In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On May 28 2017 14:07 thePunGun wrote: Being socially awkward, I've never understood the concept of racism and why different melanin levels are associated as a benchmark for race. (Because "race" or "ethnicity" are make believe, we all can be traced back to 1 ancestor 10K years ago so, we're on the larger scheme of things actually the same) Our skin colors are neither white nor black and both aren't even colors.. I'm probably one of the palest people out there, but my skin's not white it's right inbetween eggshell and chalk. Idiots come in all shapes and sizes and usually hate anything beyond their "personal hemisphere".. it's basically the golden formula for evil: Idiot + unknown = fear + anger <=> fear + anger = hate + ideology <=> hate + ideology = extremism/fundamentalism/xenophobia (and yes I like math, it breaks complicated topics beyond my reach into tiny bits of logic)
Have you looked into the invention of "whiteness" or race? You find out it was a social construction basically designed to keep both white and black people (along with others) subjugated.
Out of curiosity, what do you mean by designed to keep white people subjugated? Wasn't the concept nearly always used to favor and empower them?
Empower the poorest whites (including servants) to have shitty lives, but at least they weren't Black, Mexican, Chinese, Indigenous, etc...
So in some ways yes, it was always to empower white elites, but it was just to placate most poor "white" people by making them feel superior. This is in part the origin of our police system, originally created by organizations/groups like the KKK to catch fugitive slaves. So while they were asshole poor (think Appalachia now), at least they were "white" so poor people would break ranks with each other (despite common cause) because they could negotiate an ever so slightly better situation for whites, so long as they perpetuated the subjugation of black people (and themselves/each other).
Since we stumbled here, and it's close to the point I think a lot of people get close to, "poor people" in this context were workers. Workers in the 17th century were getting abused and in order to divide and conquer we got "whiteness".
Today we face a similar struggle though they are trying to find an intersectional way to manifest and perpetuate the same oppression.
So essentially (Liberals are trying to) find a new non-race-based way to keep the working classes divided, as opposed to Trump who is leaning all the way into the old school xenophobia/racism/etc...
Both doing whatever they can to keep us from realizing they've been screwing us forever (though it's gotten worse in a variety of ways recently)
On May 28 2017 14:07 thePunGun wrote: Being socially awkward, I've never understood the concept of racism and why different melanin levels are associated as a benchmark for race. (Because "race" or "ethnicity" are make believe, we all can be traced back to 1 ancestor 10K years ago so, we're on the larger scheme of things actually the same) Our skin colors are neither white nor black and both aren't even colors.. I'm probably one of the palest people out there, but my skin's not white it's right inbetween eggshell and chalk. Idiots come in all shapes and sizes and usually hate anything beyond their "personal hemisphere".. it's basically the golden formula for evil: Idiot + unknown = fear + anger <=> fear + anger = hate + ideology <=> hate + ideology = extremism/fundamentalism/xenophobia (and yes I like math, it breaks complicated topics beyond my reach into tiny bits of logic)
Have you looked into the invention of "whiteness" or race? You find out it was a social construction basically designed to keep both white and black people (along with others) subjugated.
I don't think there was a point in time, where "whiteness" or "race" was invented. But if you are referring to the roots of racial segregation in the U.S. It can be traced back to when the conquestadores of the Americas first arrived. One can argue they've "invented" or "reinvented" slavery back in the 16th century. They first enslaved thousands of the natives and forced them to dig for gold...Natives weren't enough so they imported enslaved Africans. So it wasn't about a social construct at first, just about pure greed for gold without any compassion for human life.
Also I'm pretty sure our common ancestor goes a bit further than 10k years back. (though the odds change with two Americans)
You're right, I actually meant about 100k years not 10k. (Source)
edit: but I think we're getting a bit off topic here
On May 28 2017 14:07 thePunGun wrote: Being socially awkward, I've never understood the concept of racism and why different melanin levels are associated as a benchmark for race. (Because "race" or "ethnicity" are make believe, we all can be traced back to 1 ancestor 10K years ago so, we're on the larger scheme of things actually the same) Our skin colors are neither white nor black and both aren't even colors.. I'm probably one of the palest people out there, but my skin's not white it's right inbetween eggshell and chalk. Idiots come in all shapes and sizes and usually hate anything beyond their "personal hemisphere".. it's basically the golden formula for evil: Idiot + unknown = fear + anger <=> fear + anger = hate + ideology <=> hate + ideology = extremism/fundamentalism/xenophobia (and yes I like math, it breaks complicated topics beyond my reach into tiny bits of logic)
Have you looked into the invention of "whiteness" or race? You find out it was a social construction basically designed to keep both white and black people (along with others) subjugated.
