Double Standards in Racism and Sexism

[Helz]

Something I have considered over the last few years is how little our society actually cares for equality. Even just writing some of these out I had this voice in the back of my head calling myself a sexist or a racist just for saying them yet when I stop and think about it there is no justifiable reason. If you can not invert the race or sex and justify the action its a double standard.

On Racism:
If you make an African American only organization its progressive but if you make a white only organization its racist.

Events such as 'Black history month' are seen as normal but if you were to make a 'white history month' people would probably loose their shit.

If you have a company with 100% Latino employees its ok but if you have one with 100% white people its discrimination.

Big media platforms like Amazon, Netflix and Youtube push category's highlighting Latino or African American culture which is seen as normal but I have never seen any platform push a white persons content on account of their race and if it was it would likely be seen as offensive/racist.

Extremism on one side is seemingly protected such as Professor Tommy Curry from A&M advocating that white people should be afraid of black people and even saying some white people may need to die in an interview without loosing his job.

On Sexism:
One of my favorite law suits right now is a federal suit against a Utah law against women being topless in public. The state is in the awkward position of arguing to restrict women's rights on the basis of religious morality. Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Kansas, and Oklahoma will all have to allow topless women if the federal suit rules it unconstitutional.

If a girl gets laid a lot she is a slut but if a guy does it he is a badass.

If a guy calls women liers, cheaters, sluts, prevailed ect he is considered an evil pig but if a feminist trashes on men the same way people just shrug.

A girl is seen as bossy and controlling if she acts with authority while its just seen as being a leader for a guy to do it.

If a guy slaps a waitress' ass its assault but if a girl who looks like a guy, dresses like a guy, and acts like a guy does it its somehow acceptable. Same parallel with blatantly asking for sex.

A University of Michigan Law School found that overall men receive 63% longer prison sentences and women are twice as likely to avoid going to jail if convicted. I doubt people would support 'equality' when it required a push to 'Put more women in jail for longer'

If a woman accuses a man of assault he is guilty until proven innocent, immediately has to go to jail regardless of if he can flatly prove it was a lie, has to bail himself out, has protective orders thrown at him, and faces her in court while she gets a free lawyer. If a many accuses a woman of assault she is innocent until proven guilty, he is seen as a bitch and afforded no legal protections or assistance.

If a woman lies about a man accusing him of sexual assault or rape to damage his political standing or career its generally done with impunity and there is very little critical opinion of her and almost always no legal repercussions.

Most studys reflect men only get custody of the child in a divorce between 17-20% of the time.

Most data reflects women only make 80-85% of what men do in the same fields.

[oops_ur_dead]

Here's the way it was explained to me with regards to race in the US:

The concept of "whiteness" as a unifying factor is and has been predominantly used in a white nationalist/supremacist manner. In Europe there is substantial discrimination between different ethnicities, despite them all being white, and if you tell a Polish and a British person that they should consider themselves the same because they are both white you'll get some strange looks. This is extremely evident when you look at history as well. We think it's ridiculous nowadays that Italians and Irish were once not considered "white". But it's because the idea of what is white or not isn't rooted in commonality of culture of ethnicity, but rather of defining what is white as a proxy for what is superior. For instance, why wouldn't you consider Syrians to be white, despite them being as or more light-skinned than certain people we consider to be white? What cultural and even ethnic components unify a white person from Spain and a white person from Finland?

The idea of blackness in the US is not the same. Most African Americans do not know their heritage, because slavery essentially wiped it out as it was extraneous information. Hence, the culture of blackness in the US is tied to the history of slavery, fights for civil rights, and so on. That's all they can trace their lineage back to. To that regard, the ethnicity, background, and culture of African Americans in the US (of course, I'm largely talking about the descendants of slaves here, not any further immigrants) is inseparable from their skin colour and race.

Thus, in the US it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison to say "if you replace black with white it's a double standard", because blackness and whiteness are in different categories. You won't see a white history month, but Irish history month exists, and that's largely alright. Celebrating "white heritage" is definitely racist, because white heritage doesn't exist, but if you celebrate Norwegian or British heritage people won't bat an eye. It's completely different.

[oops_ur_dead]

As for your other examples, I'm curious about these 100% African American/Latino organizations. I've not heard of a single one that exists.

[Helz]

Here's the way it was explained to me with regards to race in the US:

The concept of "whiteness" as a unifying factor is and has been predominantly used in a white nationalist/supremacist manner. In Europe there is substantial discrimination between different ethnicities, despite them all being white, and if you tell a Polish and a British person that they should consider themselves the same because they are both white you'll get some strange looks. This is extremely evident when you look at history as well. We think it's ridiculous nowadays that Italians and Irish were once not considered "white". But it's because the idea of what is white or not isn't rooted in commonality of culture of ethnicity, but rather of defining what is white as a proxy for what is superior. For instance, why wouldn't you consider Syrians to be white, despite them being as or more light-skinned than certain people we consider to be white? What cultural and even ethnic components unify a white person from Spain and a white person from Finland?

The idea of blackness in the US is not the same. Most African Americans do not know their heritage, because slavery essentially wiped it out as it was extraneous information. Hence, the culture of blackness in the US is tied to the history of slavery, fights for civil rights, and so on. That's all they can trace their lineage back to. To that regard, the ethnicity, background, and culture of African Americans in the US (of course, I'm largely talking about the descendants of slaves here, not any further immigrants) is inseparable from their skin colour and race.

Thus, in the US it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison to say "if you replace black with white it's a double standard", because blackness and whiteness are in different categories. You won't see a white history month, but Irish history month exists, and that's largely alright. Celebrating "white heritage" is definitely racist, because white heritage doesn't exist, but if you celebrate Norwegian or British heritage people won't bat an eye. It's completely different.

This is interesting and something I never thought of that does explain a portion of the social justification. It made me think about how social categorization also must play into peoples reactions. I do feel it is arguing semantics though. Regardless of how you look at the situation its only ok to market actors based on their skin color for specific races and that is a total double standard. I personally think it would be pretty stupid to have a 'Caucasian history month' or something but I am interested in how we react to such a concept and more importantly, how we rationalize this racism.

I also would like to focus on the nature of the problem. I think there's clear parallels between race/sex and you could easily throw in a bunch of other categories like age, socioeconomic status, culture, or religious belief; and draw this same pattern of 'Special consideration for some under the guise of equality.'


As for your other examples, I'm curious about these 100% African American/Latino organizations. I've not heard of a single one that exists.

I could throw out lots of examples of institutions but a quick google search can pull as many as you want. For a very basic example consider the existence of an African American Fraternity. Even the name of that category would receive a very different reaction on the flip side of 'Caucasian American Fraternity.' Or consider the reaction when a woman sued for discrimination because she was not allowed to join a Frat. If a non trans cis male was to sue a sorority to get in he would probably be viewed as a pervert while a woman doing so is a rights activist.

Then theres fun 'NPO' organizations such as "Assata's Daughters" (named after some girl that robbed a bank and executed cops) with the objective of 'programming' young African American girls in 'radical liberatory activism' against the system. (Literally their words. Programming young girls for radical black feminism.)
Just imagine the publics reaction if you flipped the race and sex on that group. It would literally be like the KKK integrating a cult style youth outreach program into citys with a hefty helping of sexism. But because the optics in America on racism and sexism are one sided these groups and movements go without attention or much issue from what I see.

[oops_ur_dead]

You're falling into the exact same trap I was talking about with your examples. There are African-American fraternities, yes. There are also Polish, Danish, Ukrainian, Jewish, etc. fraternities, and everyone's cool with that. There are no white fraternities because whiteness does not exist as an ethnicity outside of the context of white supremacy. Also, you can join any of these fraternities as an "outsider", including joining an African-American fraternity if you're a white guy. It might just be awkward for you and everyone else, hence why it doesn't really happen. I expect the same of any other fraternity, I don't expect a practising Catholic would be particularly at-home in a Jewish fraternity. This is something that would not apply with a supposed white fraternity, because there is no white culture/identity. It's based solely on skin colour, and at that, a very specific racial definition of skin colour (as I mentioned with my example of Syrians earlier).

The reason that nobody talks about Assata's Daughters is because it's a group of less than 70 members that don't seem to have accomplished much of note, not even getting into the politics of the group's goals. I've literally never heard of them before you brought them up. I don't think many people have, outside of this so-called criticism of them.

"Just imagine the publics reaction if you flipped the race and sex on that group." Well there are dozens of white supremacist groups in the US that are on the scale of this group, and have similarly not really accomplished or done much of anything, and nobody's heard of them either. It's not really surprising that a random group of 70 radical people isn't at the front of the country's mind. Do you know about the Asatru Folk Assembly, the Traditionalist Worker Party, or the League of the South? These are basically your race-flipped versions of Assata's Daughters, and nobody gives a fuck about them either.

[Helz]

You're falling into the exact same trap I was talking about with your examples. There are African-American fraternities, yes. There are also Polish, Danish, Ukrainian, Jewish, etc. fraternities, and everyone's cool with that. There are no white fraternities because whiteness does not exist as an ethnicity outside of the context of white supremacy. Also, you can join any of these fraternities as an "outsider", including joining an African-American fraternity if you're a white guy. It might just be awkward for you and everyone else, hence why it doesn't really happen. I expect the same of any other fraternity, I don't expect a practising Catholic would be particularly at-home in a Jewish fraternity. This is something that would not apply with a supposed white fraternity, because there is no white culture/identity. It's based solely on skin colour, and at that, a very specific racial definition of skin colour (as I mentioned with my example of Syrians earlier).This is kind of talking in circles at this point but I still think you are focused on semantics here. Replace 'White' with whatever label, or categorization you want and it does not change the fact that swapping the populous a rights movement advocates for directly impacts how it is perceived in line with a double standard existing within our society. There is no amount of changing what word is used that invalidates that.

Outside of that these were just examples I threw out to illustrate the more significant issue of double standards in our society. Its a bit of a red herring to only focus on 'White is not an ethnicity' given the larger subject matter. I could easily make lists just as long about socioeconomic status, culture or any number of other groups to draw out the point further if needed.


The reason that nobody talks about Assata's Daughters is because it's a group of less than 70 members that don't seem to have accomplished much of note, not even getting into the politics of the group's goals. I've literally never heard of them before you brought them up. I don't think many people have, outside of this so-called criticism of them.This is a fair point. I personally discovered them while studying ANTIFA and BLM a year or so back when I found them as an affiliate and that Colin Kaepernick donated 25k to their cause.

Regardless do you not see a pattern of specifically selective acceptance in society? If I have just gone flat out tin foil hat level and need a reality check let me know but I struggle to identify how to even hold civil discussions in these directions. Explaining a radical feminist is as morally wrong and sexist as the image of men she perpetuates is a tough subject in the social climate I see.

[SuperJack]

I went to the clothing store today. I want clothes that look nice and happy. I see a sea of multi colours and many different designs and looks. So awesome.
But, this is all for kids or women.

I go to the men's section. My choice is depression.
Grey, black, dark blue. Maroon if you're lucky or that horrid mold green colour if you really want to go wild.
I have to say the selection for men's clothing is extremely depressing. I just want some bright colorful clothing, or something that just doesn't make me want to kill myself. God damn fucking sexist men's fashion.

[DJarJar]

This is kind of talking in circles at this point but I still think you are focused on semantics here. Replace 'White' with whatever label, or categorization you want and it does not change the fact that swapping the populous a rights movement advocates for directly impacts how it is perceived in line with a double standard existing within our society. There is no amount of changing what word is used that invalidates that.

Outside of that these were just examples I threw out to illustrate the more significant issue of double standards in our society. Its a bit of a red herring to only focus on 'White is not an ethnicity' given the larger subject matter. I could easily make lists just as long about socioeconomic status, culture or any number of other groups to draw out the point further if needed.

This is a fair point. I personally discovered them while studying ANTIFA and BLM a year or so back when I found them as an affiliate and that Colin Kaepernick donated 25k to their cause.

Regardless do you not see a pattern of specifically selective acceptance in society? If I have just gone flat out tin foil hat level and need a reality check let me know but I struggle to identify how to even hold civil discussions in these directions. Explaining a radical feminist is as morally wrong and sexist as the image of men she perpetuates is a tough subject in the social climate I see.


well the disconnect is you already remarked that you get annoyed when anybody mentions white privilege to you, so of course it seems unfair when minority groups "cancel" whites. It only looks unfair for your "side" if you fail to see what your side does to theirs


and if you don't want to be part of a side and think that is stupid? well yea, but sadly it's the world we live in and you have to accept it as part of your identity even if you don't want to - because others will make it part of your identity whether you like it or not

[Helz]

well the disconnect is you already remarked that you get annoyed when anybody mentions white privilege to you, so of course it seems unfair when minority groups "cancel" whites. It only looks unfair for your "side" if you fail to see what your side does to theirs

and if you don't want to be part of a side and think that is stupid? well yea, but sadly it's the world we live in and you have to accept it as part of your identity even if you don't want to - because others will make it part of your identity whether you like it or notSure, it feels bad to have your success invalidated because of the color of your skin. And the perception that the grass is always greener on the other side rings true.

But what is this thing in the nature of how our society interacts that creates this bias? More than that what is this thing in the nature of ourselves that acknowledging this bias feels uncomfortable and unnatural? I agree that acceptance is an appropriate and necessary action for the individual but things associated with this rabbit hole has been a recent obsession of mine. The more I tear into social and political movements the more I see a mix of self interest justified by half thought out belief structures and regurgitated moral stances. I want to understand the mechanics of that unseen hand that shapes our society and fosters the division thats so prevalent.

[oops_ur_dead]

This is kind of talking in circles at this point but I still think you are focused on semantics here. Replace 'White' with whatever label, or categorization you want and it does not change the fact that swapping the populous a rights movement advocates for directly impacts how it is perceived in line with a double standard existing within our society. There is no amount of changing what word is used that invalidates that.

Outside of that these were just examples I threw out to illustrate the more significant issue of double standards in our society. Its a bit of a red herring to only focus on 'White is not an ethnicity' given the larger subject matter. I could easily make lists just as long about socioeconomic status, culture or any number of other groups to draw out the point further if needed.


But it's not arguing semantics. I'm saying that your examples are no more a double standard than saying "we have black history month, why can't we have Nazi history month?". Unless you also want to consider that as a double standard worthy of discussion, at which point I think the conversation becomes much less interesting.


Regardless do you not see a pattern of specifically selective acceptance in society? If I have just gone flat out tin foil hat level and need a reality check let me know but I struggle to identify how to even hold civil discussions in these directions. Explaining a radical feminist is as morally wrong and sexist as the image of men she perpetuates is a tough subject in the social climate I see.

I mean yeah but I don't think it's really anything noteworthy. Double standards exist everywhere, I don't think it's somehow noteworthy to point them out in the context of race or gender. Would you also consider it a worthwhile discussion on how it's a double standard that it's okay to shoot someone in self-defence but not okay to shoot them out of cold blood?

[oops_ur_dead]

This is a fair point. I personally discovered them while studying ANTIFA and BLM a year or so back when I found them as an affiliate and that Colin Kaepernick donated 25k to their cause.

Regardless do you not see a pattern of specifically selective acceptance in society? If I have just gone flat out tin foil hat level and need a reality check let me know but I struggle to identify how to even hold civil discussions in these directions. Explaining a radical feminist is as morally wrong and sexist as the image of men she perpetuates is a tough subject in the social climate I see.

I'd also like to point out that the SPLC does actually list extremist black groups and black separatists as hate groups. So this isn't something that's ignored. You'd be hard-pressed to find people criticizing the SPLC for being anti-black or anti-social justice.

[yzb25]

This is a long list of vastly different issues with wildly varying degrees of validity and significance loosely tied together with the theme "group A was treated differently to group B". I'm not sure you'll ever find a satisfying explanation beyond "when groups A and B are treated the same, we say we're doing it because they're equal, when they're treated differently, we say we're being pragmatic and acknowledging their differences. Either way, we have a rationalization for why the social norm we're comfortable with exists."

For context, it may be worth mentioning that the Qu'ran and hadiths staunchly proclaim men and women to be equal. Yet Sharia law regards a woman's testimony to be half of a man's. I'm not bringing this up to have a conversation about the ethics of Sharia law. I'm just pointing out wildly different cultures can still view their systems as creating equal and just societies because equality is such a wishy-washy term.

[Oberon]

Imagine thinking people here will actually debate with you LMAO
Don't argue with Internet Revolutionaries, they'll just bully you into holding the same opinion as them

[rumox]

I agree Helz. Bullshit is bullshit regardless of who it comes from. I am all for non-whites getting a fair shake of the sauce bottle, but I simply won't give the time of day to anyone that is quite frankly a cunt of a person. Which I don't think most people are, it's just as it always is, a vocal minority amplified because they are on the internet.

[Oberon]

Most people aren't cunts but most people are dumb. Sadly one tends to amplify the other.

[oops_ur_dead]

I like yzb's post. I think Helz's point might be a bit vague, and I think a blanket statement on double standards being bad is ignoring a lot of social context. Not just in race/gender but pretty much everything.

[rumox]

I'd say a big part of the issue is the inability to agree on what racism means when opposing viewpoints collide. When team snowflake say someone is racist it's because someone disparaged someone based on their skin colour, and when team woke say someone is racist it's due to them buying into a hierarchal system used to oppress entire divisions of races. I mean this is just a big ass assumption because I can't wrap my head around how people can say non-whites cannot be racist because they are the victims of the hierarchy system.

[Oberon]

We don’t need to agree on the definition of racism, it’s literally in the dictionary. If people don’t ‘agree’ with it they’re retarded. The problem is that on this planet reason does not always triumph and right now more than ever retards are in power. Social media is literally giving voice to the dumbest of opinions and letting them get more influential than ever. But then I don’t think people have a right to complain about our current social direction. Politicians are supporting this dumb holier-than-thou progressive trend in ‘thinking’ and it’s not as if we didn’t elect them or they weren’t of us. That’s the best we can do folks. We’re just that dumb. I hate it when people say ideologues did that or ideologues did this. It’s not ideologues, it’s retards. The face of stupidity hasn’t changed, only the name. Calling them ideologues is giving people far too much credit.

[Helz]

Would you also consider it a worthwhile discussion on how it's a double standard that it's okay to shoot someone in self-defence but not okay to shoot them out of cold blood?I kinda think your just being obstinate in focusing on and refusing to acknowledge that its considered appropriate in society to market an actor based on 1 skin color but not another by arguing categories. For giggles the reason that is different is the question is the morality of the action and that determination is built on the innate right to preserve your life acknowledged by every civilization in the world. In contrast asking if its ok to market one skin color but not another is built on nothing more than the skin color itself.
So action ok or not ok given preservation of life vs action ok or not ok given skin color. (This is probably the most clearly I have ever highlighted a strawman in my life..)

This is a long list of vastly different issues with wildly varying degrees of validity and significance loosely tied together with the theme "group A was treated differently to group B". I'm not sure you'll ever find a satisfying explanation beyond "when groups A and B are treated the same, we say we're doing it because they're equal, when they're treated differently, we say we're being pragmatic and acknowledging their differences. Either way, we have a rationalization for why the social norm we're comfortable with exists."

For context, it may be worth mentioning that the Qu'ran and hadiths staunchly proclaim men and women to be equal. Yet Sharia law regards a woman's testimony to be half of a man's. I'm not bringing this up to have a conversation about the ethics of Sharia law. I'm just pointing out wildly different cultures can still view their systems as creating equal and just societies because equality is such a wishy-washy term.

I like yzb's post. I think Helz's point might be a bit vague, and I think a blanket statement on double standards being bad is ignoring a lot of social context. Not just in race/gender but pretty much everything.
Yes. 100% exactly. I am not talking about Racism and Sexism. Step back and consider on a sociological level the difference between an acknowledged/accepted double standard thats created with reasoning (Such as women getting half a vote in a country) and a accepted double standard that has not been thought out within a society. I kind of feel like 'protests' and social movements in general serve to force society as a whole to think through that second category and when there is a genuine disparity it has to ether then be eliminated or accepted.
Regardless of what circumstances or category's they relate to its a type of sociological norm established without thought and promotes forms of discrimination. Just talking about them has effectively become a taboo and places you at risk of being categorized as a demonized social group such as a bigot even if you are attempting to eliminate bigotry through your discussion.

I do feel there is an unseen hand there in the same way as there is for supply and demand to establish a price point in a free market. I have been chewing on this for months and cant quite put my finger on it; but every bit as much as I want to figure that out I want to get others thoughts on the existence of such patterns within society.

[Oberon]

Why is it important to figure out the exact reason why people view challenging the status quo as bigotry? Whatever the sociological reason, the underlying cause inevitably leads to stupidity and bullshit. I think there’s multiple parts to this... a lot of info is available online nowadays and that leads people to think they know bullshit without actually knowing anything. The fact that there’s a lot of garbage on the internet is bad enough, but this is compounded by the worsening quality of education. Basically: there’s a lot of stupids out there who ‘google-know’ things out there and SEEM to be educated without actually being educated. Social media and globalization play a large role in this too. Never before could the dumbest of ideas at the bottom of society gain such traction as they do now. Retards now have an audience on shit like Twitter and ect.

[Oberon]

An argument I’ve heard blames academia itself for the current social upheaval. Apparently these racial ideas and white privilege ect were popular in the universities before they entered mainstream culture. So basically, in short, blame academia lol

[oops_ur_dead]

Why is it important to figure out the exact reason why people view challenging the status quo as bigotry? Whatever the sociological reason, the underlying cause inevitably leads to stupidity and bullshit. I think there’s multiple parts to this... a lot of info is available online nowadays and that leads people to think they know bullshit without actually knowing anything. The fact that there’s a lot of garbage on the internet is bad enough, but this is compounded by the worsening quality of education. Basically: there’s a lot of stupids out there who ‘google-know’ things out there and SEEM to be educated without actually being educated. Social media and globalization play a large role in this too. Never before could the dumbest of ideas at the bottom of society gain such traction as they do now. Retards now have an audience on shit like Twitter and ect.


An argument I’ve heard blames academia itself for the current social upheaval. Apparently these racial ideas and white privilege ect were popular in the universities before they entered mainstream culture. So basically, in short, blame academia lol

Jesus Christ man, this level of paranoia and conspirational thinking is not healthy. I cannot imagine how much stress one must be going through in their life when they think that the entire world is out to get the white man.

[Oberon]

Sorry if my first post came across as offensive. I’ll try again: I think there’s no point to analyzing why people view challenging mores as bigotry vis-a-vis oft/already-challenged mores. I think it’s more that the universities were influential, and ideas like these are popular amongst people who are resentful and seek to project blame for their own failures onto people they envy. I don’t think you can put that down to anything useful with regard to social mores.
Helz

[SuperJack]

Clothesssssssssss.

[Oberon]

Jesus Christ man, this level of paranoia and conspirational thinking is not healthy. I cannot imagine how much stress one must be going through in their life when they think that the entire world is out to get the white man.
If you replaced ‘white’ with ‘black’ I would 90% agree with you. Except I think ppl need to be dumb, not stressed

[oops_ur_dead]

If you replaced ‘white’ with ‘black’ I would 90% agree with you. Except I think ppl need to be dumb, not stressed

"Everyone I disagree with is dumb"

Nice.

[oops_ur_dead]

I kinda think your just being obstinate in focusing on and refusing to acknowledge that its considered appropriate in society to market an actor based on 1 skin color but not another by arguing categories. For giggles the reason that is different is the question is the morality of the action and that determination is built on the innate right to preserve your life acknowledged by every civilization in the world. In contrast asking if its ok to market one skin color but not another is built on nothing more than the skin color itself.
So action ok or not ok given preservation of life vs action ok or not ok given skin color. (This is probably the most clearly I have ever highlighted a strawman in my life..)


Honestly man, and I mean no offence by this, but I literally have no idea what you're saying lmao. Could you reword what you wrote?

[Oberon]

Honestly man, and I mean no offence by this, but I literally have no idea what you're saying lmao. Could you reword what you wrote?
Honestly me neither.

[FrostByte]

If you replaced ‘white’ with ‘black’ I would 90% agree with you. Except I think ppl need to be dumb, not stressed

except institutionalized racism against blacks actually exists, racism against whites only exists in the mind of the persecution complex having conservatives who spam the TV you watch

[OzyWho]

(This is probably the most clearly I have ever highlighted a strawman in my life..)
Don't say that after pulling a Jordan Peterson. :cheesy:
(sorry, that's just what came to my mind)


If you cant beat your opponent, confuse them to death


“Dr Peterson, what’s your favorite color?”

“Well that depends on what you mean by favorite. And it also depends on what you mean by color. This is a very complex question...

One must acknowledge the underlying verisimilitude that is irrevocably nested within a multi-layered metaphysical substrate that many people fundamentally conflate with their ideological presuppositions with no uncertain irregularity, and not dissimilar to Jung's extrapolation of the archetypal and axiomatic juxtaposition of Raskolnikov's neo-Marxist existential nihilism. With that said... I've written an 800 page book on the subject which unpacks the uninformative intimations with absolute precision, both biologically and metaphysically..."

[Oberon]

Don't say that after pulling a Jordan Peterson. :cheesy:
(sorry, that's just what came to my mind)


If you cant beat your opponent, confuse them to death

Where is Kathy Newman when you need her?

[Oberon]

except institutionalized racism against blacks actually exists, racism against whites only exists in the mind of the persecution complex having conservatives who spam the TV you watch
Only in your mind, dear.

[Oberon]

Don't say that after pulling a Jordan Peterson. :cheesy:
(sorry, that's just what came to my mind)


If you cant beat your opponent, confuse them to death

I just looked at the spoiler. I think talking about nothing whilst seeming quite deep is an art. Not many can do kind of thing and seem genuine.

[Oberon]

That kind of thing*
Why the fuck am I constantly dropping determiners.

[Oberon]

Also @Helz (https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/member.php?u=10617) I don’t think you need a reality check muh dude. I’ve been trolling and been quite offensive recently but I was super honest when I said disengaging from this forum restored my faculties to me. I have this insane desire to please and not to cause conflict and a lot of the time that causes me to regard things as ‘potentially reasonable’ even when they clearly are not. I liken this to being in a maze and picking the longer way around (or even the blatantly wrong path) even when you know the way to the end, just because idk you’re afraid you’re gonna encounter a demon or some shit on yiur way out. So it is here. While this Nietzsche quote is definitely overused and kinda dumb it perfectly illustrates what I’m trying to explain: ‘if you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you’. Never betray your instincts. I find my instincts (intuition really) are often smarter than my brain. In my case that’s because of my anxiety most likely - I have time to ruminate over dumb shit when I go over things manually, whereas intuition never betrays me. Chances are, if your intuition tells you something is correct, it is. You see how ppl treat any opinion that isnt like their own here so why bother? Just take some time off and think about sonething else without considering the dumb shit on the forum and you’ll be fine.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Honestly man, and I mean no offence by this, but I literally have no idea what you're saying lmao. Could you reword what you wrote?

LOL this is the first post I've read in the thread, and I have the same issue with the quote... or perhaps it is not an issue, but a scheme?

P.S.: sorry for my not very constructive reply, but I don't feel like wrapping my head around this topic atm, maybe later

[oops_ur_dead]

Also @Helz (https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/member.php?u=10617) I don’t think you need a reality check muh dude. I’ve been trolling and been quite offensive recently but I was super honest when I said disengaging from this forum restored my faculties to me. I have this insane desire to please and not to cause conflict and a lot of the time that causes me to regard things as ‘potentially reasonable’ even when they clearly are not. I liken this to being in a maze and picking the longer way around (or even the blatantly wrong path) even when you know the way to the end, just because idk you’re afraid you’re gonna encounter a demon or some shit on yiur way out. So it is here. While this Nietzsche quote is definitely overused and kinda dumb it perfectly illustrates what I’m trying to explain: ‘if you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you’. Never betray your instincts. I find my instincts (intuition really) are often smarter than my brain. In my case that’s because of my anxiety most likely - I have time to ruminate over dumb shit when I go over things manually, whereas intuition never betrays me. Chances are, if your intuition tells you something is correct, it is. You see how ppl treat any opinion that isnt like their own here so why bother? Just take some time off and think about sonething else without considering the dumb shit on the forum and you’ll be fine.

I mean this sincerely: I appreciate that you've finally admitted that feelings matter more to you than facts, and that you refuse to engage in critical thinking. Perhaps not the intellectually best way to go about things but at least you're being honest about it.

The anxiety you're experiencing is called cognitive dissonance, it arises when you believe two contradictory ideas at once (in this case, your feelings versus your conclusions from when you "think" about things). It's a very classic source of stress.

[OzyWho]

Never betray your instincts. I find my instincts (intuition really) are often smarter than my brain.
So, I recently made a post stating that:


Humans are not rational when they have to resolve a cognitive dissonance, doesn't matter what arguments are put forward. That's why it's hard to become Atheist for example.

And now I'm here reading someone saying that their top priority is to come to whatever conclusion necessary that would nullify their cognitive dissonance.

Words can't express how depressing that is intellectually speaking..


Tbh, I'm avoiding posting on this threads topic because I know nothing of racism due to there being nearly no black or asian people where I live. Maybe in the Capital. Maybe. But pretty much the only non-white people here are "gypsies"(Roma, really) and people are so used to them that I think a vast majority haven't noticed that we have any racial diversity to speak of. :laugh:

And sexism, well - lot's of it comes down to human psychology or instincts or whatever. I recognized some of the examples from social experiments, and don't see the point of trying to argue nature away. Admittedly, educating would be a place to start and need to argue first before knowing what to educate.

Regardless of all that, I was very VERY hyped upon seeing this thread. Because I immediately thought to myself "now we'll see how the best of us fares in the face of cognitive dissonance, now we'll see if there's any hope for the human intellect. (It was a first instinct thought, not something that I can back up)

[oops_ur_dead]

I'd also like to expand upon yzb's point: A reason why we accept things like marketing stuff because it has black actors, but not because it has white actors, is because of the difference in intent in the two. The intent of marketing because of black actors, or having certain roles be black (honestly I don't even see that being very prominent) is because it's important to black people, because black people have been underrepresented in a lot of roles. White people, historically and to an extent even today, have been the "default", at least in western society. For instance, most people (myself included) thought it was fine that Harry Potter was depicted by a white guy in the movies. Imagine the uproar from the anti-PC snowflakes if he had been represented as black. Even people that don't care as much would have thought it was unusual, at the very least. Meanwhile, Harry's race was never mentioned in the books. It was never stated that he was white. It just seemed natural to most people that he was.

In light of this, the reason that you would emphasize that a movie has white actors or casting is as a reactionary response to this movement. In effect, one is either saying that black people don't deserve to be empowered (blatant racism) or that black people aren't disenfranchised enough to warrant this (perhaps a valid argument, but then argue this rather than the existence of double standards).

There's also the matter of why one would even care about this in the first place. It does me absolutely no harm to see a black person instead of a white person in a lead role. Any arguments I've seen to the contrary aren't due to the issue of a lack of white representation (these people weren't complaining about white representation in the early 2000s when Will Smith was getting lead roles) but rather the same reactionary response. However, for a great deal of black people it actually is important. I can't claim I fully understand why, but I'll trust them on their word. Anyone who says "well if I was a black person I wouldn't care so they shouldn't either" is making a really foolish argument, because they aren't black so they don't have the perspective of a black person.

The last one is what it really comes down to, for me. I don't give a fuck if someone is black or white in a film. If a set of people care about black representation for its own sake, so be it. But the only response I've seen in favour of white representation comes instead from "black representation is unfair wahhh wahhh wahh" which makes it kind of a childish and invalid response to me, since it doesn't actually come from anything other than reactionaryism.

[OzyWho]

Meanwhile, Harry's race was never mentioned in the books. It was never stated that he was white. It just seemed natural to most people that he was.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b2/d7/b6/b2d7b6822281373a2254ef576e95c280.jpg
https://imagesvc.meredithcorp.io/v3/mm/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.onecms.io%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F6%2F2016%2F09%2Fhpsorc stone.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/55/80/cc/5580cc860bb34f93859136695f2c46fd.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3d/b5/b1/3db5b1c272b6769202ee5f6e534c8449.jpg
https://i.redd.it/g6vqwa0db2631.jpg

[oops_ur_dead]

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b2/d7/b6/b2d7b6822281373a2254ef576e95c280.jpg
https://imagesvc.meredithcorp.io/v3/mm/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.onecms.io%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F6%2F2016%2F09%2Fhpsorc stone.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/55/80/cc/5580cc860bb34f93859136695f2c46fd.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3d/b5/b1/3db5b1c272b6769202ee5f6e534c8449.jpg
https://i.redd.it/g6vqwa0db2631.jpg


Very true, but you can say the same thing about whoever illustrated the covers, since they're a depiction of the book which doesn't mention race. The same also applies to every character whose race wasn't mentioned. I'm pretty sure every single person whose race wasn't specified in the book (like the black guy and the Asian girl whose names I forget) were casted as white people.

[rumox]

Disregarding that he was depicted as white on the cover it's still an interesting thought exercise. Consider a book where the main character's skin colour isn't stated. Our imagination picks up the slack and paints the visual for us. Is it racist or a sign of systemic racism for a white person to visualize a white person? I wouldn't be bold enough to assert that, my first assumption is white people are just visualizing themselves into the role of the protagonist. What would be interesting is what any person of colour visualizes. That doll test done decades ago where black kids were asked to choose between a white doll and a black doll had pretty harrowing results. I'd be interested in a revisit of the test on children nowadays to see the results.

[OzyWho]

Disregarding that he was depicted as white on the cover it's still an interesting thought exercise. Consider a book where the main character's skin colour isn't stated. Our imagination picks up the slack and paints the visual for us. Is it racist or a sign of systemic racism for a white person to visualize a white person?
In the TV Series "American Gods" - there's like one Jesus for every race purely because of this reason. :laugh:
There's a scene with 12 Jesus'..

Also, ftr, it makes 0 sense for why Jesus is thought to be white. But at least they've thought about it in the past: "The race and appearance of Jesus has been a topic of discussion since the days of early Christianity."

[OzyWho]

I'm not sure you'll ever find a satisfying explanation beyond "...we have a rationalization for why the social norm we're comfortable with exists."
You could say that about nearly any topic, couldn't you though?

Isn't the point of discussions such as this is to put that rationalization under scrutiny? (or find out what is being rationalized in the first place, or, like here, what's the cause of it)

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Imagining a fictional character (or anyone you have never seen) as someone like you with your skin color, gender, etc. is perfectly natural: your conception of the human being forms from your conception of yourself, since you consider yourself as an human being. It's not stating you or your "kind" are better than others, it's simply using your prototype of the human being. Saying it's racist is really just a search for artificial guilt lol. Plus, if you were imagining Harry as a black guy, would it mean you're racist towards Asians? The reasoning simply does not work.

I agree with Rumox about the "doll test". Notice that the basis of that experiment's conclusions ("there is strong racism in society because black children would rather have white dolls") is built on the basis that one will always subconsciously consider himself as the prototype of the human being, which is what I was talking about in the last paragraph.

Is it racist or a sign of systemic racism for a white person to visualize a white person? I wouldn't be bold enough to assert that, my first assumption is white people are just visualizing themselves into the role of the protagonist.

Systemic racism has nothing to do with one person's racism. It's about the system's inherent racism, which roughly translates to "racism in laws". Therefore, even if whites visualizing whites was racism, it wouldn't be systemic racism, because it's simply off-topic. It could be called something like "generalized racism", but not "systemic racism", because it has nothing to do with the system.

[rumox]

If a white person is a part a system that devalues the worth of people of colour and they themselves devalue peoples of colours worth, I don't see how you can outright say the system has nothing to do with it when if anything it's probably the most driving factor of individuals to be racist.

[oops_ur_dead]

Imagining a fictional character (or anyone you have never seen) as someone like you with your skin color, gender, etc. is perfectly natural: your conception of the human being forms from your conception of yourself, since you consider yourself as an human being. It's not stating you or your "kind" are better than others, it's simply using your prototype of the human being. Saying it's racist is really just a search for artificial guilt lol. Plus, if you were imagining Harry as a black guy, would it mean you're racist towards Asians? The reasoning simply does not work.


I never claimed that way of thinking was racist? In fact you're partially illustrating my point here. About 85% of film directors are white, so we naturally see a massive overrepresentation of white people in casting because of the effect you're claiming.

This illustrates another double standard that a lot of people are missing: snowflakes constantly cry when a movie casts predominantly black people, because of "b-b-but what if a movie had only white people" when they fail to realize that movies that cast predominantly white people are already the socially-accepted norm. The Harry Potter movies had something like 200 actors, of which 5 were black, one was Asian, and two were Indian. The rest were white. PoC had about 6 minutes of talking time in the movies, out of almost 20 hours of runtime. And everyone was okay with it. You can't even use the defence that "white people are the majority so it's just accurate" because the skew is nowhere near that high. Imagine how much the reactionaries would be crying if a black director came out with a movie with 200 actors of which only 5 were white. The butthurt would be immense, even in the public non-snowflake sentiment. In fact this scenario was one of the so-called "double standards" that was brought up in the OP as being an egregious offence against equality. But when a white director does the same thing, it's just Hollywood.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

If a white person is a part a system that devalues the worth of people of colour and they themselves devalue peoples of colours worth, I don't see how you can outright say the system has nothing to do with it when if anything it's probably the most driving factor of individuals to be racist.
Indeed. But then, don't call it systemic racism then, call it a potential consequence of systemic racism. That's very different. The distinction is important, because it makes the difference between tearing everything apart screaming there is systemic racism for sure and continuing the investigation :P.

I never claimed that way of thinking was racist? In fact you're partially illustrating my point here. About 85% of film directors are white, so we naturally see a massive overrepresentation of white people in casting because of the effect you're claiming.

I'm not sure why you're acting like I was opposing you in any way here, because we're in agreement and because I've never casted doubt on what you're saying there.

[Oberon]

I think your definition of systemic racism is wrong. That is not what is usually meant by systemic racism. Systemic racism is less about laws and more about culture. After all, if its just the laws that are racist, that would be no cause to call the people on the other side of the fence racist, merely misguided. Instead the case is made that 'America' or the West or whatever the retards are talking about is FUNDAMENTALLY based on racist values or principles, and more specifically based on the oppression by white people of other races (chiefly blacks, native Americans, and Hispanics).

Under that definition of systemic racism I would honestly be hard pressed to label any society in modern history, except perhaps for South Africa or Nazi Germany (I don't even know if Nazi Germany qualifies, since that was just a 6 year period and it's not as if Germans were systematically oppressing Jews prior to Hitler's rise to power; South Africa is a better example). I don't even think the South under either slavery or segregation qualifies, in spite of what the retards would have you believe.

Systemic racism has class struggle written all over it; its claims are literally the same as that of Marxism except that it swaps 'the bourgeois' for white people and 'the working class' for blacks/Hispanics/ect. It's a thing only retards can possibly believe :)

[Oberon]

You know what I think the cure to all the insane stupidity around is?
Forcing everyone to binge-watch Jordan Peterson and Tucker Carlson
Just picture an entire inquisition
with waterboarding and shit
you get glued to a chair and are put in front of a TV and every time you say something woke your head gets pushed into a bucket of water in front of you
And that continues until you’ve recanted
and at the very end the inquisitor who is dressed like a catholic archbishop turns to you and goes ‘checkmate, libtard’

[Oberon]

I came a long way just to share a dream with you. :D

[Oberon]

In the TV Series "American Gods" - there's like one Jesus for every race purely because of this reason. :laugh:
There's a scene with 12 Jesus'..

Also, ftr, it makes 0 sense for why Jesus is thought to be white. But at least they've thought about it in the past: "The race and appearance of Jesus has been a topic of discussion since the days of early Christianity."
why?

[Voss]

I've actually liked the clips I've seen from Jordan Petersen.

[Frinckles]

In the TV Series "American Gods" - there's like one Jesus for every race purely because of this reason. :laugh:
There's a scene with 12 Jesus'..

Also, ftr, it makes 0 sense for why Jesus is thought to be white. But at least they've thought about it in the past: "The race and appearance of Jesus has been a topic of discussion since the days of early Christianity."

Loved that episode when he puts the glass on the water and says "God damnit" because he forgets it can't float

[Renegade]

Jordan Peterson, you mean the dipstick who fled to Russia to get his benzo fix? And he is the one who touts personal responsibility? LOL

[DJarJar]

why?

Bethlehem is just south of Jerusalem in modern day Israel. Israelis and Palestinians don't exactly look super white

[Oberon]

Jordan Peterson, you mean the dipstick who fled to Russia to get his benzo fix? And he is the one who touts personal responsibility? LOL
Recant, RETARDO

[Stealthbomber16]

In the TV Series "American Gods" - there's like one Jesus for every race purely because of this reason. :laugh:
There's a scene with 12 Jesus'..

Also, ftr, it makes 0 sense for why Jesus is thought to be white. But at least they've thought about it in the past: "The race and appearance of Jesus has been a topic of discussion since the days of early Christianity."

wouldnt the proper plural term for Jesus be Jesi

[OzyWho]

why?Middle East


wouldnt the proper plural term for Jesus be JesiJesi such strange plural for me. Do you know of similar form examples for plural?

[OzyWho]

Wearing natural hairstyles harms the job prospects of Black women (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/02/natural-hair-black-women-job-discrimination/). I think that's funny. :laugh:
(the study page it linked is purchasable for not so cheap price. But it has referenced many many google scholar links, so I think it's safe to assume that study is legit)

I'm not surprised that someone is subconsciously judged in a job interview by how "appropriate" they dressed and styled their hair. But I think it's funny that what's "appropriate" is the beauty standards of white women.
But cmoon. That black women natural hair style legit gives a feeling of unprofessionalism.

[rumox]

Saying that someone's natural hair is unprofessional, irrespective of their race, is an incredibly shitty thing to say tbh. Obviously unkempt hair is a different story but unkempt hair isn't relevant here. Also how in any way is that woman's hair unprofessional? That lady is BLESSED to have hair like that naturally to the point I don't quite buy it's completely natural. The amount of work the average african american woman has to put it to style their hair how they want it is actually insane.

[SuperJack]

I love me a good black skinned fuck with humongous knockers.

[oops_ur_dead]

But cmoon. That black women natural hair style legit gives a feeling of unprofessionalism.

That's because you've internalized white beauty standards and you're applying them to black people. Such hair on a white person would signify that they aren't taking care of themselves and their hygiene is severely fucked up.

Which isn't to say that you're racist, or a bad person at all. It's just the fact of the matter that most people have some amount of internalized discrimination, prejudice, or racial norms. I do, as well. Coming to terms with it is important.

[Oberon]

Imagine lecturing others on racism as a Russian

[Oberon]

Jordan Peterson, you mean the dipstick who fled to Russia to get his benzo fix? And he is the one who touts personal responsibility? LOL
Ye dost protest too much :P

[Oberon]

I’m pretty sure that if people said ‘retard’ instead of ‘ideologue’ when confronting these HEATHENS society and would resume normalcy. These people have already lost their minds, and conservatives are exaggerating their importance and danger. Basically conservatives are in danger of losing their minds as well. If people stopped feeding the TROLLS it would be better for everyone:P you hear ppl calling BLM and whatnot retards almost never nowadays whereas the term ‘libtard’ was thrown around quite casually say just 2 years ago. America has been through worse than Joe Biden and the BLM Riots. I mean the early 1900s were an extremely chaotic period, much more so than 2020/21. You literally had anarchists assassinating or at least attempting to assassinate the President of the United States. Contrast this to the so-called occupation of the capital which is really nothing more than a circus act; if you view it dispassionately its actually pretty frigging hilarious. The soldiers at the Capital don’t even have MAGAZINES xd

[Oberon]

Oh and the so-called 'insurrection' which is literally nothing more than a few retards, some of whom were violent, some of whom were literally hanging around for, idk, tourism? Idk what their problem was to be honest, probably just good old-fashioned stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0l7xH5zbIg&t=68s
skip to 15:30
lol

[Oberon]

this brings me back to one of my favourite sayings in Romania... never argue with an idiot for their mind is rested...

[Oberon]

To the people saying 'but they're ideologues and dangerous, and not all of them are retarded' yeah no. You should read a little book by Carlo Cipolla about stupidity, one of the conclusions is that people always underestimate the proportion of stupid people in society. Also just to see how close to the truth that book is, people have tried banning it in Italy multiple times :P

[Marshmallow Marshall]

That's because you've internalized white beauty standards and you're applying them to black people. Such hair on a white person would signify that they aren't taking care of themselves and their hygiene is severely fucked up.

Which isn't to say that you're racist, or a bad person at all. It's just the fact of the matter that most people have some amount of internalized discrimination, prejudice, or racial norms. I do, as well. Coming to terms with it is important.

You're pushing a bit: one can simply not like the haircut, no matter what the skin color of the person wearing it is. I for one find that haircut really beautiful, while I also find some other "typical black haircuts", if these even exist, ugly... and the same applies to some "typical white haircuts", if these even exist. That has absolutely nothing to do with racism, and trying to find discrimination in every thing you do or think is completely ridiculous. What would be racist would be "what a bad black haircut" or "its bad because blacks wear it". This is just... personal taste.

Same applies to music, by the way. If I listen almost exclusively to foreign music, does it mean I'm racist against myself? :calix:

[oops_ur_dead]

You're pushing a bit: one can simply not like the haircut, no matter what the skin color of the person wearing it is. I for one find that haircut really beautiful, while I also find some other "typical black haircuts", if these even exist, ugly... and the same applies to some "typical white haircuts", if these even exist. That has absolutely nothing to do with racism, and trying to find discrimination in every thing you do or think is completely ridiculous. What would be racist would be "what a bad black haircut" or "its bad because blacks wear it". This is just... personal taste.

Same applies to music, by the way. If I listen almost exclusively to foreign music, does it mean I'm racist against myself? :calix:

It's one thing to find something unattractive, another to find it "unprofessional looking". I think business attire looks fucking stupid, but there's no question that it's professional.

[Oberon]

Damn why isn’t anyone replying to what I’m saying ;(
I feel deeply hurt

[rumox]

Cause you gone full retard

[Oberon]

Bunch of UNENLIGHTENED HEATHENS around these parts. I take my leave then.

[Oberon]

https://psychology-spot.com/basic-laws-of-human-stupidity/

[Marshmallow Marshall]

It's one thing to find something unattractive, another to find it "unprofessional looking". I think business attire looks fucking stupid, but there's no question that it's professional.

"Professional-looking" is relative and culturally and personally set, just like "beautiful".

[rumox]

So....? There is still a difference. Those Karen haircuts are shit on a personal level but are fine in a professional setting. Saying that an African American's natural hair style is unprofessional is like saying this (https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/postandcourier.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/a/1b/a1be9d7c-3cc8-11e8-88bf-6fe31db99054/5accc6a08c89e.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C1157) is an unprofessional haircut for a white woman. It's completely unreasonable and just shows at best ignorance.

[oops_ur_dead]

"Professional-looking" is relative and culturally and personally set, just like "beautiful".

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Society has arbitrarily decided that natural black hair is unprofessional, while natural white hair is professional. Feel free to think of explanations as to why

[Oberon]

Why is it remotely relevant what some hair colour or style or whatever looks like
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder
If the man doesn’t like them that doesn’t make him ignorant, it just makes him a man with an opinion. Lol!
My best friend swears up and down girls instantly become significantly more attractive if they have blond hair to the point where he would ignore a cute girl if her hair wasn’t blond. I think that’s retarded, but that’s just his opinion

[Oberon]

Second, why is Jesus’ race or appearance or whatever the fuck relevant? I can’t say I’ve ever given the matter any thought whatsoever and as far as I’m concerned it’s literally completely irrelevant. Very irrelevant detail. I doubt any Christian, Jew or Muslim would be even vaguely influenced by the knowledge of Jesus’ race

[rumox]

Keyword was unprofessional. It's fine if you do not like the hairstyle on a personal level, but to say its unprofessional is to say its unfit to be in the workplace. Like I said the Karen haircut is a shit haircut but it's fine in a professional field. A mowhawk/mullet on the other hand is a rad haircut but it's understandable how it is considered unprofessional, even if it's immaculately maintained.

[rumox]

Like I said before, I'd be curious as to why Ozy thinks its unprofessional. Is it because it's curly? Is it because it's thick? Is it's length? Is it because he isn't used to seeing hair like that? I'm going to go out on a limb and say he just isn't used to african american hair and isn't aware how different it is from caucasian hair. All it takes is a little time looking up how different hair is for african americans and it will give a new perspective on this.

[rumox]

Jesus' appearance was being discussed because we briefly spoke about how we project ourselves into characters. If I read a story where the person's appearance isn't blatantly stated, I'm going to probably subconsciously project them in my head as white because I am white. Ozy pointed out this is why Jesus' appearance was represented by numerous ethnicities in a TV series, which made other people talk about it.

Understand now? SeemsGood

[Oberon]

I got that perfectly but I think that line of thought is a bit pathological. Becauze obviously the conclusion is you see yourself as white in other characters because white people are superior to every other race, right? 😁
Anyways I looked at various hairstyles that are considered unprofessional and I must say a lot of these just seem fucking stupid to me. Only a couple really seemed unprofessional to me, so I can’t understand the obsession with what someone’s hair looks like. It must be that everyone apart from myself and including my friend got the memo, but not me. D:

[rumox]

Yeah that is probably the conclusion for some people.

[oops_ur_dead]

Nobody said that imagining characters as your own race is racist. Whats with the victimization complex?

[SuperJack]

You are born with skin colour/nationality.
You are not born with an accent.

[Oberon]

You are born with skin colour/nationality.
You are not born with an accent.
So?

[SuperJack]

Did I reply in the wrong topic? Lol

[Oberon]

Apparently yes but who cares

[SuperJack]

Apparently yes but who cares

You becauze I replied to you after you replied to me? ^^ <3

[Oberon]

Nobody said that imagining characters as your own race is racist. Whats with the victimization complex?
It’s always funny seeing people who believe in systemic racism talk about a victimization complex 😇

[oops_ur_dead]

Why do you believe that everyone is calling you or a particular way of thinking racist when nobody is doing so? That's approaching the territory of schizophrenic delusion.

[Oberon]

You becauze I replied to you after you replied to me? ^^ <3
I meant as in I’m not bothered by it being in the wrong thread

[Oberon]

Why do you believe that everyone is calling you or a particular way of thinking racist when nobody is doing so? That's approaching the territory of schizophrenic delusion.
Not everyone is doing it. You are! :weed:

[oops_ur_dead]

Not everyone is doing it. You are! :weed:

I did not call you or anyone racist for imagining characters as one's own race. Why do you have paranoid delusions about people calling you racist?

[theoneceko]

Where is Kathy Newman when you need her?

right here xD

[theoneceko]

I went to the clothing store today. I want clothes that look nice and happy. I see a sea of multi colours and many different designs and looks. So awesome.
But, this is all for kids or women.

I go to the men's section. My choice is depression.
Grey, black, dark blue. Maroon if you're lucky or that horrid mold green colour if you really want to go wild.
I have to say the selection for men's clothing is extremely depressing. I just want some bright colorful clothing, or something that just doesn't make me want to kill myself. God damn fucking sexist men's fashion.

UWOWU HEWWO!!!

[theoneceko]

Why is it important to figure out the exact reason why people view challenging the status quo as bigotry? Whatever the sociological reason, the underlying cause inevitably leads to stupidity and bullshit. I think there’s multiple parts to this... a lot of info is available online nowadays and that leads people to think they know bullshit without actually knowing anything. The fact that there’s a lot of garbage on the internet is bad enough, but this is compounded by the worsening quality of education. Basically: there’s a lot of stupids out there who ‘google-know’ things out there and SEEM to be educated without actually being educated. Social media and globalization play a large role in this too. Never before could the dumbest of ideas at the bottom of society gain such traction as they do now. Retards now have an audience on shit like Twitter and ect.

i thought keeping the status quo is bigotry, not challnging it xD

[theoneceko]

Something I have considered over the last few years is how little our society actually cares for equality. Even just writing some of these out I had this voice in the back of my head calling myself a sexist or a racist just for saying them yet when I stop and think about it there is no justifiable reason. If you can not invert the race or sex and justify the action its a double standard.

On Racism:
If you make an African American only organization its progressive but if you make a white only organization its racist.

Events such as 'Black history month' are seen as normal but if you were to make a 'white history month' people would probably loose their shit.

If you have a company with 100% Latino employees its ok but if you have one with 100% white people its discrimination.

Big media platforms like Amazon, Netflix and Youtube push category's highlighting Latino or African American culture which is seen as normal but I have never seen any platform push a white persons content on account of their race and if it was it would likely be seen as offensive/racist.

Extremism on one side is seemingly protected such as Professor Tommy Curry from A&M advocating that white people should be afraid of black people and even saying some white people may need to die in an interview without loosing his job.

On Sexism:
One of my favorite law suits right now is a federal suit against a Utah law against women being topless in public. The state is in the awkward position of arguing to restrict women's rights on the basis of religious morality. Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Kansas, and Oklahoma will all have to allow topless women if the federal suit rules it unconstitutional.

If a girl gets laid a lot she is a slut but if a guy does it he is a badass.

If a guy calls women liers, cheaters, sluts, prevailed ect he is considered an evil pig but if a feminist trashes on men the same way people just shrug.

A girl is seen as bossy and controlling if she acts with authority while its just seen as being a leader for a guy to do it.

If a guy slaps a waitress' ass its assault but if a girl who looks like a guy, dresses like a guy, and acts like a guy does it its somehow acceptable. Same parallel with blatantly asking for sex.

A University of Michigan Law School found that overall men receive 63% longer prison sentences and women are twice as likely to avoid going to jail if convicted. I doubt people would support 'equality' when it required a push to 'Put more women in jail for longer'

If a woman accuses a man of assault he is guilty until proven innocent, immediately has to go to jail regardless of if he can flatly prove it was a lie, has to bail himself out, has protective orders thrown at him, and faces her in court while she gets a free lawyer. If a many accuses a woman of assault she is innocent until proven guilty, he is seen as a bitch and afforded no legal protections or assistance.

If a woman lies about a man accusing him of sexual assault or rape to damage his political standing or career its generally done with impunity and there is very little critical opinion of her and almost always no legal repercussions.

Most studys reflect men only get custody of the child in a divorce between 17-20% of the time.

Most data reflects women only make 80-85% of what men do in the same fields.

xDdDdDddDDddDdDdD. UWOWU, HEWWO!!!!

[Oberon]

i thought keeping the status quo is bigotry, not challnging it xD
So I can say "n***ger" and not be challenging the status quo?

[OzyWho]

i thought keeping the status quo is bigotry, not challnging it xD
keeping it is dogmatism? not sure..

[Oberon]

I think one can be bigoted about challenging the status quo, if they are close-minded about it.

[Oberon]

English is so dumb. "One" should not be a pronoun. TYVM

[theoneceko]

Disregarding that he was depicted as white on the cover it's still an interesting thought exercise. Consider a book where the main character's skin colour isn't stated. Our imagination picks up the slack and paints the visual for us. Is it racist or a sign of systemic racism for a white person to visualize a white person? I wouldn't be bold enough to assert that, my first assumption is white people are just visualizing themselves into the role of the protagonist. What would be interesting is what any person of colour visualizes. That doll test done decades ago where black kids were asked to choose between a white doll and a black doll had pretty harrowing results. I'd be interested in a revisit of the test on children nowadays to see the results.

게 셐이야!!!

i usually imagine protagonists as white, idk, maybe bc the authors are white?? it's so weird to consider that as racist, to see that as ANYTHING, really. the vast majority of authors are white in the U.S. what happened to my childhood, when i couldn't care less aboutthe race of the kids i hung out with??

i only read a few books by asians, and a few more by black people. in all of those books, the protagonists' race (which matches with the author's race) is explicitly stated and often a central topic. that frustrates me.

[OzyWho]

게 셐이야!!!

i usually imagine protagonists as white, idk, maybe bc the authors are white?? it's so weird to consider that as racist, to see that as ANYTHING, really. the vast majority of authors are white in the U.S. what happened to my childhood, when i couldn't care less aboutthe race of the kids i hung out with??

i only read a few books by asians, and a few more by black people. in all of those books, the protagonists' race (which matches with the author's race) is explicitly stated and often a central topic. that frustrates me.
Good thing our lord and saviors Jesus Christ race isn't mentioned in the bible.

[theoneceko]

Wearing natural hairstyles harms the job prospects of Black women (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/02/natural-hair-black-women-job-discrimination/). I think that's funny. :laugh:
(the study page it linked is purchasable for not so cheap price. But it has referenced many many google scholar links, so I think it's safe to assume that study is legit)

I'm not surprised that someone is subconsciously judged in a job interview by how "appropriate" they dressed and styled their hair. But I think it's funny that what's "appropriate" is the beauty standards of white women.
But cmoon. That black women natural hair style legit gives a feeling of unprofessionalism.

omg, white girls' hairs r so straight, clearly white women are uptight as fuck and not a good fit for our business. also, if you've green or blue eyes, you must have ur head in the clouds all the time! the lighter the color, the more ditzy u are! i'm not recruiting some blueberry-eyed fuck as my lead programmer.

^now just imagine that being socially acceptable

btw, i realize oops's response to this was a million times more appropriate than mine lol

[theoneceko]

omg, white girls' hairs r so straight, clearly white women are uptight as fuck and not a good fit for our business. also, if you've green or blue eyes, you must have ur head in the clouds all the time! the lighter the color, the more ditzy u are! i'm not recruiting some blueberry-eyed fuck as my lead programmer.

^now just imagine that being socially acceptable

btw, i realize oops's response to this was a million times more appropriate than mine lol

also, imagine CONSTRUCTING a society with those kinds of prejudices. in efe's server, i attempted to box light into cracker/redneck territory, but i didn't come up with a whole language to put his race down bc it kinda made me sick and also made me realize how messed up racial jokes are.

i was alaoso extremly crnge for trying taht, OWO

[theoneceko]

Why do you believe that everyone is calling you or a particular way of thinking racist when nobody is doing so? That's approaching the territory of schizophrenic delusion.

u have a point here, it breaks my bren trying to think like u but i can manage sometimes. however u've to consider context here, oberon just got off a ban bc of his stupid jokes (we all know it's not bc he promoetd haking). i absolutely consider obe-won to be racist and sexist now, even if u don't in this thred.

ig ur just focusing on this debate and im only focusing on my general knowledge of as uwo-won as a person.

[theoneceko]

So I can say "n***ger" and not be challenging the status quo?

REAL-LIFE socity gets u arrsted/cancled for sayig n-wor. just bc n-wor bannd doen't mean systmic raicsm gone,

._.

[theoneceko]

I think one can be bigoted about challenging the status quo, if they are close-minded about it.

same uwu.

UWOWU HEWWO!!!

[OzyWho]

I went to the clothing store today. I want clothes that look nice and happy. I see a sea of multi colours and many different designs and looks. So awesome.
But, this is all for kids or women.

I go to the men's section. My choice is depression.
Grey, black, dark blue. Maroon if you're lucky or that horrid mold green colour if you really want to go wild.
I have to say the selection for men's clothing is extremely depressing. I just want some bright colorful clothing, or something that just doesn't make me want to kill myself. God damn fucking sexist men's fashion.
I feel you bro.. I feel you. ;(





I want to understand the mechanics of that unseen hand that shapes our society and fosters the division thats so prevalent.
Hi, Mr.Naruto.
I think Pain was right. The only way to unite everyone and to make everyone understand each other - is to make everyone feel same extensive Pain. Otherwise, it's like asking to imagine a new color.
It's just that you can't do that and the only other option is let time do it's thing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[OzyWho]

I want to understand the mechanics of that unseen hand that shapes our society and fosters the division thats so prevalent.
I think I found something that I think plays at least some part in this attitude, and it fits well with what oops_ur_dead said about nobody caring about "whites" but instead caring about "Italian" or whatever other group.

A quote from The Diversity Study of England and Wales (https://www.woolf.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/diversity):

Some of findings suggest the role of prejudices shaping attitudes towards marriage between faith groups. Sarah (not her real name), a female rabbi from London, was careful to recognise the role of prejudices but also of other considerations:


“There maybe is an element of Islamophobia, I’m not trying to deny it. But if I thought about Muslims, or Sikhs and Hindus…the difference between those and Christians is that you’re talking about other minority faith groups. Why is that relevant? Because they’re all groups…that are small, relative to the general population, and are all seeking to preserve their own ethno-religious identity.

“Ultimately, they all seek to preserve their ethno-religious identity; when somebody is going to marry a Christian, they are not going to marry somebody who has a strong faith themselves. But if they marry a Muslim, most of the people, who are not involved in interfaith dialogue, will assume that person to be a religious person…Do I want a close relative to marry somebody who is going to pull them out of the Jewish religion?...It’s more likely, in people’s minds, if you’re marrying a Muslim, Hindu or a Sikh, there is a comprehension in our religion that these are faith groups where people tend to be more observant, more involved, on some level, than most Christians are.”

I highlighted the part that I think has a hand to play in this common attitude disparity towards different ethnic groups. ^.^

[Helz]

I think I found something that I think plays at least some part in this attitude, and it fits well with what oops_ur_dead said about nobody caring about "whites" but instead caring about "Italian" or whatever other group.

A quote from The Diversity Study of England and Wales (https://www.woolf.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/diversity):


I highlighted the part that I think has a hand to play in this common attitude disparity towards different ethnic groups. ^.^

Thats an interesting point. I had not considered looking at group identity idiosyncratically. All this time I have just been focused on the external image and how that image is cultivated. I suppose something like Jahari's window could be applied to groups if you treat a group as a superorganism.

I have sorted quite a few of the opinions I had when I made this thread but I do still see... 'something' that makes conversations on sexism and racism so one directional. At a glance I feel like they should not be so difficult to have but people hear something different from the common view and just assume your position must be hateful if its different.

[OzyWho]

people hear something different from the common view and just assume your position must be hateful if its different.
Ohh yah, that feels like a common thing for us humans. I remember looking at comment sections in some of those YouTube debates through response videos. Their each respective comment sections seem to often be eager to say something bad about the other group; sometimes dehumanize even.

[OzyWho]

Anyone remembers Achmed the dead terrorist? A Jeff Dunham puppet?
Apparently, he's big in Israel. So big in fact that Jeff Dunham is their favorite comedian.

Meanwhile, Sweet Daddy Dee puppet had to be retired because of accusations that it's racism.
Bubba J puppet on the other hand has had no such problems, and I'd argue that it's the most "insulting" of all his stereotype puppets, while Sweet Daddy Dee was the least "insulting" one.

A double standard kinda. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Frinckles]

Jesus Christ man, this level of paranoia and conspirational thinking is not healthy. I cannot imagine how much stress one must be going through in their life when they think that the entire world is out to get the white man.

I'm not sure it's fair to say that the belief that academia is a huge proponent of things like CRT is paranoia or conspiratorial. The English and Sociology departments of a majority of US campuses are left-leaning, even my Mexican American literature class taught similar concepts. I don't think they're specifically out to get people or anything but students are extremely impressionable. Especially when the ideologies presented to them are seen less as an opportunity for discussion and debate and more as an empirical truth that must be accepted for societal or moral self-improvement (Socialism, CRT, etc.)


except institutionalized racism against blacks actually exists, racism against whites only exists in the mind of the persecution complex

That's really the dichotomy that Critical Race Theory proposes as it was developed from Critical Theory. Consciously or unconsciously, Blacks must be victims, Whites must be oppressors. But I don't understand how that means an ethnicity can't show prejudice or racism against whites or any ethnicity. I understand a proposed theory isn't necessarily meant to everyone feel warm and happy inside but the fact that this has gotten so much traction over the past few years boggles my mind. It doesn't seem productive or even rational if the goal of it's exposure by the media or it's proponents was to improve race relations. On the contrary, it feels like we're regressing to segregation and full blown racism again with both sides playing, doesn't it?


I have sorted quite a few of the opinions I had when I made this thread but I do still see... 'something' that makes conversations on sexism and racism so one directional. At a glance I feel like they should not be so difficult to have but people hear something different from the common view and just assume your position must be hateful if its different.

Yeah. I touched on it here (https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showthread.php/49194-Non-leading-title-about-speech?p=944487&viewfull=1#post944487).

[Frinckles]

Ohh yah, that feels like a common thing for us humans. I remember looking at comment sections in some of those YouTube debates through response videos. Their each respective comment sections seem to often be eager to say something bad about the other group; sometimes dehumanize even.

It's gotten worse. FeelsBadMan

[Helz]

That's really the dichotomy that Critical Race Theory proposes as it was developed from Critical Theory. Consciously or unconsciously, Blacks must be victims, Whites must be oppressors. But I don't understand how that means an ethnicity can't show prejudice or racism against whites or any ethnicity.

This thought process is something that has bothered me for a very long time. The idea that racial or gender based hate is itself one directional is probably one of the most ignorant commonly voiced beliefs I hear. The fact an individual's 'group' is seen as holding privileged status in no way translates to them being immune personally from discrimination and hate. The way society accepts thinly veiled hate speech as a push for equality based on victim status is ridiculous to me.

I largely see it as why CRT is controversial. The bits where it deconstructs racism and informs people on systemic issues is excellent but there are many who use it to push a message of racial hate under the guise of eliminating racial hate which just makes no sense.