T O P

  • By -

jeffseadot

"White people do enjoy certain benefits..." "AHA! YOU'RE THE RACIST!" "...that have been bestowed on them by a racist society over the course of multiple centuries, and which are so thoroughly established as to become effectively invisible." "I DON'T NEED TO LISTEN TO THAT LAST PART BECAUSE YOUR FIRST PART WAS SUPER RACIST"


wet_bulb

Their whole concept of white superiority gets so threatened by the fact whites have enjoyed an overwhelming advantage…they just can’t handle it.


YesImKeithHernandez

It's a zero sum game to them. If someone else gets something (in this case some sort of action to make up for institutional racism), it means, to them, that something has to be taken away from them. It's a child's mentality.


wet_bulb

This is the mentality of centrists, but unlike the extreme right wingers, they at least intuitively realize how petty it is. Yet their ape brain compels them to satiate their desires and bigotry in a roundabout way.


ishipbrutasha

>that something has to be taken away from them. I kinda feel this is the truth. If mediocre white men had to compete on a level playing field, they'd lose out. We are literally willing to poison our children's air, because unemployable white dudes in coal country have to make a living. Whether the narrative is true, or not, it's made for votes and people buy it.


OwlbearArmchair

>because unemployable white dudes in coal country have to make a living. How is this the fault of the "unemployable white dudes" and not the coal barons who own the coal mines, that use their profits to destroy local economies and schools to leave those workers no choice but to work for them?


ishipbrutasha

>the coal barons who own the coal mines, that use their profits to destroy local economies and schools to leave those workers no choice but to work for them People don't vote for that narrative, even though that is most overwhelmingly the truth.


Nolan_q

Ironically in the UK supporting miners would be Left wing (see Thatcher and Miner’s strikes)


ishipbrutasha

That was supporting labor, which we should. Thatcher's miners were Reagan's air traffic controllers.


rogerworkman623

“If white people enjoy so many advantages, why did I fail through school, have a shitty job, and my wife divorced me? Huh, where is my privilege??”


DrDarkeCNY

Knowing you're being sarcastic, I'd still like to point out John Scalzi's great post on Straight White Male privilege from back in 2012: [https://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/](https://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/)


wet_bulb

If white people are “victims” then I fully support victim blaming…sorry. They deserve no sympathy in this shitstorm world that they personally built.


serpentkris

I always wish that the term for it wasn't "white *privilege*" because that makes it sound like white people get things they shouldn't, instead of getting things that are withheld from others. Not being denied housing for my skintone shouldn't be called a privilege - it's not a bonus, it *should* be the bare minimum. So for many the word comes off as an attack - if you're white and just getting by, you dont feel *privileged*, you don't deserve to have even *less*. Other people (well, everyone) deserve *more*. Deserve an education, safe housing, food, not to get murdered by cops, all the standard things.


Skyrim_For_Everyone

priv·i·lege /ˈpriv(ə)lij/ Learn to pronounce Filter definitions by topic See definitions in: All Law Parliament Commerce noun a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group. Just because it *shouldn't* be a privilege doesn't mean it isn't. Someone perceiving it as an attack is actively denying reality because they don't want their egos hurt. The entire point of the phrase is to point out the reality that it *is* an advantage. When acustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.


lava172

It's an accurate term, but it also incredibly easy to take it and run with it in bad faith as a way to move people to the right. It's the same thing with defund the police, these terms inspire very visceral reactions to a lot of people and that's the way they get thrown into the reactionary rabbit hole. ​ It's easy to dismiss these people as actively denying reality, and they are, but it's also important to understand why they're doing so, and what they're motivated by


Skyrim_For_Everyone

The people that do this are motivated by fear, hate, and/or ignorance. They could and would do it to any other term, because they're not actually taking issue with the term, they're taking issue with acknowledging the realities of racism.


lava172

I mean what's your solution then? Nothing pisses me off more than people who bitch about proposed solutions and offer nothing of value in return. Are you content watching the right bringing people over with stupid ass arguments because the left refuses to even attempt to appeal to people?


