Support NeoGAF

[JordanN]

You don't have to invent a bad thing to do be doing the bad thing.

And that bad thing was never practiced exclusively by white people. Lets talk about all the Asian, African, Native priviliges for having owned slaves at one point.

As I said, there is literally no data or studies available for Asian racial dynamics or discrimination, so it's all conjecture.

I'm going to save this quote for later.
Being honest, I'm 99% sure that white people are not the ones wielding the most privilege in Asia.

For example, it was the Indians who literally invented the Caste System.

Your statement has no value as it doesn't tell you how many families owned slaves and were a part of their lives.

Slaves were expensive. I believe the actual price of a slave back then was equivalent to owning a car. It actually makes complete sense that only a small group of elites could afford them since they required upkeep (i.e slaves had to be fed,given housing and kept healthy) and importing slaves from Africa was later banned.
I could probably find some hard numbers that goes into detail, but we know at the height of slavery, there was only 3.5 million Africans. Most, if not all, were concentrated in the South.

There's an argument that some states had no slaves at all or banned slavery from being allowed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_black_exclusion_laws

Counting children as a potential slave holder, or counting the Northern population when slavery was illegal in the North, is intentionally misleading when trying to understand how widespread the institution of slavery was in America

Wait, what? How could it be widespread? You even said it was illegal in the North. Most of slavery was only practiced in the South, and in the link I posted above, some states actively prevented slavery from being allowed into new territories.

Or, to put it another way, "I hate that the conservative party fought so hard to keep another group in chains and dehumanized liberals for freeing them."

Republicans freed the slaves. Liberals were the ones who rejected Lincoln's presidency and went to war.

Hey, doesn't that sound familiar? A recent 2016 election comes to mind where one political party refuses to see the President as legitimate.

 

[Papa]

Wait....did you mistakenly link a post from me? There were people on that thread calling refugees garbage.

There was one person. Please spare us the disingenuous trick of taking one undesirable comment that most users objected to and using it to paint a picture of the entire forum.

 

[Marshmallow]

I agree with JordanN it's obvious racism doesn't exist.

 

[JimmyRustler]

Also to me this whole privilege claim is just another cheap excuse people use to stand for their life's failings - and white people have that too (like when you don't originate from the country you live in).

Give me 100 cases where people failed in life, let me examine their life choices and I GUARANTEE you I will find reasons for their failings in all cases that had nothing to do with race or origin.

Reminds me of people who are trying to lose weight and tell me they have done everything and just can't do it (I'm quit knowledgeable in sports and nutrition). There was not a single time where I wasn't able to easily find the problem after asking about their daily routine. Always made me chuckle.

Grow the up and stand up for your mistakes.

 

[Papa]

- Far beyond skin color and gender, there are tons of attributes that a person may or may not have that will contribute to their overall success in life, so why are we focused on just some of them?

- People who support the idea of white privilege don't understand that the logical conclusion of intersectionality is individuality. If you take that all the way to the end, the individual is the ultimate minority.

- No methodology was used in verifying the concept of white privilege.

- White privilege could also be thought of as majority privilege, and would work the same way in any area of the world, regardless of skin color.

- Racism is attributing to the individual the characteristics of the group, as if the group was homogeneous. White privilege is attributing to the individual the characteristics of the group, as if the group was homogeneous.

The points of his argument seemed pretty clear to me. Perhaps you could have discussed them, instead of dismissing everything without making an argument, and just saying he rambled too much. I mean, he certainly does ramble, but I'm pretty sure that's true of everyone in academia. Ever watch Austin Walker give a presentation? I have. He's talented writer (even if I do frequently disagree with him) but wow can he go off on a tangent.

This is the best explanation of racism and why it is bad but you will undoubtedly get some idiots yelling something at you about privilege and power.

 

[Boss Mog]

That's only part of it.

The oil, jewels, ivory, pelts, slaves. So many European and Asian countries made so much out of Africa for basically free, then had the nerve to leave the natives in poverty.

And this has been like the 1500s until yesterday.

It's crazy to me that people can think what you do. Phoenix Rising made similar claims to yours a couple of months back and I'll tell you what I told him back then with some tweaks obviously:

You don't seem to have a good understand of historical facts sadly; you seem to just be regurgitating a narrative you been indoctrinated with. I bet you believe that whites invented slavery, that only they have had slaves and that they went to Africa and threw nets on some black people and brought them back. Here's the actual facts: white people didn't invent slavery, they enslaved much less than other races which still have slaves to this day, and almost all the slaves the whites took were either traded for or bought from black warlords or arab slave traders:

The increase of demand for slaves due to the expansion of European colonial powers to the New World made the slave trade much more lucrative to the West African powers, leading to the establishment of a number of actual West African empires thriving on slave trade. These included the Oyo empire (Yoruba), Kong Empire, Imamate of Futa Jallon, Imamate of Futa Toro, Kingdom of Koya, Kingdom of Khasso, Kingdom of Kaabu, Fante Confederacy, Ashanti Confederacy, and the kingdom of Dahomey. These kingdoms relied on a militaristic culture of constant warfare to generate the great numbers of human captives required for trade with the Europeans.

