"Angry white men"
- Thread starter BIGOSUFAN
- Start date
Ok what percentage of this country agrees with you that there is no such thing as white people? I hear the phrase all the time from every direction and I'm just wondering why you are so enlightened and no one else is.
You are dead on with this statement. I can't make heads or tails of an adult telling me there is no such thing as white people. I'm pretty open minded this time of day but you are right I am definitely not comprehending what I am reading in your posts.
Slow down, parse the words being written, perhaps my position will be clearer.
In the context of the "self interests" of White people the cohort group is so ambiguous as to mean nothing.
If you have something that you think is so obviously a common interest of "the White Race" (your term) then please just put it out there...
It means nothing. You have millions of people to convince that the term white people means nothing.
So the next time someone accuses white cops of being racist you and I will go together and I will watch you explain that they are dead wrong and that they need a history lesson about when swedes became white.
So the next time someone accuses white cops of being racist you and I will go together and I will watch you explain that they are dead wrong and that they need a history lesson about when swedes became white.
Not once did I dive into what a white self interest could be. I just wanted to understand if they were "allowed" to. You danced around that liberal dark matter question and came up with this other bullshit that makes about as much sense as my alphabet soup does sitting in my bowl.
Sorry dipshits white people dont exist everyone pack up your confederate flags and go home. Exhausting.
Sorry dipshits white people dont exist everyone pack up your confederate flags and go home. Exhausting.
You are god damn right you are you should have been about fifteen stupid posts ago.
Lol - your too stupid to argue with so you declare victory. Well done sir. You deserve a bud light.
This has been fascinating.
I'm not sure the average blm member or anti trump protestor is quite nuanced enough to appreciate the difference between an Irish and a white, or an Italian for that matter.
I'm not sure the average blm member or anti trump protestor is quite nuanced enough to appreciate the difference between an Irish and a white, or an Italian for that matter.
This is where I have to ask a couple of things davidallen...
If "whites" are aren't defineable as a "race," then why are folks suddenly bothered by their "whiteness?" How can they know they are "white" if they have no basis for which to identify themselves as a race? How can "white" privilege exist without being able to identify as "white?"
And assuming that you are correct that "whites" are too diverse (Irish, Italian, Swedes, etc) to be able to classify as a race, blacks, Asians, Native Americans, etc can't be identified as such either because they are too diverse as well. It seems that your inclination is to define them by their country of origin, which is fine. Using the same logic applied to "blacks," there are certainly numerous African countries as well, so we then have to question when Ethiopians became "black," when Nigerians became black, when Algerians became black, etc.
So, if we can now appreciate that people are way too diverse to be able to be identified by a race simply by skin color, why do we consider certain folks "minorities" based on their skin color? How can we know that the "whites" in a predominantly "white" community aren't so diverse as to their origins (Italians, Irish, Germans, etc) that they aren't actually the minority?
And one final question if you don't mind. If all of this is assumed to be true, how can anybody be considered racist toward a person because of skin color if skin color has no basis to define race?
If "whites" are aren't defineable as a "race," then why are folks suddenly bothered by their "whiteness?" How can they know they are "white" if they have no basis for which to identify themselves as a race? How can "white" privilege exist without being able to identify as "white?"
And assuming that you are correct that "whites" are too diverse (Irish, Italian, Swedes, etc) to be able to classify as a race, blacks, Asians, Native Americans, etc can't be identified as such either because they are too diverse as well. It seems that your inclination is to define them by their country of origin, which is fine. Using the same logic applied to "blacks," there are certainly numerous African countries as well, so we then have to question when Ethiopians became "black," when Nigerians became black, when Algerians became black, etc.
So, if we can now appreciate that people are way too diverse to be able to be identified by a race simply by skin color, why do we consider certain folks "minorities" based on their skin color? How can we know that the "whites" in a predominantly "white" community aren't so diverse as to their origins (Italians, Irish, Germans, etc) that they aren't actually the minority?
And one final question if you don't mind. If all of this is assumed to be true, how can anybody be considered racist toward a person because of skin color if skin color has no basis to define race?
Avoiding the semantics of who is "white." A quick Wikipedia search says that the 2010 census showed 196 million white people. That's a very large group to all have the same interests they should all vote the same way. Presumably only one or two of the white men on here think they have the same interests as fellow white man George Soros. Even trying to divide that down with the blanket "angry white men" you still have some subset of approximately 98 million. And even then, it is still a problem, it seems "angry white men" are also Bernie Sanders' base, although they are usually identified by their age rather than race or mood. Are they also "voting their interest?"
White is such a huge demographic it doesn't make sense to leave it at that and let them "vote their interest" because the other factors divide them up, and so they don't vote in a block. Looking at exit polling from the last two elections, white was the demographic most evenly split in the election, with Romney and McCain winning 59% and 55% respectively, compare to Black or Hispanic which Obama won in 2012 with 93% and 71% of the vote.
Based on the questions asked in the WaPo exit polling I got those numbers from, Trump's base is more than likely based on how people answer the Financial Situation Now vs 4 years ago. In 2012, people who answered better went 84% for Obama. In 2008, they went 60% for McCain. Romney got 80% of the "Worse today" group. A lot of the people who say "worse off" are probably white men because there are a lot of those. And "angry white men" is an easy identifier your audience can draw a negative connotation about, and more, not want to be a part of.
White is such a huge demographic it doesn't make sense to leave it at that and let them "vote their interest" because the other factors divide them up, and so they don't vote in a block. Looking at exit polling from the last two elections, white was the demographic most evenly split in the election, with Romney and McCain winning 59% and 55% respectively, compare to Black or Hispanic which Obama won in 2012 with 93% and 71% of the vote.
Based on the questions asked in the WaPo exit polling I got those numbers from, Trump's base is more than likely based on how people answer the Financial Situation Now vs 4 years ago. In 2012, people who answered better went 84% for Obama. In 2008, they went 60% for McCain. Romney got 80% of the "Worse today" group. A lot of the people who say "worse off" are probably white men because there are a lot of those. And "angry white men" is an easy identifier your audience can draw a negative connotation about, and more, not want to be a part of.
Wish I could say that was a drunk post - you actually pushed my buttons enough that I did something stupid. Apologize for this one...
Reluctant to wade into this again, but it is a new day so why not.
Context of my statement is "White" is too broad/amorphous to have a "common/self interest". That isn't a normative statement, it is a descriptive statement - meaning it hasn't happened that I have ever seen and to the point made above by Mr. Blonde demographics argue that it can't/won't happen.
My personal take is, when someone says "white peoples best interest" what they probably are really saying is "my socio/economic demographics best interest" in which case they are dramatically over estimating (perhaps wishfully so) the magnitude of their cohort group and the degree with which others would agree with them.
Generally race has no real basis in genetics or even much in terms of geography - it is largely a self identification based on common ancestry or as some others have put it a social categorization. That people of common interest, say systematic discrimination based on skin color, organize themselves around the common interest of overcoming said systematic discrimination it shouldn't be surprising. We have an NAACP because at some point there was sufficient common interest.
Of course discrimination occurs every day - people make both positive and negative judgements of others based on skin color for instance. Nothing in what I am saying forgives, defends, or otherwise mitigates this. Dark skin people in the United States for instance are absolutely still discriminated against negatively. Light skin people are as well - though arguably the discrimination might be more favorable than negative in some cases. There are those on this board who have argued that our current POTUS has benefited from a positive discrimination - as does HRC.
On the privilege question - my best guess is this... Some people believe they have benefited in part because of the discriminating tendencies of American society. Not just the discrimination against someone else, but also the discrimination that favors people with superficial but perceived as valuable attributes (religious belief, skin color, hair color, height, whatever). The folks who feel like they have benefited from this type of discrimination carry around a bit of guilt and someone has given it a name - privilege. Either you feel that way or you don't. I don't think you can or should try and convince some they have benefited from privilege.
As previously mentioned... great dude from Cushing Oklahoma - miss him a lot.
This is good and I'm glad you posted. No doubt ALL Americans have benefitted from one form or another of discrimination at some point in their life. That's why it is frustrating to me that people complain about "white privilege" in 2016. Actually, it pisses me off. It implies that I have what I have because I'm white. It dismisses all the hard work and sacrifices I've made. Not saying I started 0 and 2 and hit a homer, but it's not like the pitcher walked me all the way home.
The "victim syndrome" shoveled to the "sofa king" crowd will always play in Peoria; it's called the "blame game" and the left has master (baited) it. White makes it easier when pandering to "the great unwashed" (RIP Blackie Sherrod), the mullets, gerbils, hump-less quasimodos, dog-ball lickers/wannabes, and the horses' asses they rode in on/are.
An associate of mine who is Irish flew home to Belfast this weekend to attend a wedding. I thought this might be a valuable insight into this conversation about race and ethnicity, so I viewed her facebook page. The results are shocking...
Pictured, not a white couple. Evidently.
Also, presumably not white people in the background.
Pictured, not a white couple. Evidently.
Also, presumably not white people in the background.
An associate of mine who is Irish flew home to Belfast this weekend to attend a wedding. I thought this might be a valuable insight into this conversation about race and ethnicity, so I viewed her facebook page. The results are shocking...
Pictured, not a white couple. Evidently.
Also, presumably not white people in the background.
Hey! Look! It's that Whitey guy from Cushing!
Is this a white dude?
Does the dude in question receive government sanctioned preferential treatment during an employment hiring process? If the answer is "no", then he's a white dude.
I still think you think you are arguing one point but are making another. There is no white pride butt hurt going on here.
It's more about the hypocrisy of race (as a social construct) and its use by the fascist progressives as a tool to divide and distract the masses. The concept of whiteness is rarely if ever pondered by white people, and yet the news cycle brings us trope after trope of institutionalized racism/sexism/LBGT(alphabet soup)phobia by patriarchal straight whites against someone.
And so a lot of these vilified dad body white guys are slowly looking around and saying "hey! This kind of sucks." So when a thread like this comes up, it's asked if these people whose racial identity is constantly being identified by others' agendas can in fact have a racial interest themselves, we are told there is no white race and the Irish and Italians are used as ridiculous examples.
You may parse the words about whether we even have a black president but the rank and file progressive sure believes we do.
These convoluted exercises are exhausting. Race is a thin little membrane that affects everyone's initial instinctive tribal impression of a person of another race but then dissolves once you get past it. It's discussed and considered far too much. True racism in the western world is anecdotal at best at this point and is only an issue because of the media attention that racist groups like blm and Trump protestors get.
Nobody cares about white rights. It's basically rhetorical to shine light on the ultimate irrelevance of race.
I'm OK with calling race a social construct as long as we acknowledge social constructs can affect people. These charts are from Forbes. I believe Irish, Italian, and even Slavs were included in "Whites."
Those "social constructs" do not affect people, pilt. The crux of your argument is that "oppression" and other social "constructs" are responsible for the wealth difference between white, blacks and Latinos. That is not accurate. The single most important, predictive metric which can grossly predict life trajectory is IQ. And whites have higher average IQs than blacks and Latinos. That holds true in both America and throughout the world. Simply compare Europe with Central America or Africa. 75% of black NFL guys are broke within three years of hanging up the cleats. Why is that?
Hey Mega, could you kindly tell this gentleman that race is a social construct? Thanks.
Similar threads
