If White People are Economically Privileged, Shouldn't They Have to Pay a White Person Tax? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Political and non-political satire; all those terribly biased analogies live here.
#15139746
"White people" do not exist, since the "Whites" are not a "people"; there is no tribe, nation, ethnicity, or commnuity on earth that corresponds to "the whites".

"Privileges" are given to slaves, not freeman. A man of high rank doesn't acknowledge anyone above himself with the authority to grant him "privileges" (which implies the authority to take them away upon a whim). If you think of yourself as having "privileges" it means you belong to the servile classes. It is not in spite of those privileges that you are a slave; the fact that you are allowed certain privileges is proof that you are a slave.

Therefore it is the case that all social group of any significance, even if they are at the bottom of society, are allowed some privileges. The ruling class wants every group to accept some form of "privilege" because doing so only reinforces the authority of the ruling powers. It is a way of getting you to acknowledge the fact that they have the right to give permissions and privilges to different sections of society. So any group of people that is recognised as "privileged", is not the ruler of anthing.

To be the beneficiary of "privilege" is to be granted permissions by a superior power. People who are given "privileges" are by definition the subordinates of some higher authority. To believe that one is a recipient of "privileges" is to accept a subordination of rank in the social hierarchy. That is, if one regards oneself as "white privileged", one is tacitly admitting to being a slave.

The real rulers of society don't receive "privileges" from anyone; they have what they believe to be their own inherent rights, which cannot be given or taken away by a higher authority. Rights can only be be violated and transgressed, not taken away or abolished. Rights are actively asserted, privileges are received passively by servile castes. They can be taken away arbitrarily.

In summary, there are no "white people"; consequently, there is no "white privilege". And privileges, in any case, are accorded to subordinates and slaves. If you are "privileged", then you are not the ruler of anything.
#15208660
This makes no sense.


> "Privileges" are given to slaves, not freeman.

Slavery is forbidden by human rights, thus everyone has to be a freeman, thus this demands a classless society, a communism, in which everyone would be equally free.


> The real rulers of society don't receive "privileges" from anyone; they have what they believe to be their own inherent rights, which cannot be given or taken away by a higher authority.

This is complete bullocks. Every ruler needs a justification why they can command other people. Otherwise their commands would simply be ignored.
#15208663
Peter Pan wrote:
"White people" do not exist, since the "Whites" are not a "people"; there is no tribe, nation, ethnicity, or commnuity on earth that corresponds to "the whites".

"Privileges" are given to slaves, not freeman. A man of high rank doesn't acknowledge anyone above himself with the authority to grant him "privileges" (which implies the authority to take them away upon a whim). If you think of yourself as having "privileges" it means you belong to the servile classes. It is not in spite of those privileges that you are a slave; the fact that you are allowed certain privileges is proof that you are a slave.

Therefore it is the case that all social group of any significance, even if they are at the bottom of society, are allowed some privileges. The ruling class wants every group to accept some form of "privilege" because doing so only reinforces the authority of the ruling powers. It is a way of getting you to acknowledge the fact that they have the right to give permissions and privilges to different sections of society. So any group of people that is recognised as "privileged", is not the ruler of anthing.

To be the beneficiary of "privilege" is to be granted permissions by a superior power. People who are given "privileges" are by definition the subordinates of some higher authority. To believe that one is a recipient of "privileges" is to accept a subordination of rank in the social hierarchy. That is, if one regards oneself as "white privileged", one is tacitly admitting to being a slave.

The real rulers of society don't receive "privileges" from anyone; they have what they believe to be their own inherent rights, which cannot be given or taken away by a higher authority. Rights can only be be violated and transgressed, not taken away or abolished. Rights are actively asserted, privileges are received passively by servile castes. They can be taken away arbitrarily.

In summary, there are no "white people"; consequently, there is no "white privilege". And privileges, in any case, are accorded to subordinates and slaves. If you are "privileged", then you are not the ruler of anything.



Cute, but silly.

Let's take the Irish, as an example, they faced harsh prejudice until they were fully assimilated. Before the Irish it was the Germans.

When I was young, it was the Italians, and I never mention them without mentioning how annoying they were. But they got assimilated.

I'm not certain as to what you meant, but legally, a privilege is something that can be removed. For example, a driving license is a privilege, and in my distinctly unhumble opinion, should be removed a lot more often than it is.

Having said all that, we are becoming a class based society. Or perhaps we should say we are getting worse, in that regard, than we used to be. Income inequality (it's a term from economics and not what a lot of you surmise that it is) is worse now than in the Robber Baron era of the late 1800s.

"While there may be underlying economic forces at play,” he writes, “politics have shaped the market, and shaped it in ways that advantage the top at the expense of the rest.”[1] Stiglitz blames rent-seeking for causing the inequality, with the wealthy using their power to shape monopolies, incur favorable treatment by the government, and pay low taxes. The end result is not only morally wrong but also hurts the productivity in the economy.[1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Price_of_Inequality

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Inequality-Divided-Society-Endangers/dp/0393345068/ref=sr_1_1?crid=N81UV8P81AQ1&keywords=stiglitz+inequality&qid=1643036285&sprefix=stiglitz%2Caps%2C94&sr=8-1

Are they? What kind of support do they have for […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

There is a saying, "No battle plan survives f[…]

How will the US pay back its debt?

RAY DALIO SAYS IT OUT LOUD. THE US CAN NOT PAY OFF[…]

Primary Elections 2022

@Potemkin It would appear that my tactical vot[…]