The hidden attack on whiteness
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-10-2014, 02:28 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(23-10-2014 02:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 01:57 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yeah, but your minuses aren't as fun.

I mean...

For Chas:

Or for Rev:

The things you learn about people!

That reminds me - I was going to create a poll, for ladies only, asking if they thought me a misogynist. Dodgy

The comedy value alone might be worthwhile. Consider

You're not a misogynist.

You're just old.

And I'll get off your lawn when I damn well feel like it... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
23-10-2014, 02:45 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(23-10-2014 02:28 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 02:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  That reminds me - I was going to create a poll, for ladies only, asking if they thought me a misogynist. Dodgy

The comedy value alone might be worthwhile. Consider

You're not a misogynist.

You're just old.

And I'll get off your lawn when I damn well feel like it... Drinking Beverage


I ain't old, you snot-nosed kid. Angry




Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
23-10-2014, 05:21 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
Quote:FZUMedia (-21) - Last updated 13-12-2012, 11:41 AM
Negative (-1): Only cares about himself, not the children.

I don't know, I found this pretty funny -- albeit delusional. Angel

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2014, 08:12 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(23-10-2014 11:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes. And since you're talking about stereotyping whites then you'd need to show how stereotypes of whites informed the actions of any of the people involved in the case.

I explained this twice. You don't seem to read thoroughly enough what other people have written... The council workers cited "fear of being labelled a racist" as the reason they did not pursue reports of rape further.

A reminder of the order of things here:

1) ME: "white stereotypes exist"
2) YOU: "so what?"
3) ME: "So it's possible they are dangerous. Look at this report as an example."


(23-10-2014 09:06 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  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?
(23-10-2014 11:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  It's rare that I hope someone's being facetious, but I refuse to believe that you don't understand how this works.
(I also like how you skipped from the natural contrast - unprivileged - straight to "criminal"; not quite sure how that follows)

Whose prejudices are more likely to be acted upon in a way that affects others?
(hint: it's not black people)
Why do you think the black stereotype in my example has to be "unprivileged"? Even if it was, both statements would still be fallacious, so little difference has been made by this thought-experiment.

When you ask - "Whose prejudices are more likely to be acted upon in a way that affects others?" - you suggest that the truth of a generalising statement hinges on the likelihood of a group's "prejudices being acted upon". This is just more obscurity, more nonsense and another attempt to muddy the waters.

You have left yourself with the impossible task of showing how stereotyping whites as "privileged" is righteous. If we are to be so simplistic as to generalise whites as "privileged" then why are we (rightfully) skeptical enough to reject generalisations like "blacks commit more crime"? The lesson here is that rational, skeptical enquiry should be applied in response to all claims and stereotypes, including those surrounding whiteness.

(23-10-2014 09:06 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  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.
(23-10-2014 11:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  It's like you're not even trying.

Hint: go look up what "privileged" means.

Then go look at the post I already made:
(22-10-2014 01:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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.

And see for yourself that no, it is not "fallacious" to assert the existence of societal inequality. That a group possesses, as a group, advantages does not imply that all members of that group possess an advantage over all non-members. Which I would have thought to be a simple and non-controversial observation...

Societal inequality exists. We both agree about that.

But.... (and this is a crucial "but", so take note)

Whiteness of skin is NOT a causal factor in the existence of societal inequality. It is an incidental factor.

All human beings (not only white people) have shown throughout history that the human condition includes unfortunate traits like in-group/ out-group identification, inclination towards violence, pursuit of power etc.

You need to show that the negative traits which have led to societal inequality are exclusive traits of white people for your nonchalant acceptance of the White/ Privileged stereotype to hold water. In the absence of such data, the only rational thing to do is acknowledge the historical context of societal inequality and work tangibly towards correcting the imbalance for the disadvantaged individuals (whatever race they may be). There should be no place in this model for stereotyping people with white skin. It's simply inaccurate.

