Does SJW-reated stuff get helled because the term is pejorative?

[sudo459]

dethtoll said:

That's not what I said at all, you disingenuous little cockbot.

Semantics

[Doomkid]

Dethtoll, almost every post you make on political threads is a prime example of how not to convince anyone of anything ever. Vitriolic aggression isn't exactly becoming. There' a line between being frustrated and just tossing your hands in their air and being an ass about everything ever. It's actually kind of funny following Tarnsman's post which essentially outlines how insulting people basically shoves them further in the opposite direction.

Maybe you get a rise out of puffing your chest here on DW or something but any good points you make get obscured by that attitude. Maybe it's less about discourse and more about getting entertainment though, and if that's the case I at least get it to some degree, but still, not at all an effective way of engaging.

[june gloom]

I'm not trying to convince anyone. Waste of time. I'm just going to berate them because, like Bucket, I believe idiocy should be painful.

[Clonehunter]

This thread is going well.

[Tarnsman]

dethtoll said:

I'm not trying to convince anyone. Waste of time. I'm just going to berate them because, like Bucket, I believe idiocy should be painful.

The problem is you're actively slowing down progress and perpetuating the very problems you claim you don't like. So you know have fun with that.

[⇛Marnetmar⇛]

dethtoll said:

I'm not trying to convince anyone. Waste of time. I'm just going to berate them because, like Bucket, I believe idiocy should be painful.

In other words, you have no interest in actually contributing to any political discussions in a positive way and are more interested in being a spiteful jackass?

[Rayziik]

Dethtoll seems to act like this when any kind of discussion comes up. It does nothing to help the side he supports, and actively dissuades people (like me) who haven't formed an opinion on the subject being discussed.

[Decay]

dethtoll said:

I'm not trying to convince anyone. Waste of time. I'm just going to berate them because, like Bucket, I believe idiocy should be painful.

So you like inflicting pain on yourself?

[Arctangent]

sudo459 said:

Part of that, I feel is dismissing with identity politics altogether. Since race is a social construct anyway, why even bother bringing it up at all? I know we as humans are geared toward tribal beliefs, such as racism, but we can be above such things if we so choose. Would you agree?

I don't get this logic.

I mean, of course we agree, but we're nowhere close to that. You don't get rid of a problem by saying "oh but in ten thousand years we're going to be so above all of this" because that's just sticking your head in the sand. We can agree that racism is primal and horrible, but that doesn't suddenly mean we stop talking about race because there are clearly so many other people in the world who disagree.

This seems like the same thread of thought that goes with the whole "oh but you're the one who noticed it was about race so it makes you racist!" Which, apparently, means you have to be entirely ignorant of murder or else you've got fifty liters of blood on your hands.

[sudo459]

Arctangent said:

I don't get this logic.

I mean, of course we agree, but we're nowhere close to that. You don't get rid of a problem by saying "oh but in ten thousand years we're going to be so above all of this" because that's just sticking your head in the sand. We can agree that racism is primal and horrible, but that doesn't suddenly mean we stop talking about race because there are clearly so many other people in the world who disagree.

Oh, that's not exactly what I meant. I should elaborate. I know races exist. Of course they do, having this discussion at all is proof of that. But, its entirely a social construct. A bad social construct that does nothing but divide us. The only way to make it go way isn't by pretending it doesn't exist, but by reminding everyone that they cling to the divisive and harmful idea of "race". Racism only exists because we see each other as people of a different race. I don't really think of that as acting like the problem doesn't exist.

So in other words, I'm not saying races don't exist, I'm saying they do because we say they do, and we can stop. Its attacking the root cause.

Arctangent said:

This seems like the same thread of thought that goes with the whole "oh but you're the one who noticed it was about race so it makes you racist!" Which, apparently, means you have to be entirely ignorant of murder or else you've got fifty liters of blood on your hands.

Yes, I see this a lot from people who think the way I do, but I'll flat out disagree with them. People can be racist, there is no denying that. And when they are, we absolutely have to call them out.

[Bucket]

insanoflex312 said:

White privilege is obviously racist when it gets to the "you can't be racist against white people" stage, and most of the time, its just a way to discredit people instead of hearing their opinions. Same goes for male privilege.

You can't be racist against white people. Racism is about supremacy and white people have positioned themselves as the supreme race since the Roman Empire. If you deny this fact, your opinion is not worth considering.

[insanoflex312]

Bucket said:

You can't be racist against white people. Racism is about supremacy

Says who? That's not the definition of racism. That's a totally different concept.
Yes you can be racist against white people. If you disagree, then you're a racist.

White people are not in power. There are mostly white people in power. The difference is massive. I'm not in power. I don't hold power over non-whites. None of the white people I know do either. They don't hold power over non-whites.

stanforddaily.com said:

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/01/31/everyone-can-be-racist/

Furthermore, while in the United States whites may have more power than minorities, it is obvious that whites do not control all levers of power. A black man is in the Oval Office, two minorities are serving on the Supreme Court, and roughly one fifth of Fortune 500 CEOs are members of racial minority groups. If we approach racism as something to be avoided, we should ask which is worse: a poor white man in Wisconsin who detests Asians, or a black president who wishes to stop Asian immigration because he perceives Asians as, say, unfit to be Americans. If we subscribe to the position that only white people can be racist, it necessarily follows that the Wisconsinite has more power than the black president. This, however, is absurd – the black president has power and is fully capable of being racist.

PureSlime said:

Well I'd definitely say that it is racist, but also just massively willfully ignorant.

White privilege does exist. It's exceedingly obvious that white people have a socially preferential treatment compared to those of other ethnicities in the western world. That white people are given a pass as being the "default", aren't racially profiled by police, etc.

It may not be explicitly racist, but it's part of an implicit racial bias that we likely all have because of the racist culture in which we inhabit. It imparts that bias on all of us.

There's no "end" to racism. It's a process we have to all keep working at to eliminate our own racial biases.

If everyone is inherently racist, then how do you differentiate between people who want to go on a good ol' fashion lynchin', from people like me who want everyone to be treated equally? The word loses all meaning. You can no longer call anyone a racist, even the KKK or neo-nazis, because everyone is racist. You're merely pointing out an inherent quality everyone has. If everyone is racist, then no one is racist. It becomes a meaningless term.

[Decay]

Bucket said:

You can't be racist against white people. Racism is about supremacy and white people have positioned themselves as the supreme race since the Roman Empire. If you deny this fact, your opinion is not worth considering.

Ah, just when the thread couldn't get any more retarded, I am proven wrong.

[Saturn]

Bucket said:

You can't be racist against white people. Racism is about supremacy and white people have positioned themselves as the supreme race since the Roman Empire. If you deny this fact, your opinion is not worth considering.

If there's anyone dumber than a middle-aged trailer park women, it's you.

[Tarnsman]

Bucket said:

You can't be racist against white people. Racism is about supremacy and white people have positioned themselves as the supreme race since the Roman Empire. If you deny this fact, your opinion is not worth considering.

If there ever was a post to explain why "SJW" gets used as a pejorative and why the discourse around race in our country is such a complete mess it would be this post. Not only is it perfectly possible for someone who isn't white to be racist, the vast majority of whites have no power and telling someone who is struggling to make ends meet that they do have some sort of power is exactly the tactic that was used to create the very racial division between the various ethnic groups of the working class in this country.

In the immortal words of the principle from Billy Madison: what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Fonze]

Bucket said:

Ftfy

[Dynamo]

Bucket said:

white people have positioned themselves as the supreme race since the Roman Empire.

This is such a blatant lie that it's not even funny. What you said right there shows that you understand absolutely nothing about the roman empire or the history of the time. Did you say that in an attempt to make your argument more elaborate/researched or something? If you know nothing, say nothing.

[deadwolves]

dethtoll said:

I'm not trying to convince anyone. Waste of time. I'm just going to berate them because, like Bucket, I believe idiocy should be painful.

Ignorance is bliss though, and most if not all of this thread is people talking about nothing, because in the first world we are amazingly lucky to afford our very narrow, self-centered perspective of things. No one wants to talk about conflicts like Chinese-Japanese ethnic conflict, or the African-Chinese unrest, or the Ugandan wars. It's tragic in two ways, one because of the conflicts themselves obviously, and two because people seem genuinely incapable of being interested in them.

The Sudanese war is an ethnic conflict and it's one of the more shocking ones because rape was deliberately used as a weapon. In Rwanada, half a million people were killed in several months - simply using machetes. In the Iran/Iraq war, the mad Ayatollah used children as diversions or minesweepers on front line battles. They were each given a key, which supposedly promised their ticket to paradise.

Threads like this are so stupid, everyone getting fired up by their teenage hormones on some youtube video, trying to convince everyone else how right and non-racist or whatever they are. I dare everyone in this thread to read the websites of Amnesty International and the Red Cross then sign up to make a tiny donation. Like just two fucking bucks a month. Spend the money you spend on your brain-warping Alex Jones DVDs on that instead. You even get a free newsletter too where you get to read about people who have real problems instead of this 'SJW' crap.

[Linguica]

Tarnsman said:

the vast majority of whites have no power and telling someone who is struggling to make ends meet that they do have some sort of power is exactly the tactic that was used to create the very racial division between the various ethnic groups of the working class in this country.

Oh please, you know perfectly well the sort of privilege and power being referred to in discussions of racism is stuff like "not living in fear of being pulled over and shot by cops because of your skin color" or "not having voting laws changed with the specific intent of disenfranchising people of your race", not "is a millionaire".

[Tarnsman]

Having it less bad is not having it good. What I know about structural societal problems is irrelevant, it's about not trying to solve problems by using language that alienates and annoys the people you need to change.

[deadwolves]

Tarnsman said:

Having it less bad is not having it good.

Yes it is. Being a working class European for instance is far superior to being a low-caste man in India. Or god forbid you are a woman in many countries because it automatically downgrades you. Many women are sold into slavery or to alternative families because their original parents simply couldn't afford a girl, they wanted a boy instead. What makes you think you deserve to "have it good" anyway?

Tarnsman said:

What I know about structural societal problems is irrelevant

Well then

[insanoflex312]

Linguica said:

Oh please, you know perfectly well the sort of privilege and power being referred to in discussions of racism is stuff like "not living in fear of being pulled over and shot by cops because of your skin color" or "not having voting laws changed with the specific intent of disenfranchising people of your race", not "is a millionaire".

I would say, let's tackle those problems instead of using the divisive terminology of "white privilege", since it clearly has the connotations that Tarnsman described.

[sudo459]

deadwolves said:

Threads like this are so stupid, everyone getting fired up by their teenage hormones on some youtube video, trying to convince everyone else how right and non-racist or whatever they are.

Uh, projection?

deadwolves said:

I dare everyone in this thread to read the websites of Amnesty International and the Red Cross then sign up to make a tiny donation. Like just two fucking bucks a month. Spend the money you spend on your brain-warping Alex Jones DVDs on that instead. You even get a free newsletter too where you get to read about people who have real problems instead of this 'SJW' crap.

I can't give blood, because I'm gay, and I don't have money to donate, so what do you want me to do instead? Saying things like this makes me think that you think the racism in America is irrelevant. Just because it's worse in other places doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't worth dealing with here. And besides, some of us really are trying to help those people.

deadwolves said:

Yes it is. Being a working class European for instance is far superior to being a low-caste man in India

What does this have to do with race? India doesn't have the same quality of life as Europe. So, what's your point exactly?

[Doomkid]

Linguica said:

Oh please, you know perfectly well the sort of privilege and power being referred to in discussions of racism is stuff like "not living in fear of being pulled over and shot by cops because of your skin color" or "not having voting laws changed with the specific intent of disenfranchising people of your race", not "is a millionaire".

Blaming lower class whites for their choice(?) to be born white and giving lectures on stuff that probably-not-related wealthy land owners (who just happened to also be white) did 100+ years ago will do absolutely nothing to remove these problems. Holding the fire under the asses of the powerful via public scrutiny might get something done, or at the very least open more people's eyes to who is actually responsible for systemic racism, and more aptly the oppression of the common man.

Telling whites they're privileged because of their skin color is only going to make the racist even more racist. It's pointless squabbling that has the potential to lead to riots. Whites hear it and get defensive because they literally aren't responsible yet they're being blamed, blacks hear it and think "You know what, fuck whites, they get all the benefits" when its the fucking people making the laws or shaking hands with them who are truly responsible and actually have the ability to change something.

We should be historically aware but using that as a reason for lower class whites and blacks to stay at odds with each other has a 0% chance of fixing anything or enlightening anyone, yet that's what its often boiled down to: Whites owe blacks. Not just the ancestors of the ultra rich slave owners, but the ancestors of the coal miners who lived on stale bread and shit. Makes sense. I mean I don't believe anyone should be held responsible for what someone did decades before they were born, I think its possible for people to work together and fix this rather than widening the divide with a bunch of rhetoric that's been taken out of context.

Edit: In regards to black people being shot by cops, this is why people want body cams to be mandatory. The police need to be held accountable for senseless murder, not rewarded with paid leave. Blaming white people won't help at all with anything since it's essentially off topic, the actions of a few trigger-happy cops who don't face any meaningful repercussions are not the responsibility of everyone of a certain pigmentation. We need more noise about how cops should be held responsible for their actions and less noise about how whites are "privileged". Calling basic human rights a "privilege" seems like the entrance to a very scary pipeline.

I have a hunch the police force and the racist lobbyists like the fact the the focus is being taken off of them, though

Bucket said:

You can't be racist against white people.

Interesting. So by your line of reasoning, since Kim Jong Un is power hungry and Korean, all Koreans are not only power hungry, but responsible for Kim's actions?

Seriously do you even logic

[Bucket]

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/racism?s=t

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Racism is a product of the complex interaction in a given society of a race-based worldview with prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination... The ideology underlying racist practices often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as inferior or superior.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/racism

Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior

https://www.britannica.com/topic/racism

The ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called "races," that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral features, and that some races are innately superior to others.

Oh look, all these academic sources linking racism directly to supremacy. I eagerly wait to be provided with the academic sources that Decay, insanoflex312, Saturn, Tarnsman, Fonze, Dynamo, and Doomkid use that unequivocally say otherwise.

Sorry, reactionary regressives. Racism is a bit more complicated than, "I don't like people of a certain color." Accept the facts or continue not to be taken seriously by any rational person.

[insanoflex312]

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others

Well, this is says that racism is a belief that one's race is superior. It doesn't say that racism comes from superiority. It also says usually.

Racism is a product of the complex interaction in a given society of a race-based worldview with prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination... The ideology underlying racist practices often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as inferior or superior.

This is the exact same thing. Racism is a belief that one's race is superior. It also doesn't say racism comes from superiority. Notice the pattern here? Your claim is racism is power + prejudice. These definitions DONT say that.

Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior

Need I reiterate a third time? No need. This one is clear cut. It does not say power + prejudice = racism.

The ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called "races," that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral features, and that some races are innately superior to others.

WOW!!! ZOMG!!! A fourth definition that doesn't say racism is power + prejudice! It says that racism its the belief that one's own race is superior or that other races are inferior. Is says nothing about the power of the person who holds such a belief.

Bucket said:

Oh look, all these academic sources linking racism directly to supremacy. I eagerly wait to be provided with the academic sources that Decay, insanoflex312, Saturn, Tarnsman, Fonze, Dynamo, and Doomkid use that unequivocally say otherwise.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Learn to read your own examples. Or did you forget what you were arguing for?

[Linguica]

Racism as generally used in an academic context specifically refers to the confluence of privilege and power where a predominant racial group (like, say, white people in America) enjoys entrenched institutional advantages, even if they are not aware of them, and people not in this group experience entrenched institutional disadvantages. In this sense when people talk about "racism" they are referring to a structural, widespread phenomenon, not about the feelings of distinct individuals. In this sense of the word, black people in America indeed cannot be racist.

Racism as generally used in a layperson context, however, just means to discriminate against someone based on their skin color. This is a much more (literally) surface-level analysis, where "racism" is basically synonymous with "personal prejudice on the basis of perceived race," and much less useful in an academic context, because you can't objectively study someone's subjective feelings. In this sense, then yes, obviously anyone can be racist.

The problem with arguing about "racism" on the internet is that people are always going to assume you mean the second definition.

[sudo459]

Linguica said:

Racism as generally used in an academic context specifically refers to the confluence of privilege and power where a predominant racial group (like, say, white people in America) enjoys entrenched institutional advantages, even if they are not aware of them, and people not in this group experience entrenched institutional disadvantages. In this sense when people talk about "racism" they are referring to a structural, widespread phenomenon, not about the feelings of distinct individuals. In this sense of the word, black people in America indeed cannot be racist.

As I've read. The word for what laymen generally refer to "racism", is now just considered prejudice. The problem with that, is there are real people who now think "being prejudiced against white people" is not a bad thing. Or that assuming a white person will treat you (if you are a minority) with prejudice as default, so you should feel threatened by them. Or even worse, that because whites seems to hold the majority of institutional advantages, that whites are inherently racist, while minorities are incapable (by definition).

For an example of all three:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/13/the-very-existence-of-white-people-is-a-microaggression/ said:

Black people can’t be racist against white people, because duh. White people are inherently racist against black people, for reasons that go without saying.

According to a new report released by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, just “walking into or sitting in” a classroom full of white people is a microaggression in itself.

This is definitely a problem. Unfortunately, it’s probably not practical to ban white people from college campuses. So what can be done?

Whenever a black person walks into a classroom, he and/or she receives a standing O. Any white student who refuses to thusly apologize is immediately expelled.

-EDIT: I would also use the term "generally". Generally white enjoy more institutional advantages. The difference is subtle but important. For example, obviously the president is an exception, and therefore can indeed be racist, by the definition of "racism = power (institutional advantages) + prejudice ("She [my grandmother] was a typical white person")".

[Tarnsman]

Bucket said:

Sorry, reactionary regressives. Racism is a bit more complicated than, "I don't like people of a certain color." Accept the facts or continue not to be taken seriously by any rational person.

Bro you ruined you own argument with the links you provided. Per the goddamn dictionary, "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior". You don't have to have power to believe your race is superior. You're thinking of structural/institutionalized racism. Hang up a try again.

Linguica said:

The problem with arguing about "racism" on the internet is that people are always going to assume you mean the second definition.

See the problem is first one of those which is not racism, it's institutionalized racism, is driven by the second one, the "surface level" version of racism. If you want to combat a system you have to get the people powering the system to change and you don't do that by telling mostly ignorant people that they're bad people and then proceeding to endlessly annoy them. It makes them want to do the exact opposite of what you want.

[PureSlime]

Institutionalized racism is what people usually talk about when they mean racism. And racial prejudice against white people is by far not nearly the same thing as the systemic oppression of non-white people.

Why are we getting hung up on semantics?

White people are not racially discriminated against in the western world. White people have significant racial privilege over those of other ethnicities.

This isn't a debate? This is a self-evident fact.