The hidden attack on whiteness
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-10-2014, 09:59 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(22-10-2014 09:48 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Be careful Logica stating the simple truth like that makes you an anti-white racist apparently.

Damn! Embracing facts and truth already makes me a socialist*, fascist*, anti-gun**, pro-gun regulation**, atheist, egalitarian who hates the rich and loves those lazy poor people leaching off of the government who also hates libertarians because they view the entire problem backwards and, as opposed to fixing government based off of past success, want to terminate the only bastion of liberty standing in the way between us and an already quite-established institution motivated and capable of turning us all into consumerist wage-slaves. AND NOW I HAVE TO HATE WHITE PEOPLE?

This is list is so long.

*I don't know how I can be both.
**I don't know how I can be both.

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
23-10-2014, 06:48 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(22-10-2014 09:48 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(22-10-2014 09:46 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  It's hard to do that when white people aren't systematically discriminated against.

Be careful Logica stating the simple truth like that makes you an anti-white racist apparently.

Truly pathetic.

I did not say that and you know it.

I assert that you are unable to show where I have said that.

Prove me wrong, the floor is yours.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2014, 07:13 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(22-10-2014 01:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(22-10-2014 07:21 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  What I have argued for is:

1) White stereotypes exist (in our culture).
2) They are generally overlooked relative to other stereotypes which also exist.

What I have NOT argued for is:

1) People are racist against whites.
2) This behaviour is overlooked.

Indeed. And this is going to get you a big honking so what? as a response.

That white people are generally advantaged does not mean that they are never disadvantaged, and as far as I am aware nobody has ever made that claim.

Stereotyping (a cognitive shortcut we're all prey to) and more importantly prejudice are simply less consequential when directed against the privileged.

There are a lot of negative stereotypes about rich people, too, but they're eminently free to not give a fuck, because they're still rich.

Two quick points:

1) Being "advantaged" or "disadvantaged" is not a component of culture, it is a tangible area of equality/ inequality. I have argued that white stereotypes exist and are generally more overlooked relative to other stereotypes, NOT that some white people are disadvantaged.

2) You assert that stereotyping is less consequential when "directed against the privileged". This assertion is simplistic and sees whites as a homogeneous group of privileged people (which is itself a stereotype). A completely equivalent fallacy would be if someone used your words but substituted "privileged" for some other stereotype afflicting a different group..... Example as follows: "stereotyping is less consequential when directed against [insert black stereotype here]"

But the greater point here is that you seem to fall into the camp of people who acknowledge that white stereotypes exist but don't see it as a significant problem. There have been other respondents who don't accept that white stereotypes exist at all. My response to your camp is as follows:

- Stereotypes of any kind have been shown to be dangerous and lower quality of life. That principle doesn't change when the colour of the stereotype is white. Why would it?

- Stereotypes are not static. If (from your perspective) you don't see a significant detrimental effect of white stereotypes now, that does not preclude the potential for them to grow and intensify in the future. The same is true for all stereotypes.

- Here is some evidence (one example of many) showing how it is possible for white stereotypes to lead to a negative outcome. This example highlights what is actually quite an obvious principle when a bit of thought is applied. Stereotyping whites as racists can stifle freedom of speech and subsequently get in the way of justice.

Here is a link to the example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sou...e-28939089

Here is a snippet from the report to highlight my point:

"The inquiry team noted fears among council staff of being labelled "racist" if they focused on victims' descriptions of the majority of abusers as "Asian" men."

All I'm arguing for is an acknowledgment that associations between whiteness and racism exist and an acknowledgment that it is an irrational stereotype.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2014, 07:17 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(22-10-2014 09:25 PM)Impulse Wrote:  The only thing I may have missed is that you aren't also including racism against whites (apparently). But you still have not demonstrated the white stereotypes. I'm not even saying that they don't exist, but you haven't provided even one clear example. Yet you seem to think it's some huge deal. And, once you can come up with one, you still have to show that the acknowledgement of these white stereotypes and the associated negative perceptions does not yet exist as you claim.

- I have provided 2 studies - one of which specifically deals with white acknowledgment of their own stereotype.

- I have also run through multiple components of culture which highlight the differential double standard. An example would be the term "reverse racism" which sees racism in its default form as white.

- Most importantly though, you seem to acknowledge that white stereotypes do exist anyway. If you don't, my question is do you believe that ANY stereotypes exist? Do Muslim stereotypes exist for example?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2014, 08:20 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(23-10-2014 07:13 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(22-10-2014 01:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Indeed. And this is going to get you a big honking so what? as a response.

