Is it okay to be White? A lot of Black Americans don't think so

Actually- ad hominems can relate to things that are quite important. When someone doesn't do any work to establish the trustworthiness of their source we're relying on your trustworthiness that your source can be taken seriously. 

If your behavior is that of a manipulator or someone who is deceived easily, its important to note so we know to investigate your sources more thoroughly. As it turns out, you are either willing ignorant, a liar, or easily deceived - at least, given the nature of your poor sources.

What I am pointing out is that you are really giving opinion and speculation under the guise of empirical fact.

however, as theweakeredge pointed out, this is also under question.

you have not justified your conclusions based on the poll results

Even going by your question whether black people are "too stupid" to understand the difference between a movement, and a claim, (between "it's ok to be white" as a meme versus a statement) this itself would be an alternative to the theory that they answered this way because of racial hatred.

If we limit ourselves to the evidence of the poll itself

I am white myself, and I don't find any intrinsic problem with being white, but I do disagree with the phrase "It's OK to be white" because of the subtext that white people are somehow under attack or need to be defended as a racial group.

I am white myself, and I don't find any intrinsic problem with being white, but I do disagree with the phrase "It's OK to be white" because of the subtext that white people are somehow under attack or need to be defended as a racial group.

Actually, I happen to be ranked number 12 on this website- after several-several-several months of not doing anything here. So yeah, you could say I've been in a few serious debates.

I am aware that attacking a person doesn't have to do with the argument, but when the person is.....a liar or an asshat, there's no point in expending the energy. Im not gonna debate donald trump about how mexican's aren't rapists and criminals- im just gonna call him out on the obvious lies. Your lie/manipulation/naive belief is obviously a lie- not gonna bother arguing you about it. You can either click on the link i first provided you or not. 

Now, normally i really don't like the idea of "go do your own research" but this is like the SIMPLEST shit- just google your source "fact check" and you get SO MANY examples of the poll being dunked on.

I am white myself, and I don't find any intrinsic problem with being white, but I do disagree with the phrase "It's OK to be white" because of the subtext that white people are somehow under attack or need to be defended as a racial group.

 Your interpretation is nonsense. There's nothing to suggest these "subtexts" are implied at all.

Anyone with a basic, passing understanding of conservative mental gymnastics can easily decode the attempted manipulation behind the “it’s OK to be white” thing, and I have already explained it so there isn’t much need to explain it further. It isn’t exactly subtle.

Also, White people are under attack: Anti-white sentiments (debateart.com) 

[Dropped by rbelievb]

White people have a self-defense right to defend themselves as a racial group.

[Dropped by rbelievb]

I keep telling you.

No such thing as white.

Just  ex-European change-fearers hiding somewhere in the big ole US of A.

Relics of past escape.

Still isolated by ideology.

With nowhere left to run to.

Global technology and global inclusivity was the "White Man's" baby.

Though for a some,

It has now become their burden.

I already read your explanation and I think it's nonsense. You can't directly quote or show why the poll is faulty (because it's a simple, straightforward poll)

so you make up some "subtext" nonsense that comes out of nowhere.

You say that you disagree that White people are under attack, I give you a thread wherein there's a list of the various ways White people are under attack (not necessarily physical assault, by anti-White sentiment), and you just drop the point completely.

Where is your response to this? Are White people allowed to defend themselves as a racial group?

I already read your explanation and I think it's nonsense. You can't directly quote or show why the poll is faulty (because it's a simple, straightforward poll)

For one thing, the poll included only 130 people, which is nowhere near enough to create a representative sample size.

Also, the poll is behind a paywall so I am limited into how far I can look into it

but it is from a source with a reputation and history of being biased.

As I have explained previously, the wording of the poll is also loaded. As another example, if we asked a group of conservatives "are you an antifascist?" or asked, "are you opposed to fascism?" we could imagine that the former question would get lower results, because it is a loaded term. Of course, the conservatives may prefer to give a more nuanced answer like, "Yes I am anti-fascist in the sense of being opposed to fascism, but I am also opposed to the movement that calls itself antifascist." However, given only two choices they may respond "No." A leftist could then use the same poll to claim, either that there is wide support for antifa, or that fascism itself is widespread amongst conservatives.

so you make up some "subtext" nonsense that comes out of nowhere.

