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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

RikuoAmero:
Snip

First of all, you still haven't replied to my other posts, the one I actually directed at you. Second of all, things like "the average white person on the street has nothing to do with statistics," have less than nothing to do what I say. If I actually claim that they did, then you can argue those points. I didn't, so I don't know why you brought them up. It's like me saying "Coca-Cola is bad for you" and you respond with "Well I don't want it banned!" even though I said nothing about it being banned. Third of all, the statement "you are less likely to be arrested if you're white" is a fact. Saying "You're a criminal if you're black" is not. The two are not equal. Fourth of all, actually trying to get non-white people involved in the work force is only racism if it's a zero sum game where one person's gain is another person's loss. And if you go with that, you're more or less admitting white dominance in the work force is racist against non-whites. Fifth and finally, no I don't treat people different based on skin-color, because as much as you viciously try to slap the term racist on me, you do it without any grace, backing up, addressing arguments, evidence or anything. You're just throwing it at me in a "aha I win," argument.

Now, if you're going to respond to me, respond to arguments I actually said and don't just bring things out of left field like you did with this post.

Vrex360:

Yeah you guys failing to win people over with memes.

That's MY meme.

I gotta thank you for that video. Shamed that I wasn't aware of it sooner.

Two more things I wanted to add.

1: This one's personal, but Zontar spent a rather baffling amount of effort trying to convince me, someone who lives in the sticks of southwest Virginia in a place barely on the map and where you can't swing a cat without hitting a fundamentalist church that Antifa terrorists were the biggest threat to my existence here. Just compute that.

2: For all the harping he's done about the "moderate" left, he doesn't seem to think we exist. Because if we did, we'd be chanting along with him and praising his frog god by now, supposedly.

Smithnikov:

Vrex360:

Yeah you guys failing to win people over with memes.

That's MY meme.

I gotta thank you for that video. Shamed that I wasn't aware of it sooner.

It's so great isn't it?

Here it is mixed to 'Sounds of Silence'

Really feel his anguish huh?

You know I kind of feel like I should feel bad about this guy he's clearly lonely and sad and wants to make friends but on the other hand I'm kind of like.... fuck him?
And then I pour another drink and I laugh at him some more.

If he ever wants to reform his ways I'll welcome him back to society but for now, he's funny.

Two more things I wanted to add.

1: This one's personal, but Zontar spent a rather baffling amount of effort trying to convince me, someone who lives in the sticks of southwest Virginia in a place barely on the map and where you can't swing a cat without hitting a fundamentalist church that Antifa terrorists were the biggest threat to my existence here. Just compute that.

2: For all the harping he's done about the "moderate" left, he doesn't seem to think we exist. Because if we did, we'd be chanting along with him and praising his frog god by now, supposedly.

Yeah if we actually lived in Zontar's world 90% of the world would be on his side but he'd still somehow be oppressed and outnumbered by a savage horde of Antifa blood Orcs and frog gods and such.
Yeah I'm glad we live in the real world.

RikuoAmero:

Both are used by the speaker to treat the person they are talking to differently than normal (neutral?) based purely on their skin colour.

The first one doesn't actually. It makes a judgement on society, not the person. The second one is judging the person, and different treatment may follow that.

How would I (I'm white btw) treat a white person differently by acknowledging that society favours them?

Vrex360:
snip with many youtube names dropped

Thank you for that thoughtful response. It makes me want to start a new thread just to find out and watch some of what others appreciate. For example, I'd not heard of "Act Man" before but I will check him out. Happy Thanks Giving.
EDIT: OH HECK, Act Man is a gamer channel. Subscribed. I am all over this!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7WDD6yHgzdqijHluCi1z-Q

Thaluikhain:

Any serious, large scale attempt to tackle the issue is going to run into the concept of toxic masculinity, by that or another name, and you won't engage with that.

By another name, I would find it relevant, important and worth reviewing and supporting.

There are things to be done in getting rid of for profit prisons and arrest quotas, so people don't benefit from deciding people are criminals. That'd be a big step, one that won't actually happen however.

Likewise, which criminals are targeted and why. Again, not going to happen, because it's to various people's benefit to target certain groups rather than others. But if you want to deal with, say, drug problems, going after unimportant drug users does little but waste time and resources that could have been used going after someone that matters, though which makes your rates look good as you can easily fill up the prisons.

P.J. O'Roarke once quoted a cop as saying of the sorts of people that hang out on the streets at night, "air should be illegal if they're breathing it". And "for profit" prisons are dangerous to liberty for the same reason that war is dangerous as it is outrageously profitable to some. Definitely worth resisting such matters and perspectives. Thanks.

Vrex360:

Yeah if we actually lived in Zontar's world 90% of the world would be on his side but he'd still somehow be oppressed and outnumbered by a savage horde of Antifa blood Orcs and frog gods and such.
Yeah I'm glad we live in the real world.

I keep telling him to come to my part of the world, he'd LOVE it here, right down to the ideology.

