|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 September 26 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 11:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 26 2017 11:02 Falling wrote:
*sigh*
How do you define white supremacy again.
Whites are in a supreme position in society? Pretty sure GH's definition is that society has been built over the course of generations and years that white people are at the top, whites are the highest level, supreme. So if you're working to keep that system in place, whether you're actively working to keep whites at top, or you're just lazy and want things to stay the same. Either way you're continuing white supremacy. Regardless of whether you actually think white people are the best or not. Leaving things as is keeps whites on top, you're leaving all the moorings in place. Sure. So we have better words than racist for that. Selfish? Lazy? Not sufficiently sympathetic to do anything?
Those words do describe it in the general sense, but they also don't get anything to change. Sure it's lazy, sure it's selfish, but once we boil it down to its essence it is white supremacy. That's specifically what we end up at if we get down to brass tacks. Selfishness is like the 10,000 foot view, but we have to focus down to what that selfishness really means. It really means white people at the top by default once we chip everything away. I think that's a pretty important distinction personally.
|
On September 26 2017 10:41 Danglars wrote:
But keep trying, guys.
I dont know whether its true or false but I promise you the governor will say this regardless. He wants help. Trump provides the help. Saying nice things about Trump makes him more willing to help you. Note I am not saying its not the truth only that the governor is going to say Trump and FEMA have been a huge help regardless of whether its true.
|
On September 26 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 11:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 26 2017 11:02 Falling wrote:
*sigh*
How do you define white supremacy again.
Whites are in a supreme position in society? Pretty sure GH's definition is that society has been built over the course of generations and years that white people are at the top, whites are the highest level, supreme. So if you're working to keep that system in place, whether you're actively working to keep whites at top, or you're just lazy and want things to stay the same. Either way you're continuing white supremacy. Regardless of whether you actually think white people are the best or not. Leaving things as is keeps whites on top, you're leaving all the moorings in place. Sure. So we have better words than racist for that. Selfish? Lazy? Not sufficiently sympathetic to do anything? Apathetic? Greedy? Insincere? Self-indulgent?
We don't call those people racist. It is bluntly said that they are content with racism existing if it means up-keeping the status quo. People take that as being called racist.
|
I prefer the following terms:
White grievance, white identity politics, fragile whites, white butthurt, etc.
These terms focus on what is really going on without getting into other races. The real issue is white people feeling aggrieved about their whiteness.
EDIT: example: Trump saying "get those sons of bitches off the field" was a perfect play on white grievance. To a fat impotent white man, see these young millionaire bucks kneel was deeply triggering and got right at his white butthurt. Trump played directly to that butthurt and said what the white man wished he could say.
|
Canada11489 Posts
On September 26 2017 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 26 2017 11:02 Falling wrote:
*sigh*
How do you define white supremacy again.
Whites are in a supreme position in society? Pretty sure GH's definition is that society has been built over the course of generations and years that white people are at the top, whites are the highest level, supreme. So if you're working to keep that system in place, whether you're actively working to keep whites at top, or you're just lazy and want things to stay the same. Either way you're continuing white supremacy. Regardless of whether you actually think white people are the best or not. Leaving things as is keeps whites on top, you're leaving all the moorings in place. Sure. So we have better words than racist for that. Selfish? Lazy? Not sufficiently sympathetic to do anything? Apathetic? Greedy? Insincere? Self-indulgent? You're free to engage with the definition I gave you.
I believe I am. Is a person who does nothing to erode the supreme position of whites in society a racist? Or is that person a racist if they happen to oppose an action that is presumed to erode the supreme position of whites in society? If either of those are yes, then in my free engagement of the term, I'm saying they got it wrong. The labelled motivation does not identify the truth of the problem. Faulty premises is no way to build an argument.
Selfishness is like the 10,000 foot view, but we have to focus down to what that selfishness really means.
Selfishness is not a 10K view. That's bedrock humanity. It cuts through the heart of every human. And in it, we fight the root of great evils in the world.
|
On September 26 2017 11:25 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 26 2017 11:02 Falling wrote:
*sigh*
How do you define white supremacy again.
