1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

Hate speech laws - It is good for Nazis to be terrified

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by ThePokemonmaster11, Jan 11, 2017.

  1. Thepowaofhax

    Thepowaofhax Well-Known Member

    Oh look, the generic comeback that is somehow not racist because it's OK to be racist to white people!

    If you want to argue your "oppression" and try to establish that race somehow has anything to do with the treatment of other races, you are ignoring the precedents of the past. After all, I could argue right now that Italians are an oppressed class in the US right now. In fact, let me give you a few starters to this argument.

    Firstly, the US did not just have Japanese internment camps. During this period, there were also German and Italian internment camps (which targeted those who weren't naturalized). Secondly, Italians were attacked by the Ku Klux Klan on the basis of them being Catholic and immigrants. Nativists would often spout out anti-Immigration rhetoric about Italians, even to the point of saying that the "Mediterranean" types were inherently inferior to Northern Europeans. The Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and Immigration Act of 1924 specifically target non-Northern Europeans and discriminates against them in regards to coming into the United States. In fact, here's a colorized political cartoon from the Nativist side during this time period.

    Also, need I mention the largest lynching in United States history targeted Italians? It was in New Orleans. According to your logic, everything points to Italians being an oppressed minority aside from them being Caucasian. Identity politics has no nuance and is the basis of racialism and stereotyping; cut the ****. It is not a logical political position nor will it ever be. Identity politics has no bearing in reality and is only a tool of far-left and far-right collectivists alike, the difference being one wants to sugarcoat their ******** to help minorities, in which they think all minorities share the same monolith (being that non-Caucasian minorities are Democrats, and depending on their race, depends on what perceived "struggles" they have) and anyone who does not think like them and is a minority is, in some form, a race traitor. Most Democrats within Congress and the Senate, in reality, do not care for minorities and only use them as pawns to get in power and to serve their interests.

    Also, your post offends me, it should be banned because of hate speech.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2017
  2. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    It's almost like a specific ethnic group being targeted in general is bad, it's that it more frequently affects some groups more than others. Its whether or not we go "This is wrong" or "Well other groups can have the same thing happen to them so it's best to not do anything!" that's the issue.
     
  3. Thepowaofhax

    Thepowaofhax Well-Known Member

    I agree with fixing the issue, but I disagree with identity politics. Discrediting peoples' arguments on the basis for being a CIS White male is just as bad as discrediting someone's argument on the basis of being an ignorant black, but no one wants to treat it the same way.
     
  4. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    I mean if you've had personal discrimination for being a minority group you can go ahead and mention it, but if you haven't you really can't flip that around the other way. You can cherry pick but it isn't part of your day to day life.

    Also it's why saying ignorant black is really not a good thing to say under any circumstance.
     
  5. Thepowaofhax

    Thepowaofhax Well-Known Member

    Don't give me that ********. Nothing is different in this society, nor will anything change with the current state of identity politics; race, gender, etc has no bearing on who you are. No one in my life has ever cared about whether or not my mental disability nor have they tried to put me down over it. Identity politics is simply a cop out for logic and shows the despicable side of human existence.

    Again, why is it any different other than the historical context? If I go to a logical debate and shut it down with "YOU'RE A CIS WHITE MALE", is it any different from shutting down arguments by calling people racial slurs and other such ****? Do you honestly think the current state of identity politics actually cares about the very people it claims to protect? Collectivism only cares about hegemony; at the end of the day everyone would be at the bottom in a country ruled by identity politics except for the political elite. Hate speech laws will only be applied to dissidents and nothing more.
     
  6. Pikachu52

    Pikachu52 Well-Known Member

    I think the point is that people who are cisgender, white or male don't deal with transphobia, racism or sexism on a daily or recurring basis. Whereas transpeople, people of colour and women do and therefore will probably understand more about those issues and how they affect them personally than people who don't have direct experience dealing with transphobia, racism or sexism.

    That sentence seems like a bit of non-sequitur - exactly why would that be the case? And for that matter what is a country "ruled by identity politics."

    The reality is that identity affects politics in a very deep way.

    The idea of a "political elite" comes up a lot in political discourse these days, particularly in comment sections, but it's never explained who this scary political elite is supposed to be. Right now the political elite, is Trump and the GOP.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2017
  7. sanae

    sanae stop trying to be god ☆

    somewhat petty in the scheme of things, but by invalidating someone's right to have an opinion/joining in on a debate (or whatever the circumstance at the time is) because they're male or white or whatever still falls under the definition of the respective -ism.
    and i'm sure a counterpoint to that will be that "they don't have any experience in the subject matter at hand" or "it's not as major as the -isms that have caused these debates", and neither of those points are /completely/ invalid. the former is, in my opinion, rather close-minded and sort of just enforces an echo-chamber. the latter has a bit more bearing to it, but is it not wise to maybe include those that "have caused the problems" in discussions on how to fix said problems? or maybe that's just me- i dunno.
    otherwise it feels like the seesaw will just permanently fall in the other direction, which just switches up the folk on the bottom instead of trying to level things out once and for all.
     
  8. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    There are several mental health awareness groups that advocate for the very same thing. Why do you think retard has become such an outdated word in the past decade alone? It's only when people learn about and understand can they grow about this stuff. It's not saying "You're white you can't talk about this ever", it's "You're white so you haven't had the issues we've had, so educate yourself and don't try and rise above it with the 'I don't see color' excuse".

    It's not like this is a war to be won, it's always going to be a constant battle. Otherwise you fall into the "well we have civil rights and X bill so racism/sexism/homophobia is over"
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2017
  9. sanae

    sanae stop trying to be god ☆

    that's a completely valid point, and one that i do agree with (maybe not a huge fan of the tone, but some people need a bit more force).
    however, many people that use the "shut up you're a white cis male" argument aren't coming from that point of view of trying to educate and helping to progress society in as peaceful a manner as possible, and instead fall more in line with (albeit not exactly) your former example.

    i think that the mindset of outright dismissing what a person is trying to say based on their skin color or orientation or whatever is at hand in the name of "progress" is just going to further set back a cause. it doesn't matter what the topic is, gender rights or hate speech or favorite pokemon or whatever- putting an entire group's opinions about a subject down is just going to invite more tension and recoil from that very group (and i think that's sort of regardless of "justification" on either side).


    [i had another thing that i was going to type out but i forgot it while trying to finalize other sentences- i'll edit it in if i remember/it's still relevant.]
     
  10. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    it doesn't set back anything because the oppressive majority has always had a voice and stronger influence over minorities.

    giving them voice hasn't worked the first few hundred years. why would it work today?

    btw you people's ideas of isms are so hilarious to me. 'you don't understand because you don't go through racism' is apparently racist, and italian americans totally didn't assimilate into whiteness throughout American history.

    jesus people. our education system has failed all of you.
     
  11. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    America does have the unique past feature of having to decide of Irish and Germans counted as white or not. The Irish people were primarily assimilated, same with the Germans, but if you're in places like Wisconsin or Pennsylvania you'll see pockets of rural German descendants where it might as well be their first language.

    The result of that is people will look back and go "Hey these groups were a minority group that was treated badly in America, why haven't black people done the same thing?", ignoring the more nuanced differences and just taking things as one big picture and thinking the exact same thing should happen twice, ignoring the history of black people in America.

    But it's not that being white means you aren't fit for supporting or discussing this, it's the message you're saying without the proper experience. If there was a primarily black country with a disenfranchised white population, you might see the reverse scenario, but I honestly can't think of a country like that.
     
  12. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

  13. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    I don't even understand why blackface defense has seen a rise. Even people in the 20's started to realize that wasn't a good thing to do.
     
  14. snorlax512

    snorlax512 Well-Known Member

    'You're a cis white male' is the stupidest argument ever (if it even counts as one), because you can apply it on anything. Literally, you could hypothetically argue for a white genocide, and when I try to refute that:

    "Check your privilege"

    "You're a cis straight white male"

    Me: "But-"

    "You don't understand what it's like to be oppressed."

    I mean, wtf can I say?

    See what I mean? It is completely useless and doesn't contribute to the argument at all.

    Also, if you think that skin colour and sexuality are the only things that can lead to privilege, that's stupid. You can't use a blanket "privilege weapon" based on race. What about that black guy who is rich and famous and has never had to deal with racism his whole life? Can he shout 'white privilege' to the white kid from a poor background who was bullied his whole life for being weird?



    You guys don't even see the outright racism in those statements, and idgaf about "reverse racism" or whatever bull**** definition you invent.

    Remember what Martin Luther King said? "I have a dream that one day my four little children will live in a nation where they will be not judged by the colour of their skin, but the content of their character."

    Well done lads. He must be proud.

    EDIT: This is why I hate identity politics. The quality of an argument should never be refuted because of their race or sexuality, nor by emotional appeal. Identity politics is why critical thinking doesn't exist in the regressive left. Nobody cares about the individual anymore.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2017
  15. chess-z

    chess-z campy vampire

    Martin Luther King also said some other things to the effect of "I'm sick of the so-called moderate whites sitting on their asses and not actually helping disenfranchised people. They care more about mainting the status quo than real justice." This isn't by any means direct quote, but Dr. King would be livid at some of the ******** you're trying to push.

    youre supposed to listen to us instead of insisting youre right, ***lamp
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2017
  16. Pikachu52

    Pikachu52 Well-Known Member

    Is this the quote you're thinking of:

    http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/060.html
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2017
  17. chess-z

    chess-z campy vampire

    That is the exact quote, thank you.
     
  18. snorlax512

    snorlax512 Well-Known Member

    That quote doesn't refute my point. Stuff like "your argument is invalid because your skin colour is white" is the exact opposite of what Dr King wanted.

    lol this is exactly what I hate about identity politics. You can't win arguments by saying "I'm trans, therefore I'm right and you're wrong." You actually have to construct a proper argument.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2017
  19. chess-z

    chess-z campy vampire

    Congrats to snorlax again, for missing the point entirely. I'm done debating with someone who vehemently refuses to be educated.
     
  20. snorlax512

    snorlax512 Well-Known Member

    Keep holding the worldview that you are infallible, and everyone who disagrees with you is a cis white male racist transphobic bigot who needs to be educated.
     

Share This Page