And screw the orcoids, if I have to be part of an evil fantasy race horde, give me the Githyanki

erttheking:

RikuoAmero:
Snip

First of all, you still haven't replied to my other posts, the one I actually directed at you. Second of all, things like "the average white person on the street has nothing to do with statistics," have less than nothing to do what I say. If I actually claim that they did, then you can argue those points. I didn't, so I don't know why you brought them up. It's like me saying "Coca-Cola is bad for you" and you respond with "Well I don't want it banned!" even though I said nothing about it being banned. Third of all, the statement "you are less likely to be arrested if you're white" is a fact. Saying "You're a criminal if you're black" is not. The two are not equal. Fourth of all, actually trying to get non-white people involved in the work force is only racism if it's a zero sum game where one person's gain is another person's loss. And if you go with that, you're more or less admitting white dominance in the work force is racist against non-whites. Fifth and finally, no I don't treat people different based on skin-color, because as much as you viciously try to slap the term racist on me, you do it without any grace, backing up, addressing arguments, evidence or anything. You're just throwing it at me in a "aha I win," argument.

Now, if you're going to respond to me, respond to arguments I actually said and don't just bring things out of left field like you did with this post.

If you'd care to give me post numbers...? I might see fit to respond to them.

Second of all, things like "the average white person on the street has nothing to do with statistics," have less than nothing to do what I say. If I actually claim that they did, then you can argue those points. I didn't, so I don't know why you brought them up. It's like me saying "Coca-Cola is bad for you" and you respond with "Well I don't want it banned!"

Then why your and fellow leftie's obsession with pointing it out? Why this narrative that is rife, that is obsessed with saying to white people that they are privileged and as a result...owe some sort of labour, to make up for some sort of injustice?

Third of all, the statement "you are less likely to be arrested if you're white" is a fact. Saying "You're a criminal if you're black" is not. The two are not equal.

They're equal when those who say them, say them to justify some sort of behaviour on their part that would otherwise be labelled racist.

Fourth of all, actually trying to get non-white people involved in the work force is only racism if it's a zero sum game where one person's gain is another person's loss.

Yup, that is PRECISELY what it is! Do you not know how job hiring works? Usually there's a smaller number of positions available as compared to the number of applicants. When one person gets hired for that position, all the other applicants lose out.
With regard to the BBC, they are deliberately saying that certain positions are not for white people.

you're more or less admitting white dominance in the work force is racist against non-whites.

So your and the BBC's go to 'solution' is to, on the individual level, say to a white man who's applying for a job that he needn't apply? In other words, using racism to try and solve what is perceived as racism?
(How is what happened here in the West a bad thing? The vast majority of our population is white, so naturally, we'd have far more whites in the work force than non-whites).

Fifth and finally, no I don't treat people different based on skin-color,

All I'm seeing out of you are support for racist initiatives. You don't rebuke the BBC's practice, heck you condone it!

Gorfias:

Vrex360:
snip with many youtube names dropped

Thank you for that thoughtful response. It makes me want to start a new thread just to find out and watch some of what others appreciate. For example, I'd not heard of "Act Man" before but I will check him out. Happy Thanks Giving.
EDIT: OH HECK, Act Man is a gamer channel. Subscribed. I am all over this!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7WDD6yHgzdqijHluCi1z-Q

No probs. That said I'm an Aussie so I don't celebrate thanksgiving.

Also I highly recommend you watch his long form essay on exactly why Halo 5 failed from a narrative perspective, it's honestly really good stuff.

Smithnikov:

Vrex360:

Yeah if we actually lived in Zontar's world 90% of the world would be on his side but he'd still somehow be oppressed and outnumbered by a savage horde of Antifa blood Orcs and frog gods and such.
Yeah I'm glad we live in the real world.

I keep telling him to come to my part of the world, he'd LOVE it here, right down to the ideology.

And screw the orcoids, if I have to be part of an evil fantasy race horde, give me the Githyanki

I still have to go with the Sangheili on this one.
They're kind of my bae.

Baffle2:

RikuoAmero:

Both are used by the speaker to treat the person they are talking to differently than normal (neutral?) based purely on their skin colour.

The first one doesn't actually. It makes a judgement on society, not the person. The second one is judging the person, and different treatment may follow that.

How would I (I'm white btw) treat a white person differently by acknowledging that society favours them?

In order to treat the racism that is going on against people of colour, it is therefore justified to do whatever I want against white people.
How many times have there been examples of businesses that say something like "On average, men earn more than women, therefore, I'm justified in charging a higher price to male customers than to females"?

That is the mentality I am talking about.

bastardofmelbourne:

Zontar:
Also, the left still can't meme. All it can do is take the memes of others and make lower quality replicas of them.

Bitch, the left invented memes. Literally.

Not to mention the argument is about as valid as "The fascists had prettier propaganda in the spanish civil war"

CyanCat47:

bastardofmelbourne:

Zontar:
Also, the left still can't meme. All it can do is take the memes of others and make lower quality replicas of them.

Bitch, the left invented memes. Literally.

Not to mention the argument is about as valid as "The fascists had prettier propaganda in the spanish civil war"

Is the left claiming ownership of Richard Dawkins, now?

RikuoAmero:

How many times have there been examples of businesses that say something like "On average, men earn more than women, therefore, I'm justified in charging a higher price to male customers than to females"?

I am 36 and I have never heard a business say such a thing. Have you seen how much cheaper men's haircuts are?!

RikuoAmero:
Snip

...The one where I responded to you. Check your inbox and quotes, it should be right there.

