There is nothing to be gained in so doing. Almost no one would admit openly. Nor was that really the point my posting it to begin with.
Last edited:
Racism and privilege
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
There is nothing to be gained in so doing. Almost no one would admit openly. Nor was that really the point my posting it to begin with.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
If you're going to call people out, then you should at least name names.
C'mon, lets go. Who do you think would be interested in it?
As I said in my third sentence, that wasn't really the point of my posting the link.
Ok, let's start with the first one. How does that stereotype serve a purpose? Or how is it meaningful?
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Honestly, the only purpose those stereotypes serve, is 1 of 2 things:
It either intentionally demeans, or over-generalizes that social group by constructing a single narrative for each group-- or it tries to poke fun at them, which can either be taken by some as a form of gentle-ribbin-meant-as-endearment; or have it just be completely offensive in intent.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
The only stereotype I can think of that ever was institutionalized (and therefore had purpose) was ethnic profiling during the Patriot-Act era-- and of course, it was controversial as to whether it was "right" or not.
So then it is a generalization that all white people are racist. Wonder where that comes from...
Odd that you included the adjective "white". All people are racist, white or otherwise.
Besides, I would think that you would support not diving into an irrelevant tangent.
Considering that you introduced a link to the white man march it is not odd at all. Stop being disengenous. You obviously implied that all white people are racist because of the stereotyping turn this thread has taken. I merely pointed out that this stereotype exists at the doing of people that lean your way in the political spectrum. Turn on MSNBC anytime you want verification of my claim.
Your attempt at shifting the blame is shallow and dishonest.
I specifically said "some". I deny that you can legitimately conclude I "obviously imply" something when I specifically state the contrary *in that very post*. Your attempt to twist what I wrote is the shallow and dishonest post.
That's really all you've got though, it seems. You don't discuss what I say, only what you can twist it into, and then act surprised that I reject your twisting.
You also present a persecution complex so deep people could go high-diving into it. You're so focused on defending yourself from things you're not being accused of. Why are you so determined to make this a claim about how all white people are bad? Are you feeling some white guilt, or something?
Threw out the rest because its crap.
So if it was not directed as a generalization, than that would lead one to believe that you did have certain posters in mind when you posted that. So as hantlers has asked you already, who did you have in mind?
1) I don't have to accept your two choices for the possible meanings behind my post. Once again, rather than even bother to ask what I might have meant, you've decided it an be the only two Stoked-approved options. Once again, you cast these options in a distortive way. You probably can't even say what I think about the linked website, and yet you're asking me to state supporting evidence for your distorted interpretations. I don't need to respond to your phantasms.
2) Having refused to mention any poster before, why would I do so now?
3) Let's say I've got 200 20-sided dice, and I drop them on the floor. I can say with confidence "some of those dice landed on a 20", and not not have confidence about any individual die.
This is correct. The single and simple narrative is the often used tool of the bigoted individual.
Nor do we have to accept your routine dodging of questions. nor do we have to accept your One Brow approved lamabsting on race.
Nope, you sure don't have to listen. I have no reason to think that Stoked Is-Not-A-Racist-Interracial-Family-Hates-No-One will ever be willing to have a rational discussion on the topic, and will instead refer to all such attempts as lambasting. I have no reason to think Stoked Is-Not-A-Racist-Interracial-Family-Hates-No-One will care to understand any point at all on racism, because all Stoked Is-Not-A-Racist-Interracial-Family-Hates-No-One wants us to know is that Stoked Is-Not-A-Racist-Interracial-Family-Hates-No-One thinks he doesn't have a problem. So, I don't even make a serious attempt to discuss this with Stoked Is-Not-A-Racist-Interracial-Family-Hates-No-One (as I've mentioned before) anymore. I'm quite content pointing out that Stoked Is-Not-A-Racist-Interracial-Family-Hates-No-One is not interested in having a genuine discussion.
You've never been content unless you are calling some one racist. when you harp on the same subject endlessly at some point you see diminishing returns. enjoy no one taking you seriously on this anymore. You reap what you sow.
You're never content unless you're lying about me. I have not called any person racist in the past 4 years, except by virtue of of saying racism is a part of being human, and something all humans are subject to. You have repeated failed to produce such a post, because they don't exist, so you have to tell that lie, over and over.
Racism by progressives:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...d-the-closing-of-the-progressive-mind/284523/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...d-the-closing-of-the-progressive-mind/284523/
You have implied that several posters have racist motives over the course of our threads. My perception is that you enjoy talking in circles and tearring people down on this subject. Sure you write it up all fancy and use big words but that is how I see your motive. That is not a lie. That is a perception of you.
I also find it funny that you mention going over things over and over. Sorry I encroached on your territory.
Last edited:
