|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 18 2019 05:21 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
How someone doesn't see the clear white supremacy in that is beyond me. The idea that this is some sort of politics of conciliation is preposterous. It's clearly and obviously white supremacy masked as civility. Do you consider advocacy for "black interests" or for "gay interests" to be advocacy for "black supremacy" or "gay supremacy," respectively? No, that's the argument white supremacists always make when marginalized groups want their interests to have comparable consideration to white men's. Then you're applying a hypocritical double-standard. No, not unless I missed the part of US history where white men weren't the dominant social class exploiting marginalized groups and claiming their demands for the same rights the constitution granted to those white men was divisive and such. You can dress up the pig all you want, but the bottom line is that you are discriminating on the basis of race. Last I checked, that's the textbook definition of racism. Just because you believe that there is a legitimate reason for discriminating on the basis of race doesn't mean that you aren't doing it. This argument is just patently absurd. Is this the last bastion in defense of racism? That if we tried to make things right, we're stooping to the level of slave owners? Therefore it's better just to not do anything and let the table be tilted against them?
I wish it was as obvious for others but I think the posting of that right wing white supremacy article about "we must be more considerate of how granting rights to marginalized people makes white men feel" (paraphrasing) demonstrates even people that don't identify as "right wing" argue essentially the same thing. Using calls for equality and anti-divisiveness to protect a definitively unequal and divisive status quo.
All the while claiming to be an ally to the marginalized rather than the white supremacist status quo their actions are. It's too bad P6 vanished or this would be his cue to remind folks about MLK jr's white moderate spiel.
People act like the argument is new just because it's new to them, it's not new.
|
United States41988 Posts
On July 18 2019 05:15 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 04:51 KwarK wrote:On July 18 2019 04:50 Destructicon wrote:On July 18 2019 04:16 KwarK wrote:On July 18 2019 01:51 Destructicon wrote:On July 18 2019 01:35 semantics wrote:On July 18 2019 01:09 Destructicon wrote:On July 17 2019 22:52 KwarK wrote:On July 17 2019 22:51 Destructicon wrote:On July 17 2019 22:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
"identity politics/... divide and breed hate" is how the right describes trying to return to when marginalized people were unable or unwilling to express their concerns in ways that don't coddle those that exploit them.
Meaning the right will always label marginalized people demanding their rights as being unreasonable, rushing, divisive, etc... in an effort to keep them marginalized. Therefore preserving their own marginally better position as a result of that marginalization of "others". How does that work exactly, I thought all people in the US, barring the illegal immigrants, have equal rights. Like anywhere you go you are not allowed to discriminate based off ethnicity, sex, religion etc. Since when? Since introduced into the US constitution. Amendment 1 protects the people's right to hold whatever religion they want and also protects free speech. Amendment 14 basically says that no state can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Amendment 15 protects the rights of all people regardless of race, color or previous servitude, basically its an extension of the 14th. Amendment 19 was added to also extend the voting rights to women. From all these taken together I can see that no state in the US is allowed to pass any laws which would discriminate against sex, ethnicity, religion of its own citizens. To also present some of my own anecdotal evidence I've also had to do mandatory compliance training for the subsidiaries of the US corporations I worked in, and I know for a fact discrimination based on the above is not allowed. So again, where where is this marginalization manifest? Edit: @ semantics, I saw your post after posting, can you give me an example of this specific circumstance? Sure the problem here is you're assuming the US has blanket laws preventing discrimination. When in fact the US has separated out laws on discrimination, why else would the US have an employment discrimination law, housing discrimination law etc. It's because the laws were crafted only to hit specific instances of discrimination, this has left holes allowing legal discrimination even by the government. The easiest assumption people have is that sexual orientation is protected. It's not federally, it's left to the individual states. Political affiliation isn't protected in just about every state, although funny enough we've federally specified that members of the communist party can be discriminated against, it's part of the civil rights act irrc. Medical conditions aren't exactly covered so if you have say hepatitis that can be a basis of discrimination, although if you lost a leg, no. Gender identity is not covered usually the same states that don't protect sexual orientation. Military discharge status(this is often referring to unfavorable discharge as that's been the basis for people) is a gray area and unprotected. Atheists can be discriminated against depending on state as that's been taken as not a religion and thus can be discriminated against. Height can be used to discriminate(often is a proxy for race when actually used). There is a reason why all the states failed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment which is only asking for "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." Shouldn't the 10th Amendment protect from this? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This seems to read like if there isn't any specific law for or against something created by the US or its states then that power is reserved to the people. Or, can this be used as a double edge sword for people to discriminate against the characteristics not protected by the constitution? You’ve missed some of the arguments we’ve already had but basically discrimination is still very real. Take voting. The constitution allows states to run their own elections and so in the post civil war years the southern states realized they could pass racist disenfranchisement laws. And because it was 1900 they actually wrote down what they were doing and why which was quite remarkable. “We’re going to abuse this loophole to suppress the negro menace by disenfranchising negroes with bullshit laws”. Those laws are still actually on the books today, even though we know why the laws were written and what they do because it’s the grandkids of the authors in power today and they still feel the exact same way about the negro menace. I'm not sure giving me an example of discrimination based off color which happened pre civil war is proof of discrimination today, several of the amendments which have been added afterwards where inserted to protect against such discrimination and rightly so. I do concede that it appears that rights which aren't specifically called out seem to be fair game, but is such discrimination that rampant? I'll also side with Simbeto's sentiment here, I still think separating people based on color, heritage, ethnicity etc is reductive and divisive as it sort of fosters a us vs them kind of thinking. People are still people no matter where they originate and they have a lot in common, they want a good life which involves a stable job/income, a home, enough free time to enjoy themselves and the possibility to have a family. 1901 was post civil war. Also the laws are still in force so again, post civil war. The quote below is the preface of the Alabama constitutional congress that imposed Alabama’s current felon disenfranchisement laws. [In 1861], as now, the negro was the prominent factor in the issue. . . . And what is it that we want to do? Why it is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution, to establish white supremacy in this State. . . . The justification for whatever manipulation of the ballot that has occurred in this State has been the menace of negro domination. . . . These provisions are justified in law and in morals, because it is said that the negro is not discriminated against on account of his race, but on account of his intellectual and moral condition.”—
John B. Knox, president of the Alabama Constitutional Convention of 1901, in his opening address The laws they wrote that day are still enforced today. The idea that the constitution fixed discrimination is both theoretically absurd, see the example of constitutionally legal discrimination above, and actually absurd, see America. Ok, got it now. If laws such as this are still in vigor they should indeed be repelled as they are clearly against the constitution.