That white people are generally advantaged does not mean that they are never disadvantaged, and as far as I am aware nobody has ever made that claim.

Stereotyping (a cognitive shortcut we're all prey to) and more importantly prejudice are simply less consequential when directed against the privileged.

There are a lot of negative stereotypes about rich people, too, but they're eminently free to not give a fuck, because they're still rich.

Two quick points:

1) Being "advantaged" or "disadvantaged" is not a component of culture, it is a tangible area of equality/ inequality. I have argued that white stereotypes exist and are generally more overlooked relative to other stereotypes, NOT that some white people are disadvantaged.

If you're going to try to tell me that relative treatment of different groups is not a cultural phenomenon... lolwut?

No one has denied that stereotypes exist for all groups. As such there appears to be no point in mentioning as much, unless you actually have some subsequent analysis to move on to. Do you?

After all, did you in fact know that water is wet?

(23-10-2014 07:13 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  2) You assert that stereotyping is less consequential when "directed against the privileged". This assertion is simplistic and sees whites as a homogeneous group of privileged people (which is itself a stereotype). A completely equivalent fallacy would be if someone used your words but substituted "privileged" for some other stereotype afflicting a different group..... Example as follows: "stereotyping is less consequential when directed against [insert black stereotype here]"

Total fail. Replacing words with different words that mean completely different things is at best disingenuous.

I guess you could be so simplistically asinine as to deny that broad systemic advantages and disadvantages exist in our society (or, you know, "privilege"). That white people have it better than black people, or men better than women, or so on; those aren't stereotypes, though and if you think so, you don't know what that word means. Those happen to be facts. As such, please refer back to my #1, which you also don't seem to understand - you know, where I literally just stated that a privileged group does not imply uniformly privileged members?

(23-10-2014 07:13 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  But the greater point here is that you seem to fall into the camp of people who acknowledge that white stereotypes exist but don't see it as a significant problem.

This appears to be a thing you just made up.

I certainly can't derive it from any of my statements.

(23-10-2014 07:13 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  There have been other respondents who don't accept that white stereotypes exist at all.

Wut?

Citation needed.

(23-10-2014 07:13 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  My response to your camp is as follows:

"My" "camp" then apparently includes people who hold different and contradictory ideas, according to your own stated classification. Because that makes sense.

(23-10-2014 07:13 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  - Stereotypes of any kind have been shown to be dangerous and lower quality of life. That principle doesn't change when the colour of the stereotype is white. Why would it?

Remember when I offered you my response to this, ah, stunning revelation?

If you've forgotten, it was so what?, because, you know, literally no one has denied this. Thanks.

(23-10-2014 07:13 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  - Stereotypes are not static. If (from your perspective) you don't see a significant detrimental effect of white stereotypes now, that does not preclude the potential for them to grow and intensify in the future. The same is true for all stereotypes.

So what?

(23-10-2014 07:13 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  - Here is some evidence (one example of many) showing how it is possible for white stereotypes to lead to a negative outcome. This example highlights what is actually quite an obvious principle when a bit of thought is applied. Stereotyping whites as racists can stifle freedom of speech and subsequently get in the way of justice.

Here is a link to the example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sou...e-28939089

Here is a snippet from the report to highlight my point:

"The inquiry team noted fears among council staff of being labelled "racist" if they focused on victims' descriptions of the majority of abusers as "Asian" men."

All I'm arguing for is an acknowledgment that associations between whiteness and racism exist and an acknowledgment that it is an irrational stereotype.

Uh, did you read the actual article? Do you know anything about the actual situation?

The perpetrators were south Asian men. So, you know, not white. Although the authorities of course by and large were. While the events in Rotherham both a) happened and b) are awful, it has nothing to do with what you've just claimed. So there's that.

But no, I guess I'm curious. What white stereotype do you see this case embodying? What white stereotype do you think was in play?

The reason the association exists - which I already explained to you - is that when the powerful are racist, it matters, and when the powerless and disenfranchised are racist, nobody gives a fuck.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
23-10-2014, 08:51 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(23-10-2014 07:17 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  - I have provided 2 studies - one of which specifically deals with white acknowledgment of their own stereotype.

I must have missed them. Can you point me to the post(s) where they are so I can be sure we're talking about the same ones?

(23-10-2014 07:17 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  - I have also run through multiple components of culture which highlight the differential double standard. An example would be the term "reverse racism" which sees racism in its default form as white.

