CDZ Why is racism ok if the target is white?

[JoeB131]

How many neighborhoods and cities are already virtual no-go zones for whites in America?

Zero. Never saw a neighborhood I couldn't go into.

How much of the population speaks a language other than English in their homes?

Okay... but that wasn't the argument being made here. The argument was no "english" it was "European". Guess what, for that 25% of the population that speaks some Spanish... Spanish is still a European Language.

 

[JoeB131]

Thank you for being the first to prove the validity of the op by using such an extremely racist buzz term .

It takes a special type of world view to claim these kids are privileged

That picture goes back what looks like 70 years. If you have to go back 70 years to find a picture of white folks living in misery, it tells me that you are kind of making my point for me.

 

[JoeB131]

So, being poor and white, I would like to tap into this hidden goldmine of white privilege. Did I miss something? I must have missed the gravy train. Opps. Could you rich white privileged people share the secret code with us poor whites.? Sorry, we are a little slow.

I'm sure you did miss something. while I find it amusing that you seem to think that you are put upon because of your own failures.

So on Twitter one is banned because she used the word black in racist tweets and the other one is still in good standing in spite of her using the word white in her racist tweets. And they were the exact same tweets they just changed one word, from white to black.

Except they weren't in the same context. What we didn't see in the tweets from Ms. Joeng were all the posts she was responding to, which were full of racist and misogynistic invective, which is what she was responding to.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

This is sad. I am not one who looks back on a golden age of the New York Times when it was a neutral newspaper.

NYT was never neutral. There was a time when they had to do a better job of masking it though. Standards have really lowered, and their coverage reflects that.

 

[JoeB131]

I live near what used to was 23rd Ave Park avenue in Denver. Here in Colorado. They renamed it "Martin Luther King Drive". It amazes me, renaming and being so politically correct. I still call it 23rd avenue. And well, MLK was never EVER here either. Why rename it? We see all the statues torn down in the south to historical figures that actually lived there being torn down and erased. Because it offends certain popular groups. Well, history isn't like that, it can't be rearranged to suit current political opinions. You can't just make inconvenient truths go away because it offends. Nope.

I think there is a difference between taking down a statue of a racist and "erasing" him. Obviously, most people probably never thought of a statue of General Nathan Bedford Forest while driving past it because they spend maybe three days on the Civil War in High School, and don't know he was a slave trader, a war criminal and the founder of a hate group, the KKK.

But once you point it out, there's no reason to keep his statue up.

 

[Pilot1]

I live near what used to was 23rd Ave Park avenue in Denver. Here in Colorado. They renamed it "Martin Luther King Drive". It amazes me, renaming and being so politically correct. I still call it 23rd avenue. And well, MLK was never EVER here either. Why rename it?

It is the politicians way of virtue signaling to their constituents. Instead of doing anything meaningful to help them, they rename a street to make themselves look good. Have you noticed that almost everywhere there is an MLK Blvd in a big city it is in, or borders the worst areas of those cities? But, hey, the politicians did something, right?

 

[Mac1958]

I live near what used to was 23rd Ave Park avenue in Denver. Here in Colorado. They renamed it "Martin Luther King Drive". It amazes me, renaming and being so politically correct. I still call it 23rd avenue. And well, MLK was never EVER here either. Why rename it?

It is the politicians way of virtue signaling to their constituents. Instead of doing anything meaningful to help them, they rename a street to make themselves look good. Have you noticed that almost everywhere there is an MLK Blvd in a big city it is in, or borders the worst areas of those cities? But, hey, the politicians did something, right?

Pandering, fund-raising and re-election are their top priorities, always.
.

 

[night_son]

Racism is an ugly thing, one that can have enormously harmful effects on society. One would hope that this would be recognized by people on all sides, but sadly this is not often the case.

In recent years, I have noticed an increase in racism. First, there has been an increase in antisemitic language on various sites that appear to be associated with people who identify as the alt-right. Second, there has been an increase in anti-white language from people, especially minorities, on the left.

Both trends are disturbing. But I find the latter trend to be more dangerous in one important way. While the racists on the alt-right are generally condemned by “respectable” society, the racists on the left are often tolerated by the left wing part of such society.

There is no justification for this differential treatment. Racism – hatred of racial groups rather than of individuals for their actions – is pernicious. Since humans are so group-oriented, racism appears to be tempting, but that means that social norms need to condemn it strongly and consistently.

The most recent, high visible toleration of left wing racism is by the New York Times, which hired Sarah Jeong. Jeong has a first-rate left-wing resume, but her Twitter feed is filled with outrageously racist tweets, such as “Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men” and “Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”

If these were tweets of a white person or a right winger, the New York Times would never, ever hire that person. Why would they hire Jeong?

Her public apology for the tweets is very weak – it suggests she did it in retaliation of harassment, but it does not appear all of the tweets were in response to such actions.

This is sad. I am not one who looks back on a golden age of the New York Times when it was a neutral newspaper. But I have to admit things appear to have gotten much worse in recent years. This type of action not only harms society, but also harms the reputation of an institution which it is hard to respect, despite it being the “leading newspaper in the nation.”

The Racism of New York Times Reporter Sarah Jeong - Law & Liberty


Now I doubt that all Lefties support this any more than all righties support racism against anyone else, but still the NY Times hires this person? Anybody want to take a whack at explaining why this isn't highly hypocritical? Yes, the Times can hire whoever they want, but can you imagine the outcry if Fox News hired a person who said the exact same thing about any minority you car to name?

Not even a paradigm shift really, as this trend is more fruit of identity politics and intersectionality for all Americans to see and now consume. The Left exploits minorities into being weapons against the so-called male, white, Modernist Western patriarchy. The Left cares nothing for minority individuals, only whole race groups. All seems to be progressing for the radical progressives according to their beloved mini-narrative. After the Left abandons minority groups, when all political fuel has been wrung out of them, I wonder if minorities will still want to hate majorities so damn much? Or will they turn to the Leftist opposition for a newer, genuine voice?

 

[Lysistrata]

The problem lies with the kind of identity politics in which a person combines his or her skin color, ethnic background, sex, religion, or sexual orientation and then uses one or several of these characteristics, depending on which characteristic is at issue in the particular circumstance, to try to establish superiority over their opponent. These people come in groups. And they are going to experience backlash from the people they are disparaging, who are going to return fire in kind.

It must be noted here that not all people with the same set of characteristics misbehaves in this fashion. I would like to think that only a minority does.

While what Jeong said sounds evil, before judging her, I would have to know what kinds of comments she has been exposed to, if there were any comments involving her sex, her ethnic background, the fact that she immigrated to the U.S., her religion, etc., and who made them and what the characteristics of these people who made them are.

 

[Papageorgio]

So, being poor and white, I would like to tap into this hidden goldmine of white privilege. Did I miss something? I must have missed the gravy train. Opps. Could you rich white privileged people share the secret code with us poor whites.? Sorry, we are a little slow.

I'm sure you did miss something. while I find it amusing that you seem to think that you are put upon because of your own failures.

So on Twitter one is banned because she used the word black in racist tweets and the other one is still in good standing in spite of her using the word white in her racist tweets. And they were the exact same tweets they just changed one word, from white to black.

Except they weren't in the same context. What we didn't see in the tweets from Ms. Joeng were all the posts she was responding to, which were full of racist and misogynistic invective, which is what she was responding to.

Do you have the link? Thank you.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Why do you need to ask this question?

The regressive left have an Agenda. That Agenda is to eradicate white European culture they hate so much. So yea, of course racism against whites is OK.

Once you accept that fact, nothing the left does should surprise you.

Race is at all levels, blacks go on skin tone, whites on country and skin tone, they all are raciest they just don't admit it. The media make no big deal out of it.

 

[MikeK]

The Progressive narrative is that White people, especially White Males have had it too good for too long. That's what all the White Privilege nonsense is all about. Now it is time for retribution, and punishment of White Males in order to "even the score" for minorities, and women.

It is done in the name of diversity, multiculturalism, inclusiveness, fairness, etc, but it is more about getting back at what is perceived as the boogie man.

There is a reason why White males have had it good for so long and that reason has been voluntarily vacated by White males who have pathetically surrendered much of their advantage in the name of equality. But whether the giant in this great social drama is sleeping or dead remains to be seen.

 

[Papageorgio]

White privilege, ah, that magic unicorn of the deluded left. Mostly rich privileged white or black activists suffer from that delusion or mental defect. If I have this so called "white privilege", where can I find it? Because I can use all the help I can get.

You get it every time an HR person reads your resume and sees you have a white name, and you get a call when someone with a non-white name doesn't, even if they have the same qualifications.

You get it when a cop gives you a pass for going 5 MPH over the posted speed limit when a person of color gets pulled over and his car searched.

The vast majority of HR people don't even come close to your scenario, I have hired and fired for years and I don't care what you look like or who you are, you either can or can't do the job and that is all that matters. I will also say I do know that there are ignorant people where the color of ones skin matters, however many companies don't care, the bottom line is what counts.

 

[Syriusly]

Racism is an ugly thing, one that can have enormously harmful effects on society. One would hope that this would be recognized by people on all sides, but sadly this is not often the case.

In recent years, I have noticed an increase in racism. First, there has been an increase in antisemitic language on various sites that appear to be associated with people who identify as the alt-right. Second, there has been an increase in anti-white language from people, especially minorities, on the left.

Both trends are disturbing. But I find the latter trend to be more dangerous in one important way. While the racists on the alt-right are generally condemned by “respectable” society, the racists on the left are often tolerated by the left wing part of such society.

There is no justification for this differential treatment. Racism – hatred of racial groups rather than of individuals for their actions – is pernicious. Since humans are so group-oriented, racism appears to be tempting, but that means that social norms need to condemn it strongly and consistently.

The most recent, high visible toleration of left wing racism is by the New York Times, which hired Sarah Jeong. Jeong has a first-rate left-wing resume, but her Twitter feed is filled with outrageously racist tweets, such as “Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men” and “Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”

If these were tweets of a white person or a right winger, the New York Times would never, ever hire that person. Why would they hire Jeong?

Her public apology for the tweets is very weak – it suggests she did it in retaliation of harassment, but it does not appear all of the tweets were in response to such actions.

This is sad. I am not one who looks back on a golden age of the New York Times when it was a neutral newspaper. But I have to admit things appear to have gotten much worse in recent years. This type of action not only harms society, but also harms the reputation of an institution which it is hard to respect, despite it being the “leading newspaper in the nation.”

The Racism of New York Times Reporter Sarah Jeong - Law & Liberty


Now I doubt that all Lefties support this any more than all righties support racism against anyone else, but still the NY Times hires this person? Anybody want to take a whack at explaining why this isn't highly hypocritical? Yes, the Times can hire whoever they want, but can you imagine the outcry if Fox News hired a person who said the exact same thing about any minority you car to name?

I am against all racism. But I notice you left out entirely her own remarks on the issue:

I have seen plenty of posters here at USMB do very similar things.

Not smart in today since the internet never forgets unless it is Trump's tweets.

 

[JoeB131]

Do you have the link? Thank you.

Don't have to provide a link, I was merely asking the question, what was she responding to...

 

[JoeB131]

The vast majority of HR people don't even come close to your scenario, I have hired and fired for years and I don't care what you look like or who you are, you either can or can't do the job and that is all that matters. I will also say I do know that there are ignorant people where the color of ones skin matters, however many companies don't care, the bottom line is what counts.

Okay, your testimonial aside, they've done studies on this.

Guess what, Resumes with names like "Greg" and "Emily" get more callbacks than "Jamal" and "Lakisha".

Do job-seekers with 'white' names get more callbacks than 'black' names?

https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf

 

[gallantwarrior]

White privilege, ah, that magic unicorn of the deluded left. Mostly rich privileged white or black activists suffer from that delusion or mental defect. If I have this so called "white privilege", where can I find it? Because I can use all the help I can get.

You get it every time an HR person reads your resume and sees you have a white name, and you get a call when someone with a non-white name doesn't, even if they have the same qualifications.

You get it when a cop gives you a pass for going 5 MPH over the posted speed limit when a person of color gets pulled over and his car searched.

OK, I'll bite, what are "white" names, and what are "non-white" names?

 

[MikeK]

[...]

I am against all racism. But I notice you left out entirely her own remarks on the issue:

[...]

"Racism" is an over-used, often misused word. Please tell us what your definition of that word is. What exactly do you mean by, "racism."

 

[Papageorgio]

The vast majority of HR people don't even come close to your scenario, I have hired and fired for years and I don't care what you look like or who you are, you either can or can't do the job and that is all that matters. I will also say I do know that there are ignorant people where the color of ones skin matters, however many companies don't care, the bottom line is what counts.

Okay, your testimonial aside, they've done studies on this.

Guess what, Resumes with names like "Greg" and "Emily" get more callbacks than "Jamal" and "Lakisha".

Do job-seekers with 'white' names get more callbacks than 'black' names?

https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf

So an unscientific study conducted 16 years ago is the basis of your facts. Interesting point, however I disagree.

 

[Papageorgio]

Do you have the link? Thank you.

Don't have to provide a link, I was merely asking the question, what was she responding to...

Here is what you said, “Except they weren't in the same context. What we didn't see in the tweets from Ms. Joeng were all the posts she was responding to, which were full of racist and misogynistic invective, which is what she was responding to.” Where is the question? You made a statement, if you can’t back up your accusation, I’m good with that.