Is It Okay To Be White? - Page 17 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Is It Okay To Be White?

1. Yes, It Is Okay To Be White.
38
66%
2. No, It Is Not Okay To Be White.
9
16%
3. Other
11
19%
#14862570
I'm sick of those right-wing populists who claim to speak for 'the people'.
They don't, just a section of it.


This is true. Only about 35% of Americans identify themselves as conservatives. Only 26% if Americans are republicans.

But lord are they a loud bunch though. It is well to remember that Trump was beaten badly in the popular vote. He lost by over 2%, which is pretty significant. He did not win on merit at all. His win was the result of a careful and sustained effort on the part of the republicans to gerrymander districts at the state level.

The recent results in Virginia show the limits of that effort however as the republicans took a total drubbing. It appears that the chickens are coming home to roost.

I would correct one thing you say though. Right wing populists claim to speak for white people. They don't even try to claim they speak for people of color.
By Buzz62
#14862571
Heisenberg wrote:I don't believe these two sentiments can reasonably coexist.

Racism...or bigotry...has its roots in our survival instincts.
We humans naturally shun that which is different, until we have a chance to safely interact with those who are different and deem them safe. To reinforce and even heighten this basic instinct is irresponsible and quite frankly, counter to your proclaimed goal, to do away with racism.

Isn't it a better solution to actually maintain the family unit, choose to live where successful people of all races live and play together, and instill in your children the ideas of success and racial harmony?
#14862582
So, when you want to "make racism work for you", that is just healthy racism, of the sort that is natural and based on instinct.

But when black people explain to their children that they will grow up in a racist society and therefore need to be careful, that is "reinforcing and even heightening this basic instinct" in a bad way, because they are black for reasons that have nothing to do with race.

Sure. :lol:
#14862583
Buzz62 wrote:Et voila.
And what do you propose? That "racism" itself be...criminalized?
This is the crux of one of our oldest arguments. How can one rail against a society and culture and hope to come out victorious? It's a ludicrous idea. It causes all sorts of suffrage, and produces what? More suffrage. Yes the USA is racist. So is Canada, England, France, Germany...somewhat...
You Sir, are racist. I am racist. We're all fuckin' racist. Instead of fighting what seems pretty bloody steep, why not make it work for you?


The reason I am not teying to make racism work for me is because I am not a d-bag who seeks to profit from the oppression of others.

My point was that the author was saying that the US is a racist society. Apparently, you agree with this.

Not necessarily. Why would a parent seed such racism in a child? Why reinforce negative ideas? Doesn't that ensure self-perpetuation of the problem one might have?
Sure it does... :knife:


This has nothing to do with what I claimed. I pointed out that the author understands that his or her kids will grow up in a racist society and will be targeted because of their skin colour.

Oh for gawd's sake get off the soap box.
This father is a dick. he's every bit the dick as any parent who would enforce negative racial feelings to their 4 yr old kids. You wanna fight racism, yet wanna celebrate a Dad who teaches his little boys racism. Bravo...


Actually, I just explained how the author was not racist. You just ignored my analysis and repeated your incorrect claims.

——————————

Rugoz wrote:I wonder why everybody always ignores East Asians. Apparently they're doing fine without playing victim all the time.


Racism against East Asians is different from racism against blacks, at least in the USA.

——————————

SolarCross wrote:The spacial metaphor of right vs left changes a lot over time but these days in the US it is generally understood that the right wingiest of right wing institutions are the military and the police. While the leftiest of left wing institutions are the academias. Right wing people like sports and left wing people like movies.

The US military without going along with quotas shows a decent representation of blacks in the officer corp. Even up the rank of general you see roughly proportionate black faces. Same goes for the police, though they tend to represent local demographics because they are not national institutions and so officers tend to be recruited locally. Needless to say American sports are if anything over-represented by black people and they are enormously well paid too.

In contrast Academia blocks blacks from progressing up the academic career path. Those few blacks that do progress up the academic career path mostly do so in all black institutions they had to create to insulate themselves from the racism of leftist academics. Hollywood is also deeply weird about blacks being actors, having funny rules where there can be a black side kick but he has to die first. Will Smith getting a starring role in I Robot was kind of a breakthrough for Hollyweird though black heroes had starring roles in the military and sports for many decades before. Interestingly Hollyweird tends to reflect the racism of the left vs the non-racism of the right by making the token black characters cops or soldiers but never academics.

