Topic: How is this even racist?
Anonymous A started this discussion 7 years ago #80,040
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 7 years ago, 21 minutes later[^] [v] #932,037
The replies are pretty funny.
https://twitter.com/sarahinthesen8/status/1057846549223366656
She's a senator btw.
https://twitter.com/sarahinthesen8/status/1057846549223366656
She's a senator btw.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #932,041
It’s not racist on its own but the people who are sticking them up are in fact racists for the most part
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #932,043
@previous (B)
Source?
It was thought up by /pol/ to show anti white bias. They succeeded. Most likely put up by some trolls not racists.
Source?
It was thought up by /pol/ to show anti white bias. They succeeded. Most likely put up by some trolls not racists.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #932,044
> put up by some trolls not racists
> implying you can't be both
> implying you can't be both
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 31 seconds later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #932,046
...This is my swamp...
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #932,050
@932,044 (C)
I wasn't implying that. Sure you can be both. Nobody knows who put them on, so all we can do is guess.
I wasn't implying that. Sure you can be both. Nobody knows who put them on, so all we can do is guess.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 11 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #932,062
@932,041 (B)
> It’s not racist on its own but the people who are sticking them up are in fact racists for the most part
only in a vacuum is the statement not racist
in real life though it's just a shitty slogan for and by white supremacists who feel their 'culture' ie supremacy is at risk
> It’s not racist on its own but the people who are sticking them up are in fact racists for the most part
only in a vacuum is the statement not racist
in real life though it's just a shitty slogan for and by white supremacists who feel their 'culture' ie supremacy is at risk
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 10 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #932,067
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #932,068
@932,062 (E)
Thats a whole load of assumptions. Care to provide some arguments or are you just making statements?
Thats a whole load of assumptions. Care to provide some arguments or are you just making statements?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #932,069
It's more white grievance identity politics. See also "Stand up for America", "America First", etc.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #932,071
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I guess you'll feel the same about black pride, asian pride, etc.. The double standard of it all is just amazing.
White people can never be proud or say they are because they're automatically labeled racist or nazi.
I guess you'll feel the same about black pride, asian pride, etc.. The double standard of it all is just amazing.
White people can never be proud or say they are because they're automatically labeled racist or nazi.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #932,072
@previous (A)
If white pride didn't have a 150 year history of being used to disenfranchise and kill minorities, it might theoretically be on par with asian pride or whatever.
If white pride didn't have a 150 year history of being used to disenfranchise and kill minorities, it might theoretically be on par with asian pride or whatever.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #932,074
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Lol
It's all false pride to me. But I'm too rational I guess.
I don't see how race has anything to do with America First though. Somehow people love dragging race into everything. Specially so called anti-racist tend to see everything in colour. Sad.
Lol
It's all false pride to me. But I'm too rational I guess.
I don't see how race has anything to do with America First though. Somehow people love dragging race into everything. Specially so called anti-racist tend to see everything in colour. Sad.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #932,077
@previous (A)
Its original use was by Charles Lindbergh, who wanted to put "america first", and oppose entering World War 2. Lindbergh was also famously anti-Semitic and racist. It's a term that is loaded with bigoted historical baggage, and the fact that it was brought back shamelessly (and it worked!) tells you all you need to know.
Its original use was by Charles Lindbergh, who wanted to put "america first", and oppose entering World War 2. Lindbergh was also famously anti-Semitic and racist. It's a term that is loaded with bigoted historical baggage, and the fact that it was brought back shamelessly (and it worked!) tells you all you need to know.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #932,078
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Are you saying that if a bad person uses a slogan or certain words they become tainted forever?
To me it's common sense to put your own country first. It's like taking good care of yourself before you can help others.
When I'm sick I can't take care of my gf or others, and vice versa. So we take good care of ourselves. Dare I say it, we put ourselves first.
Are you saying that if a bad person uses a slogan or certain words they become tainted forever?
To me it's common sense to put your own country first. It's like taking good care of yourself before you can help others.
When I'm sick I can't take care of my gf or others, and vice versa. So we take good care of ourselves. Dare I say it, we put ourselves first.
(Edited 21 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #932,080
@previous (A)
Yeah in the same way that if a person wrote a book called "my struggle" and then ran for president under the slogan "one people, one government, one leader", that would be a bad idea and should lose, irrespective of the other elements of the candidacy.
Yeah in the same way that if a person wrote a book called "my struggle" and then ran for president under the slogan "one people, one government, one leader", that would be a bad idea and should lose, irrespective of the other elements of the candidacy.
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 47 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #932,081
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #932,083
As a black person, I can honestly say that there is nothing wrong with a white person saying that it's okay to be white.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #932,084
@932,080 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)So if Trump would rephrase it you'd be fine? By the way, I don't believe Trump usage of it has anything to do with race. People calling Trump a racist only since he became president.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #932,086
@932,083 (H)
I agree. People just like to make it racist for political reasons.
Also it's funny how those people hold white people accountable for things that happened hundreds of years ago but don't blame current generation of Germans for WW2. There's no rhyme or reason.
If you can hold white people accountable for slavery today, you can also hold Germans accountable for WW2 today. And this principe applies to many other things as well.
I agree. People just like to make it racist for political reasons.
Also it's funny how those people hold white people accountable for things that happened hundreds of years ago but don't blame current generation of Germans for WW2. There's no rhyme or reason.
If you can hold white people accountable for slavery today, you can also hold Germans accountable for WW2 today. And this principe applies to many other things as well.
(Edited 33 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #932,088
@932,084 (A)
I think if he didn't use the actual literal terminology, that would be better.
And people have been calling Trump racist for a while, since, for example, the Central Park Five ads he bought. He just was not super relevant. Who cares if some NY billionaire C-list celebrity is racist or not?
I think if he didn't use the actual literal terminology, that would be better.
And people have been calling Trump racist for a while, since, for example, the Central Park Five ads he bought. He just was not super relevant. Who cares if some NY billionaire C-list celebrity is racist or not?
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #932,090
@932,086 (A)
I do hold Germans responsibile. I also think that what "white people" (to the extent that term even describes a consistent group of people) have been downplaying the societal consequences of enslaving a group of people, while benefiting from exacerbating the inequalities that inevitably resulted from one class of people owning another class of people as property. It's not that I blame them for slavery, whatever that means.
I do hold Germans responsibile. I also think that what "white people" (to the extent that term even describes a consistent group of people) have been downplaying the societal consequences of enslaving a group of people, while benefiting from exacerbating the inequalities that inevitably resulted from one class of people owning another class of people as property. It's not that I blame them for slavery, whatever that means.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 2 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #932,091
@932,088 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
So if Trump would say "we must make sure America's interests come before those of other countries" it would be ok? Less catchy though. And he does have a point. Why have other countries pay a 5% tariff when the other way around its 20% for the same products? Thats just bad dealmaking by previous administrations won't you agree?
How were those ads racist exactly? I'm curious about it.
So if Trump would say "we must make sure America's interests come before those of other countries" it would be ok? Less catchy though. And he does have a point. Why have other countries pay a 5% tariff when the other way around its 20% for the same products? Thats just bad dealmaking by previous administrations won't you agree?
How were those ads racist exactly? I'm curious about it.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #932,092
@932,090 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
So a German born in the past 50 years or so is to blame for WW2? How does that even work rationally? They weren't born at the time. They have fuck all to do with it. Just like white people today have fuck all to do with slavery.
So a German born in the past 50 years or so is to blame for WW2? How does that even work rationally? They weren't born at the time. They have fuck all to do with it. Just like white people today have fuck all to do with slavery.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #932,101
@932,090 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Do you ever blame Jews for being such prevalent slave holders?
Do you ever blame Jews for being such prevalent slave holders?
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #932,108
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Ah, we needed some historical whataboutism. That was what was missing from this thread!
Ah, we needed some historical whataboutism. That was what was missing from this thread!
cccuuunnttt !RwordOooFE joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,116
I agree with Fake anon and am glad he has taken the time to post well-reasoned responses.
However for me, I just have one thing to say:
DONGS
However for me, I just have one thing to say:
DONGS
Captain Kate Carr joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,119
Anonymous E replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,120
@932,081 (C)
> > But I'm too rational I guess.
> Guess again.
I love this 'nobody agrees with my memes because I'm too rational' meme
> > But I'm too rational I guess.
> Guess again.
I love this 'nobody agrees with my memes because I'm too rational' meme
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 21 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,129
@932,116 (cccuuunnttt !RwordOooFE)
Well reasoned? I must have missed the arguments. I only saw dogma's, silly rhetoric and selective replies. What he essentially says is that you can hold people today accountable of what previous generations said or did.
Using that "argument" you can also say Germans born today are responsible for WW2. Or vegetarians are evil because Hitler was a vegetarian too. It's a form of mental gymnastics, not sound reasoning.
Well reasoned? I must have missed the arguments. I only saw dogma's, silly rhetoric and selective replies. What he essentially says is that you can hold people today accountable of what previous generations said or did.
Using that "argument" you can also say Germans born today are responsible for WW2. Or vegetarians are evil because Hitler was a vegetarian too. It's a form of mental gymnastics, not sound reasoning.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,133
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 14 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,138
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
It was about a paper sign.
@932,129 (A)
> Using that "argument" you can also say Germans born today are responsible for WW2. Or vegetarians are evil because Hitler was a vegetarian too. It's a form of mental gymnastics, not sound reasoning.
It's not gymnastics until you can slip off that slope and then do a flip.
It was about a paper sign.
@932,129 (A)
> Using that "argument" you can also say Germans born today are responsible for WW2. Or vegetarians are evil because Hitler was a vegetarian too. It's a form of mental gymnastics, not sound reasoning.
It's not gymnastics until you can slip off that slope and then do a flip.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,140
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 36 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,141
@932,138 (C)
Lets get back to the paper sign then. Why is the sign racist?
The senator doesn't know who put it up there. It's all guessing and assuming. I think /pol/ did a great job coming up with this one.
Lets get back to the paper sign then. Why is the sign racist?
The senator doesn't know who put it up there. It's all guessing and assuming. I think /pol/ did a great job coming up with this one.
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 14 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,153
@932,140 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
It was about the public display of the paper sign.
@previous (A)
You don't see how that could be construed to be racist?
It was about the public display of the paper sign.
@previous (A)
You don't see how that could be construed to be racist?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,154
Anonymous E replied with this 7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,158
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 44 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,159
@932,091 (A)
Yeah the less you verbatim quote fascist sympathizers, the better the politics. Not that Trump would do that many things differently, but the framing of issues is really important. As per the tariffs, I don't know if they were the result of good or bad dealmaking, because I don't know what the bargains struck were. My guess would be we picked fights on things we cared about, and let other countries have "wins" they could bring back to their people so that they would be inclined to do deals with us in the future. Trump's modus operandi seems to be pick fights about things that don't matter, and make people want to deal with us as little as possible. In general I support as few tariffs as possible, but I understand they are a tool/bargaining chip like any other government action.
The ads to me are kind of special for Trump because it's as far as I can tell the first time he spent his own money to publicize something that didn't directly or indirectly benefit himself. He spent a decent chunk of change to take out an ad calling for the execution of five boys (they were like 14-16) of color who were initially found guilty, of raping a white woman, but were sentenced to jail, not death because executing teenagers is even more immoral than the death penalty normally is. Years later, all five were acquitted after DNA evidence proved a different person did it. To this day, Trump maintains their guilt, even after the case has been legally settled, and the men received tens of millions of dollars from the state for being wrongfully imprisoned. Now, I wasn't in the room when he made the ad buy, so his motivations are not 100% clear (maybe he just really cares about preventing women from being sexually assaulted), but this feels to me like racism. And I'm not the first person to think this, of course. It was kind of controversial back in the day, and still is.
@932,092 (A)
I don't think that a 25 year old German today is personally responsible for Birkenau, but the German state does have a moral responsibility to assist in, for example, returning art and other assets stolen by the Nazis to the families they committed war crimes against. They also owe some form of reparations to the survivors and their families, and are responsible for actively speaking out against antisemitism, holocaust denial, and genocide wherever it occurs. If you want to be a citizen of a country and want to take credit for all the good things it does, you have to also be accountable for the bad things it's done.
@932,101 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
If Jews were especially cruel or prominent slaveowners then I could see them having a kind of "extra" responsibility beyond the generalized average American obligation to right the wrongs that flow from slavery, but I've literally only ever encountered that talking point while reading stormfront-type sites, and the data backing that up is uh...suspect, to say the least.
Yeah the less you verbatim quote fascist sympathizers, the better the politics. Not that Trump would do that many things differently, but the framing of issues is really important. As per the tariffs, I don't know if they were the result of good or bad dealmaking, because I don't know what the bargains struck were. My guess would be we picked fights on things we cared about, and let other countries have "wins" they could bring back to their people so that they would be inclined to do deals with us in the future. Trump's modus operandi seems to be pick fights about things that don't matter, and make people want to deal with us as little as possible. In general I support as few tariffs as possible, but I understand they are a tool/bargaining chip like any other government action.
The ads to me are kind of special for Trump because it's as far as I can tell the first time he spent his own money to publicize something that didn't directly or indirectly benefit himself. He spent a decent chunk of change to take out an ad calling for the execution of five boys (they were like 14-16) of color who were initially found guilty, of raping a white woman, but were sentenced to jail, not death because executing teenagers is even more immoral than the death penalty normally is. Years later, all five were acquitted after DNA evidence proved a different person did it. To this day, Trump maintains their guilt, even after the case has been legally settled, and the men received tens of millions of dollars from the state for being wrongfully imprisoned. Now, I wasn't in the room when he made the ad buy, so his motivations are not 100% clear (maybe he just really cares about preventing women from being sexually assaulted), but this feels to me like racism. And I'm not the first person to think this, of course. It was kind of controversial back in the day, and still is.
@932,092 (A)
I don't think that a 25 year old German today is personally responsible for Birkenau, but the German state does have a moral responsibility to assist in, for example, returning art and other assets stolen by the Nazis to the families they committed war crimes against. They also owe some form of reparations to the survivors and their families, and are responsible for actively speaking out against antisemitism, holocaust denial, and genocide wherever it occurs. If you want to be a citizen of a country and want to take credit for all the good things it does, you have to also be accountable for the bad things it's done.
@932,101 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
If Jews were especially cruel or prominent slaveowners then I could see them having a kind of "extra" responsibility beyond the generalized average American obligation to right the wrongs that flow from slavery, but I've literally only ever encountered that talking point while reading stormfront-type sites, and the data backing that up is uh...suspect, to say the least.
(Edited 8 minutes later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 10 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,161
@932,153 (C)
So you think that this topic is about the display of the sign and not what is written? Fuck off with your bullshit
So you think that this topic is about the display of the sign and not what is written? Fuck off with your bullshit
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,162
@932,159 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Have you ever looked at up? I know that in my area we have a very famous Jewish slave owner, whose hone is here
Have you ever looked at up? I know that in my area we have a very famous Jewish slave owner, whose hone is here
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,163
@932,159 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I don't think Trump is using the America first slogan as a dog whistle or was inspired by the facist that used it before him. And in a way it's important to take back those kind of words and slogan. It's not good to have "forbidden" words and slogans just because bad people used them before. But that's just my opinion. I don't believe Trump is a racist or has a racist agenda. The facts don't support it. But feel free to correct me.
I don't think Trump is using the America first slogan as a dog whistle or was inspired by the facist that used it before him. And in a way it's important to take back those kind of words and slogan. It's not good to have "forbidden" words and slogans just because bad people used them before. But that's just my opinion. I don't believe Trump is a racist or has a racist agenda. The facts don't support it. But feel free to correct me.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 16 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,164
@932,162 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I did some research yeah, and all I could find was like anecdotes of, "X owned slaves and he was a Jew". I didn't see anything credible that indicated Jews were more likely to own slaves than gentiles, or that there were even that many jews in the confederacy. I think there were like a thousand jews in the entire confederate army or something. It was an incredibly negligible percentage of anything.
I did some research yeah, and all I could find was like anecdotes of, "X owned slaves and he was a Jew". I didn't see anything credible that indicated Jews were more likely to own slaves than gentiles, or that there were even that many jews in the confederacy. I think there were like a thousand jews in the entire confederate army or something. It was an incredibly negligible percentage of anything.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,165
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I just went to some Jewish learning site and it stated that 40% of Jewish households owned slaves. I wonder how many non Jewish households owned slaves.
40% is a large amount compared to their percentage of the population
I just went to some Jewish learning site and it stated that 40% of Jewish households owned slaves. I wonder how many non Jewish households owned slaves.
40% is a large amount compared to their percentage of the population
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,166
Who would have thought 20 years ago that nazism would become teenagers posting frog cartoons and signs saying "It's okay to be white"?Oh and the ? gesture which is now a nazi thing somehow.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 7 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,167
@932,163 (A)
We are going to have to agree to very strongly disagree on the importance of reviving antisemitic, racist terms by people who are themselves incredibly bigoted (Charlottesville, Judge Curiel, his comments at his political rallies leading up to the election, etc.).
We are going to have to agree to very strongly disagree on the importance of reviving antisemitic, racist terms by people who are themselves incredibly bigoted (Charlottesville, Judge Curiel, his comments at his political rallies leading up to the election, etc.).
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,168
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 43 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,169
@932,167 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
You seriously believe Trump is using America Fist is a dog whistle? It's just a slogan. Anything more is what you make of it.
You seriously believe Trump is using America Fist is a dog whistle? It's just a slogan. Anything more is what you make of it.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,170
@932,165 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
In the confederacy, I've seen estimates that, depending on the state and the year, etc. it was anywhere from 25-50% of all households that owned slaves. Source on the 40%?
@932,166 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Why is it hard to believe that fascist ideologies adapt to fit the people and the times? They still do the heil, bellamy salute, and goosestepping sometimes, but if they also carry tiki torches and chant "the jews will not replace us" does that make them not neonazis because hitler never mass produced tiki torches?
In the confederacy, I've seen estimates that, depending on the state and the year, etc. it was anywhere from 25-50% of all households that owned slaves. Source on the 40%?
@932,166 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Why is it hard to believe that fascist ideologies adapt to fit the people and the times? They still do the heil, bellamy salute, and goosestepping sometimes, but if they also carry tiki torches and chant "the jews will not replace us" does that make them not neonazis because hitler never mass produced tiki torches?
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 16 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,171
@932,166 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Don't forget about drinking milk. Also thanks to /pol/. They're doing great work exposing hypocrisy, double standards and bias.
Don't forget about drinking milk. Also thanks to /pol/. They're doing great work exposing hypocrisy, double standards and bias.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 32 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,172
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 41 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,173
The world is grey but nowadays everything has to be black or white (no pun intended).
Personally I blame Reagan for that.. he started the whole good vs. evil rhetoric. But thats all very off-topic. I can highly recommend watching Bitter Lake and Hypernormalisation documentaries. They're eye opening. Spanning decades and explaining a lot of things. And yes, it also features Trump negatively, which might entice some of you *wink*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Lake_%28film%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation
Very nicely made too, poetic and brutal at the same time. Loved them, rewatched them. I'd love to discuss these documentaries in a separate topic. But only with those that actually watched them, not just read the wikipedia pages.
Personally I blame Reagan for that.. he started the whole good vs. evil rhetoric. But thats all very off-topic. I can highly recommend watching Bitter Lake and Hypernormalisation documentaries. They're eye opening. Spanning decades and explaining a lot of things. And yes, it also features Trump negatively, which might entice some of you *wink*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Lake_%28film%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation
Very nicely made too, poetic and brutal at the same time. Loved them, rewatched them. I'd love to discuss these documentaries in a separate topic. But only with those that actually watched them, not just read the wikipedia pages.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 7 years ago, 19 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,174
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,175
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,176
@932,174 (A)
You asked if I seriously believed it, which I do. I asked why you think the slogan has no other meanings, despite its obvious historical associations, and Trump's rhetoric.
You asked if I seriously believed it, which I do. I asked why you think the slogan has no other meanings, despite its obvious historical associations, and Trump's rhetoric.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,177
@932,171 (A)
Oh yeah I forgot about milk.
Also New Balance. How the hell did an apolitical (as far as I can tell) shoe company get associated with white supremacy?
Oh yeah I forgot about milk.
Also New Balance. How the hell did an apolitical (as far as I can tell) shoe company get associated with white supremacy?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,178
@932,175 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I think I found the site.
So there were six jewish families in Savannah and five of them owned a combined 93 slaves. In 1860 there were about 570,000 slaves in Georgia. Do I think that Jews are particularly blameworthy for slavery because they owned at most 0.016% of all slaves? No not particularly, and it feels weird to single them out for that fact.
Not defending slavery, obviously, it's one of the worst things that ever happened on the planet.
I think I found the site.
Did Jews really own slaves?
Yes. Jacob Rader Marcus, a historian and Reform rabbi, wrote in his four-volume history of Americans Jews that over 75 percent of Jewish families in Charleston, South Carolina; Richmond, Virginia; and Savannah, Georgia, owned slaves, and nearly 40 percent of Jewish households across the country did. The Jewish population in these cities was quite small, however, so the total number of slaves they owned represented just a small fraction of the total slave population; Eli Faber, a historian at New York City’s John Jay College reported that in 1790, Charleston’s Jews owned a total of 93 slaves, and that “perhaps six Jewish families” lived in Savannah in 1771.
Yes. Jacob Rader Marcus, a historian and Reform rabbi, wrote in his four-volume history of Americans Jews that over 75 percent of Jewish families in Charleston, South Carolina; Richmond, Virginia; and Savannah, Georgia, owned slaves, and nearly 40 percent of Jewish households across the country did. The Jewish population in these cities was quite small, however, so the total number of slaves they owned represented just a small fraction of the total slave population; Eli Faber, a historian at New York City’s John Jay College reported that in 1790, Charleston’s Jews owned a total of 93 slaves, and that “perhaps six Jewish families” lived in Savannah in 1771.
So there were six jewish families in Savannah and five of them owned a combined 93 slaves. In 1860 there were about 570,000 slaves in Georgia. Do I think that Jews are particularly blameworthy for slavery because they owned at most 0.016% of all slaves? No not particularly, and it feels weird to single them out for that fact.
Not defending slavery, obviously, it's one of the worst things that ever happened on the planet.
(Edited 50 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 26 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,179
@932,176 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I didn't say it has no other meanings. I said its good to take back such slogans and make them more positive. But I find it disheartening you really believe Trump is using them in bad faith or as a dog whistle. I'm confident he isn't. And there are no facts to support he is somehow supportive of the message Charles Lindbergh had when he used it.
I didn't say it has no other meanings. I said its good to take back such slogans and make them more positive. But I find it disheartening you really believe Trump is using them in bad faith or as a dog whistle. I'm confident he isn't. And there are no facts to support he is somehow supportive of the message Charles Lindbergh had when he used it.
(Edited 58 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 7 years ago, 29 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,180
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,183
@932,178 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
If a huge percent of them owned slaves, they are particularly blame worthy
If a huge percent of them owned slaves, they are particularly blame worthy
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 7 years ago, 40 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,184
@932,170 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Is there much overlap between the pepe posters and the Tiki Troopers?
I always thought the former were mainly in it to be transgressive and the latter actually do unironically want NSDAP-style actual national socialism in real life.
Is there much overlap between the pepe posters and the Tiki Troopers?
I always thought the former were mainly in it to be transgressive and the latter actually do unironically want NSDAP-style actual national socialism in real life.
tteh !MemesToDNA joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 41 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,186
pooped my pant hasnt yours
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 3 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,187
@932,179 (A)
If there were those facts, what would they look like? This disconnect is weird to me because it's incredibly obvious to me that it's one way, and it's equally apparent to you that it's another way.
Just for the record, I'm not saying he's 1 for 1 in agreement with everything Charles Lindbergh thought, but that they are using the same phrase for similar purposes.
If there were those facts, what would they look like? This disconnect is weird to me because it's incredibly obvious to me that it's one way, and it's equally apparent to you that it's another way.
Just for the record, I'm not saying he's 1 for 1 in agreement with everything Charles Lindbergh thought, but that they are using the same phrase for similar purposes.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,189
@932,183 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
No because the raw numbers are so unbelievably small it doesn't even make much sense. Let's say only 10% of gentiles owned slaves, but those 10% owned 99.9% of all slaves. Would you then say, well percentage-wise, the Jews are clearly responsible for this institution? This is bordering on the absurd.
No because the raw numbers are so unbelievably small it doesn't even make much sense. Let's say only 10% of gentiles owned slaves, but those 10% owned 99.9% of all slaves. Would you then say, well percentage-wise, the Jews are clearly responsible for this institution? This is bordering on the absurd.
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 9 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,190
@932,154 (A)
> Why are you answering my question with another question instead of an answer?
Because you're asking a question that has already been answered. You seem to be eager to point out that the sign by itself isn't racist, but all your 'rational' thinking only takes place in a vacuum. I'm trying to figure out if you can see how someone might construe it as racist.
@932,161 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Fuck off with your bullshit
You sound real open minded.
> Why are you answering my question with another question instead of an answer?
Because you're asking a question that has already been answered. You seem to be eager to point out that the sign by itself isn't racist, but all your 'rational' thinking only takes place in a vacuum. I'm trying to figure out if you can see how someone might construe it as racist.
@932,161 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Fuck off with your bullshit
You sound real open minded.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,191
@previous (C)
It's only racist to those who want to make into a something racist. The intention of the poster is not racist. You also know that.
It's only racist to those who want to make into a something racist. The intention of the poster is not racist. You also know that.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,194
@932,187 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
If Lindbergh and Trump both agree on America First - but little else - does it really mean much?
If Lindbergh and Trump both agree on America First - but little else - does it really mean much?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 29 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,195
@932,184 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
I think there's overlap yeah. That march was organized by a bunch of what were up until that point online-only communities of far right people.
@932,173 (A)
I'm busy doing some political canvassing leading up to the election (I encourage everyone here to do the same!), but ill watch these after I'm free.
I think there's overlap yeah. That march was organized by a bunch of what were up until that point online-only communities of far right people.
@932,173 (A)
I'm busy doing some political canvassing leading up to the election (I encourage everyone here to do the same!), but ill watch these after I'm free.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 41 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,196
@932,189 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I don't think that they are responsible, but they should be scrutinized because such a high number owned slaves
I don't think that they are responsible, but they should be scrutinized because such a high number owned slaves
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 25 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,197
@932,195 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Awesome. Also everybody should vote indeed. I think we don't disagree that much as you may think. But we can talk about the growing anti-Semitism somewhere else.
Awesome. Also everybody should vote indeed. I think we don't disagree that much as you may think. But we can talk about the growing anti-Semitism somewhere else.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 13 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,198
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 10 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,201
@932,196 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I'd agree if the numbers weren't minuscule. I can't find stats but it's feeling like jews were 0.0005% of the population and they owned 0.001% of the slaves. Again, there isn't enough time in the world to explain how much slavery was unconscionably wrong, but this feels like weirdly narrow focus. If there were three Chinese families in the entire south and two of them owned a total of 9 slaves, would we say the Chinese should face extra scrutiny because 66% of them owned slaves? It just feels weird to be that committed to percentages when the raw numbers are so comparatively small.
I'd agree if the numbers weren't minuscule. I can't find stats but it's feeling like jews were 0.0005% of the population and they owned 0.001% of the slaves. Again, there isn't enough time in the world to explain how much slavery was unconscionably wrong, but this feels like weirdly narrow focus. If there were three Chinese families in the entire south and two of them owned a total of 9 slaves, would we say the Chinese should face extra scrutiny because 66% of them owned slaves? It just feels weird to be that committed to percentages when the raw numbers are so comparatively small.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 9 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,204
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Yes I would say that they deserve extra scrutiny
Also their were more Jewish people than that. You found 6 in one city, but you keep using that number like its all of the Jews
I look at black people the same way. 12% of the population but 50% of crimes. Numbers like this matter
Yes I would say that they deserve extra scrutiny
Also their were more Jewish people than that. You found 6 in one city, but you keep using that number like its all of the Jews
I look at black people the same way. 12% of the population but 50% of crimes. Numbers like this matter
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,205
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Ok, I can't fault you on your consistency. I just don't know how to convey the point I'm making in a better way so I think we'll just have to disagree here for reasons I don't quite understand.
Ok, I can't fault you on your consistency. I just don't know how to convey the point I'm making in a better way so I think we'll just have to disagree here for reasons I don't quite understand.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,209
@932,204 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I don't have a dog in this fight (don't know or care if Jews owned more or less slaves per capita, or were better or worse as slave owners, than Gentiles) but using the Jewish-owned slave population of one city, then dividing it by the entire state of Georgia slave population seems a bit off.
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I don't have a dog in this fight (don't know or care if Jews owned more or less slaves per capita, or were better or worse as slave owners, than Gentiles) but using the Jewish-owned slave population of one city, then dividing it by the entire state of Georgia slave population seems a bit off.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,211
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Yeah that's fair, but finding stats from that far back is hard, and even if there were like 100x that number in the state, it wouldn't change the point I'm making, which is that the total number of slaves held by jews is a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the overall number of slaves.
Yeah that's fair, but finding stats from that far back is hard, and even if there were like 100x that number in the state, it wouldn't change the point I'm making, which is that the total number of slaves held by jews is a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the overall number of slaves.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 23 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,222
@932,209 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Its was 40% for the whole country with some counties it being much higher
Its was 40% for the whole country with some counties it being much higher
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,224
@932,211 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> the total number of slaves held by jews is a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the overall number of slaves.
I wouldn't doubt that. I mean today Jews are, what, ~2.5% of the American population? I think it was even less back then so I would definitely agree at least 99% of slaves were not Jewish-held.
Apart from the Nation of Islam, is Jewish involvement in slavery a hot topic? I haven't seen people get excited about it outside of that context before.
> the total number of slaves held by jews is a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the overall number of slaves.
I wouldn't doubt that. I mean today Jews are, what, ~2.5% of the American population? I think it was even less back then so I would definitely agree at least 99% of slaves were not Jewish-held.
Apart from the Nation of Islam, is Jewish involvement in slavery a hot topic? I haven't seen people get excited about it outside of that context before.
Anonymous E replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,225
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 19 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,231
@932,191 (A)
> The intention of the poster is not racist.
@932,050 (A)
> Nobody knows who put them on, so all we can do is guess.
Pick one.
> The intention of the poster is not racist.
@932,050 (A)
> Nobody knows who put them on, so all we can do is guess.
Pick one.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 32 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,243
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 52 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,297
@932,231 (C)
Pick what? They're two different things. If you can't discern that there's no use continuing.
Pick what? They're two different things. If you can't discern that there's no use continuing.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 7 years ago, 35 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,298
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 33 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,317
@932,297 (A)
It's really simple. If you don't know who posted them or why, then you can't make statements about the intent of the posters.
It's really simple. If you don't know who posted them or why, then you can't make statements about the intent of the posters.
hamfist !Ly73F8lTq6 joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 2 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,366
@932,043 (A)
oh right, /pol/ and not some insane racists. that's a relief.
oh right, /pol/ and not some insane racists. that's a relief.
(Edited 26 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 4 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,410
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 8 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,416
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,417
@932,366 (hamfist !Ly73F8lTq6)
If you think /pol/ is just white kids I'll let you believe that cuz it's funny indeed.
If you think /pol/ is just white kids I'll let you believe that cuz it's funny indeed.
Anonymous E replied with this 7 years ago, 5 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #932,542
@previous (A)
> If you think /pol/ is just white kids I'll let you believe that cuz it's funny indeed.
lol
> If you think /pol/ is just white kids I'll let you believe that cuz it's funny indeed.
lol