While it's true that Europe eventually colonized Africa and initially unjustly exploited the population and resources, as time went on, the European nations developed their colonies with modern (for the time) infrastructure, including but not limited to buildings, roads, railways, power grids, running water and sewer systems. They opened schools to educate the local population and filled hospitals with much needed medicine and vaccines. These African colonies then decided that they wanted their independence and it was given to them. Sadly when colonization ended the nations failed to build upon what the Europeans had left them and failed even to maintain it. Don't take my word for it listen to this Togolese politician talk about how elders in the villages he visited told him "life was better when the whites were around". If you don't speak French he basically says that that Togo didn't do anything with its 50 years of independence and instead let everything go to shit and that when whites were around there were roads that were maintained, hospitals that had supplies, kids went to school and now all of that is gone. Also in a documentary taking place in the Congo, which was a Belgian colony, you can see a Chinese man who is in total shock and disbelief at how the Congolese people didn't learn anything from the Belgians and didn't even maintain what the Belgians had built there.

So while colonization was a shitty premise, it also took place like 400 years ago, during much more difficult times and when most people had shitty attitudes and values because that's what was necessary to survive so it's somewhat unfair to judge it using today's Western values and comfortable lifestyles. And time went on and mindsets and values evolved, things changed for the better in the colonies all the way up to their independence in the 1950s. If they had stayed maybe things would be a lot better for them, at least that seems to be the logical conclusion, especially when you look at colonies outside of Africa that stayed like France's Martinique and Guadeloupe which became full-fledged parts of France and citizens there given every right and benefit that French mainland citizens have.

 

[Gander]

I know history very well Muslims started the the slave trade in Africa but that is another conversation.

 

[LegendOfKage]

This is the best explanation of racism and why it is bad but you will undoubtedly get some idiots yelling something at you about privilege and power.

I think it's a good explanation, but it's not really my argument. Of course, I was mostly just restating Peterson's argument. Personally, I don't want to "debunk" the concept of white privilege as much as I want to discourage it and question the results of its use. This is what I've said on the topic:

Basically, I would ask why you feel that your ideological perspective on race (the concept of white privilege) is so objectively true that it should be taught in schools? This when many parents would prefer less divisive and more uniting values such as do unto others as you'd have them do unto you, do not treat people differently because of their skin color, we all have more in common than we do differences, etc.

I feel like before Brown vs. The Board of Education, America separated the population by "white people" and "colored people." Obviously, it was horrific and racist to separate people like that.

Now there are some who think mentally (and sometimes physically) separating the population by "white privileged" and "people of color" is a good idea. Why I disagree with that can probably be best explained by another post I made recently, but my overall concern is that identity politics breeds racism.

I would argue that "white privilege" has a distinct disadvantage that "treat everyone equally" does not. Everyone exposed to the concept of white privilege will fall into varying degrees of four groups:

1) Embrace it, in a negative sense, leading to people who "reject whiteness, blame the problems of the world on whiteness, pre-judge white people, hate their own whiteness, generalize white people, and claim that it's impossible to even be racist to a white person."

2) Understand it, leading to only positive, good-faith outcomes. Recognize that white people in many ways do have less of a hard time than minorities, because racism is absolutely still a thing. At the same time, and for the sake of argument, "understand it" manages to avoid all of the negative possible outcomes listed in the "embrace it" section.

3) Reject it, leading to people of all races who understand while people can be advantaged or disadvantaged by their skin color in various scenarios, there are many other gifts, talents, and natural attributes that make up each person, and those are far more important in any measure of success or happiness than skin color. The feeling here is also that unity is better than division.

4) Use it. Use it to fuel their hate, as they point at the hatred and generalizations of group 1, fuel the "us vs them" mindset, and paint themselves as the real victims. Look at how much they hate us for just being white? Why can't white people say that word? Why can't white people have pride? Why does she think her children can't have white friends? Why is being white a bad thing? Look at the crime statistics! Look at how dangerous these people are!" Etc.

Groups 1 and 4 are empowered by the concept of "white privilege" in a way that "treat everyone equally" empowers neither. More than that, groups 1 and 4 are not only empowered by the concept of white privilege, but they're empowered by each other. The more either generalize and despise one another based on skin color, the easier it is to grow their own numbers while simultaneously (and inadvertently) growing the base of the opposing group. This should be a concern to anyone in group 2 or 3.

