Are white people bullied and silenced?

AutSider · December 1, 2016, 8:26pm

50 bucks say Density here is a troll.

Lev_Muishkin · December 1, 2016, 8:30pm

=D> =D>
At least there is someone on this Forum that talks some sense!!!

Is_Yde_opN · December 1, 2016, 10:02pm

Why would any of you two care about what people think that they deserve?
They get what they get.

The commies* think that they deserve to decide what others deserve to get.
An actual supremacist ideology - They claim moral righteousness over people who are not members of their group.

Of course, for them it’s problematic when people don’t follow their morality but have their own identity.
If… said identity is more than a superficial rebranding of commie thought.

*classic commies and affiliates/subsets through the ages.

phyllo · December 2, 2016, 3:51pm

Sounds like “human rights”.

Is_Yde_opN · December 8, 2016, 8:17am

Is that “my fellow white people…” line part of a communist core class or what?
Talk about coincidences…

Is_Yde_opN · December 8, 2016, 8:05pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V054eqVFaXs[/youtube]

Now, I know what you are thinking now. Namely that the rabbi was threatened by the White Supremacists who tied a knot in his tongue.
But what is essential to take from this is the message that the rabbi was right because: My fellow white people, love trump’s hate.

uglypeoplefucking · December 9, 2016, 1:11am

Funny, because the US government you are so convinced is fascistic is comprised mostly of whites, the majority of whom are also male.

uglypeoplefucking · December 9, 2016, 1:33am

Some white people are bullied and silenced, but whites as a whole racial group certainly aren’t. However, many whites feel besieged by accusations of racism, assumptions of privilege and rules about what they can and cannot say. And to some extent, those feelings reflect a real social reality whites face. Unfortunately, it’s an easy jump from that reality to just wholeheartedly embracing the racism label as an act of defiance and a fuck you to the politically-correct police; and i say “unfortunate” because when people do this, they also start adopting the rhetoric of white separatists, white supremacists, and diehard nationalists, believing it more and more every time they say and/or write it, thereby growing increasingly extreme in their views. Once people have been called racist enough times they almost can’t help but start to sympathize with actual racists, and that’s exactly what the sign in the OP is playing to, recruiting people who are so fed up with the social reality of being white in a multicultural society that they’ve become susceptible to believing the rhetoric of actual racists.

Is_Yde_opN · December 9, 2016, 7:24am

If only it wasn’t for those mean SJWs…
White nihilists would be comfortable to disappear in the mud.
Watch some TV, some sports ball, feel good about your nil-mindedness, I mean open-mindedness.
Get the beat going, promote faggotry and call it philosophical - or whatever makes them feel good.
It would be so neat, if it wasn’t for those SJWs.

As the great fa…philosopher (((Milo))) says - Me like black dick big time and SJWs are so the real fascists.
Shit-talking is the ends, not the means.
So many (((philosopher kings))) join the chorus.

Mictlantecuhtli · December 9, 2016, 5:50pm

Jews don’t even see themselves as white or European. They see themselves more as “God’s chosen special race” of people.

Mictlantecuhtli · December 9, 2016, 5:54pm

Yeah, there is like zero blacks, Hispanics, or Asians in the United States government.

In any kind of nation where there is a majority ethnicity there is also going to be a majority ethnic representation. It’s not racism, it’s simply population demographics at work.

Mictlantecuhtli · December 9, 2016, 5:58pm

uglypeoplefucking:

Some white people are bullied and silenced, but whites as a whole racial group certainly aren’t. However, many whites feel besieged by accusations of racism, assumptions of privilege and rules about what they can and cannot say. And to some extent, those feelings reflect a real social reality whites face. Unfortunately, it’s an easy jump from that reality to just wholeheartedly embracing the racism label as an act of defiance and a fuck you to the politically-correct police; and i say “unfortunate” because when people do this, they also start adopting the rhetoric of white separatists, white supremacists, and diehard nationalists, believing it more and more every time they say and/or write it, thereby growing increasingly extreme in their views. Once people have been called racist enough times they almost can’t help but start to sympathize with actual racists, and that’s exactly what the sign in the OP is playing to, recruiting people who are so fed up with the social reality of being white in a multicultural society that they’ve become susceptible to believing the rhetoric of actual racists.

Yeah, white people are so privileged.

Fuck all the homeless and impoverished white people. They’re privileged also.

Nonsensical Marxist doublespeak…

Is_Yde_opN · December 9, 2016, 6:36pm

Maybe they are very successful at ruling over other people more or less covertly.
They will be White, they will be Asian, with enough tan they will be Black.
As long as it’s them who gets to decide who they are to you, they will be fine with it.

In a deracinated country, people feel like they are governed by an alien, foreign entity.
And it’s true, they are right, they are governed by people who see them as disposable.

This is not inevitable, it’s not some natural law or some inevitable conclusion of history.
But… promoting the idea that it would be inevitable, makes people nihilistic and ultimately turning their anger inwards and become outwardly complacent.

uglypeoplefucking · December 9, 2016, 8:39pm

i didn’t say it was racism. i was responding to your claim that white males don’t have any say in anything. If they control the large majority of the government then clearly they have plenty of say, and plenty of power.

uglypeoplefucking · December 9, 2016, 8:45pm

HaHaHa:

uglypeoplefucking:

Some white people are bullied and silenced, but whites as a whole racial group certainly aren’t. However, many whites feel besieged by accusations of racism, assumptions of privilege and rules about what they can and cannot say. And to some extent, those feelings reflect a real social reality whites face. Unfortunately, it’s an easy jump from that reality to just wholeheartedly embracing the racism label as an act of defiance and a fuck you to the politically-correct police; and i say “unfortunate” because when people do this, they also start adopting the rhetoric of white separatists, white supremacists, and diehard nationalists, believing it more and more every time they say and/or write it, thereby growing increasingly extreme in their views. Once people have been called racist enough times they almost can’t help but start to sympathize with actual racists, and that’s exactly what the sign in the OP is playing to, recruiting people who are so fed up with the social reality of being white in a multicultural society that they’ve become susceptible to believing the rhetoric of actual racists.

Yeah, white people are so privileged.

Fuck all the homeless and impoverished white people. They’re privileged also.

Nonsensical Marxist doublespeak…

You didn’t understand what i wrote. i said white people are resentful because of the general assumption that they have privilege - i wasn’t asserting they do have it, only that the assumption exists and that is what is upsetting them . . . and you, apparently. It’s ironic how sensitive whites have gotten about comments related to their whiteness, even as they criticize minorities for being overly sensitive to comments about their minority status.

iambiguous · December 9, 2016, 8:47pm

Bump…

You know, just in case Moreno ever decides to come back.

iambiguous:

Moreno:

iambiguous:

This is more or less the point that moreno kept coming back to. If someone were to think like me what would be the point of engaging in exchanges like this at all? Best to just shrivel up somewhere in a world all your own until the day you die.

No, no. All sorts of interactions are available if someone actually believed what you claim to believe. All sorts of social types of interactions are available, for example. What should, necessarily, be less interesting is repeatedly placing yourself on higher moral ground than objectivists and especially conservative ones.

Again and again and again: What “on earth” is this supposed to mean, my friend?

Let’s focus the discussion on a context in which your own value judgment is challenge by another.

What [pertaining to an issue like abortion] is your own rendition of this:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

Instead, as per usual, you yammer on and on and on, the serial abstactionist. You make speculative assertions about human interaction [and my own understanding of it] without actually bringing any of this down out of its scholastic orbit.

Moreno:

Given the absolute necessity of concluding that your one might as well roll the dice when it comes to values, to act in the world against those who have different values makes no sense. Yet, you do.

We have been over and over and over this of course. If you do choose to interact with others, you are necessarily inviting existential contexts in which your lived values will come into conflict. All I do here is to ask others to examine the manner in which my understanding of these conflicts – embedded in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy – is at odds with their own.

Something I have brought up with you over and again. And where has that gotten us? You just go back up into the clouds – as you do here – by and large.

Moreno:

You seem to think that if on occasion you state that you are not an objectivist, then you are not one.

No, I argue that an objectivist here – as I understand it – is someone who argues this: that that which he believes to be true in his head relating to particular moral and political values is that which all other rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe in turn. Sometimes this is predicated on God, other times on Reason; or on that which they insist is in sync with Nature – a “natural” understanding of human interaction.

Whereas I flat out acknowledge that my own argument here is just…

1] another existential contraption that I believe [here and now] “in my head”
2] a frame of mind that contradicts much of what I once believed in my past
3] that, in world awash in contingency chance and change a new experience, relationship, source of knowledge/information etc., might precipitate yet another change of mind.

Now, if you wish to argue that in believing this I am an objectivist, fine. But then folks like Wittgenstein might have something to tell us about the limitations of language with respect to relationships like this.

Moreno:

How one acts in the world, in this case what one attacks and what one does not, for example, creates an objectivist position, especially when one implies moral superiority and inferiority on a regular basis. Much as the person who says they are not sexist and often makes anti-sexist statements, can be sexist in the way they treat men and women differently and the latter negatively. We are not our words. We often do not have the beliefs we think we have. But beyond the hypocisy it is the solipsism demonstrated by you in interaction with other people here. You have repeatedly argued that your only option is to shrivel up somewhere in a world of your own until the day you die. In part this had to do with health problems. As if the only possible way to interact with people was to have a meta-discussion about objectivism, given the state of your health and beliefs. But in fact there are still, even taking into account your particular situation, a wide range of ways an actual non-objectivist could interact with others, either mediated of directly in person. But the rage at objectivists - at least I think this is it - drives you to rely on this single contact point with others. Think of all the possible life affirming activities - even via the internet - that could be engaged in. Even with objectivists. Where values overlap for example.

Okay, with respect to making statements that are said to be either sexist or non-sexist, how would we pin that down relating to a particular context? For example, was Donald Trump being a sexist when he spoke of accosting women and grabbing their pussies? Is there a way for philosophers to determine if this sort of behavior is in fact either moral or immoral?

And how would your own answer to this question succeed in transcending the manner in which I construe these conflicts as embedded/embodied in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

And what of the narcissistic sociopath who argues that grabbing the vaginas of women is moral because in his world morality revolves entirely around that which gratifies him. How would philosophers demonstrate that this is necessarily an obtuse point of view?

Moreno:

It is not that you should shrivel up in your own world, but rather that you have. You live in a meta-position, outside the world of those you denigrate as objectivists and also outside the worlds of nihilists and postmoderns and others who also hold that there are no objective values. Many of them actually living that, that is getting on with life and what they want along not moral value criteria.

Yes, I have shriveled up. In part because of health considerations “beyond my control” and in part because I genuinely am entangled in this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

But when are you going to finally get around to noting how this is not applicable to you when your own value judgments come into conflict with others?

Moreno:

You think that you are merely presenting and epistemological objection to objectivism. But your posts reek of moral judgment. The tool you have chosen is epistemological, but the rage is moral and is sees through.

Three possible explanations…

1] I am a polemicist. I love to argue. Indeed, as I have noted noted previously…

[b]What does it mean to be a polemicist? It means that I enjoy provocative exchanges. A provocative exchange is one in which folks take opposite sides on an issue and aggressively pursue their own point of view. A polemicist might employ such devices as red herrings, irony, dissembling, sarcasm, needling, pokes and prods, satire.

But it’s almost never meant to be personal. It’s just a way to ratchet up a discussion and make it more invigorating, intriguing, stimulating.

When the best minds are goaded they are often driven in turn to make their point all the more forcefully. It’s like both of you are down in the arena using words for swords.

From my experience these are almost always the most interesting exchanges. [/b]

2] I acknowledge that my political persona here is generally from the left. Mentally, emotionally and psychologically this is the “I” that I have become over the years. It is deeply embedded in my “identity” now subjectively and subjunctively. But that doesn’t make my dilemma go away.

3] Many objectivists react to this with antagonism. Why? Because [I suspect] they are perturbed by the thought that if my frame of mind is a reasonable one, then it might be applicable to them in turn. And you know what that means, right? Indeed, I suspect your own reaction to me here is a part of that.

Moreno:

You have repeatedly argued that the problems in the world are caused by or made worse by objectists, never once acknowledging that this is an objectivist stance. In the moment such an outburst need not contradict your position, but to do it for years means that you have not even convinced yourself. You still think they are bad.

On the contrary, over and again I flat out acknowledge that most of the pain and suffering inflicted around the globe today is as a result of the moral nihilism embedded in one or another rendition of those intent on sustaining a world [and a global economy] where their own social, political and economic interests are the chief concern. If not the only concern.

And I know that I have brought this up with you. But [here and now] I don’t argue that this is necessarily either good or bad.

And, again, to call my argument here “an objectivist stance” is to argue that I believe that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to share it.

And I don’t.

Ah, but you know better, right?

Uccisore · December 9, 2016, 9:36pm

It’s worth pointing out that while white people are obviously bullied and silenced, minorities who stick up for them (or in general speak out against SJW bullshit) often get it even worse.

uglypeoplefucking · December 10, 2016, 1:08am

Do you mean white people as a demographic are bullied and silenced, or just that there are people who are bullied and silenced who are also white? Honestly, i think white people who are bullied and silenced usually have it done to them by other white people.

uglypeoplefucking · December 10, 2016, 1:13am

Wait, i’m confused - SJW stands for social justice warrior right?

Uccisore · December 10, 2016, 1:38am

I mean both. Sometimes an individual is bullied or silenced because they are white, and sometimes ‘white people’ as a demographic is targetted for bullying and harassment.

Yes, that is certainly true and one of the big ironies of the SJW left- they went to be white and wealthy. A lot of them make up new genders and sexualities to ascribe to themselves so they can reap all the pleasures of faux-victim status.