-->
@MgtowDemon
Race denialism is leftwing.
Citation please.
Leftwing narratives getting destroyed
Posts
Total:
81
-->
@Theweakeredge
Admitting that racism is a thing, and calling it racism is an everybody who's actually rational thing
I disagree.
Discrimination is real.
The concept of "race" is fabricated.
Between 1660 and 1690 the RULING CLASS invented the term "WHITE RACE" very specifically as a tool to FRACTIONALIZE poor workers.
The English had a long history of separating themselves from others and treating foreigners, such as the Irish, as alien “others.” By the 17th century their policies and practices in Ireland had led to an image of the Irish as “savages” who were incapable of being civilized.
The social position of Africans in the early colonies has been a source of considerable debate. Some scholars have argued that they were separated from European servants and treated differently from the beginning. Later historians, however, have shown that there was no such uniformity in the treatment of Africans. Records indicate that many Africans and their descendants were set free after their periods of servitude. They were able to purchase land and even bought servants and slaves of their own.
Some African men became wealthy tradesmen, craftsmen, or farmers, and their skills were widely recognized. They voted, appeared in courts, engaged in business and commercial dealings, and exercised all the civil rights of other free men. Some free Africans intermarried, and their children suffered little or no special discrimination. Other Africans were poor and lived with other poor men and women; Blacks and whites worked together, drank together, ate together, played together, and frequently ran away together.
Moreover, the poor of all colours protested together against the policies of the government (at least 25 percent of the rebels in Bacon’s Rebellion [1676] were Blacks, both servants and freedmen). The social position of Africans and their descendants for the first six or seven decades of colonial history seems to have been open and fluid and not initially overcast with an ideology of inequality or inferiority.
The colonial leaders found a solution to both problems: by the 1690s they had divided the restless poor into categories reflecting their origins, homogenizing all Europeans into a “white” category and instituting a system of permanent slavery for Africans, the most vulnerable members of the population.
Between 1660 and 1690, leaders of the Virginia colony began to pass laws and establish practices that provided or sanctioned differential treatment for freed servants whose origins were in Europe. They conscripted poor whites, with whom they had never had interests in common, into the category of free men and made land, tools, animals, and other resources available to them. [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
Look look look, I agree that "the white race" and all of the things were fabricated, but that doesn't matter. Because ethnicity is a thing. Now, the arbitrary limits people put on it? Most definitely, fake, however. Because it was fabricated and has been fabricated for hundreds of years, it has become a real thing. Racism is real. Whether you want to call it discrimination or not is you being irresponsible. The fact is, people, treat people differently because of these classes that have been made. The fact is, just because something is a construct, that doesn't mean it isn't an important or real part of the conversation. Take currency and the economy, take gender and people's gender identities. You are flatly incorrect.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Whether you want to call it discrimination or not is you being irresponsible.
WHAT?
DISCRIMINATION is a MORE accurate term for what you call "racism".
-->
@Theweakeredge
You are flatly incorrect.
Please be slightly more specific.
You basically say you agree with me on all of my key points and then you say I'm somehow "irresponsible" and "flatly incorrect".
-->
@Theweakeredge
Because it was fabricated and has been fabricated for hundreds of years, it has become a real thing.
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SKIN-TONE IS A "REAL THING".
HOWEVER, "RACISM" (the word itself) contains a seed of brain-washing that spreads and grows every single time you use it.
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, discrimination based on skin color is a thing, therefore I call that racism, as a useful term. You are flatly incorrect, about dismissing the notion of racism. It is irresponsible of you, because your position implies that there is no weight behind the races that people have been attributed. Such weights: White privlleage, and Racism against all different sorts. You are looking at only the very surface level, it is a bad argument for the same reasons, "I don't see any color/race" is a bad argument.
-->
@3RU7AL
Brainwashing? How so? It is true that people are discriminated based on skin color. It does more good than it does harm, henceforth we can simply redefine it, just as LGBTQ+ people redefined queer, just as the black community has retaken the N-word for themself. Retaking a word and redefining it to mean what we mean is a practical thing, because this is what the term is actually referring to whenever it was technically meant something else.
-->
@Theweakeredge
It is true that people are discriminated based on skin color.
We agree on this fundamental point.
It does more good than it does harm,
How does discrimination based on skin color do "more good than it does harm?
henceforth we can simply redefine it,
What are you trying to "redefine"?
What is the "original" definition and what is the "new" definition?