I don't think there was a point in time, where "whiteness" or "race" was invented. But if you are referring to the roots of racial segregation in the U.S. It can be traced back to when the conquestadores of the Americas first arrived. One can argue they've "invented" or "reinvented" slavery back in the 16th century. They first enslaved thousands of the natives and forced them to dig for gold...Natives weren't enough so they imported enslaved Africans. So it wasn't about a social construct at first, just about pure greed for gold without any compassion for human life.
Also I'm pretty sure our common ancestor goes a bit further than 10k years back. (though the odds change with two Americans)
You're right, I actually meant about 100k years not 10k. (Source)
edit: but I think we're gettibg a bit off topic here
Not just slavery, but concepts of race we're developed and advanced. I mean parts range from the ~15th century into the ~18th. but it's relatively recent development and it's purpose is pretty widely accepted as far as I've gathered? I haven't really seen the alternative perspective (save from stormfront and Mormons [some think Black people are cursed and that's why we're black] types).
I don't understand how you can be so passionate about fighting racism but at the same time say all white people here are offensive because they grew up white and have a different perspective and can never understand. That's a racist view all the same.
On May 28 2017 14:07 thePunGun wrote: Being socially awkward, I've never understood the concept of racism and why different melanin levels are associated as a benchmark for race. (Because "race" or "ethnicity" are make believe, we all can be traced back to 1 ancestor 10K years ago so, we're on the larger scheme of things actually the same) Our skin colors are neither white nor black and both aren't even colors.. I'm probably one of the palest people out there, but my skin's not white it's right inbetween eggshell and chalk. Idiots come in all shapes and sizes and usually hate anything beyond their "personal hemisphere".. it's basically the golden formula for evil: Idiot + unknown = fear + anger <=> fear + anger = hate + ideology <=> hate + ideology = extremism/fundamentalism/xenophobia (and yes I like math, it breaks complicated topics beyond my reach into tiny bits of logic)
Have you looked into the invention of "whiteness" or race? You find out it was a social construction basically designed to keep both white and black people (along with others) subjugated.
I don't think there was a point in time, where "whiteness" or "race" was invented. But if you are referring to the roots of racial segregation in the U.S. It can be traced back to when the conquestadores of the Americas first arrived. One can argue they've "invented" or "reinvented" slavery back in the 16th century. They first enslaved thousands of the natives and forced them to dig for gold...Natives weren't enough so they imported enslaved Africans. So it wasn't about a social construct at first, just about pure greed for gold without any compassion for human life.
Also I'm pretty sure our common ancestor goes a bit further than 10k years back. (though the odds change with two Americans)
You're right, I actually meant about 100k years not 10k. (Source)
edit: but I think we're gettibg a bit off topic here
Not just slavery, but concepts of race we're developed and advanced. I mean parts range from the ~15th century into the ~18th. but it's relatively recent development and it's purpose is pretty widely accepted as far as I've gathered? I haven't really seen the alternative perspective (save from stormfront and Mormons [some think Black people are cursed and that's why we're black] types).
I think it's based on the misconception, that tribal natives of Africa, the Americas, Australia, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea were less developed and therefore inferior. If there's one thing we humans love, it's feeling superior and above anyone else, as long as we can believe that we won't have question our actions. It's easier for us to embrace our hatred, than our neighbor.
There are some good books out there that explore the rise of the race concept. "Race is a 4 Letter word" is a good start. Basically kinda happened when one culture that was technologically more advanced encountered another and assumed that they were inferior because of their biology. Skin color just became the goto way to identify people because it is an obvious feature of a person. Obviously a lot more to it then that.
Just for the love of God don't read "A Troublesome Inheritance" (or you can if you want to read a journalist pretend to be a scientist and fail). There is a lot written about race and a lot of it is pretty bad.
