The hidden attack on whiteness
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-10-2014, 10:37 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(25-10-2014 08:40 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(24-10-2014 09:10 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  I agree. This is the problem.

I don't see it.

That's why it's hidden. All the secretly-racist-against-white-guys people are very clever about hiding their tracks. Often they disguise it as activism on behalf of disadvantaged people. Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
25-10-2014, 10:38 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(25-10-2014 10:37 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(25-10-2014 08:40 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  I don't see it.

That's why it's hidden. All the secretly-racist-against-white-guys people are very clever about hiding their tracks. Often they disguise it as activism on behalf of disadvantaged people. Rolleyes

Right, because lessening someone's advantage to better level the playing-field for everyone is not the same as actually disadvantaging that same person. Rolleyes

Where was that waffles vid again, it seems applicable...

Found it!




[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
27-10-2014, 05:49 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(25-10-2014 08:40 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(24-10-2014 09:10 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  I agree. This is the problem.

I don't see it.

Good for you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 05:52 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(25-10-2014 10:37 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(25-10-2014 08:40 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  I don't see it.

That's why it's hidden. All the secretly-racist-against-white-guys people are very clever about hiding their tracks. Often they disguise it as activism on behalf of disadvantaged people. Rolleyes

Disingenuous post which you know is a misrepresentation of my opinion.

My argument:

1) White stereotypes exist in our CUlTURE
2) They are OVERLOOKED relative to other stereotypes

Your intentional misrepresentation of my argument:

1) PEOPLE are racist against whites
2) It's a conspiracy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 05:58 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(24-10-2014 06:02 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(24-10-2014 09:10 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  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.

1) I have provided multiple studies to show the phenomenon exists. Something which should (in my opinion) be common knowledge, because how could it not exist. Why would stereotypes stop at white people?

2) I have also discussed at length how the problem is overlooked and provided a report showing that the problem can conceivably lead to negative outcomes

3) Most importantly, you keep suggesting that negative white stereotypes "benefit situations and society". This is why I don't feel the need to discuss at length with you. I just fundamentally disagree with your perspective. I see it as very simplistic and I encourage you to challenge the view that races are homogeneous groups.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 06:37 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(27-10-2014 05:52 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(25-10-2014 10:37 AM)morondog Wrote:  That's why it's hidden. All the secretly-racist-against-white-guys people are very clever about hiding their tracks. Often they disguise it as activism on behalf of disadvantaged people. Rolleyes

Disingenuous post which you know is a misrepresentation of my opinion.

My argument:

1) White stereotypes exist in our CUlTURE
2) They are OVERLOOKED relative to other stereotypes

Your intentional misrepresentation of my argument:

1) PEOPLE are racist against whites
2) It's a conspiracy

Rolleyes Whatever floats your boat skippy.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 06:46 AM (This post was last modified: 27-10-2014 06:51 AM by Spade=Spade.)
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(24-10-2014 09:10 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-10-2014 08:12 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  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...)
So "unprivileged" is the only stereotype for this group?

Assertion + group stereotype = fallacy.

That's the principle I am trying to highlight to you. Follow that and you will see that there is no way to insert a white stereotype and change the end result. It will always be a fallacy unless you can prove causation.

(24-10-2014 09:10 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(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?
Assertion + group stereotype = fallacy.... unless you can prove causation.

"Ability to affect" does nothing to change the above principle. This seems like attempted spin-doctoring. Just because one group has more societal influence (an unbacked assertion which I will grant) it does not mean that stereotypes about them are somehow suddenly true.

(24-10-2014 09:10 AM)cjlr 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.
Wow... "Actual statistical fact". That's as impressive as the actual statistical facts that some people use to show how black people commit more crime. I guess you and those people can sit down together now and work out amongst yourselves how you prove causation.... After you have done that, I will grant you the moral licence to stereotype whites and show resentment for a (now) homogeneous group of people. Until then, I reserve the right to criticise the components of our culture which do just that.

(24-10-2014 09:10 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(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?
In the absence of proof of causation, there is no rational reason for cultural resentment of whiteness. What is required is a conscious effort by all members of society to address historical causes and achieve social equality. What is actually not helpful in that regard is to safeguard from criticism, any cultural components which negatively affect whiteness. Remember that white people born today have no control over historical events.

(24-10-2014 09:10 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Uh, guy?

Nobody said it was causal.

You may not have explicitly said it was causal, but that it is what you are (perhaps) unwittingly arguing for when you try justify white stereotypes with "privilege".

