Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by AzogtheDefiler, Aug 7, 2018.
Any one can be racist, thought everyone knew that.
Start paying attention to the rhetoric coming out of the universities. It’s been going on for the past 10 years (really longer) but has been rising in prominence. The graduates coming out with “only whites can be racist in America” post-modernist rhetoric are starting to take over HR departments, manegerial posistions, etc. Post-Modernism is there to burn down what you or I consider common sense.
To be simple, I am concerned we are arguing out of the habit or arguing.
I think its obvious whites, blacks, asians, whoever can be racist. Heck, leave too many whites together and a Croatian can spot a Serb from a mile away. Too many black sand apparently they'll sell eachother to the whites. Our asian brothers aren't as good as eachother if they haven't fled the mainland or something.
About left and right:
Its really time to get out the political X/Y coordinate chart. But yeah, every time someone tells me they have a black friend I try to push their KKK support button to see what I get. In other words, when ppl tell me welfare was invented to enslave blacks I also probe about the KKK. In regards to Neo Nazi's and being socialist. Its good that neither party wants to associate with the scum of the earth. The X/Y coordinate chart wraps just like a globe and the NAZI's got purged.
Just to argue:
The left leaning MS media? Who we talking about here? Fox news? General Electric? Some other multi-billion dollar international conglomerate hippies? If Fox is left of you then so be it. I'll give you that before the Rush revolution the average journalism student was there to fight the power, comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Those folks are still alive I suppose.
I'm saddened that this sort of behavior is being taught in university. Academia seems to want to change the meaning of words to fit into a narrow new agenda of identity politics that defies reason. It's irresponsible and the repercussions seem to be affecting society in a negative fashion by alienating large swaths of demographics.
I'm sure it seems silly to some to say this currently, but I was raised that there is no such thing as 'black racism', 'white racism', etc, but simply racism. I believe it still applies no matter what party you belong to, but it seems the purveyors of identity politics seek to change all that by changing the definitions of words and phrases that have been in use since the birth of our nation. Why? I couldn't tell you for certain, but the narrative seems to be based completely upon feelings and emotion rather than facts and ideas.
Quotes like the one from Jeong should be purged from the get go, but it would seem newsrooms have drastically changed over the last decade from my experience. An individual with such caustic opinions about skin color would have never made it through the vetting process for an Editorship, because these are supposed to be the arbiters of objectivity for your publication. Divisive opinions effect the publisher's bottom line. Since print media has been withering on the vine in terms of revenue generation for decades, there's little margin for error.
First proofreaders were scrapped due to attrition. Then internet/social media became a new tool in the media arsenal to increase viewership and revenue. Reporters are required to wear several hats as content creators for print, web and social media in a job that pays in the neighborhood of $25-30k per year. Some print media companies have merged with local TV news companies to cut costs even further.
Add in the creation of non-traditional media outlets like bloggers, YouTube and other social media, the line of objectivity gets blurred even more. Social media are platforms rooted in narcissism, so objectivity seems counter intuitive. Corporations own the platforms, so they are the gatekeepers to censoring content using constantly evolving standards. This has to be a gargantuan task, so some automation is likely required, even though I personally disagree with it on principle. Manpower is a finite resource. I can only assume many things fall through the cracks.
In closing, I believe the overall quality of actual 'news' has suffered greatly because of a dramatic increase in the sheer number of outlets available for 'news'. The overlap skews this content. Since the ever ongoing goal of outlets is to get the content out there first (fact-checking be damned), quantity over quality will continue to be the norm.
Or we disagree on how big of a problem anti-white racism is. Which was my point. It’s no longer a small group of loons, it’s prominent theory being pushed in universities. This is post-modernism, there is no absolute truth, absolute truth is just something the powerful use to oppress the weak. It’s essientially communism but substituting power instead of wealth/economics. Under this theory, in the US, calling out racism against whites as racism, is the powerful (whites), trying to still oppressing the weak (non-whites). And since there’s no absolute truth, only power games, it’s all fair game to be racist to the powerful. It’s the same reason that universities like Harvard are fine with being openely prejudice towards Asians in their admissions since they are a more “powerful” (as in are generally strong in academics) group. Same reason that if you’re white, or male, or heterosexual, etc, you have no room to speak or give opinions on matters of race, feminism, or LGBT issues, since you are apart of the power group. It’s the same reason why white privelage, based on immutable characteristics, holds water in the mainstream, and if you’re white (no matter your circumstances) you are supposed to confess to you’re privelage, and fight against your own “power group.” It’s why Scarlet Johansson isn’t allowed to portray a transgendered in a movie. There is no “reason” or “truth”, only the powerful oppressing the weak. You either fight for the “oppressed”, or fight for the “powerful” and are 100% in the wrong no matter what.
We certainly agree that racism isn’t limited to just whites. My first post in this thread was racism is just a pathological symptom of tribalism. Tribalism is an evolutionary adaptation of sorts that is a bit outdated, but did serve early humanity when there was considerable risk of being wiped out, raided, or enslaved by another tribe, and also not contracting disease, for which you and your tribe has no immunity against. We see this pathological tribalism between homogenous racial groups all the time. Croats vs Serbs is a good example, others are the rawandan genocide, catholic vs Protestant Irish, Britain vs France, Suni vs Shiite, etc. You can even see tribalism, to a lesser pathological level, in sports fans. Racism is just an easier form of pathological tribalism to fall into since one can tell right of the bat that someone else is different. Post-modernism not only encourages this type of tribalism, but embraces the pathology to it. You are apart of a tribe, that tribe is either the oppressor or the oppressed, and you need to either fight for the oppressed tribe, or you are in with the evil oppressors.
I don’t like the European/traditional political spectrum, it’s does not do a sufficient job describe American politics. You can’t have diametrically opposes groups such as national socialist (Nazis) and libertarians both considered far right. That’s not a good classification method. Both ends of the European spectrum both want extreme government control, one is just with a nationalistic veneer, the other more globailistic, with anarchy right in the center of both.
That being said, I consider Fox News as the main, and really only, mainstream media source for the right. Now there are definitely other right wing media sources, and some with quite an impressive reach. These, however, do not hold a candle to the large scale operations and outfits that I consider mainstream. I think fox blows, as well as the rest of mainstream media. If I was forced to choose one to watch/read an hour a day, with current state of politics, it’s probably be Fox since I’d throw the remote at the TV with less frequency vs the likes of CNN. Mainstream media just blows, it’s an outdated medium, that reduces complex issues into six minute segments with heads screaming at each other, not even having the same conversation, let alone honest and intellectual ones. They go after “click bait” headlines, and just rile up the base as their business models. It’s why it’s a dying formula, and cannot die fast enough in my opinion. Even though it is dying, they still retain a substantial power grip over the political conversations and topics with their “click bait” headlines.
On the tangent of political spectrum's, check out this site. It's test is interesting to say the least but I love the idea behind it. The Political Compass
I saw something similar before, concepts like this are better at mapping the spectrum. I thought you were referring to this type of thing, when talking about X,Y. This particular site I see as waaaay off in their analysis. They list both Hillary and Johnson further right than trump, with Jill stein closest to the center (as well as the only person on the left), as well as less authoritarian than Johnson...when she’s an admitted socialist. This seems like a man ad created for the Green Party/Stein, in that its trying to tell people, you don’t want Hillary, trump, or Johnson...Jill is actually kind of normal. This chart is just bizarre, what on earth are their thresholds and methods??
And yet, in the OP, there was a clear example given.
Seems that the only one lying here is you...
I dunno, I have taken it a couple times over the years and end up a few left of center and a few down myself. They separate personal freedoms into the up / down and economic into the left / right so they way I like to regulate businesses drives me left of center and the way I "fight the power" of the NSA to watch me drives me down. Its a long series of questions and they have a somewhat British point of view so read carefully.
Oh well there’s the problem. If you’re for freer markets that should move you center, there is so little difference between far right and far left economic policies (economics makes up a large part of these philosophies). You could pretty much copy and paste Sen. Warrens tariff policies pre-trump onto what trump is saying now. Bernie is for tarrifs as well. I mean I guess it kind of makes sense in American politics, but the problem is while the rhetoric and focus may be different from the far left and right, their solutions and what they put into practice are very similar. I say with go with the European model, and recognize that anarchy is dead center, and things like constitutionalist, classic liberal (Jeffersonian), and libertarian flank very close to either side of anarchy. Or make a Y, have the bottom of the spectrum be anarchy, have the right tip be for fascism, the left tip for communism (no one ever said spectrums have to move from side to side), so there’s less to no govt control at the bottom, government control gets progressively higher and branches off on whatever the driving rhetoric is. Yea economics are the cannons of these philosophies, yes the social issues do matter, but are secondary and always changing with the culture and times.
Plus no way in hell is Jill stein that center. Their center is waaay off. She’s a self proclaimed socialist, pretty much a Bernie Sanders with an emphasis on the environment. Or trump that far right, he should be more center since he talks about lower taxes and less regulation, but also advocates for tariffs and single payer healthcare. Yea I’m not a fan of that compass.
Separate names with a comma.