I am suggesting that you consider the fact that your approach to racism may actually be adding to the racism in the world more than removing it. That's a heck of a thing to ask someone to consider, so it's only fair that I open myself up to any criticism or questions that you might have.

You've heard my feelings on the subject, but if you feel that there is an advantage to "white privilege" that "treat everyone equally" doesn't cover in a more unifying and mutually respectful manner, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.

 

[Papa]

I agree with JordanN it's obvious racism doesn't exist.

That wasn't his argument, but ok.

 

[Papa]

I know history very well Muslims started the the slave trade in Africa but that is another conversation.

You always claim you know history so well but you never back it up. I don't believe you.

 

[Ragnaroz]

Indeed. I was literally dodging rocket artillery during my wonderful white priviliged upbringing.

Same here, actually.

 

[idontlikeusernames]

White privilege = white people putting themselves first, just like everyone else.

 

[Gander]

You always claim you know history so well but you never back it up. I don't believe you.

Don't believe me, I encourage everyone to learn true history. Google is at your finger tips look it up.

 

[Red Crayon Aristocrat]

No wonder everyone's so fucking miserable all the time.

This is the sad irony of all this crap is how miserable it's making everyone, it's not making America a better place, it's not making anyone's lives happier in a meaningful way.

In what way is America a meaningfully better place now than it was a decade ago? What was so bloody bad about the way race relations, gender relations etc worked in the prior decade?

No, it wasn't perfect, but the left wing is only shooting themselves in the foot with all this extreme rhetoric that's only making things worse, the harder you push, the harder the other side is going to push back and it's not a road that will lead to anything good.

 

[Papa]

Don't believe me, I encourage everyone to learn true history. Google is at your finger tips look it up.

That's not how burden of proof works. You can google history ad infinitum and never reach the end. You're constantly claiming to be highly "educated" in history, so you need to tell us what your primary sources are.

 

[Airola]

The argument for white privilege/black disadvantage is applicable primarily to America, South Africa, and Australia.

A big problem with this white privilege thing is that even though you and some other people seem to argue that they are mostly just talking about Americans and how the US has this problem, no-one in internet discussions really wants to look at where do you come from. If people know I'm white, they'll treat me as white privileged person and often make the claim that I have no say to something because I'm white and privileged. If I don't tell I'm Finnish, they'll use my whiteness against me in discussions. If I tell I'm Finnish, they don't care, they still use my whiteness against me in discussions. The whole idea spreads like wildfire to everywhere and we now see Finnish people making the claims about other Finnish people that we have white privilege and they use it to move the direction of a conversation to wherever they want. They use this type of guilt to pressure people and to direct the conversations to directions that help their political agenda.

Besides, it seems that if you are white you are way more likely to be called a Nazi than if you are any other color. Imagine being a German white boy growing up the decades after Hitler was beaten. Without having any personal connection to nazism and even when you hate nazis the world would associate you with them just because of your skin color and the country you happened to be born in. Being associated with one of the most evil (if not even the most evil of them all) groups in the history of mankind because of skin color and the country you were born in is one hell of a privilege.

Finland had to choose between Hitler and Stalin. Talk about being in between a rock and a hard place. My grandfather fought in a war against Soviet Union when he was 17. Lost his fingers there. He never wanted to talk about the war. I found only later that he had been taking anti-depressants because of it. And when my aunt once asked if he ever sees nightmares about it, he said "every night" and went silent. Imagine him being told he's white privileged person because of whatever happened in the United States or in Africa.

 

[Papa]

I think it's a good explanation, but it's not really my argument. Of course, I was mostly just restating Peterson's argument. Personally, I don't want to "debunk" the concept of white privilege as much as I want to discourage it and question the results of its use. This is what I've said on the topic:

Basically, I would ask why you feel that your ideological perspective on race (the concept of white privilege) is so objectively true that it should be taught in schools? This when many parents would prefer less divisive and more uniting values such as do unto others as you'd have them do unto you, do not treat people differently because of their skin color, we all have more in common than we do differences, etc.

I feel like before Brown vs. The Board of Education, America separated the population by "white people" and "colored people." Obviously, it was horrific and racist to separate people like that.

Now there are some who think mentally (and sometimes physically) separating the population by "white privileged" and "people of color" is a good idea. Why I disagree with that can probably be best explained by another post I made recently, but my overall concern is that identity politics breeds racism.

I would argue that "white privilege" has a distinct disadvantage that "treat everyone equally" does not. Everyone exposed to the concept of white privilege will fall into varying degrees of four groups:

1) Embrace it, in a negative sense, leading to people who "reject whiteness, blame the problems of the world on whiteness, pre-judge white people, hate their own whiteness, generalize white people, and claim that it's impossible to even be racist to a white person."

