Facts about racism

Post Reply New Topic

Just because some nutbar college instructor teaches a class with mean content and title hardly means whites are any less off. Guess what, we straight, white men are the luckiest people in the world, because our group has unprecedented prestige at an age when there is more technology and entertainment at our fingertips than before. Sure, white men have lost footing economically, but who hasn't these days?
Someone says white dudes are the cause of everyone's problems - - waah.
Someone teaches a college class that calls white people the scourge of the earth - - waah.
Sure, some a$$holes are more vocal in their prejudice against whites, but that hardly compares to what minorities have gone through.
And yes, there is a desire to roll back civil rights gains. White nationalists believe they can accomplish just that by making whites out to be the new victims of racism, because they say minorities no longer know their place due to civil rights.

Racist content and racist title. If it's okay to be racist towards whites, but not blacks, that's discrimination. Period.



The average straight, white, man having a better than average outcome in majority white nations neither prevents straight, white, men from suffering as deeply as any other individual nor does it justify racism, discrimination, etc against them.

We're back to "It's okay to treat straight, white men worse because on average they have it slightly better than my demographic".



After multiple attempts, the best argument you've managed to come up with is "waah". Amazing work Bill. You sure justified the hell out of your beliefs there.



It's not a competition, Bill. You continue to misrepresent my position as "white people have it as bad as or worse than black people, on average, in America". Once might be understandable, but repeatedly, after multiple corrections, the only plausible explanation is that it's deliberate intellectual dishonesty - especially considering your obstinate attachment to beliefs in the face of adverse evidence and arguments.



Demonstrate this. Then explain how it's remotely relevant to my posts. I very much doubt you're intimately familiar with the inner-workings of the minds of white nationalists, so you'll have to provide some very convincing evidence to have a chance of clearing the first hurdle. The second, I can assure you, is insurmountable.

I'm failing to see the point in arguing anymore. If you feel like you're being oppressed because of the color of your skin, then you go ahead and do that. Just don't expect me to take you seriously.

Just one little citation, and it's not a big ask because all these policies are posted online. Just one university that limits discrimination to white people.

You're not arguing, Bill. You're doing anything you can to avoid admitting I'm making points to which you have no answers. You haven't come close to addressing a single argument I've made with intellectual honesty. On that note, here comes the strawman:



If you feel incapable of criticising brown-skinned people when they're being racist because of the colour of your skin, go right ahead and take up your white man's burden, Bill. I'll stick to my opinion that minorities are every bit as capable as white people, if it's all the same with you.



Indictments such as this tend to have more weight from people who engage in debate honestly. On this occasion, coming from you who has tried to twist and malign my position repeatedly, including a failed bid to link it to white supremacy, it's no more than a mewling plea for mercy.



It's one of many. The example I used was one of 19 in a much-discussed Buzzfeed article, all of which denigrated white people. This isn't an isolated incident, nor is it limited to those 19 examples used by Buzzfeed, nor is anti-white racism confined to classrooms.

I mean, let's see a citation of this policy that you claim exists. Post up a link.

I would hope that you're fully aware that university policies are in-line with US civil rights legislation. The problem isn't with the policies (free speech violations notwithstanding, but that's a different discussion), it's with the failure to implement them in cases of anti-white racism. This is a procedural failure, not a policy failure.

It's irrelevant either way. "White people are a plague to the planet" is a racist statement. No amount of goalpost-shifting negates the fact that this is proof positive of bigotry, in America, towards white people, because of the colour of their skin.

I have had recent university experience. Your university only exists in the persecution fantasies of the people who cobble together decontextualized student projects into a grand conspiracy.

For example, the admin sent out a request to honor female faculty for Women's Day. They wanted to honor women who exemplified nurturing service to others. They went on in detail, describing the stereotype of a traditional role for a woman, without any evident awareness that they were perpetuating a stereotype. They made no reference to anything that a woman might have achieved, or even considered the possibility that a woman could be a tough instructor who was just as beloved as a tough male instructor.

Well, that last part doesn't happen, based on research into the difference between comments on RateMyProfessor, etc. and the actual grades given by the professors. Tough female professors consistently get lower ratings for classes which are statistically just as tough. In the liberal bastion of universities.

There's nothing in the policies and nothing in the research to support your claim. Have you considered the possibility that you have succumbed to a mass hallucination?

My university? You've wandered off the reservation. I gave an example of an actual lecture in an actual classroom.



Therefore saying "White people are a plague to the planet" isn't racist?



Therefore saying "White people are a plague to the planet" isn't racist?



Which claim?



"Racism is impossible against whites. If you saw some, you must be experiencing a mass hallucination along with everyone else who sees things I'm blind to."

Bigotry wrapped in a conspiracy theory remains bigotry.

Saying white people are all... is bigoted. This is called racism on the playground, which I consider a useful definition. That racism goes every which way.

In an academic setting, racism a part of some system. The specific system matters, and I would have some uncomfortable questions for anyone who asserts that only one system exists. That's conspiracy theory.

Having a discussion about whether white people are a plague on the planet is acceptable to me. Why not have the discussion? Who cares what the people in the room decide? If someone signs up for the class in order to take offence, the professor has the final word, subject to appeal.

Oh wait, the system doesn't follow the law, their own codes, or reason, and none of their studies can be trusted. I'd rather fish for eels by hand. I'd at least end up with some tasty eels if I engaged with them.

period.

Read the rest of my quote, look around and realize where you will be if you engage with this.

I read the rest of your quote, and excised the irrelevant parts.

That professor was Henry Louis Gates Jr., and I remember seeing the footage, on the evening news, of him getting arrested and thinking what an idiot he was, for sassing the cops the way he did----and, IMO, THAT'S why he got arrested, because he was charged with "disorderly conduct", as opposed to "breaking and entering", as you say. When one acts defensive, it's only human, IMO, to not be trusting of them / think they must be up-to-something.

Some people (black AND white), never learn----meaning, they're more interested in showing they're not gonna conform ("You're not the boss of me"-type thing), and blaming everybody ELSE for their troubles, instead of taking responsibility for THEIR role in, when situations go awry. IMO, their pride leads them, to where their ego KEEPS them (in trouble, having multiple mishaps, etc.).

This last exchange highlights the futility of providing those examples. It's why I asked if the black men involved needed to have completely clean criminal records, not a hint of drug use, and no record of having expressed any grievance against the USA.

The same people who will cry foul at an academic presentation overlook the pattern that press coverage follows in every case, even those as different as those of Dr. Gates and Trayvon Martin.

The most obvious example was during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Looters got very different coverage depending entirely on the color of their skin. The media couldn't even perceive it at first when they had it pointed out by their own people on air. Fox simply doubled down on how the black looters were clearly looting, and the white looters had no choice but to feed their families.

Fox News just does that's sort of thing. You can't have standards for them.