They’re not unconstitutional though. They should be as the intent is made explicitly clear, but the people in power in this country don’t want to reverse them.
|
On July 18 2019 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
How someone doesn't see the clear white supremacy in that is beyond me. The idea that this is some sort of politics of conciliation is preposterous. It's clearly and obviously white supremacy masked as civility. Do you consider advocacy for "black interests" or for "gay interests" to be advocacy for "black supremacy" or "gay supremacy," respectively? No, that's the argument white supremacists always make when marginalized groups want their interests to have comparable consideration to white men's. Then you're applying a hypocritical double-standard. No, not unless I missed the part of US history where white men weren't the dominant social class exploiting marginalized groups and claiming their demands for the same rights the constitution granted to those white men was divisive and such. You can dress up the pig all you want, but the bottom line is that you are discriminating on the basis of race. Last I checked, that's the textbook definition of racism. Just because you believe that there is a legitimate reason for discriminating on the basis of race doesn't mean that you aren't doing it. No, the textbook definition of racism is prejudice+power but you don't like those textbooks. Not dressing anything up, as Kwark pointed out your argument is preposterous on it's face. To kinda wrap this and the tiers of whiteness, think about which slurs have endured in the US, what's the most popular slur for British people?
That's a definition of racism that has been invented in the last two minutes historically to justify discriminatory actions against whites and avoid the raging hypocrisy that is rampant in current leftist thoughts regarding identity politics. It's wholly illegitimate as far as I am concerned. The bottom line is that you are arguing for discrimination against whites. You don't want their interests recognized or considered because you believe that they owe a historical debt to minorities. When it comes right down to it, I think that many, many leftists simply hate white people. That's racism in any book.
|
On July 18 2019 05:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
How someone doesn't see the clear white supremacy in that is beyond me. The idea that this is some sort of politics of conciliation is preposterous. It's clearly and obviously white supremacy masked as civility. Do you consider advocacy for "black interests" or for "gay interests" to be advocacy for "black supremacy" or "gay supremacy," respectively? No, that's the argument white supremacists always make when marginalized groups want their interests to have comparable consideration to white men's. Then you're applying a hypocritical double-standard. No, not unless I missed the part of US history where white men weren't the dominant social class exploiting marginalized groups and claiming their demands for the same rights the constitution granted to those white men was divisive and such. You can dress up the pig all you want, but the bottom line is that you are discriminating on the basis of race. Last I checked, that's the textbook definition of racism. Just because you believe that there is a legitimate reason for discriminating on the basis of race doesn't mean that you aren't doing it. No, the textbook definition of racism is prejudice+power but you don't like those textbooks. Not dressing anything up, as Kwark pointed out your argument is preposterous on it's face. To kinda wrap this and the tiers of whiteness, think about which slurs have endured in the US, what's the most popular slur for British people? That's a definition of racism that has been invented in the last two minutes historically to justify discriminatory actions against whites and avoid the raging hypocrisy that is rampant in current leftist thoughts regarding identity politics. It's wholly illegitimate as far as I am concerned. The bottom line is that you are arguing for discrimination against whites. You don't want their interests recognized or considered because you believe that they owe a historical debt to minorities. When it comes right down to it, I think that many, many leftists simply hate white people. That's racism in any book.
Whiteness was invented in the last what 10-20 minutes historically on that scale? It was literally constructed from the imagination of "whites" to justify the exploitation, murder, rape, and enslavement of "not-white" people. Like I said, white supremacy will always argue that comparable treatment is discrimination against "whites".
"White" people aren't real except in their imagination (and the social/economic part obviously) so no the left doesn't "hate white people". Of course it's not racism no matter how much you want to be the victim.
|
On July 18 2019 05:00 JimmiC wrote:
By making the angry and overly simplistic argument GH is you are pushing people who feel threatened by change onto the side of racism instead of understanding why they feel that way and then trying to get them to understand why they need not feel that way. The missing step of acknowledging and understanding is huge.
