Now non-white people can be white

[Erik Nelson]

See, I don't get why people hate and despise western culture so much. It might not be perfect (what culture is?), but comparatively it's provided so much for so many I cannot wrap my head around the personal purchases, wholesale, of the anti-western propaganda.

Historically, attempts have been made to conquer Europe since Sultan Mehmet (~1500 AD), Shahs Darius & Xerxes (~500 BC), and King Kadim (~1500 BC) who sowed division amongst the Greeks, tricking them into defeating themselves

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh for crying out loud.

I'm the one you addressed in post #70. If you're going to call me out, call me out.

I would have but there's rules against it.

Don't confuse a choice to not engage with the inability to engage.

Not an answer.

I didn't respond to that comment or subsequent comments because I learned a while ago that I don't have the energy, time, or desire anymore to go back and forth with you on certain subjects,

Not an answer.

especially those that require chasing down your strawmen (which often happens on subjects related to racism).

It's bizarre to watch people complain about the awfulness of Jim Crow and then create laws and policies that specifically benefit certain races.

It's a remarkable lack of self awareness.

In this thread, I chose to engage you on specific subjects that I knew I had the energy to engage on (e.g. the Korean War).

Yeah....but you tacked on replies to other posts so I read them lol.

When you chimed in on comments I addressed to others, I deliberately chose to just overlook the ones I knew were headed towards a rabbit hole I didn't want to go down.

Cuz you know what is down there?

More broadly, I just don't have the energy for most useless protracted arguments here anymore.

Not true....I've seen you make the same complaints about Trump in thread after thread.

You can't support institutional racism while complaining a guy said something racist. I mean....you can...but it's not a real position.

For the most part, the only useless arguments I have the energy for are drive-by snipings, which is more-or-less what I did with @Erik Nelson and @98cwitr . (possible exception: economic issues that I have an easier time researching and arguing, which I do for my own edification more than anything)

I can't recall any economic postings.

I don't think the left genuinely pursues anything other than social policy.

Honestly though....I once did what you just did here, he reported me and I got a warning. I'm pretty sure I got it removed, because it's not in the rules, but I do recall being told callouts aren't allowed.

I did nothing more than recall a position the poster took....with proof.

You're more reasonable than a lot of folks I disagree with, and while I often don't trust your take on racial issues, they typically warrant more of a response than a 30 second hot take while I'm sitting on the toilet. And these days I typically have better things to do.

My concerns were mostly "guesswork" till now....I hope I'm wrong but....

It's hard to think that when I'm getting confirmation I'm right. I was saying these ideas would lead to race based policies years ago.....people said "ehhh....it won't get that far".

Here we are.

Edit- you really should have answered. It seems like a pretty easy question.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Overly simplistic (though convenient if one seeks to "justify" reparations & seizures)

The closest thing to reparations I've seen is some weird form of familial debt bondage where debts pass father to son indefinitely.

Even that has been long since removed as a cruel practice of forced servitude.

Yet...for some reason some people believe that despite my ancestors getting here after slavery....I'm supposed to pay for something because of my skin color. An aspect which isn't inherently meaningful and outside of my control.

What am I supposed to pay for? A crime? No....it was mostly legal and the norm for all parties involved. It's just if you retroactively look back then at the norms while pretending to hold modern values....and simultaneously invest heavily in your skin color as a meaningful aspect of your identity....you know, because you think race is super important....

Well depending upon what skin color you have you might have a sense of shame or rage that you think can be rectified with a transaction despite no crime or misdeed actually occurring between both parties.

Why these folks can't pursue their emotional satisfaction without involving my money....I have no idea. I've told them....if they want to find black person who is bitter and angry about slavery and cut them a check, they don't need anyone else for that transaction.

For some reason, they don't understand this idea.

 

[Ana the Ist]

See, I don't get why people hate and despise western culture so much. It might not be perfect (what culture is?), but comparatively it's provided so much for so many I cannot wrap my head around the personal purchases, wholesale, of the anti-western propaganda.

I don't know if this happens culturally....but we tend to upwards compare here. We don't compare ourselves to our peers....we never really consider the state of those who have it worse....we look up at those who have more and wonder why not us.

That's commercialism in a sense.

It could also be the result of our fondness for social movements and letting them live past usefulness. Have a goal.....pursue the goal....if you attain the social goal you're done. Go do something else. Don't just invent stuff to pursue so you don't have to switch careers. It's not societies' fault you chose to get a degree in feminist theory. That's a degree with extremely limited use. You probably picked because you don't like math and didn't know what to pursue....but got a loan anyway. Stop taking out your bad choices on everyone else.

 

[Tom 1]

That makes sense to you?

I see that and immediately notice that whiteness never actually gets defined.

Would you be able to describe whiteness based on that paragraph?