(23-10-2014 09:06 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  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 11:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I don't think you quite understand what you're talking about.

"Black people are criminal" is a stereotype.

However, in (say) the United States crime rates are higher among black populations. The actual reason for this is that statistically speaking black people are poorer, and crime is highly correlated with poverty.

Now; why are black people poorer?

I'll give you a hint. It starts with 'r' and ends with 'acism'.

You have (again) missed the point. I agree with everything you have just said.
1) Skin colour is NOT a causal determinant of crime.
2) And yet, a stereotype exists linking black people to crime.

This is no different from the following:

1) Skin colour is NOT a causal determinant of privilege
2) And yet, a stereotype exists linking white people to privilege

Statistics might show a correlation between skin colour and crime... They may also show a correlation between skin colour and "privilege", but this doesn't demonstrate cause.

Let's try a different angle if this is still lost on you:

- Poverty explains crime better than skin colour does.
- Historical context explains privilege better than skin colour does.

Therefore,

- the black/ crime stereotype is fallacious regardless of what statistics may show
- the white/ privilege stereotype is fallacious regardless of what statistics may show


(23-10-2014 09:06 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  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.

(23-10-2014 11:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I honestly can't tell what non-point you're trying to make here.

If it's that racist prejudices are not based on empirical data, no shit.

That doesn't mean they don't affect people. Which you acknowledge.

Once again: so what?

Again, I must call you out on the incompatibility between your gaps in knowledge and your over-certainty.

Statements like "I honestly can't tell..." are not compatible with "no shit".

The point is that you are suggesting that we should accept as a given that whites tend to be more privileged. My response is that, even if that is true, it does not follow that stereotyping white people as "privileged" is righteous. Just because there may exist a correlation between white skin and being "privileged", this does not suggest causation. Therefore, stereotypes linking whiteness to being "privileged" are not rational.


(23-10-2014 09:06 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  Go read through the entire thread.
(23-10-2014 11:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That's not a citation, bro.

A citation is a specific direct quote, in its proper context. Got any? Got one?

I did not promise you a citation. I advised you to go back and read the thread if you want evidence of what should be an obvious truth.

I will provide citations for evidence relating to my core claim, but I am not obliged to expend energy providing you with evidence of minor, peripheral issues.

As a reminder, you asserted the bizarre claim that "literally no one" has denied the existence of white stereotypes. It is therefore up to you to substantiate that claim. I wouldn't waste my time if I were you though. You could just ask yourself if you really believe that "literally no one" has denied the existence of white stereotypes. Do you really believe this bizarre claim?


(23-10-2014 09:06 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  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?

(23-10-2014 11:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Thanks for getting around to an actual point.
(eventually...)
I actually pasted a snippet which highlighted this point first time round. You just didn't read it properly it would seem. Hence the egg on your face.

(23-10-2014 11:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  It does not seem to follow. You are claiming that stereotypes of white racism exist (pervasively!) and that specific awareness of them informed the actions of the Rotherham authorities. That's just so much unsubstantiated conjecture on your part so far.

Nor does one data point a trend make.

You seem to be under the impression that I need to show a "trend" to establish that a principle is possible.

As a reminder, I sent you this report to show that white stereotypes can conceivably lead to negative outcomes. If this is possible, then my OP is discussion-worthy and your original question "So what?" has been answered.

(23-10-2014 11:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Of course I grant the possibility that some nebulous "stereotype" consciously informed their actions. I submit to you that "not appearing racist" would exist as a motivation regardless.
Perhaps that is true and that is what actually motivated them (a stretch if you ask me) but that does not change the fact the principle has been shown to be possible. It is conceivable that white stereotypes can lead to negative outcomes and thus they are discussion-worthy. So your initial response to me in which you claimed my OP will be met with "a big honking "so what?"" has not convinced me that white stereotypes are an insignificant problem.