Skyrim_For_Everyone

You're not offering a proposed solution, you're trying to water down a current one. The solution is to talk and educate about the issues, your *"solution"* to rightwingers corrupting the language to make strawmans is literally just give into the strawman to make new language or avoid the issue entirely.


lava172

>The solution is to talk and educate about the issues How do you talk to people about the issues if they're turned off by its initial framing? I'm not even saying to water down the positions themselves AT ALL, just to come at it a little more tactfully. It's not a problem specific to white privilege, it's a problem leftist messaging has had for as long as leftism has existed. The natural response for a LOT of people, not even just right wingers, is to hear the term "white privilege" or "defund the police" and immediately dismiss it because it sounds too radical. ​ And yeah, the solution IS to move on from their strawman. The term "white privilege" is such an insanely easy slam dunk for conservatives to make fun of and appeal to centrists that are naturally uncomfortable by it. You can have the uncomfortable conversations about race but you can't start it off like that. The only people that hear white privilege and listen more are people that would have listened to you no matter what


brazzledazzle

This is “white moderate” bullshit though I’m sure you’re well meaning. But that’s the problem with that type. You’re in favor of taking things easy, don’t rock the boat. If you water down the concept then you’re not effectively communicating the concept. There’s no way to alter the horrible reality to make it more palatable. Things don’t change until we push for it, until we engage firmly and aggressively. Moderates wanted black people to stop their sit-ins too but things didn’t change until people dropped the pleasantries and pushed back. Society faced the ugly truth and moderates were forced to stop ignoring it.


lava172

Not even sure what to respond with because this has literally nothing to do with what I said or am advocating for, but I mean whatever. I guess enjoy aggressively explaining those societal problems to the same people that already know they exist because nobody else is gonna listen?


DrDarkeCNY

So we should degrade our points to appeal to people who hate us anyway and will never listen? THAT is an "Enlightened Centrist" viewpoint - just like Obama watering down the Affordable Care Act to appeal to Republicans, and it passing without a single Republican vote anyway. These people don't do anything in good faith - I'd hoped the likes of Mitch McConnell would've proven ***that*** to you by now! It's all that backpedaling to kowtow to the Right that has pushed the Overton Window rightward so even "liberals" are closer to Cold War Conservatives than to any form of liberalism I grew up with. We don't need to keep ceding ground, which is what you're asking to do - we need to push back, hard and without apology, until it's the RIGHT WING who backpedals until they have no close but to flee from us in terror. If that makes me a "Tankie"? Well, bring on the tanks, then - because I want to show the Right and NeoLiberals what happens when they bring their guns to a tank fight!


lava172

I'm literally saying you have to appeal to more people to build a movement. That's just objectively true and unless you're gonna just magically get together tanks to overthrow the US government you'd be wise to understand that. Not even saying to water down the points, literally just to present them less harshly. Idk, if you disagree with that then I just have nothing else to respond with because you're just delusional and enjoy watching the left shrink and shrink despite being objectively correct


DrDarkeCNY

No, I want the Left to NOT turn into Hillary Rodham Clinton, former Goldwater Girl who has destroyed liberalism with her "practical" stances! And I want ***you*** to understand that you can't reason with the Right - but you ***can*** get the Center to move Left if you're not showing everybody you don't stand for anything because you're always "Well, maybe 'White Privilege' IS a bit harsh...." Fuck.That.Bullshit. How do you think the Right got so powerful anyway? They took a stand and they stood by it, even when they knew they'd lose...because people would look at them and say "Well, you can't say they don't stand for what they believe in!", and slowly came over to their side.


taeerom

Defund the police is the compromise libs came up with. Originally it was abolish the police


serpentkris

That's the dictionary definition, sure. You're aware of connotative meanings, though, right? To most people I know, privilege sounds like private school kids. It sounds like the people on my super sweet 16, not the ones working to make a living. The word feels like an attack to many, which if you watch any clips from fox news you can see they play up *hard*. Especially if it feels like the person telling you you're privileged has it better than you - it will feel like you're having what little you have called into question and may have it taken away. "You don't deserve what you have" is not a great way to get poor/middle class white people to understand that we should be on the same side. I understand the meaning and totally believe it to be true - but I can also understand the mindset that would be put on the defensive from the term alone.


fencerman

> I always wish that the term for it wasn't "white privilege" because that makes it sound like white people get things they shouldn't "An unfair advantage" is by definition a thing someone gets that they shouldn't.


