Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
feeder wrote: Jeong is a freakin' nobody. Of course there are awful people all over the place. The difference is AJ has an audience of millions, including the freakin PotUS.
One major difference is she's now on the Washingtonpost's editorial staff... millions of people read the post.
New York Times technology editor.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Of course it isn't equal, but Jeong is still pretty racist and honestly if you replace any of her tweets with Jew, Black, etc. people would get pissy and I would assume you would as well rose
The problem with doing a simple search-and-replace here is that the material conditions are different for different groups. White people in the West don't live under a system that devalues them whereas black and jewish people do. So the things that Jeong wrote are merely rude words because they lack the systemic support to become expressions of racism. Things would've been different in, like, China or Saudi Arabia because the context there is different.
I haven't seen a hard swerve like that since whembly last posted . So a simple yes or no answer, if a black muslim man such as Farrakhan calls for the extermination of the jews is it racist? Seeing as how your definition of racism implies since he has no systematic support to carry out such a threat it is not racist according to you
Does he live in a place with a history of anti-semitism? That's all I have for you.
feeder wrote: Jeong is a freakin' nobody. Of course there are awful people all over the place. The difference is AJ has an audience of millions, including the freakin PotUS.
One major difference is she's now on the Washingtonpost's editorial staff... millions of people read the post.
Of course it isn't equal, but Jeong is still pretty racist and honestly if you replace any of her tweets with Jew, Black, etc. people would get pissy and I would assume you would as well rose
The problem with doing a simple search-and-replace here is that the material conditions are different for different groups. White people in the West don't live under a system that devalues them whereas black and jewish people do. So the things that Jeong wrote are merely rude words because they lack the systemic support to become expressions of racism. Things would've been different in, like, China or Saudi Arabia because the context there is different.
I haven't seen a hard swerve like that since whembly last posted . So a simple yes or no answer, if a black muslim man such as Farrakhan calls for the extermination of the jews is it racist? Seeing as how your definition of racism implies since he has no systematic support to carry out such a threat it is not racist according to you
Does he live in a place with a history of anti-semitism? That's all I have for you.
Side stepping yet again , honestly it is not surprising with that kind of attitude that your second largest party is about to become the Swedish Democrats
Of course it isn't equal, but Jeong is still pretty racist and honestly if you replace any of her tweets with Jew, Black, etc. people would get pissy and I would assume you would as well rose
The problem with doing a simple search-and-replace here is that the material conditions are different for different groups. White people in the West don't live under a system that devalues them whereas black and jewish people do. So the things that Jeong wrote are merely rude words because they lack the systemic support to become expressions of racism. Things would've been different in, like, China or Saudi Arabia because the context there is different.
I haven't seen a hard swerve like that since whembly last posted . So a simple yes or no answer, if a black muslim man such as Farrakhan calls for the extermination of the jews is it racist? Seeing as how your definition of racism implies since he has no systematic support to carry out such a threat it is not racist according to you
Does he live in a place with a history of anti-semitism? That's all I have for you.
Also handwaving because most of the places in the world have a history of antisemitism
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/08 19:27:48
Of course it isn't equal, but Jeong is still pretty racist and honestly if you replace any of her tweets with Jew, Black, etc. people would get pissy and I would assume you would as well rose
The problem with doing a simple search-and-replace here is that the material conditions are different for different groups. White people in the West don't live under a system that devalues them whereas black and jewish people do. So the things that Jeong wrote are merely rude words because they lack the systemic support to become expressions of racism. Things would've been different in, like, China or Saudi Arabia because the context there is different.
I haven't seen a hard swerve like that since whembly last posted . So a simple yes or no answer, if a black muslim man such as Farrakhan calls for the extermination of the jews is it racist? Seeing as how your definition of racism implies since he has no systematic support to carry out such a threat it is not racist according to you
Does he live in a place with a history of anti-semitism? That's all I have for you.
Side stepping yet again , honestly it is not surprising with that kind of attitude that your second largest party is about to become the Swedish Democrats
I’ll answer that question then, yes it’s racism, people can try and often do try to dress it up in other words or to claim justification for said actions, but racism is racism.
You can find it here on dakka too sadly, people trying to justify thier racism under the guise of “fighting the man”
Of course it isn't equal, but Jeong is still pretty racist and honestly if you replace any of her tweets with Jew, Black, etc. people would get pissy and I would assume you would as well rose
The problem with doing a simple search-and-replace here is that the material conditions are different for different groups. White people in the West don't live under a system that devalues them whereas black and jewish people do. So the things that Jeong wrote are merely rude words because they lack the systemic support to become expressions of racism. Things would've been different in, like, China or Saudi Arabia because the context there is different.
I haven't seen a hard swerve like that since whembly last posted . So a simple yes or no answer, if a black muslim man such as Farrakhan calls for the extermination of the jews is it racist? Seeing as how your definition of racism implies since he has no systematic support to carry out such a threat it is not racist according to you
Does he live in a place with a history of anti-semitism? That's all I have for you.
So by your definition I can go to Nigeria and start screaming a certain racial epithet in people's faces and say racially disparaging things about them but since I am in Nigeria and not the USA it would no longer be racist? That is so absurd it is almost laughable.
Of course it isn't equal, but Jeong is still pretty racist and honestly if you replace any of her tweets with Jew, Black, etc. people would get pissy and I would assume you would as well rose
The problem with doing a simple search-and-replace here is that the material conditions are different for different groups. White people in the West don't live under a system that devalues them whereas black and jewish people do. So the things that Jeong wrote are merely rude words because they lack the systemic support to become expressions of racism. Things would've been different in, like, China or Saudi Arabia because the context there is different.
No, that's not how it works. Racism is racism. Structural racism is structural racism. They are two distinct concepts, and not meeting the definition of the latter doesn't mean you don't meet the definition of the former - "punching up" does not justify prejudice.
This kind of double-standard is absolutely infuriating, because it's why we're losing to these mouthbreathing berks in so many places. Fairness is something apes - which we are - inherently, instinctively understand, and "you can't say X about me but I can say X about you" is unfair. You might not like that, but that's how most people see it - either a thing is wrong, or it's not, unacceptable, or not. Most people do not and will not accept the proposal that you can only be a bigot if you're part of a structural majority or privileged class, because it's farcical, and worse it encourages this ridiculous trend of creating a hierarchy of victimhood where leftists spend all our time arguing amongst ourselves about who is wrong for feeling most aggrieved in any given gathering of different people and who exactly is allowed to "punch up" at who. Meanwhile the right have stolen our biggest advantage, one that identitarian liberals have willingly discarded: solidarity. True solidarity, the recognition that on some level we're all the same and for the vast majority our common interest is in tackling ingrained power hierarchies - of whatever flavour - not in struggling amongst ourselves for scraps. The left is so lost inside its own head, checking its own privilege, creating an impossible tower of contradictory double-standards it insists people follow, that the opposition has managed to convince a lot of people that, at best, our views aren't worth giving the time of day, and at worst that the best route for them to ensure collective prosperity is an ethno-state.
We set the rules, we imagined a better society and how it would look, and we spent years trying to make it happen. Now, we throw it all away by rushing to defend indefensible people, we undermine our own conception of a multicultural society by bleating about "cultural appropriation" because of fething hairstyles or slang words or fusion food, we give victory to the enemy because we're so busy trying to find fault in our natural allies and make them feel ashamed for being born into a society they had no say over and now work to change and are so lacking in a basic understanding of how human beings perceive the world they live in and the actions of others, that to the people we need to win over in order to have the power to actually make things better we look like a bunch of squabbling, petty hypocrites.
The left isn't struggling against a tide of pseudofascist strongmen and a disinterested general public because all white people are secretly super-racists, we're struggling because the indentitarian wing can't keep it in their fething pants for five minutes without "calling out" someone over utter trivialities or exactly replicating behaviour they were denouncing five minutes ago but is somehow now OK because it's directed at white(or straight, or male) people, and your average punter looks at that and decides we are a collective of hypocrites and petty morons. And frankly, if your lot can't manage to struggle through the logic required to grasp that even if you genuinely and completely believe that only white people can be racist or that the basic mechanism by which all human progress and culture functions is now badwrong "appropriation", actually saying stuff like that out loud makes normies think you're a swivel-eyed hypocrite and so is not conducive to actually winning votes, then they're not even wrong.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/08 19:34:27
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Of course it isn't equal, but Jeong is still pretty racist and honestly if you replace any of her tweets with Jew, Black, etc. people would get pissy and I would assume you would as well rose
The problem with doing a simple search-and-replace here is that the material conditions are different for different groups. White people in the West don't live under a system that devalues them whereas black and jewish people do. So the things that Jeong wrote are merely rude words because they lack the systemic support to become expressions of racism. Things would've been different in, like, China or Saudi Arabia because the context there is different.
I haven't seen a hard swerve like that since whembly last posted . So a simple yes or no answer, if a black muslim man such as Farrakhan calls for the extermination of the jews is it racist? Seeing as how your definition of racism implies since he has no systematic support to carry out such a threat it is not racist according to you
Does he live in a place with a history of anti-semitism? That's all I have for you.
So by your definition I can go to Nigeria and start screaming a certain racial epithet in people's faces and say racially disparaging things about them but since I am in Nigeria and not the USA it would no longer be racist? That is so absurd it is almost laughable.
Of course it isn't equal, but Jeong is still pretty racist and honestly if you replace any of her tweets with Jew, Black, etc. people would get pissy and I would assume you would as well rose
The problem with doing a simple search-and-replace here is that the material conditions are different for different groups. White people in the West don't live under a system that devalues them whereas black and jewish people do. So the things that Jeong wrote are merely rude words because they lack the systemic support to become expressions of racism. Things would've been different in, like, China or Saudi Arabia because the context there is different.
I haven't seen a hard swerve like that since whembly last posted . So a simple yes or no answer, if a black muslim man such as Farrakhan calls for the extermination of the jews is it racist? Seeing as how your definition of racism implies since he has no systematic support to carry out such a threat it is not racist according to you
Does he live in a place with a history of anti-semitism? That's all I have for you.
Of course it isn't equal, but Jeong is still pretty racist and honestly if you replace any of her tweets with Jew, Black, etc. people would get pissy and I would assume you would as well rose
The problem with doing a simple search-and-replace here is that the material conditions are different for different groups. White people in the West don't live under a system that devalues them whereas black and jewish people do. So the things that Jeong wrote are merely rude words because they lack the systemic support to become expressions of racism. Things would've been different in, like, China or Saudi Arabia because the context there is different.