"Owe some kind of labor." You keep inserting that into the narrative. I told you to respond to things I actually said. Why are you not doing that?

No, they are not equal, end of story, mainly because what I do and say can only be considered racist by someone who is going out of their way to feel offended by inserting things into the narrative that I never brought up.

Let's not act like like this zero sum game only ever hurts white people. I'd go so far as to say that it hurts non-white people a lot more, considering white people dominate the work force and there's heavy evidence that hiring discrimination is a thing, god forbid we do something about it. It's not like white people can't still get hired at the BBC, I'd wager even with this, 80-90% of the jobs there are still dominated by white people, so I'm failing to see this as being horrifically discriminatory. And for all you like to criticize me for not getting on them for this, I don't see you criticizing actual racist hiring practices.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/18/16307782/study-racism-jobs

Baffle2:

RikuoAmero:

How many times have there been examples of businesses that say something like "On average, men earn more than women, therefore, I'm justified in charging a higher price to male customers than to females"?

I am 36 and I have never heard a business say such a thing. Have you seen how much cheaper men's haircuts are?!

Be very glad that you haven't gone into such a business.
As for the haircut example...that is one of the few areas where I don't have a problem with different pricing schemes. Let me retort by asking "Have you seen how much simpler and easier, and cheaper, it is to do men's haircuts?" If my haircut took as much as effort, time and resources as the average woman's haircut, I'd gladly pay the same price.
Now this isn't to say that women should never be able to avail of the same price. If a woman wants to get the exact same haircut as me (simple short cut, nothing fancy), then yes, same price.

RikuoAmero:

Be very glad that you haven't gone into such a business.
As for the haircut example...that is one of the few areas where I don't have a problem with different pricing schemes. Let me retort by asking "Have you seen how much simpler and easier, and cheaper, it is to do men's haircuts?" If my haircut took as much as effort, time and resources as the average woman's haircut, I'd gladly pay the same price.
Now this isn't to say that women should never be able to avail of the same price. If a woman wants to get the exact same haircut as me (simple short cut, nothing fancy), then yes, same price.

The haircut comment was actually quite flippant, the reason men's cuts are cheaper is obvious. It's for a similar reason that women's clothes are cheaper (they aren't easier to make, but they sell in much greater quantities so can be made more cheaply).

What sort of business are selling cheaper to women? Like, bakeries? Estate agents? Car salespeople? I can honestly say the only place I've seen this sort of thing is ladies night in clubs, and everyone knows that's really about getting more men in at full price than it is about getting women in and lower prices. Car insurance used to be cheaper for women too, because statistically they have more, but much lower impact/damage accidents so the payouts are lower (the law on that changed).

erttheking:

RikuoAmero:
Snip

...The one where I responded to you. Check your inbox and quotes, it should be right there.

"Owe some kind of labor." You keep inserting that into the narrative. I told you to respond to things I actually said. Why are you not doing that?

No, they are not equal, end of story, mainly because what I do and say can only be considered racist by someone who is going out of their way to feel offended by inserting things into the narrative that I never brought up.

Let's not act like like this zero sum game only ever hurts white people. I'd go so far as to say that it hurts non-white people a lot more, considering white people dominate the work force and there's heavy evidence that hiring discrimination is a thing, god forbid we do something about it. It's not like white people can't still get hired at the BBC, I'd wager even with this, 80-90% of the jobs there are still dominated by white people, so I'm failing to see this as being horrifically discriminatory. And for all you like to criticize me for not getting on them for this, I don't see you criticizing actual racist hiring practices.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/18/16307782/study-racism-jobs

...The one where I responded to you. Check your inbox and quotes, it should be right there.

I checked, and nope. Nothing there. The most recent message in my inbox is a sysadmin warning over my earlier usage of profanity. Before that, something from October...nope, nothing from or about you.

"Owe some kind of labor." You keep inserting that into the narrative. I told you to respond to things I actually said. Why are you not doing that?

If you honestly haven't said that bit about labour, then apologies, but even if you haven't...think about it. Why do you talk about privilege at all then? Especially to the people whom you are convinced are privileged, unless you want them to do something?

No, they are not equal, end of story, mainly because what I do and say can only be considered racist by someone who is going out of their way to feel offended by inserting things into the narrative that I never brought up.

Which is what can be said about the "OK White" fliers. They can only be considered racist by someone who is going out of their way to feel offended. If you didn't know or believe anything about the people behind the posters, why would the phrase in and of itself be problematic?

Let's not act like like this zero sum game only ever hurts white people. I'd go so far as to say that it hurts non-white people a lot more, considering white people dominate the work force

Considering you and I are presumably talking about countries with a white majority population, I'd be pretty surprised if whites DIDN'T dominate the work force!
You'll find that not once have I or other people complained that blacks dominate the work force of African nations. Such a thing would be pointless.

It's not like white people can't still get hired at the BBC,

But not in the positions they otherwise would have applied for. So unless you think it's wrong for that individual white person to apply for that individual job, based purely on his skin colour...? What argument have you got left?

and there's heavy evidence that hiring discrimination is a thing

So I suppose the people of colour who are in HR positions are also complicit in this discrimination?

I'd wager even with this, 80-90% of the jobs there are still dominated by white people, so I'm failing to see this as being horrifically discriminatory.