-->
@3RU7AL
Oh my god, I am actually kind of livid, you took my quotes completely out of context. RACISM, as in the term racism, does more good than harm. Because it gives a group of actions a label that can easily be rallied against. It highlights, precisely what is happening. I actually made a comparison to currency and gender before, and you COMPLETELY ignored them. Racism is what I want to redefine, which is clear from the context of the conversation, that you seem to want to ignore. From whatever you call it to what people actually mean whenever they say racism by and large: "discrimination against people because of skin color"
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yes, discrimination based on skin color is a thing, therefore I call that racism, as a useful term.
Why would you call "discrimination based on skin-tone", "racism"?
Traditionally "racism" includes discrimination based on skin-tone, but the dangerous and pernicious "snuck-premise" is that "skin-tone is an indicator of general aptitude" (and this is patentably FALSE).
You are flatly incorrect, about dismissing the notion of racism.
I'm not "dismissing" DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SKIN-TONE.
I'm simply trying to point out that SKIN-TONE is NOT an indicator of "general aptitude" (the exact opposite of what the very term "race" is used to imply).
It is irresponsible of you, because your position implies that there is no weight behind the races that people have been attributed.
There is no "weight" behind the (idea of) "races".
There is rather substantial (demonstrable) "weight" behind DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SKIN-TONE.
Such weights: White privlleage,
You can't pretend that "lack of discrimination" = "privilege".
A poor person, regardless of the skin-tone they're born with, is not "privileged".
...and Racism against all different sorts.
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SKIN-TONE IS REAL. NOBODY IS DENYING THIS.
You are looking at only the very surface level,
SKIN-TONE IS "THE VERY SURFACE LEVEL" THAT DISCRIMINATION IS BASED ON.
THE WORD "RACISM" PRETENDS THE DISCRIMINATION IS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE SKIN-TONE INDICATES FUNDAMENTAL AND UNCHANGABLE DIFFERENCES IN APTITUDE.
...it is a bad argument for the same reasons, "I don't see any color/race" is a bad argument.
I don't see "race" and neither do you and neither does anyone else for that matter because there is only ONE human race.
WHAT WE ALL SEE IS SKIN-TONE.
(and skin-tone is not an indication of any individual's general ability or aptitude).
-->
@Theweakeredge
Oh my god, I am actually kind of livid, you took my quotes completely out of context. RACISM, as in the term racism, does more good than harm. Because it gives a group of actions a label that can easily be rallied against.
Well, I guess it's a good thing you had a chance to clarify your statement.
All use of the term "racism" reinforces the idea that skin-tone indicates an individual's general aptitude.
This is FALSE.
Skin-tone does NOT indicate an individual's general aptitude.
THEREFORE, no matter how "convenient" the word might appear to be, "SKIN-TONE BASED DISCRIMINATION" is significantly more accurate.
SKIN-TONE =/= "RACE"
-->
@Theweakeredge
Racism is what I want to redefine,
Ok, thanks for clearing that up.
The term "racism" certainly includes SKIN-TONE, but it also includes the idea that SKIN-TONE is a good indication of an individual's general aptitude.
This is FALSE.
SKIN-TONE is NOT a good indication of an individual's general aptitude.
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes. Skin color is not a good tell of general aptitude, thus why RACISM IS BAD. Obviously. Racism isn't supposed to be a good descriptor, it's a bad thing! Because it doesn't work! You are still incorrect here. Honestly, I am not in the mood to go more in-depth, I just finished my 20,000 character argument for why abortion is moral, my inclinity towards this conversation has been drastically lowered.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yes. Skin color is not a good tell of general aptitude, thus why RACISM IS BAD
But when your looking at the fax the clours of peoples will be telling you of their aptitude like if their yellow their going to being good at the math but if their black their going to be more in the gails and woking more in the chicken factories and if your in between then your going to making the tacos becuase they growed up being snobbed by the whites. So thats not being racist thats being realist.
-->
@3RU7AL
Seriously?
Yes.
-->
@Utanity
Hey Mikey...... I haven't read the fax yet....But your assessment is actually realistic.
-->
@Theweakeredge
We will always discriminate where there is a perceivable difference..... But I would suggest that these days, we are tending to discriminate more on the perceivable differences of wealth and intellect....And nationalism as always, of course.
And so I suppose that wealth and intellect can be as LEFT as they can be RIGHT.....Especially If we look at the political divisions in the U.S. for example.
-->
@zedvictor4
Hey Mikey...... I haven't read the fax yet....But your assessment is actually realistic.
Of course so your seeing what I mean that if your always taking the mikey your not seeing the would for the tries but when you stop then read the fax what someone wise gives you then your not needing the fax machine to get your fax anyway.
-->
@Utanity
Would for the tries....Mr Utan Ity.....LOL.
-->
@zedvictor4
Whether there is more or less discrimination in regards to class is irrelevant. The point is that there are still examples of systematic racism spread across the US.