No, that's not how it works. Racism is racism. Structural racism is structural racism. They are two distinct concepts, and not meeting the definition of the latter doesn't mean you don't meet the definition of the former - "punching up" does not justify prejudice.
This kind of double-standard is absolutely infuriating, because it's why we're losing to these mouthbreathing berks in so many places. Fairness is something apes - which we are - inherently, instinctively understand, and "you can't say X about me but I can say X about you" is unfair. You might not like that, but that's how most people see it - either a thing is wrong, or it's not, unacceptable, or not. Most people do not and will not accept the proposal that you can only be a bigot if you're part of a structural majority or privileged class, because it's farcical, and worse it encourages this ridiculous trend of creating a hierarchy of victimhood where leftists spend all our time arguing amongst ourselves about who is wrong for feeling most aggrieved in any given gathering of different people and who exactly is allowed to "punch up" at who. Meanwhile the right have stolen our biggest advantage, one that identitarian liberals have willingly discarded: solidarity. True solidarity, the recognition that on some level we're all the same and for the vast majority our common interest is in tackling ingrained power hierarchies - of whatever flavour - not in struggling amongst ourselves for scraps. The left is so lost inside its own head, checking its own privilege, creating an impossible tower of contradictory double-standards it insists people follow, that the opposition has managed to convince a lot of people that, at best, our views aren't worth giving the time of day, and at worst that the best route for them to ensure collective prosperity is an ethno-state.
We set the rules, we imagined a better society and how it would look, and we spent years trying to make it happen. Now, we throw it all away by rushing to defend indefensible people, we undermine our own conception of a multicultural society by bleating about "cultural appropriation" because of fething hairstyles or slang words or fusion food, we give victory to the enemy because we're so busy trying to find fault in our natural allies and make them feel ashamed for being born into a society they had no say over and now work to change and are so lacking in a basic understanding of how human beings perceive the world they live in and the actions of others, that to the people we need to win over in order to have the power to actually make things better we look like a bunch of squabbling, petty hypocrites.
The left isn't struggling against a tide of pseudofascist strongmen and a disinterested general public because all white people are secretly super-racists, we're struggling because the indentitarian wing can't keep it in their fething pants for five minutes without "calling out" someone over utter trivialities or exactly replicating behaviour they were denouncing five minutes ago but is somehow now OK because it's directed at white(or straight, or male) people, and your average punter looks at that and decides we are a collective of hypocrites and petty morons. And frankly, if your lot can't manage to struggle through the logic required to grasp that even if you genuinely and completely believe that only white people can be racist or that the basic mechanism by which all human progress and culture functions is now badwrong "appropriation", actually saying stuff like that out loud makes normies think you're a swivel-eyed hypocrite and so is not conducive to actually winning votes, then they're not even wrong.
Someone can be rude or unpleasant without being racist, because their actions don't hook into structural power.
Of course it isn't equal, but Jeong is still pretty racist and honestly if you replace any of her tweets with Jew, Black, etc. people would get pissy and I would assume you would as well rose
The problem with doing a simple search-and-replace here is that the material conditions are different for different groups. White people in the West don't live under a system that devalues them whereas black and jewish people do. So the things that Jeong wrote are merely rude words because they lack the systemic support to become expressions of racism. Things would've been different in, like, China or Saudi Arabia because the context there is different.
No, that's not how it works. Racism is racism. Structural racism is structural racism. They are two distinct concepts, and not meeting the definition of the latter doesn't mean you don't meet the definition of the former - "punching up" does not justify prejudice.
This kind of double-standard is absolutely infuriating, because it's why we're losing to these mouthbreathing berks in so many places. Fairness is something apes - which we are - inherently, instinctively understand, and "you can't say X about me but I can say X about you" is unfair. You might not like that, but that's how most people see it - either a thing is wrong, or it's not, unacceptable, or not. Most people do not and will not accept the proposal that you can only be a bigot if you're part of a structural majority or privileged class, because it's farcical, and worse it encourages this ridiculous trend of creating a hierarchy of victimhood where leftists spend all our time arguing amongst ourselves about who is wrong for feeling most aggrieved in any given gathering of different people and who exactly is allowed to "punch up" at who. Meanwhile the right have stolen our biggest advantage, one that identitarian liberals have willingly discarded: solidarity. True solidarity, the recognition that on some level we're all the same and for the vast majority our common interest is in tackling ingrained power hierarchies - of whatever flavour - not in struggling amongst ourselves for scraps. The left is so lost inside its own head, checking its own privilege, creating an impossible tower of contradictory double-standards it insists people follow, that the opposition has managed to convince a lot of people that, at best, our views aren't worth giving the time of day, and at worst that the best route for them to ensure collective prosperity is an ethno-state.
We set the rules, we imagined a better society and how it would look, and we spent years trying to make it happen. Now, we throw it all away by rushing to defend indefensible people, we undermine our own conception of a multicultural society by bleating about "cultural appropriation" because of fething hairstyles or slang words or fusion food, we give victory to the enemy because we're so busy trying to find fault in our natural allies and make them feel ashamed for being born into a society they had no say over and now work to change and are so lacking in a basic understanding of how human beings perceive the world they live in and the actions of others, that to the people we need to win over in order to have the power to actually make things better we look like a bunch of squabbling, petty hypocrites.
