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 29 2017 22:13 micronesia wrote: In case you folks haven't had enough fun arguing about racism yet (similar to the recent 'racist' e-mail story):
Paris mayor condemns black festival, says it bars whites
PARIS — Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo has strongly criticized a black feminist festival in Paris that bans non-black people in large parts of the event, saying she might call for the prosecution of its organizers on grounds of discrimination.
In a series of angry tweets Sunday, Hidalgo said she will call on authorities to ban the three-day July cultural festival that she said was “forbidden to white people.”
France defines itself on its revolutionary values of uniting under one common national identity, regardless of race and religious differences, with laws to stop discrimination based on race.
The Nyansapo Festival organizers say that “we have chosen to put the accent on how our resistance as an Afro-feminist movement is organized.”
Rights groups have called it a step backward on race issues.
Completely overblown story, the far-right complained on Internet and basically got served by idiots who are totally ignorant of some militant traditions/practices. This same mayor subsidizes women only events but suddenly wakes up when black women want to have a space for them, in a private setting; all of this because a bunch of far-right trolls mislabelled it as “forbidden to white people”.
Just a stupid mayor spreading far-right disinformation before discovering that the event was actually opened to everyone, with some private room for non-mix spaces.
On May 29 2017 22:55 Schmobutzen wrote: Which events did she subsidize?
From memory there's a partnership between the city of Paris and a feminist, lesbian cinema festival. Not an event but the city of Paris also subsidizes a House of Women which is a non-mix militant space against male violence.
I am increasingly concerned with social media's tendency to elevate small, localized events and protests to a national or international level of fame. These evens are often the result of local problems, culture and policies and do not rise to the level of international impact. But because someone decides that black festival in France might bar whites, the it has now been brought to my attention. But so much is lost by the time it reaches men, I'm left with this flat impression of it devoid of nuance. So I am provided with just enough knowledge to be harmful, but not much more.
On May 29 2017 22:55 Schmobutzen wrote: Which events did she subsidize?
From memory there's a partnership between the city of Paris and a feminist, lesbian cinema festival. Not an event but the city of Paris also subsidizes a House of Women which is a non-mix militant space against male violence.
How does a militant space against male violence work?
On May 29 2017 22:55 Schmobutzen wrote: Which events did she subsidize?
From memory there's a partnership between the city of Paris and a feminist, lesbian cinema festival. Not an event but the city of Paris also subsidizes a House of Women which is a non-mix militant space against male violence.
How does a militant space against male violence work?
Do the Women beat violent men up that enter?
Yes. They also practice penis cutting on models with all kinds of sharp objects.
On May 29 2017 23:14 Plansix wrote: I am increasingly concerned with social media's tendency to elevate small, localized events and protests to a national or international level of fame. These evens are often the result of local problems, culture and policies and do not rise to the level of international impact. But because someone decides that black festival in France might bar whites, the it has now been brought to my attention. But so much is lost by the time it reaches men, I'm left with this flat impression of it devoid of nuance. So I am provided with just enough knowledge to be harmful, but not much more.
I think that's on us as a society. Most stories are local to a place, at their core. When we don't do the necessary work to parse them, I don't think we get to complain that we don't get the full picture. This thing at Evergreen was a prime example, when the only type of publication talking about it is far right online publications, but they talk about it so much that you can fill three pages of google with them before you reach the newspaper of the college, you can and imo should assume that the "national" reaction was expected and induced.
On May 29 2017 15:47 Artisreal wrote: Yo Danlgars, why arn't you a millionaire yet? Others manage just fine. + Show Spoiler +
That's basically what you just said about black ppl laughing off discrimination. Maybe some can, but don't expect everyone to follow suit sucking up. Oh an yes, of course only jobless blacks are feeling oppressed. Good point.
Or all this college subliminal racism in emails shit is the insanity, and the people I mentioned are right about it. It's a wonderful thing to claim you speak for your race or the true issues your race faces, then claim people that disagree are sucking up.
I think it's clear at this point that I disagree that there was nothing racist in that email.
Here is the email in its entirety. Exegete it and show me. + Show Spoiler +
The reality is, you and I have not had many back and forth exchanges, so one shouldn't preclude the outcome before starting.