The basic difficulty the right is having with the left on the subject of racism is that the racist left is accusing the non-racist right of being racist.

It’s 2015. Where are all the black college faculty?

https://www.statisticbrain.com/demograp ... -military/

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... ic/420237/


So you are going to ignore the economic conditions that funnel black men into jobs with the military and police, and simultaneously exclude them form academia, just to make unfounded accusations about the left.

Because academics magically have power to keep blacks from being rich enough to afford decades of post secondary education?

---------

The other issue is political correctness. The right wing people are straight talking and straight thinking, they dislike having to second guess what they say and double-think their thoughts, because for all their flaws they are basically honest people, consequently they recognise political correctness culture as odious and repellent. Moreover they aren't very good at it.

In contrast the left love double-thinking, double-talking, virtue signalling, being two-faced, sly and manipulative and so consequently love political correctness, as it is a linguistic culture that favours those who are dishonest and have skill at being dishonest, like the left. If political correctness becomes a cultural standard then this advantages (privileges) the left against the right.


Is this ad hominem an example of “straight thinking”? Lol.

Because it seems like a chidlish insult directed at your ideological opponents.

—————————

Victoribus Spolia wrote:I don't think you are being fair, I don't know any logician who says that political correctness or self-censorship is the same as rational thought.

People do not engage in political correctness because they are analytical, they engage in political correctness so as not to offend others


Yes. So, people who oppose political correctness are doing it to be offensive.

and because they believe that the cultural Marxist dialectic of history admits of few exceptions to the paradigm of a universal oppressor class of a white Christian patriarchy v. everyone else, hence when certain facts are presented they are de facto false (politically incorrect) because they do not fit the dialectic (narrative).


Nope. This is wrong.

Analytical thought does not require information to be processed through an ideological paradigm such as Marxism, but rather tests all premises based on their validity and if their conclusions follow. Often times, analytical thought is extremely offensive and this is because truth is no respecter of people's feelings.

It is fair that Trumpian rednecks can be bellicose and bold about opinions they know little about, but do not make the mistake that self-censorship and devotion to a Marxist dialectic, regardless of what facts may conflict with such, is somehow superior or rational. Its not. Being objective has never been the goal of cultural Marxists.

@SolarCross is not advocating for bluster as a substitute for reason, he is merely explaining, and I think fairly (though, with some bias), the differences between right and left culture and speech. That the generally conservative working class is more straight-forward and honest about their real opinions is not a secret, but do not mistake the acknowledging of that reality by SolarCross with an advocation of everything they say as the definition of validity.....that sir, is worrying, for how can we have a conversation on these topics if we are always assuming the most vile and absurd opinions in others?


This is just a pseudo intellectual version of the same ad hominem.

Soeaking of duplicity, you were asked to provide evidence of the epic controversy caused by these posters.

Instead, you provided a link to a Google search about these posters, and claimed it was a Google search about the controversy. Please note that these two things are not the same.

——————————

Buzz62 wrote:"Race is a construct"?
Have you looked in a mirror lately? What's the point of this argument of hers?
To deny the existence of the various races of people on the planet?

Look...I think everyone agrees that racism and bigotry is not a positive influence on anyone.
But when people start proclaiming loudly in public that all white people need to be exterminated, and hoards of actual white people start agreeing with such a racially charged idea, and indeed begin to proclaim that they hate their own race, what would you logically expect? That the whites who maintain pride in their people, shut up about it and roll over for you?

It is not OK for a father to teach his boys racism.!


This is a good example of an over reaction.

Buzz seems to be very upset about some things that do not seem to have even happened.

——————————
#14862596
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I don't think you are being fair, I don't know any logician who says that political correctness or self-censorship is the same as rational thought.

People do not engage in political correctness because they are analytical, they engage in political correctness so as not to offend others and because they believe that the cultural Marxist dialectic of history admits of few exceptions to the paradigm of a universal oppressor class of a white Christian patriarchy v. everyone else, hence when certain facts are presented they are de facto false (politically incorrect) because they do not fit the dialectic (narrative).

Analytical thought does not require information to be processed through an ideological paradigm such as Marxism, but rather tests all premises based on their validity and if their conclusions follow. Often times, analytical thought is extremely offensive and this is because truth is no respecter of people's feelings.