(23-10-2014 11:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Allow me to make what I'm sure will be a fun-filled analogy:
Consider the topic of gender inequality. That men as a group are the privileged class does not mean that all men are always advantaged and all women always disadvantaged; that is at best a straw man. There are in fact (some few) issues where men are generally disadvantaged. Which problem does it make more sense to focus on? The greater, or the lesser?
I agree that priority should be given to bigger problems. What I am arguing for is that acknowledgment of overlooked problems becomes part of our intellectual discourse. If it were taboo to talk about problems men face, then I would argue for this barrier to be broken too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2014, 09:00 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
Not many people really care about white racism, deal with it.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2014, 09:10 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(24-10-2014 09:00 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Not many people really care about white racism, deal with it.

I agree. This is the problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2014, 09:10 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 11:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes. And since you're talking about stereotyping whites then you'd need to show how stereotypes of whites informed the actions of any of the people involved in the case.

I explained this twice. You don't seem to read thoroughly enough what other people have written... The council workers cited "fear of being labelled a racist" as the reason they did not pursue reports of rape further.

Sure. I remain skeptical of how you link that to your thesis.

(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  A reminder of the order of things here:

1) ME: "white stereotypes exist"
2) YOU: "so what?"
3) ME: "So it's possible they are dangerous. Look at this report as an example."

Notwithstanding that nobody denied the principle. So there's that.

(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 09:06 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  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?
(23-10-2014 11:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  It's rare that I hope someone's being facetious, but I refuse to believe that you don't understand how this works.
(I also like how you skipped from the natural contrast - unprivileged - straight to "criminal"; not quite sure how that follows)

Whose prejudices are more likely to be acted upon in a way that affects others?
(hint: it's not black people)
Why do you think the black stereotype in my example has to be "unprivileged"?

Because that's how society is. Or would you deny that?
(because good luck with that...)

(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  Even if it was, both statements would still be fallacious, so little difference has been made by this thought-experiment.

Except no, because blindly asserting "U R FALLACY" is not helpful.

Hint: who has the greater ability to affect you - your boss, or your employee?

(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  When you ask - "Whose prejudices are more likely to be acted upon in a way that affects others?" - you suggest that the truth of a generalising statement hinges on the likelihood of a group's "prejudices being acted upon". This is just more obscurity, more nonsense and another attempt to muddy the waters.

I am suggesting no such thing; that is your highly bizarre inference.

(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  You have left yourself with the impossible task of showing how stereotyping whites as "privileged" is righteous.

I can't for the life of me grasp how you managed to extract that from what I wrote.

(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  If we are to be so simplistic as to generalise whites as "privileged" then why are we (rightfully) skeptical enough to reject generalisations like "blacks commit more crime"? The lesson here is that rational, skeptical enquiry should be applied in response to all claims and stereotypes, including those surrounding whiteness.

Those generalisations are informed by actual statistical fact.

I suppose one could reject any and all general and statistical statements regarding populations, but, I struggle to imagine just what that would accomplish...

(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 09:06 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  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.
(23-10-2014 11:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  It's like you're not even trying.

Hint: go look up what "privileged" means.

Then go look at the post I already made:

And see for yourself that no, it is not "fallacious" to assert the existence of societal inequality. That a group possesses, as a group, advantages does not imply that all members of that group possess an advantage over all non-members. Which I would have thought to be a simple and non-controversial observation...

Societal inequality exists. We both agree about that.

Great!

(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  But.... (and this is a crucial "but", so take note)

Whiteness of skin is NOT a causal factor in the existence of societal inequality. It is an incidental factor.

Are you going somewhere with this?

Here's a a simple question: give that societal inequality exists, as you've just affirmed, would you say that some inequality is correlated with racial and cultural identity?

(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  All human beings (not only white people) have shown throughout history that the human condition includes unfortunate traits like in-group/ out-group identification, inclination towards violence, pursuit of power etc.

