An Honest Discussion of White Privilege, by Two White Guys

[Uncensored2008]

Yeah they need to start teaching ebonics instead of english. They need to start teaching how to build slums in history class. And most importantly they need to change IQ tests to make you look smart. What kind of questions should they put on IQ tests that would make you look smart? Stuff like does white privilege exist? ROFL

Asslips designs an IQ test; here are the questions in math:

Tyrone an Jamal gots fity dollahs. They wants to buys some new kicks, but the kick cost $75, how much be they short?

A.) **** ******
B.) **** ******
C.) **** ******
D.) All of the above

In Science:

Water is composed of 3 atoms; what are they?

A.) **** ******
B.) **** ******
C.) **** ******
D.) All of the above

In history:

The dawn of sea exploration by white devils was driven by what desire?

A.) **** ******
B.) **** ******
C.) **** ******
D.) All of the above

And the most important quesiton:

What race are you?

A.) Black and superior
B.) Honkey muthafucka cracka
C.) ****
D.) Chink

SCORING:

Score the test on the last question only. If the answer is A - IQ is 200. If the answer is B - IQ is 20, if the answer is C - IQ is yo mamma is ho, if the answer is D - IQ is 100

To Asslips, this would be a fair IQ test.

 

[Yarddog]

Curious about peopel who like to bring up the white privilage thing so much. I imagine they themselves dont want to be judged but they sure love judging others. lots of people in the world have privilage for different reasons and others dont for different reasons so what?

People who whine about this ... is it that they feel lack of opportunity? constantly talking about who got a head start. They are the subscribers to ' There is only so much Pie to go around '

They feel they havnt got their fair share of the pie because someone else got it first or got it easier.
While there is truth to this that they tap in to .... they constantly blind themselves to the the fact that
they as human beings are an amazing creation.... we all have powerful minds and abilities when we
focus to tap into it.

And the real solution is to create more pie not ***** about the pie you didnt get ... create more opportunities for yourself . there are always going to be people of every color or race who cannot do this there will always be poor people but pointing fingers at each other does what exactly?

That theory is exactly why an immigrant from asia can come here barely knowing english and make themselves into a great success. they are not focused on what someone took from them but rather the opportunity they see before them

You are doing the same thing a lot of posters have done. The question is not what to do about it. That has already been figured out even before I was born. The question is does it exist and why do white men get so emotionally distraught about it enough to claim it doesn't exist and deflect the topic? Your post sounds like an admission that it does in fact exist without actually using those words but yet you deflect into giving a solution Blacks have already figured out.

whether white people become emotionally distraught abou t your question is a matter of your own interpretation. I have a feeling you get off on the feeling of Glee you get .... because you seem to me to be a very competitive person by your posts.

Why you dont understand the reason many white people may come to odds with your position is your failure to see that peoples live have many complexities. While America
is predominately White, they didnt all come here at the same time, nor for the same reasons and under the same circumstances. When you look at a white man I think that is all you see, fine. It is the liberal/progressive way to want to put people into neat little
categories, as it makes it easier for the ideology to fit. In the end its about control.
your question ... the end game eventually is about control

 

[Asclepias]

Curious about peopel who like to bring up the white privilage thing so much. I imagine they themselves dont want to be judged but they sure love judging others. lots of people in the world have privilage for different reasons and others dont for different reasons so what?

People who whine about this ... is it that they feel lack of opportunity? constantly talking about who got a head start. They are the subscribers to ' There is only so much Pie to go around '

They feel they havnt got their fair share of the pie because someone else got it first or got it easier.
While there is truth to this that they tap in to .... they constantly blind themselves to the the fact that
they as human beings are an amazing creation.... we all have powerful minds and abilities when we
focus to tap into it.

And the real solution is to create more pie not ***** about the pie you didnt get ... create more opportunities for yourself . there are always going to be people of every color or race who cannot do this there will always be poor people but pointing fingers at each other does what exactly?

That theory is exactly why an immigrant from asia can come here barely knowing english and make themselves into a great success. they are not focused on what someone took from them but rather the opportunity they see before them

You are doing the same thing a lot of posters have done. The question is not what to do about it. That has already been figured out even before I was born. The question is does it exist and why do white men get so emotionally distraught about it enough to claim it doesn't exist and deflect the topic? Your post sounds like an admission that it does in fact exist without actually using those words but yet you deflect into giving a solution Blacks have already figured out.

whether white people become emotionally distraught abou t your question is a matter of your own interpretation. I have a feeling you get off on the feeling of Glee you get .... because you seem to me to be a very competitive person by your posts.

Why you dont understand the reason many white people may come to odds with your position is your failure to see that peoples live have many complexities. While America
is predominately White, they didnt all come here at the same time, nor for the same reasons and under the same circumstances. When you look at a white man I think that is all you see, fine. It is the liberal/progressive way to want to put people into neat little
categories, as it makes it easier for the ideology to fit. In the end its about control.
your question ... the end game eventually is about control

Its not just my interpretation nor only the interpretation of Black people. White guys have said the same thing. its emotionally distressing for insecure white guys to admit to white privilege. When someone pulls all kind of maneuvers to avoid the topic its clear sign the topic is disturbing to them. If it wasn't they would offer a logical argument.

White privilege has nothing to do with white complexities. Its pretty simple. If you are white you have more of a chance to get ahead than a Black person. You dont have anything holding you back other than your initiative. Black people have retarded racists, bigots, and societal prejudice to deal with. That doesn't even cover the indoctrination to white superiority known as white history. Columbus discovered America remember? The Greeks made up the Pythagorean theorem right?

 

[Montrovant]

Who said AA was evidence that white men never had the ability to compete on a level playing field? The reaction to AA and the denial of the existence of white privilege is the evidence white men never had the ability to compete on a level playing field. If insecure white men truly had confidence they could compete then the mention of white privilege would be easy to admit to. AA would not be seen as discrimination. Your words and reactions tell on you. Do you really think no one sees it?

AA is not a vile racist act simply because it also benefits white men via white women being the group that has benefited primarily from AA. Another reason it would not be a vile racist act is because it is correcting the economic imbalance created by 400 years of white mens AA. If you had of manned up and played fair from the beginning there would be no need for any type of AA. As it is you needed a significant head start for 400 years and still continue to whine and deny white privilege.

I never said it was vile that a white woman benefitted from AA. Now you are just thrashing around looking for something. They were also the victims of white mens insecurity and little dick syndrome. The point is that ultimately those dollars from those jobs benefit the white man primarily as most white women are married to white men. its ok but lets not pretend thats not the case.

Why would pointing out the truth promote racial strife and why would it concern me if it did? i dont care what you find aggravating. You cant do anything about it even if you wanted to. Truth should never promote racial strife. Suggesting it would is a sign of intellectual immaturity.

I wonder how, if white men needed a significant head start, how did they get ahead in the first place? If they are so inferior, as you seem to be claiming, how were they able to oppress women and minorities to begin with?

If the reaction of some white men to AA and white privilege shows that white men never had the ability to compete on a level playing field, what does it mean that other white men have different reactions to AA and white privilege? Or does that not matter because it doesn't play into your own racism?

While I would agree that it is very likely that most married white women are married to white men, I don't know that simply saying most white women are married to white men is accurate. Between white women married to non-whites, the few but growing number married to women, and those not married at all, I don't know where the numbers stand, and I'm curious about where you get yours.

You are strangely inconsistent in your argument. If white men are so deficient, it makes little sense that they would have been in a position to oppress others for so long. Instead, I think that you have reacted to white bigotry, real or perceived, with racism of your own against whites, white men in particular.

Its pretty simple how they got ahead in the first place. With their women they were physically stronger and could subject them to their whims. With other men, it had to be through trickery. Europeans lived in a land poor in resources. This caused the hyper competitiveness and aggression other races simply had no need for. They knew of the civilizations built in Egypt and West Africa overflowing with gold. They understood that the only way to gain a foothold was create the illusion that they were interested in commerce. Once in they had superior weapons borne of this need to be aggressive and warlike. If you notice most white cultures hold war as a sign of progress instead of sad and uncivilized.

Pretty sure most white women are married to white men. I'd like to see your numbers disputing that.

I'm not being inconsistent. I think you have just proved that you think differently. You think oppressing people makes you great or superior. Thats seems to be the MO with white cultures. Civilized people don't think like that. Of course I have reacted to white bigotry. I dont understand the need for it. Why the whole charade by changing history to make it seem like you are more than what you are? If you are a man stand up and do your thing but dont lie and change things to appear as if you are superior. The truth always comes out because you cant cover everything up with a non complicated lie.

I don't need to provide any numbers, as I wasn't disputing anything. I was merely questioning whether you had any data on which you based your statement or if it was an assumption. Have you used census data or something to show you that most white women are married to white men? Or is it just something you think is true but don't have statistics for?

So white men are the only ones who lived in a low resource environment, the only ones aggressive and warlike? White culture holds war as a sign of progress while the rest of the world is peaceful and civilized?

I never said nor implied that oppressing people makes one greater. I questioned the logic of saying that white men have never been able to compete on a level playing field. I wondered how, if white men are the lazy slobs you make them out to be, they were able to create societies in which they oppressed other races. You provided an answer with claims of hyper aggressiveness and competitiveness which seems at odds with a people unable to work as hard as other races.

You say you see no reason for white bigotry while promoting your own bigotry.

 

[Asclepias]

I wonder how, if white men needed a significant head start, how did they get ahead in the first place? If they are so inferior, as you seem to be claiming, how were they able to oppress women and minorities to begin with?

If the reaction of some white men to AA and white privilege shows that white men never had the ability to compete on a level playing field, what does it mean that other white men have different reactions to AA and white privilege? Or does that not matter because it doesn't play into your own racism?

While I would agree that it is very likely that most married white women are married to white men, I don't know that simply saying most white women are married to white men is accurate. Between white women married to non-whites, the few but growing number married to women, and those not married at all, I don't know where the numbers stand, and I'm curious about where you get yours.

You are strangely inconsistent in your argument. If white men are so deficient, it makes little sense that they would have been in a position to oppress others for so long. Instead, I think that you have reacted to white bigotry, real or perceived, with racism of your own against whites, white men in particular.

Its pretty simple how they got ahead in the first place. With their women they were physically stronger and could subject them to their whims. With other men, it had to be through trickery. Europeans lived in a land poor in resources. This caused the hyper competitiveness and aggression other races simply had no need for. They knew of the civilizations built in Egypt and West Africa overflowing with gold. They understood that the only way to gain a foothold was create the illusion that they were interested in commerce. Once in they had superior weapons borne of this need to be aggressive and warlike. If you notice most white cultures hold war as a sign of progress instead of sad and uncivilized.

Pretty sure most white women are married to white men. I'd like to see your numbers disputing that.

I'm not being inconsistent. I think you have just proved that you think differently. You think oppressing people makes you great or superior. Thats seems to be the MO with white cultures. Civilized people don't think like that. Of course I have reacted to white bigotry. I dont understand the need for it. Why the whole charade by changing history to make it seem like you are more than what you are? If you are a man stand up and do your thing but dont lie and change things to appear as if you are superior. The truth always comes out because you cant cover everything up with a non complicated lie.

I don't need to provide any numbers, as I wasn't disputing anything. I was merely questioning whether you had any data on which you based your statement or if it was an assumption. Have you used census data or something to show you that most white women are married to white men? Or is it just something you think is true but don't have statistics for?

So white men are the only ones who lived in a low resource environment, the only ones aggressive and warlike? White culture holds war as a sign of progress while the rest of the world is peaceful and civilized?

I never said nor implied that oppressing people makes one greater. I questioned the logic of saying that white men have never been able to compete on a level playing field. I wondered how, if white men are the lazy slobs you make them out to be, they were able to create societies in which they oppressed other races. You provided an answer with claims of hyper aggressiveness and competitiveness which seems at odds with a people unable to work as hard as other races.

You say you see no reason for white bigotry while promoting your own bigotry.

if you are not disputing anything what are you asking the question for? Use your brain or go look up the numbers yourself. Truly only a moron or someone wishing to deflect would question that the majority of white women are married to white men. I know white women love black guys too but its still predominantly white men and women hooking up for marriage.

You did imply oppressing people makes them greater. Trickery and superior weapons is not a level playing field. You misunderstand my statement. Today's insecure white men are lazy. They flip out at the mere thought of changing the construct whites have built while pretending it is not set up like that. Here is another perspective from a white person geared to the low hanging fruit white guys.

Explaining White Privilege to a Broke White Person -

Great quote from the article:

And listen, recognizing Privilege doesn’t mean suffering guilt or shame for your lot in life. Nobody’s saying that Straight White Middle Class Able-Bodied Males are all a bunch of assholes who don’t work hard for what they have. Recognizing Privilege simply means being aware that some people have to work much harder just to experience the things you take for granted (if they ever can experience them at all.)

 

[Uncensored2008]

Germans, Irish, then Italians - so damned privileged....

 

[Montrovant]

IQ is a white concept based in eugenics.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Until someone invents a test that differentiate between me having a bad hair day and actually getting a answer wrong due to lack of intelligence, no one at all can prove IQ tests accurately measures intellect.

IQ tests are accurate. That you don't like the results is irrelevant.

The tangible evidence I refer to is the curriculum in the schools which is based on the concept of white superiority and the white ownership of the majority of resources and infrastructure in this country.

What you refer to is moronic bullshit. You want to trasform schools away from teaching math, science, and history, and concentrate on teaching the hatred of whites (ethnic studies.)

The problem is, white hating has no useful application in life. Tell you what, next time you get a corrupted ARP, concentrate on hating whites, see if that fixes the MX records...

I disagree that IQ tests are particularly accurate. I don't think intelligence is even defined distinctly enough for an accurate test to be possible, but even if it were, IQ tests are not such IMO. I don't think it's because of being a white, eugenics concept, though. I think it's just the nature of our concept of intelligence and the various forms it takes, as well as the seeming inconsistency of IQ tests.

 

[Montrovant]

Its pretty simple how they got ahead in the first place. With their women they were physically stronger and could subject them to their whims. With other men, it had to be through trickery. Europeans lived in a land poor in resources. This caused the hyper competitiveness and aggression other races simply had no need for. They knew of the civilizations built in Egypt and West Africa overflowing with gold. They understood that the only way to gain a foothold was create the illusion that they were interested in commerce. Once in they had superior weapons borne of this need to be aggressive and warlike. If you notice most white cultures hold war as a sign of progress instead of sad and uncivilized.

Pretty sure most white women are married to white men. I'd like to see your numbers disputing that.

I'm not being inconsistent. I think you have just proved that you think differently. You think oppressing people makes you great or superior. Thats seems to be the MO with white cultures. Civilized people don't think like that. Of course I have reacted to white bigotry. I dont understand the need for it. Why the whole charade by changing history to make it seem like you are more than what you are? If you are a man stand up and do your thing but dont lie and change things to appear as if you are superior. The truth always comes out because you cant cover everything up with a non complicated lie.

I don't need to provide any numbers, as I wasn't disputing anything. I was merely questioning whether you had any data on which you based your statement or if it was an assumption. Have you used census data or something to show you that most white women are married to white men? Or is it just something you think is true but don't have statistics for?

So white men are the only ones who lived in a low resource environment, the only ones aggressive and warlike? White culture holds war as a sign of progress while the rest of the world is peaceful and civilized?

I never said nor implied that oppressing people makes one greater. I questioned the logic of saying that white men have never been able to compete on a level playing field. I wondered how, if white men are the lazy slobs you make them out to be, they were able to create societies in which they oppressed other races. You provided an answer with claims of hyper aggressiveness and competitiveness which seems at odds with a people unable to work as hard as other races.

You say you see no reason for white bigotry while promoting your own bigotry.

if you are not disputing anything what are you asking the question for? Use your brain or go look up the numbers yourself. Truly only a moron or someone wishing to deflect would question that the majority of white women are married to white men. I know white women love black guys too but its still predominantly white men and women hooking up for marriage.

You did imply oppressing people makes them greater. Trickery and superior weapons is not a level playing field. You misunderstand my statement. Today's insecure white men are lazy. They flip out at the mere thought of changing the construct whites have built while pretending it is not set up like that. Here is another perspective from a white person geared to the low hanging fruit white guys.

Explaining White Privilege to a Broke White Person -

Great quote from the article:

And listen, recognizing Privilege doesn’t mean suffering guilt or shame for your lot in life. Nobody’s saying that Straight White Middle Class Able-Bodied Males are all a bunch of assholes who don’t work hard for what they have. Recognizing Privilege simply means being aware that some people have to work much harder just to experience the things you take for granted (if they ever can experience them at all.)

So now asking a question about a statement is offensive to you?

I didn't imply oppressing people makes anyone greater. Instead, I implied that being lesser would make it difficult or impossible to become an oppressor. It's an important distinction.

Superior weapons are not a level playing field, sure. Are you suggesting that a nation should use less capable weaponry in order to be 'fair'?

What trickery are you going on about? Trickery in war, trickery in trade, I'm not sure what your complaint is.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that nations run by non-whites treat each other with some level of fairness that white nations did/do not.

There are lazy white men, there are lazy black men, there are lazy Asian men, etc. etc. Your continued harping on the supposedly inferior nature of white men only speaks to your racism, not to any sort of white privilege.

 

[Asclepias]

I don't need to provide any numbers, as I wasn't disputing anything. I was merely questioning whether you had any data on which you based your statement or if it was an assumption. Have you used census data or something to show you that most white women are married to white men? Or is it just something you think is true but don't have statistics for?

So white men are the only ones who lived in a low resource environment, the only ones aggressive and warlike? White culture holds war as a sign of progress while the rest of the world is peaceful and civilized?

I never said nor implied that oppressing people makes one greater. I questioned the logic of saying that white men have never been able to compete on a level playing field. I wondered how, if white men are the lazy slobs you make them out to be, they were able to create societies in which they oppressed other races. You provided an answer with claims of hyper aggressiveness and competitiveness which seems at odds with a people unable to work as hard as other races.

You say you see no reason for white bigotry while promoting your own bigotry.

if you are not disputing anything what are you asking the question for? Use your brain or go look up the numbers yourself. Truly only a moron or someone wishing to deflect would question that the majority of white women are married to white men. I know white women love black guys too but its still predominantly white men and women hooking up for marriage.

You did imply oppressing people makes them greater. Trickery and superior weapons is not a level playing field. You misunderstand my statement. Today's insecure white men are lazy. They flip out at the mere thought of changing the construct whites have built while pretending it is not set up like that. Here is another perspective from a white person geared to the low hanging fruit white guys.

Explaining White Privilege to a Broke White Person -

Great quote from the article:

And listen, recognizing Privilege doesn’t mean suffering guilt or shame for your lot in life. Nobody’s saying that Straight White Middle Class Able-Bodied Males are all a bunch of assholes who don’t work hard for what they have. Recognizing Privilege simply means being aware that some people have to work much harder just to experience the things you take for granted (if they ever can experience them at all.)

So now asking a question about a statement is offensive to you?

I didn't imply oppressing people makes anyone greater. Instead, I implied that being lesser would make it difficult or impossible to become an oppressor. It's an important distinction.

Superior weapons are not a level playing field, sure. Are you suggesting that a nation should use less capable weaponry in order to be 'fair'?

What trickery are you going on about? Trickery in war, trickery in trade, I'm not sure what your complaint is.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that nations run by non-whites treat each other with some level of fairness that white nations did/do not.

There are lazy white men, there are lazy black men, there are lazy Asian men, etc. etc. Your continued harping on the supposedly inferior nature of white men only speaks to your racism, not to any sort of white privilege.

I didn't say asking a question was offensive. Your question was irrelevant and a attempt at deflection.

You did imply oppressing people was a sign of being greater. What did you mean by your following statement/question?

If white men are so deficient, it makes little sense that they would have been in a position to oppress others for so long.

Here you go again with irrelevant questions. The point is that European people developed these weapons specifically due to their warlike nature. Europeans focused on developing the idea of weapons of mass destructions to the point they are capable of destroying life on earth.

By trickery I am addressing the use of religion as the pretense for contacting other cultures and then invading them.

You are attempting to deflect again. We are not talking about individuals. We are talking about races. Only whites flip out when the odds are not stacked in their favor. That is the reason they hate the mere mention of white privilege, AA, reparations, etc. It takes away from and exposes white privilege.

 

[Godboy]

if you are not disputing anything what are you asking the question for? Use your brain or go look up the numbers yourself. Truly only a moron or someone wishing to deflect would question that the majority of white women are married to white men. I know white women love black guys too but its still predominantly white men and women hooking up for marriage.

You did imply oppressing people makes them greater. Trickery and superior weapons is not a level playing field. You misunderstand my statement. Today's insecure white men are lazy. They flip out at the mere thought of changing the construct whites have built while pretending it is not set up like that. Here is another perspective from a white person geared to the low hanging fruit white guys.

Explaining White Privilege to a Broke White Person -

Great quote from the article:

So now asking a question about a statement is offensive to you?

I didn't imply oppressing people makes anyone greater. Instead, I implied that being lesser would make it difficult or impossible to become an oppressor. It's an important distinction.

Superior weapons are not a level playing field, sure. Are you suggesting that a nation should use less capable weaponry in order to be 'fair'?

What trickery are you going on about? Trickery in war, trickery in trade, I'm not sure what your complaint is.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that nations run by non-whites treat each other with some level of fairness that white nations did/do not.

There are lazy white men, there are lazy black men, there are lazy Asian men, etc. etc. Your continued harping on the supposedly inferior nature of white men only speaks to your racism, not to any sort of white privilege.

I didn't say asking a question was offensive. Your question was irrelevant and a attempt at deflection.

You did imply oppressing people was a sign of being greater. What did you mean by your following statement/question?

If white men are so deficient, it makes little sense that they would have been in a position to oppress others for so long.

Here you go again with irrelevant questions. The point is that European people developed these weapons specifically due to their warlike nature. Europeans focused on developing the idea of weapons of mass destructions to the point they are capable of destroying life on earth.

By trickery I am addressing the use of religion as the pretense for contacting other cultures and then invading them.

You are attempting to deflect again. We are not talking about individuals. We are talking about races. Only whites flip out when the odds are not stacked in their favor. That is the reason they hate the mere mention of white privilege, AA, reparations, etc. It takes away from and exposes white privilege.

Well you are flipping out about white privilege, so if only white people flip out about the odds being stacked against them, then you must either be white, or you are a ******* moron who puts his foot in his mouth a hundred times a day.

 

[Montrovant]

if you are not disputing anything what are you asking the question for? Use your brain or go look up the numbers yourself. Truly only a moron or someone wishing to deflect would question that the majority of white women are married to white men. I know white women love black guys too but its still predominantly white men and women hooking up for marriage.

You did imply oppressing people makes them greater. Trickery and superior weapons is not a level playing field. You misunderstand my statement. Today's insecure white men are lazy. They flip out at the mere thought of changing the construct whites have built while pretending it is not set up like that. Here is another perspective from a white person geared to the low hanging fruit white guys.

Explaining White Privilege to a Broke White Person -

Great quote from the article:

So now asking a question about a statement is offensive to you?

I didn't imply oppressing people makes anyone greater. Instead, I implied that being lesser would make it difficult or impossible to become an oppressor. It's an important distinction.

Superior weapons are not a level playing field, sure. Are you suggesting that a nation should use less capable weaponry in order to be 'fair'?

What trickery are you going on about? Trickery in war, trickery in trade, I'm not sure what your complaint is.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that nations run by non-whites treat each other with some level of fairness that white nations did/do not.

There are lazy white men, there are lazy black men, there are lazy Asian men, etc. etc. Your continued harping on the supposedly inferior nature of white men only speaks to your racism, not to any sort of white privilege.

I didn't say asking a question was offensive. Your question was irrelevant and a attempt at deflection.

You did imply oppressing people was a sign of being greater. What did you mean by your following statement/question?

If white men are so deficient, it makes little sense that they would have been in a position to oppress others for so long.

Here you go again with irrelevant questions. The point is that European people developed these weapons specifically due to their warlike nature. Europeans focused on developing the idea of weapons of mass destructions to the point they are capable of destroying life on earth.

By trickery I am addressing the use of religion as the pretense for contacting other cultures and then invading them.

You are attempting to deflect again. We are not talking about individuals. We are talking about races. Only whites flip out when the odds are not stacked in their favor. That is the reason they hate the mere mention of white privilege, AA, reparations, etc. It takes away from and exposes white privilege.

What, exactly, am I attempting to deflect from? I asked if you had any data for your statement, how is that a deflection? I'd say that, if anything, your harping on my question without ever actually answering it seems more like a deflection than anything I've said.

I meant just what I said in my statement. You have painted white males as being lazy and deficient. That doesn't sound like a recipe for becoming the dominant people of an area in order to become oppressive. I'd also like to point out that you seem to have trouble with considering the possibility of races being equal; why couldn't an equal race oppress another? I just think that your earlier descriptions of white men as being lazy and less capable seemed incongruous with a people becoming conquerors and oppressors. You've since said white men are hyper competitive and aggressive, yet somehow still lazy.

Using religion as an excuse to invade another country is hardly exclusive to white men.

That you continue to pain Europeans as warlike, as though other peoples have always been peaceful, is hilarious. Europeans are certainly not the only ones with weapons of mass destruction. Nor is the science behind something like the atom bomb only relevant to weapons. So again, your harping on war and weapons technology as though these things are exclusive to white men, or as though success in those areas makes white men lesser somehow, is ridiculous.

And you certainly seem to be doing a bit of 'flipping out' about white privilege.....

 

[Asclepias]

So now asking a question about a statement is offensive to you?

I didn't imply oppressing people makes anyone greater. Instead, I implied that being lesser would make it difficult or impossible to become an oppressor. It's an important distinction.

Superior weapons are not a level playing field, sure. Are you suggesting that a nation should use less capable weaponry in order to be 'fair'?

What trickery are you going on about? Trickery in war, trickery in trade, I'm not sure what your complaint is.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that nations run by non-whites treat each other with some level of fairness that white nations did/do not.

There are lazy white men, there are lazy black men, there are lazy Asian men, etc. etc. Your continued harping on the supposedly inferior nature of white men only speaks to your racism, not to any sort of white privilege.

I didn't say asking a question was offensive. Your question was irrelevant and a attempt at deflection.

You did imply oppressing people was a sign of being greater. What did you mean by your following statement/question?

If white men are so deficient, it makes little sense that they would have been in a position to oppress others for so long.

Here you go again with irrelevant questions. The point is that European people developed these weapons specifically due to their warlike nature. Europeans focused on developing the idea of weapons of mass destructions to the point they are capable of destroying life on earth.

By trickery I am addressing the use of religion as the pretense for contacting other cultures and then invading them.

You are attempting to deflect again. We are not talking about individuals. We are talking about races. Only whites flip out when the odds are not stacked in their favor. That is the reason they hate the mere mention of white privilege, AA, reparations, etc. It takes away from and exposes white privilege.

Well you are flipping out about white privilege, so if only white people flip out about the odds being stacked against them, then you must either be white, or you are a ******* moron who puts his foot in his mouth a hundred times a day.

Who told you I was flipping out about white privilege? I'm not the one denying it exists. I also posted that it doesn't stop me at all because I just outwork you lazy insecure white guys. Looks like you just put your foot in your mouth.

 

[Asclepias]

So now asking a question about a statement is offensive to you?

I didn't imply oppressing people makes anyone greater. Instead, I implied that being lesser would make it difficult or impossible to become an oppressor. It's an important distinction.

Superior weapons are not a level playing field, sure. Are you suggesting that a nation should use less capable weaponry in order to be 'fair'?

What trickery are you going on about? Trickery in war, trickery in trade, I'm not sure what your complaint is.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that nations run by non-whites treat each other with some level of fairness that white nations did/do not.

There are lazy white men, there are lazy black men, there are lazy Asian men, etc. etc. Your continued harping on the supposedly inferior nature of white men only speaks to your racism, not to any sort of white privilege.

I didn't say asking a question was offensive. Your question was irrelevant and a attempt at deflection.

You did imply oppressing people was a sign of being greater. What did you mean by your following statement/question?

If white men are so deficient, it makes little sense that they would have been in a position to oppress others for so long.

Here you go again with irrelevant questions. The point is that European people developed these weapons specifically due to their warlike nature. Europeans focused on developing the idea of weapons of mass destructions to the point they are capable of destroying life on earth.

By trickery I am addressing the use of religion as the pretense for contacting other cultures and then invading them.

You are attempting to deflect again. We are not talking about individuals. We are talking about races. Only whites flip out when the odds are not stacked in their favor. That is the reason they hate the mere mention of white privilege, AA, reparations, etc. It takes away from and exposes white privilege.

What, exactly, am I attempting to deflect from? I asked if you had any data for your statement, how is that a deflection? I'd say that, if anything, your harping on my question without ever actually answering it seems more like a deflection than anything I've said.

I meant just what I said in my statement. You have painted white males as being lazy and deficient. That doesn't sound like a recipe for becoming the dominant people of an area in order to become oppressive. I'd also like to point out that you seem to have trouble with considering the possibility of races being equal; why couldn't an equal race oppress another? I just think that your earlier descriptions of white men as being lazy and less capable seemed incongruous with a people becoming conquerors and oppressors. You've since said white men are hyper competitive and aggressive, yet somehow still lazy.

Using religion as an excuse to invade another country is hardly exclusive to white men.

That you continue to pain Europeans as warlike, as though other peoples have always been peaceful, is hilarious. Europeans are certainly not the only ones with weapons of mass destruction. Nor is the science behind something like the atom bomb only relevant to weapons. So again, your harping on war and weapons technology as though these things are exclusive to white men, or as though success in those areas makes white men lesser somehow, is ridiculous.

And you certainly seem to be doing a bit of 'flipping out' about white privilege.....

Its a deflection because its irrelevant. What difference does it make if I have a stat sheet sitting on my desk? You can go look it up the stats yourself if you doubt my statement. The majority of white women are married to white men. Nothing earth shattering about that.

No I posted that insecure white males today are lazy and deficient. How you turned that into what you are claiming is beyond me. The only thing I said about the past was that Europe was lacking in natural resources and overpopulated which contributed to the aggressive, warlike nature of whites.

Using religion to invade other countries doesn't have to be exclusive to whites. I said that is what they did to invade other cultures. This was done far more than other races and the primary reason they were able to gain a foothold in most areas of the world.

I'm not painting Europeans as war like. History does that for us. White history. European history is filled with wars and conquest as if they are something cool and honorable. They take pride in killing and like I said before they haven't stopped developing their potential to kill. How many cultures have Europeans wiped from the earth again? Now point to another race that has done the same thing.

You must be imagining I am flipping out. I have no reason to because I already know that white privilege exists as a fact. I also know how to get around it. I'm just wondering what is so traumatic about white men admitting it.

 

[Rotagilla]

No. Thats not what white fear means.

Negro dysfunction is the excuse white men pull out of thier ass to pretend the system is not set up in their favor. It would be pitiful if it were not so funny. The way around this system is to simply outwork the lazy white guys that complain about AA even though it benefits white women more than anyone else.

Everyone already knows Black people can do anything. We just have to outwork white people that have a head start due to white privilege. You see what happened in the NBA once the playing field was leveled.

Negro dysfunction is real and can be observed daily.

"White privilege" is an invented term to make excuses for negro dysfunction.

Get your head out of your ass. "Negro dysfunction" is an excuse for those claiming white privilege does not exist. You cant bear to admit you had a 400 year head start and suppressed and legally opposed Black advancement in the areas of economics and academics during that time period.

Negro dysfunction is real and can be observed daily.

"White privilege" is an invented term to make excuses for negro dysfunction.

400 year head start?
You firmly believe in the "out of africa" theory, right?

In that case, negroes had a 50,000 year head start on the rest of us.....and they STILL can't function in a civilized society.

 

[Rotagilla]

Sorry but AA helps white women more because white men have lost the ability to compete without a jet pack and a head start. Insecure, lazy, white men like you whine all the time there is no white privilege but offer nothing to dispute the tangible evidence all around them.
Peace

the tangible evidence you refer to is higher IQ

IQ is a white concept based in eugenics. Until someone invents a test that differentiate between me having a bad hair day and actually getting a answer wrong due to lack of intelligence, no one at all can prove IQ tests accurately measures intellect.

Prove it or you're lying.

The tangible evidence I refer to is the curriculum in the schools which is based on the concept of white superiority and the white ownership of the majority of resources and infrastructure in this country.

Prove it or you're lying.


Negro IQ is the lowest of the three major races. THAT'S why you lie about the test. When negroes don't like the result, they blame the test. Typical.
IQ is a proven measure of intelligence accepted worldwide as accurate.

Deny all you like. No one is fooled.

 

[Rotagilla]

So now asking a question about a statement is offensive to you?

I didn't imply oppressing people makes anyone greater. Instead, I implied that being lesser would make it difficult or impossible to become an oppressor. It's an important distinction.

Superior weapons are not a level playing field, sure. Are you suggesting that a nation should use less capable weaponry in order to be 'fair'?

What trickery are you going on about? Trickery in war, trickery in trade, I'm not sure what your complaint is.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that nations run by non-whites treat each other with some level of fairness that white nations did/do not.

There are lazy white men, there are lazy black men, there are lazy Asian men, etc. etc. Your continued harping on the supposedly inferior nature of white men only speaks to your racism, not to any sort of white privilege.

I didn't say asking a question was offensive. Your question was irrelevant and a attempt at deflection.

You did imply oppressing people was a sign of being greater. What did you mean by your following statement/question?

If white men are so deficient, it makes little sense that they would have been in a position to oppress others for so long.

Here you go again with irrelevant questions. The point is that European people developed these weapons specifically due to their warlike nature. Europeans focused on developing the idea of weapons of mass destructions to the point they are capable of destroying life on earth.

By trickery I am addressing the use of religion as the pretense for contacting other cultures and then invading them.

You are attempting to deflect again. We are not talking about individuals. We are talking about races. Only whites flip out when the odds are not stacked in their favor. That is the reason they hate the mere mention of white privilege, AA, reparations, etc. It takes away from and exposes white privilege.

What, exactly, am I attempting to deflect from? I asked if you had any data for your statement, how is that a deflection? I'd say that, if anything, your harping on my question without ever actually answering it seems more like a deflection than anything I've said.

I meant just what I said in my statement. You have painted white males as being lazy and deficient. That doesn't sound like a recipe for becoming the dominant people of an area in order to become oppressive. I'd also like to point out that you seem to have trouble with considering the possibility of races being equal; why couldn't an equal race oppress another? I just think that your earlier descriptions of white men as being lazy and less capable seemed incongruous with a people becoming conquerors and oppressors. You've since said white men are hyper competitive and aggressive, yet somehow still lazy.

Using religion as an excuse to invade another country is hardly exclusive to white men.

That you continue to pain Europeans as warlike, as though other peoples have always been peaceful, is hilarious. Europeans are certainly not the only ones with weapons of mass destruction. Nor is the science behind something like the atom bomb only relevant to weapons. So again, your harping on war and weapons technology as though these things are exclusive to white men, or as though success in those areas makes white men lesser somehow, is ridiculous.

And you certainly seem to be doing a bit of 'flipping out' about white privilege.....

You'll never get anything honest from this negro.
His whole act is to run you around in circles challenging anything you post and trying to agitate and create distractions.
His most intelligent, best though out rebuttal is "nuh uh".

 

[squeeze berry]

title of the OP is a lie


it's not an "honest discussion"

 

[Asclepias]

Negro dysfunction is real and can be observed daily.

"White privilege" is an invented term to make excuses for negro dysfunction.

Get your head out of your ass. "Negro dysfunction" is an excuse for those claiming white privilege does not exist. You cant bear to admit you had a 400 year head start and suppressed and legally opposed Black advancement in the areas of economics and academics during that time period.

Negro dysfunction is real and can be observed daily.

"White privilege" is an invented term to make excuses for negro dysfunction.

400 year head start?
You firmly believe in the "out of africa" theory, right?

In that case, negroes had a 50,000 year head start on the rest of us.....and they STILL can't function in a civilized society.

White privilege is real and can be observed daily.

"Negro dysfunction." is an invented term to make excuses for white privilege.

The difference is Black people taught white people how to read, write and do math. How dare you show disrespect to the race that brought you into civilization not once but twice.

 

[Asclepias]

the tangible evidence you refer to is higher IQ

IQ is a white concept based in eugenics. Until someone invents a test that differentiate between me having a bad hair day and actually getting a answer wrong due to lack of intelligence, no one at all can prove IQ tests accurately measures intellect.

Prove it or you're lying.

The tangible evidence I refer to is the curriculum in the schools which is based on the concept of white superiority and the white ownership of the majority of resources and infrastructure in this country.

Prove it or you're lying.


Negro IQ is the lowest of the three major races. THAT'S why you lie about the test. When negroes don't like the result, they blame the test. Typical.
IQ is a proven measure of intelligence accepted worldwide as accurate.

Deny all you like. No one is fooled.

There is nothing to prove. Everyone already knows this as a fact. You need to show me an IQ test that takes into account my emotional state or as we already know you are lying, stupid or both.

 

[Asclepias]

title of the OP is a lie


it's not an "honest discussion"

No one believes you. Where is your proof that it is not an honest discussion?