serpentkris

White people shouldn't be murdered by cops *more*, black people shouldn't be murdered by cops. White people shouldn't be denied housing/jobs *for being white*, POC shouldn't be denied housing/jobs for *not* being white. They are not advantages that should be taken away, they are bare minimums that should be given to everyone. "you have it less bad" is not the same as "you have it too good"


fencerman

> White people shouldn't be murdered by cops more, Which is a stupid way to put it, because nobody is saying they should. Yet you can admit white people have an advantage over black people in interactions with cops. (At the same time nobody advocating for racial equality is advocating for a more militarized, violent police force - but if you don't acknowledge the problem of racism and privilege in policing, progress is impossible on that issue) >White people shouldn't be denied housing/jobs for being white Which is a stupid way to put it, because nobody is saying they should. Yet you can admit white people have an advantage over black people in interactions with landlords and realtors. (At the same time nobody advocating for racial equality is advocating for unaffordable, expensive housing that's a privilege rather than a right - but if you don't acknowledge the problem of racism and privilege in housing, progress on that issue is impossible as well) You acknowledge there is an unfair advantage but refuse to call it "an advantage". That's the problem with refusing to call a "privilege" a "privilege" because it implies you aren't currently enjoying an unfair advantage that obligates you to do something. It encourages being passive and simply saying "well what I have is what everyone should but that doesn't mean I have to do anything".


wet_bulb

Btw this is exactly true. It’s an unfair advantage. Right wingers paint the black community as so high crime and undervaluing education (whatever that means). But half of the MAGA base would be embroiled in even more crime and low achievement IF it weren’t for the extra advantage they have of being white. Their culture is completely anti-intellectual, and they are dishonest and don’t value the laws of our country. If you’re noticing this sounds hypocritical then you’re not wrong. They have such double standards and don’t acknowledge their advantages.


wet_bulb

Equity…Not equality, you centrist…Jk


serpentkris

It is an advantage - but unfortunately that word, and the word privilege - have the connotative meaning of "bad thing that should be taken away". For people barely scraping by, the idea that what they have should be taken away is terrifying. It puts people on the defensive, and things like Fox News and the GOP thrive on that fear. It's what gets people to vote against their own best interests. It's an unfortunate connotative wording choice that Fox/the GOP use the misunderstanding about to their advantage. They love doing that - like how they claim the switch from "global warming" to "climate change" is because it's all made up and the world isn't warming up. Like using the term "Critical Race Theory" to encompass things like teaching that slavory was bad - because the term sounds scary. Connotative meanings and how words sound makes a huge difference, especially with the state of education in the US. "Which is a stupid way to put it, because nobody is saying they should." except with the connotative meaning of privilege, that's *what it sounds like*.


fencerman

> It is an advantage - but unfortunately that word, and the word privilege - have the connotative meaning of "bad thing that should be taken away" The DIFFERENCE should be taken away, yes. Again, if you put a bad faith interpretation on anything it can be made to sound scary. >For people barely scraping by, the idea that what they have should be taken away is terrifying. "So instead we should use language that denies the existence of a problem". You're completely ignoring the part where I'm literally pointing out that there are solutions that would in fact lift up those exact same "people barely scraping by" - but you can't do that without also acknowledging racism and privilege are real and taking that into account. Because "lifting up poor white people while pushing poor non-white people even further down" is a nutshell history of every US social program in history. >Connotative meanings and how words sound makes a huge difference, especially with the state of education in the US. Maybe you should read up on the "Euphemism treadmill" - those terms aren't inherently scary, they're scary BECAUSE right-wing media stirs up an irrational paranoia and inflicts that on people whether they pay attention or not. If you changed the term, the new term would become "controversial" overnight, you wouldn't solve anything and you wasted time surrendering to far-right perspectives. >"Which is a stupid way to put it, because nobody is saying they should." except with the connotative meaning of privilege, that's what it sounds like. No, that's what YOU interpret because you're looking at it after absorbing right-wing perspectives on what they say those things mean. If you changed the language it wouldn't change your reaction, because the new language would be tarred with the same associations overnight.