2) Understand it, leading to only positive, good-faith outcomes. Recognize that white people in many ways do have less of a hard time than minorities, because racism is absolutely still a thing. At the same time, and for the sake of argument, "understand it" manages to avoid all of the negative possible outcomes listed in the "embrace it" section.

3) Reject it, leading to people of all races who understand while people can be advantaged or disadvantaged by their skin color in various scenarios, there are many other gifts, talents, and natural attributes that make up each person, and those are far more important in any measure of success or happiness than skin color. The feeling here is also that unity is better than division.

4) Use it. Use it to fuel their hate, as they point at the hatred and generalizations of group 1, fuel the "us vs them" mindset, and paint themselves as the real victims. Look at how much they hate us for just being white? Why can't white people say that word? Why can't white people have pride? Why does she think her children can't have white friends? Why is being white a bad thing? Look at the crime statistics! Look at how dangerous these people are!" Etc.

Groups 1 and 4 are empowered by the concept of "white privilege" in a way that "treat everyone equally" empowers neither. More than that, groups 1 and 4 are not only empowered by the concept of white privilege, but they're empowered by each other. The more either generalize and despise one another based on skin color, the easier it is to grow their own numbers while simultaneously (and inadvertently) growing the base of the opposing group. This should be a concern to anyone in group 2 or 3.

I am suggesting that you consider the fact that your approach to racism may actually be adding to the racism in the world more than removing it. That's a heck of a thing to ask someone to consider, so it's only fair that I open myself up to any criticism or questions that you might have.

You've heard my feelings on the subject, but if you feel that there is an advantage to "white privilege" that "treat everyone equally" doesn't cover in a more unifying and mutually respectful manner, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.

I think you've had a fairly good stab at summarizing it objectively. We can agree that neither 1 nor 4 are desirable as they both exist at the extreme ends of the spectrum and are simply mirror images of each other.

I do think you pulled up short in the assessment without an adequate conclusion though because I came away with the impression that you view 2 and 3 as equally valid. I disagree and reject 2 because it is still inherently a group-level assumption based on an immutable characteristic. Moreover, it is an immutable characteristic that does not apply globally. The only option that respects the sovereignty of the individual and applies irrespective of geographical location is 3.

 

[BANGS]

White privilege has already been debunked in every direction. It doesn't exist in most modern western cultures at all and there has never been any evidence to prove that it does exist. Just because more people who look more like me have statistics in their favor has nothing to do with me as an individual...

 

[nemiroff]

Sieg Heil

I'd get myself a headache responding to this, so I'll just leave it at, wow.


Anyway, joking aside, we know the definite answer to all of these problems; Stop playing the damn identity politics game. Let's be individuals and keep talking to each other.

 

[Super Mario]

It's amazing how someone with such extensive credentials can go into great detail to explain his position through what he has learned. Yet, we shrug it off.

But Liberal news can post some garbage, fake news, story, and that is how we get our source.

Which party is the party of science again?

 

[Shiki_]

In what way is America a meaningfully better place now than it was a decade ago? What was so bloody bad about the way race relations, gender relations etc worked in the prior decade?

 

[Papa]

TIL Rosa Parks and Emmett Till events occurred in 2008.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Don't believe me, I encourage everyone to learn true history. Google is at your finger tips look it up.

If you make a claim, you are the one that needs to back it up with evidence and sources. Not the other way around.

TIL Rosa Parks and Emmett Till events occurred in 2008.

Wow, I got my history completely wrong. Here I thought that Rosa had sadly passed away in 2005 and Emmett Till murdered in 1955. They look amazing for being damn near 96 and 67 respectively.

 

[Shiki_]

If you make a claim, you are the one that needs to back it up with evidence and sources. Not the other way around.



Wow, I got my history completely wrong. Here I thought that Rosa had sadly passed away in 2005 and Emmett Till murdered in 1955. They look amazing for being damn near 96 and 67 respectively.

The user was saying was bad. What happened before the 60s was fucking bad.

 

[Dr. Claus]

The user was saying was bad. What happened before the 60s was fucking bad.

They asked about the past *decade*, as in 2008-2018. Not what happened in the 60s. Stop with the disingenuous troll posting.

 

[Papa]

The user was saying was bad. What happened before the 60s was fucking bad.