If I, a white man, go to apply for a job at the BBC, it won't make it not an injustice if I'm barred from going for the position I want based purely on my skin colour, simply because there are loads of white people already in the BBC.
I am not those 80-90% people. I am me, an individual, and the practice the BBC (and you by proxy) are championing is still an injustice.

And for all you like to criticize me for not getting on them for this, I don't see you criticizing actual racist hiring practices.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/18/16307782/study-racism-jobs

I'm not the one pretending to fight some sort of implicit system of discrimination by championing for rules to be written and followed that ALLOW EXPLICIT racism.
Which is worse, on a moral level? The sort of discrimination talked about the study you link to, or actual rules put in that hiring managers have to follower that tell them to discriminate based on skin colour?
I also noticed that the page you linked to, although it acknowledged all sorts of problems with the study it was citing, still went ahead with pronouncing some sort of doom and gloom racism was rampant even after admitting that the study it was citing was flawed!

RikuoAmero:
Snip

This one. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1026336-Its-okay-to-white-identity-politics-and-white-supermacy?page=7#24164318

I don't know, maybe because I subscribe to the novel concept that I can care about the suffering of other people outside of when I'm directly responsible for it. Because ignoring a problem has never made that problem go away.

Out of context maybe. In context, not so much. We've been over this before. When a bunch of people are doing that after they left a racist jack o lantern and spew off a bunch of slurs when caught AND considering they were placing it in a place that is trying to celebrate diversity, there's a lot of baggage with that claim. It's like me going to a fucking Holocaust memorial and saying "there's nothing wrong with being a nationalist." Time and place are everything.

I'm sorry, allow me to correct myself. They disproportionately dominate the work force. It's kind of funny how in America black people are more likely to get shit jobs and white people more likely to get better paying ones. It's almost like the country isn't totally equal or something.

Are they hiring for specific positions, or are they trying to get a certain number of non-whites. And if they are hiring for specific positions, is there only one opening in that specific type of position? You have a tendency to insert things that no one else actually said, so I'm going to have to ask you for a source to back this all up.

If they turn away a resume from Juan but accept a nearly identical resume from John, than yes. Of course, this is assuming that enough black people even get into a position where they have this kind of authority in order to massively contribute to this problem, which I kind of doubt.

You do know, this is based heavily on the assumption that every last non-white person that applied to the job is less qualified than you are. That if we lived in a truly equal world where no one considered race, you would have beaten out every last non-white person that applied for that job.

I'm sorry, does racism have to be explicit to be racism? Uh, the study I linked to, I'm going to have a guess at, considering that it affects way more people and prevents a race that statistically is far more likely to suffer from poverty to earn a better life? And yes, the study is flawed. But, you know, you haven't exactly presented any counter information, and the data the found is still legitimate. They looked for unpublished studies that argued against their points, they didn't find any, it doesn't show discrimination after hiring, but then again we're not talking about that so I don't see why it would concern you. None of the flaws do anything to disprove that things have not changed since the 80s, which no matter how you look at it, is a very bad thing. This article also links to a source that shows black unemployment is twice that of white unemployment, that income and wealth gaps are massive, which kind of compliment the point it was making nicely.

Major inequality is a thing, and I'm sorry, you're acting more or less like trying to fix inequality against non-whites is somehow racist against whites.

erttheking:

RikuoAmero:
Snip

This one. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1026336-Its-okay-to-white-identity-politics-and-white-supermacy?page=7#24164318

I don't know, maybe because I subscribe to the novel concept that I can care about the suffering of other people outside of when I'm directly responsible for it. Because ignoring a problem has never made that problem go away.

Out of context maybe. In context, not so much. We've been over this before. When a bunch of people are doing that after they left a racist jack o lantern and spew off a bunch of slurs when caught AND considering they were placing it in a place that is trying to celebrate diversity, there's a lot of baggage with that claim. It's like me going to a fucking Holocaust memorial and saying "there's nothing wrong with being a nationalist." Time and place are everything.

I'm sorry, allow me to correct myself. They disproportionately dominate the work force. It's kind of funny how in America black people are more likely to get shit jobs and white people more likely to get better paying ones. It's almost like the country isn't totally equal or something.

Are they hiring for specific positions, or are they trying to get a certain number of non-whites. And if they are hiring for specific positions, is there only one opening in that specific type of position? You have a tendency to insert things that no one else actually said, so I'm going to have to ask you for a source to back this all up.

If they turn away a resume from Juan but accept a nearly identical resume from John, than yes. Of course, this is assuming that enough black people even get into a position where they have this kind of authority in order to massively contribute to this problem, which I kind of doubt.

You do know, this is based heavily on the assumption that every last non-white person that applied to the job is less qualified than you are. That if we lived in a truly equal world where no one considered race, you would have beaten out every last non-white person that applied for that job.

I'm sorry, does racism have to be explicit to be racism? Uh, the study I linked to, I'm going to have a guess at, considering that it affects way more people and prevents a race that statistically is far more likely to suffer from poverty to earn a better life? And yes, the study is flawed. But, you know, you haven't exactly presented any counter information, and the data the found is still legitimate. They looked for unpublished studies that argued against their points, they didn't find any, it doesn't show discrimination after hiring, but then again we're not talking about that so I don't see why it would concern you. None of the flaws do anything to disprove that things have not changed since the 80s, which no matter how you look at it, is a very bad thing. This article also links to a source that shows black unemployment is twice that of white unemployment, that income and wealth gaps are massive, which kind of compliment the point it was making nicely.

