buy highly addictive drugs which they didn't want. White people did not just sit in Europe abstractly thinking about how awful and uncivilized all the other people were, they actively went out and put those beliefs into practice by creating a world order based on racist ideas.

Now, none of this would matter except that the world we live in today is the product of that world order. The "sin" (if you want to phrase it as such, I wouldn't) isn't that any of this happened, none of us can help that. It's that it continues to impact the world we live in. Overwhelmingly, this is to the benefit of white people, because white people were always intended to be the beneficiaries of racism. Racism wasn't invented to make black people feel good about themselves. Whatever actual material effects racism has had, however much it has dehumanised and diminished the oppressors along with the oppressed and created a divided and unhappy world for everyone, it was always about enabling and empowering white people.

RikuoAmero:
Now, try and think about this. You and others are no doubt trying to fight against this "whiteness", you see it as a Bad Thing (tm) in society. How do you identify someone who typifies "whiteness"? Try and answer that for me, WITHOUT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM REFERENCING SKIN COLOUR.

Hopefully at this point it is clear why this request makes no sense.

I feel like you want to frame this as a moral judgement on people when it's a moral judgement on a system. "Blackness" would also be a bad thing. Race as a concept should not exist, it has no scientific merit and is the source of incredible human misery. However, me saying that will not magically cause race to disappear. It's going to require actual proactive work to dismantle the material legacy of race, and to ammeliorate the very real differences it has created between people.

That's the point of contention, I don't think pretending not to see race will actually make it go away.

RikuoAmero:
This is what the quote unquote "anti-racists" on the ground are thinking.

And it's correct, except it's actually not broad enough. Everyone is racist in the technical sense, because everyone has been trained from birth to see race.

Also, yeah, preformative allyship is a real thing.

RikuoAmero:
...I'm sorry but are you attempting to say that in those societies, in those time periods, a person of darker skin who is being mistreated because wider society views people of his skin colour as being non-Christian would say "I'm actually white!" and somehow, wider society would stop and say to each other "You know what...he is. He's a Christian, if he's White (tm), he has an unblemished European ancestry"? They'd ignore what their eyes are telling them and immediately lump him in with their fellow white people?

Again, the concept of being "white" as we understand it today literally did not exist.

So no, that person saying "I'm actually white!" wouldn't work because noone would understand what they meant. Now, if they said "I'm a Christian", that would be different.. provided they were believed, which is where the importance of this story comes in because, in an atmosphere of incredible paranoia about false claims to Christianity, people have to come up with ways to figure out whether someone is Christian or not based on something other than their own profession of faith. The point is that skin colour becomes a substitute for non-Christianity because it is immediately visible, you can't know if someone is a secret Muslim, but you can know if they have darker skin, so darker skin in and of itself comes to take on some of the properties and associations of non-Chistianity.

RikuoAmero:
And the visual mark to look out for when said Greek is looking for a slave would be...?

There kind of wasn't one.

Again, this is the problem with conflating xenophobia, or climatic or dietary determinism with racism. They don't really use the same logic. I mean, if you're browsing the slave market and you see an exceptionally pale person you might assume they're from the far North and would make a good slave, but if you pass such a person on the street wearing Greek clothes and speaking perfect Greek you're not necessarily going to have the same response. The Greeks (and Romans, and other classical cultures) believed intensely in their own superiority, but that superiority is about diet and lifestyle and cultural practices. None of these things are inherently associated with skin colour except that unusual skin colour (like any unusual quality of a person) might denote foreignness.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here