I need to go to a racial sensitivity training. It would take a series of classes to find what is racist about that email. Forget about how we're justifying oppression to expose oppression, he used phenotype and shouldn't have! I have trouble these days distinguishing between "That protestor is so outlandish you're just trying to tar the movement by picking its most unrepresentative agent" And "Of course it's racist you dimwit! He's stupid for writing it, POC can't be oppressive and to say otherwise is bigotry pure and simple."
Poe's law needs a corollary for Poe's race-baiter: Trying to identify a parody of a racism accuser from actual sincere racist accusations is becoming impossible. Would that this madness end sometime this century.
No what you need they don't have at those trainings usually. You need the type of confrontation only fate can bring you where you realize the glaring and unfortunate errors of your casual yet proud ignorance.
But you got as good a chance at getting that there as anywhere else, probably better, so yeah, you should go. Not like you don't have the resources to make time.
I too often deal with African Americans that have jobs and we just interact as friendly people whose business brings us together. Maybe in future I can meet more grievance-associated blacks who can really tell me the a-z in racist emails. I suppose my subtle oppression limits them from truly speaking their minds, or fate hasn't intervened enough, or Los Angeles only has blacks of Uncle Tom character. I seriously hardly know anymore. For now I'll have to persist in my quandry between true activists or parodies of activists. I'm sure you understand that my skin color prevents me from true enlightenment.
I love that you're so oblivious that you can't imagine for a moment why "African Americans that have jobs" and "business brings us together" might not be engaging with you in an entirely frank and forthcoming way regarding their concerns about race and is a pretty hilarious example of white fragility.
I know LA has bars predominately patronized by black people, go there and have an honest discussion about racism, you'll get more honest conversation than you find from black people you do business with.
Are you an activist for black people to get their constitutional rights and to reduce/eliminate institutional/systemic racism or a parody?
It's not your skin color, your argument suggests it's more a result of a superiority complex.
Because blacks that have jobs aren't sufficiently oppressed to have an honest dialogue. Your racism aside, I've had honest discussions and the summary is GH-types don't speak for me. They laugh off these stories like other guys do of dumb college students with no clue about the real world. But yeah, you go whole hog disavowing other blacks about having views of their rights and the racism of others. I'd expect no less. I gather from them that other agitator sorts don't expect racial heterogeneity. They just want to marginalized the views of other blacks in pursuit of concessions from the state. But go on pushing your agenda irrespective of how backwards it feels to LA. I'd expect nothing less.
That you genuinely don't see how oblivious this post is amuses me enough to not be insulted.
Because blacks that have jobs aren't sufficiently oppressed to have an honest dialogue.
Like, this really is gold.
That you've tried to make this into me disregarding the diversity of black experience is a comical turn. Like you genuinely think that you have more respect for and understanding of the range of black experiences in this country. Because you
deal with African Americans that have jobs and we just interact as friendly people whose business brings us together
I mean, damn. I hope one day this post is as embarrassing as it should be, but it probably wont be until one day a long time from now.
I think you answered my earlier question about whether you're an activist or a parody.
I next need to know how dismissing the opinions of blacks with jobs is comedic gold and not oppression. And I was damn serious not knowing how people of your thinking will respond to every strange protest demand. Is it totally taking the worst example to slam the movement, or so obviously the right course of action that only a white man would not get?
When you earlier dismissed some poster's thoughts as white fragility, I was kind of reminded that you actually want more insults and bitterness not solutions.
GH seems like a hopeless case of "black fragility", to be honest. If anyone disagrees with him, he just throws a tantrum. What's the point of continuing this discussion?
On May 29 2017 13:42 TheTenthDoc wrote: Even if protesting Trump's absurd bumbling firing of Comey was hypocrisy, it boggles my mind anyone would think hypocrisy would prevent any politician from doing anything.
I think it's clear at this point that I disagree that there was nothing racist in that email.
Here is the email in its entirety. Exegete it and show me. + Show Spoiler +
The reality is, you and I have not had many back and forth exchanges, so one shouldn't preclude the outcome before starting.
