Let's not call it white nationalism then, whatever.
We shouldn't, because that's absolutely not what it is by the very definition of the term.
You are basically shifting the burden of proof by asking me to prove people aren't racist when the default assumption is clearly that someone isn't racist. Go look and see the people arguing that policies they are opposing don't promote racial equality, they aren't hard to find, so I don't feel compelled to go point them out to you. Then if you are so convinced that every single one of these people are racist, then you prove it. I'm just going to rely on not assuming they are all racists for now.
Actually, let's back up, because I would like to correct my response to what you said, because in my haste to respond I didn't give a good response.
Let me go back to what Mad Mat said:
What's the critical difference you're suggesting here? I think the great similarity is that both groups have defined an evil other that they can righteously fight.
That is, the difference between SJWs and White Nationalists.
I responded with:
Quote from Highroller »
Erm, yes, but you'll notice that one group is - at least supposedly - protesting the evils of racial discrimination, while the other is protesting the "evils" of racial equality.
Do you see the difference now?
To which he responded:
OK, so why do you think the people who voted Trump or Brexit or Le Pen or Wilders and had mostly social issues in mind, did so? Is it because they all think racial equality is evil? Or is it maybe because they do not believe into the policies to adress discrimination pushed for and implemented by the other side?
And this was my response:
Quote from Highroller »
What difference does it make relevant to this discussion? "We don't want racial equality" vs. "We don't believe in the laws and polices passed to promote racial equality" is effectively the same damn thing! Either way you're promoting discrimination due to being against legal equality.
Now, you're saying that there might have been people who oppose racial equality, but who don't consciously know they are opposing racial equality, and do not hold racist views themselves. That's correct, there are. HOWEVER, Mad Mat is talking about those who are among the white nationalist camp. So this isn't the general populace, this is specifically among the white nationalist group.
And so I'm asking what the meaningful difference is between a white nationalist who is racist and a white nationalist who doesn't believe in the laws and policies passed to promote racial equality, since it's pretty clear that there'd be overlap between the two. We cannot, in good faith, argue that there are white nationalists who aren't racist, because racism is inherent in the white nationalist viewpoint (again, that's why they're white nationalists).
I'm talking about the people who listen to the more motivated, probably racist activists for the movement, and are sympathetic to and consent with some of the arguments they make, but don't really understand what they are getting into.
So are they white nationalists or aren't they? Do they identify with the belief that there should be a nation for whites only or not? Because if they don't - this might shock and surprise you - they aren't white nationalists.
So people are being lumped into 'SJW' incorrectly because some of them are racist and some are not, yet, SJW isn't defined by racism?
Why don't the racist and the not racist both fit?
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that the SJWs who are not racist are being lumped in with the ones that are, AND that people who discuss identity politics who are not illogical or racist - and thus not SJWs - are also being lumped in with the SJWs who are racist.
Let's not call it white nationalism then, whatever.
We shouldn't, because that's absolutely not what it is by the very definition of the term.
I won't contest that point.
So people are being lumped into 'SJW' incorrectly because some of them are racist and some are not, yet, SJW isn't defined by racism?
Why don't the racist and the not racist both fit?
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that the SJWs who are not racist are being lumped in with the ones that are, AND that people who discuss identity politics who are not illogical or racist - and thus not SJWs - are also being lumped in with the SJWs who are racist.
Ok, so this statement
you can't lump a black supremacist together with a person who genuinely wishes equality among races.
Isn't correct then?
Also, you don't have to be either illogical or racist to be an 'SJW', neither of those in fact go to the (closest thing to, at least) main point of the term, which is about whether you are more interested in the appearance of equality than actual equality. That can be linked to racism or being illogical, but it can also be linked to being simply self interested or to morally favoring equality of outcome over equality of opportunity.
If it's not about racism, why are talking about how some people being grouped in this way are racist and some are not? What does that have to do with anything?
To go over
I'm saying that the SJWs who are not racist are being lumped in with the ones that are
Zero problems with this categorization. Difference in racism is only relevant if it's about racism and it's not.
AND that people who discuss identity politics who are not illogical or racist - and thus not SJWs are also being lumped in with the SJWs who are racist
As I said earlier, you don't have to be either illogical or racist to fit the notion of 'SJW'.
If it's not about racism, why are talking about how some people being grouped in this way are racist and some are not? What does that have to do with anything?
Because the problem is not that they are grouped in this way. The problem is that some will characterize all of them by the most extreme among them, and this is an unfair characterization. I've explained this in my posts. I'm getting the impression you haven't really read them.
As I said earlier, you don't have to be either illogical or racist to fit the notion of 'SJW'.
Which is part of your notion of what SJW means, which is not the same definition as mine. I've already given my definition.
However, since it's become clear to me the term has no clearly-defined meaning, there's really no point in debating one definition's superiority over another.
If it's not about racism, why are talking about how some people being grouped in this way are racist and some are not? What does that have to do with anything?
Because the problem is not that they are grouped in this way. The problem is that some will characterize all of them by the most extreme among them, and this is an unfair characterization. I've explained this in my posts.
I don't think you've explained it particularly well.
I'm getting a pretty different impression from this than some of the stuff you said earlier.
How does this point relate to the idea that 'SJW' can't be grouped in the same way 'White Nationalist' can?
All you are saying here is some people are irrational about it. But people can be equally irrational about the term 'White Nationalist', and in any case it doesn't pertain to what can be rationally said on the matter.
It certainly doesn't support this statement:
you can't lump a black supremacist together with a person who genuinely wishes equality among races.
I'm pleasantly surprised as the smart, careful, and cordial posts on this, so let me add my two cents.
I'm a Leftist, and I've had good discussions with Trump voters. I love them, and I understand their emotions. I also believe they're being terribly conned at best, and, at worst, accessories to the greatest evil our country has ever seen in the form of an authoritarian, evil, and Neo Nazi adjacent cultural force.
But! I listen to them. I talk with them. I try to understand them, and, now and then, I change my mind on certain issues.
I'm a little religious, and I truly believe in loving all of humanity. I also believe in rejecting evil, forcefully.
You know that phrase, "kill them with kindness?" I believe that. I seek to "kill" the evil inside them with love, knowledge, care etc. They are our brothers in Christ, in country, in blood and in love, even as they are misled. Love the sinner, but hate the sin.
But one must hate the sin. One cannot fake moral equivalency that maybe Neo Nazis deserve legitimacy, or that racial slurs should be ignored. A peace built on injustice is immoral.
I will fight evil with whatever tools I can. Most of those tools are peaceful, and love-centric. God help us the day they aren't. But I will not let evil triumph.
Not to mention, both sides view on racism; SJW pretend Racism is some sort of proplem that is exclusive to non-white people, and that human value is weighted according not only to your preference, but with what ethnicity you identify with. On the other hand the advocates of freedom say racism is almost non existant (or doesn't exists anymore) while fighting for the right to make offensive jokes and sicrarding every argument on it.
I relate and I don't know where the sensible middle ground has gone on race.***
***which is not to say that something being a middle ground or a moderate position necessarily makes it right, but I think in this case.
When talking about race here, I mostly spend my time going after the SJWs. I figure that's because this forum can be very left. But I've been on right-wing forums and I'll come across the other way. The thing with the SJWs and race/gender is that they say things that are fundamentally appalling, things that I would recoil at if a white or male friend said them about women or a non-white group. But when they say these disgusting, hateful things, it is not considered racist---and, prejudice + power nonsense aside, these things are not even considered wrong. For a sample, one might google the SJW vs. Stormfront game and see how similar the rhetoric of SJWs and white nationalists really is or what happens when you replace all instances of "men" with "black people" in the words of a feminist SJW or when Buzzfeed celebrates presentations with titles like "white people are a plague to the planet," "white people are crazy" or "white people are dangerous," etc.
The funny thing here is, you say you don't where the middle ground on race is, but that's because you're moving the Overton Window without even realizing it. You're normalizing an ideology that wants really ugly, inexcusable things because people who want equality also sometimes use ugly language. But they're not remotely the same.
Comparing "SJWs" to White Nationalists is absurd. White nationalists want the US to be a 'white nation', for white people. "SJWs" want their groups to be treated fairly and equitably, and frame their arguments in terms of the dominant power. Sometimes that results in stupid articles like 'White people are a plague to the planet', but there is no concerted movement to remove white people from America or make white people second class citizens like the White Nationalists want to do to others.
Besides, "SJW" is a group that you're defining as having the same agenda, which is rarely the case. White Nationalists share the same rhetoric and goals (an America with only whites, or with whites in power), whereas Feminism is just one movement of many lumped into "SJW", and one that's not even cohesive within itself. I'd hardly call that a fair comparison. If one person wants ethnic cleansing, and one person wants fairness, they're not the same just because they both say mean things.
Now, to be blunt, of course everyone is racist. It's not okay for a black person to be anti-semetic or homophobic, and it's something rarely talked about. There are plenty of feminists who, frankly, don't know what they're talking about. But acting like that's equivalent to White Nationalism's agenda? That's not even close.
There's a lot to dissect here, so I'm not going to make twenty quote tags.
You accuse me of normalizing white nationalism. Let me say first that I have no interest in doing so, as I consider it among the most wrongheaded of ideas. But, more importantly, I do not see how I have actually done that in the post you quoted. It's not my intention to say, "oh, much of white nationalism is just SJWism reversed, so really no big deal" - if that's what you thought I was saying. Quite the opposite. In fact I am saying "white nationalism is crazy and many of these people are saying things that are at times virtually indistinguishable from white nationalism and damned if that doesn't give me pause."
You suggest that I am saying SJWism and white nationalism are the same. I haven't said this, and I don't think this. Just because I'm pointing out similarities, that doesn't mean that I think the two things are the same. I am saying they share certain troubling qualities.