Major inequality is a thing, and I'm sorry, you're acting more or less like trying to fix inequality against non-whites is somehow racist against whites.

This one. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1026336-Its-okay-to-white-identity-politics-and-white-supermacy?page=7#24164318

Just the one post? Okay, I'll respond to that after this post. First I want to respond to what you say here in Post 263...

I don't know, maybe because I subscribe to the novel concept that I can care about the suffering of other people outside of when I'm directly responsible for it. Because ignoring a problem has never made that problem go away.

Who says I and others don't? My focus on this thread is simply the anti-white sentiment going around modern society. I can be against that and all other forms of racism.

there's a lot of baggage with that claim.

Only if you allow there to be baggage. I didn't respond to "Black Lives Matter" (the movement) by getting all hot under the collar about the phrase.
If the people who put up the "Ok White" fliers are as nefarious as you say they are, then you are playing right into their hands by responding like this to their fliers.

I'm sorry, allow me to correct myself. They disproportionately dominate the work force. It's kind of funny how in America black people are more likely to get shit jobs and white people more likely to get better paying ones. It's almost like the country isn't totally equal or something.

Again, your go to solution is to bar certain jobs, based on skin colour? I call people who do that, racists.

And if they are hiring for specific positions, is there only one opening in that specific type of position? You have a tendency to insert things that no one else actually said, so I'm going to have to ask you for a source to back this all up.

Ask and ye shall receive.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/695312/BBC-seeking-researcher-Panorama-only-apply-ethnic-minority
It doesn't matter if its for a specific position, or to get a certain number of non-whites. As you yourself said, it's a zero sum game, and the people in this who are losing out, due to no fault of their own simply for their skin colour, are white people.

I'm sorry, does racism have to be explicit to be racism?

No, and what you should have noticed is that I didn't say that the study you linked to was false. Just that it was flawed. You should also have noticed my main criticism, my main point - that of pretending to be someone who fights against societal racism...by championing for rules that allow for explicit racism.
Implicit racism is a problem. No ifs, ands, or buts. What is NOT a solution is to codify in a rulebook somewhere actual explicit racism.

Major inequality is a thing, and I'm sorry, you're acting more or less like trying to fix inequality against non-whites is somehow racist against whites.

Not the goal...the methodology is.

My reply to that earlier post of yours, the one you had to link me to, will be in a couple hours. Real life intrudes...

evilthecat:

StatusNil:
How exactly would we work to separate this "toxic" concept from the people who embody its outward characteristics in practice?

There are literally hundreds of answers to this question, but I'll give a few for example sake.

1) By redressing the material disadvantages which some communities face relative to others.
2) By educating children to recognise and reject racial biases.
3) By challenging racial biases which come up in everyday interaction.
4) By being critical of negative media portrayals of disadvantaged groups which reference perceived racial characteristics.

In other words, by working to ultimately eliminate the concept of race so that one day it will no longer be relevant and we don't have to pretend it's not relevant because it actually isn't. That's how we separate whiteness from white people, by getting to a point where light skin or dark skin still exists but literally doesn't matter, just like it never should have mattered to begin with.

Funny, because ranting about "toxic whiteness" is so obviously counterproductive to all these goals. It's just adding more wrongs to the list of past wrongs that cannot be changed or punished. Since time and death and all that.

evilthecat:
But I think what you're actually asking is "how can I make it so noone ever talks about the fact that I'm white", to which the answer is.. you can't. Welcome to reality as every nonwhite person has experienced it for hundreds of years. Again, as long as it matters, people are going to talk about it. Work towards the point where it doesn't matter. If you don't like that legacy of oppression and violence (hi, thanks for getting on this train) then help to dismantle it.

And what "legacy of oppression and violence" precisely are you attributing to me here? Or are you just assuming because of the color of my skin? I believe there's a word for that.

evilthecat:

StatusNil:
Sometimes it seems to me that none of the people pushing this "critique" have any inclination to do anything to solve the problem of this alleged conceptual violence beyond using it as a short-term, low-cost signal of supposed moral sophistication and rectitude.

And if they are, so what?

At least they're doing something, even if it's just not proactively resisting, because there are a lot of people out there who are proactively resisting any attempt to critique the ideology of race, perhaps because they find that ideology useful, or they like what it does for them, or they feel no sense of personal responsibility for the unearned privileges they have incurred, or because they don't believe unearned privileges can exist and thus all privileges must be earned in some kind of perfect just world.

Noone has a responsibility to single handedly remake the world. That would be exhausting and unbearable, not to mention in some ways a little patronising. Fortunately, noone is asking that. But if you can endure a world in which you aren't magically exempt from being a raced human being like everyone else, then by the standards of this pretty miserable planet that's already pretty good. I mean, don't expect praise because who the fuck needs praise for that, but it's not nothing.