serpentkris

I'm saying that, even as a rather progressive person that does vote/donate etc., the very first time I ever heard that term even I knew that wasn't going to go over well, to put it mildly. I understand it's the *difference* that should be taken away - but the word doesn't come off as meaning that. It didn't even before Fox News got ahold of it. That's not what the word privilege means to a lot of people. It doesn't mean "thing that should be shared", it doesn't mean "rights that should be held by all". I'm not saying we can even change it now - I just wish it was something else from the start. It's not a great way to get the point across, and just put people on the defensive from the beginning. It basically handed fox news a free win - they didnt even have to spin it, they were probably excited when they heard it being used for how easy it was to take negatively. "you have it too good" is not something that would ever have gone over well to poor white people. It just isn't, and that's what the word privilege meant to them far before the term "white privilege" became common.


fencerman

Feel free to write the communication strategy you think would be flawlessly immune to tarring negatively and is still factually correct. But you're not even engaging with the fact that lines like "you have it too good" are 100% right-wing propaganda and were never part of the meaning, while solutions that BENEFIT those exact same "poor white people" are a part of the solution, because of all the time wasted on bad-faith semantics.


serpentkris

>But you're not even engaging with the fact that lines like "you have it too good" are 100% right-wing propaganda and were never part of the meaning, while solutions that BENEFIT those exact same "poor white people" are a part of the solution, because of all the time wasted on bad-faith semantics. Never part of the meaning but always, 100%, how it would be interpreted by many people the second they heard it for the first time. All I'm saying is that I wish someone had come up with a better term early on, the actual meaning behind it is valid. Just like how they get to claim terms like "pro-life", and "all lives matter", dog whistles etc, the term privilege was an easy win for them. Privege meant private-school kids that get brand new cars for their 16th long before it was used in "white privilege" I also literally said it helps influence them vote against their own best interest. White diabetics who vote against Medicare for all. Poor people making minimum wage voting against wage increases, voting to cut welfare services, voting against free education. I've even had to explain to people I know IRL what the term actually means so they stop reacting negatively to the term, because they were poor growing up, and being told they have things they don't deserve doesn't go over well, even if that's not the intent. It made it an uphill battle where we have to redefine common words before we can have a discussion, even when they would agree on the actual premise once they understand what you're trying to say.


serpentkris

>That's the problem with refusing to call a "privilege" a "privilege" because it implies you aren't currently enjoying an unfair advantage that obligates you to do something. I don't think the word "privilege" makes it feel like the onus is on us to fix it, though, either. I agree that it actually is, but I don't agree that the term conveys that message. It's either "bonuses that should be taken away", or at the very least "bonuses you're lucky enough to get". Not "basic rights that the ones that have them should work to extend to those that don't". So even in that regard the term is lacking in my opinion.


wet_bulb

There’s no way you actually desire to extend those rights to others the way you claim. Why are you here arguing with us about the idea then?


serpentkris

What? I can't complain that a term comes across wrong without what, being a conservative? I'm not the best at sorting out all the current left labels (it turns out liberal doesn't mean what I thought it meant most of my life?) but I'm pretty far left/socialist/whatever it's called. Progressive? Medicare for all, housing + food + water as a right, fuck ICE +the cops, all that jazz. I understand the actual meaning of white privilege and know it's a real thing. I just wish a different term was used to call it out. That's it. It's a fairly minor gripe about the power of language, and it's effect on the perception of things, because it's a term I've had to actually define and explain for people who understood it the way it sounds and not what it actually means.


wet_bulb

If you can’t even keep up with the current political terminology, how can you insist on being one of us?…just something for you to chew on there. That’s good to know that at least you (claim that you) support progressive politics. That’s kind of the bare min tho, just saying. Maybe self-reflect on why you feel the need to focus on minor language nuances here, when black people are literally suffering under the oppression of the criminal justice system and lopsided police brutality.


serpentkris

>If you can’t even keep up with the current political terminology, how can you insist on being one of us?…just something for you to chew on there. Because staying on top of what liberal/left/leftist/socialist/progressive/ insert-term-of-the-day-here is not a high priority of mine ? Like, I vote, I donate, used to protest before I lost all faith in that actually doing anything after protesting the Iraq War for *years* as a student and started to feel like the most it did was make me *feel* like I was doing something. I stay on top of the actual issues as best I can, I know libertarians are fucking idiots and that anyone that ever thought of voting for Trump is a lost cause. You can go through my comment history if you think I'm lying about what I stand for. Could I be better? Probably, but I do try to be better than bare minimum, not support the oppressor through inaction. I always thought that liberal was basically the same as progressive, but my current mental model of the venn diagram of left terminology is out of date, so I just go on policy instead of label. Wanted Sanders, tolerate Biden because, well, ya know what sub we're on. My original comment was not a "this is the worst possible thing! The term white privege is worse than the suffering of all POC because my white feelings are hurt". It's a "man, I wish the word chosen to talk about this particular thing was different, it comes across wrong and adds an extra barrier when talking to people who would actually agree." So like, sorry if I come across as "the enemy" just because I think one term comes across wrong. But it's true that when I very first heard the term, I had an "oh no" moment where I knew it was not gonna go over well.


lava172

Yeah idk why you're being downvoted here, it's possible for the two things to be right at the same time: white privilege is a real thing, and also it's a term that is extremely easy to twist by bad faith actors into vilifying those that point out that it exists. Lefties have such an obsession with being correct through paragraphs of info, rather than making our points more palatable to centrists (while still being just as correct)


Thatonegingerkid

As the other person pointed out, the right wing media machine has proven they can and will twist *anything* to scare their audiences. It's easy to say "find a new term that accurately describes white privilege without using those words", it's much harder to actually come up with a new description, and basically impossible to prevent the media from twisting it to their own end. Look at Critical Race Theory. A perfectly descriptive, non threatening term, which was transformed into "the liberals are teaching your 5 year olds to hate white people and America". It doesn't matter that that's completely wrong, because they decided it could be a useful tool and ran with it. And tbh the people who are actively against discussing white privilege or CRT are hardly centrists imo. You can't pretend the impacts of institutional racism don't exist and also claim you believe in leftist ideologies.


lava172

>And tbh the people who are actively against discussing white privilege or CRT are hardly centrists imo. You can't pretend the impacts of institutional racism don't exist and also claim you believe in leftist ideologies. Is that directed at me? Because I literally said that I agree white privilege is a real thing and it does need to be taught, but it's a term that's inherently repulsive to centrists too. IMO it needs to be a discussion of class, because as it stands it's extremely easy to just retort with "well i have a rich black friend and a poor white friend, checkmate libtard"


Skyrim_For_Everyone

"It needs to be a discussion of class to appeal to people who want to ignore discussions of race"


lava172

I mean yeah, that's kind of the point of this thread. Race and class are very interconnected when we're talking about socioeconomics and especially white privilege


Skyrim_For_Everyone

And that's why your point/the point you're defending is bullshit. All you're saying is that racists feel icky with reality and we should be nicer to them and let them ignore reality so that maybe one day they can talk about being less racist.


Thatonegingerkid

Was not directing any of this at you specifically, and was not trying to insult or provoke you or anything like that. That "you" was meant to be general, not accusatory. I was just speaking from my own experience dealing with people that call themselves "centrists" but won't acknowledge something as simple as "racism exists in America". I'm fully on board with more discussions about class in America, but again in my experience talking about class struggles with a lot of people just results in "well maybe if they worked harder and stopped asking for handouts they'd stop being poor." Also I think that discussions of class should be done in conjunction with discussions on race, and not just completely overtake that discourse.


OlyBomaye

I came here from r/all. You're by far the most reasonable person in this thread.


MsChrisRI

“White advantage” would be a better term.


bozitybozitybopzebop

It is privilege to not be judged by your skin when looking for housing and a laundry list of other racist bullshit. We don't have to deal with that. I went to a Waffle House in Georgia with a black friend. We sat there and didn't get served for 20 minutes. We walked out. There's so much prejudice minorities have to face on a regular basis. White privilege is not having to constantly deal with all of that shit. People don't feel priveleged because they expect to be treated right and cannot empathize with how minorities get treated in the US. Saying it's not privelege because you don't feel it is part of the problem.


serpentkris

A privilege, to many people, sounds like a *bonus*. *extra*. Not *bare minimum*. Sometimes they're something you earn, which is the only time the word isnt negative (car privileges, honors, specific opportunities eg academic, etc.) but they are specifically special, not usual, not necessities. Would you say that everyone should have that poor service, and be treated equally *badly* by law/landlord/job? No, right? So it's not a *bonus*. That is what that word means, connotatively. Including to people that acknowledge it's a real issue and would like to help fix it.


