|
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. |
Canada11489 Posts
On September 26 2017 12:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 12:08 Falling wrote: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.
Sure. I agree. My issue is- is it a truthful definition? Someone will always object, so then it matters if the definition is correct or not rather than if we've pacified everyone. Someone resistant to change will protest the definition. But even more people will resist a definition if it is wrong, or if is applied in a false way. One can't just assume that the protest is always because of the first, because the second is also possible. Maybe whites really are fragile babies. Or maybe the terms are bad. Or both. We need to know.
So then you have a matrix to apply on the world. Does it hold up? Does it accurately portray the world as it really is, if we really listen to why people arguing what they arguing (a large reason why I've switched some of my argumentation around on this matter.) If not, it needs retooling. All I'm saying is some of these academic terms do not accurately represent reality- they wrongly conflate categories of people and promote muddy thinking (through messy terms) rather than describe reality with clarity and precision.
|
On September 26 2017 12:23 xDaunt 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? 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.
I wish I had clap emojis...
Whiteness is something made up to oppress people deemed (by bigots) as not-white. If you think saying Coats is "attacking whiteness" is supposed to be a negative, p6 is right, you aren't even close to comprehending him.
Coats has got problems but they certainly aren't the ones you imagine.
|
On September 26 2017 12:26 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 12:11 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 12:08 Falling wrote: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. Sure. I agree. My issue is- is it a truthful understanding? Someone will always object, so then it matters if the definition is correct or not rather than if we've pacified everyone. Someone resistant to change will protest the definition. But even more people will resist a definition if it is wrong, or if is applied in a false way. One can't just assume that the protest is always because of the first, because the second is also possible. Maybe whites really are fragile babies. Or maybe the terms are bad. Or both. We need to know. So then you have a matrix to apply on the world. Does it hold up? Does it accurately portray the world as it really is, if we really listen to why people arguing what they arguing (a large reason why I've switched some of my argumentation around on this matter.) If not, it needs retooling. All I'm saying is some of these academic terms do not accurately represent reality- they wrongly conflate categories of people and promote muddy thinking (through messy terms) rather than describe reality with clarity and precision.
Please actually quote my definition and then ask questions based off of it if you want to me to not lol @ this.
|
On September 26 2017 12:23 xDaunt 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? 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.
Have you noticed when I discuss race, I discuss it on a personal level and from my personal experiences? In contrast, you discuss it on this meta-left-your-side level, pitting our points of view against each other automatically as to sides of some sort of war?
This is why Coates is beyond you. You are so invested in this "us vs them, left vs right" dynamic that what he wrote will never move beyond that. He is a huge liability for my side and soon the conservatives will find out and exploit it. Like a weak member in a pitching roster. A danger to team left.
That is why I know talking to you about race is a waste of my time. Because you treat politics like sports. Its about winning and beating the other team. You are upper middle class and make more than enough money, so this is just a pass time where its fun to see the left pissed. You revel in it. Every once and a while we get a glimpse of Xdaunt who gives a shit about the tenants he is renting to, but then its back to Team Conservative and showing the left how much they are getting owned.
So seriously, spare me your opinions on Coates. I'm not really interested in how you think he is going to play out on my fantasy team.
|
On September 26 2017 12:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 12:23 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I wish I had clap emojis... Whiteness is something made up to oppress people deemed (by bigots) as not-white. If you think saying Coats is "attacking whiteness" is supposed to be a negative, p6 is right, you aren't even close to comprehending him. Coats has got problems but they certainly aren't the ones you imagine.