Manipulating people based on grievances real and imagined for personal advantage isn't so much "at least something" as "worse than nothing".

evilthecat:
I know you can't get over this idea that a "social construct" is the same thing as saying something is a big lie, but that isn't technically correct. The world we live in is observably raced, and as long as it is people are going to keep seeing it. If you want to retreat into a fantasy world and pretend you don't see race because you're some magic future colourblind person raised by hippy dolphins in a sensory deprivation tank, then fine. Just don't blame everyone else for trying to shatter your delusion.

Obviously you don't know, since that's not how I see the issue. I've in fact repeatedly criticised the idea of arbitrary social constructionism, you know that thing that makes people say there are no "men" or "women". It should go without saying that some pure "state of nature" is as unattainable for people as a pure state of "culture" would be.

As for my Future Magic perspective, I'm certainly not pretending ideas of "race" will suddenly disappear. But I know they never will unless we're prepared to accept them as faulty, rather than just attempting to avenge the misconception by willing new ones into being. Such as the "inherent violence of Whiteness".

bastardofmelbourne:

Zontar:
Also, the left still can't meme. All it can do is take the memes of others and make lower quality replicas of them.

Bitch, the left invented memes. Literally.

Dawkins has been de-disowned by the left now?

Vrex360:
>Expecting me to waste my time reading and responding to that at length

Did you think I was lying the last time around?

Smithnikov:

1: This one's personal, but Zontar spent a rather baffling amount of effort trying to convince me, someone who lives in the sticks of southwest Virginia in a place barely on the map and where you can't swing a cat without hitting a fundamentalist church that Antifa terrorists were the biggest threat to my existence here. Just compute that.

Stating the fact that Antifa is the largest threat to me and my city right now and the largest one in the United States doesn't really correlate to your small community specifically.
What, you think when I talk about the US as a whole I mean your town and nowhere else?

2: For all the harping he's done about the "moderate" left, he doesn't seem to think we exist. Because if we did, we'd be chanting along with him and praising his frog god by now, supposedly.

You aren't a moderate by Canadian standards, so I doubt you're one by American ones either. And that is taking into consideration that on some particular issues (such as free speech and gun rights) I fully acknowledge the fact I'm by no means a moderate and am aware of that, even if the latest conservative leadership race has shown that overall I'm a moderate conservative.

Zontar:

Vrex360:
>Expecting me to waste my time reading and responding to that at length

Did you think I was lying the last time around?

Perhaps not, it was still fun to say out loud.

Ever the Zontar way though, running away rather then confronting your opponents arguments.

Zontar:
[

SNIP

[quote="Zontar" post="528.1026336.24164551"]Stating the fact that Antifa is the largest threat to me and my city right now and the largest one in the United States doesn't really correlate to your small community specifically.
What, you think when I talk about the US as a whole I mean your town and nowhere else?[quote]

You do have a source for that right?

I mean it's not Antifa that's trying to take away people's healthcare right now.

Vrex360:

Zontar:

Vrex360:
>Expecting me to waste my time reading and responding to that at length

Did you think I was lying the last time around?

Perhaps not, it was still fun to say out loud.

Ever the Zontar way though, running away rather then confronting your opponents arguments.

I'm a full time student and work a part time job that may as well be a light full time job, I don't really have the time, so unless you're willing to pay me to do it why should I waste an hour of my limited time responding to you? We can't all be NEETs.

Zontar:

Vrex360:

Zontar:

Did you think I was lying the last time around?

Perhaps not, it was still fun to say out loud.

Ever the Zontar way though, running away rather then confronting your opponents arguments.

I'm a full time student and work a part time job that may as well be a light full time job, I don't really have the time, so unless you're willing to pay me to do it why should I waste an hour of my limited time responding to you? We can't all be NEETs.

I dunno, you waste time responding to everyone else? Besides I have a lot going on too, I still put in the time. Especially since you certainly don't waste a hell of a lot of time finding sources.

Zontar:
Dawkins has been de-disowned by the left now?

He got disowned by feminists for taking an aggressively unconventional stance in response to one lady's (admittedly very trivial) complaint that a man asked her to his hotel room for coffee. And some people call him Islamophobic, but he's really just opposed to religion in general. In terms of his voting record, he's left-wing.

I think a big part of the problem that lead to Trump was that the left-wing started cannibalising itself over very minor issues like that one.

bastardofmelbourne:
He got disowned by feminists for taking an aggressively unconventional stance in response to one lady's (admittedly very trivial) complaint that a man asked her to his hotel room for coffee. And some people call him Islamophobic, but he's really just opposed to religion in general.

Plenty of other reasons people don't like him. Claiming that sexual abuse by the Catholic church isn't as bad as raising kids to be Catholic in the first place did him few favours. He's one of a number of high-profile atheists that like alienating people.

bastardofmelbourne:
I think a big part of the problem that lead to Trump was that the left-wing started cannibalising itself over very minor issues like that one.

Started? When wasn't that an issue?

In any case, lots of prominent left wingers, especially self-declared bastions of progressiveness tend only to be leftwing on specific issues (that they may legitimately care about and do some good), and are actively opposed to rights of grops of people that don't contain themselves.

"Don't talk about your issues, the thing I care about is the only one that matters" is hardly an uncommon sentiment amongst the left.

It's bad form to reply to someone who is suspended, but for the sake of completeness let's do this quickly.

