Topic: If, in the 21st century, you still rigidly categorize people as "white" or "colored"...
Meta started this discussion 12 years ago #34,285
You are a racist. Thanks.
Syntax joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #473,213
dw skg II distribution co. llc joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #473,232
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #473,258
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 59 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #473,267
I'm not gonna give people who are affected by systemic racism shit for making that distinction.
When white supremacists do it, on the other hand, they're kinda doing it towards exactly the wrong goal, and should proooooooooooooobably have their ideology - and not necessarily that part of their semantics - knocked down.
When white supremacists do it, on the other hand, they're kinda doing it towards exactly the wrong goal, and should proooooooooooooobably have their ideology - and not necessarily that part of their semantics - knocked down.
Meta (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 15 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #473,269
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
> I'm not gonna give people who are affected by systemic racism shit for making that distinction.
But is that you, though?
> When white supremacists do it, on the other hand, they're kinda doing it towards exactly the wrong goal, and should proooooooooooooobably have their ideology - and not necessarily that part of their semantics - knocked down.
So Jim Crow-era (except now it's "people of color" instead of "colored people") racial division is okay when it's done in the name of the left?
> I'm not gonna give people who are affected by systemic racism shit for making that distinction.
But is that you, though?
> When white supremacists do it, on the other hand, they're kinda doing it towards exactly the wrong goal, and should proooooooooooooobably have their ideology - and not necessarily that part of their semantics - knocked down.
So Jim Crow-era (except now it's "people of color" instead of "colored people") racial division is okay when it's done in the name of the left?
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #473,271
@previous (Meta)
> But is that you, though?
It's not. I'm white by literally every definition in every single part of the planet.
> So Jim Crow-era (except now it's "people of color" instead of "colored people") racial division is okay when it's done in the name of the left?
...
...wow, no. Recognising white privilege as a thing is only comparable to Jim Crow in the minds of the most crypto-racist liberals. It's. No. "White people are currently in a unique sociological position of not getting beaten down for their race" is not the same as "we must disqualify people who fall into a certain racial category from their basic human rights and civil liberties".
> But is that you, though?
It's not. I'm white by literally every definition in every single part of the planet.
> So Jim Crow-era (except now it's "people of color" instead of "colored people") racial division is okay when it's done in the name of the left?
...
...wow, no. Recognising white privilege as a thing is only comparable to Jim Crow in the minds of the most crypto-racist liberals. It's. No. "White people are currently in a unique sociological position of not getting beaten down for their race" is not the same as "we must disqualify people who fall into a certain racial category from their basic human rights and civil liberties".
Meta (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 44 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #473,273
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
I never said you desired the same ends as the Jim Crow segregationists, just that if you sat down a bunch of SJWs, and a bunch of Jim Crow segregationists, they would agree that humanity can be divided into two groups: "white" and "colored". You said so yourself: "When white supremacists do it, on the other hand, they're kinda doing it towards exactly the wrong goal, and should proooooooooooooobably have their ideology - and not necessarily that part of their semantics - knocked down." [emphasis added] If I'm reading this correctly, it means you fervently disagree with white supremacist goals and ideology, but not necessarily their categorization of humanity into white and non-white.
I never said you desired the same ends as the Jim Crow segregationists, just that if you sat down a bunch of SJWs, and a bunch of Jim Crow segregationists, they would agree that humanity can be divided into two groups: "white" and "colored". You said so yourself: "When white supremacists do it, on the other hand, they're kinda doing it towards exactly the wrong goal, and should proooooooooooooobably have their ideology - and not necessarily that part of their semantics - knocked down." [emphasis added] If I'm reading this correctly, it means you fervently disagree with white supremacist goals and ideology, but not necessarily their categorization of humanity into white and non-white.
(Edited 1 minute later.)