Facts about racism
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Bollocks. I brought up the UK generally, Northern Ireland specifically, two pages back.
The same divisions exist and apply within America, and I'm also talking about the blasé manner in which ignorant but well-meaning people ignore the fact this board is not confined within your borders and make ridiculous sweeping statements about race relations and the inability of white people to experience racial oppression.
That might be the politically correct line in "Liberal" America, but it is, again, complete and utter bollocks however you look at it.
Only if you use a very narrow definition of race and racism for the sake of convenience. Which doesn't make sense, because you're talking about superficial differences in colour rather than ethnicity.
And make no mistake, the ramifications of anti-Irish racism in the UK is at least 800 years old and the effects are still felt viscerally by many Irish people (the Scots didn't fare so well either, despite what you might have learned from Braveheart). The colour of your skin is no defence against ethnic oppression. Just ask some of your Jewish countrymen.
And bollocks right back at you, as I wasn't addressing anything about the Irish, but was speaking about America.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Well, he can make a reservation back to Africa for one, as I doubt any African Americans want to go to a place they've never been, and where they'd be foreigners.
In the past there was a back to Africa movement, it sort of seems to be starting up again.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Well, he can make a reservation back to Africa for one, as I doubt any African Americans want to go to a place they've never been, and where they'd be foreigners.
In the past there was a back to Africa movement, it sort of seems to be starting up again.
I'd be seriously surprised if many blacks would want to go.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
jrjones9933
Veteran
Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage
I'll believe it's a movement when I see movement. A YouTube rant is only that. The vast liberal conspiracy doesn't actually issue permits to make them, so literally anyone with the equipment can do it.
_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade
Bollocks. I brought up the UK generally, Northern Ireland specifically, two pages back.
The same divisions exist and apply within America, and I'm also talking about the blasé manner in which ignorant but well-meaning people ignore the fact this board is not confined within your borders and make ridiculous sweeping statements about race relations and the inability of white people to experience racial oppression.
That might be the politically correct line in "Liberal" America, but it is, again, complete and utter bollocks however you look at it.
Only if you use a very narrow definition of race and racism for the sake of convenience. Which doesn't make sense, because you're talking about superficial differences in colour rather than ethnicity.
And make no mistake, the ramifications of anti-Irish racism in the UK is at least 800 years old and the effects are still felt viscerally by many Irish people (the Scots didn't fare so well either, despite what you might have learned from Braveheart). The colour of your skin is no defence against ethnic oppression. Just ask some of your Jewish countrymen.
And bollocks right back at you, as I wasn't addressing anything about the Irish, but was speaking about America.
Which is it? Either there are multiple people in the discussion, and I didn't mention the things that can be easily found in my unedited post from page 20, or this entire conversation is constrained within very specific parameters as set by yourself, unilaterally?
One of us has been consistent in our position, Bill, and I don't think I need to tell you which of us it is.
There's no shame in a simple "you know what, I didn't consider that perspective", whether or not you agree with it, live your life by it or crochet it into a sweater.
jrjones9933
Veteran
Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage
So, you don't feel any sting at all when your viewpoint and experience are denigrated and/or discarded because of the color of your skin and/or the gender you were born with? Spend some time on Salon, Vox, HuffPo, etc, and notice the way that they note when something is said by a "white dude", and what that information is meant to convey. Sure, it's fairly inconsequential at the moment, but worrisome nonetheless.
I think everyone feels that sting. White dudes have had less experience until recently; it appears from the frequent instances where they tell minorities to turn the other cheek but don't take that advice themselves that some white dudes can dish it out but can't take it.
Definitely better to stop that, but again, human beings.
_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Bollocks. I brought up the UK generally, Northern Ireland specifically, two pages back.
The same divisions exist and apply within America, and I'm also talking about the blasé manner in which ignorant but well-meaning people ignore the fact this board is not confined within your borders and make ridiculous sweeping statements about race relations and the inability of white people to experience racial oppression.