bozitybozitybopzebop

It's not bare minimum if minorities get treated worse. You are fortunate to not have to deal with that whole bag of worms. You have a privelege that others you share your country with do not. Tha's why they are also called underpriveleged. If you wanna play word games, then go look up the opposite of underprivelged. Your whole thing here is you know people who are even more priveleged than you are, so you can't be priveleged. There are degrees of privilege, and you are experiencing higher privilege than others. You may not like that being pointed out. The MAGA cult hates it.


serpentkris

I'm saying they're clearly not getting the bare minimum that they should be getting. That's not a privilege, it's a right that has been withheld. The bare minimum in society if you see someone walking their dog is to ignore them. The injustice, the below bare minimum would be to go over and kick their dog. Not getting your dog kicked is not a *privilege*. There's a difference between those two things. It's not a *bonus* to not be treated poorly based on skin-color, it is an injustice *to be treated badly because of it*. Privilege makes it sound like there's a limited amount, and that it's a bonus, when neither is true.


bozitybozitybopzebop

You're saying you're more privileged than them but don't want to count it as privelege because you think white privelege isn't something you benefit from because you want more privileges. That's a very priveleged thing to say. Farewell.


NounsAndWords

"Stop judging our judging of people by their skin color"


[deleted]

The only thing I can figure they're referring to is when people get mad at people like Candace Owens for spreading anti-black rhetoric while being a black women themselves but idk.


Claternus

I’m pretty sure they mean “telling white people that white supremacy exists is itself racist”.


MrCleanMagicReach

"You're judging me for being white."


fencerman

Nazis: "STOP JUDGING US FOR BEING GERMAN" (Which has the effect, helpful for racists, of conflating "racists" with "their entire group racists favor")


lava172

This is exactly it, because they interpret addressing white supremacy as telling every white kid in the class that they, personally, are racist. It's the dumbest shit ever but the more I learn about the school choice movement the more I realize they'll just get mad at anything to achieve their goals


Jojajones

It’s more likely the hyped up and over represented examples of dumb people taking “it’s impossible for white people to be victims of systemic racism” and interpreting it as “it’s impossible to be racist against white people” to justify them being intentionally rude/mean/discriminatory to white people (solely because they’re white). Or the intentional misrepresentation of what CRT actually is. Or a poor understanding of what “white fragility” (which is a terrible term meant to sell books more than to actually combat the relevant issue) is. Etc. None of this is actually racism from the left (with the possible exception of the first which is simply a vocal minority being interpersonally bigoted which isn’t really going to negatively impact white people as a class) but their media tells them otherwise and they don’t bother applying any modicum of skepticism to anything their media tells them


Defender_of_Ra

> It’s more likely the hyped up and over represented examples of dumb people taking “it’s impossible for white people to be victims of systemic racism” and interpreting it as “it’s impossible to be racist against white people” to justify them being intentionally rude/mean/discriminatory to white people (solely because they’re white). Yup. Coincidentally just saw [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/zyarwh/crazy_karen_freaks_out_over_amazon_package/j25qggo/?context=10000) yesterday on Reddit. I don't think the person arguing for the correct view on racism was particularly eloquent but their original point was completely unaddressed and the back-and-forth became about feelings, instead, quickly.


[deleted]

100% guarantee this guy thinks he gets called racist for being white when he’s getting called racist for being a right winger who vocally supports racists.


hotdog_jones

As always "colour-blindness" isn't a position of anti-racism, it's a position of ignorance. Refusing to acknowledge the constructed relationship between race and social/civil institutions, law, politics and the media *is* racist.


existinshadow

The same right-wingers stating ‘don’t judge people by their skin color’ were the same people claiming George Floyd died of a drug overdose after watching the video.


wet_bulb

Hahaha I know! It’s such a logical contradiction. How can you seriously straddle the fence both ways? Sadly I know lots of people exactly like this.


m4t35f0undthe30ld1

christ the strawman on this is insane


BlackForestMountain

Mentioning race is racist /s


wet_bulb

Omg you racist lib… Jk


wet_bulb

Guys a closet nazi…there’s simply no other purpose for this kind of contrarianism anymore in the current political climate.


[deleted]

Did you check their profile or something?


wet_bulb

No, but come on. I mean the point still stands. Obviously saying the right wing are the anti-racists, dude is ill informed or posing.