Whites are in a supreme position in society? Pretty sure GH's definition is that society has been built over the course of generations and years that white people are at the top, whites are the highest level, supreme. So if you're working to keep that system in place, whether you're actively working to keep whites at top, or you're just lazy and want things to stay the same. Either way you're continuing white supremacy. Regardless of whether you actually think white people are the best or not. Leaving things as is keeps whites on top, you're leaving all the moorings in place. Sure. So we have better words than racist for that. Selfish? Lazy? Not sufficiently sympathetic to do anything? Apathetic? Greedy? Insincere? Self-indulgent? You're free to engage with the definition I gave you. I believe I am. Is a person who does nothing to erode the supreme position of whites in society a racist? Or is that person a racist if they happen to oppose an action that is presumed to erode the supreme position of whites in society? If either of those are yes, then in my free engagement of the term, I'm saying they got it wrong. The labelled motivation does not identify the truth of the problem. Faulty premises is no way to build an argument.
If you are content existing in an unjust system that happens to benefit you, are you not part of the problem? If you support justice with words alone, but then reap the rewards of an unjust system, isn't it all just lip service?
|
On September 26 2017 11:25 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 26 2017 11:02 Falling wrote:
*sigh*
How do you define white supremacy again.
Whites are in a supreme position in society? Pretty sure GH's definition is that society has been built over the course of generations and years that white people are at the top, whites are the highest level, supreme. So if you're working to keep that system in place, whether you're actively working to keep whites at top, or you're just lazy and want things to stay the same. Either way you're continuing white supremacy. Regardless of whether you actually think white people are the best or not. Leaving things as is keeps whites on top, you're leaving all the moorings in place. Sure. So we have better words than racist for that. Selfish? Lazy? Not sufficiently sympathetic to do anything? Apathetic? Greedy? Insincere? Self-indulgent? You're free to engage with the definition I gave you. I believe I am. Is a person who does nothing to erode the supreme position of whites in society a racist? Or is that person a racist if they happen to oppose an action that is presumed to erode the supreme position of whites in society? If either of those are yes, then in my free engagement of the term, I'm saying they got it wrong. The labelled motivation does not identify the truth of the problem. Faulty premises is no way to build an argument. Show nested quote +Selfishness is like the 10,000 foot view, but we have to focus down to what that selfishness really means. Selfishness is not a 10K view. That's bedrock humanity. It cuts through the heart of every human. And in it, we fight the root of great evils in the world.
No, your "oh, it's just selfishness" means that everyone who isn't white is a lower caste at the end of the day. Your selfishness has consequences, your selfishness is a vote for the status quo, your selfishness perpetuates white supremacy.
|
On September 26 2017 11:18 xDaunt wrote:
See, if you adopt that definition of "white supremacy," then you might as well just get back on the boat and go back to Africa. There's no room for hope. You're just a mirror image of the Alt Right, recognizing as they do that racial strife is unavoidable.
lol So what do I do with the white part of me, just leave it here and make it join the Alt-Right?
On September 26 2017 11:25 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 26 2017 11:02 Falling wrote:
*sigh*
How do you define white supremacy again.
Whites are in a supreme position in society? Pretty sure GH's definition is that society has been built over the course of generations and years that white people are at the top, whites are the highest level, supreme. So if you're working to keep that system in place, whether you're actively working to keep whites at top, or you're just lazy and want things to stay the same. Either way you're continuing white supremacy. Regardless of whether you actually think white people are the best or not. Leaving things as is keeps whites on top, you're leaving all the moorings in place. Sure. So we have better words than racist for that. Selfish? Lazy? Not sufficiently sympathetic to do anything? Apathetic? Greedy? Insincere? Self-indulgent? You're free to engage with the definition I gave you. I believe I am. Is a person who does nothing to erode the supreme position of whites in society a racist? Or is that person a racist if they happen to oppose an action that is presumed to erode the supreme position of whites in society? If either of those are yes, then in my free engagement of the term, I'm saying they got it wrong. The labelled motivation does not identify the truth of the problem. Faulty premises is no way to build an argument.
No, you literally engaged with another (I'm pretty sure white guy's) interpretation of my definition and are now asking me about people being called racist.
|
Canada11489 Posts
On September 26 2017 11:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 11:25 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 26 2017 11:02 Falling wrote:
*sigh*
How do you define white supremacy again.
