On second thought, I’ve always had problems with them too. Maybe that’s women in general, though. Gosh.
That would be gentrification.
Careful! You’re on the verge of sounding conservative.
That will get you kicked out of the big barn party for sure!
It sounds like you’re saying minorities are to blame for the negative racial attitudes held by many members of the majority.
I am wondering who you think is to blame for the racial attitudes “held by many members of the mjaority?” I guess I’m wondering how you would put it. Those members of the majority? Or, the majority?
How you extrapolated that is anyone’s guess.
My point was that the logical extension of identity politics is that it says everyone is eligible to find their identity, set it off against other identities, and devolve into grievance politics as a personal priority - and that includes people in the majority. And we’ve seen it. What that ultimately devolves into is fierce Balkanization and various identities pitted against each other, pointing fingers and agitating against each other, and doing the opposite of integrating.
It’s a silly idea that leads in practice to an illiberal wasteland.
1 Like
Are you proposing that people HAVE TO associate or live with people they don’t want to? There are millions of people who aren’t even politically or race conscious OF ALL RACES who flock to their own kinds.
Also if you propose this is what do you suggest besides FORCE to resolve it. Discussion won’t. Discussion isn’t a form of force.
And for others: are you proposing that people can’t be free to privilege whoever they want to, even if it’s on an irrational basis? And thereby, how is one harming someone else who isn’t getting such privilege?
1 Like
Maybe you would if you think a typical Middle Easterner is white (when the vast majority aren’t).
BalkanIzarin and the civil wars in Yugo were the result of FORCING millions of people of various nationalities to live with each other when they didn’t want to! Great result!
Now they’re separate … and they still don’t like each other. So again, what would you propose?
1 Like
Surely you’re not really asking me this?
We have seen it, but that does not make it a logical extension.
It is a fact that black people had, and continue to have, a tougher go of it in this country than white people. But to acknowledge this fact risks ‘Balkanizing’ society, so we should…What? Ignore it? Pretend it isn’t true?
Yes. I’m not sure why it’s shocking. I’m just asking if you view it as a problem with many members of the majority. Or, of the majority.
I think hearing that you’ve enjoyed some kind of charmed life due to being white irritates a lot of people who feel like they’ve worked very hard and obeyed the rules. “White privilege” seems so total and in your face. Many of us members of the majority grew up believing we shouldn’t stereotype/generalize.
Maybe we could call it the Brown Handicap? Not really. Just saying.
Well, sure, up to a point - see anti-discrimination laws.
Force is certainly a part of it (see above, anti-discrimination law). And let me jump a step ahead to save you some time - don’t waste my time with a half-educated dopey libertarian claim that “no use of force is morally justified”, etc. - been there, done that, well over a thousand times. You’d be shooting blanks.
1 Like
Listen, you dumb Polack. I’m Chinese, not Korean. The Chinese are smarter, because we got the Koreans to fight our battles for us bwahahahah.
Seriously, my Clint Eastwood quote was used because in that movie, he was the guy who used the 80/20 rule, appeared racist, had the ability to recognize the 20%, and was ultimately shown to not be racist at all. Just a no BS, average Joe BadMothaFucka. But Clint Eastwood is a conservative, ergo racist, in real life so his movie is #full of shit.
1 Like
Much of the supposed “whiteness” and “non-whiteness” ME is context dependent - as I’ve said before, the same individual could be “non-white” in the US or Russia, yet “privileged white” in Brazil or South Africa.
Although, the current Miss Lebanon for example could pass the test of even the most dyed-in-the-wool racists…
Yeah well, that didn’t work out well. It was primarily about money though.
Yes, its logical, because race includes “white” - identity is based on category, not simply on majority or minority status. In another society where white people weren’t the majority, individuals in that majority too could claim identity of their race.
No one disputes this. So?
Acknowledging this fact =/= identity politics. This is where you get it confused. There are plenty of people who recognize this fact, abhor racism and discrimination, BUT who reject this weird subspecies of politics that is identity politics.
I’d propose that they get over their objections to one another, adopt a spirit of toleration, and form a republic based on ideas instead of ethnicity or religion.
That’s just so crazy it might work. Wait, this just in - I’m told the US of A currently does this and its constitution is available online for anyone to copy from.
1 Like
I’m not libertarian. I muddled around with it, but in the end I’m not.
I said typical Middle Easterner knowing that there are a minority of whites living there.
Anyway, my granddad was not white though some insist I’m white. Most Jews aren’t.
Consideration or context doesn’t determine who is white. Nature does.
A piece of paper written by white racists men.
Heh. Just a piece of paper, huh? Thanks. You may go.
In the end it will be just that considerining millions of people don’t care about your proposal.
I personally have lived and worked with everybody under the sun my whole life, but I know the vast majority of the world doesn’t or wouldn’t or doesn’t want to do that.