On May 28 2017 14:07 thePunGun wrote: Being socially awkward, I've never understood the concept of racism and why different melanin levels are associated as a benchmark for race. (Because "race" or "ethnicity" are make believe, we all can be traced back to 1 ancestor 10K years ago so, we're on the larger scheme of things actually the same) Our skin colors are neither white nor black and both aren't even colors.. I'm probably one of the palest people out there, but my skin's not white it's right inbetween eggshell and chalk. Idiots come in all shapes and sizes and usually hate anything beyond their "personal hemisphere".. it's basically the golden formula for evil: Idiot + unknown = fear + anger <=> fear + anger = hate + ideology <=> hate + ideology = extremism/fundamentalism/xenophobia (and yes I like math, it breaks complicated topics beyond my reach into tiny bits of logic)
Have you looked into the invention of "whiteness" or race? You find out it was a social construction basically designed to keep both white and black people (along with others) subjugated.
I don't think there was a point in time, where "whiteness" or "race" was invented. But if you are referring to the roots of racial segregation in the U.S. It can be traced back to when the conquestadores of the Americas first arrived. One can argue they've "invented" or "reinvented" slavery back in the 16th century. They first enslaved thousands of the natives and forced them to dig for gold...Natives weren't enough so they imported enslaved Africans. So it wasn't about a social construct at first, just about pure greed for gold without any compassion for human life.
Also I'm pretty sure our common ancestor goes a bit further than 10k years back. (though the odds change with two Americans)
You're right, I actually meant about 100k years not 10k. (Source)
edit: but I think we're getting a bit off topic here
What do you mean by the bolded statement? Because the plain reading is historically/ factually untrue in any way I can think of it. There's a reason Cyrus the Great and the Persians were so unique in that they actually paid their grunt labourers rather than using slaves. There was a pretty continuous use of slaves whether through the Byzantine empire or the Ottoman empire, so that hardly constitutes inventing or reinventing slavery.
On May 28 2017 14:07 thePunGun wrote: Being socially awkward, I've never understood the concept of racism and why different melanin levels are associated as a benchmark for race. (Because "race" or "ethnicity" are make believe, we all can be traced back to 1 ancestor 10K years ago so, we're on the larger scheme of things actually the same) Our skin colors are neither white nor black and both aren't even colors.. I'm probably one of the palest people out there, but my skin's not white it's right inbetween eggshell and chalk. Idiots come in all shapes and sizes and usually hate anything beyond their "personal hemisphere".. it's basically the golden formula for evil: Idiot + unknown = fear + anger <=> fear + anger = hate + ideology <=> hate + ideology = extremism/fundamentalism/xenophobia (and yes I like math, it breaks complicated topics beyond my reach into tiny bits of logic)
Have you looked into the invention of "whiteness" or race? You find out it was a social construction basically designed to keep both white and black people (along with others) subjugated.
I don't think there was a point in time, where "whiteness" or "race" was invented. But if you are referring to the roots of racial segregation in the U.S. It can be traced back to when the conquestadores of the Americas first arrived. One can argue they've "invented" or "reinvented" slavery back in the 16th century. They first enslaved thousands of the natives and forced them to dig for gold...Natives weren't enough so they imported enslaved Africans. So it wasn't about a social construct at first, just about pure greed for gold without any compassion for human life.
Also I'm pretty sure our common ancestor goes a bit further than 10k years back. (though the odds change with two Americans)
You're right, I actually meant about 100k years not 10k. (Source)
edit: but I think we're getting a bit off topic here
What do you mean by the bolded statement? Because the plain reading is historically/ factually untrue in any way I can think of it. There's a reason Cyrus the Great and the Persians were so unique in that they actually paid their grunt labourers rather than using slaves. There was a pretty continuous use of slaves whether through the Byzantine empire or the Ottoman empire, so that hardly constitutes inventing or reinventing slavery.
I used "invented"/"reinvented" referring to Green Horizon's question:
Have you looked into the invention of "whiteness" or race?
That's why I used quotation marks, not to claim they invented slavery (that would be ridiculous), but to get my point accross.
Deconstruction can be a useful tool, but it has its limitations, besides the fact that its theoretical foundation is wonky, to say the least.