Saying your black on a message board to gain credibility in regards to everyone else than yelling at everyone does not accomplish this. It creates divide. We have plenty of people on these boards who are not "white" both announced and unannounced. Many who don't share his beliefs that are treated like facts shoved down peoples throats and than tries to race shame before any actual discussion can happen.
Calling a person a racist is one of the quickest ways to ruin any chance of understanding, and if your goal was to change their mind eventually you have no shot. I guess if your goal is to start a violent bloody "revolution" the strategy makes some sense.
On the contrary, it adds perspective to somebody's opinion that should be taken account of when thinking about what they say - even if not ultimately accepting it. The censorship of the black experience is why things like kneeling for the anthem happens and why fucking r/BlackPeopleTwitter has to create Country Club threads where non-black/approved posters aren't allowed to comment because some fucknuts from T_D wanna yell 13%/52% all over the place.
If you don't allow minority groups to express their opinions in a way suitable to delicate tendencies then it will only escalate to be heard. As for solving actual issues that white people have, the best course of action is to just help the poor. However, some people don't want that because helping "the poor" helps non-whites more than whites and eventually we'll get to SOCIALISM BAD.
If we need to get hoity toity white about it, we need to seriously think about incorporating a bit of noblesse oblige when it comes to the inequality of our society.
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 18 2019 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Affirmative action is a very tame version of the promotion of mediocrity that is colonialism. US history is literally full of mediocre white men enjoying the "Affirmative action" of colonialism. It's more moderate but definitely in line with "normal" treatment of white men. One big difference is AA legislation doesn't rely on nepotism like colonialism does.
This is largely a meaningless description that could be applied unscrupulously to other institutions; after all, what is "democracy" other than the reification of mediocrity as the dominant political will? Wasn't the nam tien the promotion of mediocre Vietnamese?
On July 18 2019 05:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
Whiteness was invented in the last what 10-20 minutes historically on that scale? It was literally constructed from the imagination of "whites" to justify the exploitation, murder, rape, and enslavement of "not-white" people. Like I said, white supremacy will always argue that comparable treatment is discrimination against "whites".
"White" people aren't real except in their imagination (and the social/economic part obviously) so no the left doesn't "hate white people". Of course it's not racism no matter how much you want to be the victim.
Whiteness as a recognized phenotype has existed since antiquity. It didn't gain much traction back then due to the inter-connectivity of the Mediterranean world; in terms of physiognomy and skin tone, the Greeks barely differed from the Phoenicians and the Romans were all too similar to the Carthaginians. Societies focused on geography, language and alleged sophistication as substantive differences. As for the predecessors of the Vikings and Picts, they didn't bother putting too much philosophical thought into it.
Can't really argue with you on its popularization in the 16th-17th century. It's especially funny trying to see ethno-nationalists appealing to Greco-Roman heritage as an essential dividing point. As a caveat, in modern America the notion of "whiteness" is largely the byproduct of subsumed European identity.
On July 18 2019 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
No, the textbook definition of racism is prejudice+power but you don't like those textbooks.
Not dressing anything up, as Kwark pointed out your argument is preposterous on it's face.
To kinda wrap this and the tiers of whiteness, think about which slurs have endured in the US, what's the most popular slur for British people?
The textbook definition of racism is largely useless except as a theoretical construct, or rather it only finds footing as a byproduct of post-structuralism. This is largely due to academia failing to understand power as fractal, recursive, and unevenly distributed. So yes, racism against white people exists as long as one doesn't pretend the fallacy of division is nonexistent.
On July 18 2019 05:40 Gahlo wrote:
As for solving actual issues that white people have, the best course of action is to just help the poor.
That is a stopgap for a multidimensional problem that might be too late to address. Do you have a time machine that can go back to the McGovern Commission and Mont Pelerin Society?
|
On July 18 2019 06:14 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 05:40 Gahlo wrote:
As for solving actual issues that white people have, the best course of action is to just help the poor. That is a stopgap for a multidimensional problem that might be too late to address. Do you have a time machine that can go back to the McGovern Commission?
If I'm a rat on a sinking ship I'm doing everything I can to find a way onto a life raft instead of being part of the band playing while it's going down for the sake of normalcy. I wasn't around before it wasn't too late, but that's no excuse to not try at all and throw away what chance there could be.
|
On July 17 2019 21:01 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2019 20:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2019 20:11 Acrofales wrote:On July 17 2019 19:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2019 19:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 17 2019 18:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2019 18:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
So, the answer is "no". The answer is of course, I'm certainly more versed in this topic than you. EDIT: Beyond the social construction (based in fiction) designed to exploit groups of people as "non-white" (and it's fallout) there's no such thing as "whiteness" or being "white". Except as it exists as defined by "white" people, which is an amorphous group in perpetuity. This seems obvious to you GH but its genuinely something I have trouble getting my head around. Its a bit of a nebulous way to define the concept (although I get that you aren't really defining it as much as you are interpreting how other people define it). If the concept of whiteness was invented by white people is the concept of non-whiteness in all its forms the same in its construction? It seems to me that following this logic various people of other races self identify as non-white (or something more specific) as a way of 'reclaiming' the concept of their racial heritage as a means of fighting exploitation. Is this how you would define non-whiteness from your persective? I'm finding it hard to put into words what I mean. I guess what I'm asking is do you feel that racial pride and racial identity movements like black lives matter are purely a means to an end (of removing harmful racial social constructs) or that they can be useful regardless of the context of exploitation? Race (insert the same thing I said for white/whiteness). People outside of whiteness identify in a wide variety of ways but it's generally a reference to shared culture and (labeling) experience, but as I said, always at the mercy of whiteness. This is lost on lots of people who subscribe to various "race science theories" "Pardo" is a European label placed onto colonized peoples by "white people" to differentiate "white" brownish Europeans from the "white" brownish Europeans that had "mixed" with various "non-white" browinsh colonized populations. I'm not sure why it matters where the label comes from. Having lived in Brazil, nobody really gives a shit. There's probably more "rivalry" between "whites" of German decent and "whites" of Italian decent than there is between whites and pardos and blacks and whatever other nonsensical names you feel like sticking on skin color. At least in Brazil. Skin color is not a factor that plays into peoples' self-identity there much at all. Which is also why you labelling "pardos" as "African-Brazilians" is a bit nonsensical. I'm sure some of them self-identify as descendents of slaves (and thus African-Brazilians). Others "feel" more Portuguese (or Italian, or Japanese), and unlike the USA (or Europe for that matter), I never had the impression any of them felt like second-rate citizens. If there was any example in Brazil of overt racism, it was towards indigenos. Which is obviously just as bad, but it doesn't support your overarching point at all. That said, if you divide the country by skin color, the darker segments will be poorer. However, that is mostly a historical problem. If you look at just São Paulo or Rio, I doubt that holds up. But the north-east has a far larger (and longer) slave history than the south, and the north-east is the poorest part of the country. So I'd argue it's a geographical problem and not due to racism. And the government is trying to deal with it by pumping a lot of money into the north and north-east of Brazil. Things were improving *slowly* when I was there. I think Temer stopped most of those programs, though, and I have no idea what Bolsonaro is doing. I doubt he's up to any good. Well...That's not my experience speaking with black Brazilians or in my research. Are you familiar with the term Blanqueamiento? EDIT: Or the relatively recent assassination of Marielle Franco in which Bolsonaro's family, (US/Trump backed president of Brasil and open fascist) is implicated? When Marielle Franco, a Rio de Janeiro city councilwoman, was shot to death in downtown Rio on March 14, her killing moved the world.
Protesters took to the streets in New York, Paris, Buenos Aires and elsewhere, pledging to continue Franco’s fight against racism, poverty, inequality and violence.
Elected in 2016 after serving 10 years on Rio’s human rights commission, Franco was proud to be a black lesbian born in one of the city’s poor neighborhoods, or favelas. She used her power as an elected official – her “collective mandate,” she called it – to hold Rio’s conservative government accountable to its most marginalized residents.
Franco was particularly critical of the city’s ineffective response to a surge of murders and police shootings in Rio’s mostly black favelas. Local activists have deemed these killings “black genocide.”
https://theconversation.com/assassination-in-brazil-unmasks-the-deadly-racism-of-a-country-that-would-rather-ignore-it-94389 Don't get me wrong. There are definitely Brazilians who feel like second-rate citizens. It's just that insofar as I could see there was no division by skin color. It's a bit how xDaunt and Danglars bring up how white trash in rural Tennessee are no better off than impoverished blacks living in rural Louisiana. Except that in Brazil that is, by everything I have seen, actually true. There is no history of not admitting blacks into universities or having explicitly black or white neighbourhoods. Brazil is very mixed. Now, I am sure there are people in Brazil who feel racism is a systemic problem and perhaps it is. But not at a scale that has any comparison with what people tell me about the US. And the history of slavery is obviously problematic, and the colonization is obviously one of the causes of why certain regions (e.g north east) are poor (although Minas has an equally horrific past as the north east and is reasonably well off, and Amazonia has no real history of colonization and is very very poor, so geography plays a huge role). However, the development of the country since the abolishment of slavery has been one of a melting pot and mixing, as opposed to segregation in the USA. Now I am nowhere near as well versed in the history of the USA as (all of) you are, so I won't try to make claims of how the history of segregation plays into racism today. But I can at least compare Brazil to South Africa, a country with an even more obvious history of segretation than the USA that I *am* very familiar with, and the differences are immediately obvious to anybody who has visited both countries. E: oh, and yes. I had heard of Marielle Franco, but you'll have to tell me what she has to do with your claims, and blanqueamiento is (1) a spanish word, not portuguese and (2) something you do to your teeth. E2: okay, I was being facetious. I would argue that even though branqueamento was a policy inspired by racism, it had pretty awesome results. A hell of a lot better than segregation.
They're like 200 million Brazilians. The country is hella diverse. I've lived in minas gerais for a bit and to my experience lighter color bashes darker color.