Indeed. Did you also know that the moon is round?

(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  You need to show that the negative traits which have led to societal inequality are exclusive traits of white people for your nonchalant acceptance of the White/ Privileged stereotype to hold water.

Uh, no.

That's not what that means.

To say that a group of people are socially privileged does not imply that there is something else "exclusive" or unique about them. I really don't know where you could have gotten such an idea?

(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  In the absence of such data, the only rational thing to do is acknowledge the historical context of societal inequality and work tangibly towards correcting the imbalance for the disadvantaged individuals (whatever race they may be). There should be no place in this model for stereotyping people with white skin. It's simply inaccurate.

Millipedes also have lots of legs.

I can't even tell what you think you're arguing against at this point.

(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 09:06 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  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 11:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I don't think you quite understand what you're talking about.

"Black people are criminal" is a stereotype.

However, in (say) the United States crime rates are higher among black populations. The actual reason for this is that statistically speaking black people are poorer, and crime is highly correlated with poverty.

Now; why are black people poorer?

I'll give you a hint. It starts with 'r' and ends with 'acism'.

You have (again) missed the point. I agree with everything you have just said.
1) Skin colour is NOT a causal determinant of crime.
2) And yet, a stereotype exists linking black people to crime.

Okay.

(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  This is no different from the following:

1) Skin colour is NOT a causal determinant of privilege
2) And yet, a stereotype exists linking white people to privilege

Statistics might show a correlation between skin colour and crime... They may also show a correlation between skin colour and "privilege", but this doesn't demonstrate cause.

Uh, guy?

Nobody said it was causal.

I can't even tell what you think you're arguing against at this point.

(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  Let's try a different angle if this is still lost on you:

- Poverty explains crime better than skin colour does.
- Historical context explains privilege better than skin colour does.

Therefore,

- the black/ crime stereotype is fallacious regardless of what statistics may show
- the white/ privilege stereotype is fallacious regardless of what statistics may show

Let me clearly explain to you the difference between those two statements.

One is an act (criminality). One is a status (privilege).

Thus one is active, whereas the other is passive.

Do you see how that is different?
(I would hope so...)

You must commit crimes to be a criminal. You don't have to do anything to be privileged. It consists of how the rest of society treats you.

(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 09:06 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  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.

(23-10-2014 11:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I honestly can't tell what non-point you're trying to make here.

If it's that racist prejudices are not based on empirical data, no shit.

That doesn't mean they don't affect people. Which you acknowledge.

Once again: so what?

Again, I must call you out on the incompatibility between your gaps in knowledge and your over-certainty.

Statements like "I honestly can't tell..." are not compatible with "no shit".

The point is that you are suggesting that we should accept as a given that whites tend to be more privileged.

That is a factual statement, bro.

Were it not I would have phrased it differently.

(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  My response is that, even if that is true, it does not follow that stereotyping white people as "privileged" is righteous.

Who (besides you) said anything about "righteous"?

I mean, I sure didn't...

(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  Just because there may exist a correlation between white skin and being "privileged", this does not suggest causation. Therefore, stereotypes linking whiteness to being "privileged" are not rational.

A statement of statistical correlation is not "stereotyping".

It is a statement of statistical correlation.

A false generalisation (or a stereotype, if you will) would be to apply the statistical statement on an individual level. So, you know, what I pointed out at the beginning of this charade, and you, at the time, objected to.

(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 09:06 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  Go read through the entire thread.
(23-10-2014 11:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That's not a citation, bro.

A citation is a specific direct quote, in its proper context. Got any? Got one?

I did not promise you a citation. I advised you to go back and read the thread if you want evidence of what should be an obvious truth.

So that's still not a citation.

Gotcha.

(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  I will provide citations for evidence relating to my core claim, but I am not obliged to expend energy providing you with evidence of minor, peripheral issues.

"Minor, peripheral issues" like, say, the entire position you claim to be arguing against?