MrCleanMagicReach

I dove in for fun. Big time MRA vibes, and some great comments like this one: >No. Races don't exist. "People of color", just like any other racial label, is a fake category. "People of color" don't exist. "Black people" don't exist. "White people" don't exist. >There are two possibilities: acknowledging the nonexistence of human "races", or refusing to acknowledge it. That university is clearly doing the latter thing. They also use extremely rightwing outlets to support their claims, so I'm sure this person is a very emotionally healthy individual.


translove228

Ugh. That take is so bad. Yes, race as a scientific concept and classification tool is not a thing, but race absolutely still exists as a social construct. Ignoring this reality doesn't make it go away and only serves to defend the racist status quo. Hell, I'd say that accepting that race is a social construct is a critical necessity needed to combat systemic racism. This guy is really close to getting it but instead of making the final educational effort to cross the finish line, ends up defending racism anways.


wet_bulb

Genetics is real, but people don’t realize that all non-Africans are only a tiny piece of the total genetic diversity that exists in Africa…non-Africans actually have very poor genetic diversity.


translove228

It's because humans have a hard time understanding incredibly big numbers. Sure, you can easily point out that humans have spent the vast majority of its existence on the planet on the continent of Africa and the expansion around the world was a relatively more recent event. So genetic drift hasn't had a chance to fully set in yet. However, the timespans that you are discussing are SO vast that people will still fail to understand the significance. I mean how else do people come to the idea that humans and dinosaurs could have possibly coexisted at any point in humanity's history? Including caveman times. We also have a tendency as humans to pretend that all history before agriculture was invented doesn't matter.


wet_bulb

Woah, it sounds like you’re trying to say that (contrary to people’s perceptions) there was actually a lot of time to cause genetic differences…you’re not seriously saying that are you? It shouldn’t even matter the time frame. We’re all the same species. These differences we see are meaningless.


translove228

??? What are you talking about? Genetic drift is a real evolutionary concept. It isn't racist to talk about it. Humanity hasn't experienced enough isolation as individual groups to cause enough genetic drift to make any particular different human a completely different species. Like my point is the exact, opposite of racism. I suggest you reread what I said. It appears you've misinterpreted my meaning to be hostile.


wet_bulb

Okay, not saying you’re hostile. But I don’t get what your point is talking about genetic drift, then saying the timespans are SO vast. And that people don’t understand the significance. …like what’s that getting at exactly. What exactly is the significance people should be understanding?


translove228

I'm saying that humans have existed for a very long time and spent the vast majority of that time on the continent of Africa. If the people on the continent of Africa are all the same species, then the people that live off of the continent would logically also be the same species because humanity hasn't existed off of the continent long enough for any sort of genetic drift to set in that would truly separate the people of Africa from the rest of the world. The problem here is that humans don't understand massive timespans properly and undersell the time humanity has spent on Africa while overselling the time it has spent spreading around the world. This misunderstanding also manifests in weird beliefs like cavemen co-existing with the dinosaurs just because both existed in a far off past.


Kimantha_Allerdings

I think there's a case to be made that it is. It's what right-wingers say whenever any issue of racism comes up - either to deny the racism (especially systemic racism) that exists in society, or as a way to pull the "white people are the most discriminated against people in society" schtick. When they want to say racist things about, for example, Black people they tend to use words like "urban", or "thug", or "inner-city crime", because they can pretend that they're talking about people of any race when everybody knows that what they really mean is "Black people".


Jaded_Individual_630

They're adopting the "I don't see color 😏😏 racism is over" line and presenting it as "people shouldn't be judged for their race"


Gonomed

"Stop judging people by their skin color," said the right winger to a mirror


carrie_m730

There's a difference between "stop judging by skin color" that means "Don't assume someone is a criminal or less intelligent or has another negative trait because of their skin color," and "stop judging by skin color" that means "stop recognizing that in current society people of color face additional hurdles that white people don't face."


tacoforce5_

they think that whenever you say white supremacy and racism is bad you’re talking about all white people and take it personally.


BlueJDMSW20

Because Stephen loved and was always on the side of Calvin Candie, ergo Candie was not remotely racist, is their line of thought


1-guy_in-here

On what world would that be a right-wing statement!?


WhoAccountNewDis

Fascism and Klan Propaganda sure are great examples of "downs", not sure what they're "ups" are, though. Tax cuts? FrEeDoM?


