The left has gone full retard

[Zuranthium]

Originally Posted by Swish [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I used to work in an environment where if you were a white guy you could be told to do anything.

A black somehow-pregnant lesbian? Shit, that's god mode.

You have no clue whatsoever what it is like to be such a thing.

The opportunities given to people based on these two things are entirely disparate, regardless of your bad optics thinking people can somehow "play the minority card" to gain some kind of special advantage. Yeah, maybe someone won't ask a pregnant woman to do a certain physically draining task. That's just called respect. What exactly was the white guy being told to do, AT WORK, that was such a terrible ordeal for them? In reality, nothing.

Being a white hetero male factually makes a person more likely to be hired, promoted, given a loan, etc. Not to mention being born into money. They are the most privileged group in existence. That's what our culture has built and the long-standing misogyny and subtle (or not so subtle) modes of discrimination against minorities have directly held them down in comparison to this ruling class. Just look at who gets cast in films and who owns the businesses, for starters.

The current outrage over this is basically built around the majority realizing they are no longer a majority and will have more competition if others actually being given equality opportunity. That and just general ignorance.

Everyone here needs to watch this, for starters, to gain a better understanding of exactly why this quoted mentality is ridiculous and wrong.

[sOurDieSel]

Originally Posted by Zuranthium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're a White Male!

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Zuranthium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Everyone here needs to watch this, for starters, to gain a better understanding of exactly why this quoted mentality is ridiculous and wrong.

I thought it was a pretty good video. It argues for utilitarianism as a moral philosophy -- which I've always considered the best view. It is what people do whether they acknowledge it or not. When they decide if something is moral or not, they weigh the consequences of their actions.

The kind of thinking he is discussing is basically the deontological view. Somethings are right, others are wrong. I associate this (like he did) with people obsessed with being a good person -- and rationalizing their actions to be consistent with their image as a good person. The concept of more moral or less moral is alien to them. It is all either moral or not.

It was pretty cool how he associated the unwillingness to explore certain moral inquiries as a defense mechanism. But it might not be able to hold up as well as the rest of the video. People tend to be skeptical of information that contradicts what they believe (esp. conservatives). So it may not be a defense in all cases...just typical human behavior.

[fash]

Originally Posted by Zuranthium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Everyone here needs to watch this, for starters, to gain a better understanding of exactly why this quoted mentality is ridiculous and wrong.

Horrible video. Its ethics are inconsistent, and the first minute is filled with assumptions you see in the majority of leftist propaganda, specifically about sexism in this video. Also, it's futile to apply logic to rhetoric. That's the autistes' downfall. People (besides autistes) don't deduce that femfrequency implies gamers are sexual assailants. People have an emotional reaction to her rhetoric and either agree or disagree for non-rational reasons. Reasoning and truth aren't part of this process. You rarely hear feminists or leftists have honest conversations about the patriarchy and its empirical effects. Their rhetoric is primarily about my feels.

Here's how cultural marxists have worked for decades:

“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!”
“How can we destroy monogamy?”
“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!”

That's from a meeting of 2nd wave feminists (the NOW) in 1969. And your modern feminists/SJWs are a far cry worse. You see this same rhetoric in other egalitarians e.g. wrt race. These people are enemies to civilization and need to be stopped with violent force.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Zuranthium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Just look at who gets cast in films and who owns the businesses, for starters.

Jewish people?

Originally Posted by Zuranthium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They are the most privileged group in existence. That's what our culture has built and the long-standing misogyny and subtle (or not so subtle) modes of discrimination against minorities have directly held them down in comparison to this ruling class.

See, in saying this, you imply it's us doing all the holding down, making them work in the fields while we sit on the porch drinking sweet tea. How exactly have we held down Asians and Jews (in recent times)? Both those minorities outperform whites, and the latter is proportionately more represented in the "ruling class" than any other group. If you recognize that some cultures are able to thrive and reach parity with whites, then you necessarily cannot blame whitey for 100% of the inability of other cultures to thrive.

Additionally, what good does that statement do? Ok, 'whites' in general are born with enormous privilege. That's an incredibly racist statement. If you generalized any other trait to an entire group besides whites based on the color of their skin that would be a reprehensible fucking statement. The fact that you're targeting the 'ruling class' doesn't make bigotry suddenly okay, and it just shows you don't really dig into why bigotry is wrong in the first place. What about all the whites who grew up in abusive drug-filled impoverished households with parents and communities who didn't care? What happens when they somehow manage to beat the odds and go to college, only to be told to check their privilege?

The only type of judgments we should be making are those based on individual character and for which we have evidence. Applying systematic judgments to a group based on an unconnected trait is wrong. It's wrong when we do it to white people, and it's wrong when we do it to black people. Even if we know a certain culture tends to have certain behaviors, cognitions, and traits, it's still a character evaluation, not a skin-color evaluation.

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Jewish people?



See, in saying this, you imply it's us doing all the holding down, making them work in the fields while we sit on the porch drinking sweet tea. How exactly have we held down Asians and Jews (in recent times)? Both those minorities outperform whites, and the latter is proportionately more represented in the "ruling class" than any other group. If you recognize that some cultures are able to thrive and reach parity with whites, then you necessarily cannot blame whitey for 100% of the inability of other cultures to thrive.

Additionally, what good does that statement do? Ok, 'whites' in general are born with enormous privilege. That's an incredibly racist statement. If you generalized any other trait to an entire group besides whites based on the color of their skin that would be a reprehensible fucking statement. The fact that you're targeting the 'ruling class' doesn't make bigotry suddenly okay, and it just shows you don't really dig into why bigotry is wrong in the first place. What about all the whites who grew up in abusive drug-filled impoverished households with parents and communities who didn't care? What happens when they somehow manage to beat the odds and go to college, only to be told to check their privilege?

The only type of judgments we should be making are those based on individual character and for which we have evidence. Applying systematic judgments to a group based on an unconnected trait is wrong. It's wrong when we do it to white people, and it's wrong when we do it to black people. Even if we know a certain culture tends to have certain behaviors, cognitions, and traits, it's still a character evaluation, not a skin-color evaluation.

What people are actually saying is: its best to have white skin in America currently. The sooner you all stop inanely arguing with this fucking obviously true point, the sooner they will shut up and move on to something else.

They found that when they introduced groups of privileged people to information about their privileged -- the reaction is defensive. They start thinking about all the ways in their individual life that they were not privileged. Look at Mitt Romney attempt to deal with the assertion he was privileged. He action got on stage with his wife and tried to argue he didn't have it that good!

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What people are actually saying is: its best to have white skin in America currently. The sooner you all stop inanely arguing with this fucking obviously true point, the sooner they will shut up and move on to something else.

They found that when they introduced groups of privileged people to information about their privileged -- the reaction is defensive. They start thinking about all the ways in their individual life that they were not privileged. Look at Mitt Romney attempt to deal with the assertion he was privileged. He action got on stage with his wife and tried to argue he didn't have it that good!

Privilege is a relative term. It is relative to the culture and race. Would I be privileged as a white in Japan or China? I get that was your point sort of but you tried to make this solely about whites and america as if that is a bad thing. Also the notion that its best to be white "currently" is changing. Mostly because of suicidal altruism on the part of whites. A sort of cultural nihilism. The thing is you cant recognize your own bias. If we were talking about native Chinese becoming a minority in their own country the left would be throwing benefits and galas to "Save the Chinese" but because it is whites being overthrown demographically you stand there cheering it on.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What people are actually saying is: its best to have white skin in America currently. The sooner you all stop inanely arguing with this fucking obviously true point, the sooner they will shut up and move on to something else.

Life isn't fair, and it would be boring if we were all clones.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What people are actually saying is: its best to have white skin in America currently. The sooner you all stop inanely arguing with this fucking obviously true point, the sooner they will shut up and move on to something else.

They found that when they introduced groups of privileged people to information about their privileged -- the reaction is defensive. They start thinking about all the ways in their individual life that they were not privileged. Look at Mitt Romney attempt to deal with the assertion he was privileged. He action got on stage with his wife and tried to argue he didn't have it that good!

The problem is that isn't what they are arguing. It's that whites have privilege, and it's our responsibility to make it right and elevate everybody else. It is not. What I can get behind is pointing out specific instances of racism and real, actual oppression (ie, housing discrimination, white flight), and demanding those be corrected. Not punishing whites for thriving in their native country.

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Doubling down aside, is there anything useful that can be done by making the distinction?

Creating policy that emphasizes integration rather than coexistence, trying to make sure immigrants do not form parallel societies and refuse to assimilate, and that native citizens do not alienate them with racism and xenophobia. Also recognizing that immigration must be kept at a manageable level, enough to accommodate integration rather than colonization.

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Creating policy that emphasizes integration rather than coexistence, trying to make sure immigrants do not form parallel societies and refuse to assimilate, and that native citizens do not alienate them with racism and xenophobia. Also recognizing that immigration must be kept at a manageable level, enough to accommodate integration rather than colonization.

All that with just one word?