I'd say you can speak as much for the whole country as I can.
|
The Epstein case is looking like it will blow up in epic proportions. Most concerning are the discs found in his safe with the label "[Girls name] and [Name]."
The questions about Epstein are metastasizing much faster than they can be answered: Who knew what about Epstein’s alleged abuse? How, and from whom, did Epstein get his supposed $500 million fortune? Why did Acosta grant Epstein an outrageously lenient non-prosecution agreement? (And what does it mean that Acosta was reportedly told Epstein “belonged to intelligence”?) But among the most pressing queries is which other famous people might be exposed for committing sex crimes. “There were other business associates of Mr. Epstein’s who engaged in improper sexual misconduct at one or more of his homes. We do know that,” said Brad Edwards, a lawyer for Courtney Wild, one of the Epstein accusers who gave emotional testimony at Epstein’s bail hearing. “In due time the names are going to start coming out.” (Attorneys for Epstein did not respond to a request for comment.)
Likely within days, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will release almost 2,000 pages of documents that could reveal sexual abuse by “numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known prime minister, and other world leaders,” according to the three-judge panel's ruling. The documents were filed during a civil defamation lawsuit brought by Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre, a former Mar-a-Lago locker-room attendant, against Epstein’s former girlfriend and alleged madam, Ghislaine Maxwell.“Nobody who was around Epstein a lot is going to have an easy time now. It’s all going to come out,” said Giuffre’s lawyer David Boies.Another person involved with litigation against Epstein told me: “It’s going to be staggering, the amount of names. It’s going to be contagion numbers.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-case-grows-more-grotesque
|
On July 18 2019 06:14 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Affirmative action is a very tame version of the promotion of mediocrity that is colonialism. US history is literally full of mediocre white men enjoying the "Affirmative action" of colonialism. It's more moderate but definitely in line with "normal" treatment of white men. One big difference is AA legislation doesn't rely on nepotism like colonialism does. This is largely a meaningless description that could be applied unscrupulously to other institutions; after all, what is "democracy" other than the reification of mediocrity as the dominant political will? Wasn't the nam tien the promotion of mediocre Vietnamese? Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 05:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
Whiteness was invented in the last what 10-20 minutes historically on that scale? It was literally constructed from the imagination of "whites" to justify the exploitation, murder, rape, and enslavement of "not-white" people. Like I said, white supremacy will always argue that comparable treatment is discrimination against "whites".
"White" people aren't real except in their imagination (and the social/economic part obviously) so no the left doesn't "hate white people". Of course it's not racism no matter how much you want to be the victim. Whiteness as a recognized phenotype has existed since antiquity. It didn't gain much traction back then due to the inter-connectivity of the Mediterranean world; in terms of physiognomy and skin tone, the Greeks barely differed from the Phoenicians and the Romans were all too similar to the Carthaginians. Societies focused on geography, language and alleged sophistication as substantive differences. As for the predecessors of the Vikings and Picts, they didn't bother putting too much philosophical thought into it. Can't really argue with you on its popularization in the 16th-17th century. It's especially funny trying to see ethno-nationalists appealing to Greco-Roman heritage as an essential dividing point. As a caveat, in modern America the notion of "whiteness" is largely the byproduct of subsumed European identity. Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
No, the textbook definition of racism is prejudice+power but you don't like those textbooks.
Not dressing anything up, as Kwark pointed out your argument is preposterous on it's face.
To kinda wrap this and the tiers of whiteness, think about which slurs have endured in the US, what's the most popular slur for British people? The textbook definition of racism is largely useless except as a theoretical construct, or rather it only finds footing as a byproduct of post-structuralism. This is largely due to academia failing to understand power as fractal, recursive, and unevenly distributed. So yes, racism against white people exists as long as one doesn't pretend the fallacy of division is nonexistent. Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 05:40 Gahlo wrote:
As for solving actual issues that white people have, the best course of action is to just help the poor. That is a stopgap for a multidimensional problem that might be too late to address. Do you have a time machine that can go back to the McGovern Commission?
Two requests. The most popular modern/enduring US slur against British people in your opinion.
What you're referencing when you say racism against white people is real.
|
On July 18 2019 04:50 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 02:21 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 18 2019 01:46 JimmiC wrote:On July 18 2019 01:22 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 18 2019 00:47 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2019 23:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
White is not a culture JimmiC.
I am of British culture and practice their cultural traits in a majority British culture. I have wonky yellow teeth and drink tea and I speak in a funny British accent. Somehow I have managed to avoid being drawn to the large loud man telling them they are ok and spews hate.