(24-10-2014 09:10 AM)cjlr Wrote:  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.

This is irrelevant.

1) Assertion + active stereotype = fallacy
2) Assertion + passive stereotype = still fallacy

If we can see that there are potentially negative outcomes to stereotypes, we should approach them with caution. You seem to be arguing that because the stereotype for blackness is active, it warrants skepticism, but because the "privilege" stereotype is passive, we should suddenly relax our scrutiny and grant it access unchecked. I just don't agree... There may be statistical truth to many things, but the until you can prove that skin colour is causally determinant, a negative culture to that skin colour is irrational. Simple.

Just out of interest, what do you say to the White/ Racist stereotype then? Racism is an active stereotype by your account, so will you concede that this stereotype should be met with the same level of scrutiny that the Black/Crime stereotype is met with?

(24-10-2014 09:10 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(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.
By that logic, the Black/Crime stereotype is not a stereotype because it is statistically backed.

(24-10-2014 09:10 AM)cjlr Wrote:  "Minor, peripheral issues" like, say, the entire position you claim to be arguing against?

Interesting uses of the words "minor" and "peripheral".
As a reminder, you started by asserting that "literally no one" has denied the existence of white stereotypes and then went on to argue that they are insignificant. (remember saying that my post would be met with a big honking "So what?")....

What I have been arguing with you about is that 2nd point. I'm arguing that the problem is significant and worthy of discussion (hence I produced a report which showed that coucil workers in Rotherham, England cited "fear of being labelled a racist" as reason for not pursuing reports of rape).

So a request for a citation that white stereotypes have been denied is peripheral and therefore minor.

Also - just to remind you of the order of events chronologically:

1) I assert that white stereotypes exist
2) You assert that "literally no one" has denied this
3) I call this assertion false
4) You ask me for evidence

Sequential order is important here. If you assert something (whether positive or negative) the onus is on you to substantiate that claim. Otherwise, anyone could just go around asserting negative truths and then demading that the other party expends energy substantiating a counter claim that he/she never made in the first place....

With this in mind, I maintain that the onus of proof is on you. You will struggle to prove that "literally no one" has denied the existence of white stereotypes, but that's not my problem. You should have thought about that before you made such a bizarre claim.

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


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.

Another attempt to muddy the waters.

Order of events as follows:

1) I assert that white stereotypes exist
2) You respond with "So What?"
3) I produce a report showing that they are potentially dangerous
4) You ask for a trend to be established.

As a reminder - for a principle to be possible (in this case, the potential negative impacts of white stereotypes), one only needs to show that the principle is possible. One doesn't need to show a trend.

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

Ok, I will acknowledge this point, but counter with the reminder that we don't ignore theft because murder is worse. Our end game should be to remove negative causes affecting ALL groups. We wouldn't tell an Indian person complaining of stereotypes that his or her problem is insignificant because black stereotypes are a worse problem, so I don't see that we should also deny acknowledgment of white stereotypes.

Your point is taken though - we should of course be wary that focus isn't taken away from solving the problem of black racism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 09:39 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(27-10-2014 06:46 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(24-10-2014 09:10 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Because that's how society is. Or would you deny that?
(because good luck with that...)
So "unprivileged" is the only stereotype for this group?

Funny, I can't recall saying that...

(27-10-2014 06:46 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  Assertion + group stereotype = fallacy.

I'm not sure you entirely understood what I was saying.

(27-10-2014 06:46 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  That's the principle I am trying to highlight to you. Follow that and you will see that there is no way to insert a white stereotype and change the end result. It will always be a fallacy unless you can prove causation.

I will say very generously that I don't think you quite understood the comparison I was making for you.

(27-10-2014 06:46 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(24-10-2014 09:10 AM)cjlr Wrote:  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?
Assertion + group stereotype = fallacy.... unless you can prove causation.

That's not an answer.

Would you care to answer the question?

(27-10-2014 06:46 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  "Ability to affect" does nothing to change the above principle. This seems like attempted spin-doctoring. Just because one group has more societal influence (an unbacked assertion which I will grant) it does not mean that stereotypes about them are somehow suddenly true.

Nor did I say it did make them "somehow suddenly true". But excellent misrepresentation regardless.

What I meant is literally what I said. How much any particular individual's opinions affect others is literally and necessarily proportional to their ability to act on those opinions.

Why that should be difficult for you to accept, I can't begin to imagine.

(27-10-2014 06:46 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(24-10-2014 09:10 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Those generalisations are informed by actual statistical fact.
Wow... "Actual statistical fact". That's as impressive as the actual statistical facts that some people use to show how black people commit more crime.