Fischgopf:
That's not what you are doing though. You aren't just going "Yeah, you are White." you are going "Yeah, you are White which means..." and that's racist. End of Story. Doesn't matter what you follow up with. That's racist which would make you a racist.

Er... No it isn't.

I don't know where you absorbed that definition of racism, but it's wrong. It's simply, straight up wrong. If it wasn't wrong, then basic, basic demographic statements like "black people are more likely to live in poverty than comparable white people" would be racist, and they aren't. In fact, they're absolutely necessary to understanding the real world.

Now watch, I'll modify that statement to make it racist, "black people are more likely to live in poverty than comparable white people because they're lazy". Do you see what I did there, I changed the statement from being an observation of the consequences of race to an interior statement about the raced nature of human beings. The latter is racist, the former is not. The latter references "race" as a material reality, the former references the social consequences of the ideology of race as a material reality. Completely different things.

Not wanting people to talk about the material consequences of race as an ideology is not "anti-racist", it's just censorious and delusional. Being anti-racist requires us to talk about race, sorry, I know that triggers a lot of white fragility, but it's not going to kill you.

Now, the people like you who don't want us to talk about race. The people who find merely referencing race regardless of intent to be a personal attack on them. Let me ask one basic question, why? What exactly are you trying to hide? What exactly do you think you will lose if we start talking critically about the ideology of race? Because you know who I think needs to be kept away from power, people who claim not to be racist and simply demand that we take their word for it and don't investigate any further, people who claim that whiteness doesn't "mean" anything but then act as if they're being personally attacked when whiteness is held up to scrutiny. Can you see how, from the outside, that might look slightly suspicious.

StatusNil:
Funny, because ranting about "toxic whiteness" is so obviously counterproductive to all these goals. It's just adding more wrongs to the list of past wrongs that cannot be changed or punished. Since time and death and all that.

Who is "ranting" about anything. If you're trying to imply that I'm more emotional or less reasonable than you are, maybe take a moment to look back over your previous reply. If anything here qualifies as a rant, that was it.

Let me ask you a question. Which upsets you more?

1) Me talking about racial bias.
2) The fact that racial bias actually exists.

Notice that I'm white, and yet this conversation does not upset me at all. The idea that whiteness is "toxic" does not upset me at all, because I realize that it's not a personal insult aimed at me, at my inherent inescapable white nature, but at the historical conditions from which I have personally benefited but which ultimately don't define me because I'm still an individual who can make agentive choices (but only in response to circumstances I've been presented, not in some magical vacuum).

Now, we both seem to agree that whiteness should be meaningless. You think it already is meaningless, while I don't. I think it's meaningful because the consequences of it are part of the world we live in, but not because it's an inherent reality. The latter would indeed be racism.

So given that you know that whiteness isn't an inherent reality, why exactly are you upset by this conversation? Why do you feel personally attacked by me talking about a whiteness which you believe is meaningless? If it's meaningless, what are you defending? Why does it matter if anyone says that whiteness is toxic, particularly someone like me who very firmly agrees with you that whiteness should be meaningless. I mean, we have the same ultimate goal, why does it matter if I say that the course of your life has been shaped by being white in a racist society, just like it will have been shaped by thousands of other things over which you had no control? I mean, that is ultimately how we end up with a society that is profoundly unfair, it's how cultures and ideas persist intergenerationally. It's a pretty fundamental process, in fact.

I'm going to overstep the boundaries and answer for you, so please correct me if I'm wrong. You actually know damn well it isn't meaningless, you know that there are actual material consequences to this debate which mean it's actually far from being meaningless. You also know damn well that society is unfair. Most people do know that, save a few delusional people who live in a just world fallacy (a category which coincidentally includes racists). What upsets you here is a feeling of personal responsibility, like if whiteness is toxic that means you are toxic. But why would that be the case? Why are you identifying so personally with a "meaningless" concept at all?

StatusNil:
And what "legacy of oppression and violence" precisely are you attributing to me here? Or are you just assuming because of the color of my skin? I believe there's a word for that.

Seriously?

image

What exactly is it going to take for you to figure out that white supremacy actually exists? What is it going to take for you to realize the entire world we live in is actually a product of it?

Or do you think that an ideological force which literally remade the entire surface of this planet just magically never penetrated your invincible bubble of dolphin space wizardry?

What's that language you're speaking now which coincidentally has four times as many non-native speakers as native speakers? Because it isn't dolphin-language, is it.

StatusNil:
Manipulating people based on grievances real and imagined for personal advantage isn't so much "at least something" as "worse than nothing".

What are you even talking about? What grievances? What exactly are you allowing yourself to be manipulated by?

StatusNil:
Obviously you don't know, since that's not how I see the issue. I've in fact repeatedly criticised the idea of arbitrary social constructionism, you know that thing that makes people say there are no "men" or "women".

Actually, not arbitrary. The idea of "men" and "women" is a bit arbitrary, but that's a discussion for another day.

StatusNil:
But I know they never will unless we're prepared to accept them as faulty, rather than just attempting to avenge the misconception by willing new ones into being. Such as the "inherent violence of Whiteness".

Who has used the bolded word?

Go back and find me a case where I did. Just one case.