Whites are in a supreme position in society? Pretty sure GH's definition is that society has been built over the course of generations and years that white people are at the top, whites are the highest level, supreme. So if you're working to keep that system in place, whether you're actively working to keep whites at top, or you're just lazy and want things to stay the same. Either way you're continuing white supremacy. Regardless of whether you actually think white people are the best or not. Leaving things as is keeps whites on top, you're leaving all the moorings in place. Sure. So we have better words than racist for that. Selfish? Lazy? Not sufficiently sympathetic to do anything? Apathetic? Greedy? Insincere? Self-indulgent? You're free to engage with the definition I gave you. I believe I am. Is a person who does nothing to erode the supreme position of whites in society a racist? Or is that person a racist if they happen to oppose an action that is presumed to erode the supreme position of whites in society? If either of those are yes, then in my free engagement of the term, I'm saying they got it wrong. The labelled motivation does not identify the truth of the problem. Faulty premises is no way to build an argument. If you are content existing in an unjust system that happens to benefit you, are you not part of the problem?
But why are you a part of the problem? In what way? That matters so that you can actually fix your part of the problem in the right way. Are you an absolutely misunderstanding person of ill will? That's quite different than a person of good will but of shallow understanding. In the first, it's the ill will that needs to change- all the information in the world will not change a person of ill will, who can twist it as they please. Assuming that a person of good will, but of shallow understanding is a person of ill will... that'll cause problems.
No, you literally engaged with another (I'm pretty sure white guy's) interpretation of my definition and are now asking me about people being called racist.
Well sure- because that's my interpretation from the last time we engaged on the topic. I didn't get it from anywhere else. I'm just trying to figure what you mean by it.
Anyways, I don't think it's a good term because the phrase already means something very specific. It's more conflation that brings obfuscation rather than clarity. That it happens to come from a branch of academics doesn't speak for itself as not all academics are known for their clarity of thought or insight, so the term must stand on it's own merits. I think it has little and a better term should be found.
On September 26 2017 11:32 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 11:25 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 26 2017 11:02 Falling wrote:
*sigh*
How do you define white supremacy again.
Whites are in a supreme position in society? Pretty sure GH's definition is that society has been built over the course of generations and years that white people are at the top, whites are the highest level, supreme. So if you're working to keep that system in place, whether you're actively working to keep whites at top, or you're just lazy and want things to stay the same. Either way you're continuing white supremacy. Regardless of whether you actually think white people are the best or not. Leaving things as is keeps whites on top, you're leaving all the moorings in place. Sure. So we have better words than racist for that. Selfish? Lazy? Not sufficiently sympathetic to do anything? Apathetic? Greedy? Insincere? Self-indulgent? You're free to engage with the definition I gave you. I believe I am. Is a person who does nothing to erode the supreme position of whites in society a racist? Or is that person a racist if they happen to oppose an action that is presumed to erode the supreme position of whites in society? If either of those are yes, then in my free engagement of the term, I'm saying they got it wrong. The labelled motivation does not identify the truth of the problem. Faulty premises is no way to build an argument. Selfishness is like the 10,000 foot view, but we have to focus down to what that selfishness really means. Selfishness is not a 10K view. That's bedrock humanity. It cuts through the heart of every human. And in it, we fight the root of great evils in the world. No, your "oh, it's just selfishness" means that everyone who isn't white is a lower caste at the end of the day. Your selfishness has consequences, your selfishness is a vote for the status quo, your selfishness perpetuates white supremacy.
What part of And in it, we fight the root of great evils in the world. leads you to believe that I think selfishness is just selfishness? Of course it has consequences, that's why it is the root of great evils in the world. Perhaps the root? But I did not want to speak too strongly unless I had better thought it through. But if that is not a strong enough word (I think it is a very strong word, but we don't think too much on it), then that rather puts to lie this other idea argued in this thread, that people should just get over being labelled a racist because it doesn't mean all that much.
But it also matters, because if it's self interest rather than malice that is forming people's resistance, one could perhaps incentivize changes that would create (let's say, those low income housing). But monetary incentives will not work if it is ill will and malice that is the root cause of the maintenance of status quo.
|
On September 26 2017 11:34 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 11:28 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 11:25 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 26 2017 11:02 Falling wrote:
*sigh*
How do you define white supremacy again.