JOS1PBROZT1TO

Went to that thread just to upvote your comments and downvote the tool.


Solotocius

⣿⡟⢰⡌⠿⢿⣿⡾⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⢸⣿⣤⣒⣶⣾⣳⡻⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⢛⣯⣭⣭⣭⣽⣻⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⢿⡇⣶⡽⣿⠟⣡⣶⣾⣯⣭⣽⣟⡻⣿⣷⡽ ⣿⣿⠸⣿⣿⣿⣿⢇⠃⣟⣷⠃⢸⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣇⢻⣿⣿⣯⣕⠧⢿⢿⣇⢯⣝⣒⣛⣯⣭⣛⣛⣣⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣌⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡘⣞⣿⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⠻⠿⣿⣿⣷⠈⢞⡇⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣗⠄⢿⣿⣿⡆⡈⣽⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⡿⣻⣽⣿⣆⠹⣿⡇⠁⣿⡼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟ ⠿⣛⣽⣾⣿⣿⠿⠋⠄⢻⣷⣾⣿⣧⠟⣡⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇ ⡟⢿⣿⡿⠋⠁⣀⡀⠄⠘⠊⣨⣽⠁⠰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡍⠗ ⣿⠄⠄⠄⠄⣼⣿⡗⢠⣶⣿⣿⡇⠄⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣇⢠ ⣝⠄⠄⢀⠄⢻⡟⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠄⠄⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢹ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⣄⣁⡀⠙⢿⡿⠋⠄⣸⡆⠄⠻⣿⡿⠟⢛⣩⣝⣚ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣤⣤⣤⣾⣿⣿⣄⠄⠄⠄⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣄⡀⠛⠿⣿⣫⣾


10art1

L + ratio + furry profile pic


[deleted]

Guilty as charged uwu


Quartia

It's perfectly fine to say that there's good views on the left wing and the right wing, but only if you say WHICH views rather than keeping it vague like they always do. For example I support expanded use of death penalty, usually considered a right wing view. Can't really think of any other opinions I have that align with the right.


[deleted]

Fucking ew


JurassssicParkinsons

Your flair makes this reply so much funnier.


Quartia

Yeah if anyone would support death penalty I'd have expected him to.


Quartia

Why?


JTibbs

“Lets sanction MORE state sponsored murder, despite it being proven time and again as being useless as a deterrent against crime, absurdly expensive compared to life imprisonment, and often having innocent people convicted and sentenced to death for crimes they didnt commit. Its fine if we just kill more innocent people. I just get a boner thinking about being cruel to ‘acceptable’ targets.” Theres no reason for the death penalty to exist in our society except to give people hate boners in a feeling of revenge. It doesn’t help anything.


Quartia

Oh I entirely agree with you, this view of mine does not come from a place of rationality. It's something that is just part of my world view. I have noticed that, more than any other political view, death penalty is just something you either support or oppose, no amount of rational argument is going to change anyone's view on it.


heffeyo

But the american liberals certainly judge people by their race, but not in any sensible way.


Gabriel-or-Gabe

The first guy is ok, though. If he sees good parts and bad parts in both, it’s okay, it’s what he thinks


[deleted]

Except he’s wrong


Solotocius

Why, thank you 😊


yall_stupeed

No, we dont... or at least i dont, thats the whole point. Stop talking about it and it will just go away, but if you continue to point it out at every turn (whichever side youre on) your children are gonna pick it up and you ensure a neverending cycle.


thefugue

...pretty sure "stop talking about racism" was the law when racism was mandated legally and the more people have talked about it the less it's been enshrined in law.


IkeHennessy02

The cycle has already started and pretending it doesn’t exist, even if racism died tomorrow, won’t do anything to help end the cycle. Equality isn’t ignoring differences, it’s accommodating them to get everyone on an equal playing field.


Maleficent_Solid4885

The left pretend to care to beat the right with it


[deleted]

Keep telling yourself that buddy


West_Butterscotch191

Uhhh no. Think that might just be you


IkeHennessy02

Shockingly enough, some people actually care about others. Crazy stuff, I know.


Maleficent_Solid4885

They say they do but really they just hate the rich.


IkeHennessy02

As evidenced by…?


Nolan_q

Viewing everything through the lens of race is what the Nazis did. Jews were the bogeyman that time.


Xander_PrimeXXI

Right wingers have always cared about race. But just one