Sure it makes sense, she describes whiteness as a term used in reference to white supremacist ideology (and all of the behaviour, beliefs and attitudes that go with that) as opposed to 'being white' as a physical characteristic. That being the case, a person doesn't need to be ethnically white to subscribe to that ideology, it's a mindset rather than something inherent to being ethnically white. As ideologies are not inherent to anyone this of course makes sense. If you want to know what she thinks white supremacy means you can read the interview. If you are asking for some sort of ultra precise uber-definition of some sort then you're just being disingenuous. As she says, how things like white supremacism manifest vary over time, some things stay the same, some things don't. You can easily verify that yourself by looking into the various notions white writers have had about other ethnic groups over the centuries. If you think it's a simple matter to define how one group of people thinks and behaves, try providing an exhaustive and objective definition of what 'American culture' means.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure it makes sense, she describes whiteness as a term used in reference to white supremacist ideology (and all of the behaviour, beliefs and attitudes that go with that) as opposed to 'being white' as a physical characteristic.

White supremacist ideology is rather simple. It's foundational premises are that white are genetically superior than other races. Whites should not dilute their genetics with other races. Whites should create nations where non white people don't exist.

That's about it.

Given that, I guess it's possible that some non-white people could be white supremacists...but it doesn't offer them any benefits.

That being the case, a person doesn't need to be ethnically white to subscribe to that ideology, it's a mindset rather than something inherent to being ethnically white. As ideologies are not inherent to anyone this of course makes sense.

Well people typically choose ideological positions based upon some emotional or in-group status appeal. It's hard to imagine what the emotional appeal of white supremacy would be for anyone it excludes.

If you want to know what she thinks this term means you can read the interview. If you are asking for some sort of ultra precise uber-definition of some sort then you're just being disingenuous. As she says, how things like white supremacism manifest vary over time, some things stay the same, some things don't. You can easily verify that yourself by looking into the various notions white writers have had about other ethnic groups over the centuries. If you think it's a simple matter to define how one group of people thinks and behaves, try providing an exhaustive and objective definition of what 'America culture' means.

No....there are actual white supremacists of the ideology I outlined above. Those beliefs lead to other conclusions of course but I'd be surprised to see any white supremacist group that doesn't closely agree with those 3.

Regardless I know she's talking nonsense. A political project? Meaningless. Emerging from history? Does she think that means anything....or is she just too stupid to understand that everything in present day emerged from history. It's not even a distinction. Dynamic and changing? Sooo....dynamic and dynamic. She owns a thesaurus.

Whiteness is a way of being racist towards whites openly and explicitly. It's a term for racists to use as a proxy for white people. Afraid someone might point out your racism while openly discussing your distaste of white people? Just tell them you mean "whiteness" and never explain the term in any meaningful way.

They literally have a collection of completely undefined terms at this point. It allows them to avoid real discussion and examination of their beliefs. They have the appearance of scholarly legitimacy so simple folk get intimidated.

Don't be intimidated. Ask for clarity. There's nothing wrong with not knowing or understanding a new concept. If a new concept is unexplainable.....there's a reason why.

 

[Tom 1]

White supremacist ideology is rather simple. It's foundational premises are that white are genetically superior than other races. Whites should not dilute their genetics with other races. Whites should create nations where non white people don't exist.

That's about it.

Given that, I guess it's possible that some non-white people could be white supremacists...but it doesn't offer them any benefits.



Well people typically choose ideological positions based upon some emotional or in-group status appeal. It's hard to imagine what the emotional appeal of white supremacy would be for anyone it excludes.



No....there are actual white supremacists of the ideology I outlined above. Those beliefs lead to other conclusions of course but I'd be surprised to see any white supremacist group that doesn't closely agree with those 3.

Regardless I know she's talking nonsense. A political project? Meaningless. Emerging from history? Does she think that means anything....or is she just too stupid to understand that everything in present day emerged from history. It's not even a distinction. Dynamic and changing? Sooo....dynamic and dynamic. She owns a thesaurus.

Whiteness is a way of being racist towards whites openly and explicitly. It's a term for racists to use as a proxy for white people. Afraid someone might point out your racism while openly discussing your distaste of white people? Just tell them you mean "whiteness" and never explain the term in any meaningful way.

They literally have a collection of completely undefined terms at this point. It allows them to avoid real discussion and examination of their beliefs. They have the appearance of scholarly legitimacy so simple folk get intimidated.

Don't be intimidated. Ask for clarity. There's nothing wrong with not knowing or understanding a new concept. If a new concept is unexplainable.....there's a reason why.

All you're saying here is that the basic notion you have about something is all there is to say about it. That doesn't match up with reality.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Edit- you really should have answered. It seems like a pretty easy question.

I’ve gone back and forth with you on the same subjects for years. It’s not easy. And it usually doesn’t amount to anything more than going in circles.

 

[Ana the Ist]

All you're saying here is that the basic notion you have about something is all there is to say about it. That doesn't match up with reality.

She can't define the concept she's trying to defend.

Explain how you spot "whiteness". How is it identified?

When you cannot answer everyone will know you don't know what you're talking about either.

 

[Tom 1]

She can't define the concept she's trying to defend.

Explain how you spot "whiteness". How is it identified?

When you cannot answer everyone will know you don't know what you're talking about either.