I need to go to a racial sensitivity training. It would take a series of classes to find what is racist about that email. Forget about how we're justifying oppression to expose oppression, he used phenotype and shouldn't have! I have trouble these days distinguishing between "That protestor is so outlandish you're just trying to tar the movement by picking its most unrepresentative agent" And "Of course it's racist you dimwit! He's stupid for writing it, POC can't be oppressive and to say otherwise is bigotry pure and simple."
Poe's law needs a corollary for Poe's race-baiter: Trying to identify a parody of a racism accuser from actual sincere racist accusations is becoming impossible. Would that this madness end sometime this century.
I dunno, I don't think it takes racial sensitivity training to see that discussing "phenotypic race" dismissively while pitching the merits of your own "scientific/evolutionary" perspective of race would piss people off.
I mean, usually doing the latter alone is more than sufficient.
My mental parallel is kind of "I'm going to hold class on Easter because it marginalizes atheists to cancel class that day. Oh, and I'm willing to host a seminar on the biologic and neurologic motivations of religion." It's inexact, of course.
It really focused around a clear point. Volunteering to leave for a day is different than encouraging a different group to go away. Usually, I'd assume reference to phenotype (like other words hinting at a sharp edge to the speech) means the writer is pissed. It's race, so obviously this gets transmuted into the writer is racist. Forgive my surprise at learning he's a biology professor that wants to look at this through a scientific / evolutionary lens. In other news, an English professor wants to examine this passage using literary criticism techniques.
Definitely not enough to merit a mob yelling profanities and interrupting his class (but escalation these days, you know). Sure, pen your angry student newspaper column highlighting his uncharitable tone and get some one-on-one dialogue and maybe both sides can learn. All this smacks of allaying or softening violent disruptive backlash, but no quarter is given for an angry professor writing a generally neutral email.
On May 29 2017 13:42 TheTenthDoc wrote: Even if protesting Trump's absurd bumbling firing of Comey was hypocrisy, it boggles my mind anyone would think hypocrisy would prevent any politician from doing anything.
On May 29 2017 13:42 Danglars wrote:
On May 29 2017 10:58 Falling wrote:
I think it's clear at this point that I disagree that there was nothing racist in that email.
Here is the email in its entirety. Exegete it and show me. + Show Spoiler +
The reality is, you and I have not had many back and forth exchanges, so one shouldn't preclude the outcome before starting.
I need to go to a racial sensitivity training. It would take a series of classes to find what is racist about that email. Forget about how we're justifying oppression to expose oppression, he used phenotype and shouldn't have! I have trouble these days distinguishing between "That protestor is so outlandish you're just trying to tar the movement by picking its most unrepresentative agent" And "Of course it's racist you dimwit! He's stupid for writing it, POC can't be oppressive and to say otherwise is bigotry pure and simple."
Poe's law needs a corollary for Poe's race-baiter: Trying to identify a parody of a racism accuser from actual sincere racist accusations is becoming impossible. Would that this madness end sometime this century.
I dunno, I don't think it takes racial sensitivity training to see that discussing "phenotypic race" dismissively while pitching the merits of your own "scientific/evolutionary" perspective of race would piss people off.
I mean, usually doing the latter alone is more than sufficient.
My mental parallel is kind of "I'm going to hold class on Easter because it marginalizes atheists to cancel class that day. Oh, and I'm willing to host a seminar on the biologic and neurologic motivations of religion." It's inexact, of course.
It really focused around a clear point. Volunteering to leave for a day is different than encouraging a different group to go away. Usually, I'd assume reference to phenotype (like other words hinting at a sharp edge to the speech) means the writer is pissed. It's race, so obviously this gets transmuted into the writer is racist. Forgive my surprise at learning he's a biology professor that wants to look at this through a scientific / evolutionary lens. In other news, an English professor wants to examine this passage using literary criticism techniques.
Definitely not enough to merit a mob yelling profanities and interrupting his class (but escalation these days, you know). Sure, pen your angry student newspaper column highlighting his uncharitable tone and get some one-on-one dialogue and maybe both sides can learn. All this smacks of allaying or softening violent disruptive backlash, but no quarter is given for an angry professor writing a generally neutral email.
Unless his "scientific/evolutionary lens" is thinly veiled eugenics (which is unlikely, but students would be more likely to know than us, because I can't find anything on it anywhere) it seems like a very aggressive reaction from students that spiraled as he fed more antagonism into it by doing interviews and the like. But that's what happens with all these scenarios, nobody backs down and it spirals out of control.
