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.

Offering or giving help to someone isn't racist. At least not even close to the same category as keeping them from voting, keeping them from getting jobs, or assuming they are criminals or freeloaders just because of the color of their skin.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Actually...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/12/08/across-america-whites-are-biased-and-they-dont-even-know-it/

While this isn't generally detectable on explicit measures of racial bias, implicit measures show that Whites in NY and NJ (very liberal states) are actually very biased.

And I knew there was a reason I had D on ignore. Glad to see I'm missing nothing of importance.

The problem with that measurement is that it doesn't distinguish urban areas from rural areas.

Pennsylvania, for example, might be a blue state, but that's because it has two strong blue anchors (Philadelphia and Pittsburgh) with a vast sea of red in between.

@whembly: funny, I watched the democratic debate last night and didn't see a single mention of size of dicks, endless shouting matches, yelling "liar" back and forth, vows to round up and deport 11 million people, turning sand to glass, promoting the use of torture, or hunting down families of terrorists. Maybe we have different criteria of what constitutes clown shows.

 infinite_array wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Actually...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/12/08/across-america-whites-are-biased-and-they-dont-even-know-it/

While this isn't generally detectable on explicit measures of racial bias, implicit measures show that Whites in NY and NJ (very liberal states) are actually very biased.

And I knew there was a reason I had D on ignore. Glad to see I'm missing nothing of importance.

The problem with that measurement is that it doesn't distinguish urban areas from rural areas.

Pennsylvania, for example, might be a blue state, but that's because it has two strong blue anchors (Philadelphia and Pittsburgh) with a vast sea of red in between.

There are plenty of problems with this measure, agreed. But, at a very coarse grain size, it approaches the problem of implicit racism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
Offering or giving help to someone isn't racist. At least not even close to the same category as keeping them from voting, keeping them from getting jobs, or assuming they are criminals or freeloaders just because of the color of their skin.

Who is trying to keep people from voting or employment based on race? Or saying that all _______________ are criminals or freeloaders?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@whembly: funny, I watched the democratic debate last night and didn't see a single mention of size of dicks, endless shouting matches, yelling "liar" back and forth, vows to round up and deport 11 million people, turning sand to glass, promoting the use of torture, or hunting down families of terrorists. Maybe we have different criteria of what constitutes clown shows.

Oh, don't get me wrong... Trump turned the GOP's debate to a Clown Show times a bajillion.

But, let's not ignore what the Democrat debates has become too...

So, now the Washington Times has this headine...

Mitt Romney won’t rule out accepting GOP nomination at contested convention

Should be changed to, "Mitt Romney won't rule out handing the election to Hillary Clinton should Trump come up short in July."

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@whembly: funny, I watched the democratic debate last night and didn't see a single mention of size of dicks, endless shouting matches, yelling "liar" back and forth, vows to round up and deport 11 million people, turning sand to glass, promoting the use of torture, or hunting down families of terrorists. Maybe we have different criteria of what constitutes clown shows.

Oh, don't get me wrong... Trump turned the GOP's debate to a Clown Show times a bajillion.

But, let's not ignore what the Democrat debates has become too...

Frankly, they are boring. The headline to come out of last nights debate was when Clinton tried to interrupt Sanders and he said, "excuse me, I'm talking". But see, I want boring when it comes to policy and political debate and discussion but I know I am in a slim minority there. It's why I find Ryan interesting even though I can't stand his policy conclusions/ideas, at least that is what he is interested in. Clinton is a bad politician because she is largely a policy wonk. She would rather be drafting policy speeches than shaking hands and talking to the media. She isn't good with people. She probably doesn't even like kissing babies (that might be a bit far, everybody likes babies) She doesn't much inspire with soaring or scathing rhetoric and when she tries, she comes off as either disengenuous or shrill. I'm totally fine with that.

 whembly wrote:
Also... the Democratic Debate last night?


That was the clown show bro...

Also, Bernie doesn't think there's poor whites:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/271999-sanderss-comment-on-white-people-and-poverty-creates

His inner racism leaked out?

EDIT: damn... ninja'ed by Nuggz...

It was a deliberate trap for Sanders. He should of deflected like Clinton did, though I doubt her good buddy Cooper would of let him get away with it. No answer would of been the right answer and Cooper knows Sanders would be compelled to answer because he is trying to build legitimacy towards minorities. So predictably Sanders ended up with a pretty bad gaffe that will likely hurt him in some way.

Very smart of the Democrat establishment to do it. Just like Republicans did during the GOP debate last week in Detroit. Which seemed to be pretty successful for them.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Liberals in America love to get on board with saving other countries because it makes them feel like they were successful at home already.

You're talking about American exceptionalism, and it has primarily been espoused by neoconservatives; at least of late.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Seriously I don't get why Western liberals believe they have all the right answers for everybody everywhere regardless of individual cultures and histories.

What "Western liberal" has ever made such a claim?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I love the false narrative from conservatives that trying to help someone that is 'brown' is some how racist.

Assuming that brown people are all fundamentally incapable of succeeding on their own, and thus in need of our help, isn't racist?

It's the traditional White Man's Burden spun into altruism.

"someone that it 'brown'" =/= "brown people"

Yeah, the white man's burden is racist, but stating that helping anyone of colour automatically becomes white man's burden is daft.

 Goliath wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I love the false narrative from conservatives that trying to help someone that is 'brown' is some how racist.

Assuming that brown people are all fundamentally incapable of succeeding on their own, and thus in need of our help, isn't racist?

It's the traditional White Man's Burden spun into altruism.

"someone that it 'brown'" =/= "brown people"

Yeah, the white man's burden is racist, but stating that helping anyone of colour automatically becomes white man's burden is daft.

Right, if you are helping someone who is non-White because they need help, then White Man's Burden would not apply. If you say specifically that Brown people need help, that is absolutely White Man's Burden.

You need to look at the language the people use when they discuss these issues. "I want to help the poor" isn't WMB, regardless of what percentage of those poor are non-White. "I want to help the non-Whites because they're poor" is absolutely WMB, and fits perfectly Sanders' position quoted in that viral YouTube clip.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I love the false narrative from conservatives that trying to help someone that is 'brown' is some how racist.

Assuming that brown people are all fundamentally incapable of succeeding on their own, and thus in need of our help, isn't racist?

It's the traditional White Man's Burden spun into altruism.

There's a difference between arguing that Africa is in trouble and could use help because we've fethed the continent over and arguing that Africa is in trouble and could use some help because all Africans are Untermenschen.

It's got to the point where you guys' only arguing point seems to be who is more racist.

 dogma wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Liberals in America love to get on board with saving other countries because it makes them feel like they were successful at home already.

You're talking about American exceptionalism, and it has primarily been espoused by neoconservatives; at least of late.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Seriously I don't get why Western liberals believe they have all the right answers for everybody everywhere regardless of individual cultures and histories.

What "Western liberal" has ever made such a claim?

Negatory, its pretty heavily favored by neoliberalist too, such as Clinton. Liberal Hawkish, the "humanitarian " use of military force to "liberate" people from their governments and barbaric cultures is very popular amongst Western liberals. Hence why liberals jumped on board with the invasion of Afghanistan to liberate Afghan women from their plight under Islam. Or why they jumped on board with the invasion of Iraq because the people there obviously needed American help to fix their horrible lives.

The idea that American minorities are always disadvantaged and whose decisions were never made under their own volition. Thus robbing them of agency.

Your asking for names to ideology. Western liberals often create NGOs to save people in their native countries but then create stipulations if they get that aid. For instance trying to get Muslim women to either walk away from their religion or to push western secular ideals on them in the name of education. Thus making the western way the right way. The preeminence of secular democracy being the correct form of governance amongst Western liberals as if you couldn't have a christian, jewish, muslim..etc etc form of democracy and have it work just fine for people living in it. How about the liberal fallacy of choice being the litmus test for freedom. Such as what you wear or where you can move throughout life , ignorant that some choices will always be out of your hands. Yet they act upon this false ideal to criticize muslim or Arab governments as wrong because they do not allow people to wear or act however they feel.


I'm not the only one here that has criticized western liberalism. An it doesn't mean it comes from a desire to slander it because I'm a conservative for which I probably am not or atleast in this forum I so far have been called a conservative and a liberal...

Wow! I have never heard of any of that!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Wow! I have never heard of any of that!

Is that the, "I've never heard of that, therefore it doesn't exist," defence?

Here is what I am learning today. Potentially implicit systematic racism is much worse than clear explicit stated racism.

Check. Got it.

 Easy E wrote:
Here is what I am learning today. Potentially implicit systematic racism is much worse than clear explicit stated racism.

Check. Got it.

The former actually gets implemented, nothing potential about it. The second is just hot air. And to make matters worse, the former gets ignored by those who claim to be politically correct.

Both are bad. Which is worse? I think both are equally abhorrent.

 Easy E wrote:
Here is what I am learning today. Potentially implicit systematic racism is much worse than clear explicit stated racism.

Check. Got it.

Cite where anybody said that implied systematic racism is much worse than clear explicit stated racism?

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Wow! I have never heard of any of that!

Is that the, "I've never heard of that, therefore it doesn't exist," defence?

Well, considering you have not given any evidence, having never heard of it is a valid excuse for no believing it.

FWIW the point BrotherGecko is making is hardly an obscure one. There's certainly an argument to be made that we in the West are attempting to push our political ideas on the rest of the world; it's entirely orthodox post-colonial theory.

The important thing is that we have moved on from talking about having open racists, grand wizards, and the KKK endorse Trump, blacks being attacked at his rallies, people shouting "get these [see forum posting rules] out of here", and future marines getting kicked out of their programs because of their conduct at these rallies. We are now taking about the true menace to our post-racial America: the liberals who only want to make things better for everyone else because they are racists.

Easy E wrote:Here is what I am learning today. Potentially implicit systematic racism is much worse than clear explicit stated racism.

Check. Got it.

Don't sensationalize to derail a point.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Here is what I am learning today. Potentially implicit systematic racism is much worse than clear explicit stated racism.

Check. Got it.

Cite where anybody said that implied systematic racism is much worse than clear explicit stated racism?

Thank you, nobody has tried to compair the too. Though one doesn't make you more innocent then the other.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:FWIW the point BrotherGecko is making is hardly an obscure one. There's certainly an argument to be made that we in the West are attempting to push our political ideas on the rest of the world; it's entirely orthodox post-colonial theory.

Exactly! Thank you!
It isn't hard to grasp. It is a fairly common theory and there is nobody but ones own self to blame if they can reflect on their own ideology or actually learn about its results or practices because they are too lazy, or assume they are in the right or believed some how mission has been accomplished.

And who might it be that teaches post-colonial theory? Why I believe that would be those radical liberals indoctrinating our loved ones minds in those liberal arts colleges and universities throughout the homeland about moral relativism and whatnot. More white mans burden.

See brought it full circle.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Wow! I have never heard of any of that!

Is that the, "I've never heard of that, therefore it doesn't exist," defence?

Why do I have to defend anything? Perhaps the accuser should provide some evidence first.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Wow! I have never heard of any of that!

Is that the, "I've never heard of that, therefore it doesn't exist," defence?

Why do I have to defend anything? Perhaps the accuser should provide some evidence first.

I get the distinct feeling that you wouldn't accept evidence. I discussed the liberal support of an invasion of Afghanistan (specifically to save people from their own life style), the liberals that supported invasion of Iraq (specifically to liberate people from their own life styles), the very fact that post-colonialsim as a school of thought exists in academia as a criticism of western liberalism even exists. How about liberal hawkism that assumes military intervention is what the beleaguered brown people of the world need to save them (Libya). Neoliberalism, that sees nothing wrong with destruction of pesky non-secular cultures in the name of globalization. The liberal quote Sanders made at the last debate that robs minorities of their agency in favor of the helping hand of white liberals.

Are you using the tactic of asking for citations* so you can get me to refuse to waste my time so you can claim victory?

* I see no reason to give you a litany of books you will never read and immediately dismiss. Websites you can nitpick in order to dismiss or any other media. I've given you topics of discussion and you have google.


I figured I would opset a few by countering the narrative with reality. Didn't think it would break into childlish yahbuts, sensationalism, denialism an outright arrogance by ignorance. Not everyday you get to say something so liberal it has to be dismissed as conservative propaganda to return to the comfort zone of assuming conservativism is the root of all problems.

Actually, I think the main problem here is that "Liberal" and "Conservative" are such wide brushes, and most political beliefs really don't fit neatly into them. A problem I often see.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Negatory, its pretty heavily favored by neoliberalist too, such as Clinton.

Regardless of what you may think the term "neoliberal" means, I can assure it does not describe Hillary Clinton's political positions.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Liberal Hawkish, the "humanitarian " use of military force to "liberate" people from their governments and barbaric cultures is very popular amongst Western liberals.

And Western conservatives, especially those residing in the USA. After all that was one of the central arguments for the invasion of Iraq.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Hence why liberals jumped on board with the invasion of Afghanistan to liberate Afghan women from their plight under Islam. Or why they jumped on board with the invasion of Iraq because the people there obviously needed American help to fix their horrible lives.

The phrase "jumped on board" implies that there is a board on which to jump. If it wasn't being held by "Western liberals", as they needed to jump on it, then who was holding it?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There's certainly an argument to be made that we in the West are attempting to push our political ideas on the rest of the world

That's what we do best!

 dogma wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Negatory, its pretty heavily favored by neoliberalist too, such as Clinton.

Regardless of what you may think the term "neoliberal" means, I can assure it does not describe Hillary Clinton's political positions.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/7/19/1403488/-Anti-Capitalist-Meetup-How-Neoliberal-is-Hillary-Clinton

I'm aware of what neoliberal is. Here is something that does a good job of explaining it.

 dogma wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Liberal Hawkish, the "humanitarian " use of military force to "liberate" people from their governments and barbaric cultures is very popular amongst Western liberals.

And Western conservatives, especially those residing in the USA. After all that was one of the central arguments for the invasion of Iraq.

A whataboutism doesn't clear western liberals of responsibility. They (not all) were still a part of it an simply adjusted the justification to align it better with ideology.

 dogma wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Hence why liberals jumped on board with the invasion of Afghanistan to liberate Afghan women from their plight under Islam. Or why they jumped on board with the invasion of Iraq because the people there obviously needed American help to fix their horrible lives.

The phrase "jumped on board" implies that there is a board on which to jump. If it wasn't being held by "Western liberals", as they needed to jump on it, then who was holding it?

A whataboutism doesn't clear western liberals. Western conservatives, specifically neoconservatives (not all), created the arguement and liberals (not all) joined it with the only real grievance being multateralism instead of unilateralism. Read Michael McDonald's Overreach, he will lay it out in painstaking detail for you.