Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
btw @Midnight Delight next time I won't be so forgiving
If someone has a disease that only a certain medication can keep at bay, it is mandatory for the medication to be taken if they want to live. Saying that medication is not mandatory for that person to live is objectively wrong.
How does that say or imply that one is afraid of reform or taking risk? Those with diseases are already fucked and NEED the medicine, so you simply have to reform the structure so that nobody else gets sick, making that medicine obsolete in the future.
You're still making a ton of assumptions about someone's beliefs in order to enforce your own criteria on them. No change at all with the approach.
Thank you. 
I am forever grateful that I've been able to make a positive effect on the world through my situation. It's one of the saving graces.
There is an alternate view of what racism is, and it's systematic power. However, the argument is that you cannot be racist towards white people in the west. So here is an alternate question - can you, from your framework, be racist towards whites in India, or China, or Korea, or Nigeria?
Because ultimately, if racism is systematic power, then people who have an overwhelming demographic advantage and complete control of the systems of power would be the only ones with the power to be racist. Would this mean whites cannot be racist in those countries?
I still have hope he can see reason if I present information within his framework.
I am forever grateful that I've been able to make a positive effect on the world through my situation. It's one of the saving graces.
There is an alternate view of what racism is, and it's systematic power. However, the argument is that you cannot be racist towards white people in the west. So here is an alternate question - can you, from your framework, be racist towards whites in India, or China, or Korea, or Nigeria?
Because ultimately, if racism is systematic power, then people who have an overwhelming demographic advantage and complete control of the systems of power would be the only ones with the power to be racist. Would this mean whites cannot be racist in those countries?
I still have hope he can see reason if I present information within his framework.
No white people can feel racism.
If someone feels racism, it means that they have been racialized. Like the case of Irish population in the 19' century. What people can feel on the other hand are discrimination. That's not cool of course, but it is far removed from the realm of racism, it is not the same process, not the same consequences.
Systemic domination rather. it's a system (in which we all participate) dominating groups of population. That's why the term "domination" is important to understand the power relationships.
White can be racist in those countries of course and benefit from racism, but not against white, against racialized people (who are not white)
It's a bit complex, that why I want to explain this in detail.
Racism is not created by the ones in majorities. In reality, there could be less white people in an aera and white people would still be in position of domination. The reason for that is that racism is a structural system domination. Racism or rather white supremacy, is a system that structures ALL societies (now) in order for white people to gain access to advantages that others (racialized people) don't have.
No matter the country, even China or North Korea (although we would need to verify this) or south america or Senegal or South Africa or France or the US. ALL country, have been retructed by white supremacy in order for white people to benefit from their whiteness.
As you can see, racism, is not just "you discriminate other because of the race", it's far more complicated than that. It's a structure. A system that we are all participating it and a system that won't fall unless we start to attack white supremacy at his ideological cores.
Me too didn't accept that at first. But as I described it to you, my perspective changed and I understood how to see racism from the individualistic vision that I had (idealism) where racism was just people discriminating other based on their skin color. The "blind racism" version. To a political, scientific and systemic vision (materialism) where racism is the consequences of a domination that was put into motion 4 centuries ago.
If someone feels racism, it means that they have been racialized. Like the case of Irish population in the 19' century. What people can feel on the other hand are discrimination. That's not cool of course, but it is far removed from the realm of racism, it is not the same process, not the same consequences.
Systemic domination rather. it's a system (in which we all participate) dominating groups of population. That's why the term "domination" is important to understand the power relationships.
White can be racist in those countries of course and benefit from racism, but not against white, against racialized people (who are not white)
It's a bit complex, that why I want to explain this in detail.
Racism is not created by the ones in majorities. In reality, there could be less white people in an aera and white people would still be in position of domination. The reason for that is that racism is a structural system domination. Racism or rather white supremacy, is a system that structures ALL societies (now) in order for white people to gain access to advantages that others (racialized people) don't have.
No matter the country, even China or North Korea (although we would need to verify this) or south america or Senegal or South Africa or France or the US. ALL country, have been retructed by white supremacy in order for white people to benefit from their whiteness.
