Majority of White Americans Say They Believe Whites Face Discrimination

[bhsmte]

So you post multiple threads about specific kinds of racism every day for months on end, almost like it's a tic or compulsion, but you can refrain from doing so for months in a row at times?

Looks like it may be catching up, for lost time.

 

[dmmesdale]

No doubt the same could be said of the majority of black people to militants such as BLM who use the rest of black society as pawns.

Does BLM promote violence and run around in costumes which conceal their faces like the KKK and Antifa?

 

[SummerMadness]

Does BLM promote violence and run around in costumes which conceal their faces like the KKK and Antifa?

They'll simply take a video from several years ago from a splinter of a protest or find some random Twitter post to argue they promote violence because they won't find any such language from the founders or at speeches given at rallies.

 

[Ana the Ist]

They'll simply take a video from several years ago from a splinter of a protest or find some random Twitter post to argue they promote violence because they won't find any such language from the founders or at speeches given at rallies.

'Black Lives' leader defends looting in Yale lecture

 

[Tallguy88]

You keep insisting on incorrectly calling their names abnormal, they are not abnormal, they are common names. The issue is not their commonality, it is the racist attitudes that discriminates against names for not being "white sounding."

This is by definition racism and does not get any clearer. Suggesting that "white sounding" names are normal while other common names that you consider non-white as abnormal is pure racism. You keep on insisting that there is no racism, but continue to equate normal to white.

Nguyen is a surname and it does not change the fact that changing your first name to improve chances at employment denotes racism in society. However, the name change for many Asians has little to do with employment, it is often done to provide a name that is easier to pronounce for English speakers. Regardless, they maintain their surnames, which unfortunately, leads to fewer job interviews.

You insist on defining society based on calling white normal as opposed to actual name frequency, which is the point, it's a racist attitude, hence why you probably consider Mohammed an "abnormal" name.

Don’t call me racist. Just because everything is about race with you doesn’t mean you need to project that on everyone else. Those names ARE abnormal around here. Maybe they are normal where you are from, but they are abnormal here. Most black people around here have normal names. It’s not “white” names or “black” names, it’s normal and abnormal (or unusual if that sounds better).

And I knew a Vietnamese guy whose first name was Nguyen. I know it’s usually a last name.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Don’t call me racist. Just because everything is about race with you doesn’t mean you need to project that on everyone else. Those names ARE abnormal around here. Maybe they are normal where you are from, but they are abnormal here. Most black people around here have normal names. It’s not “white” names or “black” names, it’s normal and abnormal (or unusual if that sounds better).

And I knew a Vietnamese guy whose first name was Nguyen. I know it’s usually a last name.

I worked with a Vietnamese guy named Nguyen. Also, you're right...the study would be better if they also looked at unusual names for whites and other races. It's hard for me to imagine that this never occurred to any of the researchers studying this...but it's possible. It's also possible that when they did study this factor...they didn't like the results...so they left it out.

Regardless, it's a bit of a non-issue. We aren't talking about all black people...just some. We're also talking about a study that shows all they need to do is apply for more jobs than someone who has a more common name...not exactly a crippling social disparity. Furthermore, studies have shown that being made aware of an implicit bias does nothing to change it...even if these employers were told what they're doing, it would change nothing. We can do the exact same study 10 years from now with the exact same results. The only way to change it is for parents to give their children more common names or for the children to change their names when they're older.

Most importantly though...other research has shown that uncommon names like Jamal or LaShawnda have absolutely no effect on the chances of that person's financial success. If I remember correctly, it was a thirty year study tracking people with these names across all strata of society...and the conclusion was it makes zero difference. Having to apply for a few more jobs or a few more times simply isn't a big enough obstacle to keep someone from success.

 

[Aldebaran]

Does BLM promote violence and run around in costumes which conceal their faces like the KKK and Antifa?

I don't know if they promote violence. But if you want to know if they commit it, we only need to look back at what they've done:

 

[Aldebaran]

They'll simply take a video from several years ago from a splinter of a protest or find some random Twitter post to argue they promote violence because they won't find any such language from the founders or at speeches given at rallies.

You mean the same way you take events from an entire century ago to justify what you say?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't know if they promote violence. But if you want to know if they commit it, we only need to look back at what they've done:

I can already see the response now...

"But those aren't BLM protesters!"

Never mind that they may be the same people marching in the streets chanting. If they committed any violence, they're automatically dismissed as not part of the group.

Meanwhile, anyone who even speaks up for a neo nazis' right to free speech is a nazi or sympathizer. Anyone who suggests a civil war statue be left alone is a white supremacist.

 

[Aldebaran]

I can already see the response now...

"But those aren't BLM protesters!"

Never mind that they may be the same people marching in the streets chanting. If they committed any violence, they're automatically dismissed as not part of the group.

Meanwhile, anyone who even speaks up for a neo nazis' right to free speech is a nazi or sympathizer. Anyone who suggests a civil war statue be left alone is a white supremacist.

I've posted the first picture in the past, and someone actually said, "But that person with the BLM sign has his back to the flames!", as if to imply that he wasn't part of the group that started the fires. I wonder who did. Perhaps the police, or maybe the owner of the business that is going up in smoke?

 

[MoonlessNight]

Does BLM promote violence and run around in costumes which conceal their faces like the KKK and Antifa?

They have a tendency to shut down highways. Everyone should be able to agree on that.

Additionally, at many such shut downs violence did occur, especially against police. In multiple events in the Twin Cities, for instance, bricks were thrown at police, as well as jars of urine.

It's not like any of this is new. It's been happening for years now. At this point if people claim to be ignorant of BLM's association with violence, I only can conclude that they are being willfully ignorant.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I can already see the response now...

"But those aren't BLM protesters!"

Never mind that they may be the same people marching in the streets chanting. If they committed any violence, they're automatically dismissed as not part of the group.

Meanwhile, anyone who even speaks up for a neo nazis' right to free speech is a nazi or sympathizer. Anyone who suggests a civil war statue be left alone is a white supremacist.

The event that displayed this type of rhetoric the best was the Boston free speech rally. The rally itself had absolutely nothing to do with violence or racial hatred. This is undeniable if we go by the standard of "the group is only responsible for things that its founders endorse" since the organizers of the rally explicitly condemned both violence and racism. But it was also obvious from merely watching the event; there were less than a hundred people who attended the rally, their speeches were innocuous, they were surrounded by police the whole time and caused no disturbance with them.

At the same time the counter-protest attracted thousands of people. These people got into multiple violent altercations with the police, with many occurring hours after the free speech rally had ended and every person attending the rally had left. And yet in the media the counter-protestors were almost universally described as "largely peaceful" while those who attended the free speech rally were implied to be responsible for the earlier violence in Charlottesville (because they supposedly endorsed the same rhetoric).

It's just another example of "there are wrong targets but no wrong tactics."

 

[SummerMadness]

When I see attempts to paint any violence that breaks out at protests as being pushed by civil rights leaders/groups, I am reminded of Martin Luther King, Jr.. who was also accused of inciting hatred and violence.

When Martin Luther King was accused of inciting violence

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, King was repeatedly derided by his opponents for inciting violence. The FBI even investigated him, fearing his potential impact on US society. The White House, meanwhile, seriously feared that the March on Washington would lead to riots and violence — something that seems completely absurd today.

Still, we see something similar today in how the public and media behave toward people they disagree with, from the Tea Party to the Black Lives Matter movement. This is why the history of King's treatment matters: It shows just how easy it is to misread and demonize the intentions of people we disagree with, even when it involves someone now widely considered an American hero in peaceful protest.

Gallup Poll: Public Opinion on Civil Rights Movement (1960s)
Gallup Poll (AIPO) [May, 1961]
Do you approve or disapprove of what the 'Freedom Riders' are doing?

22% Approve
61% Disapprove
18% No opinion​

Do you think 'sit-ins' at lunch counters, 'freedom buses,' and other demonstrati ons by Negroes will hurt or help the Negro's chances of being integrated in the South?

57% Hurt
28% Help
16% No opinion​

It's always to hear people lionize MLK while deriding current civil rights work, but the reality is they reflect the same disapproving majority.

What we see is the respectability politics game where there is a demand for riots to be condemned, something that is needless to say when people like Deray McKesson has called for peaceful protest; likewise, most of these protests are peaceful. But much like King understood that riots are the language of the unheard, McKesson also speaks to this truth about violence.

The movement has always been rooted in ending violence, those who say otherwise are simply playing a game where they pretend that they would support police reform if it were not for some protests breaking out into violence. But much like the anger seen over the NFL protests or people blocking roadways, both peaceful forms of protests, you see the same vitriolic denunciation. With all the talk of promoting violence, conservatives were advocating hitting protesters with vehicles until it resulted in someone dying. Additionally, some of them continue to ignore the advocacy for race war by white supremacists, instead they play the pretend game of, "I would be for your civil rights if I didn't see news stories about violence at some of those protests."

 

[Ana the Ist]

When I see attempts to paint any violence that breaks out at protests as being pushed by civil rights leaders/groups, I am reminded of Martin Luther King, Jr.. who was also accused of inciting hatred and violence.

When Martin Luther King was accused of inciting violence


What we see is the respectability politics game where there is a demand for riots to be condemned, something that is needless to say when people like Deray McKesson has called for peaceful protest; likewise, most of these protests are peaceful. But much like King understood that riots are the language of the unheard, McKesson also speaks to this truth about violence.

The movement has always been rooted in ending violence,

McKesson only made that call to end violence after he was charged with inciting violence lol. MLK made it clear that he stood for non-violent protest from the start. That's a pretty big difference.

those who say otherwise are simply playing a game where they pretend that they would support police reform if it were not for some protests breaking out into violence. But much like the anger seen over the NFL protests or people blocking roadways, both peaceful forms of protests, you see the same vitriolic denunciation. With all the talk of promoting violence, conservatives were advocating hitting protesters with vehicles until it resulted in someone dying. Additionally, some of them continue to ignore the advocacy for race war by white supremacists, instead they play the pretend game of, "I would be for your civil rights if I didn't see news stories about violence at some of those protests."

Unfortunately, I remember watching the LA riots on t.v...and I remember watching white people who stopped for rioters blocking the streets get pulled from their vehicles and beaten. I don't think blocking streets is particularly smart or useful.

 

[Aldebaran]

When I see attempts to paint any violence that breaks out at protests as being pushed by civil rights leaders/groups, I am reminded of Martin Luther King, Jr.. who was also accused of inciting hatred and violence.

When Martin Luther King was accused of inciting violence

MLK had a dream where people were known for their character rather than focusing on skin color and making everything about race. Follow his lead!

 

[TheBear]

You can talk about perception ("they seem to") and then look at the statistical studies, which demonstrates that notions of widespread discrimination against whites is not true.

According to many people, white, straight males are the poster child of everything bad about society. White, straight males living today, are blamed for the sins of hundreds of years ago. In some circles, all whites must die. Many non-white groups exclude whites from their 'diversity' activities, starting with college campuses. Then you have the notion of 'white privelage' being shoved down everyone's throat. And don't forget the many people who are pushing the egregious narrative and unfounded indictment that all whites are racists, even if they're not aware of it because it's on a subconscious level. (now there's a mind boggler ) When white people as much as sneeze the wrong way, there will always be those who interpreted it as racism and white supremacy, it would be all over the news, and you'll never hear the end of it. If you look around this very forum, even in the threads you posted, you will see one exampole after the next of what I'm talking about. As a result of all this and other conditioning factors, white guilt and people being ashamed of being white is abound. And then you have all the double standards favoring blacks. For example, If a black person expresses pride in their race, that's acceptable. If a white person expresses pride in their race, thats bigotry, racism, white supremacy and shameful.

 

[Rion]

In response to the original post, anyone catch the thing that went on last week at college campuses? 4Chan, having grown bored of making women and children cry, decided they needed a new target for their trolling. Casting about, they settled on what has become a reoccurring target for them: progressives

Now how, you may ask, did they make progressives lose their ever-loving minds? Easy, they put flyers which simply said: "It is okay to be white." That's it. No names, no other phrases, no Pepes or anything like that. Just those six basic words. England, Canada, and America all got hit with these rather tame announcements.

Of course Colleges, being the progressive bastions of tolerance and acceptance that they are, promptly lost their ever-loving minds. Students cried that they suddenly felt unsafe. School papers declared that they were attempts to recruit for the alt-right. Faculty denounced the flyers as racist, bigoted, and divisive.

All for saying that it isn't wrong if you are born white.

Hmm, I wonder why white people increasingly feel put upon for their skin color.

 

[MoonlessNight]

In response to the original post, anyone catch the thing that went on last week at college campuses? 4Chan, having grown bored of making women and children cry, decided they needed a new target for their trolling. Casting about, they settled on what has become a reoccurring target for them: progressives

Now how, you may ask, did they make progressives lose their ever-loving minds? Easy, they put flyers which simply said: "It is okay to be white." That's it. No names, no other phrases, no Pepes or anything like that. Just those six basic words. England, Canada, and America all got hit with these rather tame announcements.

Of course Colleges, being the progressive bastions of tolerance and acceptance that they are, promptly lost their ever-loving minds. Students cried that they suddenly felt unsafe. School papers declared that they were attempts to recruit for the alt-right. Faculty denounced the flyers as racist, bigoted, and divisive.

All for saying that it isn't wrong if you are born white.

Hmm, I wonder why white people increasingly feel put upon for their skin color.

What I find the most amazing about it is that this time around many of the reports actually found the original 4chan posts.

Thus they explicitly read that the intention of the posters was to make the left and the media flip out over the simple statement that "It's okay to be white," in an attempt to show the average Joe that the left and the media have lost their minds when it comes to race issues.

Somehow after reading that they said to themselves: "How about we completely freak out about this? That'll show 'em!"

It's difficult to believe that people really can be this dense.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I'm proud to be white...

 

[RDKirk]

Real men don't claim victimhood.