It seems to be a translation issue because I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

 

[Papa]

It's crazy to me that people can think what you do. Phoenix Rising made similar claims to yours a couple of months back and I'll tell you what I told him back then with some tweaks obviously:

You don't seem to have a good understand of historical facts sadly; you seem to just be regurgitating a narrative you been indoctrinated with. I bet you believe that whites invented slavery, that only they have had slaves and that they went to Africa and threw nets on some black people and brought them back. Here's the actual facts: white people didn't invent slavery, they enslaved much less than other races which still have slaves to this day, and almost all the slaves the whites took were either traded for or bought from black warlords or arab slave traders:



While it's true that Europe eventually colonized Africa and initially unjustly exploited the population and resources, as time went on, the European nations developed their colonies with modern (for the time) infrastructure, including but not limited to buildings, roads, railways, power grids, running water and sewer systems. They opened schools to educate the local population and filled hospitals with much needed medicine and vaccines. These African colonies then decided that they wanted their independence and it was given to them. Sadly when colonization ended the nations failed to build upon what the Europeans had left them and failed even to maintain it. Don't take my word for it listen to this Togolese politician talk about how elders in the villages he visited told him "life was better when the whites were around". If you don't speak French he basically says that that Togo didn't do anything with its 50 years of independence and instead let everything go to shit and that when whites were around there were roads that were maintained, hospitals that had supplies, kids went to school and now all of that is gone. Also in a documentary taking place in the Congo, which was a Belgian colony, you can see a Chinese man who is in total shock and disbelief at how the Congolese people didn't learn anything from the Belgians and didn't even maintain what the Belgians had built there.

So while colonization was a shitty premise, it also took place like 400 years ago, during much more difficult times and when most people had shitty attitudes and values because that's what was necessary to survive so it's somewhat unfair to judge it using today's Western values and comfortable lifestyles. And time went on and mindsets and values evolved, things changed for the better in the colonies all the way up to their independence in the 1950s. If they had stayed maybe things would be a lot better for them, at least that seems to be the logical conclusion, especially when you look at colonies outside of Africa that stayed like France's Martinique and Guadeloupe which became full-fledged parts of France and citizens there given every right and benefit that French mainland citizens have.

Another point to consider is that the European colonizers didn't understand the finiteness of the resources they were exploiting. Moreover, the locals didn't even know the resources existed, let alone how to extract or utilize them.

 

[Shiki_]

They asked about the past *decade*, as in 2008-2018. Not what happened in the 60s. Stop with the disingenuous troll posting.

I read decades. My bad.

At least it could counts as an example that American society was really wrong not less fifty years ago.

 

[Marshmallow]

This is the sad irony of all this crap is how miserable it's making everyone, it's not making America a better place, it's not making anyone's lives happier in a meaningful way.

In what way is America a meaningfully better place now than it was a decade ago? What was so bloody bad about the way race relations, gender relations etc worked in the prior decade?

No, it wasn't perfect, but the left wing is only shooting themselves in the foot with all this extreme rhetoric that's only making things worse, the harder you push, the harder the other side is going to push back and it's not a road that will lead to anything good.

If you have to ask then you probably have no idea what you are talking about. For LGBT in particular only the recent years actually started to get really better. It's not like religious nuts, people who oppose gay marriage and conservatives that want LGBT hidden and unheard all went way or stopped trying to make their life hard. Just look at places like The Donald or /pol/ or how any same-sex intimacy in media is meet with groans and complain of "muh gay agenda" (And before you say media don't matter, media and art largely reflect society).


I have to ask, how is the life worse for a non-minority in 2018 than it was years ago?

 

[danielberg]

I wonder if people also call it "japanese or yellow privilege" when in japan more Japanese people are represented everywhere just as matter of fact because of the population size vs non Japanese
Basically there is no such thing as "white privilege" especially not in the times right now in which any public whity is expected to self flagilate, in fact if anything you get as a matter of fact disadvantage in multiple especially state run scenarios in which its now expected for every single race to be more represented than their actual population percentage with the explicit exception of whity in which this is applied in reverse. School, uni, jobs, applying for handouts etc.
This is kinda undeniable since those policies as a matter of proven fact exist.

 

[JordanN]

The user was saying was bad. What happened before the 60s was fucking bad.

I wish the topic of the 1960s didn't always preclude Jim Crow/Lynchings but other issues that were concurrent at the time.

For example, would you say the black family unit was as bad, even though it was actually only a bit higher than whites who were born out of wedlock?

We're always presented images of "lynchings" and "bus separation" but not other aspects of society that today, does in fact hurt the black community far more than a select extrajudicial killings.

 

[gohepcat]

Because group-level historical injustices against blacks are being used to justify group-level discrimination against whites in the present, thereby marginalising individual-level injustices against whites such as what happened to @MrTickles.

I'm not reading this ridiculous thread and haven't posted ANYTHING in here. I'm responding to posts directed at me.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

You're the one who said only Europeans enslaved Africans. I'm clearly saying that's false.

Nah, you made that one up.