I just think casting the start of the spiral as difficult to understand given that email is pretty disingenuous, especially when doing something analogous at a religious university would quite possibly spark a similar reaction (albeit in fewer students).
I think it's clear at this point that I disagree that there was nothing racist in that email.
Here is the email in its entirety. Exegete it and show me. + Show Spoiler +
The reality is, you and I have not had many back and forth exchanges, so one shouldn't preclude the outcome before starting.
I need to go to a racial sensitivity training. It would take a series of classes to find what is racist about that email. Forget about how we're justifying oppression to expose oppression, he used phenotype and shouldn't have! I have trouble these days distinguishing between "That protestor is so outlandish you're just trying to tar the movement by picking its most unrepresentative agent" And "Of course it's racist you dimwit! He's stupid for writing it, POC can't be oppressive and to say otherwise is bigotry pure and simple."
Poe's law needs a corollary for Poe's race-baiter: Trying to identify a parody of a racism accuser from actual sincere racist accusations is becoming impossible. Would that this madness end sometime this century.
No what you need they don't have at those trainings usually. You need the type of confrontation only fate can bring you where you realize the glaring and unfortunate errors of your casual yet proud ignorance.
But you got as good a chance at getting that there as anywhere else, probably better, so yeah, you should go. Not like you don't have the resources to make time.
I too often deal with African Americans that have jobs and we just interact as friendly people whose business brings us together. Maybe in future I can meet more grievance-associated blacks who can really tell me the a-z in racist emails. I suppose my subtle oppression limits them from truly speaking their minds, or fate hasn't intervened enough, or Los Angeles only has blacks of Uncle Tom character. I seriously hardly know anymore. For now I'll have to persist in my quandry between true activists or parodies of activists. I'm sure you understand that my skin color prevents me from true enlightenment.
I love that you're so oblivious that you can't imagine for a moment why "African Americans that have jobs" and "business brings us together" might not be engaging with you in an entirely frank and forthcoming way regarding their concerns about race and is a pretty hilarious example of white fragility.
I know LA has bars predominately patronized by black people, go there and have an honest discussion about racism, you'll get more honest conversation than you find from black people you do business with.
Are you an activist for black people to get their constitutional rights and to reduce/eliminate institutional/systemic racism or a parody?
It's not your skin color, your argument suggests it's more a result of a superiority complex.
Because blacks that have jobs aren't sufficiently oppressed to have an honest dialogue. Your racism aside, I've had honest discussions and the summary is GH-types don't speak for me. They laugh off these stories like other guys do of dumb college students with no clue about the real world. But yeah, you go whole hog disavowing other blacks about having views of their rights and the racism of others. I'd expect no less. I gather from them that other agitator sorts don't expect racial heterogeneity. They just want to marginalized the views of other blacks in pursuit of concessions from the state. But go on pushing your agenda irrespective of how backwards it feels to LA. I'd expect nothing less.
One of the few times I agree with Danglars. So when I was in community college I had to take a multicultural studies class as part of the general requirement for transferring to university. The teacher was black, and I was one of 3 or 4 white guys in the whole class. Teacher spent almost every day teaching us how straight white men were the devil. One time he told us how as a black man every time he goes to a store employees follow him around as if he's going to steal something. I have a good friend that is to put it bluntly, a big black man, so as I was curious and appalled by that story, I asked my friend if that happens to him. His responge was: "nope, not even once, but that's probably because I don't dress or talk like a moron."
All that class really did was make me realize that I can't stand people who get combative and try to blame white people's existence for everything regardless of if we do anything. I think I came into that class much more willing to help fight against racism than I came out, since by then I was annoyed.
On May 29 2017 13:42 TheTenthDoc wrote: Even if protesting Trump's absurd bumbling firing of Comey was hypocrisy, it boggles my mind anyone would think hypocrisy would prevent any politician from doing anything.
On May 29 2017 13:42 Danglars wrote:
On May 29 2017 10:58 Falling wrote:
I think it's clear at this point that I disagree that there was nothing racist in that email.
