|
VitalSigns posted:Why are you in this thread then, raging about all the anti-white racism you can, if that's just a trick of trendy hipsters to preen themselves? If you notice, I haven't posted anything like "think about the poor white people", but instead "if you call yourself an anti-racist, you should be against all forms of racism and not perpetuate any of them yourself". It's not derailing or racist to point out the hypocrisy of anti-racists making "kill white people" or other acceptable racist jokes/rhetoric.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
on the left posted:If you notice, I haven't posted anything like "think about the poor white people", but instead "if you call yourself an anti-racist, you should be against all forms of racism and not perpetuate any of them yourself". It's not derailing or racist to point out the hypocrisy of anti-racists making "kill white people" or other acceptable racist jokes/rhetoric. Honest question: what is your stance on affirmative action?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
on the left posted:If you notice, I haven't posted anything like "think about the poor white people", but instead "if you call yourself an anti-racist, you should be against all forms of racism and not perpetuate any of them yourself". It's not derailing or racist to point out the hypocrisy of anti-racists making "kill white people" or other acceptable racist jokes/rhetoric. Please link the posts itt that said "kill white people", k thanks. As far as anti-white jokes: those will literally always happen as long as one rear end in a top hat exists. A person such as yourself who is deeply concerned about all forms of racism shouldn't let a few jokes by assholes derail a conversation about much bigger issues that you no doubt would prefer to address. Would you mind telling me what your racial heritage is, by the way? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 15:46
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Please link the posts itt that said "kill white people", k thanks. Who What Now posted:This but unironically. Eat the rich, kill whitey. 
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Not at all, please post the article when you find it, or PM me. VitalSigns posted:Exceptions exist to pretty much any general rule; there's no sense in pretending they don't exist. VitalSigns posted:The obstructionism tactic is those like on the left who have to come in and draw attention to minor quirks and exceptions to the exclusion of anything else, and that should be ignored. If the NAACP had to endlessly quibble with every white person who demanded they explain how it's not racist to only work for the advancement of people of color, they'd never get anything else done. Which is, of course, the point of these antics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
So one post on page 4 by another white guy loving with Arkane and here we are 9 pages later. Nope, no deflection here, just Very Concerned people fighting the good fight against Who What Now's dangerous anti-white crusade. The crusade he hasn't even bothered to make a second post about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
It's a drive-by shitpost from a dude who has posted nothing else in the thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
"Whitey" is an idea. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 16:05
|
|
nutranurse posted:It's a drive-by shitpost from a dude who has posted nothing else in the thread. Hey, he asked. SedanChair posted:"Whitey" is an idea. Yes, races are social constructs, but I'm pretty sure he was talking about killing people of a certain skin color.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Yes, races are social constructs, but I'm pretty sure he was talking about killing people of a certain skin color. Don't forget that he was also advocating cannibalism. Why won't you address the real issues of cannibal-apologism?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 16:28
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Don't forget that he was also advocating cannibalism. Why won't you address the real issues of cannibal-apologism? You can make a thread about that if you want I guess. Anyway, if you didn't want someone to respond to your question you shouldn't have asked it.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
But I did want my question answered. So I could address what he was complaining about. As I am doing 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Yes, races are social constructs, but I'm pretty sure he was talking about killing people of a certain skin color. No, you misunderstand. "Whitey" is a power relation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
botany posted:Honest question: what is your stance on affirmative action? It's great, it allows wealthy minorities to keep the power structures in place from the old country. Of course, I didn't phrase it like that in my college admissions essays.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