Oh good. You understand at least the fundamental reason white privilege is fake. I removed the rest of your sentence because it's just blaming white people IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY. Think about this for a second.

White privilege is fake because it applies less in non-white majority societies? What are you talking about? You're completely contradicting your global stance by calling Japan a foreign a country, by the way.

If white names get jobs in America, why doesn't it get jobs in Africa or Asia? Why is African or Asian privilege not being more open minded to white names in the hiring process?

Oh, I see what you're doing. You're trying to say that America is and should be a country for whites first and foremost and everyone else should fall in line.

Republicans freed the slaves. Liberals were the ones who rejected Lincoln's presidency and went to war.

Hey, doesn't that sound familiar? A recent 2016 election comes to mind where one political party refuses to see the President as legitimate.

This is so goddamn stupid. No, they were not liberal. You are not liberal if you support slavery. You don't apply the current political ideologies of the respective parties to the mid-1800s.

 

[JordanN]

Nah, you made that one up.

You have short term memory.

White privilege is fake because it applies less in non-white majority societies?

No, it doesn't apply at all.
White people are not Japanese and never will be. Notice how the country is 99% homogeneous? Where do white people fit in that they are given more privileges than the majority?
Your anecdote about comparing black treatment to white treatment in Japan is blaming whites. When you should be talking to the Japanese about that.
They're the majority and control all its institutions.

Oh, I see what you're doing. You're trying to say that America is and should be a country for whites first and foremost and everyone else should fall in line.

Woah there. You're going too fast. I just wanted to know why aren't white people being hired en masse in Africa or Asia and that maybe it's time we tell those countries to check their priviliges.
But you already went to the conclusion that those countries have a right to discriminate. You don't even question it, you believe Africa should be for Africans or Asia for Asians.

This is so goddamn stupid. No, they were not liberal. You are not liberal if you support slavery. You don't apply the current political ideologies of the respective parties to the mid-1800s.

The Democratic party was founded in 1828. They were the party of slavery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)#1828–1860

 

[BANGS]

This is the sad irony of all this crap is how miserable it's making everyone, it's not making America a better place, it's not making anyone's lives happier in a meaningful way.

In what way is America a meaningfully better place now than it was a decade ago? What was so bloody bad about the way race relations, gender relations etc worked in the prior decade?

No, it wasn't perfect, but the left wing is only shooting themselves in the foot with all this extreme rhetoric that's only making things worse, the harder you push, the harder the other side is going to push back and it's not a road that will lead to anything good.

I gotta agree 100% here. I feel like the 90s and early 2000s were like, completely racist free. I mean obviously there was fringe groups like neo nazis, some crazy cooky southerners, and maybe some really old people with racist views, but they were properly labeled as such and were the outcasts of society. There was zero disconnect between who was a racist asshole, and who was just a normal person. White kids had black heroes to look up to like Will Smith and Micheal Jordan, and we didn't look at them as black heroes but just plain heroes. We had a black man yelling at us to buy a Sega CD and we respected his voice despite hating the product. Maybe it was our innocence as being so much younger back then, but I just never heard someone utter a racist word without some other adult around me telling me not to be like them...

I dunno man, I just feel like the country was far less racist pre-Obama. And I'm not pinning all this on him by any means, I'm just saying I feel like that's when the line between "racist" and "normal" became fuzzy. Now people get accused of racist for daring to treat minorities the same way they treat other white people, the fringe groups are in the forefront of the media, the president is blamed for their very existance because he doesn't like terrorism... the whole country is in some weird shit right now...

 

[Deleted member 17706]

JordanN, I can't do this with you. Your ability to comprehend what people are saying is either too low, or you are just going out of your way to be disingenuous, but it's tiring and hopeless either way.

 

[KOMANI]

I gotta agree 100% here. I feel like the 90s and early 2000s were like, completely racist free. I mean obviously there was fringe groups like neo nazis, some crazy cooky southerners, and maybe some really old people with racist views, but they were properly labeled as such and were the outcasts of society. There was zero disconnect between who was a racist asshole, and who was just a normal person. White kids had black heroes to look up to like Will Smith and Micheal Jordan, and we didn't look at them as black heroes but just plain heroes. We had a black man yelling at us to buy a Sega CD and we respected his voice despite hating the product. Maybe it was our innocence as being so much younger back then, but I just never heard someone utter a racist word without some other adult around me telling me not to be like them...

I dunno man, I just feel like the country was far less racist pre-Obama. And I'm not pinning all this on him by any means, I'm just saying I feel like that's when the line between "racist" and "normal" became fuzzy. Now people get accused of racist for daring to treat minorities the same way they treat other white people, the fringe groups are in the forefront of the media, the president is blamed for their very existance because he doesn't like terrorism... the whole country is in some weird shit right now...