This is precisely what I'm talking about. You have made claims like this one, but claims aren't inherently accurate. Which race is the default in "reverse racism" depends on the context in which the phrase is used. So your claim that it's defaults to white is only accurate some of the time. And during the times that it's accurate, it's not by some injustice, but more like by definition. Some will say that affirmative action is reverse racism against whites. Even if we agree that this is true (and I don't, it's just for discussion), of course whites are the affected group. Affirmative action is meant to address the disproportionate advantages that whites have vs. the groups being helped by affirmative action. So obviously whites would be the recipients of "reverse racism" if we agreed that was an example of it. It couldn't be any other way.

(23-10-2014 07:17 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  - Most importantly though, you seem to acknowledge that white stereotypes do exist anyway. If you don't, my question is do you believe that ANY stereotypes exist? Do Muslim stereotypes exist for example?

Stereotypes exist within and about all cultures and races. The real question is whether it's a big enough deal to care about or do anything about. You seem to think it is regarding whites, but you haven't backed it up convincingly.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
23-10-2014, 09:06 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(23-10-2014 08:20 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 07:13 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  Two quick points:

1) Being "advantaged" or "disadvantaged" is not a component of culture, it is a tangible area of equality/ inequality. I have argued that white stereotypes exist and are generally more overlooked relative to other stereotypes, NOT that some white people are disadvantaged.

If you're going to try to tell me that relative treatment of different groups is not a cultural phenomenon... lolwut?

The relative treatment of different groups is an outcome. Culture is a cause. Criticism of cause is what I am arguing for.


(23-10-2014 08:20 AM)cjlr Wrote:  No one has denied that stereotypes exist for all groups. As such there appears to be no point in mentioning as much, unless you actually have some subsequent analysis to move on to. Do you?

After all, did you in fact know that water is wet?

On the contrary, I have been asked to produce evidence in the form of multiple studies and commentary to substantiate my claim. Perhaps you have not read through all the comments.

The "water is wet" comment is a false equivalence in trying to show the insignificance of my claim. White stereotypes (as I have argued) do have the potential to be dangerous. I provided you with a news report which I doubt you read properly showing that council workers cited "fear of being labelled a racist" as the reason they did not pursue complaints of rape by Asian & Pakistani men.


(23-10-2014 07:13 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  2) You assert that stereotyping is less consequential when "directed against the privileged". This assertion is simplistic and sees whites as a homogeneous group of privileged people (which is itself a stereotype). A completely equivalent fallacy would be if someone used your words but substituted "privileged" for some other stereotype afflicting a different group..... Example as follows: "stereotyping is less consequential when directed against [insert black stereotype here]"

(23-10-2014 08:20 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Total fail. Replacing words with different words that mean completely different things is at best disingenuous.

Show me the difference between the following two fallacies:

1) "stereotyping is less consequential when directed against the privileged (whites)"
2) "stereotyping is less consequential when directed against the criminal [blacks]"

How is one right but the other not?

Your claim that it is "fact" that whites are privileged is fallacious as well. Are all whites privileged? If not, then you are trying to make a claim about relative averages as they correlate to skin colour. One could make the same claim about crime and skin colour and even try back it up with "facts" as you have. Both attempts at generalising are fallacious because there is no causal link between skin colour and the stereotype.... and certainly no justification for inclusion of a stereotype as some means of achieving moral equilibrium.

(23-10-2014 08:20 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I guess you could be so simplistically asinine as to deny that broad systemic advantages and disadvantages exist in our society (or, you know, "privilege"). That white people have it better than black people, or men better than women, or so on; those aren't stereotypes, though and if you think so, you don't know what that word means. Those happen to be facts. As such, please refer back to my #1, which you also don't seem to understand - you know, where I literally just stated that a privileged group does not imply uniformly privileged members?
I am not denying that tangible areas of inequality exist. But the point is that they are not caused by skin colour, they are caused by racism. It therefore is not rational to have contempt for skin colour - uncomfotable as that may be - it is only rational to have contempt for racism.

Your simplistic approach runs the risk of vilifying white people because as you simplistically put it "white people have it better than black people". There is an incompatibility between your lazy acceptance of incomplete data in generalising whites as "privileged" and your certainty in all other matters on this topic.


(23-10-2014 07:13 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  But the greater point here is that you seem to fall into the camp of people who acknowledge that white stereotypes exist but don't see it as a significant problem.
(23-10-2014 08:20 AM)cjlr Wrote:  This appears to be a thing you just made up.

I certainly can't derive it from any of my statements.
Something I made up??.... Ok, which part do you contest?
1) You have acknowledged that white stereotypes exist. Do you deny this?
2) You don't see it as a significant problem... Do you deny this?

You are being combative for the sake of it now.



(23-10-2014 07:13 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  There have been other respondents who don't accept that white stereotypes exist at all.
(23-10-2014 08:20 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Wut?

Citation needed.

Go read through the entire thread.

(23-10-2014 07:13 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  My response to your camp is as follows:


(23-10-2014 07:13 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  - Stereotypes of any kind have been shown to be dangerous and lower quality of life. That principle doesn't change when the colour of the stereotype is white. Why would it?
(23-10-2014 08:20 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Remember when I offered you my response to this, ah, stunning revelation?

If you've forgotten, it was so what?, because, you know, literally no one has denied this. Thanks.

False, people have denied it, in this thread and elsewhere.

(23-10-2014 07:13 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  - Stereotypes are not static. If (from your perspective) you don't see a significant detrimental effect of white stereotypes now, that does not preclude the potential for them to grow and intensify in the future. The same is true for all stereotypes.
(23-10-2014 08:20 AM)cjlr Wrote:  So what?
So, if they have the potential to grow, they are worthy of discussion.

(23-10-2014 07:13 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  - Here is some evidence (one example of many) showing how it is possible for white stereotypes to lead to a negative outcome. This example highlights what is actually quite an obvious principle when a bit of thought is applied. Stereotyping whites as racists can stifle freedom of speech and subsequently get in the way of justice.

Here is a link to the example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sou...e-28939089

Here is a snippet from the report to highlight my point:

"The inquiry team noted fears among council staff of being labelled "racist" if they focused on victims' descriptions of the majority of abusers as "Asian" men."

All I'm arguing for is an acknowledgment that associations between whiteness and racism exist and an acknowledgment that it is an irrational stereotype.

(23-10-2014 08:20 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Uh, did you read the actual article? Do you know anything about the actual situation?

The perpetrators were south Asian men. So, you know, not white. Although the authorities of course by and large were. While the events in Rotherham both a) happened and b) are awful, it has nothing to do with what you've just claimed. So there's that.

But no, I guess I'm curious. What white stereotype do you see this case embodying? What white stereotype do you think was in play?

The reason the association exists - which I already explained to you - is that when the powerful are racist, it matters, and when the powerless and disenfranchised are racist, nobody gives a fuck.

This is where you have fallen short most dramatically. I suggest you actually read the article. In fact I gave you a snippet to read which highlights the exact point I am making, but have still misundertood the point entirely.

This line from you: "The perpetrators were south Asian men. So, you know, not white." highlights your failed understanding - which is (again) not compatible with your overly-certain tone. A more measured and calm approach is advised for you to avoid future egg on your face of this nature.

The point is that the (white) council workers cited "fear of being labelled a racist" as being the reason they failed to pursue the crimes committed by South Asian men. Get it? White council workers stifled by the stereotype of white racism... Sinking in yet?

So to sum up our conversation...

- You acknowledge that white stereotypes exist, but think that my OP should get a "big honking 'So what?' "
- My response is that stereotypes of any kind can be dangerous as the events in Rotherham have illustrated.


And to sum up my OP....

- White stereotypes exist
- They are worthy of discussion
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2014, 09:19 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(23-10-2014 06:48 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(22-10-2014 09:48 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Be careful Logica stating the simple truth like that makes you an anti-white racist apparently.

Truly pathetic.

I did not say that and you know it.

I assert that you are unable to show where I have said that.

Prove me wrong, the floor is yours.

I wasn't talking about you.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
23-10-2014, 10:47 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(23-10-2014 09:19 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I wasn't talking about you.

Don't you see he is craving your attention Rev? He's your biggest fan -- he just doesn't know how to show his excitement because he is such a fuckwit.

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
23-10-2014, 11:09 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(23-10-2014 10:47 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 09:19 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I wasn't talking about you.

Don't you see he is craving your attention Rev? He's your biggest fan -- he just doesn't know how to show his excitement because he is such a fuckwit.

In this case I was not talking about him but rather the neg rep I got from Cetaceaphile

Quote:Cetaceaphile (12) - Last updated 13-10-2014, 10:31 PM

Negative (-1): Barely closeted racist who used the reputation system to accuse a new member of 'racism' for saying that whites can be victims too

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: