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. Bananarama

    Bananarama The light is coming

    If you have to keep spewing that "don't be racist to me, I'm white" nonsense, it basically means that you lost the argument. We're giving you facts and you're not paying attention to them, so it's pointless for us to keep trying.
  2. snorlax512

    snorlax512 Well-Known Member

    you guys are so self righteous it's not even funny.

    Which fact have you given me that supports the claim that you can't be racist to white people? Or that 'you're a cis white male' is a valid argument in any proper debate?
  3. Bananarama

    Bananarama The light is coming

    Racism is more than just prejudice on the basis of race. Racism is a system in which one racial or ethnic group is able to receive all or almost all of the benefits in society, and every other group is disadvantaged. If black people or other minorities are unable to obtain the special benefits that the "dominant" race benefits from, then that is racism. We have no way to obtain those benefits, so that's why we fight against racism.

    Anybody can be prejudiced or bigoted, but not everybody can be racist.
  4. snorlax512

    snorlax512 Well-Known Member

    Then what is the point of the term 'systemic racism'?

    It just sounds to me like you've redefined the word 'racism' so that black people can't be racist.

    If a bunch of black guys beat up a guy for being white, I'm pretty sure most people would agree that's racist. I mean, you can call it bigoted if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable than if the opposite happened.
  5. Bananarama

    Bananarama The light is coming

    I never said it was acceptable if black people beat up white people for being white; that's prejudiced, and I'm completely against that. The only difference is that white Americans are not oppressed, and have never been oppressed, so it can't be racism.

    Most white people in America don't have to deal with being disproportionately more likely to be arrested for cannabis, being racially profiled and murdered by police, and being overall poorer than the general public. They weren't taken from their ancestral homelands to be put into slavery, and they weren't called racial slurs and denied human rights for hundreds of years. If only you could put yourself in our shoes, you could understand this.
  6. chess-z

    chess-z campy vampire

    I tried to educate you, ghostanime tried, bobjr tried, bananarama is trying. Sit down and listen.

    I never said I was infallible, but I know way more about the issue of transphobia than you do. (intrestingly enough overwhelming it's cishet white people being transphobic, so im a bit jaded, sue me)
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2017
  7. snorlax512

    snorlax512 Well-Known Member

    At least the others know how to actually formulate an argument. You haven't done anything but throw out baseless bigot/transphobia/racism claims, and call my science pseudo/outdated/wrong without giving any justification. The best argument you have right now is "I'm trans" and "you're a cis white male".

    Really, the narcissistic attitude you have is rather dangerous. How can you be open to other views if you think yourself so righteous?

    So is your argument is basically white people have more institutional power than black people, therefore black people can't be racist?
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2017
  8. chess-z

    chess-z campy vampire

    This guy just loves his strawman palace. Google is a friend.


    To other people that might be reading this, my arguement is that cis people can't possibly understand a trans person's perspective from their own experiences so they have to listen to trans people to have any baseline of a clue of what's going on. The same is true of any systematic oppression.

    Whining about the semantics of racism is pointless because it distracts from the real harm that is being done by our bigoted systems, which is why I'm so eager to dismiss "reverse racism" type arguements out of hand. If you're white, you aren't oppressed because of your race in the US.

    The real reason why I'm frustrated with snorlax is that he will not admit that he has no pertinent frame of refrence for this discussion. He is the enfranchised group, and isntead of doing the intellectually honest thing and owning up to that fact, he's doing the thing he accused me of. He isn't open to other viewpoints because he sees himself as being so righteous.

    You can either listen to the minority groups, or you can ignore them to stroke your own ego, and snorlax insists on doing that latter, even when presented with overhwelming evidence to the contrary of his own points. He is willfully blinded by his privilege.

    TL;DR it isn't "I'm trans and you're a cishet white male, so you're wrong by default." it's "I'm trans and you're a cishet white male, if you listen to me you could understand why these issues matter.".
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2017
  9. sanae

    sanae stop trying to be god ☆

    not really the point behind what i was saying. putting aside an entire set of people (in this case, the ones that sorta kinda need to be convinced) based on some of their defining features is just going to make them not want to listen to what the cause is for & about- regardless of what that cause may be.
    i'm not saying that's the right reaction for people to have, but it is the reaction that people tend to have.


    anyway, i'm not trying to say that white people are getting the short end of the stick in "social justice"-y matters. just trying to point out that it's easy for things to bounce back in the opposite direction.

    i think that chess-z is close to what i want to say with their tl;dr in the post above mine. i guess that maybe i'm more caught up on the semantics and how people are trying to accomplish their cause(s).
  10. snorlax512

    snorlax512 Well-Known Member

    As long as you admit that black people can be racist to white people, I don't disagree with the rest. The problem of racism in America right now comes from whites, mainly against blacks.

    Also, I do actually listen to your perspective as a trans person, and take it into account when formulating my opinion. That doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with you on the topic.

    It's just frustrating when people completely dismiss my arguments with "cis white male". The quality of the argument itself should not be affected by a person's identity; so if I make an argument that you disagree with, point out specifically where I am wrong.
  11. bobjr

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

    Or you have a persecution complex you have to feed.
  12. Thepowaofhax

    Thepowaofhax Well-Known Member

    According to your logic then, I should be an uber-oppressed individual for being autistic and part Native American and the system should totally be against me, amirite? Last time I checked, there is no rigging against me. There is no prejudice against those people amongst the majority (with the exception of LGBT) except for economic class.

    Secondly, it is not non-sequitur. Social collectivism is authoritarianism, and all authoritarian cares for is to make sure it has a hegemony set up so that those at the very top live a life of luxury at the expense of the lower classes. Identity politics is purely socially collectivist as it puts values on people over how "oppressed" people are, often attacking innocent people for completely arbitrary things (such as blaming a Jewish person for the death of innocent Palestinians or blaming Caucasians for the actions of their ancestors).

    Identity politics does not seek anything else but hegemony. Both the far-right and far-left use it; the difference is how they use it. The far-right is more blatant with its racism, but the far-left tries to mask it as something that would benefit the minority. For example, the left insists that illegals should be able to stay in our country despite the fact that they are at constant threat by their employers and are paid substandard wages for grueling work. All of this is because corporations do not want to let go of their cheap labor; it harms illegal immigrants (of which they tend to be of Hispanic origin). A state under identity politics would be basis of George Orwell's 1984; from the thought police to the two minutes hate to the blind following of it. The only thing missing is an undying devotion to their country and ultranationalism.

    Also, I am not talking about the political elite in regards to the US specifically, but in the west. The Western political elite are into this identity politics spiel, and it's sickening. Identity politics has done nothing but caused the far-Right to grow.

    And this is relevant because? No one is going to care whether or not I am autistic until I say that identity politics is cancer, in which the hive mind of its proponents will attack me as a traitor after assuming I was assimilated into their political culture. The same is said with any minority that dares step out of the identity politics line; they will be eaten up by the horde and discarded for not being a useful idiot to their cause. Even the second one is disingenuous, because it assumes that you know this persons problems on the basis of their skin. How, in any sense of the word, is that not inherently stereotyping? There is no nuance to the generic response of "you're a CIS white male" nor will there every be.

    And sadly, you're not going to be able to destroy this problems by punishing dissidents; only with education will they learn.

    Giving them a voice leads to slow changes. In the 1800s, people were heavily against unions and labeled them as socialist, anarchist or communist. While it took a while, it did lead to regulations and better working conditions. The same had happened with Civil Rights; you cannot and will not protect a minority unless they have a voice, especially in a democratic system in which they can vote for their interests. However, one also has to prevent voter fraud and other such measures to stop this from happening.

    Also, you cannot throw out history by claiming that "they assimilated into whiteness"; after all, African Americans were also assimilated into American culture before the Italian immigrants, and by that logic, they shouldn't have all of these problems because they were assimilated. See the problem with that? It completely disregards the issue. You cannot disregard the issue and expect it to be fixed. Just because they were assimilated into "whiteness" does not and will not refute the existence of rhetoric calling Mediterraneans inferior nor will it ever fix anything if it were to fester and grow. Historical context points to Italians being oppressed in the past by the same oppressive majority you are talking about (but not to the same extent), so why aren't they considered an oppressed minority? Hell, the Irish even had the same problems and had a much worse time because they were seen as subhumans at that time.

    And no, the education system has not "failed me", the quality of education hos gone to complete **** because the previous political establishments wanted to sanitize it so that the kids do not see anything that was cruel or inhumane at that time. For example, there was a boat crash over in South Carolina in which those on-board had to divulge into cannibalism to survive. It was removed from USC history books because someone might get hurt/grossed out/etc by it.
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2017
  13. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    1) Socialist and union-based movements aren't comparable to race. That's a class-based issue. by the way, those same union based movements of the past were racist against black people joining the union or socialist causes. many of them had to step on black people to gain the acceptance of white bureaucrats. a lot like how old feminism worked. sucks to use an analogy that actually reinfornces how much race mattered in getting our voices heard even alongside people you would expect to help us get it heard in the first place

    2) Civil Rights did not advance because we gave whites "voices". It advanced because minorities took the necessary risks. Polls indicate that at the time, whites saw them as radical or that things were already "equal". Imagine how far we'd get if we just let whites dominate the conversation of civil rights 50, 60 years ago.

    Before? When? Did Jim Crow laws affect Italians? Were there Italian neighborhoods lynched nationwide (not just your specific event of course)? When were Italians forced to migrate from the South? The history of white immigrants and blacks are nowhere near equal and any basic history book will tell you this. They did not assimilate into American culture before blacks. Blacks *STILL* haven't assimilated. We still can't wear our natural hair in the work place and our ebonics is seen as ignorant.

    What you are not understanding is the concept of whiteness and what it provided for people in society. when I'm talking about assimilated, I'm talking about being seeing as "part of us". Whiteness was socially constructed in a way specifically to get away from people of color (there is PROOF in the pictures. It was literally whites and non-whites).

    Why aren't there stories of Italians talking about jim crow for example? know why? because eventually, they blended in with "whiteness" of the average American.

    Actually, what became a trend in the Civil Rights era were many whites proclaiming that blacks didn't have it worse due to systematic racism because their ancestors immigrated from tough times, thus justifying whatever inequality blacks were actually going through. what these Civil Rights Era whites fail to realize though is that their ancestors assimilated and benefited from their whiteness in comparison to black Americans generations before them.

    And this is why your claim of white immigrants being oppressed just as much as blacks is total ********.

    Answer this simple question: how has the history of their oppression (as in, Irish and Italians) affect modern day people of that ancestry today? Directly? Can you trace specific examples? We can trace specific examples of African-Americans and how slavery, then jim crow, then KKK, then education, etc have affected ME today. How has say, Mario been directly affected by learning that Italians were lynched in New Orleans even though he lives in Boston?

    This isn't how oppression works, and your "part Native American" ancestry likely is a non-factor if you are white-passing.

    I suggest you actually research these topics before you continue discussing them. Like, actually pick up a Sociology book or read some scholar articles on these topics. The fact that you used the word "rigging" tells me you're not looking at this in the right lens. This is bigger than just "rigging".
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2017
  14. Thepowaofhax

    Thepowaofhax Well-Known Member

    Firstly, you misread what I said. I said Civil Rights advanced because minorities got voices in the government. Please don't make a blatant strawman and actually bother to read what I am saying.

    Anyways, it was given as an example because in both examples both groups needed a voice in the government. Without such voices, it would be hard for there to be change.

    I also said that the disenfranchisement of Italians and other immigrant groups were not to the same extent as the disenfranchisement of African Americans, but let's throw another strawman because why not? I am not making the claim that they were oppressed just as much, my claim is that they would be an oppressed people by the standards of identity politics.

    Also, if you really want to argue a dialect can create prejudice, try to go to a Northern university speaking a thick Southern accent. I will bet you that every single person in the audience will think you're just as ignorant if you were to use ebonics regardless of your skin color. And to put it quite simply, academia does not want people to speak in dialects; it goes for every single regional dialect.

    Now, for natural hair, it depends on your employer. You can't paint someone businesses all the same for different hair standards. African Americans were still assimilated whether you like it or not, from the religion to how they dressed in the 1700s-1800s.

    Well yeah, there's no denying that there was inherent racism in the system back in the day again whites, but my point is that you're disregarding the fact that Nativists attacked immigrants based on who they were and are ignoring it.

    Or, you know, they weren't affected by those laws so they had no reason to talk about it unless they were in a hardliner in the Republican party back in the day, and not because of "whiteness".

    "Hey, I misread something, ergo my interpretation must be true and I must affirm myself!"

    Except nothing in the past has affected African Americans except for deficient education due to segregation and thus poor economic standings. Slavery has no bearing on the modern African American and does not affect them. Jim Crow and Segregation led to deficient education. The KKK was simply an armed group created to strike fear in African Americans that spread to other groups such as Catholics (until recently) and Jews. The KKK is no longer relevant other than a few marches that ultimately do nothing.

    There were more than just the New Orleans lynchings, by the way. While that was more famous, lynchings also included New York, Kansas, Arizona, Mississippi, etc. This is a good film on the famous lynching here with background information. Also, learning about what happened in the past does not qualify as "oppression".

    This is exactly how oppression works. A bunch of white people judge whether not you are oppressed by your skin color and then try to be allies for your cause assuming, that because you are X race, that you don't have any privileges and thus need help. People who believe in this theory are self-defeating because they already have a belief that non-Whites are inferior and will try to "help" them through charity and attacking political rivals (when in reality they're not doing anything at all). The progressive "stack" is inherently racist/bigoted as it puts a value on people based on what group they are in.
  15. bobjr

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

    Please don't say slavery doesn't have a modern effect on today's Black Americans, because that one is just blatantly untrue. Especially since American slavery is being more and more whitewashed recently.
  16. Thepowaofhax

    Thepowaofhax Well-Known Member

    What factors does it bring to the table in this day and age? Education is the primary reason why a good bit of the African American population is falling behind. Slavery is not the issue, the issue was what happened after slavery with the erosion of African American rights after Reconstruction. Segregation only added to the education problem because with segregation, nothing is truly equal.

    And no, it's not being "whitewashed", our education system is merely tweaking it so it's not even covered in the curriculum. Thanks, Texas.
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2017
  17. bobjr

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

    Well if you mean that it's not relevant in the sense that actual slavery is gone yeah, but it still hangs over the head of Black Americans today. Just look up stuff like the Grandfather clause, even when outright slavery was banned racist people just looked to the next most effective method, so telling Black Americans to forget about slavery and move on really doesn't work.

    And it's both. Look at the books coming out about how happy slaves actually were.
  18. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    I don't like the way you phrased "falling behind"; it's institutionalized and systematic oppression. Throughout history, we can always examine that the success and rise of AA has always resulted in what we call "whitelash". I highly suggest you read even one passage from the Book White Rage. It's not that blacks are lagging; it's that whites are suppressing any effort of success we show.

    Okay, I apologize on misreading you, but then why did you bring up Civil Rights in that context? I was talking about giving whites equal voice and opportunity to talk about race.

    What are the standards of identity politics defined as other than your own interpretation of my talking points? I don't consider them an oppressed group especially today. Do you have statistics that show Italians are oppressed today, very easily and clearly?

    Accent can create prejudice, yes, but you can still benefit with white privilege. Also, what about blacks with southern accents? We don't get saved by our skin color.

    Your idea of assimilation is religion and dress? Do you see how you're proving my point? Assimilation is what you view as eurocentric standards of what is valued and praised. Christianity is a eurocentric standard. "how they dress" (what does this even mean?) would be another example, but I don't even want our main goal to truly be assimilation (at least in that manner) because it would involve abandoning our natural roots for eurocentricism for the sake of acceptance, and even when we tried to do that after Slavery, they still wanted to lynch us and segregate us.

    ... By the way, African Americans don't celebrate religion the same way white Americans do. I have first-hand knowledge of this myself.

    Ding ding ding, you're catching on, although I know it's a painful truth for you to admit the Republican party in civil rights era was largely based on racism and xenophobia.

    You know, their european ancestors also weren't affected by jim crow, school segregation, or even union protesting.

    I am quoting this three times simply because this is by far the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard in my ten years being in this debate forum.

    Wealth was probably one of the biggest things. Slaves worked off of unpaid labor for hundreds of years generating wealth for white plantation owners. This industry was so huge (I don't have exact numbers atm) that it was a world economy the South was willing to throw their own men on the line just to maintain it. Where did all that wealth go? It didn't disappear, and the reparations blacks got were never fully realized. Instead, they turned us into sharecroppers, forcing us to go in debt and endure a more subtle form of slavery.

    Now, that doesn't mean every white benefited from slavery, but it does mean you had a headstart in building wealth, getting educated, and instilling a respectable family lineage. Slavery only ended about a little over 150 years ago. That's just two 75-year-old life times.

    Broken families has a lot to do with why African-Americans are largely Christian and why we can't trace our heritage back further than our grandparents. Despite being in this country centuries longer than your ancestors, you're more likely to trace back to some **** like Italian or Irish. We largely don't know where our cultures truly lie because we were forced, then broken up, then forced to reject our roots.

    Slavery was also responsible for the creation of whiteness for the most part. It was the strongest justification and it didn't even need to be stated. The difference in return you get for whiteness and I get for blackness did not come out of thin air. There had to be a clear and set hierarchy first, and slavery was what established that hierarchy. It justified the death of black bodies, the torture of black bodies, and the rape of black bodies. This continued onto lynchings and then to finally police brutality in where we can't even believe black bodies can be unarmed and innocent. There are countless studies that document health professionals are bias in treatment, drivers are slower to stop for blacks, black sounding names are less likely to receive callbacks. Heck, there's even people researching how the trauma is slavery is passed on through our genes.

    Telling you that you can't talk about racism because you don't experience it isn't racist.

    And this is where I'm done debating with you.

    If you can't even educate yourself on a simple sociology 101 topic, if you're this unfamiliar with the history of our nation and how it affects us today, if you can't even acknowledge how oppression works when the information is out there, you aren't going to care what I have to say or present.

    http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=7202 - this is to affirm bobjr's own statements. don't even pretend that it's just pure coincidence places with a lot of slaves just coincidentally have the most antiblackness.
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2017
  19. bobjr

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

    White House Aide Gorka: I Don't Believe There is "'Persecution Based On Skin Color' In US

    This is the third highest ranking person in the White House
  20. Pikachu52

    Pikachu52 Well-Known Member

    Yes it is - you've broadly stated "Social collectivism is authoritarianism" without explaining why, and using that broad claim to essentially suggest any anti-discrimination policy is "collectivism." That's describing a state of affairs that doesn't have a basis in reality

    People living "a life of luxury at the expense of the lower classes" is, at least to some degree, a reality - inequality already exists and it is not the product of collectivism. If anything it's the opposite - it's a product of individualism and discrimination.

    Identity politics - or better termed civil rights - is in broad strokes about removing discrimination that contributes to inequality. If anything, ignoring the concerns of identity politics will produce hegemony

Share This Page