Cakedaddy wrote: I'd like to start by saying: Quit assuming I'm anti white, or pro black. Because I'm not. I think you'll read some of my statements different with that understanding.
I'll start my response by saying at no point did I assume either of those things. I have not been talking to you assuming you're anti or pro anything, not am I anti or pro anything. I thought we were simply discussing racism, and specifically nuances that don't often get discussed. This is because typically when you do people assume things about you...I know, the irony is delicious.
Cakedaddy wrote: I literally said "To some degree". Not "In all cases".
Yeah, that's why I emphasized the "IS" to show agreement.
Cakedaddy wrote: My definition would be doing anything (pro/con) based on skin color. It doesn't have to be negative.
So what you're saying is racism can be a good thing? I mean, if it's a positive...
Cakedaddy wrote: Blacks are held back to some degree. And in the business world, that's still a pretty big deal.
I disagreed with neither, but my level of caring about the business world's discrepancy is pretty low. There's a lot of reasons for that (read my previous posts), and none are malicious racism. I should specify, MY reasons. I'm not saying malicious racism doesn't exist in the business world. It does, but not to the extent people would have you believe. Not only can anyone "make it" through hard work, but if the shoe was on the other foot whitey would be left out in the cold, as you even state.
Cakedaddy wrote: I would disagree with this. If someone says "White people are racist" and someone responds with "Ya, well so are you!". Doesn't solve the issue at hand. I call this deflecting. Justifying one bad thing with an example of another? Two wrongs don't make a right kind of thing. If I have a grievance with you "You . . . . talk too loud when you drink" And you respond with "Ya, well you fart alot at dinner". That's not constructive. A healthier dialogue would be "You are right. I'll drink less or make an effort to be quieter." Issue addressed. Now, feel free to bring up my farting. But to try to justify your poor behavior with an example of mine doesn't solve anything. You are just trying to make me seem like a shittier person so you feel better about your bad behavior.
This is 100% wrong and I'm really, really tired of it. It's called "Whataboutism", and it's used by people whose argument has flaws, is hypocritical, and so on, but instead of defending their position they scream "whataboutism" as if that's some sort of legitimate defense. That comes off harsh, and I'm not attacking you personally, but I am sick and tired of whataboutism. It's lazy, it's insincere, and it's a crutch.
Should what a person is pointing out be addressed and discussed, ABSOLUTELY. However, by screaming whataboutism you're telling the person you're debating with that your side is unassailable and will not be discussed. That's bullshit.
I would explain based on your example of farting and talking, but it's a bad example. It's not nuanced enough or important enough. Those are just simple behaviors that affect nobody and aren't even something one can deny. In reality, the person screaming whataboutism isn't going to turn around and fix their behavior or admit anything with their argument is wrong. So all you're doing is demanding one side have their argument be dissected, while the other side's isn't. That isn't fair, and it's no way to resolve an issue. One shouldn't get to scream racism while also being racist.
End of the day, we're talking about two sides of one coin. My argument is both sides must be examined. You're saying only one side needs to be examined OR one side must completely cave before we bother looking at the other side.
Whataboutism sucks and is absolutely deflecting.
Cakedaddy wrote: Your response seems based on the assumption that I'm anti white.
Nope.
Cakedaddy wrote: I recently was told that we were becoming the new minority because of all the illegals coming into the country. I said "I bet all the American Indians are saying, "She how it feels, assholes?"". I don't care that we are becoming the new minority. I don't need America to be white. I'd like it to be fair though.
I don't care what color the country is, but what does piss me off is people refusing to accept the country's culture or who actively work to change it to match their former country's culture. Fuck those people. Also, I'm really sick and tired of hearing about American Indians as if they are there perfect humans who lived in harmony with nature and each other before the white man came. That's horseshit. There was constant war between tribes, and life was fucking brutal.
Oh, and the Spanish came over and obliterated an entire civilization. Funny how nobody ever talks about that, just how the white man came and took land from Native Americans...who weren't even native to the Americas...but whatevs.
For your next replies, I'll just say thanks for making assumptions about my argument. There's a word for that, but I can't quite place it...
Cakedaddy wrote: Yes. Absolutely. Unless they are at a legitimately unfair disadvantage. See, the business world. It's unfortunate that the black man still has the disadvantage here. Can they overcome? Absolutely. Don't let racism beat you and chalk it up to "It wasn't my fault, it's whitey". Overcome. But I would laugh at any white man that said "I couldn't get an accounting job at Motown Records. Fucking black man keeping whitey down." Or even "I couldn't get into UofM. Affirmative action let a black man in instead". Oh, poor you. Go to State like all the other UofM rejects and still get an outstanding, highly marketable degree for less money instead. It's unfortunate that the racist policy kept you out of your school of choice, but you still have a TON of good options. Your life is not harder.
There's a lot of ridiculous, racism, and pipe dream in this paragraph.
You are, literally, telling white people "tough shit" if a racist policy blocks them from getting into the school of their choice. You are, literally, laughing at a white person who can't get a job at Motown because of the color of their skin. How is that not racist? How can you possibly justify it? It's ok, because they need the advantage? Do you know how racist that is?
You either want equality and fairness or you don't, which is it?
Black woman are the most educated group in the U.S. (Fact, look it up). Do we still need affirmative action in schools? Aren't we now holding people down in favor of the most educated group? The problem with stuff like Affirmative Action is that it can't be permanent, but nobody seems to be out there checking to make sure it's still needed.
P.S. Asians and Hispanics would like to ask you why you don't mention them.
P.S.S. I know you're not a racist, and I hope you know I'm also not a racist. However, I do know you're bigoted because EVERYONE is bigoted in one way or another. Point being, I feel like, while interesting, we're just going to end up talking in circles, so to save time, here's the summary of my argument:
"Racism exists and is not unique to any one skin color. Everyone needs to stop pretending like that isn't true. Policies favoring a skin color are racist."
So if you have any new information that proves those statements wrong, let me know. Otherwise, can we move on?
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”