If the violence of whiteness was inherent would I, a white person, be drawing attention to it? Would I even be suggesting anything could be done about it (which it couldn't, because it would be inherent).

It seems like you've intentionally fundamentally misunderstood this whole debate to try and feed a sense of personal victimisation. Why have you done that? Again, what exactly are you trying to protect?

Zontar:
I'm a full time student and work a part time job that may as well be a light full time job, I don't really have the time, so unless you're willing to pay me to do it why should I waste an hour of my limited time responding to you? We can't all be NEETs.

Wait, you're a student?

Research and critical thinking is literally your job. Are you bad at your job? Or are these incredibly obvious points you're trying to make so obscure that we couldn't possibly understand them without sitting through a Black Pidgeon Speaks video playlist?

If you don't have time to do basic research or to respond critically to opposition, maybe you need to spend more time on your studies instead of fucking around on the internet at all.

evilthecat:

I'm going to overstep the boundaries and answer for you, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Well then, let's see. I believe it's a pretty fundamental error to use these broad racial categories as a proxy for historical understanding, and it will lead you into making a lot of unfounded assumptions. As an example that comes to mind, I think I myself have always been quite reticent about the exact details of my own life here on these forums, beyond being irredeemably pale of complexion, a male of the species and not from a couple of specific countries that have come up in conversation. Yet you seem to think it's perfectly reasonable to draw conclusions about my opinions as based on my attitude towards my ancestry solely on the evidence of those scant details.

Let me ask you, do you know who those ancestors were, and whether they were colonizers or in fact colonized, from the tone of my skin? Do you happen to know where I live, or what my passport gives as my nationality? Would you bet real money on my Native English privilege, given that you yourself gave the odds of me being so endowed? Now, I'm not going to be drawn into any immodest self-exposure, but I think it's useful to pause once in a while and consider the foundations of our assumptions and see if they're solid enough to grandstand on. Maybe we both do indeed sit on thrones of plundered gold in mansions built by slave hands and feel vague pity for the frustrated incomprehensibility of the Dolphin-speaking masses, but the point is that it's nowhere near a safe assumption to make. Not everyone's "Whiteness" is the same in either background or effect, so maybe it could be ever so slightly wrong to insist on establishing it as a moral standard for the foreseeable future?

I notice I used the word "assumption" many times in this post so far, so maybe it's best to stop here for the time being and let that be the takeaway to meditate upon for now.

Zontar:

I'm a full time student

Creative Writing?

StatusNil:
Well then, let's see. I believe it's a pretty fundamental error to use these broad racial categories as a proxy for historical understanding, and it will lead you into making a lot of unfounded assumptions.

Okay. But these "broad racial categories" existed historically. People believed in them. That's not an unfounded assumption, it's a basic point necessary to explain the world as it exists. Much of modern history will not make sense unless you understand that it involved societies which were deeply racist, or in other words which had a hierarchical understanding of race.

StatusNil:
Let me ask you, do you know who those ancestors were, and whether they were colonizers or in fact colonized, from the tone of my skin?

No, and I don't need to. This is not my point and you are once again not understanding me. I do know something the world they lived in, I know the world in which they grew up, the world which helped to make them what they were.

Many of my "ancestors" (familial ancestors, since I'm adopted) were actually abolitionists. It doesn't matter, they were still white people who lived in a society with an explicit racial hierarchy which placed them at the top. They benefitted from that society even if they were actively engaged in critiquing its racist practices. It is part of why they were able to speak out on behalf of abolition and anti-racism, because society had placed them in a position of privilege from which they would be listened to. Had they not been white, they would not even be remembered as abolitionists because noone would have cared.

StatusNil:
Not everyone's "Whiteness" is the same in either background or effect, so maybe it could be ever so slightly wrong to insist on establishing it as a moral standard for the foreseeable future.

Uh huh..

Everyone's whiteness is, of course, different, because we are all constantly subject to countless intersectional axes which modify the way our whiteness is perceived and interpolated. Again, two cats can have different coloured fur and still be cats. This does not change the underlying hierarchical character of race as an ideology, or our inheritance of a world created by that ideology. Again, my ancestors who were abolitionists were religious non-conformists in a society with an established church, they were heavily persecuted, but they were not persecuted because they were white, they were persecuted because they were religious non-conformists.

Another example, in the mid 19th century there was a major attempt by several race scientists and anthropologists to argue that white prostitutes in London were physically distinct from ordinary women, and had genitals which resembled those of "negroes". The argument was that white prostitutes (and the underclass in general) represented a distinct, predatory subspecies of racially inferior white degenerates. This is a good example of how complex the interplay between race and other intersections can be, and yet notice how it is still conceptually hierarchial. There is still a top and a bottom, and whiteness is on the top and blackness is on the bottom.

That is the essential hierarchy of racism. It is the very order which racism was invented to sustain. Whiteness is always better than non-whiteness. You can be the most wretched and pathetic white person whom noone respects, and that can modify the perception of your whiteness, but at the end of the day you're still white. You're still subject to a conceptual order in which it's better to be white than to be black, and even if the result is just that you're an anomaly requiring a pseudoscientific explanation (like those white prostitutes) you'll notice that it's already taken as read in that example that the genitals of black women indicate their racial degeneracy. No explanation is even required for their status as lesser human beings.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 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