Whites are in a supreme position in society? Pretty sure GH's definition is that society has been built over the course of generations and years that white people are at the top, whites are the highest level, supreme. So if you're working to keep that system in place, whether you're actively working to keep whites at top, or you're just lazy and want things to stay the same. Either way you're continuing white supremacy. Regardless of whether you actually think white people are the best or not. Leaving things as is keeps whites on top, you're leaving all the moorings in place. Sure. So we have better words than racist for that. Selfish? Lazy? Not sufficiently sympathetic to do anything? Apathetic? Greedy? Insincere? Self-indulgent? You're free to engage with the definition I gave you. I believe I am. Is a person who does nothing to erode the supreme position of whites in society a racist? Or is that person a racist if they happen to oppose an action that is presumed to erode the supreme position of whites in society? If either of those are yes, then in my free engagement of the term, I'm saying they got it wrong. The labelled motivation does not identify the truth of the problem. Faulty premises is no way to build an argument. If you are content existing in an unjust system that happens to benefit you, are you not part of the problem? But why are you a part of the problem? In what way? That matters so that you can actually fix your part of the problem in the right way. Are you an absolutely misunderstanding person of ill will? That's quite different than a person of good will but of shallow understanding. In the first, it's the ill will that needs to change- all the information in the world will not change a person of ill will, who can twist it as they please. Assuming that a person of good will, but of shallow understanding is a person of ill will... that'll cause problems.
When will there not be "ill will"? Protesting is not popular. Every time we talk about racism, there is going to be someone in this thread saying the left calls everyone racist. Every time we try to define racism, there will be someone in this thread claiming we got it wrong. This is the hundredth time have have had this discussion. We never get past this part. We have changed our words, softened our language. We have worked around the problem, tried to explain it in ways that won't offend. Nothing changed. We are still here. So maybe there are people in this thread that will never talk about racism. They refuse and will argue about the definition of racism until the heat death of the sun. Anything to avoid talking about it.
There is no secret code. No way to talk about racism that won't offend someone. You can kneel in silence before the national anthem and or block traffic, it won't matter. Because if someone tells a racist joke that you didn't think was funny, they will act like its your fault for not laughing. They blame you for pointing out the fact that the joke was racist by not laughing at it.
|
On September 26 2017 11:34 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 11:28 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 11:25 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 26 2017 11:02 Falling wrote:
*sigh*
How do you define white supremacy again.
Whites are in a supreme position in society? Pretty sure GH's definition is that society has been built over the course of generations and years that white people are at the top, whites are the highest level, supreme. So if you're working to keep that system in place, whether you're actively working to keep whites at top, or you're just lazy and want things to stay the same. Either way you're continuing white supremacy. Regardless of whether you actually think white people are the best or not. Leaving things as is keeps whites on top, you're leaving all the moorings in place. Sure. So we have better words than racist for that. Selfish? Lazy? Not sufficiently sympathetic to do anything? Apathetic? Greedy? Insincere? Self-indulgent? You're free to engage with the definition I gave you. I believe I am. Is a person who does nothing to erode the supreme position of whites in society a racist? Or is that person a racist if they happen to oppose an action that is presumed to erode the supreme position of whites in society? If either of those are yes, then in my free engagement of the term, I'm saying they got it wrong. The labelled motivation does not identify the truth of the problem. Faulty premises is no way to build an argument. If you are content existing in an unjust system that happens to benefit you, are you not part of the problem? But why are you a part of the problem? In what way? That matters so that you can actually fix your part of the problem in the right way. Are you an absolutely misunderstanding person of ill will? That's quite different than a person of good will but of shallow understanding. In the first, it's the ill will that needs to change- all the information in the world will not change a person of ill will, who can twist it as they please. Assuming that a person of good will, but of shallow understanding is a person of ill will... that'll cause problems.
Except if the person of good will but shallow understanding lacks the understanding to acknowledge the scope of the problem, he'll "rightly" believe that others are blowing it out of proportion and he then has to make a judgement call whether or not those trying to "enlighten" him are of good or ill will.
|
On September 26 2017 11:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 11:34 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:28 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 11:25 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 26 2017 11:02 Falling wrote:
*sigh*
How do you define white supremacy again.
