Is It Okay To Be White? - 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.
41
64%
2. No, It Is Not Okay To Be White.
11
17%
3. Other
12
19%
#14859823
In light of the epic wave of controversy surrounding 4Chan's campaign to spread the (seemingly) uncontroversial statement "Its Okay To Be White." I am curious, is it okay to be white? It seems that this idea is not so uncontroversial and that seems concerning.
#14859825
I am curious, is it okay to be white? It seems that this idea is not so uncontroversial and that seems concerning.

Why are you asking? Are white people such shrinking violets and self-loathing pussies that they require validation in order to feel good about themselves? :eh:

Is it okay to be white? That's for white people to decide. Likewise, only black people can decide if it's okay to be black, and only Hispanic people can decide if it's okay to be Hispanic. What is it with you people anyway? :eh:
#14859826
All polls must have an "other" option per the rules.

Which is what I'm choosing. The phrase is misleading because it's a 4chan born troll that misdirects from the point social justice advocates are making.

There isn't anything inherent about whitness that's at issue. The problem is the centuries of historical oppression and the way that plays out in our contemporary society. Those issues should and can be addressed. Doing so doesn't attack or hurt white people.

The reason the thing is controversial is because it is meaningless rhetorical fodder to feed into the right wings hysteria about social equality initiatives.

Trying to frame it as uncontroversial is an attempt to deliberately decontextualize the phrase from the movement and ideas hiding behind it's deliberately crafted innocent facade.
#14859843
mikema63 wrote:Those issues should and can be addressed. Doing so doesn't attack or hurt white people.


I think that would be a point of contention, would it not?

How did the post-Aparteid black majority handle the minority population of "former-oppressors"? How were they handled in the former nation of Rhodesia by Mugabe's Zimbabwe? Does not the vindictive character of those political movements against white populations indicate that there is some warrant in stating that "Its Okay To Be White," and that white people do actually get hurt and have been hurt by political attempts to address the grievances of the so-called victims of "white oppression"?
#14859847
The only argument that you really have is to handwave away injustices and pretend they don't exist and to fear monger affirmative action as white genocide.

Throwing out slippery slope fallacies and imagining that dealing with housing discrimination or whatever hurts white people has about the level of intellectual rigour that I would expect for someone trying to use a 4chan troll meme as a real issue worth discussion.
#14859851
Value is subjective, always and forever. White is alright by me but I can't speak for anyone else's subjective opinion.

If you are white and getting hate for it, you should probably avoid those people if you like a quiet life or start dishing out the equivalent racism back if you like scrapping.
#14859852
No, It Is Not Okay To Be White.

Producing white offspring should be banned, and existing white people should be driven into the sea.
#14859853
Heisenberg wrote:No, It Is Not Okay To Be White.

Producing white offspring should be banned, and existing white people should be driven into the sea.



good thing we know how to swim as opposed to 8)
#14859859
@mikema63,

Come now, lets be fair....

I never said anything about justices or injustices on the part of whites, don't put words in my mouth. I merely questioned the claim that whites won't get hurt in the attempt to address grievances made by those who were allegedly victimized by the "White Christian Patriarchy." I cited two examples, but I never made the argument that ANY attempt to address grievances will necessarily result in what those regimes have done (which is indeed a slippery slope, but was not what I argued), what I am stating is that such examples seem to give historical credence to the concerns of some, just as the manner in which socialism has been implemented historically gives similar credence to the concerns of others (and it would likewise be a slippery slope to say that those examples necessarily discredit socialism).

My only point is that for white people to be concerned at their future fate and well-being in the case of handing over power to, lets say, a coalition government of identity groups on the left, is not unjustified.
#14859862
When you use the word allegedly it calls into question the injustices we are discussing.

The very fact that you end your post by worrying about whites "handing over power" shows what you are getting at by trying to slip around confronting the logical fallacies you are obviously attempting to use to make your case.

This isn't about whites giving up power, nobody is demanding that, all anyone is asking for is to end the systemic discrimination in American society. Which some seem to feel is an attack on the humanity of white people, despite it being a movement to accept the humanity of non white people.

Come now, lets be fair....


I am being fair, in all fairness your transparent nonsense deserves little more than a derisive sniff.
#14859867
mikema63 wrote:When you use the word allegedly it calls into question the injustices we are discussing.