The biggest problem with it is that the whole world becomes the hammer that only looks for it to come down, because of its tight interweaving into power - and power only. If you make such a tool to a worldview, of course, the world will look spiked with nails, and nothing more than nails. The outcome is a shattering that sounds like cultural appropriation, identity politics, gender over the top and the group over the individual.
GH, you say something like the workers of the 17th century, as if there ever was a group like that, while there never was such a thing. Of course, there never was and never will be a "the whites" group, and if you look even further, how anyone can come out of postmodern thinking, that there is something derivable, especially if it ends in a construct like power-play, is beyond me.
While slavery had existed for a long time, the Atlantic slave trade was a whole different breast. It's motivations were pretty much economic - cotton and sugar cane were very labour intensive and the native Americans kept dying from disease or fighting Europeans. Plus there weren't nearly enough of them in Brazil and the American south. The racism was mainly a result of the internal debate within Christianity at the time - the result of the cognitive dissonance was arguing that Africans were below humans and thus shouldn't be considered as equal under god.
But roughly 200 years before that Bartolome de las Casas argued that the Indians were equal creations under God and should be treated as that. It is conceivable that he would have argued for the Africans as well.
Indeed, I may have not written very clearly. Many voices, including from the Vatican, argued that all men were equal under god. The slave owners then had to argue that africans weren't men. Thus, that brand of racism was born out of the need to ratoonalize an economic pursuit that was in apparent conflict with Christisn doctrine.
With its former chairman Steve Bannon as White House chief strategist and plans for an ambitious international expansion, Breitbart was supposed to be on its way to becoming a media behemoth in the Trump era, one with unparalleled access and a passionate audience. “While several publishers have enjoyed an uptick in traffic due to election coverage, we are proud to have built a massive and deeply-rooted community that will remain long after the election cycle fades,” Larry Solov, Breitbart’s C.E.O., predicted back in November.
Early on, Solov’s prediction seemed to be coming true. “Breitbart News is the #45th most trafficked website in the United States, according to rankings from Amazon’s analytics company, Alexa.com,” they wrote on January 9, 2017. “With over two billion pageviews generated in 2016 and 45 million unique monthly visitors, Breitbart News has now surpassed Fox News (#47), Huffington Post (#50), Washington Post (#53), and Buzzfeed (#64) in traffic.” A month later, the site had even greater cause to celebrate. “Breitbart News is now the 29th most trafficked site in the United States, surpassing PornHub and ESPN,” they crowed. In the article, its staffers bragged that their bonkers traffic reflected the site’s cementing a permanent place in American politics. “The numbers speak for themselves,” said Solov. (Many outlets, including The Hive, experienced traffic peaks around Trump’s inauguration.)
Just a few months later, the numbers have a different story to tell. As of May 26, 2017, according to Alexa.com—the same web-ranking analytics company that Breitbart drew its numbers from in January—Fox News is the 64th most-trafficked site in the country. Huffington Post is at 60. Buzzfeed is at 50. The Washington Post, on the strength of a series of eye-popping scoops, is at 41.
Interestingly, Frum uses this to speculate that a lot of the traffic may have been bots. Someone more tech-savy could probably tell me how one measures bot traffic and how much other sites benefit from it in comparison.
On May 28 2017 09:25 NewSunshine wrote: My last response to you on this topic: openly attacking people who want to have the discussion with you, because they aren't as aware of the problem as you are is never going to get you anywhere. If you want to help, your job is to educate people, not attack them for being uneducated, and then pull the victim card. It makes it impossible to talk to you.
Look how he's offended when for once the battlefield isn't his to decide. ppl become the snowflakes they hate so much when talking about leftists so fast themselves when confronted like this.
Personally I have to say that North Korea has done some pretty solid work on rocketry in the past few years. The days of NK not being able to launch are numbered.
Iirc, Alexa's rankings were based on the samples gotten from the people who had its plugin/toolbar installed. There must be tools out there to filter out bots or other kind of tampering.
I wonder whether the boycott from the sponsors had an effect.
EPT
I'm probably one of the palest people out there, but my skin's not white it's right inbetween eggshell and chalk.
![[image loading]](http://media.vanityfair.com/photos/59286594efcf595732adc5cb/master/w_900,c_limit/alexa-ranks-01.jpg)