You say that "White nationalists want the US to be a 'white nation', for white people. Leaving aside the mention of the U.S. as there are white nationalists all around the world, I agree. I would define white nationalism as the desire for the creation and retention of a community of people which shall be solely restricted to people with white skin through the use of force and/or intimidation and/or social pressure. So then, fine, let's go ahead and use that phrase as intended and not, say, to automatically describe anyone who wants to enforce immigration laws (in the U.S., because enforcing those laws elsewhere is barely ever discussed) or anyone who is concerned about radical Islam, etc. Those beliefs can overlap, but they are not the same and that's kind of a big deal.
You say that '"SJWs" want their groups to be treated fairly and equitably, and frame their arguments in terms of the dominant power.' I would remind you that white nationalists absolutely want their group to be treated fairly and equitably and they would have no problem telling you that. But their understanding of what is fair and equitable is completely off the rails because they hold false beliefs to justify it. They might view Jews as greedy, conniving conspirators due to their genetics and blacks as ruthless savages due to their genetics. If that were actually true, then suddenly keeping those people away from the innocent whites or, heck, even committing mass violence against them might be justified to one degree or another - and that might very well be considered a fair treatment to the innocent whites. But since those things are not true, it's just insane.
Lest I'm misunderstood for that last paragraph, once again, I'm not saying that white nationalists and SJWs are the same. In this case: the use of buzzwords doesn't mean anything. You have to actually investigate and interpret the ideas and actions and decide for yourself. IOW: you're not an ancap, so do you hate freedom?
Some more recent examples in the past month: MTV posts a "New Year's resolutions for white men" video but for once actually has to pull it down because the backlash was too severe. This is encouraging because rarely do you get such an outcry from moderates (who I think were involved, given the quick reaction).
Shakespeare not diverse enough for UPenn's English students, tear down portrait and replace it with a more diverse author. (How any one person can be considered 'diverse' is beyond me - it's not like "here's 10 English authors and they're all white men." And why there should be any surprise that a central figure in the English language is, after all, ethnically English... again, no clue.
If you study the classics because they represent, in part, the foundation of Western Civilization, you're on a slippery slope to white supremacy. I mean, come on...
It's very important to understand that these are not isolate incidents, they are happening every day.
SJWs are not white nationalists. They are not nearly as dangerous as white nationalists, but for the fact that their ideas and their power structure is rarely challenged. It is instead allowed to run roughshod over academia. It puts into the spotlight divisions between groups of people in a way that it claims gives attention to those divisions and inequities but I say it enhances those divisions. If the election of Trump was a whitelash, perhaps it was a two-pronged one: by white nationalists on the one hand and by opponents of identity politics on the other.
If you study the classics because they represent, in part, the foundation of Western Civilization, you're on a slippery slope to white supremacy. I mean, come on...
It's very important to understand that these are not isolate incidents, they are happening every day.
You're getting your desire to make fun of SJWs confused with your understanding of what you've read in this case.
Because the argument you've linked to isn't saying "classical studies is racist" it's saying "racists use a warped and poor understanding of classical societies to justify their racism, and classical scholars should argue against that". For example, in this very quote from your link.
It is time for Classics as a discipline to say to these men: we will not give you more fodder for your ludicrous theory that white men are morally and intellectually superior to all other races and genders. We do not support your myopic vision of “Western Civilization.” Your version of antiquity is shallow, poorly contextualized, and unnuanced. When you use the classics to support your hateful ideas, we will push back by exposing just how weak your understanding is, how much you have invested in something about which you know so little.
It's like how there are a bunch of Neo-Nazis who call themselves Odin-14 or Thor-88 online, because they understand Norse societies as a hardcore whites-only rape filled golden age that Europe should be sent back to, and the fact that Norse societies weren't like that (eg, rape was an outlaw-worthy crime, Norse society was welcoming to Arabic traders and explorers like Ahmad ibn Fadlan, among other groups) isn't going to get in the way of their justifications.
While I'm at it
And why there should be any surprise that a central figure in the English language is, after all, ethnically English... again, no clue.
I know what you're getting at, but black people have been living in Britain since the time of Emperor Hadrian at least, because roman soldiers and merchants were sent/came over from the entire empire to wherever there was trouble (eg Ivory Bangle Lady of York). So while Shakespeare probably wasn't black, it has to be mentioned that the idea that everyone in Europe was white until the modern era is a worryingly common inaccuracy of the type that Neo-Nazi groups love pushing to justify their white nationalist politics.
One of the more common topics in these circles is Western culture under attack
Yes, there are people who have this view. This view is also racist bull*****.
but the fact that they don't push the more extreme positions
THEY ARE EXTREME POSITIONS. There are positions MORE extreme and more terrifying, certainly, but to say they are not themselves extreme positions is doing exactly what Jay13x is accusing you of: moving the Overton Window.
Someone who is worried about the rising power of Islam in Europe negatively affecting his or her life and that of his or her loved ones, or feels threatened by groups of people of different race banding together and coming to live in the neighbourhood is immediately included in the group of religious conservatives and white supremacists.
Yes, and that's because feeling threatened by the presence of people of different races than you is racist. This is not ******* hard. To believe that whiteness is the determining factor in who innately belongs, and that all members of all other races are "banding together" and coming to invade your territory is inherently racist. The argument is that people are correct in feeling threatened by people merely by their presence and the fact that they were born a different race, that a person merely existing and being a person of a different race than you is engaging in a hostile action simply by BEING. That is completely racist.
Let me repeat this again, because it needs to be emphasized: This is a viewpoint that seems to believe that all non-white races have all gathered together and conspired to invade white people territory with the intent of either attacking white people or just generally cause problems. And you're acting like this is not only not racist, but is an even remotely sane viewpoint, when it is clearly neither!
You truly are an animal, aren't you?
You see the problem with generalizations if the word used carries negative connotations to most people?
Do you know why "racist" carries a negative connotation with most people? It's because to unjustly discriminate against other races is considered a negative thing.
Likewise, “murderer” has a negative connotation, because murder is considered a negative thing. “Liar” has a negative connotation, because lying is considered a negative thing.
So no, I don’t see the problem. It would be wrong if someone were accused of being something he wasn’t. But if a person is legitimately being racist, then no, I see no problem with calling him a racist. That’s what he is, and it’s perceived as negative because racism means unjust, unfair treatment of others and that’s a *****ty thing to be. If the shoe fits, wear it!
It's a problematic generalization when you are trying to avoid more of the deportation camp to join the extermination camp.
Are you ******* kidding me?
Let's follow this argument of yours. Jay13x is saying it's ridiculous to compare people who are genuinely interested in promoting fairness and racial equality with White Supremacists. He said that these are people who seek to deport all non-whites as an example of just how warped and ******* horrendous these people are, and he did this to demonstrate how not-analogous these people are to those who seek racial equality. Note that Jay13x never said that this was inclusive of all white supremacist beliefs:
Comparing "SJWs" to White Nationalists is absurd. White nationalists want the US to be a 'white nation', for white people. "SJWs" want their groups to be treated fairly and equitably, and frame their arguments in terms of the dominant power. Sometimes that results in stupid articles like 'White people are a plague to the planet', but there is no concerted movement to remove white people from America or make white people second class citizens like the White Nationalists want to do to others.
He NEVER said those were the only things white nationalists believe. He merely listed the desire to make people other than a certain race second-class citizens or to deport them as examples of white nationalism.
So you come in and argue that Jay13x is misrepresenting these White Supremacists - because there are people out there who are even more abominable and somehow managed to have even more immoral views?! First of all, that doesn't address his argument, and second, WHY?! What would possibly make you think that helps your argument in any way, shape, or form? You're just saying they're even less analogous, and MUCH WORSE PEOPLE.
My point is not that racism had nothing to do with it. It's that racism in all sorts of forms and shapes and for all sorts of reasons had something to do with it (and mostly I think it had to do with culture, not race specifically). And you're describing this group of people using a word which has ultimately devolved into an insult (and possibly an accusation of a crime), due to racist horrors of the past and still occurring today. By doing so, you're implicitly comparing their actions and ideas with those of Apartheid officials, Klan members and Einsatzgruppen.
Because their ideas are comparable! They’re all examples of prejudice and discrimination based on race. Therefore, “racism.” You’re objecting to people using a word according to its definition.
And yes, the word has taken on a negative connotation and is associated with horrors of the past. That’s because racism is wrong, and was responsible for all such atrocities! You’re objecting to perfectly valid things!
It's not. You can think of the laws and policies to be counterproductive, too cost-ineffective, an ineffective approach, not the business of the state to be involved in... If there are laws and policies passed to promote equality, that implies there is no legal equality.
Oh ok, so go ahead point out all of the white nationalists who voted Trump or Brexit specifically along these lines and demonstrate the complete lack of racism among them. I’ll wait.
That depends on the definition.
There is no correct definition of “white nationalist” that does not involve racism.
White can refer to White Culture, which can refer to Western Culture,
HOW THE **** is that not racist?
which can refer to all sorts of things but has some general concepts in common. It is not strictly connected to race.
You just said that white culture and Western culture are synonymous, and now you’re saying that it has nothing to do with race?!
What part of that is not, "Being born white does seem like a great indicator of who belongs and who doesn't”?
Politics does not work by a right and wrong dichotomy.
Jay13x mentioned the white separatists as an example of a group of White Supremacists that was racist and morally wrong. To object to Jay13x's statement on the basis that it doesn't cover every single racist and morally wrong White Supremacist viewpoint is completely missing the point and entirely irrelevant, because 100% of all White Supremacist viewpoints are racist, and 100% of all White Supremacist viewpoints are morally wrong, and moreover, Jay13x was NOT saying they all believe the same thing.
The point is they're all racist, morally wrong, and morally wrong because they are racist. Now, would you like to address the point of Jay13x's argument, or are you going to continue to address something that Jay13x never actually said?
Neo-nazi and nazi can obviously be linked together, one refers to the other's ideology by definition. It's different for white supremacists. There are common elements, obviously, but as political groups they will be distinct and possibly in conflict with each other. Or do you think that the white supremacists of the 19th century ('The White Man's Burden') would agree nicely with the nazi ideology of the Endlösung?
There's nothing wrong with saying any of these groups are White Supremacists or racist. No one is saying these groups have the exact same views. I don't know why you keep attacking that strawman.
Both are prominent critics of Islam.
So? That’s not necessarily wrong. Criticizing something does not inherently make you prejudiced against it.
What even is your argument at this point? You say you object to these people being lumped together, except you’re the one lumping them together and I’m saying they can’t be and you are fighting me on this point.
Why? Both are measures taken to make legal discrimination possible. Their intents are different and the demographics too. But you're saying that legal discrimination is wrong, which affirmative action is by definition.
Except it's not. Supreme Court-sanctioned affirmative action is not legal discrimination.
Is it also a symbol for the person who lost that he may have lost because he was white?
Only if you are arguing that the only reason people voted Barack Obama was because he was black, and that was it. Are you arguing this?
The point here being: attempting to fix perceived discrimination in practice, be it by affirmative action or by emphasizing certain role models, will be discriminatory to the persons displaced. These persons will effectively feel discriminated because they were born with the wrong color of skin.
Except that’s only true if skin color or race were the only factor being considered.
As I said, QUOTA-BASED affirmative action is unambiguously racist and wrong, and was declared unconstitutional. Likewise, if Barack Obama were only elected because he was black and for no other reason besides, it’d be racist.
But Barack Obama was not elected solely because he was black, nor is affirmative action (of the not-unconstitutional variety) solely based upon race.
Barack Obama’s becoming the first black president is considered a milestone because we are still a generation away from a time when black people were not even allowed to vote. The fact that civil rights have come so far in our country that a black man was able to achieve the highest office in a land where black people did not enjoy equal protection under the law is an incredible achievement for our nation. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
As for Affirmative Action, as I said, quota-based affirmative action is a problem, because quota-based affirmative action is absolutely hiring someone because that person is a particular race because you are mandated to. The Supreme Court has ruled any quota-based affirmative action, as well as any usage of affirmative action to categorically deny any particular group or to admit any one particular group unconstitutional. But that’s not what affirmative action is as it is practiced in, say, universities today.
Affirmative action is merely that universities may consider race as a factor in their enrollment decisions for the expressed purposes of ensuring diversity among their campuses, because it is within their mission to ensure diversity and equal access. It is essentially a recognition that merely saying that just because ethnic minorities were able to go to the same schools as white people didn’t mean they were able to do so, because of their history of disenfranchisement.
That might be a worthy trade-off, but it also may prove counterproductive because it dissillusionises the people passed, making them even more susceptible to racist group thinking. This is particularly impactful in the lower classes, where losing of through these mechanisms hurts the most. You might be somewhat succesfully tackling inequality in welfare by stoking the fires of desperate xenophobia.
But the fact that people believe stupid and incorrect things does not make them correct.
The misconception is that schools will see an extremely qualified white student, an academically inept black student, and pick the black student, but that’s not how it works. It means that all things being equal, the school will pick the student who is different demographically from the other students they have admitted. This can apply to race, but this can just as likely apply from someone who lives in a different state. A school who’s only admitted students from the state it's in might give preferential status to students not from that state. Again, the purpose is to ensure diversity, and I will back that because it is absolutely in a school’s interests to promote that.
I might think it's right for homosexuals to discrminate against those who's culture finds it desirable they be treated as second-class citizens or criminals.
Do you even know what the word “prejudice” means?
Rhetorical question, obviously you don’t, so here’s the definition: “preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.”
Which is the heart of the issue here. Having a legitimate grievance against a particular culture is not only not the same thing as being prejudiced or bigoted against that culture, it’s the EXACT opposite thing as being prejudiced or bigoted against that culture, and yet you are here saying that they’re the same.
So, can you lump a white supremacist together with a person who genuinely wishes equality among races, but thinks white people are being discriminated against?
If the reasons for the person thinking that white people are being discriminated against are racist bull*****, then sure!
It would, if only racist weren't such a reducing term.
Again, it's not mere belittlement. It's a world with plenty of meaning, and its negative connotation is because of that meaning. It's a reducing term because most people acknowledge that an argument being prejudiced BY VERY DEFINITION makes that argument illogical.
Arguments nowadays don't go like "that is racist, it's problematic and bad because of x, y and z" but "that is racist, [implied bad]".
Yes, because being racist is a bad thing.
I'm not sure why you disagree with this. Would you care to explain why?
Most of the time, associates of the persons involved are referred to or people who held supposedly similar thought. And that is to speak for itself.
Yes, because they are similar. All white supremacists are similar. To attempt to pass off the fact that they’re not the same as though that were some kind of counterargument, which is what you’re doing, belies a lack of understanding as to what the word “similar” means. And the white supremacist viewpoint is that point of similarity among all of them.
And what is central to white supremacy? [drumroll] Racism!
I think it was last year, the mayor of Antwerp said in an interview that the city had problems with the Berber population. He was accused of being racist and all that. What got smothered in all the political mud-slinging was the problem he was referring to, of people of a certain origin causing disproportionately more problems. That is racist. But I daresay it's also a ******* important issue that needs to be adressed, if accurate. Regardless of whatever the cause of such a problem, be it social standing, different cultural norms, feedback from racist treatment or whatever, it needs to be talked about. Lumping statements like this together with extremist positions is counterproductive to this thought: it just marginalizes those who point at the problem.
He WAS racist. Do you know what he said?
BDW: “No, I am saying there are negative experiences that are also real for certain ethnic groups” Beck: “Who then?” BDW: “Well, then we’re talking about people from north Africa, in particular the Moroccan communities and especially Berbers. And 80% of the Moroccans in Antwerp are from Berber origin. We are having a hard time to organize social mobility in that community. They are also very closed communities who distrust the government. [They have a] weakly organised Islam, are very susceptible to the salafist stream and as such also to radicalisation and that is of course not the best publicity. People who turn on the television and see day after day decapitations and while people here symphatize with that, or even go there to participate…” Beck: “Yes, but that has nothing to with the community in Antwerp” BDW: “Yes, no, but racism or rejection comes from somewhere. Yes, of course it has something to do with it if people from here go there. If after 4 generations people are still allochtoon and still call themselves that or are seen as such, then it has something to do with it. Aboutaleb says real jihad is jihad within yourself, to get a good education and to find work. That attitude also needs to be there. Simply saying there is a problem of racism and if that is not solved then everything is excused, well, that’s incorrect. And that’s what Mr Homans meant and I support that for 200% because I see that day in day out in my own city.
The reason this is seen as racist is NOT because people who live in Antwerp were in denial about Berbers being responsible for crimes than people who aren’t Berbers.
It’s because saying that having problems with Berbers implies that it’s being a Berber that is the defining factor that makes someone a criminal, or in the case of the latter part of that quote, that subscribing to Islam automatically makes one radicalized.
It would be like saying that because black people commit higher crimes as a racial group than other races, that we’re having negative experiences with the black racial group. That amounts to saying that people are committing crimes because they’re black.
However, they are not committing crimes because they are black. And that’s the issue. Saying that the problem is with their racial community is saying that a certain ethnic group is creating a negative experience for the society is saying that a certain ethnic group is the problem. But the fact that they are a certain ethnic group is not the problem. They’re not committing crimes because they are Berbers or because they are black. There is another factor or set of factors that is disproportionately affecting them. And were someone to say, “This group of people commits more crimes, let’s find out what factors are disproportionately in place within this ethnic group,” none of that is racist. But that’s not what’s being said.
And keep that thought in mind, because I’d like to also point out a particular element in your post, and I think this is very important and deserves a great deal of attention, because this demonstrates what is probably the fundamental problem in everything you’re saying:
What got smothered in all the political mud-slinging was the problem he was referring to, of people of a certain origin causing disproportionately more problems. That is racist.
No, it’s not! It’s not racist to say that one group of people performs significantly more crimes than the other. Provided that it’s correct, it’s not racist. It’s just pointing out a fact.
Which, as I said, highlights the biggest problem with your posts, which is that it’s not that the definition of “racism” is getting watered down, it’s that you do not actually know what it is.
I don’t think you actually know what the word “racism” means, Mad Mat. And I’m not saying that as some sort of insult, I’m saying this truthfully. It’s very evident throughout your posts, especially this one. If you think pointing out a factual race-based statistic is racist, if you think pointing out a fact about a particular culture is discriminatory, then you clearly do not understand what the words “racist” and “discriminatory” actually mean.
Like, let me show you what I’m talking about:
No, dude, that's ridiculous. What you're saying is these two sentences:
I disagree with certain tenets of your faith
I hate you
are exactly the same. Of course that's not true.
Now that's a ridiculous strawmen.
No, it’s your exact argument. And that’s the problem.
You are conflating a person who is gay objecting to unjust treatment by a person of Muslim faith with a person who is straight up discriminatory against Muslims, when they aren’t the same thing at all.
Having a legitimate grievance against the tenets of a particular culture is not the same thing as being prejudiced against a culture. It’s the exact opposite. You think it’s the same thing. THAT’S the problem.
By marginalizing the people who hold the first view
I’m not marginalizing the people who hold the first view. There’s nothing inherently wrong with disagreeing with tenets of a person’s faith. The problem is you’re arguing that this is the same as a person discriminating against a person’s faith, but that’s not the same thing at all!
A lot of the people referred to as racists, xenophobics, white nationalists, alt right and so on do not fit this strict definition.
Which is a problem, yes. And I’m not aware of anyone saying mislabeling isn’t a problem. I’m certainly arguing it is.
The problem is YOU are objecting to descriptors that are entirely accurate. And at least part of that is because you do not actually know what those descriptors mean.
You could boil any argument down to this. Do you believe White Nationalists have a fair point?
"Being born white does seem like a great indicator of who belongs and who doesn't."
Agree or Disagree?
Disagree.
No, you don’t disagree. That’s the problem. You’re saying you disagree, but your arguments in this thread demonstrate otherwise.
You are legitimately arguing that white people are completely justified when people of different races come in, on the grounds that these people might be a fundamental threat to their way of life merely by being of a different race.
So, no, the answer is, based on your arguments, you clearly AGREE, not disagree, with what Jay13x is saying.
The parallel to me is between racism/xenophobia and sjw. The meaning of both terms has watered down
Which is ridiculous. You’re talking about how negative the meaning of “racist” is, and now you’re saying the meaning is watered down?
The problem is you do not have a clear understanding of the meaning of the word “racist.” You think it amounts to simple name-calling, like calling someone a “moron.” But it’s not. It’s a word with a clear meaning that is very useful as a descriptor. Yes, it has a negative connotation, but that's not because the word has lost all meaning and merely kept the connotation. It's because the word has a very definite meaning and most people agree that what the word describes is wrong.
If you tolerate more bad behavior of or give less punishment to members of a certain group because of the discrimination they face, people of other groups in the same situation will feel discriminated.
How is this any different from having public welfare programs to assist people below a certain amount of income?
So here's a brand new story. Afterwards, I'll tell you why I'm talking about this story in particular. It's about a professor at Drexel University who is being investigated by the administration because of a tweet that read:
On Christmas Eve, I sent a satirical tweet about an imaginary concept, 'white genocide,'" he said in an e-mail. 'For those who haven't bothered to do their research, 'white genocide' is an idea invented by white supremacists and used to denounce everything from interracial relationships to multicultural policies (and most recently, against a tweet by State Farm Insurance). It is a figment of the racist imagination, it should be mocked, and I'm glad to have mocked it
...which, if you agree with him, might push his tweet more into the tasteless category than the actionable one.
But then, before news broke, he had already 'clarified' what he meant with the following tweet:
To clarify: when the whites were massacred during the Haitian revolution, that was a good thing indeed.
So I'm not sure how many times you get to 'clarify' comments that are offensive on their face, apparently at least twice and in completely opposite ways.
And that would be one thing if he didn't have a history of this:
Abolish the white race
[Bleep] the pig white majority
So now let me explain why I quoted this story. Jay, you've alternately claimed that SJW is a nonsense term used to indict all progressives and that SJWs are just people fighting for equality.
On the first point, I think I'm actually doing progressives a favor by distinguishing out some of the nuts from the rest of them. Though this professor is very likely to accept the label of progressive and though a shockingly large amount of progressives actually support this behavior (check out his timeline), I genuinely believe that the majority of progressives do not think it's appropriate to be advocating the genocide of any group of people - even whites.
As for fighting for equality: there's a difference between talking about it and actually doing it. Maybe this man actually does it to a large degree. But I don't want this being the face of the fight for equality. And I think it's total bull for people to be labeled as defenders of white nationalism just because they say this is not appropriate behavior from a professor.
What I want to believe is that he was honest in his explanation that he was satirizing the white power crowd's idea of 'white genocide.' Equating miscegenation with genocide is laughable.
But then everything else he says - including his first explanation as to the meaning of the tweet belies that notion. The events in Haiti have little to do with white nationalist conspiracy theories. Being concerned that a population which you are enslaving will rise against you and, in the ensuing chaos, destroy the innocent life among you - that would have been a rational fear possessed by a group of people that are apart from you in space and time. Whereas, say, a global conspiracy among the Jews who meet in secret to recruit blacks to get your children hooked on drugs blablabla... not so much.
You asked for my opinion, knowing that I have limited information. So here it is. I believe that his anger about historical (and perhaps many present) injustices has devolved into a hatred of whiteness and of white people, even though he, himself is white, whereas his anger ought to be directed at injustice itself.
I don't think that anyone who speaks about an entire race or gender in this way belongs in the classroom and I'm not going to make an exception because it's the correct group to hate.
What I want to believe is that he was honest in his explanation that he was satirizing the white power crowd's idea of 'white genocide.' Equating miscegenation with genocide is laughable.
But then everything else he says - including his first explanation as to the meaning of the tweet belies that notion. The events in Haiti have little to do with white nationalist conspiracy theories. Being concerned that a population which you are enslaving will rise against you and, in the ensuing chaos, destroy the innocent life among you - that would have been a rational fear possessed by a group of people that are apart from you in space and time. Whereas, say, a global conspiracy among the Jews who meet in secret to recruit blacks to get your children hooked on drugs blablabla... not so much.
You asked for my opinion, knowing that I have limited information. So here it is. I believe that his anger about historical (and perhaps many present) injustices has devolved into a hatred of whiteness and of white people, even though he, himself is white, whereas his anger ought to be directed at injustice itself.
I don't think that anyone who speaks about an entire race or gender in this way belongs in the classroom and I'm not going to make an exception because it's the correct group to hate.
So really the problem here is that you're so blinded by your SJW fever dreams that you really do think he hates white people and supports white genocide. You think Haiti has nothing do with white nationalist conspiracy theories, but white nationalists LOVE to bring up the Haitian massacre. It's like their go-to example. It seems to me that you just aren't well-informed enough to understand his tweets, and without that context you're reading into them what you want to see rather than what's actually there.
What I want to believe is that he was honest in his explanation that he was satirizing the white power crowd's idea of 'white genocide.' Equating miscegenation with genocide is laughable.
But then everything else he says - including his first explanation as to the meaning of the tweet belies that notion. The events in Haiti have little to do with white nationalist conspiracy theories. Being concerned that a population which you are enslaving will rise against you and, in the ensuing chaos, destroy the innocent life among you - that would have been a rational fear possessed by a group of people that are apart from you in space and time. Whereas, say, a global conspiracy among the Jews who meet in secret to recruit blacks to get your children hooked on drugs blablabla... not so much.
You asked for my opinion, knowing that I have limited information. So here it is. I believe that his anger about historical (and perhaps many present) injustices has devolved into a hatred of whiteness and of white people, even though he, himself is white, whereas his anger ought to be directed at injustice itself.
I don't think that anyone who speaks about an entire race or gender in this way belongs in the classroom and I'm not going to make an exception because it's the correct group to hate.
So really the problem here is that you're so blinded by your SJW fever dreams that you really do think he hates white people and supports white genocide.
I didn't say that he really and truly deep down supports white genocide. Given that he's white, I doubt it. I do think he hates white people and, more than that, 'whiteness.' How much more would you want in the way of evidence than all of the tweets listed above?
Can you name any living person today who hates white people and explain how you know that they do? Because 'abolish the white race' and 'All I want for Christmas is white genocide' seems like an awfully good start to me.
You think Haiti has nothing do with white nationalist conspiracy theories, but white nationalists LOVE to bring up the Haitian massacre. It's like their go-to example. It seems to me that you just aren't well-informed enough to understand his tweets, and without that context you're reading into them what you want to see rather than what's actually there.
We're not on the same page here. He claims to have been mocking things because they were *false*: Jewish global conspiracies to conquer the world, miscegenation encouraged by governments to destroy the white race, etc. He didn't say he was mocking things that were *true*. Except he did mock things that were true because the Haitian genocide actually happened. You don't see any difference between conspiracy theories and things that actually happened? So if I say radical Muslims did 9/11 and then say radical Muslims are imposing Sharia law across the United States - those claims are on the same level?
We're not on the same page here. He claims to have been mocking things because they were *false*: Jewish global conspiracies to conquer the world, miscegenation encouraged by governments to destroy the white race, etc. He didn't say he was mocking things that were *true*. Except he did mock things that were true because the Haitian genocide actually happened. You don't see any difference between conspiracy theories and things that actually happened? So if I say radical Muslims did 9/11 and then say radical Muslims are imposing Sharia law across the United States - those claims are on the same level?
When white nationalists talk about white genocide, they cite the Haitian massacre as an example of what we have in store for us. (I'd rather not link to Stormfront, but you can Google and find some of their essays on the topic). He didn't choose that example by accident - he was mocking the perception of white nationalists that people like him yearn for a repeat of that massacre.
We're not on the same page here. He claims to have been mocking things because they were *false*: Jewish global conspiracies to conquer the world, miscegenation encouraged by governments to destroy the white race, etc. He didn't say he was mocking things that were *true*. Except he did mock things that were true because the Haitian genocide actually happened. You don't see any difference between conspiracy theories and things that actually happened? So if I say radical Muslims did 9/11 and then say radical Muslims are imposing Sharia law across the United States - those claims are on the same level?
When white nationalists talk about white genocide, they cite the Haitian massacre as an example of what we have in store for us. (I'd rather not link to Stormfront, but you can Google and find some of their essays on the topic). He didn't choose that example by accident - he was mocking the perception of white nationalists that people like him yearn for a repeat of that massacre.
That might make more sense of it, but the problem is that here's where the satire intersects with real life. He wrote a paper defending the revolution. I'm not particularly versed on the subject, but defending all of the consequences of the revolution is pretty controversial. As you know, we sometimes take up positions in history to provide context and give people or events a more thorough and fair hearing. Nevertheless, you start combining these behaviors together and it doesn't look good for this guy. You know, someone might argue that Holocaust death tolls are overestimated without being a Nazi sympathizer. But put a few other questionable claims and ideas into the mix and yeah, it's going to start looking bad for you at some point.
That might make more sense of it, but the problem is that here's where the satire intersects with real life. He wrote a paper defending the revolution. I'm not particularly versed on the subject, but defending all of the consequences of the revolution is pretty controversial. As you know, we sometimes take up positions in history to provide context and give people or events a more thorough and fair hearing. Nevertheless, you start combining these behaviors together and it doesn't look good for this guy. You know, someone might argue that Holocaust death tolls are overestimated without being a Nazi sympathizer. But put a few other questionable claims and ideas into the mix and yeah, it's going to start looking bad for you at some point.
Have you actually read and digested his paper, or are you simply taking the word of the Daily Caller's summary that he was "praising white genocide"? Kind of sounds like the latter.
Mad Mat, there are so many things I could write in response to your post, but instead of addressing each thing you say that I find problematic, I’m going to instead address the central concern:
Why do you believe that a person should be judged based on the color of his skin and not the content of his character?
I’m struggling very hard to understand this. You are promoting and defending racism. I would like to know your reasons for this.
I don't see any word as having actual meaning. Words have common meaning in how they become understood.
Yes, and those meanings are called definitions. And the word “racist” has a definition, and you haven’t a clue what it is. I’m asking you to learn what it is.
So let’s take this time to get some definitions across. Racism means prejudice based around race.
Prejudice is defined as a preconceived opinion that has no basis in knowledge, thought, or reason.
So to clarify, prejudice is always irrational. It is a prejudgment that we make about something without actual basis. It is bias. To make a conclusion in the absence of any evidence or basis is irrational. Prejudice is irrational.
In that sense, racism is not limited to just what you call unjustified discrimination.
No, it’s never justified or rational. It is always unjustified and irrational.
And that is the heart of all of this. You’re defending this like it’s some sort of rational and correct practice. It isn’t! It is blatantly obvious that this is an erroneous and problematic practice.
But you’re defending it. You are defending that it is perfectly fine to make racially prejudicial judgments about people. I would like to know why.
If you are a woman in Cologne at New Year's Eve and you feel threatened by the presence of a group of young men of North African origin, is that racist?
Obviously, yes.
What if you believe that only members of certain races are banding together and coming to invade and not other races (that are not yours)?
Obviously racist, yes.
People are generally not threatened merely by presence and different racial characteristics. They feel threatened due to past experience (personal or second hand or through media coverage) with people having such characteristics.
Obviously racist.
Or they feel threatened because of cultural characteristics they believe to be common amongst people of such race.
Which is completely irrational and wrong.
So how do you expect a gay person who objects to unjust treatment by the Islamic faith to act on that objection? Should he treat any muslim he meets the same as any non-muslim?
Yes.
Or is he justified in treating muslims as more of a threat?
No.
Take a person who objects to unjust treatment by youths of Berber (to use the BDW terminology) origin. Do you expect him to treat any Berber he meets the same as anyone else?
Yes, that is exactly what I expect.
Or is he not racist if he is more wary of these Berbers and less likely to hire them because he fears they are more likely to rob him (say, supported by statistics)?
Of course he's racist. He's making a prejudgment based purely on race.
Furthermore, and this is one I really want to focus on:
They are not scared of black people because they're black, but because they perceive them much more likely to be criminals. They are not scared of people of North African or Middle Eastern descent because they're tanned, but because they perceive them much more likely to be involved in petty and hate crimes respectively.
So they’re afraid of someone because he’s black.
If you’re afraid of someone because he has black skin, because you associate black skin with something, then you’re afraid of someone because he has black skin.
100% of black people are not criminals, nor is there anything about having black skin specifically that makes someone a criminal. Therefore, there’s nothing about being black that makes you a criminal. AND YET, you are trying to argue that it is justified for a person to presume a black person is a criminal based on him being black. NOT knowledge that the person is a criminal, not knowledge of any prior criminal activity or suspicion of wrongdoing, but purely based on that person being black.
So the correct answer is yes, you are being racist, and yes, that is completely a wrong thing to be. How are you finding room for disagreement on either of those statements?
You can talk about how reasonable this feeling really is concerning race/different cultures,
We can and should, because it’s not reasonable at all.
but do you really fault a female rape survivor for feeling threatened when around men?
And this outlines a major problem.
Do I understand why that person is afraid of men? Yes, I do.
Does the fact that I understand why that person is afraid of men make it ok, right, reasonable, acceptable, or in anyway a "good thing to do"? No, of course not. That person is not at all justified in thinking that all men are rapists.
I understand why a man who was bitten by dog as a child would have a phobia of dogs. That doesn't make a grown man afraid of a Corgi rational. It's still irrational. That's why it's a phobia. Just because I understand why someone does something does not make that action correct.
Or let me give you another example. Say a person gets his/her money stolen by someone who plays Magic: The Gathering. That person immediately concludes that all MTG players are thieves and disreputable and untrustworthy. He/she then denies you a loan that you are applying for on the grounds that you play Magic, and therefore cannot be trusted. You are arguing this is logical, rational, perfectly acceptable, and fair. Are you comfortable with that argument? If not, why are you not ok with that argument, other than, "because it's happening to me, specifically, and not someone else"?
And as a sidenote:
So if you're a poor white kid from 'trailer thrash' background, do these programs influence your likelihood of enrolling?
Yes, you would get priority status via affirmative action.
The question is whether it is racist, if the demographic trait in question is race. It is in effect discrimination on the base of race, no?
Maybe you should read my post. Race is ONE CRITERIA being considered of many.
Again, you're working on a narrative that the immensely qualified white kid is going to be passed over in favor of some unqualified black kid. That's not what’s happening.
Other than that, quotas do also play a role, as does different treatment by welfare agencies. The latter is one of the bigger gripes of the elderly and plays a considerable role in populist electoral campaigns.
Yeah, and that’s based off bull*****. It’s the racist belief that black people are leeching off the welfare system.
Here’s a clue for you: the demographic that most receives funding from the welfare system? Poor, rural white people. But it’s the black people receiving welfare that "the elderly" are complaining about. Why? Because they’re not white.
Now, please explain to me how it's justified that these people are making conclusions based on completely erroneous presumptions.
I’m leaning more toward Mad Mat’s take on this. I don’t think that just any preconceived judgment made along the lines of race is what is widely intended by the term “racism”. I think that a crucial element in the term is the belief that one’s own race is superior to others. Definitions from the interwebs:
Google – A) “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. B) the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
Webster’s A) a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
Anti-Defamation League: “Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another. ”
So to borrow the example, if you are a woman in Cologne and you feel apprehensive about a group of North African men, it’s not conclusively racist. If you believe based on their perceived traits that they are more likely to commit a crime, also not necessarily racist, although probably unfair. But if you believe that their race is the primary determinant of those negative traits that cause you apprehension, and that those racial traits as a whole make their race inferior, it’s only then that’s it’s conclusively “racism”.
But, it seems like drawing any conclusions whatsoever based on race is identified by a certain segment as “racist”. In fact, I find that refusing to draw certain, obvious conclusions based on race is a pretty sure sign that a person is not comfortable with other races, and is likely to offend people of a different race. For example if I am in Vermont, it is a fairly safe assumption that the only Black person in the office did not grow up there. If I treat them as if they did, that’s insensitive. Worse, if I act out in supposed shock on discovering that they grew up in the South, very insincere and insensitive. But what’s more likely to be called out as “racist” is if I put forward the question where the person came from, then maybe share stories of when I visited there, what food I ate, so on. Because how could I have concluded that the person is from somewhere else unless, god forbid, I notice that they are a different race. It’s as if acknowledging the existence of Chicken and Waffles is “racist”.
I think also people confuse the standards that ought to be expected of them with the standard of equal protection that we consider fair under the law. Justice is blind, so they say. And of course if someone’s race is considered as “evidence” that they committed a crime, that’s illegal discrimination. It’s also wrong for a jury to consider as evidence anything that isn’t admitted as evidence, or for the government to enact law without what’s been defined as a “rational basis”. But holding people privately to a standard of race-blindness is a creation of politics.
Relating to politics as the topic, I personally don’t think Trump is any more racist than the average person of his demographics. I don’t find him as culturally sensitive as a president should be. I think a lot of his policy proposals would violate the Equal Protections and substantive Due Process clauses, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. I'm not thrilled to have him as POTUS. But, I don’t believe that he thinks the White race is superior to other races. And, I think a solid majority of the times that people have called him “racist”, they are being lazy with the term and actually mean something different.
FWIW, most of us don't like Trump. He did not win the popular vote, and even Trump voters can be divided into a few basic groups:
The "anyone but Clinton" basket. These people genuinely hate the Clintons but don't like Trump. To understand, you basically have to understand that in many small towns, free trade was anywhere from "the worst thing to happen since 1929" to "worse than 1929". Not even necessarily NAFTA, but permanent normalized trade relations with China. And the hell of it is, during his 1992 run, Clinton attacked Bush for cozying up to China.
The "straight partisan" basket. These guys just see an (R) next to a name and vote. That Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life is a big factor here. And of course Mitch McConnell left Scalia's seat open.
The basket of ignoramuses. These guys are the ones who think Hillary Clinton runs a child sex ring. Or the ones who think Barack Obama founded ISIS. (For the record, left-wing ignoramuses typically don't vote, or they vote for Jill Stein. Or for some reason Gary Johnson.) This group is one of the big reasons we have polls of Trump voters over factual information.
And then you have the basket of deplorables. Mostly, I'd call them yuppies but most of them aren't that young now. A lot of them in banking and tech. (Steve Bannon, for instance, worked for Goldman Sachs.)
"SJW" actually began among minority communities. This would be, for instance, the lady who lectures a gay dude on how he's homophobic because he doesn't like reading about Sam and Dean bringing a new meaning to "brotherly love". But the racists changed it to mean normal people.
An aside: A friend of mine (who is a Mizrahi Jew) mentioned how he was told that so what if some of the Arab speakers at the women's march were antisemitic, because Arabs generally are antisemitic so they couldn't exclude them for that reason.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Mad Mat: Your entire argument is completely empty and amounts to nothing more than, “I don’t think I’m wrong, therefore you can’t call me a racist, because that would make me feel bad.”
Because feeling bad at being called a racist is WORSE than being a racist and acting on racist beliefs in your book.
What you have refused to say at any point:
A. “No, that’s not the definition of racist, and therefore I do not fit.”
or
B. “Ok, I DO fit the definition of racist, but I don’t think that’s bad.”
So which is it? Answer that, and we can proceed forward.
Actually, let's back up, because I would like to correct my response to what you said, because in my haste to respond I didn't give a good response.
Let me go back to what Mad Mat said:
That is, the difference between SJWs and White Nationalists.
I responded with:
To which he responded:
And this was my response:
Now, you're saying that there might have been people who oppose racial equality, but who don't consciously know they are opposing racial equality, and do not hold racist views themselves. That's correct, there are. HOWEVER, Mad Mat is talking about those who are among the white nationalist camp. So this isn't the general populace, this is specifically among the white nationalist group.
And so I'm asking what the meaningful difference is between a white nationalist who is racist and a white nationalist who doesn't believe in the laws and policies passed to promote racial equality, since it's pretty clear that there'd be overlap between the two. We cannot, in good faith, argue that there are white nationalists who aren't racist, because racism is inherent in the white nationalist viewpoint (again, that's why they're white nationalists).
So are they white nationalists or aren't they? Do they identify with the belief that there should be a nation for whites only or not? Because if they don't - this might shock and surprise you - they aren't white nationalists.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that the SJWs who are not racist are being lumped in with the ones that are, AND that people who discuss identity politics who are not illogical or racist - and thus not SJWs - are also being lumped in with the SJWs who are racist.
I won't contest that point.
Ok, so this statement
Isn't correct then?
Also, you don't have to be either illogical or racist to be an 'SJW', neither of those in fact go to the (closest thing to, at least) main point of the term, which is about whether you are more interested in the appearance of equality than actual equality. That can be linked to racism or being illogical, but it can also be linked to being simply self interested or to morally favoring equality of outcome over equality of opportunity.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
You seemed to support that statement earlier.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
To go over
Zero problems with this categorization. Difference in racism is only relevant if it's about racism and it's not.
As I said earlier, you don't have to be either illogical or racist to fit the notion of 'SJW'.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Which is part of your notion of what SJW means, which is not the same definition as mine. I've already given my definition.
However, since it's become clear to me the term has no clearly-defined meaning, there's really no point in debating one definition's superiority over another.
I don't think you've explained it particularly well.
I'm getting a pretty different impression from this than some of the stuff you said earlier.
How does this point relate to the idea that 'SJW' can't be grouped in the same way 'White Nationalist' can?
All you are saying here is some people are irrational about it. But people can be equally irrational about the term 'White Nationalist', and in any case it doesn't pertain to what can be rationally said on the matter.
It certainly doesn't support this statement:
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I'm a Leftist, and I've had good discussions with Trump voters. I love them, and I understand their emotions. I also believe they're being terribly conned at best, and, at worst, accessories to the greatest evil our country has ever seen in the form of an authoritarian, evil, and Neo Nazi adjacent cultural force.
But! I listen to them. I talk with them. I try to understand them, and, now and then, I change my mind on certain issues.
I'm a little religious, and I truly believe in loving all of humanity. I also believe in rejecting evil, forcefully.
You know that phrase, "kill them with kindness?" I believe that. I seek to "kill" the evil inside them with love, knowledge, care etc. They are our brothers in Christ, in country, in blood and in love, even as they are misled. Love the sinner, but hate the sin.
But one must hate the sin. One cannot fake moral equivalency that maybe Neo Nazis deserve legitimacy, or that racial slurs should be ignored. A peace built on injustice is immoral.
I will fight evil with whatever tools I can. Most of those tools are peaceful, and love-centric. God help us the day they aren't. But I will not let evil triumph.
There's a lot to dissect here, so I'm not going to make twenty quote tags.
You accuse me of normalizing white nationalism. Let me say first that I have no interest in doing so, as I consider it among the most wrongheaded of ideas. But, more importantly, I do not see how I have actually done that in the post you quoted. It's not my intention to say, "oh, much of white nationalism is just SJWism reversed, so really no big deal" - if that's what you thought I was saying. Quite the opposite. In fact I am saying "white nationalism is crazy and many of these people are saying things that are at times virtually indistinguishable from white nationalism and damned if that doesn't give me pause."
You suggest that I am saying SJWism and white nationalism are the same. I haven't said this, and I don't think this. Just because I'm pointing out similarities, that doesn't mean that I think the two things are the same. I am saying they share certain troubling qualities.
You say that "White nationalists want the US to be a 'white nation', for white people. Leaving aside the mention of the U.S. as there are white nationalists all around the world, I agree. I would define white nationalism as the desire for the creation and retention of a community of people which shall be solely restricted to people with white skin through the use of force and/or intimidation and/or social pressure. So then, fine, let's go ahead and use that phrase as intended and not, say, to automatically describe anyone who wants to enforce immigration laws (in the U.S., because enforcing those laws elsewhere is barely ever discussed) or anyone who is concerned about radical Islam, etc. Those beliefs can overlap, but they are not the same and that's kind of a big deal.
You say that '"SJWs" want their groups to be treated fairly and equitably, and frame their arguments in terms of the dominant power.' I would remind you that white nationalists absolutely want their group to be treated fairly and equitably and they would have no problem telling you that. But their understanding of what is fair and equitable is completely off the rails because they hold false beliefs to justify it. They might view Jews as greedy, conniving conspirators due to their genetics and blacks as ruthless savages due to their genetics. If that were actually true, then suddenly keeping those people away from the innocent whites or, heck, even committing mass violence against them might be justified to one degree or another - and that might very well be considered a fair treatment to the innocent whites. But since those things are not true, it's just insane.
Lest I'm misunderstood for that last paragraph, once again, I'm not saying that white nationalists and SJWs are the same. In this case: the use of buzzwords doesn't mean anything. You have to actually investigate and interpret the ideas and actions and decide for yourself. IOW: you're not an ancap, so do you hate freedom?
Some more recent examples in the past month: MTV posts a "New Year's resolutions for white men" video but for once actually has to pull it down because the backlash was too severe. This is encouraging because rarely do you get such an outcry from moderates (who I think were involved, given the quick reaction).
Shakespeare not diverse enough for UPenn's English students, tear down portrait and replace it with a more diverse author. (How any one person can be considered 'diverse' is beyond me - it's not like "here's 10 English authors and they're all white men." And why there should be any surprise that a central figure in the English language is, after all, ethnically English... again, no clue.
If you study the classics because they represent, in part, the foundation of Western Civilization, you're on a slippery slope to white supremacy. I mean, come on...
It's very important to understand that these are not isolate incidents, they are happening every day.
SJWs are not white nationalists. They are not nearly as dangerous as white nationalists, but for the fact that their ideas and their power structure is rarely challenged. It is instead allowed to run roughshod over academia. It puts into the spotlight divisions between groups of people in a way that it claims gives attention to those divisions and inequities but I say it enhances those divisions. If the election of Trump was a whitelash, perhaps it was a two-pronged one: by white nationalists on the one hand and by opponents of identity politics on the other.
Because the argument you've linked to isn't saying "classical studies is racist" it's saying "racists use a warped and poor understanding of classical societies to justify their racism, and classical scholars should argue against that". For example, in this very quote from your link.
It's like how there are a bunch of Neo-Nazis who call themselves Odin-14 or Thor-88 online, because they understand Norse societies as a hardcore whites-only rape filled golden age that Europe should be sent back to, and the fact that Norse societies weren't like that (eg, rape was an outlaw-worthy crime, Norse society was welcoming to Arabic traders and explorers like Ahmad ibn Fadlan, among other groups) isn't going to get in the way of their justifications.
While I'm at it
I know what you're getting at, but black people have been living in Britain since the time of Emperor Hadrian at least, because roman soldiers and merchants were sent/came over from the entire empire to wherever there was trouble (eg Ivory Bangle Lady of York). So while Shakespeare probably wasn't black, it has to be mentioned that the idea that everyone in Europe was white until the modern era is a worryingly common inaccuracy of the type that Neo-Nazi groups love pushing to justify their white nationalist politics.
Art is life itself.
THEY ARE EXTREME POSITIONS. There are positions MORE extreme and more terrifying, certainly, but to say they are not themselves extreme positions is doing exactly what Jay13x is accusing you of: moving the Overton Window.
Yes, and that's because feeling threatened by the presence of people of different races than you is racist. This is not ******* hard. To believe that whiteness is the determining factor in who innately belongs, and that all members of all other races are "banding together" and coming to invade your territory is inherently racist. The argument is that people are correct in feeling threatened by people merely by their presence and the fact that they were born a different race, that a person merely existing and being a person of a different race than you is engaging in a hostile action simply by BEING. That is completely racist.
Let me repeat this again, because it needs to be emphasized: This is a viewpoint that seems to believe that all non-white races have all gathered together and conspired to invade white people territory with the intent of either attacking white people or just generally cause problems. And you're acting like this is not only not racist, but is an even remotely sane viewpoint, when it is clearly neither!
Do you know why "racist" carries a negative connotation with most people? It's because to unjustly discriminate against other races is considered a negative thing.
Likewise, “murderer” has a negative connotation, because murder is considered a negative thing. “Liar” has a negative connotation, because lying is considered a negative thing.
So no, I don’t see the problem. It would be wrong if someone were accused of being something he wasn’t. But if a person is legitimately being racist, then no, I see no problem with calling him a racist. That’s what he is, and it’s perceived as negative because racism means unjust, unfair treatment of others and that’s a *****ty thing to be. If the shoe fits, wear it!
Are you ******* kidding me?
Let's follow this argument of yours. Jay13x is saying it's ridiculous to compare people who are genuinely interested in promoting fairness and racial equality with White Supremacists. He said that these are people who seek to deport all non-whites as an example of just how warped and ******* horrendous these people are, and he did this to demonstrate how not-analogous these people are to those who seek racial equality. Note that Jay13x never said that this was inclusive of all white supremacist beliefs:
He NEVER said those were the only things white nationalists believe. He merely listed the desire to make people other than a certain race second-class citizens or to deport them as examples of white nationalism.
So you come in and argue that Jay13x is misrepresenting these White Supremacists - because there are people out there who are even more abominable and somehow managed to have even more immoral views?! First of all, that doesn't address his argument, and second, WHY?! What would possibly make you think that helps your argument in any way, shape, or form? You're just saying they're even less analogous, and MUCH WORSE PEOPLE.
Because their ideas are comparable! They’re all examples of prejudice and discrimination based on race. Therefore, “racism.” You’re objecting to people using a word according to its definition.
And yes, the word has taken on a negative connotation and is associated with horrors of the past. That’s because racism is wrong, and was responsible for all such atrocities! You’re objecting to perfectly valid things!
Oh ok, so go ahead point out all of the white nationalists who voted Trump or Brexit specifically along these lines and demonstrate the complete lack of racism among them. I’ll wait.
There is no correct definition of “white nationalist” that does not involve racism.
HOW THE **** is that not racist?
You just said that white culture and Western culture are synonymous, and now you’re saying that it has nothing to do with race?!
What part of that is not, "Being born white does seem like a great indicator of who belongs and who doesn't”?
Jay13x mentioned the white separatists as an example of a group of White Supremacists that was racist and morally wrong. To object to Jay13x's statement on the basis that it doesn't cover every single racist and morally wrong White Supremacist viewpoint is completely missing the point and entirely irrelevant, because 100% of all White Supremacist viewpoints are racist, and 100% of all White Supremacist viewpoints are morally wrong, and moreover, Jay13x was NOT saying they all believe the same thing.
The point is they're all racist, morally wrong, and morally wrong because they are racist. Now, would you like to address the point of Jay13x's argument, or are you going to continue to address something that Jay13x never actually said?
There's nothing wrong with saying any of these groups are White Supremacists or racist. No one is saying these groups have the exact same views. I don't know why you keep attacking that strawman.
So? That’s not necessarily wrong. Criticizing something does not inherently make you prejudiced against it.
What even is your argument at this point? You say you object to these people being lumped together, except you’re the one lumping them together and I’m saying they can’t be and you are fighting me on this point.
Except it's not. Supreme Court-sanctioned affirmative action is not legal discrimination.
Only if you are arguing that the only reason people voted Barack Obama was because he was black, and that was it. Are you arguing this?
Except that’s only true if skin color or race were the only factor being considered.
As I said, QUOTA-BASED affirmative action is unambiguously racist and wrong, and was declared unconstitutional. Likewise, if Barack Obama were only elected because he was black and for no other reason besides, it’d be racist.
But Barack Obama was not elected solely because he was black, nor is affirmative action (of the not-unconstitutional variety) solely based upon race.
Barack Obama’s becoming the first black president is considered a milestone because we are still a generation away from a time when black people were not even allowed to vote. The fact that civil rights have come so far in our country that a black man was able to achieve the highest office in a land where black people did not enjoy equal protection under the law is an incredible achievement for our nation. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
As for Affirmative Action, as I said, quota-based affirmative action is a problem, because quota-based affirmative action is absolutely hiring someone because that person is a particular race because you are mandated to. The Supreme Court has ruled any quota-based affirmative action, as well as any usage of affirmative action to categorically deny any particular group or to admit any one particular group unconstitutional. But that’s not what affirmative action is as it is practiced in, say, universities today.
Affirmative action is merely that universities may consider race as a factor in their enrollment decisions for the expressed purposes of ensuring diversity among their campuses, because it is within their mission to ensure diversity and equal access. It is essentially a recognition that merely saying that just because ethnic minorities were able to go to the same schools as white people didn’t mean they were able to do so, because of their history of disenfranchisement.
But the fact that people believe stupid and incorrect things does not make them correct.
The misconception is that schools will see an extremely qualified white student, an academically inept black student, and pick the black student, but that’s not how it works. It means that all things being equal, the school will pick the student who is different demographically from the other students they have admitted. This can apply to race, but this can just as likely apply from someone who lives in a different state. A school who’s only admitted students from the state it's in might give preferential status to students not from that state. Again, the purpose is to ensure diversity, and I will back that because it is absolutely in a school’s interests to promote that.
Do you even know what the word “prejudice” means?
Rhetorical question, obviously you don’t, so here’s the definition: “preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.”
Which is the heart of the issue here. Having a legitimate grievance against a particular culture is not only not the same thing as being prejudiced or bigoted against that culture, it’s the EXACT opposite thing as being prejudiced or bigoted against that culture, and yet you are here saying that they’re the same.
If the reasons for the person thinking that white people are being discriminated against are racist bull*****, then sure!
Again, it's not mere belittlement. It's a world with plenty of meaning, and its negative connotation is because of that meaning. It's a reducing term because most people acknowledge that an argument being prejudiced BY VERY DEFINITION makes that argument illogical.
Yes, because being racist is a bad thing.
I'm not sure why you disagree with this. Would you care to explain why?
Yes, because they are similar. All white supremacists are similar. To attempt to pass off the fact that they’re not the same as though that were some kind of counterargument, which is what you’re doing, belies a lack of understanding as to what the word “similar” means. And the white supremacist viewpoint is that point of similarity among all of them.
And what is central to white supremacy? [drumroll] Racism!
He WAS racist. Do you know what he said?
The reason this is seen as racist is NOT because people who live in Antwerp were in denial about Berbers being responsible for crimes than people who aren’t Berbers.
It’s because saying that having problems with Berbers implies that it’s being a Berber that is the defining factor that makes someone a criminal, or in the case of the latter part of that quote, that subscribing to Islam automatically makes one radicalized.
It would be like saying that because black people commit higher crimes as a racial group than other races, that we’re having negative experiences with the black racial group. That amounts to saying that people are committing crimes because they’re black.
However, they are not committing crimes because they are black. And that’s the issue. Saying that the problem is with their racial community is saying that a certain ethnic group is creating a negative experience for the society is saying that a certain ethnic group is the problem. But the fact that they are a certain ethnic group is not the problem. They’re not committing crimes because they are Berbers or because they are black. There is another factor or set of factors that is disproportionately affecting them. And were someone to say, “This group of people commits more crimes, let’s find out what factors are disproportionately in place within this ethnic group,” none of that is racist. But that’s not what’s being said.
And keep that thought in mind, because I’d like to also point out a particular element in your post, and I think this is very important and deserves a great deal of attention, because this demonstrates what is probably the fundamental problem in everything you’re saying:
No, it’s not! It’s not racist to say that one group of people performs significantly more crimes than the other. Provided that it’s correct, it’s not racist. It’s just pointing out a fact.
Which, as I said, highlights the biggest problem with your posts, which is that it’s not that the definition of “racism” is getting watered down, it’s that you do not actually know what it is.
I don’t think you actually know what the word “racism” means, Mad Mat. And I’m not saying that as some sort of insult, I’m saying this truthfully. It’s very evident throughout your posts, especially this one. If you think pointing out a factual race-based statistic is racist, if you think pointing out a fact about a particular culture is discriminatory, then you clearly do not understand what the words “racist” and “discriminatory” actually mean.
Like, let me show you what I’m talking about:
No, it’s your exact argument. And that’s the problem.
You are conflating a person who is gay objecting to unjust treatment by a person of Muslim faith with a person who is straight up discriminatory against Muslims, when they aren’t the same thing at all.
Having a legitimate grievance against the tenets of a particular culture is not the same thing as being prejudiced against a culture. It’s the exact opposite. You think it’s the same thing. THAT’S the problem.
I’m not marginalizing the people who hold the first view. There’s nothing inherently wrong with disagreeing with tenets of a person’s faith. The problem is you’re arguing that this is the same as a person discriminating against a person’s faith, but that’s not the same thing at all!
Which is a problem, yes. And I’m not aware of anyone saying mislabeling isn’t a problem. I’m certainly arguing it is.
The problem is YOU are objecting to descriptors that are entirely accurate. And at least part of that is because you do not actually know what those descriptors mean.
No, you don’t disagree. That’s the problem. You’re saying you disagree, but your arguments in this thread demonstrate otherwise.
You are legitimately arguing that white people are completely justified when people of different races come in, on the grounds that these people might be a fundamental threat to their way of life merely by being of a different race.
So, no, the answer is, based on your arguments, you clearly AGREE, not disagree, with what Jay13x is saying.
Which is ridiculous. You’re talking about how negative the meaning of “racist” is, and now you’re saying the meaning is watered down?
The problem is you do not have a clear understanding of the meaning of the word “racist.” You think it amounts to simple name-calling, like calling someone a “moron.” But it’s not. It’s a word with a clear meaning that is very useful as a descriptor. Yes, it has a negative connotation, but that's not because the word has lost all meaning and merely kept the connotation. It's because the word has a very definite meaning and most people agree that what the word describes is wrong.
How is this any different from having public welfare programs to assist people below a certain amount of income?
When word broke, he defended himself by saying:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Drexel-officials-Professor-George-Ciccariello-Mahers-White-Genocide-tweet-was-utterly-reprehensible.html
...which, if you agree with him, might push his tweet more into the tasteless category than the actionable one.
But then, before news broke, he had already 'clarified' what he meant with the following tweet:
So I'm not sure how many times you get to 'clarify' comments that are offensive on their face, apparently at least twice and in completely opposite ways.
And that would be one thing if he didn't have a history of this:
So now let me explain why I quoted this story. Jay, you've alternately claimed that SJW is a nonsense term used to indict all progressives and that SJWs are just people fighting for equality.
On the first point, I think I'm actually doing progressives a favor by distinguishing out some of the nuts from the rest of them. Though this professor is very likely to accept the label of progressive and though a shockingly large amount of progressives actually support this behavior (check out his timeline), I genuinely believe that the majority of progressives do not think it's appropriate to be advocating the genocide of any group of people - even whites.