Ben Shapiro has said the same thing about race relations getting worse during Obama's presidency.

But more important, what's wrong with the Sega CD?!? Huh? Hmmm.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I gotta agree 100% here. I feel like the 90s and early 2000s were like, completely racist free. I mean obviously there was fringe groups like neo nazis, some crazy cooky southerners, and maybe some really old people with racist views, but they were properly labeled as such and were the outcasts of society. There was zero disconnect between who was a racist asshole, and who was just a normal person. White kids had black heroes to look up to like Will Smith and Micheal Jordan, and we didn't look at them as black heroes but just plain heroes. We had a black man yelling at us to buy a Sega CD and we respected his voice despite hating the product. Maybe it was our innocence as being so much younger back then, but I just never heard someone utter a racist word without some other adult around me telling me not to be like them...

I dunno man, I just feel like the country was far less racist pre-Obama. And I'm not pinning all this on him by any means, I'm just saying I feel like that's when the line between "racist" and "normal" became fuzzy. Now people get accused of racist for daring to treat minorities the same way they treat other white people, the fringe groups are in the forefront of the media, the president is blamed for their very existance because he doesn't like terrorism... the whole country is in some weird shit right now...

It was just your innocence, because institutional racism was just as strong if not stronger back then. It's just that not everyone had a smartphone and a social media account to shed light on every single thing that was going on in our society, so only stuff like the Rodney King riots really exploded and got attention.

White kids have black heroes to look up to today just the same.

Everything that's wrong in society is just signal-boosted to an extreme these days, so it looks like things are worse.

 

[JordanN]

JordanN, I can't do this with you. Your ability to comprehend what people are saying is either too low, or you are just going out of your way to be disingenuous, but it's tiring and hopeless either way.

It's ok. If you don't want to see anymore facts or blame all white people for having privilege (while being ok with priviliges held around the world by non-whites), you're free to make that choice. I wont stop you. You keep doing what you do.
If that makes you feel much more better.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

But more important, what's wrong with the Sega CD?!? Huh? Hmmm.

SEGA Saturn should've been backwards compatible with it, for starters. It's really the only thing holding me back from getting into the platform (since I already have a lot of Saturn stuff).

 

[JordanN]

I dunno man, I just feel like the country was far less racist pre-Obama. And I'm not pinning all this on him by any means, I'm just saying I feel like that's when the line between "racist" and "normal" became fuzzy. Now people get accused of racist for daring to treat minorities the same way they treat other white people, the fringe groups are in the forefront of the media, the president is blamed for their very existance because he doesn't like terrorism... the whole country is in some weird shit right now...

Identity Politics + Social Media = Toxic poison.

Remember when stuff like Dragon's Crown went down? Nobody would have cared if a niche game like that had been released last gen, but thanks to Social Media, far leftist and extremist feminist voices have weaponized it to bring down what was usually considered innocent stuff.

By being able to call everyone they don't like as "racist" or "sexist", and having platforms like Twitter and Youtube to amplify it, it gives people power and thus, control over other people's lives.
Identity Politics doesn't exist to bring justice. It only exists to drive a wedge between races and genders.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Identity Politics + Social Media = Toxic poison.

Remember when stuff like Dragon's Crown went down? Nobody would have cared if a niche game like that had been released last gen, but thanks to Social Media, far leftist and extremist feminist voices have weaponized it to bring down what was usually considered innocent stuff.

By being able to call everyone they don't like as "racist" or "sexist", and having platforms like Twitter and Youtube to amplify it, it gives people power and thus, control over other people's lives.
Identity Politics doesn't exist to bring justice. It only exists to drive a wedge between races and genders.

I almost feel bad for all the youth growing up that never knew any other way to constructively communicate before now.

 

[Marshmallow]

Identity Politics + Social Media = Toxic poison.

"Identity politics" have always been a thing.

Remember when stuff like Dragon's Crown went down? Nobody would have cared if a niche game like that had been released last gen, but thanks to Social Media, far leftist and extremist feminist voices have weaponized it to bring down what was usually considered innocent stuff.

Remember GTA Hot Coffee? Rule of Rose? Every game with religious themes? No, of course you don't. You clearly speak as someone very young who has no idea of what they are talking about.

I gotta agree 100% here. I feel like the 90s and early 2000s were like, completely racist free.

*Flashback to GTA San Andreas release and people complaining that they had to play with a black character*

You can't be serious. And it was far harder for people to be racist when black people were less likely to get a spot or a voice. It's similar to how homophobes don't have a problem with gay people... as long they don't have to see them.. mention them... hear them... but apart of that, no problem!

 

[JordanN]

"Identity politics" have always been a thing.