Spot what? What would 'spotting' whiteness mean? If want some ideas about what the person thinks of as elements of what she calls whiteness as a way of thinking, there is plenty of that in the interview, you can just read it.

What is she trying to defend? She's discussing and expanding on some ideas, not defending them as such.

Your argument is only valid within your own mind - that's where it has the context that this is some simple thing you should be able to define as you might define a vegetable or a louis XV armchair. But in reality, in the external world, that has no validity.

What is it exactly you are objecting to? That an amorphous idea is amorphous? Or what? Is there something specific the person says that you object to or disagree with?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I’ve gone back and forth with you on the same subjects for years. It’s not easy. And it usually doesn’t amount to anything more than going in circles.

No...you've definitely slowly walked into the support of institutional racism.

You used to argue you'd support a non-raced based system of reparations that poor whites would have access to.

Now you remain quiet while the left is literally instituting racism.

You come on here attacking a former president for being racist. You can't even state why Jim Crow was wrong.

You once told me you don't care about racism against whites. I think that you still hold that principle.

How far though? Would you give up half your wealth? Your home? Institute a racial heirarchy making you a second class citizen at best?

I'm genuinely curious because I don't see any reason why the left will stop pursuing this. Do you think they'll say "ok....we have enough...let's change back to equality"?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Spot what? What would 'spotting' whiteness mean?

How do you know whiteness is present within a socio political system or person?

How do you know? What is the method?

She's literally saying that a non-white person is engaging in whiteness. How can she, or you, or anyone else come to this conclusion? What indicates it?

You can't answer because you don't know what it means.

So just respond with your personal attack or run away.

 

[iluvatar5150]

You come on here attacking a former president for being racist. You can't even state why Jim Crow was wrong.

The first is easy for me; it's close to being a known quantity. When I engage in that argument (especially with certain individuals), I can make a reasonable estimate of how much time and energy it's going to require.

The second, OTOH, looks like a potentially endless back and forth requiring a ton of research on my part that I know I won't wind up doing. These days I try to be more selective regarding which debates I get into in the first place rather than diving in head first only to realize that I've dropped the ball half-way through because of some mix of personal time commitments, missing the notifications, forgetfulness, or 30-day bans.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The first is easy for me; it's close to being a known quantity.

Close to being a known quantity?

Quantity of what?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Spot what? What would 'spotting' whiteness mean? If want some ideas about what the person thinks of as elements of what she calls whiteness as a way of thinking, there is plenty of that in the interview, you can just read it.

What is she trying to defend? She's discussing and expanding on some ideas, not defending them as such.

Your argument is only valid within your own mind - that's where it has the context that this is some simple thing you should be able to define as you might define a vegetable or a louis XV armchair. But in reality, in the external world, that has no validity.

What is it exactly you are objecting to? That an amorphous idea is amorphous? Or what? Is there something specific the person says that you object to or disagree with?

Ok...looks like you choose to run because obviously, despite your earlier claim...you have no clue what whiteness is.

This is the modern left. Refusing to define "problems" so they can endlessly be applied in contradictory ways ad nauseam and telling their supporters they had better get on board or they'll be cast out.

No confidence in a party that engages in self deception and treats its supporters as if they are dumb.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Close to being a known quantity?

Quantity of what?

time and effort on my part

 

[Ana the Ist]

time and effort on my part

I don't understand why you can't just state that either racial discrimination is a moral good or bad.

Is it because you fully support racial discrimination....but on an emotional level, want to believe you aren't racist?

 

[iluvatar5150]

I don't understand why you can't just state that either racial discrimination is a moral good or bad.

Is it because you fully support racial discrimination....but on an emotional level, want to believe you aren't racist?

As I've said a couple times now - it's because I don't want to engage with you on that subject.

 

[Ana the Ist]

As I've said a couple times now - it's because I don't want to engage with you on that subject.

Uh huh...

So why reply at all? I spoke about how this dogma has no apologists. I explained that people genuinely don't understand it nor can they explain it.

Your continued participation just makes me look correct.

 

[Tom 1]

How do you know whiteness is present within a socio political system or person?

How do you know? What is the method?

She's literally saying that a non-white person is engaging in whiteness. How can she, or you, or anyone else come to this conclusion? What indicates it?

You can't answer because you don't know what it means.

So just respond with your personal attack or run away.

'Personal attack' is a little OTT. The woman in the interview explains her view perfectly well, you offer some random thought you happen to have about it in response, which addresses nothing that is actually in the interview. Then you go on as if you have actually said something of substance, and get offended when I point out the rather obvious fact that you are simply expressing some basic notion on this topic that doesn't map on to the actual reality of it. Once again, if you can make some effort to be a little clearer about what it is you disagree with or whatever point it is you have in mind, there'd be something more to respond to. As it is you are dismissing one set of ideas with a very basic one and expecting me to take your basic notion as being somehow universally valid. Why would I do that? And what would be the point of repeating what the person being interviewed has already said? Please read it through and point out what it is you don't think counts as an explanation or definition of her opinion.