As you can see, racism, is not just "you discriminate other because of the race", it's far more complicated than that. It's a structure. A system that we are all participating it and a system that won't fall unless we start to attack white supremacy at his ideological cores.
Me too didn't accept that at first. But as I described it to you, my perspective changed and I understood how to see racism from the individualistic vision that I had (idealism) where racism was just people discriminating other based on their skin color. The "blind racism" version. To a political, scientific and systemic vision (materialism) where racism is the consequences of a domination that was put into motion 4 centuries ago.
This is where I realise you are too far gone. You do not understand your own ideology here, man. You're just oikophobic.
There are many nations and cultures that exhibit cronyism and towards their own demographic. That is a form of systematic domination over a sphere of influence. In such an instance, a white person, by your framework, experiences racism.
I am not saying that whites are predominantly the victims of racism over other races. However, for you to say it does not exist is false. Even within your 'expanded' and updated explanation of racism.
I grew up in ghettos, my dude. In one area, the discrimination I experienced for being one of the only white people in my area taught me that this is not a simple case of 'white people bad'. I was a child. I did nothing wrong but exist.
Ultimately, people will target you for being different, especially if they have the majority over you. It's fucked up, but it's the reality I lived as a child for a while until I was fortunate to move away from such circumstances.
By your worldview, I didn't experience racism. In fact, as a white child, I must have been the true oppressor.
I try to see that you're a well-intentioned zealot, but sometimes... you're just incorrigible.
There are many nations and cultures that exhibit cronyism and towards their own demographic. That is a form of systematic domination over a sphere of influence. In such an instance, a white person, by your framework, experiences racism.
I am not saying that whites are predominantly the victims of racism over other races. However, for you to say it does not exist is false. Even within your 'expanded' and updated explanation of racism.
I grew up in ghettos, my dude. In one area, the discrimination I experienced for being one of the only white people in my area taught me that this is not a simple case of 'white people bad'. I was a child. I did nothing wrong but exist.
Ultimately, people will target you for being different, especially if they have the majority over you. It's fucked up, but it's the reality I lived as a child for a while until I was fortunate to move away from such circumstances.
By your worldview, I didn't experience racism. In fact, as a white child, I must have been the true oppressor.
I try to see that you're a well-intentioned zealot, but sometimes... you're just incorrigible.
I understand that you feel like I'm not really understanding what I'm saying. And at you place I would be warry too of some random telling me that i'm not understanding something and trying to make something that I think is simple much more complex than it seems.
But .. sadly, I do completely understand the subject. I can't pretend that I have all the cultural bagage that come with it (references of books, thinkers, names of scientists and researched paper, dates and knowledge of all the events etc.) but I can tell you with a 98% certainty that I now understand quite well the subject I'm trying to share.
It took time, I won't deny that. Even two years ago, I did not understand it fully. But now I do, at least the core of it. You can keep thinking that I'm dreaming this knowledge... or you can trust me and research it for yourself.
There are two simple words that you can type on google "Whiteness studies". Search this and try to find articles, videos, researchs, books about the subject. Then come back to me. I'm sure you might have a different vision of white supremacy.
Yes. But it's not natural. It's structural.
No. Simply someone living discriminations. I'm not saying that discrimination are not rude. I'm saying that racism is an entirely different beast.
But .. sadly, I do completely understand the subject. I can't pretend that I have all the cultural bagage that come with it (references of books, thinkers, names of scientists and researched paper, dates and knowledge of all the events etc.) but I can tell you with a 98% certainty that I now understand quite well the subject I'm trying to share.
It took time, I won't deny that. Even two years ago, I did not understand it fully. But now I do, at least the core of it. You can keep thinking that I'm dreaming this knowledge... or you can trust me and research it for yourself.
There are two simple words that you can type on google "Whiteness studies". Search this and try to find articles, videos, researchs, books about the subject. Then come back to me. I'm sure you might have a different vision of white supremacy.
Yes. But it's not natural. It's structural.
No. Simply someone living discriminations. I'm not saying that discrimination are not rude. I'm saying that racism is an entirely different beast.
'Whiteness studies' were created by individuals to justify their own racial hatred, biases, or in the case of white scholars, their oikophobia. They were demonstrating their grief as a way to exonerate their subsequent extremism. They then proceeded to demonise the very people they themselves feel discriminated by, all the while placing themselves in a position of victimhood to further protect themselves from scrutiny.
Above all else, Logiko, your greatest problem is that you are incredibly susceptible to confirmation bias. You were as a right-winger, and you're now as a left-winger. You selectively follow, and promote, studies that you already agree with. You actively sought them out for that purpose. You're acting enlightened, when you're just following what you want to believe the most.
I will cease responding on this specific conversation. It's pointless.
Above all else, Logiko, your greatest problem is that you are incredibly susceptible to confirmation bias. You were as a right-winger, and you're now as a left-winger. You selectively follow, and promote, studies that you already agree with. You actively sought them out for that purpose. You're acting enlightened, when you're just following what you want to believe the most.
I will cease responding on this specific conversation. It's pointless.
My objections to @Logiko
1. When you take the term racism to be univocal, that is, applying only to the matter of structural-systemic power, then saying there is no racism against white people becomes a mere tautology; that is, it has no explanatory power whatsoever.
2. If racism requires power, and power varies according to place and scale, the thesis itself should admit racism against whites where whites do not dominate. If you don't accept that conclusion, then you show that the definition does not function as an analytical concept, which applies wherever its conditions are met, but as an ad hoc clause, designed to always produce the same answer.
3. If racism is a system of domination, the coherent position would be to admit that such systems have existed and still exist everywhere, carried out by all kinds of people, unless one wants to maintain that only europeans were capable of inventing ethnic hierarchy, which is untenable. Because we know that other societies made use of systems of domination: the Hindu caste system, Han supremacy over tibetans and uyghurs, which is state policy to this day, among other examples that, if I were to look into it, I would certainly find
1. When you take the term racism to be univocal, that is, applying only to the matter of structural-systemic power, then saying there is no racism against white people becomes a mere tautology; that is, it has no explanatory power whatsoever.
2. If racism requires power, and power varies according to place and scale, the thesis itself should admit racism against whites where whites do not dominate. If you don't accept that conclusion, then you show that the definition does not function as an analytical concept, which applies wherever its conditions are met, but as an ad hoc clause, designed to always produce the same answer.
3. If racism is a system of domination, the coherent position would be to admit that such systems have existed and still exist everywhere, carried out by all kinds of people, unless one wants to maintain that only europeans were capable of inventing ethnic hierarchy, which is untenable. Because we know that other societies made use of systems of domination: the Hindu caste system, Han supremacy over tibetans and uyghurs, which is state policy to this day, among other examples that, if I were to look into it, I would certainly find
You implied that I'm completely closed off yet, you are the one closing yourself from actual science and millions of people working on the subject....by throwing at me the same jab of affirmation of my knowledge that you seems to don't like from me.
Should I be dissapointed and give up or will we be able to find a common ground to arrive to something constructive?
Ok that's possible. I'm not perfect. What makes you believe that it is not your case? That you are right and I'm not.
After all, if you are right, then it means that you have reasons other than your beliefs to be right, right ? And If I'm wrong, then it means that you have other reasons that your beliefs that I'm wrong, right?
So how do you make sure that I'm the one how is falling for my confirmation biases on that subject, and not you?
I won't it's not pointless.
Should I be dissapointed and give up or will we be able to find a common ground to arrive to something constructive?
Ok that's possible. I'm not perfect. What makes you believe that it is not your case? That you are right and I'm not.
After all, if you are right, then it means that you have reasons other than your beliefs to be right, right ? And If I'm wrong, then it means that you have other reasons that your beliefs that I'm wrong, right?
So how do you make sure that I'm the one how is falling for my confirmation biases on that subject, and not you?
I won't it's not pointless.