It is fair that Trumpian rednecks can be bellicose and bold about opinions they know little about, but do not make the mistake that self-censorship and devotion to a Marxist dialectic, regardless of what facts may conflict with such, is somehow superior or rational. Its not. Being objective has never been the goal of cultural Marxists.

@SolarCross is not advocating for bluster as a substitute for reason, he is merely explaining, and I think fairly (though, with some bias), the differences between right and left culture and speech. That the generally conservative working class is more straight-forward and honest about their real opinions is not a secret, but do not mistake the acknowledging of that reality by SolarCross with an advocation of everything they say as the definition of validity.....that sir, is worrying, for how can we have a conversation on these topics if we are always assuming the most vile and absurd opinions in others?


I gave you a like Victoribus because this set of paragraphs made me laugh a lot. I happen to think you never read anything on African history and culture. And even less on Latin American history. Nothing. But you want to have opinions on it and write with a bunch of 'authority' based on what?

There are so many fallacies in almost every line you wrote it lets me know that you have not done any serious academic debates with educated far left people. None. I am sure of that.

I only have respect for far right people who actually take on that huge tome "Das Kapital" and who actually read far left philosophy and formulate an opposition to that based on a deep understanding of the material.

What you do Victoribus Spoila is pretend to understand a political philosophy without actually understanding it deeply. That for me is for foolish people.

Do your homework Victoribus, in this forum, which I have been a member of since 2009 and have read since 2004 has people who are very very knowledgeable about their subject matter. Others don't know anything and are complete trolls. How does one distinguish? You can't fake work. People who have worked very hard on understanding things and concepts don't have the need to 'obscure' any kind of political concepts. They know them well enough to be clear and direct. The ones who don't? Do what you just did above. We call that in slang Spanish, "Tapar el macho". "Cover the macho". You got to cover because the substance isn't there---that is what it means.

@Politiks fled the thread. He can claim he had nothing else to say. I think he ran.

You better stand and deliver. If you don't? Another one who thinks he knows more than what he does. That is what you shall be in this forum if you use the above arguments for interpretation of the hard left positions. Again, either you can deliver because you worked hard....or you don't. Period.
#14862638
buzz62 wrote:Well then...Your parents should not have done that IMO. The police are there to protect you. And the police are not an entire race of people. As for the lesson "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." that was a good lesson.

You seem to have a real identity crisis goin' on there. My condolences. Is there a pill for that?


There is no "identity crisis" :lol:

The police are not there to protect you. Surely, some join with that in mind. But they're there to close cases and get a paycheck. They're not doing it for free. It never ceases to amaze me how right-wingers will hysterically yell about wages and the free market, and then pretend as if civil servants of any kind are doing charity.

The police are people. They will lie for each other, like you do in any job, and they will attempt to make their bosses happy, like in any job. If they can clear a case by getting you to say the wrong thing at the wrong time, they'll do it and let the lawyers worry about it later.

That is their job.

SolarCross wrote:The spacial metaphor of right vs left changes a lot over time but these days in the US it is generally understood that the right wingiest of right wing institutions are the military and the police. While the leftiest of left wing institutions are the academias. Right wing people like sports and left wing people like movies.


Left/right has not changed in 300 years. The only thing that's changed is right-wing libertarians attempting to distance their uncomfortable promotion of fascism in the past by making up a new definition.

Academics are not a "left wing institution." They are run on a corporate model where the CEO can clear almost a million in public institutions, and twice that at private institutions. They almost always have business degrees and the universities are run upon profit-making business models. As a result, tuition has never been higher, faculty has never been paid less, and most (70-80%) are reduced to squalor.

This is hardly a "leftwing" model for an institution. It's exactly the kind of structure that Wal-Mart, or any other rightwing institution, uses and advocates.

"Ah!" You may say, "But the faculty is overwhelmingly Democrat!" This is true, read the above. Faculty sleeping in their cars and giving blow-jobs on the side are getting crushed by Republican-promoted business practices. Would it honestly make any sense for them to keep voting for Republicans, or to vote for the party that says the institutions need more money to give to the employees? Surely even a right-winger whining about the free market can see that there is a reason for this to be.

Many members of the faculty I know are not political in the sense that you're thinking about it. Sure, there are departments and activists like there are everywhere (and this is something the students direct more than anything); but mostly we have trained for decades not to listen to what NPR says uncritically and we laugh at the bias of the BBC. This is not conventional American liberalism as you are trying to depict it. These are scholars that spend every day pouring over sourcing and then can't help but to do the same. Does this make one veer to the left? More than likely as the institutional reasons something is said tends to make one cynical of power in general.