on the left posted:It's great, it allows wealthy minorities to keep the power structures in place from the old country. What? Okay, so the criticism is that giving points for race on college admissions mainly benefits well-off educated minorities from other countries because they have the test scores and money. Okay, buuuuut how is that Affirmative Action's fault, when in its absence they would still have the test scores and money? Affirmative action doesn't preserve those power structures at all; in fact, they'd be even more reinforced without it because if fewer black people get in period, that would naturally tilt the balance even more toward new arrivals with money and quality education Oh wait, no now I see. If we stopped letting black people into college at all, then we'd smash those minority power structures and trod all blacks down equally. Very astute. Onward, to destroy the next edifice of pernicious racism by the blacks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 16:52
|
|
SedanChair posted:No, you misunderstand. "Whitey" is a power relation. I'm not going to get into a semantic argument on what that other guy meant.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Asian-Americans are the ones who bear the brunt of affirmative action in this regard, not white people. The plight of Asian Americans bearing the brunt of affirmative action wasn't his complaint. His complaint was that a well-off recent immigrant from Nigeria will have a better application than a poor black kid from Mississippi so the benefits of Affirmative Action to black people will tend to accrue to them, and thus according to him it's just a way for classist Nigerians to entrench their privilege over impoverished African Americans. But of course, that wealth and better primary education are to the advantage of the recent immigrant regardless of whether affirmative action exists, so eliminating affirmative action will not harm the power structure he is decrying...unless we go back to segregation, which would be very effective at smashing the power recent Nigerian immigrants have, which, as a staunch anti-racist, is on the left's overriding goal. "As an anti-racialist, my first concern is to tear down those uppity new immigrants who are oppressing African Americans!" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:I'm not going to get into a semantic argument on what that other guy meant. I'm loving with you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Raw test scores. Wealthy immigrants will likely have better raw test scores than impoverished native-born African Americans. VitalSigns posted:But of course, that wealth and better primary education are to the advantage of the recent immigrant regardless of whether affirmative action exists, so eliminating affirmative action will not harm the power structure he is decrying...unless we go back to segregation, which would be very effective at smashing the power recent Nigerian immigrants have, which, as a staunch anti-racist, is on the left's overriding goal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Zelder posted:Jesus Christ I wish I was white. I wish that this was the level of racism that was directed at me. Here is what you get to think as a white person and largely be applauded for! Note: requires a constant drip of fear and paranoia: I know a person who believes that AA is a way to give blacks the power to fight whites so that one day WE as white people will have to pick cotton and get beaten and sold as slaves. That is why they are against it 100% of giving any minorities handouts because they don't think any other race can handle doing such a thing 'so passionately, and intelligently' as white people did. He says this because he KNOWS in his heart a racial holy war is coming. It probably wouldn't surprise you to also hear this same person believes the government did 9/11 because loving sand kicking goat farmers could never fly a plane, much less into a set of towers. The only people can really handle technology are whites "because they make most of it" and he is furious that ISIS has been tweeting pictures of their guns and cats because it means it fucks actively with the dehumanization barrier he has set up for any non-white people. How dare they use ARE TECHNOLOGY? Apple you loving islamofacist supporters! I can't imagine living in such weird fear. He is perfectly happy to tell me that I am the real problem though because I am a race-mixing feminist who welcomes 'anti-white rhetoric' (read: quit fearing people who are a different skin and gender than you) in a PROUD LAND OF WHITE PEOPLE. He is trying to ex-patriate to Japan. Good loving riddance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
The more any particular person secretly believes that they deserve a great race war comeuppance, the more they fear it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
on the left posted:It's great, it allows wealthy minorities to keep the power structures in place from the old country. Of course, I didn't phrase it like that in my college admissions essays. So I assume you're of the opinion that there's no such thing as positive discrimination? If you disagree with preferential treatment policies, how would you rather deal with existing inequalities?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yes, and they do this at the expense of the Asian-American community. Affirmative action in this case becomes a way to foster an international class of rich people who set their prejudices about each other aside so they can stand united against everyone else, instead of a way to make things more equal. Right okay, this can be a good faith argument that it has this effect, and from you it is. But let's fit it into the context of his posts, which appear to consist of lashing out at anti-white racism, and blaming oppression on anything and everything he can except for white people. I mean, apparently to him one drive-by shitpost on page 4 is still worth talking about to the exclusion of everything else 9 pages later. But hey, maybe I'm being uncharitable to him. Say, on the left, does institutionalized racism exist in America, is it perpetrated by white men as a class, and do white men disproportionally benefit thereby? Or is that all pretty much solved, leaving anti-white racism as the biggest problem of the day? A Buttery Pastry posted:Alternatively, make affirmative action dependent on wealth, not race. I don't know that this thread is the best place to debate affirmative action, but the usual response to this is that making it race-blind and solely based on socio-economic status privileges white people because they are advantaged compared to black people of equal socioeconomic status.