I use the term "alleged" because I would consider this a point of contention and for sake of argument I am "agreeing" with you on grievances while also making clear with the use of that modifier that I personally am not convinced of the claim I am assuming for the sake of the dialogue (thus positing a temporarily conditional agreement).

Given that this would be an separate issue and is not the subject of the discussion, I view it as pointless to hash that out and will merely "concede" the assumption of mass oppression and injustice to give us some "common ground" in the debate.

Thus I am trying to have a reasonable conversation, you seem like you really don't want to have one, but hopefully I am wrong, but your tone is a little discomforting at this point.

mikema63 wrote:The very fact that you end your post by worrying about whites "handing over power" shows what you are getting at by trying to slip around confronting the logical fallacies you are obviously attempting to use to make your case.


I posted no worries of my own, quit ascribing motive to hypotheticals and examples as if a malicious or simplisitc intent were involved on my part when I am not speaking about myself or my views on the matter, which are quite irrelevant.

I end my post by giving a hypothetical, which can be indicated by the prefacing remark "Lets say." I never claimed that the left is trying to transfer power to former oppressed people in the formation of a coalition regime, what I did was argue that, if this was, hypothetically, the case, would whites have any historically-based reasons to be concerned about their own fate? This is still the unanswered question.

Also, I have not committed any fallacies. For the most part, I have only asked questions in light of hypothetical examples, and as I demonstrated, I never committed the slippery slope as you claimed.

mikema63 wrote:I am being fair, in all fairness your transparent nonsense deserves little more than a derisive sniff.


My views are transparent only in the sense that I state them plainly on my profile and I know we already disagree, but my questions and hypotheticals have nothing to do with my beliefs per se, they are legitimate questions. So let me reiterate,

Given historical cases where victim groups were given power in an attempt to address their grievances as an oppressed class, Do whites in the west, as an alleged former-oppressor class, have any credible historical reason to be concerned about their fate at the hands of those they formerly oppressed if such were in political power (especially in light of attitudes expressed in the mainstream media, academia, and in contemporary leftist activism)?

This question can be asked and answered by anyone.
#14859868
but your tone is a little discomforting at this point.


Concern trolling doesnt interest me, your hypotheticals are silly bordering on delusional, and your arguments are vapid.

No doubt you'll find some following on pofos extreme right where you can cry together about how put upon white people are, but everyone else can see through the nonsense to see that this is little more than a poor defense of white supremacy sugar coated poorly.

I'm sorry if my tone offends your delicate heart as much as the idea of racial equality seems to. :roll:
#14859871
By questioning how white people will be affected after giving up their power you acknowledge that white people are holding power over other races and by your logic (that the reverse situation would be a detriment to whites) the current situation is a detriment to other races. So your argument is obviously one in which white people are more valued since you only seem to care about the reversal of roles and not the current inequality (established by your own fearful logic).

I think its OK to be white, but I don't think its OK to support white power like most of the people involved in this 4chan campaign.
#14859872
@mikema63,

Its not that your tone "offends me," for I am quite beyond offending. I only argued that it appeared that your tone indicated a non-desire on your part to rationally discuss these matters and that you would rather accuse people of white supremacy and ascribe motive (which is also a fallacy). My concerns seem to have been validated. :hmm:

To anyone reading this exchange, it is not I that seems to be triggered my friend. I am openly and clearly pressing you to engage in a thoughtful dialogue. You have dismissed the matter, ascribed intent, and accused me of white supremacy (how cliche). Please tell me, who is being delicate and emotional? :?:

I am asking you if the concerns expressed by portions of a certain demographic have any historically-based legitimacy, I have asked this several times, you have called me names. That is snow-flake territory my friend.

But, since I am as gracious as the day is long, I will give you one more chance to answer the question....SO, I say again:

Given historical cases where victim groups were given power in an attempt to address their grievances as an oppressed class, Do whites in the west, as an alleged former-oppressor class, have any credible historical reason to be concerned about their fate at the hands of those they formerly oppressed if such were in political power (especially in light of attitudes expressed in the mainstream media, academia, and in contemporary leftist activism)?
#14859873
Red_Army wrote:By questioning how white people will be affected after giving up their power you acknowledge that white people are holding power over other races and by your logic (that the reverse situation would be a detriment to whites) the current situation is a detriment to other races. So your argument is obviously one in which white people are more valued since you only seem to care about the reversal of roles and not the current inequality (established by your own fearful logic).