The left isn't struggling against a tide of pseudofascist strongmen and a disinterested general public because all white people are secretly super-racists, we're struggling because the indentitarian wing can't keep it in their fething pants for five minutes without "calling out" someone over utter trivialities or exactly replicating behaviour they were denouncing five minutes ago but is somehow now OK because it's directed at white(or straight, or male) people, and your average punter looks at that and decides we are a collective of hypocrites and petty morons. And frankly, if your lot can't manage to struggle through the logic required to grasp that even if you genuinely and completely believe that only white people can be racist or that the basic mechanism by which all human progress and culture functions is now badwrong "appropriation", actually saying stuff like that out loud makes normies think you're a swivel-eyed hypocrite and so is not conducive to actually winning votes, then they're not even wrong.
Honestly the hypocrisy you are talking about I saw a lot on my undergraduate campus a lot, especially from people in power positions in departments and student organizations. It was pretty distressing and this is coming from a guy who I assume many of the republican posters would call pretty far left
Of course it isn't equal, but Jeong is still pretty racist and honestly if you replace any of her tweets with Jew, Black, etc. people would get pissy and I would assume you would as well rose
The problem with doing a simple search-and-replace here is that the material conditions are different for different groups. White people in the West don't live under a system that devalues them whereas black and jewish people do. So the things that Jeong wrote are merely rude words because they lack the systemic support to become expressions of racism. Things would've been different in, like, China or Saudi Arabia because the context there is different.
I haven't seen a hard swerve like that since whembly last posted . So a simple yes or no answer, if a black muslim man such as Farrakhan calls for the extermination of the jews is it racist? Seeing as how your definition of racism implies since he has no systematic support to carry out such a threat it is not racist according to you
Does he live in a place with a history of anti-semitism? That's all I have for you.
He does live on Earth, yes.
Then it seems to me that the question of whether a person who is not themselves jewish could possibly be anti-semitic is broadly speaking answered.
Of course it isn't equal, but Jeong is still pretty racist and honestly if you replace any of her tweets with Jew, Black, etc. people would get pissy and I would assume you would as well rose
The problem with doing a simple search-and-replace here is that the material conditions are different for different groups. White people in the West don't live under a system that devalues them whereas black and jewish people do. So the things that Jeong wrote are merely rude words because they lack the systemic support to become expressions of racism. Things would've been different in, like, China or Saudi Arabia because the context there is different.
I haven't seen a hard swerve like that since whembly last posted . So a simple yes or no answer, if a black muslim man such as Farrakhan calls for the extermination of the jews is it racist? Seeing as how your definition of racism implies since he has no systematic support to carry out such a threat it is not racist according to you
Does he live in a place with a history of anti-semitism? That's all I have for you.
So by your definition I can go to Nigeria and start screaming a certain racial epithet in people's faces and say racially disparaging things about them but since I am in Nigeria and not the USA it would no longer be racist? That is so absurd it is almost laughable.
You could give it a try and see what happens.
You are dodging the question. What do YOU think, would that be a racist act or not and why?
Rose buddy, bubbe, please stop using a narrow definition of a word that has a different, obvious, and intuitive meaning outside of academic circles. You are sowing confusion and hurting your cause, and by extension the vulnerable in society.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Rose buddy, bubbe, please stop using a narrow definition of a word that has a different, obvious, and intuitive meaning outside of academic circles. You are sowing confusion and hurting your cause, and by extension the vulnerable in society.
He is sticking to his guns because he knows he is wrong and just trying to barrel his way through it until we inevitably forget about it in the next few pages when something stupid in the government happens again
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/08 19:48:36
Of course it isn't equal, but Jeong is still pretty racist and honestly if you replace any of her tweets with Jew, Black, etc. people would get pissy and I would assume you would as well rose
The problem with doing a simple search-and-replace here is that the material conditions are different for different groups. White people in the West don't live under a system that devalues them whereas black and jewish people do. So the things that Jeong wrote are merely rude words because they lack the systemic support to become expressions of racism. Things would've been different in, like, China or Saudi Arabia because the context there is different.
No, that's not how it works. Racism is racism. Structural racism is structural racism. They are two distinct concepts, and not meeting the definition of the latter doesn't mean you don't meet the definition of the former - "punching up" does not justify prejudice.
This kind of double-standard is absolutely infuriating, because it's why we're losing to these mouthbreathing berks in so many places. Fairness is something apes - which we are - inherently, instinctively understand, and "you can't say X about me but I can say X about you" is unfair. You might not like that, but that's how most people see it - either a thing is wrong, or it's not, unacceptable, or not. Most people do not and will not accept the proposal that you can only be a bigot if you're part of a structural majority or privileged class, because it's farcical, and worse it encourages this ridiculous trend of creating a hierarchy of victimhood where leftists spend all our time arguing amongst ourselves about who is wrong for feeling most aggrieved in any given gathering of different people and who exactly is allowed to "punch up" at who. Meanwhile the right have stolen our biggest advantage, one that identitarian liberals have willingly discarded: solidarity. True solidarity, the recognition that on some level we're all the same and for the vast majority our common interest is in tackling ingrained power hierarchies - of whatever flavour - not in struggling amongst ourselves for scraps. The left is so lost inside its own head, checking its own privilege, creating an impossible tower of contradictory double-standards it insists people follow, that the opposition has managed to convince a lot of people that, at best, our views aren't worth giving the time of day, and at worst that the best route for them to ensure collective prosperity is an ethno-state.