Here is the email in its entirety. Exegete it and show me. + Show Spoiler +
The reality is, you and I have not had many back and forth exchanges, so one shouldn't preclude the outcome before starting.
I need to go to a racial sensitivity training. It would take a series of classes to find what is racist about that email. Forget about how we're justifying oppression to expose oppression, he used phenotype and shouldn't have! I have trouble these days distinguishing between "That protestor is so outlandish you're just trying to tar the movement by picking its most unrepresentative agent" And "Of course it's racist you dimwit! He's stupid for writing it, POC can't be oppressive and to say otherwise is bigotry pure and simple."
Poe's law needs a corollary for Poe's race-baiter: Trying to identify a parody of a racism accuser from actual sincere racist accusations is becoming impossible. Would that this madness end sometime this century.
I dunno, I don't think it takes racial sensitivity training to see that discussing "phenotypic race" dismissively while pitching the merits of your own "scientific/evolutionary" perspective of race would piss people off.
I mean, usually doing the latter alone is more than sufficient.
My mental parallel is kind of "I'm going to hold class on Easter because it marginalizes atheists to cancel class that day. Oh, and I'm willing to host a seminar on the biologic and neurologic motivations of religion." It's inexact, of course.
It really focused around a clear point. Volunteering to leave for a day is different than encouraging a different group to go away. Usually, I'd assume reference to phenotype (like other words hinting at a sharp edge to the speech) means the writer is pissed. It's race, so obviously this gets transmuted into the writer is racist. Forgive my surprise at learning he's a biology professor that wants to look at this through a scientific / evolutionary lens. In other news, an English professor wants to examine this passage using literary criticism techniques.
Definitely not enough to merit a mob yelling profanities and interrupting his class (but escalation these days, you know). Sure, pen your angry student newspaper column highlighting his uncharitable tone and get some one-on-one dialogue and maybe both sides can learn. All this smacks of allaying or softening violent disruptive backlash, but no quarter is given for an angry professor writing a generally neutral email.
Unless his "scientific/evolutionary lens" is thinly veiled eugenics (which is unlikely, but students would be more likely to know than us, because I can't find anything on it anywhere) it seems like a very aggressive reaction from students that spiraled as he fed more antagonism into it by doing interviews and the like. But that's what happens with all these scenarios, nobody backs down and it spirals out of control.
I just think casting the start of the spiral as difficult to understand given that email is pretty disingenuous, especially when doing something analogous at a religious university would quite possibly spark a similar reaction (albeit in fewer students).
Well it's about time a public university stood by a professor to speak his own mind no matter the aggressive reactions of students. The start of the spiral is the aggressive reaction. It's helped by knowing that no college has taken real disciplinary steps, so they're immune to the consequences of their behavior. You'll see much less spiraling when students learn disruption and profanity will lead to suspensions and the teacher that offered very little in provocation stays. As it stands, universities encourage this behavior because it yields results.
I think it's clear at this point that I disagree that there was nothing racist in that email.
Here is the email in its entirety. Exegete it and show me. + Show Spoiler +
The reality is, you and I have not had many back and forth exchanges, so one shouldn't preclude the outcome before starting.
I need to go to a racial sensitivity training. It would take a series of classes to find what is racist about that email. Forget about how we're justifying oppression to expose oppression, he used phenotype and shouldn't have! I have trouble these days distinguishing between "That protestor is so outlandish you're just trying to tar the movement by picking its most unrepresentative agent" And "Of course it's racist you dimwit! He's stupid for writing it, POC can't be oppressive and to say otherwise is bigotry pure and simple."
Poe's law needs a corollary for Poe's race-baiter: Trying to identify a parody of a racism accuser from actual sincere racist accusations is becoming impossible. Would that this madness end sometime this century.
No what you need they don't have at those trainings usually. You need the type of confrontation only fate can bring you where you realize the glaring and unfortunate errors of your casual yet proud ignorance.
But you got as good a chance at getting that there as anywhere else, probably better, so yeah, you should go. Not like you don't have the resources to make time.
I too often deal with African Americans that have jobs and we just interact as friendly people whose business brings us together. Maybe in future I can meet more grievance-associated blacks who can really tell me the a-z in racist emails. I suppose my subtle oppression limits them from truly speaking their minds, or fate hasn't intervened enough, or Los Angeles only has blacks of Uncle Tom character. I seriously hardly know anymore. For now I'll have to persist in my quandry between true activists or parodies of activists. I'm sure you understand that my skin color prevents me from true enlightenment.