Whites are in a supreme position in society? Pretty sure GH's definition is that society has been built over the course of generations and years that white people are at the top, whites are the highest level, supreme. So if you're working to keep that system in place, whether you're actively working to keep whites at top, or you're just lazy and want things to stay the same. Either way you're continuing white supremacy. Regardless of whether you actually think white people are the best or not. Leaving things as is keeps whites on top, you're leaving all the moorings in place. Sure. So we have better words than racist for that. Selfish? Lazy? Not sufficiently sympathetic to do anything? Apathetic? Greedy? Insincere? Self-indulgent? You're free to engage with the definition I gave you. I believe I am. Is a person who does nothing to erode the supreme position of whites in society a racist? Or is that person a racist if they happen to oppose an action that is presumed to erode the supreme position of whites in society? If either of those are yes, then in my free engagement of the term, I'm saying they got it wrong. The labelled motivation does not identify the truth of the problem. Faulty premises is no way to build an argument. If you are content existing in an unjust system that happens to benefit you, are you not part of the problem? But why are you a part of the problem? In what way? That matters so that you can actually fix your part of the problem in the right way. Are you an absolutely misunderstanding person of ill will? That's quite different than a person of good will but of shallow understanding. In the first, it's the ill will that needs to change- all the information in the world will not change a person of ill will, who can twist it as they please. Assuming that a person of good will, but of shallow understanding is a person of ill will... that'll cause problems. When will there not be "ill will"? Protesting is not popular. Every time we talk about racism, there is going to be someone in this thread saying the left calls everyone racist. Every time we try to define racism, there will be someone in this thread claiming we got it wrong. This is the hundredth time have have had this discussion. We never get past this part. We have changed our words, softened our language. We have worked around the problem, tried to explain it in ways that won't offend. Nothing changed. We are still here. So maybe there are people in this thread that will never talk about racism. They refuse and will argue about the definition of racism until the heat death of the sun. Anything to avoid talking about it. There is no secret code. No way to talk about racism that won't offend someone. You can kneel in silence before the national anthem and or block traffic, it won't matter. Because if someone tells a racist joke that you didn't think was funny, they will act like its your fault for not laughing. They blame you for pointing out the fact that the joke was racist by not laughing at it.
What? Who's this "we?" The level of discourse from the Left is not only at a minimum now, but it is on a downward trajectory. Remember that Te-Nahisi Coates article that was published in the Atlantic a few weeks ago? That kind of shit wouldn't have appeared in a major publication ten years ago.
|
On September 26 2017 11:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 11:43 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 11:34 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:28 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 11:25 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 26 2017 11:02 Falling wrote:
*sigh*
How do you define white supremacy again.
Whites are in a supreme position in society? Pretty sure GH's definition is that society has been built over the course of generations and years that white people are at the top, whites are the highest level, supreme. So if you're working to keep that system in place, whether you're actively working to keep whites at top, or you're just lazy and want things to stay the same. Either way you're continuing white supremacy. Regardless of whether you actually think white people are the best or not. Leaving things as is keeps whites on top, you're leaving all the moorings in place. Sure. So we have better words than racist for that. Selfish? Lazy? Not sufficiently sympathetic to do anything? Apathetic? Greedy? Insincere? Self-indulgent? You're free to engage with the definition I gave you. I believe I am. Is a person who does nothing to erode the supreme position of whites in society a racist? Or is that person a racist if they happen to oppose an action that is presumed to erode the supreme position of whites in society? If either of those are yes, then in my free engagement of the term, I'm saying they got it wrong. The labelled motivation does not identify the truth of the problem. Faulty premises is no way to build an argument. If you are content existing in an unjust system that happens to benefit you, are you not part of the problem? But why are you a part of the problem? In what way? That matters so that you can actually fix your part of the problem in the right way. Are you an absolutely misunderstanding person of ill will? That's quite different than a person of good will but of shallow understanding. In the first, it's the ill will that needs to change- all the information in the world will not change a person of ill will, who can twist it as they please. Assuming that a person of good will, but of shallow understanding is a person of ill will... that'll cause problems. When will there not be "ill will"? Protesting is not popular. Every time we talk about racism, there is going to be someone in this thread saying the left calls everyone racist. Every time we try to define racism, there will be someone in this thread claiming we got it wrong. This is the hundredth time have have had this discussion. We never get past this part. We have changed our words, softened our language. We have worked around the problem, tried to explain it in ways that won't offend. Nothing changed. We are still here. So maybe there are people in this thread that will never talk about racism. They refuse and will argue about the definition of racism until the heat death of the sun. Anything to avoid talking about it. There is no secret code. No way to talk about racism that won't offend someone. You can kneel in silence before the national anthem and or block traffic, it won't matter. Because if someone tells a racist joke that you didn't think was funny, they will act like its your fault for not laughing. They blame you for pointing out the fact that the joke was racist by not laughing at it. What? Who's this "we?" The level of discourse from the Left is not only at a minimum now, but it is on a downward trajectory. Remember that Te-Nahisi Coates article that was published in the Atlantic a few weeks ago? That kind of shit wouldn't have appeared in a major publication ten years ago.