We set the rules, we imagined a better society and how it would look, and we spent years trying to make it happen. Now, we throw it all away by rushing to defend indefensible people, we undermine our own conception of a multicultural society by bleating about "cultural appropriation" because of fething hairstyles or slang words or fusion food, we give victory to the enemy because we're so busy trying to find fault in our natural allies and make them feel ashamed for being born into a society they had no say over and now work to change and are so lacking in a basic understanding of how human beings perceive the world they live in and the actions of others, that to the people we need to win over in order to have the power to actually make things better we look like a bunch of squabbling, petty hypocrites.
The left isn't struggling against a tide of pseudofascist strongmen and a disinterested general public because all white people are secretly super-racists, we're struggling because the indentitarian wing can't keep it in their fething pants for five minutes without "calling out" someone over utter trivialities or exactly replicating behaviour they were denouncing five minutes ago but is somehow now OK because it's directed at white(or straight, or male) people, and your average punter looks at that and decides we are a collective of hypocrites and petty morons. And frankly, if your lot can't manage to struggle through the logic required to grasp that even if you genuinely and completely believe that only white people can be racist or that the basic mechanism by which all human progress and culture functions is now badwrong "appropriation", actually saying stuff like that out loud makes normies think you're a swivel-eyed hypocrite and so is not conducive to actually winning votes, then they're not even wrong.
Thank you... just thank you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ustrello
Mate you have it spot on, these far left extremists are completely ruining the reputation of the entire left, their entire ideology is so steeped in extremes that anyone that is slightly less extreme is called alt right, as if they actually know what that is, they claim oppression while oppressing, they claim victimhood while attacking, they deny science and reason in favour of “feelings”
They also have full support of the media (as I found out recently) most of the movie industry in the U.K. and US and universities, yet still claim oppression, they are openly racist, bigoted and sexist and STILL claim oppression.
And because of them the right is continuing to gain ground and they have even legitimised the far right (not alt right), they are the reason for the rise of the right across the West in political parties.
I wish they would just grow up...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/08 20:16:18
Of course it isn't equal, but Jeong is still pretty racist and honestly if you replace any of her tweets with Jew, Black, etc. people would get pissy and I would assume you would as well rose
The problem with doing a simple search-and-replace here is that the material conditions are different for different groups. White people in the West don't live under a system that devalues them whereas black and jewish people do. So the things that Jeong wrote are merely rude words because they lack the systemic support to become expressions of racism. Things would've been different in, like, China or Saudi Arabia because the context there is different.
No, that's not how it works. Racism is racism. Structural racism is structural racism. They are two distinct concepts, and not meeting the definition of the latter doesn't mean you don't meet the definition of the former - "punching up" does not justify prejudice.
This kind of double-standard is absolutely infuriating, because it's why we're losing to these mouthbreathing berks in so many places. Fairness is something apes - which we are - inherently, instinctively understand, and "you can't say X about me but I can say X about you" is unfair. You might not like that, but that's how most people see it - either a thing is wrong, or it's not, unacceptable, or not. Most people do not and will not accept the proposal that you can only be a bigot if you're part of a structural majority or privileged class, because it's farcical, and worse it encourages this ridiculous trend of creating a hierarchy of victimhood where leftists spend all our time arguing amongst ourselves about who is wrong for feeling most aggrieved in any given gathering of different people and who exactly is allowed to "punch up" at who. Meanwhile the right have stolen our biggest advantage, one that identitarian liberals have willingly discarded: solidarity. True solidarity, the recognition that on some level we're all the same and for the vast majority our common interest is in tackling ingrained power hierarchies - of whatever flavour - not in struggling amongst ourselves for scraps. The left is so lost inside its own head, checking its own privilege, creating an impossible tower of contradictory double-standards it insists people follow, that the opposition has managed to convince a lot of people that, at best, our views aren't worth giving the time of day, and at worst that the best route for them to ensure collective prosperity is an ethno-state.
We set the rules, we imagined a better society and how it would look, and we spent years trying to make it happen. Now, we throw it all away by rushing to defend indefensible people, we undermine our own conception of a multicultural society by bleating about "cultural appropriation" because of fething hairstyles or slang words or fusion food, we give victory to the enemy because we're so busy trying to find fault in our natural allies and make them feel ashamed for being born into a society they had no say over and now work to change and are so lacking in a basic understanding of how human beings perceive the world they live in and the actions of others, that to the people we need to win over in order to have the power to actually make things better we look like a bunch of squabbling, petty hypocrites.
The left isn't struggling against a tide of pseudofascist strongmen and a disinterested general public because all white people are secretly super-racists, we're struggling because the indentitarian wing can't keep it in their fething pants for five minutes without "calling out" someone over utter trivialities or exactly replicating behaviour they were denouncing five minutes ago but is somehow now OK because it's directed at white(or straight, or male) people, and your average punter looks at that and decides we are a collective of hypocrites and petty morons. And frankly, if your lot can't manage to struggle through the logic required to grasp that even if you genuinely and completely believe that only white people can be racist or that the basic mechanism by which all human progress and culture functions is now badwrong "appropriation", actually saying stuff like that out loud makes normies think you're a swivel-eyed hypocrite and so is not conducive to actually winning votes, then they're not even wrong.
Some very good points in there, but saying the left is defined by identitarian liberals is as myopic as saying the right is defined by economically anxious racists. The fringe is bonkers on all sides, and trying to pretend the fringe represents the majority is dishonest.