As for fighting for equality: there's a difference between talking about it and actually doing it. Maybe this man actually does it to a large degree. But I don't want this being the face of the fight for equality. And I think it's total bull for people to be labeled as defenders of white nationalism just because they say this is not appropriate behavior from a professor.
What I want to believe is that he was honest in his explanation that he was satirizing the white power crowd's idea of 'white genocide.' Equating miscegenation with genocide is laughable.
But then everything else he says - including his first explanation as to the meaning of the tweet belies that notion. The events in Haiti have little to do with white nationalist conspiracy theories. Being concerned that a population which you are enslaving will rise against you and, in the ensuing chaos, destroy the innocent life among you - that would have been a rational fear possessed by a group of people that are apart from you in space and time. Whereas, say, a global conspiracy among the Jews who meet in secret to recruit blacks to get your children hooked on drugs blablabla... not so much.
You asked for my opinion, knowing that I have limited information. So here it is. I believe that his anger about historical (and perhaps many present) injustices has devolved into a hatred of whiteness and of white people, even though he, himself is white, whereas his anger ought to be directed at injustice itself.
I don't think that anyone who speaks about an entire race or gender in this way belongs in the classroom and I'm not going to make an exception because it's the correct group to hate.
So really the problem here is that you're so blinded by your SJW fever dreams that you really do think he hates white people and supports white genocide. You think Haiti has nothing do with white nationalist conspiracy theories, but white nationalists LOVE to bring up the Haitian massacre. It's like their go-to example. It seems to me that you just aren't well-informed enough to understand his tweets, and without that context you're reading into them what you want to see rather than what's actually there.
I didn't say that he really and truly deep down supports white genocide. Given that he's white, I doubt it. I do think he hates white people and, more than that, 'whiteness.' How much more would you want in the way of evidence than all of the tweets listed above?
Can you name any living person today who hates white people and explain how you know that they do? Because 'abolish the white race' and 'All I want for Christmas is white genocide' seems like an awfully good start to me.
We're not on the same page here. He claims to have been mocking things because they were *false*: Jewish global conspiracies to conquer the world, miscegenation encouraged by governments to destroy the white race, etc. He didn't say he was mocking things that were *true*. Except he did mock things that were true because the Haitian genocide actually happened. You don't see any difference between conspiracy theories and things that actually happened? So if I say radical Muslims did 9/11 and then say radical Muslims are imposing Sharia law across the United States - those claims are on the same level?
When white nationalists talk about white genocide, they cite the Haitian massacre as an example of what we have in store for us. (I'd rather not link to Stormfront, but you can Google and find some of their essays on the topic). He didn't choose that example by accident - he was mocking the perception of white nationalists that people like him yearn for a repeat of that massacre.
That might make more sense of it, but the problem is that here's where the satire intersects with real life. He wrote a paper defending the revolution. I'm not particularly versed on the subject, but defending all of the consequences of the revolution is pretty controversial. As you know, we sometimes take up positions in history to provide context and give people or events a more thorough and fair hearing. Nevertheless, you start combining these behaviors together and it doesn't look good for this guy. You know, someone might argue that Holocaust death tolls are overestimated without being a Nazi sympathizer. But put a few other questionable claims and ideas into the mix and yeah, it's going to start looking bad for you at some point.
Have you actually read and digested his paper, or are you simply taking the word of the Daily Caller's summary that he was "praising white genocide"? Kind of sounds like the latter.
Why do you believe that a person should be judged based on the color of his skin and not the content of his character?
I’m struggling very hard to understand this. You are promoting and defending racism. I would like to know your reasons for this.
Yes, and those meanings are called definitions. And the word “racist” has a definition, and you haven’t a clue what it is. I’m asking you to learn what it is.
So let’s take this time to get some definitions across. Racism means prejudice based around race.
Prejudice is defined as a preconceived opinion that has no basis in knowledge, thought, or reason.
So to clarify, prejudice is always irrational. It is a prejudgment that we make about something without actual basis. It is bias. To make a conclusion in the absence of any evidence or basis is irrational. Prejudice is irrational.
No, it’s never justified or rational. It is always unjustified and irrational.
And that is the heart of all of this. You’re defending this like it’s some sort of rational and correct practice. It isn’t! It is blatantly obvious that this is an erroneous and problematic practice.
But you’re defending it. You are defending that it is perfectly fine to make racially prejudicial judgments about people. I would like to know why.
In light of this:
Obviously, yes.
Obviously racist, yes.
Obviously racist.
Which is completely irrational and wrong.
Yes.
No.
Yes, that is exactly what I expect.
Of course he's racist. He's making a prejudgment based purely on race.
Furthermore, and this is one I really want to focus on:
So they’re afraid of someone because he’s black.
If you’re afraid of someone because he has black skin, because you associate black skin with something, then you’re afraid of someone because he has black skin.
100% of black people are not criminals, nor is there anything about having black skin specifically that makes someone a criminal. Therefore, there’s nothing about being black that makes you a criminal. AND YET, you are trying to argue that it is justified for a person to presume a black person is a criminal based on him being black. NOT knowledge that the person is a criminal, not knowledge of any prior criminal activity or suspicion of wrongdoing, but purely based on that person being black.
So the correct answer is yes, you are being racist, and yes, that is completely a wrong thing to be. How are you finding room for disagreement on either of those statements?
We can and should, because it’s not reasonable at all.
And this outlines a major problem.
Do I understand why that person is afraid of men? Yes, I do.
Does the fact that I understand why that person is afraid of men make it ok, right, reasonable, acceptable, or in anyway a "good thing to do"? No, of course not. That person is not at all justified in thinking that all men are rapists.
I understand why a man who was bitten by dog as a child would have a phobia of dogs. That doesn't make a grown man afraid of a Corgi rational. It's still irrational. That's why it's a phobia. Just because I understand why someone does something does not make that action correct.
Or let me give you another example. Say a person gets his/her money stolen by someone who plays Magic: The Gathering. That person immediately concludes that all MTG players are thieves and disreputable and untrustworthy. He/she then denies you a loan that you are applying for on the grounds that you play Magic, and therefore cannot be trusted. You are arguing this is logical, rational, perfectly acceptable, and fair. Are you comfortable with that argument? If not, why are you not ok with that argument, other than, "because it's happening to me, specifically, and not someone else"?
And as a sidenote:
Yes, you would get priority status via affirmative action.
Maybe you should read my post. Race is ONE CRITERIA being considered of many.
Again, you're working on a narrative that the immensely qualified white kid is going to be passed over in favor of some unqualified black kid. That's not what’s happening.
Yeah, and that’s based off bull*****. It’s the racist belief that black people are leeching off the welfare system.
Here’s a clue for you: the demographic that most receives funding from the welfare system? Poor, rural white people. But it’s the black people receiving welfare that "the elderly" are complaining about. Why? Because they’re not white.
Now, please explain to me how it's justified that these people are making conclusions based on completely erroneous presumptions.
Google – A) “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. B) the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
Webster’s A) a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
Anti-Defamation League: “Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another. ”
So to borrow the example, if you are a woman in Cologne and you feel apprehensive about a group of North African men, it’s not conclusively racist. If you believe based on their perceived traits that they are more likely to commit a crime, also not necessarily racist, although probably unfair. But if you believe that their race is the primary determinant of those negative traits that cause you apprehension, and that those racial traits as a whole make their race inferior, it’s only then that’s it’s conclusively “racism”.
But, it seems like drawing any conclusions whatsoever based on race is identified by a certain segment as “racist”. In fact, I find that refusing to draw certain, obvious conclusions based on race is a pretty sure sign that a person is not comfortable with other races, and is likely to offend people of a different race. For example if I am in Vermont, it is a fairly safe assumption that the only Black person in the office did not grow up there. If I treat them as if they did, that’s insensitive. Worse, if I act out in supposed shock on discovering that they grew up in the South, very insincere and insensitive. But what’s more likely to be called out as “racist” is if I put forward the question where the person came from, then maybe share stories of when I visited there, what food I ate, so on. Because how could I have concluded that the person is from somewhere else unless, god forbid, I notice that they are a different race. It’s as if acknowledging the existence of Chicken and Waffles is “racist”.
I think also people confuse the standards that ought to be expected of them with the standard of equal protection that we consider fair under the law. Justice is blind, so they say. And of course if someone’s race is considered as “evidence” that they committed a crime, that’s illegal discrimination. It’s also wrong for a jury to consider as evidence anything that isn’t admitted as evidence, or for the government to enact law without what’s been defined as a “rational basis”. But holding people privately to a standard of race-blindness is a creation of politics.
Relating to politics as the topic, I personally don’t think Trump is any more racist than the average person of his demographics. I don’t find him as culturally sensitive as a president should be. I think a lot of his policy proposals would violate the Equal Protections and substantive Due Process clauses, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. I'm not thrilled to have him as POTUS. But, I don’t believe that he thinks the White race is superior to other races. And, I think a solid majority of the times that people have called him “racist”, they are being lazy with the term and actually mean something different.
"SJW" actually began among minority communities. This would be, for instance, the lady who lectures a gay dude on how he's homophobic because he doesn't like reading about Sam and Dean bringing a new meaning to "brotherly love". But the racists changed it to mean normal people.
An aside: A friend of mine (who is a Mizrahi Jew) mentioned how he was told that so what if some of the Arab speakers at the women's march were antisemitic, because Arabs generally are antisemitic so they couldn't exclude them for that reason.
On phasing:
Because feeling bad at being called a racist is WORSE than being a racist and acting on racist beliefs in your book.
What you have refused to say at any point:
A. “No, that’s not the definition of racist, and therefore I do not fit.”
or
B. “Ok, I DO fit the definition of racist, but I don’t think that’s bad.”
So which is it? Answer that, and we can proceed forward.