Do you really thing this GH and myself only discuss racism on this site? This is like every fucking discussion about racism since like 2013 or so. I had a whole army of board game friends that I had to do this with. I pretty much have to do this thing once every two months with my brother. It is a constant battle of figuring out what words won't offend people and make him and others listen. And now that the flag is involved, he has gone to a whole new level of snowflake that might be beyond my white boy whispering skill.
Te-Nahisi Coates is beyond you Xdaunt. That is like 500 college level woke ass white person. You are still bitching about the application fee.
|
On September 26 2017 11:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 11:49 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 11:43 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 11:34 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:28 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 11:25 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 26 2017 11:02 Falling wrote:
*sigh*
How do you define white supremacy again.
Whites are in a supreme position in society? Pretty sure GH's definition is that society has been built over the course of generations and years that white people are at the top, whites are the highest level, supreme. So if you're working to keep that system in place, whether you're actively working to keep whites at top, or you're just lazy and want things to stay the same. Either way you're continuing white supremacy. Regardless of whether you actually think white people are the best or not. Leaving things as is keeps whites on top, you're leaving all the moorings in place. Sure. So we have better words than racist for that. Selfish? Lazy? Not sufficiently sympathetic to do anything? Apathetic? Greedy? Insincere? Self-indulgent? You're free to engage with the definition I gave you. I believe I am. Is a person who does nothing to erode the supreme position of whites in society a racist? Or is that person a racist if they happen to oppose an action that is presumed to erode the supreme position of whites in society? If either of those are yes, then in my free engagement of the term, I'm saying they got it wrong. The labelled motivation does not identify the truth of the problem. Faulty premises is no way to build an argument. If you are content existing in an unjust system that happens to benefit you, are you not part of the problem? But why are you a part of the problem? In what way? That matters so that you can actually fix your part of the problem in the right way. Are you an absolutely misunderstanding person of ill will? That's quite different than a person of good will but of shallow understanding. In the first, it's the ill will that needs to change- all the information in the world will not change a person of ill will, who can twist it as they please. Assuming that a person of good will, but of shallow understanding is a person of ill will... that'll cause problems. When will there not be "ill will"? Protesting is not popular. Every time we talk about racism, there is going to be someone in this thread saying the left calls everyone racist. Every time we try to define racism, there will be someone in this thread claiming we got it wrong. This is the hundredth time have have had this discussion. We never get past this part. We have changed our words, softened our language. We have worked around the problem, tried to explain it in ways that won't offend. Nothing changed. We are still here. So maybe there are people in this thread that will never talk about racism. They refuse and will argue about the definition of racism until the heat death of the sun. Anything to avoid talking about it. There is no secret code. No way to talk about racism that won't offend someone. You can kneel in silence before the national anthem and or block traffic, it won't matter. Because if someone tells a racist joke that you didn't think was funny, they will act like its your fault for not laughing. They blame you for pointing out the fact that the joke was racist by not laughing at it. What? Who's this "we?" The level of discourse from the Left is not only at a minimum now, but it is on a downward trajectory. Remember that Te-Nahisi Coates article that was published in the Atlantic a few weeks ago? That kind of shit wouldn't have appeared in a major publication ten years ago. Do you really thing this GH and myself only discuss racism on this site? I pretty much have to do this thing once every two months with my brother. It is a constant battle of figuring out what words won't offend people and make him and others listen. And now that the flag is involved, he has gone to a whole new level of snowflake that might be beyond my white boy whispering skill. Te-Nahisi Coates is beyond you Xdaunt. That is like 500 college level woke ass white person. You are still bitching about the application fee.
The really funny thing about this is if I talked to them like I talk to many of my white friends it would be snowflake vs supernova.
|
On September 26 2017 12:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 11:55 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 11:49 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 11:43 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 11:34 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:28 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 11:25 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:
[quote]
Pretty sure GH's definition is that society has been built over the course of generations and years that white people are at the top, whites are the highest level, supreme. So if you're working to keep that system in place, whether you're actively working to keep whites at top, or you're just lazy and want things to stay the same. Either way you're continuing white supremacy. Regardless of whether you actually think white people are the best or not. Leaving things as is keeps whites on top, you're leaving all the moorings in place. Sure. So we have better words than racist for that. Selfish? Lazy? Not sufficiently sympathetic to do anything? Apathetic? Greedy? Insincere? Self-indulgent? You're free to engage with the definition I gave you. I believe I am. Is a person who does nothing to erode the supreme position of whites in society a racist? Or is that person a racist if they happen to oppose an action that is presumed to erode the supreme position of whites in society? If either of those are yes, then in my free engagement of the term, I'm saying they got it wrong. The labelled motivation does not identify the truth of the problem. Faulty premises is no way to build an argument. If you are content existing in an unjust system that happens to benefit you, are you not part of the problem? But why are you a part of the problem? In what way? That matters so that you can actually fix your part of the problem in the right way. Are you an absolutely misunderstanding person of ill will? That's quite different than a person of good will but of shallow understanding. In the first, it's the ill will that needs to change- all the information in the world will not change a person of ill will, who can twist it as they please. Assuming that a person of good will, but of shallow understanding is a person of ill will... that'll cause problems. When will there not be "ill will"? Protesting is not popular. Every time we talk about racism, there is going to be someone in this thread saying the left calls everyone racist. Every time we try to define racism, there will be someone in this thread claiming we got it wrong. This is the hundredth time have have had this discussion. We never get past this part. We have changed our words, softened our language. We have worked around the problem, tried to explain it in ways that won't offend. Nothing changed. We are still here. So maybe there are people in this thread that will never talk about racism. They refuse and will argue about the definition of racism until the heat death of the sun. Anything to avoid talking about it. There is no secret code. No way to talk about racism that won't offend someone. You can kneel in silence before the national anthem and or block traffic, it won't matter. Because if someone tells a racist joke that you didn't think was funny, they will act like its your fault for not laughing. They blame you for pointing out the fact that the joke was racist by not laughing at it. What? Who's this "we?" The level of discourse from the Left is not only at a minimum now, but it is on a downward trajectory. Remember that Te-Nahisi Coates article that was published in the Atlantic a few weeks ago? That kind of shit wouldn't have appeared in a major publication ten years ago. Do you really thing this GH and myself only discuss racism on this site? I pretty much have to do this thing once every two months with my brother. It is a constant battle of figuring out what words won't offend people and make him and others listen. And now that the flag is involved, he has gone to a whole new level of snowflake that might be beyond my white boy whispering skill. Te-Nahisi Coates is beyond you Xdaunt. That is like 500 college level woke ass white person. You are still bitching about the application fee. The really funny thing about this is if I talked to them like I talk to many of my white friends it would be snowflake vs supernova.
I've known some of my board game buddies for 20 years. This thread is the safest of spaces compared to the discussions I have with them. My brother and I have straight up screamed at each other. This thread is snowflake land when it comes to the topic of racism.
|
Canada11489 Posts
When will there not be "ill will"? Protesting is not popular. Every time we talk about racism, there is going to be someone in this thread saying the left calls everyone racist.
You misunderstand my use of 'ill will'. Or else I've totally misread what MLK was referring to. That is people of ill will, being the "we don't serve your kind here', "no votes for Negroes', no interracial marriages, etc. Malice. Ill intent. Prejudice based on race.
Whereas good will are the ones that believe in equality, but are trying to break hard against the movement for equality- 'it's not the right season', 'it's not the right tactics'.
These are clearly two very different sets of beliefs (though perhaps the first could hide in the second, those that are truly in the second camp could never support the first.) Throwing both together makes no sense. "Protesting is not popular" refers to the latter group, not the first. Because for the first, the tactics are irrelevant, they disagree a priori.
|
On September 26 2017 12:08 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +When will there not be "ill will"? Protesting is not popular. Every time we talk about racism, there is going to be someone in this thread saying the left calls everyone racist. You misunderstand my use of 'ill will'. Or else I've totally misread what MLK was referring to. That is people of ill will, being the "we don't serve your kind here', "no votes for Negroes', no interracial marriages, etc. Malice. Ill intent. Prejudice based on race. Whereas good will are the ones that believe in equality, but trying to break hard against the movement for equality- 'it's not the right season', 'it's not the right tactics'. These are clearly two very different sets of beliefs (though perhaps the first could hide in the second, the second could never support the first.) Throwing both together makes no sense. "Protesting is not popular" refers to the latter group, not the first. Because for the first, the tactics are irrelevant, they disagree a priori.