When you're playing identity politics to the degree that Coates does, it most certainly is a negative. Like I said in my previous posts about him, the dude has some serious antipathy issues towards white people. I don't really blame him. He was raised by a guy who was a Black Panther. You could say that he was destined to be this way.
|
Canada11489 Posts
On September 26 2017 12:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 12:26 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 12:11 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 12:08 Falling wrote: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. Sure. I agree. My issue is- is it a truthful understanding? Someone will always object, so then it matters if the definition is correct or not rather than if we've pacified everyone. Someone resistant to change will protest the definition. But even more people will resist a definition if it is wrong, or if is applied in a false way. One can't just assume that the protest is always because of the first, because the second is also possible. Maybe whites really are fragile babies. Or maybe the terms are bad. Or both. We need to know. So then you have a matrix to apply on the world. Does it hold up? Does it accurately portray the world as it really is, if we really listen to why people arguing what they arguing (a large reason why I've switched some of my argumentation around on this matter.) If not, it needs retooling. All I'm saying is some of these academic terms do not accurately represent reality- they wrongly conflate categories of people and promote muddy thinking (through messy terms) rather than describe reality with clarity and precision. Please actually quote my definition and then ask questions based off of it if you want to me to not lol @ this.
You can lol if you want, but I'm not sure how my guessed definition posted prior to your own is materially different.
By "white supremacy" I do not mean to allude only to the self-conscious racism of white supremacist hate groups. I refer instead to a political, economic and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas of white superiority and entitlement are widespread, and relations of white dominance and non-white subordination are daily reenacted across a broad array of institutions and social settings.
From the first sentence, I see I was right to guess it wasn't just the belief that whites are superior- the classic definition of white supremacy.
There are political, economic and cultural systems. Whites control the power and resources as well as ideas... unconscious ideas? How does one control unconscious ideas if they are unconscious? Anyways- they control the ideas of white superiority... so again, for this to be true, people still must think whites are superior... but if they think it unconsciously, we're going into Freudian mode...
Continuing: whites control ideas of white entitlement. And then whites dominate and non-whites subordinate daily, institutionally and socially.
aka. Whites are in a supreme position. Mine is simplistic and without elaboration, but how was my guess so different in principle that you would feel the need to laugh?
|
Special reminder: The Black Panthers provided public transportation, soup kitchens and ambulance services to black communities in an era when whites simply refused to provide services.
http://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/actions/actions_survival.html
And remember they wanted guns to protect themselves from white people in an era when white people would openly talk about murdering uppity blacks.
Coates was raised by one of these folks. And then he wrote a totally awesome run of the Black Panther comic, which just wrapped up recently. Seriously, how did Marvel slide Black Panther past angry white people all these years? How did they make everyone sort of not notice a super genius black king that rules over a nation of super human black people that tells the rest of the world of fuck off, who just happened to be named after the black power movement?
|
On September 26 2017 12:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 12:23 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Have you noticed when I discuss race, I discuss it on a personal level and from my personal experiences? In contrast, you discuss it on this meta-left-your-side level, pitting our points of view against each other automatically as to sides of some sort of war? This is why Coates is beyond you. You are so invested in this "us vs them, left vs right" dynamic that what he wrote will never move beyond that. He is a huge liability for my side and soon the conservatives will find out and exploit it. Like a weak member in a pitching roster. A danger to team left. That is why I know talking to you about race is a waste of my time. Because you treat politics like sports. Its about winning and beating the other team. You are upper middle class and make more than enough money, so this is just a pass time where its fun to see the left pissed. You revel in it. Every once and a while we get a glimpse of Xdaunt who gives a shit about the tenants he is renting to, but then its back to Team Conservative and showing the left how much they are getting owned. So seriously, spare me your opinions on Coates. I'm not really interested in how you think he is going to play out on my fantasy team.
If you think that I see discussing these racial issues merely as a kind of political blood sport, you have badly misread my posts over the years. This is the one of the few topics that I truly do give a shit about.
|
|
|
On September 26 2017 12:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 12:39 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 12:23 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Have you noticed when I discuss race, I discuss it on a personal level and from my personal experiences? In contrast, you discuss it on this meta-left-your-side level, pitting our points of view against each other automatically as to sides of some sort of war? This is why Coates is beyond you. You are so invested in this "us vs them, left vs right" dynamic that what he wrote will never move beyond that. He is a huge liability for my side and soon the conservatives will find out and exploit it. Like a weak member in a pitching roster. A danger to team left. That is why I know talking to you about race is a waste of my time. Because you treat politics like sports. Its about winning and beating the other team. You are upper middle class and make more than enough money, so this is just a pass time where its fun to see the left pissed. You revel in it. Every once and a while we get a glimpse of Xdaunt who gives a shit about the tenants he is renting to, but then its back to Team Conservative and showing the left how much they are getting owned. So seriously, spare me your opinions on Coates. I'm not really interested in how you think he is going to play out on my fantasy team. If you think that I see discussing these racial issues merely as a kind of political blood sport, you have badly misread my posts over the years. This is the one of the few topics that I truly do give a shit about.
You right, its likely a me issue. I'm sure the problem is that I didn't understand. Just like all the other times people misread your posts before this. You mean well and care, its other people that don't understand it. I get it.
|
On September 26 2017 12:51 Plansix wrote:Special reminder: The Black Panthers provided public transportation, soup kitchens and ambulance services to black communities in an era when whites simply refused to provide services. http://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/actions/actions_survival.htmlAnd remember they wanted guns to protect themselves from white people in an era when white people would openly talk about murdering uppity blacks. Coates was raised by one of these folks. And then he wrote a totally awesome run of the Black Panther comic, which just wrapped up recently. Seriously, how did Marvel slide Black Panther past angry white people all these years? How did they make everyone sort of not notice a super genius black king that rules over a nation of super human black people that tells the rest of the world of fuck off, who just happened to be named after the black power movement?
You'd make a great publicist. Next time that I'm at a Klan rally or some other white supremacist event and I hear someone talking about the need to whitewash the Nazis or the KKK, I'm going to pass your name along.
|
When seeing that some people treat Coates as some sort of deep thinker rather than the same old crap we get around here with crying racism at every turn for every potential cause, I am mostly just left scratching my head and wondering why that crap sees the light of day. Dude basically frames anything and everything as racism and goes through some seriously bizarre contortions of logic to do it. And yet a devoted core will treat his message as somehow deep and prophetic? Wat.
On September 26 2017 12:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 12:51 Plansix wrote:Special reminder: The Black Panthers provided public transportation, soup kitchens and ambulance services to black communities in an era when whites simply refused to provide services. http://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/actions/actions_survival.htmlAnd remember they wanted guns to protect themselves from white people in an era when white people would openly talk about murdering uppity blacks. Coates was raised by one of these folks. And then he wrote a totally awesome run of the Black Panther comic, which just wrapped up recently. Seriously, how did Marvel slide Black Panther past angry white people all these years? How did they make everyone sort of not notice a super genius black king that rules over a nation of super human black people that tells the rest of the world of fuck off, who just happened to be named after the black power movement? You'd make a great publicist. Next time that I'm at a Klan rally or some other white supremacist event and I hear someone talking about the need to whitewash the Nazis or the KKK, I'm going to pass your name along.
Though aggressively worded, you're not wrong. I have seen the exact same line of argument used before in defense of each of those two groups.
|
On September 26 2017 12:59 LegalLord wrote:
When seeing that some people treat Coates as some sort of deep thinker rather than the same old crap we get around here with crying racism at every turn for every potential cause, I am mostly just left scratching my head and wondering why that crap sees the light of day. Dude basically frames anything and everything as racism and goes through some seriously bizarre contortions of logic to do it. And yet a devoted core will treat his message as somehow deep and prophetic? Wat.
Exactly, there's nothing difficult to understanding. It's nothing more than identitarian politics with a history degree and some rhetorical flourish.
|
On September 26 2017 12:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 12:51 Plansix wrote:Special reminder: The Black Panthers provided public transportation, soup kitchens and ambulance services to black communities in an era when whites simply refused to provide services. http://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/actions/actions_survival.htmlAnd remember they wanted guns to protect themselves from white people in an era when white people would openly talk about murdering uppity blacks. Coates was raised by one of these folks. And then he wrote a totally awesome run of the Black Panther comic, which just wrapped up recently. Seriously, how did Marvel slide Black Panther past angry white people all these years? How did they make everyone sort of not notice a super genius black king that rules over a nation of super human black people that tells the rest of the world of fuck off, who just happened to be named after the black power movement? You'd make a great publicist. Next time that I'm at a Klan rally or some other white supremacist event and I hear someone talking about the need to whitewash the Nazis or the KKK, I'm going to pass your name along.
XDaunt, I never accused you of attending a clan rally or being a white supremacist. I accused you of just not giving a shit and demanding black people discuss racism in terms that don't offend you.
I want to be abundantly clear, I did not call you a white supremacist or member of the KKK. That is all you.
|
On September 26 2017 13:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 12:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 12:51 Plansix wrote:Special reminder: The Black Panthers provided public transportation, soup kitchens and ambulance services to black communities in an era when whites simply refused to provide services. http://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/actions/actions_survival.htmlAnd remember they wanted guns to protect themselves from white people in an era when white people would openly talk about murdering uppity blacks. Coates was raised by one of these folks. And then he wrote a totally awesome run of the Black Panther comic, which just wrapped up recently. Seriously, how did Marvel slide Black Panther past angry white people all these years? How did they make everyone sort of not notice a super genius black king that rules over a nation of super human black people that tells the rest of the world of fuck off, who just happened to be named after the black power movement? You'd make a great publicist. Next time that I'm at a Klan rally or some other white supremacist event and I hear someone talking about the need to whitewash the Nazis or the KKK, I'm going to pass your name along. XDaunt, I never accused you of attending a clan rally or being a white supremacist. I accused you of just not giving a shit and demanding black people discuss racism in terms that don't offend you. I want to be abundantly clear, I did not call you a white supremacist or member of the KKK. That is all you.
I appreciate that, and I did not intend that my sarcasm would imply that you had made such an accusation.
|
On September 26 2017 12:47 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 12:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2017 12:26 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 12:11 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 12:08 Falling wrote: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. Sure. I agree. My issue is- is it a truthful understanding? Someone will always object, so then it matters if the definition is correct or not rather than if we've pacified everyone. Someone resistant to change will protest the definition. But even more people will resist a definition if it is wrong, or if is applied in a false way. One can't just assume that the protest is always because of the first, because the second is also possible. Maybe whites really are fragile babies. Or maybe the terms are bad. Or both. We need to know. So then you have a matrix to apply on the world. Does it hold up? Does it accurately portray the world as it really is, if we really listen to why people arguing what they arguing (a large reason why I've switched some of my argumentation around on this matter.) If not, it needs retooling. All I'm saying is some of these academic terms do not accurately represent reality- they wrongly conflate categories of people and promote muddy thinking (through messy terms) rather than describe reality with clarity and precision. Please actually quote my definition and then ask questions based off of it if you want to me to not lol @ this. You can lol if you want, but I'm not sure how my guessed definition posted prior to your own is materially different. Show nested quote +By "white supremacy" I do not mean to allude only to the self-conscious racism of white supremacist hate groups. I refer instead to a political, economic and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas of white superiority and entitlement are widespread, and relations of white dominance and non-white subordination are daily reenacted across a broad array of institutions and social settings. From the first sentence, I see I was right to guess it wasn't just the belief that whites are superior- the classic definition of white supremacy. There are political, economic and cultural systems. Whites control the power and resources as well as ideas... unconscious ideas? How does one control unconscious ideas if they are unconscious? Anyways- they control the ideas of white superiority... so again, for this to be true, people still must think whites are superior... but if they think it unconsciously, we're going into Freudian mode... Continuing: whites control ideas of white entitlement. And then whites dominate and non-whites subordinate daily, institutionally and socially. aka. Whites are in a supreme position. Mine is simplistic and without elaboration, but how was my guess so different in principle that you would feel the need to laugh?
Because you are still missing it apparently. Your simplistic one without elaboration isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people supporting the white supremacy defined previously without thinking they believe it.
On September 26 2017 12:59 LegalLord wrote:When seeing that some people treat Coates as some sort of deep thinker rather than the same old crap we get around here with crying racism at every turn for every potential cause, I am mostly just left scratching my head and wondering why that crap sees the light of day. Dude basically frames anything and everything as racism and goes through some seriously bizarre contortions of logic to do it. And yet a devoted core will treat his message as somehow deep and prophetic? Wat. Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 12:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 12:51 Plansix wrote:Special reminder: The Black Panthers provided public transportation, soup kitchens and ambulance services to black communities in an era when whites simply refused to provide services. http://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/actions/actions_survival.htmlAnd remember they wanted guns to protect themselves from white people in an era when white people would openly talk about murdering uppity blacks. Coates was raised by one of these folks. And then he wrote a totally awesome run of the Black Panther comic, which just wrapped up recently. Seriously, how did Marvel slide Black Panther past angry white people all these years? How did they make everyone sort of not notice a super genius black king that rules over a nation of super human black people that tells the rest of the world of fuck off, who just happened to be named after the black power movement? You'd make a great publicist. Next time that I'm at a Klan rally or some other white supremacist event and I hear someone talking about the need to whitewash the Nazis or the KKK, I'm going to pass your name along. Though aggressively worded, you're not wrong. I have seen the exact same line of argument used before in defense of each of those two groups.
Despite my problems with Coats, whether or not he's very deep he's fathoms deeper than you or xDaunt on these topics. You guys aren't helping your case at all with this nonsense.
But xDaunt thinks we should just "get back on a boat to Africa" ( I love that's acceptable in this conversation about how we're not sensitive enough to white fragility) so I mean that's a solution....
|
On September 26 2017 13:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
Despite my problems with Coats, whether or not he's very deep he's fathoms deeper than you or xDaunt on these topics. Like you guys aren't helping your case at all with nonsense.
Well if you say that that is the case then it must be so. Evidently you understand some secret that no one who disagrees with you is in on.
|
On September 26 2017 13:37 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 13:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
Despite my problems with Coats, whether or not he's very deep he's fathoms deeper than you or xDaunt on these topics. Like you guys aren't helping your case at all with nonsense. Well if you say that that is the case then it must be so. Evidently you understand some secret that no one who disagrees with you is in on.
What in the world makes you think you're a deeper thinker than coats on these topics, certainly hasn't been anything displayed in your posting?
|
On September 26 2017 13:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 13:37 LegalLord wrote:On September 26 2017 13:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
Despite my problems with Coats, whether or not he's very deep he's fathoms deeper than you or xDaunt on these topics. Like you guys aren't helping your case at all with nonsense. Well if you say that that is the case then it must be so. Evidently you understand some secret that no one who disagrees with you is in on. What in the world makes you think you're a deeper thinker than coats on these topics, certainly hasn't been anything displayed in your posting?
We could start by noting that Coates has shown no sign of deep thought, merely cloaking a very shallow and pitiful message in a volume of text. And that you have given little reason for anyone to think anything but that is the case.
Have you run out of arguments and devolved to trying to pull rank?
|
This usage of "white fragility" is really amusing to me because it belies a complete misunderstanding (willful or otherwise) of what the issue really is. No one would give a shit about being called a racist if such a label carried no more stigma than a typical racial slur or other insult. But that's not how y'all on the Left use the term. Let's be crystal clear about this: you SJW's have weaponized the term and use it with the intent of destroying careers, families, and one's general standing in the community. This very real impact is the root of what y'all call "white fragility." It's a complete misnomer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