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Right okay, this can be a good faith argument that it has this effect, and from you it is. But let's fit it into the context of his posts, which appear to consist of lashing out at anti-white racism, and blaming oppression on anything and everything he can except for white people. I mean, apparently to him one drive-by shitpost on page 4 is still worth talking about to the exclusion of everything else 9 pages later. VitalSigns posted:I don't know that this thread is the best place to debate affirmative action, but the usual response to this is that making it race-blind and solely based on socio-economic status privileges white people because they are advantaged compared to black people of equal socioeconomic status.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't know that this thread is the best place to debate affirmative action, but the usual response to this is that making it race-blind and solely based on socio-economic status privileges white people because they are advantaged compared to black people of equal socioeconomic status. Yes, it's predicated on the assumption that the only oppression people of color experience is due to poverty. And while poverty is a significant source of oppression, it is not the only one-- actual, measurable racism exists today. I have no problem with additional affirmative action programs based on class, but suggesting that race-based affirmative action needs to be replaced with class-based affirmative action creates a false dichotomy which obscures the existence of contemporary racism. A Buttery Pastry posted:Most black kids can kick rear end at a "my family is poorer than yours!" competition, so they would have a significant advantage here. Hell, if a white person comes from a family poor enough that it economically fits in with black families, is it really that big a tragedy if they get to take advantage of affirmative action? Yes, it would be better if it went to the black version of that person, but if the alternative is the kid of a rich African guy? The kid of a rich African guy is still oppressed compared to his rich, white peers. The answer to helping poor white people is to implement class-based AA in addition to race-based AA, not to replace one with the other. That way rich black and poor white kids both get AA, and poor black kids get even more AA, which makes sense because they're the most oppressed. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:However, that poo poo (complaining by expats) can get really offensive and unfair and it's on the people who want their safe place to let loose to make sure they're doing it in a friendly forum and not out in public where other people are going to get the wrong idea. I don't think there's a right to throw bile in peoples faces and expect them not to have anything to say about it. So basically you're saying that minorities should watch their tone and that it's wrong for them to act angry and okay for others to intrude in their discourse because they're offended (I'm only saying this rhetorically since this actually is exactly what you're saying). In any system where a privileged majority and disenfranchised minority (that is obviously disenfranchised due to the actions of the majority) exist, you can't blame the minority for getting very angry and maybe even using some offensive language. The fact that you choose to focus on what you perceive to be wrong with their actions is what is really hosed up and wrong here. Why is it that you prioritize this when choosing to take place in these discussions? This is a really obvious trend with your posting in general (and other posters similar to you, like natetimm). You almost never talk about the actual harmful discrimination that is inflicted upon minorities by whites/the majority; it's always about how you're offended with the tone or some concern troll about how you think that them being angry or insulting isn't going to be effective. Literally no one is saying that laws should be passed banning white people from rudely inserting themselves into minority discussions about racism/bigotry. No one is trying to force you not to say anything. They're saying that if you do so you're an rear end in a top hat. edit: VitalSigns posted:The plight of Asian Americans bearing the brunt of affirmative action wasn't his complaint. His complaint was that a well-off recent immigrant from Nigeria will have a better application than a poor black kid from Mississippi so the benefits of Affirmative Action to black people will tend to accrue to them, and thus according to him it's just a way for classist Nigerians to entrench their privilege over impoverished African Americans. As a side not related to this, apparently there's actually a big problem where the black population of elite schools like Harvard consists mostly of rich African immigrants, rather than African Americans. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The kid of a rich African guy is still oppressed compared to his rich, white peers. JeffersonClay posted:The answer to helping poor white people JeffersonClay posted:is to implement class-based AA in addition to race-based AA, not to replace one with the other. That way rich black and poor white kids both get AA, and poor black kids get even more AA, which makes sense because they're the most oppressed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
quote:Sure, rich black kids don't have it as good a rich white kids, but are they really so bad off that even their wealth can't compensate for it compared to the average person? If the two were to be combined, increasing wealth really should severely taper off race-based AA, so the black skin of rich African immigrants won't trump the wealth-based disadvantage of pretty much everyone else (other black people excluded) automatically. You seem to have the assumption that economic oppression has a significantly greater impact than racial oppression, and thus AA spent on a rich black person is wasted. I'm not convinced. https://www.princeton.edu/~pager/ASR_pager_etal09.pdf quote:These applicants were given equivalent résumés and sent to apply in tandem for hundreds of entry-level jobs. Our results show that black applicants were half as likely as equally qualified whites to receive a callback or job offer. In fact, black and latino applicants with clean backgrounds fared no better than white applicants just released from prison. http://www.cepr.net/documents/black-coll-grads-2014-05.pdf quote:In 2013 (the most recent full year of data available), 12.4 percent of black college graduates between the ages of 22 and 27 were unemployed. For all college graduates in the same age range, the unemployment rate was 5.6 percent. Class-based AA won't do anything to disrupt these patterns. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
I don't think anyone here is opposed to having two-tiered class and race-based AA, but the fact that the people who oppose AA want to just nix it completely really puts their motives at suspect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Yes. I was 100% serious. You can tell because I used the term "unironically", a word that has never been used in an ironic manner itself. It would be impossible to do so, you see. That's how you can tell. You are a loving genius, and not at all retarded. -EDIT- AVeryLargeRadish posted:I'm not going to get into a semantic argument on what that other guy meant. Are you sure? You did such a wonderful job, and all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
AA fails simply because it comes too late. Blacks are marginalized from birth on and the attempt of AA to address that effect doesn't occur until 18 years later. That's 18 years where a black person has to get an education from lovely underfunded schools good enough to compete on a national level for college spots, while avoiding law enforcement contact, early pregnancies, and a myriad of other factors impacting them disproportionately. It's well-meaning but you can tell it was designed by white people who didn't know any better because the assumption is there that everyone has an equal path to access college at the end of their high school career. Often times it's just too far a jump to make for students who start out significantly in the hole. Its existence doesn't really bother me, but it's not really a surprise that it primarily benefits the wealthy who have access to better resources for the 18 years before college selection is made. It's like trying to build a castle in a swamp without laying a foundation over and over again. The best way to ensure the success of black kids would be to stabilize their home lives by creating programs that benefit adults right now. Making living wage jobs available to their parents, improving their schools, and funding social programs filling the gap for their lack of resources(often times a second income from a second parent) would go much farther to end the educational disparity than adding a scoring metric to college applications. new phone who dis fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You seem to have the assumption that economic oppression has a significantly greater impact than racial oppression, and thus AA spent on a rich black person is wasted. I'm not convinced.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
natetimm posted:AA fails simply because it comes too late. Blacks are marginalized from birth on and the attempt of AA to address that effect doesn't occur until 18 years later. That's 18 years where a black person has to get an education from lovely underfunded schools good enough to compete on a national level for college spots, while avoiding law enforcement contact, early pregnancies, and a myriad of other factors impacting them disproportionately. It's well-meaning but you can tell it was designed by white people who didn't know any better because the assumption is there that everyone has an equal path to access college at the end of their high school career. Often times it's just too far a jump to make for students who start out significantly in the hole. Sure, but nobody is doing this, and people are actively trying to destroy AA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Sure, but nobody is doing this, and people are actively trying to destroy AA. AA isn't really accomplishing its goals and mostly exists as a program to make others feel better. Like so many wedge issues, it's really just an opportunity to display your allegiance to one cause or another.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Really anything you can do to help minorities is really just rubbing your white superiority in their face. The only ethical thing to do is vacatly whine about SJWs on the internet. It's also useful to accuse others of being insincere because they don't spend all of their time volunteering to wipe preemie crack baby asses or whatever goes on there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:So basically you're saying that minorities should watch their tone and that it's wrong for them to act angry and okay for others to intrude in their discourse because they're offended (I'm only saying this rhetorically since this actually is exactly what you're saying). Well, let's not conflate things. ITT and in the article we're talking about white people talking at other white people about things they by definition don't really understand and can't relate to, all conducted out in public. In what sense one can intrude on a public shouting match and who has a right to participate given that almost everyone involved is well off and white seem like questions worth considering before getting indignant about minorities and their discourse. Ytlaya posted:Why is it that you prioritize this when choosing to take place in these discussions? Because D&D loses any kind of filter when these discussions come up and the pertinent response IMO when we seriously start talking about a proposition like "Would whites re-institute slavery today if they could?" is "have you guys lost all sense of perspective?". If we were having serious chat I expect we'd agree on a lot more than we disagree on. Not everything, but a lot of things. edit: People can use whatever tone they want to for whatever reasons they want to. I'm not passing judgement - I'm saying no one is entitled to a sympathetic listener or to "own" a conversation held in public. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:As a side not related to this, apparently there's actually a big problem where the black population of elite schools like Harvard consists mostly of rich African immigrants, rather than African Americans. This is absolutely true, and is a great argument for reforming AA, and also for fighting the poverty and substandard education that contribute to this disparity in the first place. However, it is not an argument for scrapping AA and replacing it with nothing like the ostensible anti-racialists want to do, because letting the black population of elite schools fall is only going to skew them more in favor of rich African immigrants, not less. wateroverfire posted:Because D&D loses any kind of filter when these discussions come up and the pertinent response IMO when we seriously start talking about a proposition like "Would whites re-institute slavery today if they could?" is "have you guys lost all sense of perspective?". The original question, if I remember the OP correctly, was asked by a black person, who is not even a member of D&D. It's pretty weird to accuse a subforum of having no sense of perspective when the thread you're complaining about was started by a guy saying "Hey D&D, why might my black friend think this and how should I respond to him?" Sorry that people were explaining his friend's perspective, I guess you'd prefer it if we just said "lol no, racism is over". People have advanced arguments that the prison system established by whites is little better than slavery itself, or should we only look at things with the perspective of a middle-class white man? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The original question, if I remember the OP correctly, was asked by a black person, who is not even a member of D&D. It's pretty weird to accuse a subforum of having no sense of perspective when the thread you're complaining about was started by a guy saying "Hey D&D, why might my black friend think this and how should I respond to him?" Sorry that people were explaining his friend's perspective, I guess you'd prefer it if we just said "lol no, racism is over". People have advanced arguments that the prison system established by whites is little better than slavery itself, or should we only look at things with the perspective of a middle-class white man? Nobody posting ITT knows his friend's perspective or is in a position to explain it. I guess I would have expected more "Huh. That sounds sort of unhinged maybe tell your friend that sounds a little nuts." than "let me tell you why our modern institutions are JUST LIKE SLAVERY" which seems to overlook several important differences and avoid acknowledging that maybe society made some progress at some point. Like, it's ok to be against racism and acknowledge that it's still a thing and also acknowledge that we are really loving far from chattel slavery in 2014.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
natetimm posted:AA isn't really accomplishing its goals and mostly exists as a program to make others feel better. Like so many wedge issues, it's really just an opportunity to display your allegiance to one cause or another. Hmm AA hasn't solved the problem of racism, guess we better drop it and concentrate on things that are even less likely to happen. The fact that this is a net loss for minorities is a bug, not a feature because
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 21:32
|
|