That might be the politically correct line in "Liberal" America, but it is, again, complete and utter bollocks however you look at it.
Only if you use a very narrow definition of race and racism for the sake of convenience. Which doesn't make sense, because you're talking about superficial differences in colour rather than ethnicity.
And make no mistake, the ramifications of anti-Irish racism in the UK is at least 800 years old and the effects are still felt viscerally by many Irish people (the Scots didn't fare so well either, despite what you might have learned from Braveheart). The colour of your skin is no defence against ethnic oppression. Just ask some of your Jewish countrymen.
And bollocks right back at you, as I wasn't addressing anything about the Irish, but was speaking about America.
Which is it? Either there are multiple people in the discussion, and I didn't mention the things that can be easily found in my unedited post from page 20, or this entire conversation is constrained within very specific parameters as set by yourself, unilaterally?
One of us has been consistent in our position, Bill, and I don't think I need to tell you which of us it is.
There's no shame in a simple "you know what, I didn't consider that perspective", whether or not you agree with it, live your life by it or crochet it into a sweater.
Again, I was always speaking of the United States of America in modern times.
And I don't crochet.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Bollocks. I brought up the UK generally, Northern Ireland specifically, two pages back.
The same divisions exist and apply within America, and I'm also talking about the blasé manner in which ignorant but well-meaning people ignore the fact this board is not confined within your borders and make ridiculous sweeping statements about race relations and the inability of white people to experience racial oppression.
That might be the politically correct line in "Liberal" America, but it is, again, complete and utter bollocks however you look at it.
Only if you use a very narrow definition of race and racism for the sake of convenience. Which doesn't make sense, because you're talking about superficial differences in colour rather than ethnicity.
And make no mistake, the ramifications of anti-Irish racism in the UK is at least 800 years old and the effects are still felt viscerally by many Irish people (the Scots didn't fare so well either, despite what you might have learned from Braveheart). The colour of your skin is no defence against ethnic oppression. Just ask some of your Jewish countrymen.
And bollocks right back at you, as I wasn't addressing anything about the Irish, but was speaking about America.
Which is it? Either there are multiple people in the discussion, and I didn't mention the things that can be easily found in my unedited post from page 20, or this entire conversation is constrained within very specific parameters as set by yourself, unilaterally?
One of us has been consistent in our position, Bill, and I don't think I need to tell you which of us it is.
There's no shame in a simple "you know what, I didn't consider that perspective", whether or not you agree with it, live your life by it or crochet it into a sweater.
Again, I was always speaking of the United States of America in modern times.
And you remain incorrect despite trying to force the conversation into that narrow context. There is a political movement happening right now, today, in the USA (and elsewhere) that specifically demonises "straight, white men" for being born wrong. It's taught in your educational institutions under the co-opted banner of "intersectionality" which, when used by such people, is frequently synonymous with "my not-so-secret racist, sexist bigotry".
By all means turn a blind eye to it. I choose not to.
Obsessions have to start somewhere. You might like it!
Well...I'm a straight white male---and I don't deserve to be demonized. And I am not demonized because of my straight, white maleness.
I don't find the "demonization" of straight, white males to be a common ideology amongst people I deal with. Included amongst those people are lawyers and judges.
You only find this sort of ideology, usually, in people who are disenchanted with things in general. And usually in academic settings.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Bollocks. I brought up the UK generally, Northern Ireland specifically, two pages back.
The same divisions exist and apply within America, and I'm also talking about the blasé manner in which ignorant but well-meaning people ignore the fact this board is not confined within your borders and make ridiculous sweeping statements about race relations and the inability of white people to experience racial oppression.
That might be the politically correct line in "Liberal" America, but it is, again, complete and utter bollocks however you look at it.
Only if you use a very narrow definition of race and racism for the sake of convenience. Which doesn't make sense, because you're talking about superficial differences in colour rather than ethnicity.
And make no mistake, the ramifications of anti-Irish racism in the UK is at least 800 years old and the effects are still felt viscerally by many Irish people (the Scots didn't fare so well either, despite what you might have learned from Braveheart). The colour of your skin is no defence against ethnic oppression. Just ask some of your Jewish countrymen.
And bollocks right back at you, as I wasn't addressing anything about the Irish, but was speaking about America.
Which is it? Either there are multiple people in the discussion, and I didn't mention the things that can be easily found in my unedited post from page 20, or this entire conversation is constrained within very specific parameters as set by yourself, unilaterally?
One of us has been consistent in our position, Bill, and I don't think I need to tell you which of us it is.
There's no shame in a simple "you know what, I didn't consider that perspective", whether or not you agree with it, live your life by it or crochet it into a sweater.
Again, I was always speaking of the United States of America in modern times.
And you remain incorrect despite trying to force the conversation into that narrow context. There is a political movement happening right now, today, in the USA (and elsewhere) that specifically demonises "straight, white men" for being born wrong. It's taught in your educational institutions under the co-opted banner of "intersectionality" which, when used by such people, is frequently synonymous with "my not-so-secret racist, sexist bigotry".
By all means turn a blind eye to it. I choose not to.
Obsessions have to start somewhere. You might like it!
I have never, ever been demonized for being a straight, white male, nor have I observed any straight, white men being discriminated against, either. Straight, white men are in no danger of being lynched, or disenfranchised from government, or denied service in the market place. To say we white guys face the same discrimination as minorities have is not only ridiculous, but is insulting to the real victims of discrimination.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
So, you don't feel any sting at all when your viewpoint and experience are denigrated and/or discarded because of the color of your skin and/or the gender you were born with? Spend some time on Salon, Vox, HuffPo, etc, and notice the way that they note when something is said by a "white dude", and what that information is meant to convey. Sure, it's fairly inconsequential at the moment, but worrisome nonetheless.
Yeah, that doesn't sting me at all. In the large majority of cases, I don't perceive it as being meant literally. It's not "your opinions are invalid because you are a white man", but rather "the way you see the world is shaped by your race and gender, and that is relevant in this case". That's particularly the case when "white privilege" is brought up, as in this case. If they perceive that the person they disagree with is being reasonable then there's rarely any suggestion that white men are anything other than equals or that there's any fault attached to the privileged person. If they perceive unreasonableness then it gets a bit more snarky (and veers into denigrating rather than disclaiming), but it's still rarely a blanket dismissal of all white men.
Sometimes it's used as a big dollop of "you disagree with me and I will do whatever I can to discredit you". Again, I don't think this is anything to do with race really. It's racially tinged, sure, but it's basically about the views expressed. If a person from another race said the same thing then they'd find an appropriate insult. In no way am I defending it, it just doesn't offend me on a personal level.
There are some times when people do try to discredit and demonise "privileged groups" as a whole. Very occasionally I'll get offended by this sort of thing. But generally being told that I can't fully empathise with what most black people have to put up with regularly? Doesn't offend me in the slightest.
I guess my race and gender just aren't things I identify with on a particularly emotional level. I also don't particularly mind when people complain about liberals (when they mean it in the sense I identify with) or the British Empire or English nationalism or whatever. They're not facets of my identity that I particularly care about.
I'm going to respond more in depth later, but I just wanted to mention that I would have said the same thing a few years ago, but years of these attacks on straight white dudes in the media I consume has started making me feel a bit defensive in a way I don't care for at all. I have dual concerns, one being the creeping acceptability of attacking people of my gender, race, and sexuality, for obvious reasons, the other being the affect this is having on the straight white male population as a whole.
I mean, not to sound self serving here, but I go out of my way to be self aware, and if I am starting to feel resentful about being the butt of every meme that shows up on my Facebook page and the scapegoat of every third article I read on any remotely left leaning media site, I can only imagine that some percentage of straight white men are getting much angrier and more defensive, and as we just saw here in America, that's not a good thing.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
When I see someone say something offensive about a group I belong to I either ignore it or laugh at how stupid it is. I think Blackish is a good example. The main character Dre, has many offensive opinions on white people. I laugh at how stupid he is and he is the main character.
I have never, ever been demonized for being a straight, white male, nor have I observed any straight, white men being discriminated against, either.
Then I cordially invite you to check your privilege, and refrain from further demands or suggestions that those of us who have experienced and/or witnessed such things take up our 'white man's burden'.
Nobody is in danger of being lynched. As for "disenfranchised from government", you'll have to provide examples beyond the quashed voter ID laws which adversely affected the impoverished and the "undocumented". The "market place" is another matter entirely, and discriminates at its peril.
I already cautioned you against misrepresenting my arguments, yet here you are, arguing against a strawman. I'd be disappointed, Bill, but the only consistency you've shown in this thread is in your willingness to put words in the mouths of others.
To say all "white guys" have the exact same experience as you, or that all minorities have the exact same experience as each other, is beyond ridiculous and into the sublime. You're still treating groups as monoliths, which is a guaranteed way to disenfranchise and ignore "real victims".
And you're concerned because you're capable of seeing beyond the moment.
Exactly. Anyone who even vaguely understands what happens when you persecute people in this manner should be taking a stand against it, not ignoring it or pretending it doesn't exist.
It has become acceptable in some circles in Western societies to exclude people on the basis of being white/male/straight, to de facto discriminate against someone on the basis of white/male/straight. This is undeniable, and thousands of examples can be provided in the forms of interviews, policies, videos of events and lectures, presentations in the UN, news articles, etc, etc, etc.
One problem is with all the blind partisanship. When the majority of "liberals" are blind to the harm their extremist allies are inflicting, deny any wrongdoing on their behalf, they're magnifying the problem. I find it astounding that the "left" in the US demands that the "right" disavow, denounce, etc support from (e.g.) the KKK, but they're unwilling to even acknowledge the existence of their own state sponsored bigoted extremists.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
I have never, ever been demonized for being a straight, white male, nor have I observed any straight, white men being discriminated against, either.
Then I cordially invite you to check your privilege, and refrain from further demands or suggestions that those of us who have experienced and/or witnessed such things take up our 'white man's burden'.
Nobody is in danger of being lynched. As for "disenfranchised from government", you'll have to provide examples beyond the quashed voter ID laws which adversely affected the impoverished and the "undocumented". The "market place" is another matter entirely, and discriminates at its peril.
I already cautioned you against misrepresenting my arguments, yet here you are, arguing against a strawman. I'd be disappointed, Bill, but the only consistency you've shown in this thread is in your willingness to put words in the mouths of others.
To say all "white guys" have the exact same experience as you, or that all minorities have the exact same experience as each other, is beyond ridiculous and into the sublime. You're still treating groups as monoliths, which is a guaranteed way to disenfranchise and ignore "real victims".
And you're concerned because you're capable of seeing beyond the moment.
Exactly. Anyone who even vaguely understands what happens when you persecute people in this manner should be taking a stand against it, not ignoring it or pretending it doesn't exist.
It has become acceptable in some circles in Western societies to exclude people on the basis of being white/male/straight, to de facto discriminate against someone on the basis of white/male/straight. This is undeniable, and thousands of examples can be provided in the forms of interviews, policies, videos of events and lectures, presentations in the UN, news articles, etc, etc, etc.
One problem is with all the blind partisanship. When the majority of "liberals" are blind to the harm their extremist allies are inflicting, deny any wrongdoing on their behalf, they're magnifying the problem. I find it astounding that the "left" in the US demands that the "right" disavow, denounce, etc support from (e.g.) the KKK, but they're unwilling to even acknowledge the existence of their own state sponsored bigoted extremists.
I'm uncertain what I'm supposed to prove. There are no white men facing discrimination due to their race. Are there places in the world where white men are discriminated against due to nationality, or religion, class, or neurodiversity? Absolutely. But I do not believe white men face racial discrimination.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