But this is not the binary that you are pretending that it is.

The US military without going along with quotas shows a decent representation of blacks in the officer corp. Even up the rank of general you see roughly proportionate black faces. Same goes for the police, though they tend to represent local demographics because they are not national institutions and so officers tend to be recruited locally.


False. Affirmative Action is not only used by the military, but when it comes to the Supreme Court the military goes to bat for quotas in Affirmative Action. The last time this came up, it's the reason the Supreme Court found in favour of Affirmative Action:

Grutter v. Bollinger wrote:Brief for General Motors Corp. as Amicus Curiae 3-4. What is more, high-ranking retired officers and civilian leaders of the United States military assert that, "[b]ased on [their] decades of experience," a "highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps . . . is essential to the military's ability to fulfill its principle mission to provide national security." Brief for Julius W. Becton, Jr., et al. as Amici Curiae 5. The primary sources for the Nation's officer corps are the service academies and the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC), the latter comprising students already admitted to participating colleges and universities. Ibid. At present, "the military cannot achieve an officer corps that is both highly qualified and racially diverse unless the service academies and the ROTC used limited race-conscious recruiting and admissions policies." Ibid. (emphasis in original). To fulfill its mission, the military "must be selective in admissions for training and education for the officer corps, and it must train and educate a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps in a racially diverse educational setting." Id., at 29 (emphasis in original). We agree that "t requires only a small step from this analysis to conclude that our country's other most selective institutions must remain both diverse and selective." Ibid.

We have repeatedly acknowledged the overriding importance of preparing students for work and citizenship, describing education as pivotal to "sustaining our political and cultural heritage" with a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of society. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U. S. 202, 221 (1982). This Court has long recognized that "education . . . is the very foundation of good citizenship." Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 493 (1954). For this reason, the diffusion of knowledge and opportunity through public institutions of higher education must be accessible to all individuals regardless of race or ethnicity. The United States, as amicus curiae, affirms that "[e]nsuring that public institutions are open and available to all segments of American society, including people of all races and ethnicities, represents a paramount government objective." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13.


Incidentally, as implied, big businesses are always in there saying they need affirmative action when it looks in danger too. For the same obvious reason: if you want to penetrate into a market, militarily or commercially, you want to have someone there that knows how to think like that market. You don't want to have to skip over a black guy that may grant you access to that market because another white dude from Harvard is technically more qualified.

This is, ultimately, why academics what AA too. The British are, generally, far more qualified on paper to talk about the Indian Raj. But we want the right to be able to take the fact that someone was educated in India into consideration when looking at material.

Needless to say American sports are if anything over-represented by black people and they are enormously well paid too.

In contrast Academia blocks blacks from progressing up the academic career path. Those few blacks that do progress up the academic career path mostly do so in all black institutions they had to create to insulate themselves from the racism of leftist academics. Hollywood is also deeply weird about blacks being actors, having funny rules where there can be a black side kick but he has to die first. Will Smith getting a starring role in I Robot was kind of a breakthrough for Hollyweird though black heroes had starring roles in the military and sports for many decades before. Interestingly Hollyweird tends to reflect the racism of the left vs the non-racism of the right by making the token black characters cops or soldiers but never academics.


Indeed. This is something that universities attempt to address, but it either gets stopped by right-wingers like Hannity on TV whining about Affirmative Action, or Republicans in office doing everything they can to stop it.

As for Hollywood, burn down their mansions and fuck their corpses. But, again, it is always the rightwing that starts whining when a black person is hired for a role they think should be white.

The basic difficulty the right is having with the left on the subject of racism is that the racist left is accusing the non-racist right of being racist.


I don't know what you mean by "left" in this context as you don't seem to have a good grasp on it in general, but I do know that racism is [i]institutional
while prejudice is individual. Everything you brought up regarding Hollywood and universities are institutional racist policies, but ones that society itself has (as shown by rightwing objection to trying to fix any of the issues). Where people on the left tend to go wrong with this is hurting rightwing feelings. Granted, right-wingers will have hurt fee-fees at almost anything, but one can do it by example a little bit easier.

For example, I made a crack about gentrification at a bar once. A black guy called me out on it, and he was right—I probably wouldn't have said that had I known a black guy was there. It was something that I hadn't thought about, but the fact that I hadn't thought about it but it was in me, and the fact that I knew I wouldn't have said that in that context does mean that I'm reflecting a racist paradigm. It's something that needs to be addressed. It's not a good feeling, and I talked it out and shook hands at the end, but I still feel a bit of shame about it. The thing to address is how you internalize and interpret the culture and how fairly you're doing it.

Racism, being institutionalized as it is, sneaks up on you on ways you don't think about. It's true for everyone in a racist culture such as our own. And it's just something we all need to work at getting over, even if it takes work for an institution that is so old and refined. Where good-meaning mealy-liberal types fuck up is their false premise that they were somehow born immune to society as a whole and everyone else needs to be condemned. That is typical of bourgeois individualism, which is the same reason that advertising or anything else works. We believe we are free from it (like racism) but are not fully free from it unless it is actually, constantly, and consistently addressed in opposition to culture itself.

The other issue is political correctness. The right wing people are straight talking and straight thinking, they dislike having to second guess what they say and double-think their thoughts, because for all their flaws they are basically honest people, consequently they recognise political correctness culture as odious and repellent. Moreover they aren't very good at it.

In contrast the left love double-thinking, double-talking, virtue signalling, being two-faced, sly and manipulative and so consequently love political correctness, as it is a linguistic culture that favours those who are dishonest and have skill at being dishonest, like the left. If political correctness becomes a cultural standard then this advantages (privileges) the left against the right.


This is a product of what I was writing about previously. On the left, we tend to look to who is saying what and why. We, at least the "left" I'm speaking about, don't trust anything that can't be further researched and explained to root. That's why academics don't trust any news source—and it's probably the same reason that a Marxist would not trust a source, to find Marxist materials and explanations takes a lot more work and mental prep than another ideology in the Western World as it's not commonly available (this would be reversed in, say, the Soviet Union or China).

Counter this with a conservative that's going to find someone he trusts on Fox News and rightwing radio and sit there and get spoon-fed some ego-stroking garbage. This is not to say it's the conservative's fault, necessarily. Specialization has long moved to a point where we can collectively trust an expert in any given field, and this is something that a lot of these institutions have exploited for money without shame.

However, it does not make their information correct.
#14862639
Reichstraten wrote:@Victoribus Spolia
I'm not defending political correctness or cultural-marxism at all, but am attacking the idea that the majority of the left can be defined by those two concepts.
Most left wing people are not political correct professors on universities, but honest hard working people. I'm sick of those right-wing populists who claim to speak for 'the people'.
They don't, just a section of it.


I'm glad, and don't get me wrong, I wasn't looking to make any accusations regarding your character which so many are apt to do on this forum, from both the left and right, only to be sure we were not making any false equivalencies regarding leftist rhetorical strategy and rational discourse or to assume that SolarCross was making the equally erroneous argument from the opposite end of the spectrum. I appreciate your clarification. Thanks.
#14862646
I'm starting to get the sense that people on here are trying to goad me to start posting and debating on here when I really have very little interest in this thread. Being called a coward, a pseudo-intellectual, someone who hasn't done his homework, is probably lying about his education, never been in an academic debate, etc, etc, etc..and all from people I was not talking to when I interjected merely to help people clarify how they speak to each other.....The air is thick with butt-hurt and vitriol on here from all sides, its absolutely delectable.

For the most part, I have posted very little on thread because the topic never really interested me that much to begin with, but I am flattered that there are those here who would like to push me into a fight, it seems, that many here are literally salivating over their keyboards to have a go at me, probably because I have really irked them in some way. Which is fine. You will get your chance someday when you say something that peaks my interest.

As for specific allegations as to this topic "being proven as controversial," that request was so fucking stupid I only regret entertaining it in the first place without first asking for a standard of controversy from my opponent, for even if I posted sources for 10 newspapers stating that this was an issue on their campus from across the united states, which would be easy, the opponent in question would still not be satisfied with that evidence as evidence of a controversy even if I myself found such sufficient. Therefore, @Pants-of-dog, I will concede to you the point that there was no controversy and that this was just all made up. :lol:

You can have the satisfaction that there was no controversy per my concession, and I will have the amusement of the controversy generated on this thread as indicative of the reality you would never admit anyway. After all, this has been the most posted-on thread in the opinion-polls sub-forum since the resurrection of Jesus and probably longer than that by now.

All of which is quite amusing from the mainly left-leaning posters who claimed both that there was no controversy and that the right are just a bunch of snow-flake pussies (a term the right has used for the left), but given some of the nasty shit being said to me with ZERO address to my arguments, (and yes, i'm looking at you @Tainari88,) I cannot help but breathe in deep the great fog of irony on this whole thread.

You are all welcome to continue stating your ad-hominems ad infinitum and it will only serve to amuse me. I will post as I please to post and to whom I please to post on threads that I find interesting or challenging. You can make whatever assertions you want about my qualifications or credentials, because they exist irrespective of your presumptions and no one here really knows who the fuck anyone else is or if they are just making up everything they say about themselves anyway.
Last edited by Victoribus Spolia on 14 Nov 2017 19:07, edited 3 times in total.
By Buzz62
#14862648
Pants-of-dog wrote:The reason I am not teying to make racism work for me is because I am not a d-bag who seeks to profit from the oppression of others.
If you consider the mainstream culture and society a bunch of douche-bags, then I'd suggest its your bigotry that's the problem.

Pants-of-dog wrote:My point was that the author was saying that the US is a racist society. Apparently, you agree with this.

Of course I agree with it. It happens to be true. However the lines of racism and bigotries begin to fade, when POCs integrate themselves within the culture that is experiencing the benefits. Were this course of action actively promoted, the lines of racism and bigotry would blur to a vague historical footnote. And hey...no piss-bottles necessary.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This has nothing to do with what I claimed. I pointed out that the author understands that his or her kids will grow up in a racist society and will be targeted because of their skin colour.

And I said that i disagree with that assessment.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Actually, I just explained how the author was not racist. You just ignored my analysis and repeated your incorrect claims.

Because you are wrong.
By Buzz62
#14862649
Heisenberg wrote:So, when you want to "make racism work for you", that is just healthy racism, of the sort that is natural and based on instinct.

But when black people explain to their children that they will grow up in a racist society and therefore need to be careful, that is "reinforcing and even heightening this basic instinct" in a bad way, because they are black for reasons that have nothing to do with race.

Sure. :lol:

Bud for you to comprehend what I'm saying, you need the abilities to think outside the box, and actually want equality for all, regardless of skin colour. But again...you need to be able to comprehend these ideas.
By Rugoz
#14862731
Pants-of-dog wrote:Racism against East Asians is different from racism against blacks, at least in the USA.


Why, because they overachieve?

Where I live some white immigrant groups (hint: ex-Jugoslavia) have (or had) are far worse reputation than non-white immigrants from other parts of the world. But of course it's always about skin color and never about culture, right? :roll:
#14862734
Institutional racism is not an issue for East Asians but the Chinese are often subject to racist attacks in Australia. I don't know if this is a common problem in America and Australia is fundamentally different from other former British colonies such as Canada.

Beijing: An attack on Chinese school students in Canberra that saw one hospitalised could be a turning point in Chinese attitudes towards Australia, a major newspaper has editorialised.

Two local teenagers have faced Children's Court after the bashing at the Woden bus interchange last week, which has been widely reported by Chinese newspapers, radio and state media.

Global Times, a mass-circulating national newspaper focused on foreign policy, said the incident would prompt many Chinese people to feel Australia isn't safe.

"If Australia does not take strong measures to eliminate the impact of this matter, this incident and the series of recent negative events and comments against Chinese in Australia will constitute a turning point, reshaping Chinese people's foundation for understanding Australian society," the Global Times wrote in an editorial on Monday.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/bashing-of- ... zb8p2.html

The Embassy of the People's Republic of China in Australia issued a warning to Chinese students in Australia over the weekend, advising students to stay alert when going to affected areas and to contact police and report emergencies to relevant authorities.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017 ... k-canberra
Last edited by ThirdTerm on 15 Nov 2017 00:50, edited 2 times in total.
#14862735
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I don't think you are being fair, I don't know any logician who says that political correctness or self-censorship is the same as rational thought.

People do not engage in political correctness because they are analytical, they engage in political correctness so as not to offend others and because they believe that the cultural Marxist dialectic of history admits of few exceptions to the paradigm of a universal oppressor class of a white Christian patriarchy v. everyone else, hence when certain facts are presented they are de facto false (politically incorrect) because they do not fit the dialectic (narrative).

Analytical thought does not require information to be processed through an ideological paradigm such as Marxism, but rather tests all premises based on their validity and if their conclusions follow. Often times, analytical thought is extremely offensive and this is because truth is no respecter of people's feelings.

It is fair that Trumpian rednecks can be bellicose and bold about opinions they know little about, but do not make the mistake that self-censorship and devotion to a Marxist dialectic, regardless of what facts may conflict with such, is somehow superior or rational. Its not. Being objective has never been the goal of cultural Marxists.

@SolarCross is not advocating for bluster as a substitute for reason, he is merely explaining, and I think fairly (though, with some bias), the differences between right and left culture and speech. That the generally conservative working class is more straight-forward and honest about their real opinions is not a secret, but do not mistake the acknowledging of that reality by SolarCross with an advocation of everything they say as the definition of validity.....that sir, is worrying, for how can we have a conversation on these topics if we are always assuming the most vile and absurd opinions in others?


Well said. I just think you're giving Eternal Victims aka the Cultural Marxist bunch a lot of credit, by a lot I mean aaaaa looot. Most of them don't even know they are brainwashed or notice they are cattle of a bigger plan designed for them not by them, almost 70 years ago. Mostly they want to keep their small privileges they obtained and feel good about blaming others for their own failure. The ones coordinating the Cultural Marxists bunch are corporations and bankers laughing their way to fiscal paradises
#14862784
Racism against the Chinese has been happening for centuries in the US. Wikipedia has a good article about it, sources are included. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Chin ... ted_States

In my home state of WA, there have been tensions between whites and Asians or the blacks and Koreans. People feel threatened by foreigners or they're just jealous.

My mom once had a friend, Chinese, who had a nice house. One day this Black guy knocks on the door and asks, "How are you able to afford this house?" The woman says, "I work hard." The guy says, "I work hard too!" She got quite nervous but he meant her no harm. The point of this example is to highlight that there are different attitudes and racism can be due to jealousy. Jealousy is a natural sentiment that anyone can feel at any time. Some people are just better at handling jealousy than others by learning acceptance and that good things are earned through hard work and not cheating.

Some people focus on status level and they set their ethnic group above others because they say they're a "blue blood" and others are "commoners." Class differences should not be such central fixations but they are.

If I ever win the lottery, I won't change my opinions on class or status. Everyone is different and beautiful. :D
#14862801
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I'm starting to get the sense that people on here are trying to goad me to start posting and debating on here when I really have very little interest in this thread. Being called a coward, a pseudo-intellectual, someone who hasn't done his homework, is probably lying about his education, never been in an academic debate, etc, etc, etc..and all from people I was not talking to when I interjected merely to help people clarify how they speak to each other.....The air is thick with butt-hurt and vitriol on here from all sides, its absolutely delectable.

For the most part, I have posted very little on thread because the topic never really interested me that much to begin with, but I am flattered that there are those here who would like to push me into a fight, it seems, that many here are literally salivating over their keyboards to have a go at me, probably because I have really irked them in some way. Which is fine. You will get your chance someday when you say something that peaks my interest.

As for specific allegations as to this topic "being proven as controversial," that request was so fucking stupid I only regret entertaining it in the first place without first asking for a standard of controversy from my opponent, for even if I posted sources for 10 newspapers stating that this was an issue on their campus from across the united states, which would be easy, the opponent in question would still not be satisfied with that evidence as evidence of a controversy even if I myself found such sufficient. Therefore, @Pants-of-dog, I will concede to you the point that there was no controversy and that this was just all made up. :lol:

You can have the satisfaction that there was no controversy per my concession, and I will have the amusement of the controversy generated on this thread as indicative of the reality you would never admit anyway. After all, this has been the most posted-on thread in the opinion-polls sub-forum since the resurrection of Jesus and probably longer than that by now.

All of which is quite amusing from the mainly left-leaning posters who claimed both that there was no controversy and that the right are just a bunch of snow-flake pussies (a term the right has used for the left), but given some of the nasty shit being said to me with ZERO address to my arguments, (and yes, i'm looking at you @Tainari88,) I cannot help but breathe in deep the great fog of irony on this whole thread.

You are all welcome to continue stating your ad-hominems ad infinitum and it will only serve to amuse me. I will post as I please to post and to whom I please to post on threads that I find interesting or challenging. You can make whatever assertions you want about my qualifications or credentials, because they exist irrespective of your presumptions and no one here really knows who the fuck anyone else is or if they are just making up everything they say about themselves anyway.


Someone’s angry.

Anyway, please let me know where I was incorrect.

You or your wife claimed that this campaign caused an epic controversy.

This implies that the posters were seen as controversial.

Please note that the poster campaign and the supposed reaction (i.e. the epic controversy) are two separate things. The former is the cause and the latter is the effect.

I asked for evidence that the posters were seen as controversial. This is the latter of the two things being discussed, i.e. the reaction.

You provided evidence of the former, i.e. the poster campaign.

Feel free to show where any of these statements is incorrect.

——————————

Buzz62 wrote: If you consider the mainstream culture and society a bunch of douche-bags, then I'd suggest its your bigotry that's the problem.


I consider those who knowingly use the racist history and modern marginalisation of people of colour to their own advantage, a d in so doing help perpetuate racism, as immoral people.

Because they are taking unfair advantage of others.

If you wish to confuse this with some sort of bigotry, go ahead.

B62 wrote:Of course I agree with it. It happens to be true. However the lines of racism and bigotries begin to fade, when POCs integrate themselves within the culture that is experiencing the benefits. Were this course of action actively promoted, the lines of racism and bigotry would blur to a vague historical footnote. And hey...no piss-bottles necessary.


So you assume that racism is solely caused by people of colour. Lol.

B62 wrote:And I said that i disagree with that assessment.

Because you are wrong.


Feel free to explain how.

——————————

Rugoz wrote:Why, because they overachieve?


No, because of the different historical conditions that existed and now influence the modern context. Specifically, the transatlantic slavery trade.

Where I live some white immigrant groups (hint: ex-Jugoslavia) have (or had) are far worse reputation than non-white immigrants from other parts of the world. But of course it's always about skin color and never about culture, right? :roll:


Not at all. If it were, Trump’s Muslim would not have been so popular.
By Buzz62
#14862851
Pants-of-dog wrote:Someone’s angry.
Well...you do bring out the best in people sweetie...

Pants-of-dog wrote:I consider those who knowingly use the racist history and modern marginalisation of people of colour to their own advantage, a d in so doing help perpetuate racism, as immoral people.
The I guess it's a good thing that nobody's doing that...except you of course.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you wish to confuse this with some sort of bigotry, go ahead.

I'm not confused at all POD. I've had you pegged for a long time now. And others are seeing you for what you are too now. It must bother you that, even in this PC-charged environment, your racial hatred has become obvious and fully exposed.

What I've been proposing is that POCs quit trying to forcefully change society to their favor, and merge with the society, hence changing the society peacefully and permanently. But this is an idea your hatred of whites simply cannot abide by.
#14862855
What I've been proposing is that POCs quit trying to forcefully change society to their favor, and merge with the society, hence changing the society peacefully and permanently. But this is an idea your hatred of whites simply cannot abide by.


Can you give me some examples of cultural change that black folks and Hispanics wish to effect? I don't see it and I live in a pretty diverse place. It seems to me that all that most of them want is an equal shot at the pie.
By Buzz62
#14862857
Drlee wrote:Can you give me some examples of cultural change that black folks and Hispanics wish to effect? I don't see it and I live in a pretty diverse place. It seems to me that all that most of them want is an equal shot at the pie.

Yes. And "an equal shot at the pie" is the goal, isn't it.

Look, as white guys, I think its probably safe to say that we can't fully understand this "systemic racism" that people are howling about. Nor can we fully relate to how POCs feel about their lot in America. But there does seem to be an issue, and calling for killing people, or causing violent streetfights is just a bad way to go about trying to affect change. All this bold display of hatred does is make white people dig in their heels. Its quite counter productive.

Thus, if the police are being dicks in Harlem...move out of Harlem. If police are being mean to you every time you get in your car, try calling them "Sir" and express your willingness to cooperate with them. And if a gang of Billy-Bobs gather to protest the removal of a statue, ignore them. And for Gawd's sake...stop trying to equate Donny-Boy with the Devil himself. Nobody's arguing that Don's not a tad...odd. But some of the things being ascribed to him are pure bullshit.

Being "inclusive" is a 2-way street. So be "inclusive". Over time, we'll all see that this "inclusiveness" has eliminated most racial issues, and nobody gets hurt.
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 26

You yourself said the victims weren't telling the […]

I definitely appreciate you making a thread in spi[…]

In the video they say that what she did was again[…]

Pope Francis and His Lies

If you consider that God is timeless, omnipotent […]