I never knew that I was a victim of racism.

[metis]

The problem is the political Left games the system by defining words like racism, in a way to hide their racism.

So, if one calls out racism in some others, that makes them racist?

Oh, my aching back!

 

[PureX]

So what do you think really happened? You think the article was completely fabricated, and none of the people involved chose to point this out? Is there anything that would convince you this could actually happen? Or is your mind closed.

Wasn't a word in it about the college sanctioning this 'protest'. Wasn't a word in it about WHY these students were protesting in this way at this time. Wasn't a word in it about why is started of how the protest ended. AND it's posted on a right wing propaganda web site. So pardon me if I'm not buying it.

But there's no point in trying to argue with someone else's willful ignorance.

 

[Orbit]

So, if one calls out racism in some others, that makes them racist?

Oh, my aching back!

Arguing with these people who post ideologies that are sympathetic to racism is like arguing with Flat Earthers. They are really no different from science deniers, except that they are social science deniers. Most don't even know the difference between prejudice and racism, and simply, like Flat Earthers, deny that any of it exists. With all of the gish galloping, strawmen, ad populim, and red herrings, there really is no point in engaging them.

 

[metis]

Arguing with these people who post ideologies that are sympathetic to racism is like arguing with Flat Earthers. They are really no different from science deniers, except that they are social science deniers. Most don't even know the difference between prejudice and racism, and simply, like Flat Earthers, deny that any of it exists. With all of the gish galloping, strawmen, ad populim, and red herrings, there really is no point in engaging them.

I disagree with you as, relatively speaking, the flat earthers probably are more honest than those who persistently use stereotyping.

 

[Revoltingest]

So, if one calls out racism in some others, that makes them racist?

That appears to completely miss the other poster's point,
ie, that the left artfully uses language & ad hoc definitions
to inoculate themselves & minorities from acts of racism,
eg, limiting "racism" such that minorities can't exhibit it,
nor can whites endure it. Moreover, they tend to ignore
affirmative action's deleterious effects on Asians.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You don't really understand what a generalization is, do you.

I do. It's how you are painting all white people, saying there are no non-white faces in groups, and claiming they are all racist.
Your post reminded me of an article I read some time ago, by a black man lamenting how white people, making many of the same assumptions you are, get surprised seeing him at things like nature trails, state parks, camping spots and other such places because they think black people don't do those things, aren't interested in them, and see him as out of place because people like to think they know where people of whatever races like to frequent and belong to.

What planet do you live on, anyway?

The one where some of my more recent ancestors, many with skin more pale and white than most of Europe, who in the Old World were enslaved, butchered and repressed for many, many long centuries by the Romans, the Saxons, the Norse/Normans and the English amd then in the New World were brought over as slaves for awhile, treated as market commodities and ended up on the railroads with the Chinese because they were told everywhere else to not apply.
The Italians, also now considered white, they didn't have it very good when they first came over here either.
The Jews, America has never consistently treated them well and evem turned a literal boat load of them away when they were running from the Nazis.
So, no, "white people" isn't something we, who are today considered white, have bonded over. We've been Catholic and Protestant, French or English or Greek, we've been nobility and peasants, Gauls and Cheruski, but we've never traditionally bonded over being white. So much so those like the Klan who emphasized whiteness also demanded Protestantism to the point of being hostile amd dangerous towards European-American Catholics.
So, again, I ask you what is a white agenda? As far as I can tell it's some fantastic dellusion of people too stupid to realize we're all still the same homo sapiens who ultimately came from Africa like all of us amd too illiterate to pick up a history book and read it.

 

[Kfox]

Wasn't a word in it about the college sanctioning this 'protest'. Wasn't a word in it about WHY these students were protesting in this way at this time. Wasn't a word in it about why is started of how the protest ended. AND it's posted on a right wing propaganda web site. So pardon me if I'm not buying it.

There are actually lots of articles on this event; do you really think they are all made up?

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/berkley-discrimination-anti/2022/08/20/id/1083923/
Berkeley Co-op Bans Whites From Common Areas | The Gateway Pundit | by Maggie Flavin
Berkeley protesters form human chain to stop white students from getting to class

can we at least agree that if it did happen, this is an example of racism against whites?

But there's no point in trying to argue with someone else's willful ignorance.

Willful ignorance? I'm not the one in this conversation burying his head in the sand pretending it didn't happen.

 

[Orbit]

If only there was an academic discipline where race issues were empirically studied, where definitions had been agreed on, and where there was a body of theory pertaining to race....if only

 

[Subduction Zone]

Consider Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He is Black, which is a minority. He is also a Republican, which is a minority within the black minority. The vast majority of black voters are Democrat. Why is it OK for the Left to be racist against him Justice Thomas, being a minority within a minority?

This is racism scam in a nutshell. It really adds up to a political line in the sand, since this minority of a minority is not treated with the kid gloves implied by Diversity, Inclusion and Equity. The Democrats win the popular vote, which makes Republicans the minority, but again the line in the sand still favors the Democrat Party. The purpose of this scam is to install Democrats operatives, into all area of culture, under the deception of racism and sexism. Many cannot get there based on achievement, alone. The Democrats promote victimhood and not winners.

I have not seen Democrats being "racist" against him. I have seen them oppose him strongly and point to how he at times works to oppress minorities. But this claim simply appear to be false. And thee last part of this appears to be just an unsupported rant against Democrats. It has been shown in other threads how the current employers of gerrymandering tend to be Republicans. In fact they openly oppose redisctricting done to end gerrymandering.

Ron DeSantis is part of the Latino Minority, but since the real line in the sand is not equity for minorities, but Party affiliation, he is not protected by the same compassionate logic. This is why this scam is being dismantled. There is Gay Republican Representative from NY, who is cheated to get his seat. He does not get a free affirmation action pass from the Democrats. Instead they finally learned how to be just, basing his seat on merit and not the logic of affirmation action; chosen class, over merit.

Once again, DeSantis is opposed because of his policies. It is not racist. You appear to be inventing Democratic racism in your head.

Black lives matter, while most to the black killed are by other blacks in Democrat run cites like Chicago. However, only the criminal blacks get extra rights. The victim blacks are ignored. It is strange line in the sand; birds of a feather, seem to be based on criminality, not just being black in Chicago.

I will agree to a point on the BLM movement. But there are facts that do support it. Unfortunately the bias against black people is largely due to cities underfunding the police and expecting them to do work where force need not be the only option.

The history of slavery in the USA, had the vast majority of slaves owned by the white Democrats in the South. The industrial north had plenty of immigrants, like the Irish to act as semi-slaves. Yet only white Democrats are exempt from being labeled racist. The Party of Lincoln is targeted. This also shows this deception scam is really about party lines, not the compassion that is sold.

In the old South the Democrats were the racists. in fact for a long long time the south gave racist support to the Democrats. Have you not heard of the Southern Strategy? That began under Nixon when the Republicans noted in losses in the 60's that they could have a very very strong base if they wooed those racist Democrats. The last significant openly racist Democrat was George Wallace. He if anything inspired that strategy.

Right now Republicans are the only labeled as racist because they are the party of racism at this time. That is what the poll that I linked showed.

How about all future affirmative action only target white Democrats to make up for their political scam and shady past? The majority of Slavery, Jim Crow laws, and segregation all can be traced to the southern Democrat Party. Why target the party of Lincoln, who fought against the two faced monsters, to free the slaves? If you Democrats can get your target scapegoats, to match your words of comparison and concern, it won't be so hypocritical.

You keep acting as if parties cannot change. Yes, at one point the Democrats were the party of racism. No one is denying that. That the Democrats were the party of racism in the past does not mean that they are the party of racists today. You appear to be desperately falling for excuses for the Republicans and ignoring what the Republicans support today.

 

[Kfox]

If only there was an academic discipline where race issues were empirically studied, where definitions had been agreed on, and where there was a body of theory pertaining to race....if only

It’s been my observation that racists are more invested in racial issues than anybody else. Such an academic discipline would likely attract racists with the goal of creating evidence that supports their preconceived racial biases.

 

[Revoltingest]

If only there was an academic discipline where race issues were empirically studied, where definitions had been agreed on, and where there was a body of theory pertaining to race....if only

Dreamer!
(That <optimistic> furball came in handy.)

 

[Orbit]

It’s been my observation that racists are more invested in racial issues than anybody else. Such an academic discipline would likely attract racists with the goal of creating evidence that supports their preconceived racial biases.

What a spectacularly bizarre point of view. Is that what explains your interest in racial issues?

 

[Kfox]

What a spectacularly bizarre point of view. Is that what explains your interest in racial issues?

In the real world, I rarely talk about racial issues unless someone else brings them up.

 

[Orbit]

In the real world, I rarely talk about racial issues unless someone else brings them up.

So let me get this straight. (1) Sociologists are racists because they study race (2) You are an expert on race because you don't think about it that much. Got it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So let me get this straight. (1) Sociologists are racists because they study race (2) You are an expert on race because you don't think about it that much. Got it.

It works for Tucker Carlson.

 

[Kfox]

So let me get this straight. (1) Sociologists are racists because they study race (2) You are an expert on race because you don't think about it that much. Got it.

I've never observed a sociologist discuss race, only racist; they seem obsessed with it. Also I never claimed to be an expert on race.

 

[Orbit]

I've never observed a sociologist discuss race, only racist; they seem obsessed with it. Also I never claimed to be an expert on race.

OK, thanks for the clarification: (1) So the members of the discipline who study race and society shouldn't talk about racism. (2) Racism has nothing to do with race (3) Scholarship is obsession. Check.

 

[Kfox]

OK, thanks for the clarification: (1) So the members of the discipline who study race and society shouldn't talk about racism. (2) Racism has nothing to do with race (3) Scholarship is obsession. Check.

Where are you getting this stuff???

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Where are you getting this stuff???

From stuff like this.

It’s been my observation that racists are more invested in racial issues than anybody else. Such an academic discipline would likely attract racists with the goal of creating evidence that supports their preconceived racial biases.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

If we define “colorblindness” as not considering race in how we treat people, not only is racism resolved by colorblindness, I would argue it is most effectively solved by colorblindness.

I disagree. Race relations in America have a deep-seated history and being blind to that only helps us ignore the problems generated by that history.

Better that we acknowledge the history and work to improve our current situation.

That's not to say we should consider "race" in how we treat people, and especially where that leads to negative consequences, but we will always see differences, and it's important to understand that it's how we treat these differences that matter.