I love that you're so oblivious that you can't imagine for a moment why "African Americans that have jobs" and "business brings us together" might not be engaging with you in an entirely frank and forthcoming way regarding their concerns about race and is a pretty hilarious example of white fragility.
I know LA has bars predominately patronized by black people, go there and have an honest discussion about racism, you'll get more honest conversation than you find from black people you do business with.
Are you an activist for black people to get their constitutional rights and to reduce/eliminate institutional/systemic racism or a parody?
It's not your skin color, your argument suggests it's more a result of a superiority complex.
Because blacks that have jobs aren't sufficiently oppressed to have an honest dialogue. Your racism aside, I've had honest discussions and the summary is GH-types don't speak for me. They laugh off these stories like other guys do of dumb college students with no clue about the real world. But yeah, you go whole hog disavowing other blacks about having views of their rights and the racism of others. I'd expect no less. I gather from them that other agitator sorts don't expect racial heterogeneity. They just want to marginalized the views of other blacks in pursuit of concessions from the state. But go on pushing your agenda irrespective of how backwards it feels to LA. I'd expect nothing less.
One of the few times I agree with Danglars. So when I was in community college I had to take a multicultural studies class as part of the general requirement for transferring to university. The teacher was black, and I was one of 3 or 4 white guys in the whole class. Teacher spent almost every day teaching us how straight white men were the devil. One time he told us how as a black man every time he goes to a store employees follow him around as if he's going to steal something. I have a good friend that is to put it bluntly, a big black man, so as I was curious and appalled by that story, I asked my friend if that happens to him. His responge was: "nope, not even once, but that's probably because I don't dress or talk like a moron."
All that class really did was make me realize that I can't stand people who get combative and try to blame white people's existence for everything regardless of if we do anything. I think I came into that class much more willing to help fight against racism than I came out, since by then I was annoyed.
That's a nice anecdote. I know a black guy, born in abject poverty in Arkansas, literal dirt floors. The second he was 18 he bought a 1 way bus ticket out of the south. Moved to Minnesota, a pretty liberal state, went to college, got a good job, got married, worked his way up a giant international company, retired a few years back upper management. One of the nicest guys you could hope to know, the shit he's put up with in his personal life qualifies him to be a saint. He's a multimillionaire, nice, funny, ~60 year old man in a liberal state. He STILL gets pulled over for driving while black in his BMW, he still gets shit for marrying a white woman, he still puts up with racism constantly and this guy puts the American dream to shame.
On May 29 2017 23:14 Plansix wrote: I am increasingly concerned with social media's tendency to elevate small, localized events and protests to a national or international level of fame. These evens are often the result of local problems, culture and policies and do not rise to the level of international impact. But because someone decides that black festival in France might bar whites, the it has now been brought to my attention. But so much is lost by the time it reaches men, I'm left with this flat impression of it devoid of nuance. So I am provided with just enough knowledge to be harmful, but not much more.
This is what I was saying a couple pages ago. Anti-pluralism agitprop always flows as follows: Drudge -> Sinclair AM Radio -> Breitbart -> FOX -> Every Conservative Twitter and Forum Poster. Some story about pluralism going too far and stepping on White Privilege comes up and all the conservative posters in unison condemn this as pluralism going over the line. These stories are a key reason why I can't make any inroads in discussing politics with suburban whites. They feel they are being stepped on by liberals and their brown allies because of the deluge of phony anti-pluralism stories.
EDIT: that stupid Burrito story went national. It is double digits of whiners and a business that couldn't get customers. But every conservative knows that liberal pluralism is stepping on their rights.
On May 29 2017 23:14 Plansix wrote: I am increasingly concerned with social media's tendency to elevate small, localized events and protests to a national or international level of fame. These evens are often the result of local problems, culture and policies and do not rise to the level of international impact. But because someone decides that black festival in France might bar whites, the it has now been brought to my attention. But so much is lost by the time it reaches men, I'm left with this flat impression of it devoid of nuance. So I am provided with just enough knowledge to be harmful, but not much more.
This is what I was saying a couple pages ago. Anti-pluralism agitprop always flows as follows: Drudge -> Sinclair AM Radio -> Breitbart -> FOX -> Every Conservative Twitter and Forum Poster. Some story about pluralism going too far and stepping on White Privilege comes up and all the conservative posters in unison condemn this as pluralism going over the line. These stories are a key reason why I can't make any inroads in discussing politics with suburban whites. They feel they are being stepped on by liberals and their brown allies because of the deluge of phony anti-pluralism stories.
EDIT: that stupid Burrito story went national. It is double digits of whiners and a business that couldn't get customers. But every conservative knows that liberal pluralism is stepping on their rights.
Were they actively protesting the burrito place or just boycotting it?
I think it's clear at this point that I disagree that there was nothing racist in that email.
Here is the email in its entirety. Exegete it and show me. + Show Spoiler +
The reality is, you and I have not had many back and forth exchanges, so one shouldn't preclude the outcome before starting.
I need to go to a racial sensitivity training. It would take a series of classes to find what is racist about that email. Forget about how we're justifying oppression to expose oppression, he used phenotype and shouldn't have! I have trouble these days distinguishing between "That protestor is so outlandish you're just trying to tar the movement by picking its most unrepresentative agent" And "Of course it's racist you dimwit! He's stupid for writing it, POC can't be oppressive and to say otherwise is bigotry pure and simple."
Poe's law needs a corollary for Poe's race-baiter: Trying to identify a parody of a racism accuser from actual sincere racist accusations is becoming impossible. Would that this madness end sometime this century.
No what you need they don't have at those trainings usually. You need the type of confrontation only fate can bring you where you realize the glaring and unfortunate errors of your casual yet proud ignorance.
But you got as good a chance at getting that there as anywhere else, probably better, so yeah, you should go. Not like you don't have the resources to make time.
I too often deal with African Americans that have jobs and we just interact as friendly people whose business brings us together. Maybe in future I can meet more grievance-associated blacks who can really tell me the a-z in racist emails. I suppose my subtle oppression limits them from truly speaking their minds, or fate hasn't intervened enough, or Los Angeles only has blacks of Uncle Tom character. I seriously hardly know anymore. For now I'll have to persist in my quandry between true activists or parodies of activists. I'm sure you understand that my skin color prevents me from true enlightenment.
I love that you're so oblivious that you can't imagine for a moment why "African Americans that have jobs" and "business brings us together" might not be engaging with you in an entirely frank and forthcoming way regarding their concerns about race and is a pretty hilarious example of white fragility.
I know LA has bars predominately patronized by black people, go there and have an honest discussion about racism, you'll get more honest conversation than you find from black people you do business with.
Are you an activist for black people to get their constitutional rights and to reduce/eliminate institutional/systemic racism or a parody?
It's not your skin color, your argument suggests it's more a result of a superiority complex.
Because blacks that have jobs aren't sufficiently oppressed to have an honest dialogue. Your racism aside, I've had honest discussions and the summary is GH-types don't speak for me. They laugh off these stories like other guys do of dumb college students with no clue about the real world. But yeah, you go whole hog disavowing other blacks about having views of their rights and the racism of others. I'd expect no less. I gather from them that other agitator sorts don't expect racial heterogeneity. They just want to marginalized the views of other blacks in pursuit of concessions from the state. But go on pushing your agenda irrespective of how backwards it feels to LA. I'd expect nothing less.
One of the few times I agree with Danglars. So when I was in community college I had to take a multicultural studies class as part of the general requirement for transferring to university. The teacher was black, and I was one of 3 or 4 white guys in the whole class. Teacher spent almost every day teaching us how straight white men were the devil. One time he told us how as a black man every time he goes to a store employees follow him around as if he's going to steal something. I have a good friend that is to put it bluntly, a big black man, so as I was curious and appalled by that story, I asked my friend if that happens to him. His responge was: "nope, not even once, but that's probably because I don't dress or talk like a moron."
All that class really did was make me realize that I can't stand people who get combative and try to blame white people's existence for everything regardless of if we do anything. I think I came into that class much more willing to help fight against racism than I came out, since by then I was annoyed.