Crime correlates with poverty, and poverty correlates with race.

That correlation is factual. You don't seem to understand what I'm saying in light of it. Oh, well.

(27-10-2014 06:46 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  I guess you and those people can sit down together now and work out amongst yourselves how you prove causation.... After you have done that, I will grant you the moral licence to stereotype whites and show resentment for a (now) homogeneous group of people. Until then, I reserve the right to criticise the components of our culture which do just that.

I still can't tell either what you think you're saying or what you think you're saying it to.

(27-10-2014 06:46 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(24-10-2014 09:10 AM)cjlr Wrote:  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?
In the absence of proof of causation, there is no rational reason for cultural resentment of whiteness.

That doesn't follow.

(27-10-2014 06:46 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  What is required is a conscious effort by all members of society to address historical causes and achieve social equality. What is actually not helpful in that regard is to safeguard from criticism, any cultural components which negatively affect whiteness. Remember that white people born today have no control over historical events.

Where are you drawing this absurd "safeguard from criticism" notion?

As best I can tell it's a thing you've simply made up.

No one has control over historical events. We are all nonetheless informed by them.

(27-10-2014 06:46 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(24-10-2014 09:10 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Uh, guy?

Nobody said it was causal.

You may not have explicitly said it was causal, but that it is what you are (perhaps) unwittingly arguing for when you try justify white stereotypes with "privilege".

No, but thanks for demonstrating your failure to grasp my point.

In case you've lost the thread, let me remind you:
White people possess greater social privilege.

Even you are not trying to deny this.

I am not even sure what else you are disingenuously trying to link my statement to.

(27-10-2014 06:46 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(24-10-2014 09:10 AM)cjlr Wrote:  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.

This is irrelevant.

It is eminently relevant. It is unfortunate that the distinction eludes you.

(27-10-2014 06:46 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  1) Assertion + active stereotype = fallacy
2) Assertion + passive stereotype = still fallacy

You really don't seem to understand the difference between stereotyping and statistics, do you?

A statement of statistically significant correlation is not fallacious. Your repeated refusal to understand this perplexes me.

(27-10-2014 06:46 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  If we can see that there are potentially negative outcomes to stereotypes, we should approach them with caution. You seem to be arguing that because the stereotype for blackness is active, it warrants skepticism, but because the "privilege" stereotype is passive, we should suddenly relax our scrutiny and grant it access unchecked. I just don't agree...

Indeed; feel free to agree or disagree with as many straw men as you like.

(27-10-2014 06:46 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  There may be statistical truth to many things, but the until you can prove that skin colour is causally determinant, a negative culture to that skin colour is irrational. Simple.

One more time, because I am an indulgent man:
Privilege is not a stereotype. It is a social phenomenon. It is real.

By its nature it is a phenomenon that operates on the nature of entire populations. Racial privilege does not vary between individuals within the same grouping.

(27-10-2014 06:46 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  Just out of interest, what do you say to the White/ Racist stereotype then? Racism is an active stereotype by your account, so will you concede that this stereotype should be met with the same level of scrutiny that the Black/Crime stereotype is met with?

Sure.

That's a silly question.

(27-10-2014 06:46 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(24-10-2014 09:10 AM)cjlr Wrote:  A statement of statistical correlation is not "stereotyping".

It is a statement of statistical correlation.
By that logic, the Black/Crime stereotype is not a stereotype because it is statistically backed.

I did, in fact, already explain this to you. I guess you missed it in your rush to misrepresent my line of thought.

Do you understand what a statistically significant correlation means? Stereotypes are not invented from nothing, but are based on over-generalisation. To apply a statistical statement at an individual level is invalid.

(27-10-2014 06:46 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(24-10-2014 09:10 AM)cjlr Wrote:  "Minor, peripheral issues" like, say, the entire position you claim to be arguing against?

Interesting uses of the words "minor" and "peripheral".
As a reminder, you started by asserting that "literally no one" has denied the existence of white stereotypes and then went on to argue that they are insignificant. (remember saying that my post would be met with a big honking "So what?")....

Since I did not say "insignificant", I am not sure where you got that particular word from.

I continue to challenge you to substantiate a single instance of anyone denying that stereotypes exist and can apply to all people.
(PS: burden of proof's still on you for that one, mate)

(27-10-2014 06:46 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  What I have been arguing with you about is that 2nd point.

Indeed; you're arguing against a claim of "insignificance" which does not exist.