Interesting uses of the words "minor" and "peripheral".

(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  As a reminder, you asserted the bizarre claim that "literally no one" has denied the existence of white stereotypes. It is therefore up to you to substantiate that claim. I wouldn't waste my time if I were you though. You could just ask yourself if you really believe that "literally no one" has denied the existence of white stereotypes. Do you really believe this bizarre claim?

Hey, nice proof dodging.

If you are the one asserting it did happen, then it's your job to substantiate that.

I cannot provide a citation of someone not saying something.

(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 09:06 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  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?

(23-10-2014 11:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Thanks for getting around to an actual point.
(eventually...)
I actually pasted a snippet which highlighted this point first time round. You just didn't read it properly it would seem. Hence the egg on your face.

(23-10-2014 11:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  It does not seem to follow. You are claiming that stereotypes of white racism exist (pervasively!) and that specific awareness of them informed the actions of the Rotherham authorities. That's just so much unsubstantiated conjecture on your part so far.

Nor does one data point a trend make.

You seem to be under the impression that I need to show a "trend" to establish that a principle is possible.

No, but given that no one has denied the principle, the seriousness of the problem (especially with regards to others) would then depend on its frequency and severity.

Which you would have to establish.

(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  As a reminder, I sent you this report to show that white stereotypes can conceivably lead to negative outcomes. If this is possible, then my OP is discussion-worthy and your original question "So what?" has been answered.

I'm not sure "stereotypes are bad, let's not do that" is much of a discussion.

(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 11:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Of course I grant the possibility that some nebulous "stereotype" consciously informed their actions. I submit to you that "not appearing racist" would exist as a motivation regardless.
Perhaps that is true and that is what actually motivated them (a stretch if you ask me) but that does not change the fact the principle has been shown to be possible. It is conceivable that white stereotypes can lead to negative outcomes and thus they are discussion-worthy. So your initial response to me in which you claimed my OP will be met with "a big honking "so what?"" has not convinced me that white stereotypes are an insignificant problem.

The point raised to you was that other things are worse problems.

(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 11:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Allow me to make what I'm sure will be a fun-filled analogy:
Consider the topic of gender inequality. That men as a group are the privileged class does not mean that all men are always advantaged and all women always disadvantaged; that is at best a straw man. There are in fact (some few) issues where men are generally disadvantaged. Which problem does it make more sense to focus on? The greater, or the lesser?
I agree that priority should be given to bigger problems. What I am arguing for is that acknowledgment of overlooked problems becomes part of our intellectual discourse. If it were taboo to talk about problems men face, then I would argue for this barrier to be broken too.

Indeed. And now you're granting that other things are worse problems.

The thing is, it is possible for focus or emphasis on smaller issues to cause those advocates to minimise or even deny the existence or severity of larger issues; we see just that with gender issues. Your OP, and subsequent responses, at times seemed to suggest a similar problematic approach with regards to racial issues.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
24-10-2014, 10:11 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(24-10-2014 09:10 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(24-10-2014 09:00 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Not many people really care about white racism, deal with it.

I agree. This is the problem situation.

Fixed. Thumbsup

@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
24-10-2014, 06:02 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(24-10-2014 09:10 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(24-10-2014 09:00 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Not many people really care about white racism, deal with it.

I agree. This is the problem.

You think so.. and you think it's subtle and under noticed... You've not provided sufficient reason to think so.

There can be some scenarios where it can have an impact, is it MERELY or even significantly because of race? Does it have a damaging impact if so, or alternatively could it also benefit situations and society also? You seem like you make a claim and don't actually think about how society is multi-dimensional. And we aren't simply 1 step away from some ideal society, it's a long and tedious process to achieving better societies.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2014, 08:40 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(24-10-2014 09:10 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(24-10-2014 09:00 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Not many people really care about white racism, deal with it.

I agree. This is the problem.

I don't see it.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: