US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8841

On September 26 2017 13:42 xDaunt wrote:
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.

On September 26 2017 13:42 xDaunt wrote:
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.

On September 26 2017 12:23 Plansix wrote:
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 13:56 Ryzel wrote:


Out of curiosity, how are you defining said worth? Is that an implication that there will be absolutely no mutual understanding of each other, regardless of any type of discussion? I would argue that given the both of you have been avid posters in this thread for some time now, there is evidence of motivation to discuss these issues for one reason or another. As to what that motivation could stem from, the only sources I can think of are either trolling for the lols, or genuine concern for your personal beliefs/views.

The only reason discourse wouldn't be worth either side's time, is if one or both parties are operating under bad faith assumptions that the other party is an unreasonable individual. Otherwise, there should be an implicit assumption that some form of valid reasoning allowed the other party to reach whatever conclusion they currently hold.

On September 26 2017 13:57 Aquanim wrote:

Aren't you missing the possibility that one party is in fact an unreasonable individual?

On September 26 2017 13:57 Aquanim wrote:

Aren't you missing the possibility that one party is in fact an unreasonable individual?

On September 26 2017 14:05 Ryzel wrote:


Yes it's possible, but I would have to ask what basis we would have for making the claim that someone is an unreasonable individual. That would imply that we have some sort of proof of his unreasonableness or unwillingness to discuss in good faith, which I don't think could be demonstrated unless we had an original discussion that began with a common ground premise and then devolved.

At that point, we wouldn't need to have a big hassle every time that individual posted; we could just post a link to said discussion and show everyone how unreasonable the person was.

On September 26 2017 14:07 GreenHorizons wrote:


How many times saying "people want to keep sports apolitical" when it's demonstrably false (and was depicted as so) before they qualify?

Asking for a friend.

On September 26 2017 14:07 GreenHorizons wrote:


How many times saying "people want to keep sports apolitical" when it's demonstrably false (and was depicted as so) before they qualify?

Asking for a friend.

On September 26 2017 14:08 Wegandi wrote:
How are most people taking GH's definition at face value? Whites make up 65% of the population. Is GH saying that until white people (because obviously we're a monolithic entity...) have a lower (I'm guessing much lower) % of people in power than their per capita population, that we're by definition racist? People actually buy that shit? Or, are we always going to be racist because we make up 65% of the population and are thus a majority "race" in the country? I mean, I'm not quite sure what to make of his majority cultural/economic/political remark. Am I to assume, "whites" are racist, until 65% of the population becomes a minority group in their country? I seem to recall another similar system...apartheid.

On September 26 2017 14:15 Ryzel wrote:


I'm sorry but I didn't see that particular post where he said that, would it be possible to put a link for me? I probably missed it.

By people does he mean the majority? I don't know how he was defining "people", but without any other definition I'd assume he means the majority of people.

By demonstrably false and depicted as so, is that backed up by a statistic/survey of some sort that was posted as a response to his claim?

If what you're saying is true, then I would say yes posting a link to that would be a good way to demonstrate his unreasonableness.

The majority of people who watch football are very patriotic and disapprove of the national anthem protests. Perhaps more than anything else, they want to keep politics out of sports.

On September 26 2017 14:17 GreenHorizons wrote:


In fairness it's not "my" definition, it's the definition used by the people who study this stuff.

I should clear up the confusion that I don't really think of it as "xDaunt and Danglars/ etc... are racist trash", more that they are advancing arguments that strengthen our white supremacist culture and xDaunt specifically voted for Trump to do that in his name. They interpret that to mean they are being called racists, then expanding it to encompass all white people/Trump voters.

We could start over from somewhere as has been suggested, but I'm pretty sure no one bit the first time because the two places suggested are pretty much where the agreed upon reality ends.

On September 26 2017 14:29 Wegandi wrote:


You didn't answer any of my questions and I don't really care about xDaunt's or Danglars views. If that's the working definition "for people who study this stuff", why should anyone take them seriously? I shouldn't be surprised though. 95% of the "academic" work that comes out of the sociology/humanities is trash by any scientific peer-reviewed process. It's rhetoric and personal bias presented as "science" and truth, when it's the furthest thing from it.

Where are the specific ways in which systemic racism is perpetrated. What laws, what Government actions, what US Codes and Articles, etc. Are you going to point to requiring a State ID to vote as the epitome of oppression? Yes, black killed rates by police are higher (13% of population vs ~30% of deaths), but violation of rights isn't limited to blacks. Things like asset forfeiture overwhelmingly target non-blacks. It's not a black and white (pun not intended) issue. Plenty of white people are subject to the Judge Dredd policing we have going on now-a-days. I'd argue that if you broke down the people who suffer the most civil rights violations in this country the divide is actually a socio-economic one much more so than race. In the end though, you aren't going to effect change using your vinegar approach. You need a significant number of white people (whether you like it or not) to be on board, and alienating them by calling all whites by definition racist, but then saying, well, that's no so bad unless your KKK racist, isn't going to win many converts. If you made it an issue of overzealous and out of control policing that effects all of us (because yes, it does), you could actually have a real shot at reform. The way you're going about it now might make you feel good, but is going to accomplish the exact opposite of your stated aims.

On September 26 2017 14:26 Ryzel wrote:
Right, but the fact that there's an agreed upon reality at all means that it's possible for there to be at least a miniscule of mutual understanding. I think the only way meaningful discussion can happen is to stem from that point and take baby steps. It'll probably be tedious in the beginning but at least it would be more meaningful than the bad faith arguing that's been going on forever.

On September 26 2017 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:


Violation of rights not being limited to black people is in no way a refutation of white supremacy. We know there's a class component as well and I'm certainly not arguing there isn't.

What kind of honey do you want in order to support black people being entitled to the same rights you are?

On September 26 2017 14:38 Wegandi wrote:


You've agreed that civil rights violations aren't limited to black people (which should you know...elicit some common cause pause, but I guess not), but then you pivot back to white supremacy non-sense. Do you understand yet, that if police reforms are your goal, you can accomplish this goal by winning whites over to the cause by not using rhetoric and argumentative flourishes that alienate a significant number (all of whom do not share anything in common with KKK/Nazism...). I've gotten my parents to agree that policing is out of control and needs reform and that demilitarization and the 4th Amendment is important, but they cannot stand the kneeling/flag stuff and BLM/all white people are racist non-sense.

If the substance of the argument is more important to you and those who share your beliefs than the stated reforms that are wanted, I don't really know what to say, except keep doing more of the same stuff you're doing. Don't expect anything to change though.

By the way you still haven't answered my original post. Are whites racist until the share of white people in power is lower than their per capita population? How else am I to take the majority definition of racism?

On September 26 2017 14:48 LegalLord wrote:

Stories like this multiplied across a wide swath of the population should perhaps be an indication that it's probably better to actually try to reform things than dick around with trying to prove everyone isnt* a racist. The will is there but the protesters haven't caught up to it.