That's a nice anecdote. I know a black guy, born in abject poverty in Arkansas, literal dirt floors. The second he was 18 he bought a 1 way bus ticket out of the south. Moved to Minnesota, a pretty liberal state, went to college, got a good job, got married, worked his way up a giant international company, retired a few years back upper management. One of the nicest guys you could hope to know, the shit he's put up with in his personal life qualifies him to be a saint. He's a multimillionaire, nice, funny, ~60 year old man in a liberal state. He STILL gets pulled over for driving while black in his BMW, he still gets shit for marrying a white woman, he still puts up with racism constantly and this guy puts the American dream to shame.
USA is a racist country, and racism is deeply rooted in people's minds and institutions. You have been hiding it well for a while, but Trump's victory made it obvious again to the whole world. Given your history, it is likely to stick around for at least a couple of hundred years.
What puzzles me more is that your population, which mainly consists of immigrants (many illigal) from all over the world, has turned to "me first" and "don't let them in". The country itself is a prime example that pluralism is a way to gain world dominance!
On May 29 2017 23:14 Plansix wrote: I am increasingly concerned with social media's tendency to elevate small, localized events and protests to a national or international level of fame. These evens are often the result of local problems, culture and policies and do not rise to the level of international impact. But because someone decides that black festival in France might bar whites, the it has now been brought to my attention. But so much is lost by the time it reaches men, I'm left with this flat impression of it devoid of nuance. So I am provided with just enough knowledge to be harmful, but not much more.
This is what I was saying a couple pages ago. Anti-pluralism agitprop always flows as follows: Drudge -> Sinclair AM Radio -> Breitbart -> FOX -> Every Conservative Twitter and Forum Poster. Some story about pluralism going too far and stepping on White Privilege comes up and all the conservative posters in unison condemn this as pluralism going over the line. These stories are a key reason why I can't make any inroads in discussing politics with suburban whites. They feel they are being stepped on by liberals and their brown allies because of the deluge of phony anti-pluralism stories.
EDIT: that stupid Burrito story went national. It is double digits of whiners and a business that couldn't get customers. But every conservative knows that liberal pluralism is stepping on their rights.
I'm pretty sure I have an undue amount of love for Shaun & Jen's channel in general but that video is as relevant to internet political discussions today as it's ever been.
On May 29 2017 23:14 Plansix wrote: I am increasingly concerned with social media's tendency to elevate small, localized events and protests to a national or international level of fame. These evens are often the result of local problems, culture and policies and do not rise to the level of international impact. But because someone decides that black festival in France might bar whites, the it has now been brought to my attention. But so much is lost by the time it reaches men, I'm left with this flat impression of it devoid of nuance. So I am provided with just enough knowledge to be harmful, but not much more.
This is what I was saying a couple pages ago. Anti-pluralism agitprop always flows as follows: Drudge -> Sinclair AM Radio -> Breitbart -> FOX -> Every Conservative Twitter and Forum Poster. Some story about pluralism going too far and stepping on White Privilege comes up and all the conservative posters in unison condemn this as pluralism going over the line. These stories are a key reason why I can't make any inroads in discussing politics with suburban whites. They feel they are being stepped on by liberals and their brown allies because of the deluge of phony anti-pluralism stories.
EDIT: that stupid Burrito story went national. It is double digits of whiners and a business that couldn't get customers. But every conservative knows that liberal pluralism is stepping on their rights.
Were they actively protesting the burrito place or just boycotting it?
I skimmed that story at best. It looked like people weren't buying the burritos and there was some goofy group agitating against non-Mexican burritos. But this feels ridiculous because I was in Portland a few months ago. I saw all kinds of weird food places and they didn't have race checks.
However, I don't think the specifics matter as much as the meta pipeline of anti-pluralism stories. There will be another "pluralism too far" story coming up on Sinclair Radio and Breitbart very soon. It will have crazy claims of whites getting stepped on, there will be debates about the facts, and the story will fall apart long after conservatives got their justifications for opposing pluralism.
EDIT: Shaun & Jen's channel, yeah, that is what I am getting at. The pipeline.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/e5CwA9M.jpg)
If anyone disagrees with him, he just throws a tantrum. What's the point of continuing this discussion?