And reading the link is just awful. It's just dressed up racism repackaged. "White interest" whose interest is for a slower rate of change to absorb those of mixed races. wtf. Well he was born in Hong Kong is a quarter Latino a quarter Chinese and grew up in a Jewish Catholic house. Most of his writings don’t appear to have a right wing bend but his point is the instant you talk white people call it racist. He also goes into more detail. In fact his first answer is about that. “The term “white” can refer to an ethnic majority group like white American , or it can refer to a racial category, which is a piece of the colour spectrum or the phenotype spectrum. Those two are not perfectly aligned right now. They’re not perfectly aligned, but they weren’t very aligned, but they weren’ very aligned in the past. In the future, I don’t think they’ll be that aligned either. He is not left but that does not automatically make him racist. The two others mentioned in the article one is a British conservatives who separated himself from the American right back in the bush era and strongly disagrees with the American right on social issues. And the other is a libertarian economist who is strongly pro choice and wrote on how bigger government can come with progress and that’s ok. Simply calling people racist is a lot easier than trying to understand them but far less effective if the goal is not to simply fight or to make yourself feel somehow superior (not saying this is you just stating as a general rule painting everyone that doesn’t have the same thoughts as you with a broad brush of racism pushes them away. That should be saved for those who say and think things like “go back to your own country” when their skin is darker or last name is not European.) It would be nice if people could say, I’m generally a conservative but what Trump said was racist and I don’t support it. Instead were so tribal that it doesn’t help. I don't care what his ethnicity is. It is irrelevant. I don't care what side of the irrelevant political spectrum he may or may not claim he is. He could be 8 of 1/8 anything and everything for all I care. I care about his words and the argument of the words. Then I suggest you reread them, without the filter of "this guy must be racist let me see how". Don't be like GH. Don't post a link with barely a description and quip that the other guy has to read it. You can do better than that. Rather clearly I have read it as I can identify the problem I have with the article. Now, you have to respond to the problem I have, rather than talk about some cultural artifact that I didn't talk about. I did including a quote from the article. To which you gave one of your classic snappy remarks. If you are searching the summary for one liners you can claim are racist there is nothing I can do about it. As I mentioned in my first post I have not read the whole book. My thought would be if you dont want snappy responses dont give them to others or deal with them when they come back to you. When I get to my computer instead of my phone I can pull more quotes, and explain what they mean to me and you can do the same. But dont expect me to continue you to put forth that effort when you are not, you are being the "gh" not me. I would also like to thank him for proving two of my points with his last point. One that when you pull one line out of context it is easy to misrepresent it. Two if you are looking to change minds yelling at people and telling the way they feel is wrong is going to push them further the other way. You want to acknowledge the way they feel, ask them why they feel this way and then debate them on that why. This is why councilors dont just tell it is dumb to feel x and you should feel y. Respond to my concern, rather than write that he's not racist, because he is quarter something or another. He got black friends is not as good an argument you think it is. I never said he was racist, that was something you decide to write by yourself.
I don't care whether he is racist or not, my only concern is the idea he is propugating, namely that " "white interest" whose interest is for a slower rate of change to absorb those of mixed races." If a "white" person wants to marry (or not marry) and have children with someone who isn't "white" then it's none of "white interest" or "white identity" politics business what they do in their private lives and who they can have children with.
Also I can't access the link now because it's behind a paywall. Go paste the whole thing up, then we can talk.
|
On July 18 2019 04:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
How someone doesn't see the clear white supremacy in that is beyond me. The idea that this is some sort of politics of conciliation is preposterous. It's clearly and obviously white supremacy masked as civility. Do you consider advocacy for "black interests" or for "gay interests" to be advocacy for "black supremacy" or "gay supremacy," respectively? No, that's the argument white supremacists always make when marginalized groups want their interests to have comparable consideration to white men's. Then you're applying a hypocritical double-standard.
No, just the feminist principle of equality.
|
United States41988 Posts
On July 18 2019 05:21 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
How someone doesn't see the clear white supremacy in that is beyond me. The idea that this is some sort of politics of conciliation is preposterous. It's clearly and obviously white supremacy masked as civility. Do you consider advocacy for "black interests" or for "gay interests" to be advocacy for "black supremacy" or "gay supremacy," respectively? No, that's the argument white supremacists always make when marginalized groups want their interests to have comparable consideration to white men's. Then you're applying a hypocritical double-standard. No, not unless I missed the part of US history where white men weren't the dominant social class exploiting marginalized groups and claiming their demands for the same rights the constitution granted to those white men was divisive and such. You can dress up the pig all you want, but the bottom line is that you are discriminating on the basis of race. Last I checked, that's the textbook definition of racism. Just because you believe that there is a legitimate reason for discriminating on the basis of race doesn't mean that you aren't doing it. This argument is just patently absurd. Is this the last bastion in defense of racism? That if we tried to make things right, we're stooping to the level of slave owners? Therefore it's better just to not do anything and let the table be tilted against them?
I can’t help thinking of the Futurama evil Santa.
Robot Santa: Mobsters beating up a shopkeeper for protection money! Very naughty. Shopkeepers not paying their protection money — exactly as naughty!
