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 not

Sure, 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.
(sorry, that's just what came to my mind)

Spoiler : Joke :

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.
(sorry, that's just what came to my mind)

Spoiler : Joke :

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.
(sorry, that's just what came to my mind)

Spoiler : Joke :

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 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 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.

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.

Spoiler : except cover art :

[oops_ur_dead]

Spoiler : except cover art :

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.
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’