I think its OK to be white, but I don't think its OK to support white power like most of the people involved in this 4chan campaign.


I am assuming my opponents definition on power-struggle theories stemming from Marxist presuppositions for the sake of argument; however, if you were to ask me, in a general sense, if westerners still hold institutional power in the west, the answer is a conditional affirmative. At the same time though, such an affirmative would be bare and would not assume whether the form of this power was preferable to others, whether or not holding such power was or was not legitimate, whether holding such power did or did not imply oppression of minorities, and whether such power or oppression or both is or is not morally acceptable.
#14859875
How is it an allegation that Apartheid was based on oppression? If your only examples of retribution are Rhodesia and South Africa and you use the word alleged it sounds like you're a historical revisionist and I think mikema is right to ignore most of your bullshit. Your examples are not only obviously white power states they also point to the benefits of a peaceful leveling of the playing field. Both those nations tried to maintain rigid inequality by force and paid for it dearly when they eventually lost to the overwhelming majority. This again points to another problem with your fear mongering. The USA is not overwhelmingly black or any individual non-white race the way South Africa and Rhodesia were. This is why Potemkin is right and you guys are being a bunch of pussies.
#14859884
Red_Army wrote:How is it an allegation that Apartheid was based on oppression? If your only examples of retribution are Rhodesia and South Africa and you use the word alleged it sounds like you're a historical revisionist and I think mikema is right to ignore most of your bullshit. Your examples are not only obviously white power states they also point to the benefits of a peaceful leveling of the playing field. Both those nations tried to maintain rigid inequality by force and paid for it dearly when they eventually lost to the overwhelming majority. This again points to another problem with your fear mongering. The USA is not overwhelmingly black or any individual non-white race the way South Africa and Rhodesia were. This is why Potemkin is right and you guys are being a bunch of pussies.


In South Africa and Rhodesia you had two different tribes prone to mutual hostility competing for control of the same land. The normal way to solve this kind of conflict of interests is war / genocide. Apartheid was a relatively peaceful solution. You can definitely call it oppression but if oppression bothers you then given the circumstances it was the lesser of two evils.
#14859886
Red_Army wrote:How is it an allegation that Apartheid was based on oppression? If your only examples of retribution are Rhodesia and South Africa and you use the word alleged it sounds like you're a historical revisionist and I think mikema is right to ignore most of your bullshit. Your examples are not only obviously white power states they also point to the benefits of a peaceful leveling of the playing field. Both those nations tried to maintain rigid inequality by force and paid for it dearly when they eventually lost to the overwhelming majority. This again points to another problem with your fear mongering. The USA is not overwhelmingly black or any individual non-white race the way South Africa and Rhodesia were. This is why Potemkin is right and you guys are being a bunch of pussies.


My examples in South Africa and Zimbabwe are to illustrate that "vindictive" responses on the part of formerly oppressed peoples against former-oppressors have occurred. Mugabe is well known for policies against minority white farmers in that nation including land seizures and the declared intent to not prosecute violence against whites.

http://www.newsweek.com/zimbabwe-presid ... ers-651326

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... armers-wi/

Oppressive affirmative actions laws in South Africa and similar, but less severe versions of the above, have either occurred or been proposed in South Africa. The justification for such have been restitution for grievances using post-colonialist language, but to the average white family in Iowa that might have English relatives in Zimbabwe, it just sounds like vengeance, and to hear similar post-colonialist language on American campuses does cause them to pause when they read media reactions to the simple phrase: "Its Okay To Be White."

SO, I say again:

Given historical cases where victim groups were given power in an attempt to address their grievances as an oppressed class, Do whites in the west, as an alleged former-oppressor class, have any credible historical reason to be concerned about their fate at the hands of those they formerly oppressed if such were in political power (especially in light of attitudes expressed in the mainstream media, academia, and in contemporary leftist activism)?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 28

Show me the Money!" We had a saying in N[…]

Potemkin. Um no. NASA has proven there are planet[…]

You won't hear it in MSM https://www.facebook.com[…]

The Deep Thinks of Hong Wu

You left out the part about the laziness to learn[…]