|
On July 18 2019 05:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
How someone doesn't see the clear white supremacy in that is beyond me. The idea that this is some sort of politics of conciliation is preposterous. It's clearly and obviously white supremacy masked as civility. Do you consider advocacy for "black interests" or for "gay interests" to be advocacy for "black supremacy" or "gay supremacy," respectively? No, that's the argument white supremacists always make when marginalized groups want their interests to have comparable consideration to white men's. Then you're applying a hypocritical double-standard. No, not unless I missed the part of US history where white men weren't the dominant social class exploiting marginalized groups and claiming their demands for the same rights the constitution granted to those white men was divisive and such. You can dress up the pig all you want, but the bottom line is that you are discriminating on the basis of race. Last I checked, that's the textbook definition of racism. Just because you believe that there is a legitimate reason for discriminating on the basis of race doesn't mean that you aren't doing it. No, the textbook definition of racism is prejudice+power but you don't like those textbooks. Not dressing anything up, as Kwark pointed out your argument is preposterous on it's face. To kinda wrap this and the tiers of whiteness, think about which slurs have endured in the US, what's the most popular slur for British people? That's a definition of racism that has been invented in the last two minutes historically to justify discriminatory actions against whites and avoid the raging hypocrisy that is rampant in current leftist thoughts regarding identity politics. It's wholly illegitimate as far as I am concerned. The bottom line is that you are arguing for discrimination against whites. You don't want their interests recognized or considered because you believe that they owe a historical debt to minorities. When it comes right down to it, I think that many, many leftists simply hate white people. That's racism in any book.
Unless white peoples' "interest" is maintaining their cultural dominance at the expense of minorities, how are white people's interests not being considered? What are some critical white issues that you think have been discriminated against?
Also, you don't get to decide how people feel about whites, or America, or our president, or anything else. If you're so convinced that everyone does what they do out of hatred for everything you stand for, you're deluding yourself before anyone has the chance to actually prove you right.
|
United States41988 Posts
On July 18 2019 05:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
How someone doesn't see the clear white supremacy in that is beyond me. The idea that this is some sort of politics of conciliation is preposterous. It's clearly and obviously white supremacy masked as civility. Do you consider advocacy for "black interests" or for "gay interests" to be advocacy for "black supremacy" or "gay supremacy," respectively? No, that's the argument white supremacists always make when marginalized groups want their interests to have comparable consideration to white men's. Then you're applying a hypocritical double-standard. No, not unless I missed the part of US history where white men weren't the dominant social class exploiting marginalized groups and claiming their demands for the same rights the constitution granted to those white men was divisive and such. You can dress up the pig all you want, but the bottom line is that you are discriminating on the basis of race. Last I checked, that's the textbook definition of racism. Just because you believe that there is a legitimate reason for discriminating on the basis of race doesn't mean that you aren't doing it. No, the textbook definition of racism is prejudice+power but you don't like those textbooks. Not dressing anything up, as Kwark pointed out your argument is preposterous on it's face. To kinda wrap this and the tiers of whiteness, think about which slurs have endured in the US, what's the most popular slur for British people? That's a definition of racism that has been invented in the last two minutes historically to justify discriminatory actions against whites and avoid the raging hypocrisy that is rampant in current leftist thoughts regarding identity politics. It's wholly illegitimate as far as I am concerned. The bottom line is that you are arguing for discrimination against whites. You don't want their interests recognized or considered because you believe that they owe a historical debt to minorities. When it comes right down to it, I think that many, many leftists simply hate white people. That's racism in any book.
Do you think I hate white people? If I suggested that I didn’t and that many of my friends are white would you insist, as you do with your other conspiracy theories, that I am lying to you about my secret agenda?
|
United States41988 Posts
On July 18 2019 06:14 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Affirmative action is a very tame version of the promotion of mediocrity that is colonialism. US history is literally full of mediocre white men enjoying the "Affirmative action" of colonialism. It's more moderate but definitely in line with "normal" treatment of white men. One big difference is AA legislation doesn't rely on nepotism like colonialism does. This is largely a meaningless description that could be applied unscrupulously to other institutions; after all, what is "democracy" other than the reification of mediocrity as the dominant political will? Wasn't the nam tien the promotion of mediocre Vietnamese? Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 05:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
Whiteness was invented in the last what 10-20 minutes historically on that scale? It was literally constructed from the imagination of "whites" to justify the exploitation, murder, rape, and enslavement of "not-white" people. Like I said, white supremacy will always argue that comparable treatment is discrimination against "whites".
"White" people aren't real except in their imagination (and the social/economic part obviously) so no the left doesn't "hate white people". Of course it's not racism no matter how much you want to be the victim. Whiteness as a recognized phenotype has existed since antiquity. It didn't gain much traction back then due to the inter-connectivity of the Mediterranean world; in terms of physiognomy and skin tone, the Greeks barely differed from the Phoenicians and the Romans were all too similar to the Carthaginians. Societies focused on geography, language and alleged sophistication as substantive differences. As for the predecessors of the Vikings and Picts, they didn't bother putting too much philosophical thought into it. Can't really argue with you on its popularization in the 16th-17th century. It's especially funny trying to see ethno-nationalists appealing to Greco-Roman heritage as an essential dividing point. As a caveat, in modern America the notion of "whiteness" is largely the byproduct of subsumed European identity. Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
No, the textbook definition of racism is prejudice+power but you don't like those textbooks.
Not dressing anything up, as Kwark pointed out your argument is preposterous on it's face.
To kinda wrap this and the tiers of whiteness, think about which slurs have endured in the US, what's the most popular slur for British people? The textbook definition of racism is largely useless except as a theoretical construct, or rather it only finds footing as a byproduct of post-structuralism. This is largely due to academia failing to understand power as fractal, recursive, and unevenly distributed. So yes, racism against white people exists as long as one doesn't pretend the fallacy of division is nonexistent. Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 05:40 Gahlo wrote:
As for solving actual issues that white people have, the best course of action is to just help the poor. That is a stopgap for a multidimensional problem that might be too late to address. Do you have a time machine that can go back to the McGovern Commission and Mont Pelerin Society?