It is true the fringe is sometimes the loudest, or gets the most attention. How we can change that, I don't know. Possibly when we move beyond an online click-driven economy.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Feeder I can show you a video of your president playing the identity politics game, it’s not just the extremists, it’s become mainstream in several counties and IS mainstream in US universities, even the U.K. is starting to suffer the same kind of insanity, it’s extremists here, it’s the norm in your country.
Formosa wrote: I’ll answer that question then, yes it’s racism, people can try and often do try to dress it up in other words or to claim justification for said actions, but racism is racism.
You can find it here on dakka too sadly, people trying to justify thier racism under the guise of “fighting the man”
I can't help it.
Dwarfs are just plain better than elves!
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Rose buddy, bubbe, please stop using a narrow definition of a word that has a different, obvious, and intuitive meaning outside of academic circles. You are sowing confusion and hurting your cause, and by extension the vulnerable in society.
I use a definition of racism that I consider to be the more useful one in identifying what the actual problem is. By removing the material factors and saying that racism is using mean words based on someone's skin colour you coincidentally leave the gates open for whites to complain endlessly about racism against whites. That accomplishes nothing. It doesn't get to the core of inequality. It doesn't help you in any way to formulate how to end inequality.
Formosa wrote: Mate you have it spot on, these far left extremists are completely ruining the reputation of the entire left, their entire ideology is so steeped in extremes that anyone that is slightly less extreme is called alt right, as if they actually know what that is, they claim oppression while oppressing, they claim victimhood while attacking, they deny science and reason in favour of “feelings”
They also have full support of the media (as I found out recently) most of the movie industry in the U.K. and US and universities, yet still claim oppression, they are openly racist, bigoted and sexist and STILL claim oppression.
And because of them the right is continuing to gain ground and they have even legitimised the far right (not alt right), they are the reason for the rise of the right across the West in political parties.
Yet again you show that you are not and have never been a leftist. The reason the far right is on the rise is that material conditions are deteriorating as capitalism grinds to a halt in the face of gutted purchasing power, saturated markets and now increasing climate change, and the middle class is becoming more and more accepting of violence as a means of keeping what they have and getting what they feel they're being robbed of. The notion that leftists are to blame for state power looking the other way as fascism grows is not simply wrong, it's an obvious lie. Nobody genuinely believes it. It's a propaganda trick meant to scapegoat leftists and mobilise reactionaries against them.
I can also guarantee to anyone here that the corporate mass media does, in fact, not remotely support leftism. You're thinking of liberals trying to put a nice face on capitalism but having it all ring hollow because they can't do anything about the core of the system.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/08 20:52:44
No, that's not how it works. Racism is racism. Structural racism is structural racism. They are two distinct concepts, and not meeting the definition of the latter doesn't mean you don't meet the definition of the former - "punching up" does not justify prejudice.
Heck, many bigots will also tell you they're the underdogs "punching up" against the unwashed immigrant horde, Islamist Eurabians or Elders of Zion or whatever.
his kind of double-standard is absolutely infuriating, because it's why we're losing to these mouthbreathing berks in so many places.
Some parts of the left seem to me to act like a revolutionary government that has finished all its admitted enemies, and then started purging their own ranks for "counter-revolutionary behaviour". Except that the enemy is still there, and thriving.
"The 75mm gun is firing. The 37mm gun is firing, but is traversed round the wrong way. The Browning is jammed. I am saying "Driver, advance." and the driver, who can't hear me, is reversing. And as I look over the top of the turret and see twelve enemy tanks fifty yards away, someone hands me a cheese sandwich."
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Rose buddy, bubbe, please stop using a narrow definition of a word that has a different, obvious, and intuitive meaning outside of academic circles. You are sowing confusion and hurting your cause, and by extension the vulnerable in society.
I use a definition of racism that I consider to be the more useful one in identifying what the actual problem is. By removing the material factors and saying that racism is using mean words based on someone's skin colour you coincidentally leave the gates open for whites to complain endlessly about racism against whites. That accomplishes nothing. It doesn't get to the core of inequality. It doesn't help you in any way to formulate how to end inequality.
Formosa wrote: Mate you have it spot on, these far left extremists are completely ruining the reputation of the entire left, their entire ideology is so steeped in extremes that anyone that is slightly less extreme is called alt right, as if they actually know what that is, they claim oppression while oppressing, they claim victimhood while attacking, they deny science and reason in favour of “feelings”
They also have full support of the media (as I found out recently) most of the movie industry in the U.K. and US and universities, yet still claim oppression, they are openly racist, bigoted and sexist and STILL claim oppression.
And because of them the right is continuing to gain ground and they have even legitimised the far right (not alt right), they are the reason for the rise of the right across the West in political parties.
Yet again you show that you are not and have never been a leftist. The reason the far right is on the rise is that material conditions are deteriorating as capitalism grinds to a halt in the face of gutted purchasing power, saturated markets and now increasing climate change, and the middle class is becoming more and more accepting of violence as a means of keeping what they have and getting what they feel they're being robbed of. The notion that leftists are to blame for state power looking the other way as fascism grows is not simply wrong, it's an obvious lie. Nobody genuinely believes it. It's a propaganda trick meant to scapegoat leftists and mobilise reactionaries against them.
I can also guarantee to anyone here that the corporate mass media does, in fact, not remotely support leftism. You're thinking of liberals trying to put a nice face on capitalism but having it all ring hollow because they can't do anything about the core of the system.
Or you could just admit that your definition is incredibly flawed and not based upon reality. And maybe they put a nice face on capitalism because it has so far been the best functioning economic system that the human race has so far devised. I'd swear you were a marxist based on some of the things that you write on here.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Rose buddy, bubbe, please stop using a narrow definition of a word that has a different, obvious, and intuitive meaning outside of academic circles. You are sowing confusion and hurting your cause, and by extension the vulnerable in society.
I use a definition of racism that I consider to be the more useful one in identifying what the actual problem is. By removing the material factors and saying that racism is using mean words based on someone's skin colour you coincidentally leave the gates open for whites to complain endlessly about racism against whites. That accomplishes nothing. It doesn't get to the core of inequality. It doesn't help you in any way to formulate how to end inequality.
Formosa wrote: Mate you have it spot on, these far left extremists are completely ruining the reputation of the entire left, their entire ideology is so steeped in extremes that anyone that is slightly less extreme is called alt right, as if they actually know what that is, they claim oppression while oppressing, they claim victimhood while attacking, they deny science and reason in favour of “feelings”
They also have full support of the media (as I found out recently) most of the movie industry in the U.K. and US and universities, yet still claim oppression, they are openly racist, bigoted and sexist and STILL claim oppression.
And because of them the right is continuing to gain ground and they have even legitimised the far right (not alt right), they are the reason for the rise of the right across the West in political parties.
Yet again you show that you are not and have never been a leftist. The reason the far right is on the rise is that material conditions are deteriorating as capitalism grinds to a halt in the face of gutted purchasing power, saturated markets and now increasing climate change, and the middle class is becoming more and more accepting of violence as a means of keeping what they have and getting what they feel they're being robbed of. The notion that leftists are to blame for state power looking the other way as fascism grows is not simply wrong, it's an obvious lie. Nobody genuinely believes it. It's a propaganda trick meant to scapegoat leftists and mobilise reactionaries against them.
I can also guarantee to anyone here that the corporate mass media does, in fact, not remotely support leftism. You're thinking of liberals trying to put a nice face on capitalism but having it all ring hollow because they can't do anything about the core of the system.
So when are you going to answer the questions that people have been asking you? Or are you going to trot out the same dog and pony show answer and refuse to show that your stance is wrong?
Rosebuddy, it sounds like to need a new word. Instead of trying to misuse and abuse an extant word, how about making up a new one? Yoghrin's term "structural racism" might be a better fit, but if that still isn't precise enough, go wild. I suggest "extrabadlegacyracism".
Of course it isn't equal, but Jeong is still pretty racist and honestly if you replace any of her tweets with Jew, Black, etc. people would get pissy and I would assume you would as well rose
The problem with doing a simple search-and-replace here is that the material conditions are different for different groups. White people in the West don't live under a system that devalues them whereas black and jewish people do. So the things that Jeong wrote are merely rude words because they lack the systemic support to become expressions of racism. Things would've been different in, like, China or Saudi Arabia because the context there is different.
No, that's not how it works. Racism is racism. Structural racism is structural racism. They are two distinct concepts, and not meeting the definition of the latter doesn't mean you don't meet the definition of the former - "punching up" does not justify prejudice.
This kind of double-standard is absolutely infuriating, because it's why we're losing to these mouthbreathing berks in so many places. Fairness is something apes - which we are - inherently, instinctively understand, and "you can't say X about me but I can say X about you" is unfair. You might not like that, but that's how most people see it - either a thing is wrong, or it's not, unacceptable, or not. Most people do not and will not accept the proposal that you can only be a bigot if you're part of a structural majority or privileged class, because it's farcical, and worse it encourages this ridiculous trend of creating a hierarchy of victimhood where leftists spend all our time arguing amongst ourselves about who is wrong for feeling most aggrieved in any given gathering of different people and who exactly is allowed to "punch up" at who. Meanwhile the right have stolen our biggest advantage, one that identitarian liberals have willingly discarded: solidarity. True solidarity, the recognition that on some level we're all the same and for the vast majority our common interest is in tackling ingrained power hierarchies - of whatever flavour - not in struggling amongst ourselves for scraps. The left is so lost inside its own head, checking its own privilege, creating an impossible tower of contradictory double-standards it insists people follow, that the opposition has managed to convince a lot of people that, at best, our views aren't worth giving the time of day, and at worst that the best route for them to ensure collective prosperity is an ethno-state.
We set the rules, we imagined a better society and how it would look, and we spent years trying to make it happen. Now, we throw it all away by rushing to defend indefensible people, we undermine our own conception of a multicultural society by bleating about "cultural appropriation" because of fething hairstyles or slang words or fusion food, we give victory to the enemy because we're so busy trying to find fault in our natural allies and make them feel ashamed for being born into a society they had no say over and now work to change and are so lacking in a basic understanding of how human beings perceive the world they live in and the actions of others, that to the people we need to win over in order to have the power to actually make things better we look like a bunch of squabbling, petty hypocrites.