Of course there is subtext, if you say "It's OK to be white" then that implies that there is some opposite sentiment that it is responding to. That is the manipulation of the statement. If we disagree with it then we are part of the "attack on white people." If we agree with it then we are signing off on a phrase that implies that there is an attack on white people.

You say that you disagree that White people are under attack, I give you a thread wherein there's a list of the various ways White people are under attack (not necessarily physical assault, by anti-White sentiment), and you just drop the point completely.

I can read through that thread separately and try to respond, but it is a different topic. If whether or not white people are under attack has bearing on whether we agree with the "It's OK to be white" meme, then my point is already made.

As for the thread, we could call for diversity and that is not necessarily anti-white. Calling something "too white" isn't a phrase I would use, but it could be complaining that a space is dominated by only a single race, rather than having a diversity of perspectives.

Where is your response to this? Are White people allowed to defend themselves as a racial group?

No. Also I don't know what that means.

Would it be better if the poll's sample size for Blacks was more than 130? Absolutely. Albeit, the 130 was actually a good number to choose because Blacks are roughly 13% of the American population. But I find it disturbing that roughly 38/130 Blacks, probably picked randomly, don't think it's okay that my skin color is the color that it is, and another 38 weren't sure.

Jesus, what is wrong with you? A positive affirmation doesn't require a refutation of a negative, in order to exist.

You're the one saying that White people aren't under attack. I think it's obvious that they are. 

"Diversity" is functionally anti-White (because "diversity" isn't pushed into non-White countries without it being considered wholly negative). 

China is dominated by Han Chinese, but no one is saying "too Han Chinese". Israel is dominated by Jews, but no one is saying "too Jewish". It's only a problem when White people become the majority of groups. 

If people claim that a university campus is "too White", should White people be allowed to label that as racial hatred?

If people claim that a gifted-and-talented school is "too White", and thus needs to shut down, should White people be allowed to label that as racial hatred?

Thing is, global technology does away with the need for importation. A lot of crappy jobs can be done elsewhere now.

Modern migration is largely  as a result of modern ideological conflict and protection of global interests. That is to say people seeking security just as much as seeking crappy jobs.

Though a lot of the USA's domestic crap is done by people from south of the border, many of whom have European ancestry and therefore inherited whiteness as you might put it.

To try and now decry and regret the old exploratory endeavours of our ancestors is a tad futile. To a large extent we were the architects of the modern global society,  so "racial" isolation is now also a tad futile.

We started making our bed hundreds of years ago, but some people are still not prepared to sleep in it. Not necessarily because others are crappy, but simply because we perceive physiological differences and feel threatened.

Though as I suggested previously to you, not so much in the U.K.......There was far less room to hide from those crappy looking people.

Firstly, the demarcation between rural and urban in the UK is not so distinct, there just simply isn't the room to isolate. Though for sure, certain ethnic groups and recent migrants  do tend to populate big  inner cities. Nonetheless migrants from the 1950'5 and 60's and their offspring have integrated well into British society.

Mistakes or not, decrying them is futile.

Global Society is merely a phrase that represents a planet with a human population  of approximately 8 billion. 

And I'm discussing this with you and my brain is coping well.  

Because technology has shrunk the World to the click of a key on a small device.

It isn't real in the human brain.

Mistakes and experiments.

Would it be better if the poll's sample size for Blacks was more than 130? Absolutely. Albeit, the 130 was actually a good number to choose because Blacks are roughly 13% of the American population. But I find it disturbing that roughly 38/130 Blacks, probably picked randomly, don't think it's okay that my skin color is the color that it is, and another 38 weren't sure.

It means that it is not scientific as presented. Essentially they found 38 black people who said they disagree with the phrase "It's OK to be white".

Whether this means that they actually have a problem with white people, or as you put it they are "too stupid" to distinguish between the phrase and its social connotations, either way the actual lessons we can draw from this onto broader race relations and social dynamics are extremely limited or nonexistent.

Let's say 100% of the black people polled answered that yes, they agree with the statement "It's OK to be white." Now when some alt-right person is wearing a shirt that says "It's OK to be white" or is putting stickers up, they can use the defense, "I'm just advertising a phrase that 100% of black people agree with!"

A positive affirmation doesn't require a refutation of a negative, in order to exist.

That is logically true in general, but not as it applies to a phrase like this. People do not randomly go around saying everything that is OK. Nobody is putting up stickers saying "It's OK to eat a sandwich" or "It's OK to ride a bike."

To be honest I am even falling for it right now because the entire point of right wing memes like this is not to communicate anything but just to get people stuck in endless loops of explaining the most asinine things.

There are literal think tanks as well as organized groups of online trolls formulating these memes, planning them to have the maximum social gaslighting effect possible.

It creates endless debates precisely because of the difference between the explicit and the implicit meaning of the phrase. No matter how many times someone like me points out the implicit meaning, conservatives can just endlessly engage in denial, pointing to common sense and straightforward logic.

You're the one saying that White people aren't under attack. I think it's obvious that they are. 

When I say I don't see white people as under attack, of course someone somewhere can be writing against white people.

However, I see group selection as an outmoded theory, and so do not see races as separate evolutionary units with their own interests, inherent psychology, etc. To the extent that their interests are unified this occurs by circumstance. So, there might have been a "black interest" in abolishing slavery, to the extent that black people were unified by their oppression. However, there is no "white interest" or "white self-defense" in response to diversity, because diversity can enhance the spaces which it is introduced into. There is no need for self-defense in response to e.g. racial mixing, because it is a positive and voluntary act.

"Diversity" is functionally anti-White (because "diversity" isn't pushed into non-White countries without it being considered wholly negative). 

First, this presumes that diversity is inherently a bad thing. Diversity (in the modern form you are talking about) is primarily "pushed into" first-world, liberalised, modern capitalist countries, and so are mobile phones and the internet. However I would agree that diversity should be advocated everywhere.

China is dominated by Han Chinese, but no one is saying "too Han Chinese". Israel is dominated by Jews, but no one is saying "too Jewish". It's only a problem when White people become the majority of groups. 

People are absolutely criticizing those countries, in particular the ethnic cleansing which occurred in Israel. Are you suggesting that western countries should imitate the totalitarian style of paranoiac, regressive nationalism embodied by China and Israel?

If people claim that a university campus is "too White", should White people be allowed to label that as racial hatred?

If people claim that a gifted-and-talented school is "too White", and thus needs to shut down, should White people be allowed to label that as racial hatred?

No, because promoting diversity is not necessarily racial hatred.

For one thing, the poll included only 130 people, which is nowhere near enough to create a representative sample size.

And yet your "imagine" and "assume" arguments are acceptable to you with a sample size of ZERO. 

[No response]

Where is your response to this? Are White people allowed to defend themselves as a racial group?

No. Also I don't know what that means.

Lol.

I'll give you specific examples then.

If people claim that a university campus is "too White", should White people be allowed to label that as racial hatred?

If people claim that a gifted-and-talented school is "too White", and thus needs to shut down, should White people be allowed to label that as racial hatred?

[No response]

Relationship means relationship within a context.

So yes, we can differentiate between nature and intensity of relationships.

Techno relationships are just a variation on a theme.

It isn't real in the human brain.

Hmmmmm

Reality means reality within a context.

So yes, we can differentiate between nature and intensity of reality.

As such we can appreciate the scale of the global population in real terms.

Even if we can not have a direct relationship with it in real terms.

Things that occurred previously

Were things that occurred naturally in accordance with social evolution.

Neither experimentally nor mistakenly , in my opinion.

So how would you reconcile  "White Man's " experimental but mistakenly brutal subjugation of "First Nation" people.

Do you feel the need to apologise for these mistakes.

It's just as daunting for any one of any colour and of any ancestry to integrate into an established society.

I would feel the same if I moved into your neighbourhood.

And I daresay that even as a "White" British man I would be treated with suspicion by some  and even contempt by a few. Though I also suspect that most would be tolerant and friendly.

And I would also suggest that there are just as many if not more "White" Americans who are as intolerant of LBGT, animal rights and veganism as there are intolerant British Muslims.

Though for sure, we can cherry pick the more extreme quarters of any society to paint a distorted picture of a imaginary dystopia.

The only place you frequently see Black people in the UK is around the major cities.

Well I live and work in rural Mid Wales.

Where I see and meet and work with "Black" and "Asian" people on a daily basis.

But for sure, it's nothing like living and working in rural Mid Nigeria for example.