I completely understood what you said. My response is the same. There will never be a good time for the protest. someone will always object to the definition of racism. We cannot seek equality while also seeking approval.
|
@P6 + xD (aka Left and Right):
I don't think I've ever seen you two have a discussion that legitimately began with a common ground premise that you both accept. I think that starting from that point, whatever it is, and moving from there in good faith might yield better understanding of each other's viewpoints.
Possible options:
1) Given all else equal, it is objectively more challenging to be born black than white in the US currently.
2) The situation that the Black race/culture finds itself in (e.g. comparative poverty level, incarceration rates, etc.) is a cause for concern in this country that should be addressed.
|
I've had a lot of discussions about race with a lot of people. I know when the discourse isn't worth either side's time.
|
On September 26 2017 11:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 11:49 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 11:43 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 11:34 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:28 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 11:25 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2017 11:10 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 11:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 26 2017 11:02 Falling wrote:
*sigh*
How do you define white supremacy again.
Whites are in a supreme position in society? Pretty sure GH's definition is that society has been built over the course of generations and years that white people are at the top, whites are the highest level, supreme. So if you're working to keep that system in place, whether you're actively working to keep whites at top, or you're just lazy and want things to stay the same. Either way you're continuing white supremacy. Regardless of whether you actually think white people are the best or not. Leaving things as is keeps whites on top, you're leaving all the moorings in place. Sure. So we have better words than racist for that. Selfish? Lazy? Not sufficiently sympathetic to do anything? Apathetic? Greedy? Insincere? Self-indulgent? You're free to engage with the definition I gave you. I believe I am. Is a person who does nothing to erode the supreme position of whites in society a racist? Or is that person a racist if they happen to oppose an action that is presumed to erode the supreme position of whites in society? If either of those are yes, then in my free engagement of the term, I'm saying they got it wrong. The labelled motivation does not identify the truth of the problem. Faulty premises is no way to build an argument. If you are content existing in an unjust system that happens to benefit you, are you not part of the problem? But why are you a part of the problem? In what way? That matters so that you can actually fix your part of the problem in the right way. Are you an absolutely misunderstanding person of ill will? That's quite different than a person of good will but of shallow understanding. In the first, it's the ill will that needs to change- all the information in the world will not change a person of ill will, who can twist it as they please. Assuming that a person of good will, but of shallow understanding is a person of ill will... that'll cause problems. When will there not be "ill will"? Protesting is not popular. Every time we talk about racism, there is going to be someone in this thread saying the left calls everyone racist. Every time we try to define racism, there will be someone in this thread claiming we got it wrong. This is the hundredth time have have had this discussion. We never get past this part. We have changed our words, softened our language. We have worked around the problem, tried to explain it in ways that won't offend. Nothing changed. We are still here. So maybe there are people in this thread that will never talk about racism. They refuse and will argue about the definition of racism until the heat death of the sun. Anything to avoid talking about it. There is no secret code. No way to talk about racism that won't offend someone. You can kneel in silence before the national anthem and or block traffic, it won't matter. Because if someone tells a racist joke that you didn't think was funny, they will act like its your fault for not laughing. They blame you for pointing out the fact that the joke was racist by not laughing at it. What? Who's this "we?" The level of discourse from the Left is not only at a minimum now, but it is on a downward trajectory. Remember that Te-Nahisi Coates article that was published in the Atlantic a few weeks ago? That kind of shit wouldn't have appeared in a major publication ten years ago. Do you really thing this GH and myself only discuss racism on this site? This is like every fucking discussion about racism since like 2013 or so. I had a whole army of board game friends that I had to do this with. I pretty much have to do this thing once every two months with my brother. It is a constant battle of figuring out what words won't offend people and make him and others listen. And now that the flag is involved, he has gone to a whole new level of snowflake that might be beyond my white boy whispering skill. Te-Nahisi Coates is beyond you Xdaunt. That is like 500 college level woke ass white person. You are still bitching about the application fee.
This isn't what I was getting at at all. I'm not really interested at all in how you or GH discuss these issues individually. What I was more interested in is whether you were referring to how the Left in general has been discussing these issues.
And no, Te-Nahisi Coates isn't beyond me. He isn't hard to understand at all. In fact, I think that he is a huge liability for your side. Y'all just haven't figured that out yet because the conservative intelligentsia has been slow to pick up on him. That's going to change, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