(27-10-2014 06:46 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  With this in mind, I maintain that the onus of proof is on you. You will struggle to prove that "literally no one" has denied the existence of white stereotypes, but that's not my problem. You should have thought about that before you made such a bizarre claim.

In this thread, bud. In this thread. Notwithstanding...

My statement was only in response to yours. Have you forgotten so soon?
(23-10-2014 07:13 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  There have been other respondents who don't accept that white stereotypes exist at all.

Uh, oh. Looks like a positive claim to me!

Albeit one you very quickly attempted to avoid substantiating. Funny, that.
(you said "read the thread", as if that were in any way meaningful; in any case, I have, and remain unconvinced that you can back your assertion - and your assertion it assuredly is, regardless of subsequent evasion)

Or perhaps silly me for thinking your claim that some (who? where? when?) had "denied" that white stereotypes exist "at all" was to be taken literally.

(27-10-2014 06:46 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  As a reminder - for a principle to be possible (in this case, the potential negative impacts of white stereotypes), one only needs to show that the principle is possible. One doesn't need to show a trend.

Remember when I said that so far as I could tell no one had denied the principle?

Well, so far as I can tell, no one has denied the principle.

A demonstration of that principle is then somewhat unnecessary. But thanks?

We agree that the Rotherham authorities fucked up. But they remain human; they acted for reasons. Why might they have acted as they did?

(27-10-2014 06:46 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(24-10-2014 09:10 AM)cjlr Wrote:  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.

Ok, I will acknowledge this point, but counter with the reminder that we don't ignore theft because murder is worse.

No, indeed. But if someone was robbing you while someone else was murdering you I'm fairly sure I can guess which you'd consider a more immediate problem.

(27-10-2014 06:46 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  Our end game should be to remove negative causes affecting ALL groups. We wouldn't tell an Indian person complaining of stereotypes that his or her problem is insignificant because black stereotypes are a worse problem, so I don't see that we should also deny acknowledgment of white stereotypes.

No, indeed.

But I would still reiterate once more the point I've raised many times now:
Not all stereotypes are created equally - by which I mean not all are as liable to adversely affect others. The problems following thereon are thus of varying severity - just as theft and murder.

I believe the most difference can be made immediately by acting against the prejudices which are most serious, and, this is key, most able to affect others.

(27-10-2014 06:46 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  Your point is taken though - we should of course be wary that focus isn't taken away from solving the problem of black racism.

You can just call it "racism"...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
27-10-2014, 10:06 AM (This post was last modified: 27-10-2014 11:14 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(27-10-2014 05:58 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(24-10-2014 06:02 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  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.

1) I have provided multiple studies to show the phenomenon exists. Something which should (in my opinion) be common knowledge, because how could it not exist. Why would stereotypes stop at white people?

2) I have also discussed at length how the problem is overlooked and provided a report showing that the problem can conceivably lead to negative outcomes

3) Most importantly, you keep suggesting that negative white stereotypes "benefit situations and society". This is why I don't feel the need to discuss at length with you. I just fundamentally disagree with your perspective. I see it as very simplistic and I encourage you to challenge the view that races are homogeneous groups.

Something exist doesn't inherently make it a "problem." You seem to not understand or want to analyze this isn't an all or nothing point.

What exactly am I seeing to simplistically? All I have seen is you projecting your interpretations into other peoples posts in your time here. I've already explained to you in multiple posts, but you seem to be unable to understand. I'm not viewing White's as some homogeneous group. I could care less about the distinction of white/non or any group. I even said in early on, I don't think Race is what causes what you are saying is existing. This is YOUR criteria. If you are saying white stereotypes are a problem.. YOU are identifying white as a homogeneous group. I'm amazed how you are able to accuse someone else of such an effort.

I fundamentally disagree with your positions too.. It doesn't stop me from talking to you because I'm willing to be open about a topic. You want to say it's one thing, and have consistently shown little leeway to anyone in this topic about your position. Who do you think represents someone having an intelligently lead view point?

To simplify the point you seem to can't understand of why I think negative views of some groups can benefit others. It's because fighting inequality is assisted by active societal acknowledgement of areas where inequality exists... and not ignoring it or letting it be dismissed doesn't lead to much progress. This accounts for inequality of choice, power, wealth, social perceptions, etc.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
27-10-2014, 11:08 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(27-10-2014 05:52 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  My argument:

1) White stereotypes exist in our CUlTURE
2) They are OVERLOOKED relative to other stereotypes

[Image: 55686832.jpg]

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: