• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About insanoflex312

  • Rank
  1. Something cannot have innate meaning.
  2. OK, we're arguing semantics. Like we really need more of that. Not everyone(namely me) sees "If the person who got shot was being so threatening that deadly force was warranted, they're not really a victim" as being true because the technical term is still victim. Obviously I'm not talking about those people. It'd be really nice if, for once, someone would give the benefit of the doubt and ask me what I mean instead of assuming, geebus. True, and I agree. I only mean to point out when perceived police brutality is not necessarily real police brutality. I'd like to not exaggerate problems unjustly. We need to eliminate the potential for police brutal to the most reasonable degree without putting the police into too much danger, both their lives and careers. which is actually a great topic we could be discussing. What, in your mind is the limit of justifiable police homicide? What would justify the police using deadly force? What the hell is "white culture?" Could you elaborate on that? EDIT: double post :(
  3. How is asking that question dismissing anything or even a racist insinuation? I don't get how you came up with that. Victim blaming is not inherently bad.
  4. If you look at the polls about media coverage and the outrage caused by cases of minority police killings compared to white police killing, you'd be very surpised to see literally the exact opposite is true to a large extent. Wow, and the assumption that I've never faced racism or anything is pretty insulting given that, in sudo's story, the black sergeants have faced less racism than I have. I've been call honkey, white-trash, cracker, and I've been told I need to die because I'm white by black people. I'd say that's worse than being called a nigger by some anonymous asshole online because in my case it was a group of people in my face saying those things on every occasion. No one is saying this at all. Why are you so disingenuous? You can't possibly think this was anyone's position, what, with us saying the exact opposite multiple times and everything.
  5. This has gone on far enough. I'm getting really tired of being misconstrued. I'm genuinely confused as to why you said this. If you're seriously going to sit there and tell me that I think racism doesn't exist or that its only a few communities, then I can't have a conversation with you. I'm not going to be told again and again by so many SJW types what I believe and what I'm saying. I'm going to clarify because I'm not going to have words put in my mouth again: As I understand it, White Privilege is the concept that white people universally are treated better than non whites consciously and deliberately by society on the whole on the basis of race(as in, those who treat white people better are doing it consciously and purposely based on race, they know what they're doing) and non-whites universally in the west are consciously and deliberately treated poorly by whites universally in the west. Is this an accurate assessment? Is this what white privilege is? If its not conscious and deliberate, or its the mere circumstance that racism just happened to played a part in the past to put whites as the majority of those of privilege, then its not white privilege, its classism. Racism in the past =/= racism today. What part of this do you dispute? We need to agree on these concepts before we have a discussion on the matter.
  6. But whites were given opportunities that blacks weren't given in the past, but are given now. We have laws against discrimination etc. The civil rights movement made huge amounts of progress to give blacks equal rights, and in the law, it succeed completely. But you cannot say that because discrimination happened in the past, white people are afforded privileges right now because they are white. Its because of their grandparents. Again, they were born into it. Even granting that it wasn't coincidence doesn't prove white privilege today. If you want to point to the poor, under-funded areas that have a lot of black-on-black crime, even if I grant you that its because of racism today in those areas(and not historical racism), it still doesn't demonstrate universal institutionalized black-oppression because they are isolated communities and we should focus on making those communities better rather than generalizing all whites as "structurally privileged". Because its not universal. Black oppression is isolated to those communities, at least in general. If you want to say that those communities exist in the state they exist today because of something inherent to the whole, then what is it?
  7. I'm one of those people because I've yet to see a good argument that demonstrates the majority of privileged white people are privileged because they're white or have had been given privileges for being white, and not being born in the class they're in. I don't see it as systemic or inherent in the west, and I'm waiting for an argument other than "look at all the privileged white people" or some argument about oppression in the past. I agree that non-whites face issues that whites generally don't face, but it needs to be demonstrated that these cases are not isolated to certain locations that have a lot of racist a-holes there. What I'm asking is, if white privilege exists, then demonstrate it's universality to the west.
  8. I certainly would respond better to that, given the alternative sweeps non-whites calling for white genocide(it happens sometimes) or something just a horrible under the rug or at worst, says that its OK to say things like that. Before you ask, yes I have encountered this. Yes, those people have cited "you can't be racist against whites" as a justification for saying it. No, I don't think its a common sentiment for those who use the power+prejudice definition. The problem is, people who would never stoop to such a low level sometimes defend the words of the people calling for genocide because they believe in the "you can't be racist against whites" mentality.
  9. I literally have no idea what you're rambling about. This inane jibbering is not even close to what we were talking about, and so far, you have, maybe? conceded that racism does not depend on the power of the person, since none of your examples mention that, or take that into consideration and you've mentioned that it comes from superiority(the belief of superiority is all that your examples mention). You've either forgotten what you were arguing for, or you've changed your tone because you know you're wrong. Oooops, actually you continue ;( Whats stopping a black person from thinking the black race is superior? No physical law stops that person, so, what are you getting at? Your very own definitions say that anyone who believes their race is superior is a racist. If an Asian person hates the "white devil", then that person is racist according to your own definitions. Maybe stop equivocating racism with "Institutionalized racism"? None of the definitions you gave me supported your use of the term. Oh, and you can explain "Institutionalized racism" to me. So, historically, the "white race" has dominated the world and set itself as superior to all other races, therefore, whites cant experience racism? How does that follow at all? Besides, I think you should research history if you think the "white race" conquered the world as a group.
  10. Which was what I was arguing for, really.
  11. Another big thing that needs to change is the attitude that your beliefs are self-evidence, super obvious and that people who disagree with your beliefs are willfully ignorant, racist, or equivalent to creationists. That is far from beneficial.
  12. 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. 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. Need I reiterate a third time? No need. This one is clear cut. It does not say power + prejudice = racism. 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. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Learn to read your own examples. Or did you forget what you were arguing for?
  13. 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.
  14. 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. 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.
  15. Rational people tend to hate being called racist or sexist because they disagree with people. I actually wanted to open up a discussion on the matter to actually debate. But I'm the one that polarizes the discussion? Projection. Also, the only thing thats close to creationism is the blindness to how actually racist and sexist some of the SJW philosophies are. Example: Equality of outcome rather than opportunity, white-privilege, male-privilege, patriarchy theory. 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. Patriarchy theory demonized everything that men do and blames them for everything. It even hides problems men can face, but if it doesn't, it, again, blames men. Equality of outcome is discrimination. Nuff said. I'm racist and sexist, right? I'm the regressive? I want people to be treated equal, and that's bad? I don't group people based on skin color, then judge them and treat them differently, so I'm the racist? Are you still in denial about these terms being used improperly, or are we ready for an actual discussion?