Such is the nature of the human demographic at this moment in time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U46AFSTe5w

White Man CRIES After Cops Arrest Black Man For THREATENING HIM With Knife, FEARS Being Racist

We both know that there are Black people out there who are racially hateful towards White people. It's not an unreasonable stretch to say that of the 33 Black people who disagreed with the statement, most of them simply hate White people. Most aren't doing mental gymnastics, reading into subtexts or considering the underlying presumptions imbedded within the question. To these Black people, White = bad.

You can oppose whatever political movement you think is associated with the phrase, "It's OK to be white," but you're simply anti-White if you disagree with the statement. It's the same for BLM, too. I agree that Black lives matter, but I oppose the political movement associated with it. If I were to disagree with the statement, "Black lives matter," I would rightly be called out for being racially hateful of Black people.

What if White people live in a rural town, away from all these anti-White creatures, and they are simply expressing their natural White pride? That's absolutely the case in some of the more remote parts of the USA. That's natural, in-group bias that every race has, and it can come out without any opposition (e.g. BLM).

You haven't proven any of this.

There are people out there who are racially hateful of White people who see our existence as a problem that needs to be fixed.

Also, if White people were oppressed by anti-White hatred, would it be reasonable to you if they unified in fighting it, hence developing a "white interest" or "white self-defense?"

(1) It balkanizes communities by dramatically lowering trust, charity and basically forcing people to self-segregate along racial/cultural lines

My argument appeals to hypocrisy: why are Western majority White countries so roundly criticized for being majority White, yet it's "racist" or "antisemitic" to note that places like China and Israel have clear racial intolerance? Why are these pro diversity people not heavily pushing back against these overtly racially intolerant countries?

Also, in your eyes, is China too Han Chinese, and is Israel too Jewish?

It's not necessarily, but it is really happening in a lot of White majority countries. Diversity is shoved down our throats in Western countries. Joe Biden literally even said that a shift into a non-majority White America would be a "source of our strength". The literal effect is that White people are being replaced by the diversity being shoved down their throats, and other countries aren't having their people replaced.

Why do you believe your arguments with sample sizes of zero, and then criticize arguments that actually have sample sizes?

Racial hatred of White people has been called into question recently after poll showed alarming results.

Black Americans were asked to agree or disagree with (1) It's okay to be White, and (2) Black people can be racist, too.

BLACK AMERICANS ONLY:

"It's okay to be white."53% agree, 26% disagree, 21% not sure

"Black people can be racist, too"76% of agree, 27% disagree, 8% not sure.

(tweet referencing the poll) Rasmussen Reports on Twitter: "BLACK AMERICANS ONLY: "It's okay to be white." 53% agree, 26% disagree, 21% not sure "Black people can be racist, too" 76% of agree, 27% disagree, 8% not sure." / Twitter ;

(subscriber-walled origin) Questions - Okay To Be White - February 13-15, 2023 - Rasmussen Reports®

This shocked and upset people like cartoonist Scott Adams, who wasn't expecting to encounter such racial hatred of White people (you can see his shocked reaction here) Episode 2027 Scott Adams: AI Goes Woke, I Accidentally Joined A Hate Group, Trump, Policing Schools - YouTube . This inspired him to write a Dilbert comic that got him kind of cancelled Dilbert comic strip dropped after a racist rant by creator Scott Adams : NPR .

What do you think?

Is it okay to be White?

We both know that there are Black people out there who are racially hateful towards White people. It's not an unreasonable stretch to say that of the 33 Black people who disagreed with the statement, most of them simply hate White people. Most aren't doing mental gymnastics, reading into subtexts or considering the underlying presumptions imbedded within the question. To these Black people, White = bad.

I do not actually know what you mean by "racially hateful" in that context.

We could presume that there are black people expressing in-group bias, for example who would prefer their daughter marries a black man rather than a white man.

However, this is a disposition arising in part from shared history and struggle. As for the statement "It's OK to be white" - it is something that immediately strikes anyone as strange who is not perceiving it from a white nationalist lens. Nobody would ask the question that way, who was not embedded within an oppositional racial majoritarian politics.

You can oppose whatever political movement you think is associated with the phrase, "It's OK to be white," but you're simply anti-White if you disagree with the statement. It's the same for BLM, too. I agree that Black lives matter, but I oppose the political movement associated with it. If I were to disagree with the statement, "Black lives matter," I would rightly be called out for being racially hateful of Black people.

Much like when it comes to the trans issue, the conservative view of semantics seems to cut the meaning of statements off from their context, so that any statement can be evaluated in terms of rigorous definitions and empirical evidence. I do not agree with that positivist view of meaning. Context always has bearing on the meaning of a statement, and the statement divorced from its context becomes an empty abstraction.

What if White people live in a rural town, away from all these anti-White creatures, and they are simply expressing their natural White pride? That's absolutely the case in some of the more remote parts of the USA. That's natural, in-group bias that every race has, and it can come out without any opposition (e.g. BLM).

Why would you celebrate white pride through the statement that it's "OK" to be white? If anything, they should be saying it is great, if they are white supremacists as you claim. However, I believe the more natural form of "white pride" would manifest in flying the American flag, reading Shakespeare, listening to Mozart, and so on. The western tradition is a manifestation of an ethnic heritage, the reduction to biology being a crude caricature of this. The focus on race specifically represents an unnatural cleavage between biology and culture, which has only existed since maybe the 17th century.

There are literal think tanks as well as organized groups of online trolls formulating these memes, planning them to have the maximum social gaslighting effect possible.

You haven't proven any of this.

You can see it for yourself. There is no need for proof.

There are people out there who are racially hateful of White people who see our existence as a problem that needs to be fixed.

This seems to imply that there are widespread calls for some kind of extermination or ethnic cleaning against white people, which is highly dubious.

However, I would also distinguish between the claim that white people are problematic or should be abolished, versus the claim that "whiteness" (or something like that) is problematic as a kind of subsisting separate culture. If white people breed with other cultures and races, this could be seen (esp. by white nationalists) as an "extermination" or abolition of the group. That is a complicated distinction because a term like "genocide" carries both connotations.

Also, if White people were oppressed by anti-White hatred, would it be reasonable to you if they unified in fighting it, hence developing a "white interest" or "white self-defense?"

They are not unified in that because their roles in society are not determined by that relationship.

The dynamics of that are inherently different because of the social position of that ethnic group.

(1) It balkanizes communities by dramatically lowering trust, charity and basically forcing people to self-segregate along racial/cultural lines

You have basically just argued that diversity is bad because it leads to less diversity.

How could racial diversity force people to "self-segregate along racial/cultural lines", when that is literally its opposite,

and how can self-segregation on racial / cultural lines be bad in your view if diversity is a bad thing?

My argument appeals to hypocrisy: why are Western majority White countries so roundly criticized for being majority White, yet it's "racist" or "antisemitic" to note that places like China and Israel have clear racial intolerance? Why are these pro diversity people not heavily pushing back against these overtly racially intolerant countries?

Well it is a generalisation because many who advocated diversity also criticise that as well. You can look at many of the leftist critiques of Israel for example.

To be honest I am even falling for it right now because the entire point of right wing memes like this is not to communicate anything but just to get people stuck in endless loops of explaining the most asinine things.

You've gone on at length about how we're unable to read into a simple poll question, and now you've somehow magically read the minds of every right-wing person to determine their implicit, non-stated goal in posting memes.

Do you see the problem with your stance?

[No response from rbelivb]

You're the one saying that White people aren't under attack. I think it's obvious that they are. 

When I say I don't see white people as under attack, of course someone somewhere can be writing against white people.

No, no. It's not just "writing against white people". It's schools being shut down because they're "too white". It's military leadership being criticized for being "too white". It's being banned from a job because you're White.

I don't blame you for not agreeing if you've never seen examples of genuine anti-White sentiment, but seriously just have a look at any of the links in this thread's OP: Anti-white sentiments (debateart.com)  . If you actually have a look, I think you'll be surprised how blatant the anti-White sentiments can be.

[No response from rbelivb]

Where is your response to this? Are White people allowed to defend themselves as a racial group?

No. Also I don't know what that means.

Lol.

I'll give you specific examples then.

If people claim that a university campus is "too White", should White people be allowed to label that as racial hatred?

If people claim that a gifted-and-talented school is "too White", and thus needs to shut down, should White people be allowed to label that as racial hatred?

[No response]

What are your answers to these questions?

[Still no response from rbelibv]