I'm going to go with BANGS and that nobody saw race when Michael Jordan or Will Smith showed up on screen in the 90s.
It's only a recent phenomenon where every movie or game that comes out now must have a diversity quota or "IT'S RACIST. REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!".

Remember GTA Hot Coffee? Rule of Rose? Every game with religious themes? No, of course you don't. You clearly speak as someone very young who has no idea of what they are talking about.


*Flashback to GTA San Andreas release and people complaining that they had to play with a black character*

And look how well GTA San Andreas sold? If anything, that proves that whites will play any video game as long as it's good.
We don't need identity politics to tell us how many blacks, whites, asians, women, men need to be in a title before it's racist/sexist. Just make a good product and people will buy it.

 

[Ke0]

I'm going to go with BANGS and that nobody saw race when Michael Jordan or Will Smith showed up on screen in the 90s.
It's only a recent phenomenon where every movie or game that comes out now must have a diversity quota or "IT'S RACIST. REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!".

One could EASILY argue black-Americans inherently saw "race" when Will Smith showed up on TV. The entire premise of his show was rooted in being black. A better statement would be white-Americans were able to overlook that because the show was so good.

And identity politics have always been a thing in your country. One can argue that identity politics not focused on white Americans is a recent phenomenon though, because yes, "other'ing" non white-Americans as is the trademark of your Conservatives is still a form of identity politics.

 

[JordanN]

And identity politics have always been a thing in your country. One can argue that identity politics not focused on white Americans is a recent phenomenon though, because yes, "other'ing" non white-Americans as is the trademark of your Conservatives is still a form of identity politics.

So I take it every other country on earth is a racial paradise?
That a white person in Africa or China wouldn't be seen or as treated as the other? How many movies are coming out of Asia or Africa that mandate they have whites in them, and are not depicted in a stereotypical role (i.e any movie that takes place after colonialism or not a war movie).

 

[llien]

Oh, I see what you're doing. You're trying to say that America is and should be a country for whites first and foremost and everyone else should fall in line.

I think you are missing the point here.
In many places around the world, for instance, Eastern Europe, former USSR, "whiteness" is meaningless.
Black population is less than a fraction of a single percent, doesn't have "slavery" roots (most are offsprings of known communists/africans who came to USSR to study, etc).
An American talking to post-USSR white person about "white privilege" can get comical, when you would, say, talk to people of Kyrgyzstan, who certainly have it worse on most accounts than black Americans.

There actually ARE minorities in Europe and beyond, but they are ethnic, not racial. USA is less than 5% of the world population, mind you, EU alone is bigger.

And regarding hiring practices, I had this discussion before showergate on this very forum: HRs in large companies actively look for minorities (and in certain fields, women). That's not where blacks are disadvantaged, it happened much earlier. And I think it is extremely important to realize that, since it's only at earlier stages (education!!!!) where things can be fixed. When only 2% of graduates in a given field are of certain ethnicity, HR cannot do magic and turn that into 16% hires. Google recently backpedaled on diversity front, aiming to merely match diversity of the "available pool of candidates".

For example, would you say the black family unit was as bad, even though it was actually only a bit higher than whites who were born out of wedlock?

I've seen this chart before, and wondered how would Asians look on it.

 

[Dontero]

Affirmative action in general tries to combat this kind of pervasive racism directly.

No it doesn't. It just fights racism with more racism.
Real way to fix minorities in companies and higher education is EDUCATION. Meaning more school funding and better education.

 

[Marshmallow]

I'm going to go with BANGS and that nobody saw race when Michael Jordan or Will Smith showed up on screen in the 90s.

Yeah, "nobody". You don't actually believe it. Beside, racists have no problem with "some of the good ones".

It's only a recent phenomenon where every movie or game that comes out now must have a diversity quota or "IT'S RACIST. REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!".

Isn't it the other way around? People get mad, send death threads and accuse the writers of "forcing diversity" every time a major character is portrayed by a minority, even if that character was originally an orange alien?

And look how well GTA San Andreas sold? If anything, that proves that whites will play any video game as long as it's good.

Oh, so now it's about sales. Excellent job moving the goal post. I don't think Dragon's Crow game sold less because of the kotaku's stupid article. If anything, it sold more.

We don't need identity politics to tell us how many blacks, whites, asians, women, men need to be in a title before it's racist/sexist. Just make a good product and people will buy it. .

I must have imagine all these people who told me they are not going to buy TloU S2 because it panders to "SJW garbage" and flooded multiple internet boards for days. But hey, liberals are the one easily triggered!

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Fresh Prince of Bel-Air was all about black identity and was deeply political. Just because some of you only saw the jokes doesn't mean any of that stuff wasn't there. Many of the episodes that dealt with blatant racism in our society were deeply effective at educating a lot of people about topics they may not have been very aware of.