I think you’re not distinguishing between white as a skin colour and white as an exclusionary social group that exerts power within a multicultural society. Let’s call them white skin and white club. White skin has been around forever but white dudes hanging out with white dudes didn’t need to make a big deal about it because what’d be the point. White club is a new thing because you can’t have an exclusionary club without first finding some non whites to not let join.
The membership criteria of white club aren’t just white skin and have changed over time. It used to be white male Anglo Saxon Protestant club, for example. What GH is saying is that white club is a construct, an expression of exclusivity by the dominant group in society to justify abhorrent treatment of people not in the club. Obviously white skin is biological, but white club isn’t.
And in case anyone didn’t know, the first rule of white club is YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT WHITE CLUB.
|
On July 18 2019 06:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 05:30 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
How someone doesn't see the clear white supremacy in that is beyond me. The idea that this is some sort of politics of conciliation is preposterous. It's clearly and obviously white supremacy masked as civility. Do you consider advocacy for "black interests" or for "gay interests" to be advocacy for "black supremacy" or "gay supremacy," respectively? No, that's the argument white supremacists always make when marginalized groups want their interests to have comparable consideration to white men's. Then you're applying a hypocritical double-standard. No, not unless I missed the part of US history where white men weren't the dominant social class exploiting marginalized groups and claiming their demands for the same rights the constitution granted to those white men was divisive and such. You can dress up the pig all you want, but the bottom line is that you are discriminating on the basis of race. Last I checked, that's the textbook definition of racism. Just because you believe that there is a legitimate reason for discriminating on the basis of race doesn't mean that you aren't doing it. No, the textbook definition of racism is prejudice+power but you don't like those textbooks. Not dressing anything up, as Kwark pointed out your argument is preposterous on it's face. To kinda wrap this and the tiers of whiteness, think about which slurs have endured in the US, what's the most popular slur for British people? That's a definition of racism that has been invented in the last two minutes historically to justify discriminatory actions against whites and avoid the raging hypocrisy that is rampant in current leftist thoughts regarding identity politics. It's wholly illegitimate as far as I am concerned. The bottom line is that you are arguing for discrimination against whites. You don't want their interests recognized or considered because you believe that they owe a historical debt to minorities. When it comes right down to it, I think that many, many leftists simply hate white people. That's racism in any book. Do you think I hate white people? If I suggested that I didn’t and that many of my friends are white would you insist, as you do with your other conspiracy theories, that I am lying to you about my secret agenda?
Now, I'm not gonna say it's real, but I think there are some genuinely interesting questions about your secret agenda X, and I think it should be everyone's top priority to have this possibly devastating connection be investigated. Maybe 8 times, if necessary. I think everyone's finally gonna come around when the other shoe finally drops. It's only a matter of time.
Any day now.
|
|
|
4713 Posts
I just now read the article linked from The New Yorker. Initially I thought it was quite racist especially when I read the line "white grievances".
That said, reading further I did find that I agreed with the professor on some other points. Mainly I do feel like there is this sort of anti-white sentiment, which is just as racist as any anti-black, asian etc.
In addition he touched about this sort of forced globalization and incentive to take more and more migrants which has been manifest more in Europe.
While in principle I like the idea of globalization and of, in time, all of us finding our common ground, all people being treated equally and going forward into the future as one united humanity, the truth of the matter is there are cultural differences that do make a quick, forced globalization volatile.
The dominant culture will not appreciate migrants coming in which don't know their customs, their history, maybe even their language or whom, worse, won't even try to respect it and will attack it. And I'm 100% sure that, if the situation now was reversed and it was Africa who was rich, and the rest of the world poor and trying to emigrate towards Africa, you'd have the exact same situation.
In that sense I think the professor chose his words poorly but I understand the argument he was getting at.
Cultural mixing should be done slowly and harmoniously and, preferably full integration should be achieved, and by full integration I mean if someone from country A becomes a citizen of country B then he should be treated the same as any other citizen of country B. If you on the other hand start seeing segregation of any sorts then something went terribly wrong.
Such as what is happening in some of the no go zones in Sweden, where the migrants are creating their own micro version of the country they left, instead of mingling and integrating.
And the professor is absolutely correct in saying that, people should be allowed to voice these concerns without being called a racist, as silencing them through the prism of political correctness just makes them more angry and it lead to Trump's rise.
|
United States41988 Posts
There aren’t no go zones in Sweden, that’s a thing Trump made up after watching a documentary on Fox and then confusingly tweeted about as “what happened in Sweden last night” when he meant “what I saw on tv last night, about Sweden”. Nowhere in Sweden is as dangerous as The Warzone (or as the city suggests we call it, the international district) in my US city and The Warzone is 100% safe during the day and has always been fine for me at night.
Also Africa used to be rich and still has vast wealth in natural resources. Colonists went there with guns and plundered it. The primary fear of white supremacists is not that society will fall apart if they lose power, it’s that it won’t. It’s that the institutions they created to abuse and exploit minorities will be used against them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