The left isn't struggling against a tide of pseudofascist strongmen and a disinterested general public because all white people are secretly super-racists, we're struggling because the indentitarian wing can't keep it in their fething pants for five minutes without "calling out" someone over utter trivialities or exactly replicating behaviour they were denouncing five minutes ago but is somehow now OK because it's directed at white(or straight, or male) people, and your average punter looks at that and decides we are a collective of hypocrites and petty morons. And frankly, if your lot can't manage to struggle through the logic required to grasp that even if you genuinely and completely believe that only white people can be racist or that the basic mechanism by which all human progress and culture functions is now badwrong "appropriation", actually saying stuff like that out loud makes normies think you're a swivel-eyed hypocrite and so is not conducive to actually winning votes, then they're not even wrong.
I’m starting to become convinced that identity politics is just a tool to sow disorder and infighting among the left. It’s somewhat easy to defend when you’re already knee-deep in it(“X” can’t be racist, they’re just fighting back!), but it gets hard to justify when you get down to the gritty details(if a black person makes remarks about a Jewish person, is that acceptable?).
Formosa wrote: they claim oppression while oppressing, they claim victimhood while attacking, they deny science and reason in favour of “feelings”
They also have full support of the media (as I found out recently) most of the movie industry in the U.K. and US and universities, yet still claim oppression, they are openly racist, bigoted and sexist and STILL claim oppression.
Of course it isn't equal, but Jeong is still pretty racist and honestly if you replace any of her tweets with Jew, Black, etc. people would get pissy and I would assume you would as well rose
The problem with doing a simple search-and-replace here is that the material conditions are different for different groups. White people in the West don't live under a system that devalues them whereas black and jewish people do. So the things that Jeong wrote are merely rude words because they lack the systemic support to become expressions of racism. Things would've been different in, like, China or Saudi Arabia because the context there is different.
No, that's not how it works. Racism is racism. Structural racism is structural racism. They are two distinct concepts, and not meeting the definition of the latter doesn't mean you don't meet the definition of the former - "punching up" does not justify prejudice.
This kind of double-standard is absolutely infuriating, because it's why we're losing to these mouthbreathing berks in so many places. Fairness is something apes - which we are - inherently, instinctively understand, and "you can't say X about me but I can say X about you" is unfair. You might not like that, but that's how most people see it - either a thing is wrong, or it's not, unacceptable, or not. Most people do not and will not accept the proposal that you can only be a bigot if you're part of a structural majority or privileged class, because it's farcical, and worse it encourages this ridiculous trend of creating a hierarchy of victimhood where leftists spend all our time arguing amongst ourselves about who is wrong for feeling most aggrieved in any given gathering of different people and who exactly is allowed to "punch up" at who. Meanwhile the right have stolen our biggest advantage, one that identitarian liberals have willingly discarded: solidarity. True solidarity, the recognition that on some level we're all the same and for the vast majority our common interest is in tackling ingrained power hierarchies - of whatever flavour - not in struggling amongst ourselves for scraps. The left is so lost inside its own head, checking its own privilege, creating an impossible tower of contradictory double-standards it insists people follow, that the opposition has managed to convince a lot of people that, at best, our views aren't worth giving the time of day, and at worst that the best route for them to ensure collective prosperity is an ethno-state.
We set the rules, we imagined a better society and how it would look, and we spent years trying to make it happen. Now, we throw it all away by rushing to defend indefensible people, we undermine our own conception of a multicultural society by bleating about "cultural appropriation" because of fething hairstyles or slang words or fusion food, we give victory to the enemy because we're so busy trying to find fault in our natural allies and make them feel ashamed for being born into a society they had no say over and now work to change and are so lacking in a basic understanding of how human beings perceive the world they live in and the actions of others, that to the people we need to win over in order to have the power to actually make things better we look like a bunch of squabbling, petty hypocrites.
The left isn't struggling against a tide of pseudofascist strongmen and a disinterested general public because all white people are secretly super-racists, we're struggling because the indentitarian wing can't keep it in their fething pants for five minutes without "calling out" someone over utter trivialities or exactly replicating behaviour they were denouncing five minutes ago but is somehow now OK because it's directed at white(or straight, or male) people, and your average punter looks at that and decides we are a collective of hypocrites and petty morons. And frankly, if your lot can't manage to struggle through the logic required to grasp that even if you genuinely and completely believe that only white people can be racist or that the basic mechanism by which all human progress and culture functions is now badwrong "appropriation", actually saying stuff like that out loud makes normies think you're a swivel-eyed hypocrite and so is not conducive to actually winning votes, then they're not even wrong.
I’m starting to become convinced that identity politics is just a tool to sow disorder and infighting among the left. It’s somewhat easy to defend when you’re already knee-deep in it(“X” can’t be racist, they’re just fighting back!), but it gets hard to justify when you get down to the gritty details(if a black person makes remarks about a Jewish person, is that acceptable?).
Formosa wrote: Feeder I can show you a video of your president playing the identity politics game, it’s not just the extremists, it’s become mainstream in several counties and IS mainstream in US universities, even the U.K. is starting to suffer the same kind of insanity, it’s extremists here, it’s the norm in your country.
??? I have the same head of state as you mate
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
. So a simple yes or no answer, if a black muslim man such as Farrakhan calls for the extermination of the jews is it racist? Seeing as how your definition of racism implies since he has no systematic support to carry out such a threat it is not racist according to you
, honestly it is not surprising with that kind of attitude that your second largest party is about to become the Swedish Democrats 
3500+
3300+
1000
1850
2000 
(building)
(less)
