# 4chan trolls - It's OK to be White **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 2, 2017, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4chan-trolls-its-ok-to-be-white/800496 "2017-11-02T14:14:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2017, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4chan-trolls-its-ok-to-be-white/800496/121 "2017-12-07T00:06:30Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Which is funny, because this is exactly what Breitbart and Drudge do all the time. This is a bit unclear. Are you claiming they’re like the KKK example? Or that they are skeptical? Either way, I do want to make one thing clear to anyone else: biased contrarianism is not skepticism. I don’t know much about Drudge, but Breitbart thinks that anything that is contrary to their deliberately slanted news is “fake news.” A skeptic would just be suspicious and verify. Heck, one of the ways to verify is to check other news organizations, to see what they are reporting. And that’s how easily Breitbart fails. The only backup they get are similarly biased sources. Breitbart is, to mix the metaphors a bit “alternative news.” (“Alternative facts” + “fake news”). ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2017, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4chan-trolls-its-ok-to-be-white/800496/122 "2017-12-07T03:45:08Z")
This discussion reminds me of why I call myself a radical _ **centrist** _. I oppose the absolutist pipe dreams of both the left and the right. If the right-wing racists had their way, America would be a horrible hate-filled society. But the “utopia” of the left-wing SJW’s would also be a failure. Human society needs to seek Aristotle’s Golden Middle Way. But an individual voter can do little to steer the state on an exact course. If we’re heading for a cliff we must yank on the steering wheel as hard as we can. Never mind that if we actually change the vehicular course by 180° we’ll be heading for a river — that’s irrelevant now; we’re just trying to counteract the idiots pulling us toward the cliff. (My mother called this “pushing on the pendulum.”) > [@Senn1](#): > > … That’s pretty ridiculous, idiot [American] racists. And yeah for sure the USA is more racist on average than most western countries. Perhaps I’d get different response if I was posting on a UK political forum, since the UK is years ahead of the US when it comes to progressive policies… I don’t follow European politics — if I did I might support a right-of-center party. But American politics are increasingly dominated by the right-wing. It is not the time to quibble about the details of a progressive utopia when the country is plummeting off the right-wing cliff of hatred and greed. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2017, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4chan-trolls-its-ok-to-be-white/800496/123 "2017-12-07T06:27:26Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > This is a bit unclear. Are you claiming they’re like the KKK example? Or that they are skeptical? > > Either way, I do want to make one thing clear to anyone else: biased contrarianism is not skepticism. I don’t know much about Drudge, but Breitbart thinks that anything that is contrary to their deliberately slanted news is “fake news.” A skeptic would just be suspicious and verify. > > Heck, one of the ways to verify is to check other news organizations, to see what they are reporting. And that’s how easily Breitbart fails. The only backup they get are similarly biased sources. > > Breitbart is, to mix the metaphors a bit “alternative news.” (“Alternative facts” + “fake news”). Breitbart isn’t “alternative news”, Breitbart is ignorant garbage proclaiming to be news. They don’t care about news, they care about pushing their agenda and getting readers. I never thought I’d see you, of all people, **BigT** , actually defend Breitbart. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2017, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4chan-trolls-its-ok-to-be-white/800496/124 "2017-12-07T10:51:19Z")
> [@Senn1](#): > > The vast majority of responses here are just basically claiming that everything (including the reason my opinion is prevalent) is “white nationalist propaganda”. I could say the same back… but that’s not what I’m here to do. You could, but it wouldn’t make any sense, unlike the claims that the messages you’re presenting are those spread via white nationalist propaganda. It may just be coincidence but it’s not a meritless assertion. > [@](#): > > I’m here to get informed responses to legitimate scrutinizing I am doing of diversity programs (which by the way, is a big part of the reason “it’s OK to be white” has even surfaced, which is what this thread is about). No it isn’t. “It’s OK to be white” surfaced because a bunch of racist 4chan trolls thought it would be fun to stir up shit. You might recall this because it was discussed at the beginning of this thread. > [@](#): > > But it’s not surprising to be honest, I suppose it’s a lot easier just to point out some racist past events and scream white nationalist propaganda & white fragility, in a desperate attempt to justify your side of the debate. I mean it’s only legal racial discrimination after all, absolutely not a delicate area of politics at all, what could possibly go wrong. Anyways… in my long and so far relatively unfruitful attempt to try and find meaningful debates regarding the _actual performance of diversity programs_, on the net; I will continue here. You’re such a trouper, continuing on in the face of people pointing out that the ideas you’re repeating are straight out of right-wing propaganda. > [@](#): > > Didn’t comment on “affirmative action”, but lets go with it. I meant it in the broader sense of any government programs designed to combat historic systemic racism, not just specifically for actual AA programs, so yes, let’s go with it. > [@](#): > > I like your choice of word… “impact”. I don’t mind at all that it has an **“impact”** on “whites” overall as long as it doesn’t leave specific ethnic/class groups_severely disadvantaged_ in our society. You know, like the working class white community over here in the UK, who have been completely left in the dirt in terms of equal opportunities because they aren’t getting a fair share of the opportunities available aimed at dealing with it (such as entry level jobs and equal school funding). Except that it isn’t leaving the working class white community “severely disadvantaged in our society”. It really isn’t. The working class are being screwed over by current economic policies, and the aforementioned white nationalists are telling the working classes that it’s all the fault of minorities and immigrants who are somehow getting all the good jobs and college places. I even linked to a cartoon that illustrates this above, for simplicity’s sake. > [@](#): > > Also I liked “requires one to maintain a narrow focus on current practice without considering the historical practices”. When a lot of my previous post was actually based on the **future** effects of these practices. - Which so far has had zero response (since I kind of think that might just be a touch more important). The future effect of these practices is that as the level of qualified women and minorities in previously underrepresented areas begins to reach proportional levels to their levels in overall society, the need for these programs will fall away. In the meantime, white men as a class will still have a societal advantage in finding employment and getting promoted. > [@](#): > > But of course it’s fair; right? Because without the lingering effects of systemic racism primarily between the 16th to 19th centuries, we know for certain, 110%, that working class whites in Britain would definitely be the most disadvantaged in our country (who of course were never enslaved here _right?_ while you’re on the topic of history). Your bizarre hyperbole aside, I am aware of what you refer. And even if we disregard the fact that the types of slavery you’re attempt to equate aren’t equitable, you are again taking an artefact of the class system and placing the impact (there’s that word again) on minorities who were and are even further down the social food chain. Why do you suppose you keep doing that? > [@](#): > > It’s also interesting how you simply responded with “White Fragility” again. It’s ironic that on a thread about discrimination you are literally using my own skin colour as a means of attempting to justify your side of the debate, perhaps if it was my Nigerian fiancée posting you would have said something else. It’s my skin colour too. And I’m male and straight, and an Anglophone of Anglo-Saxon descent. And I live in London. The issue isn’t your skin colour. And it’s not your fiancée’s skin colour. It’s your attitude. > [@](#): > > First of all, the vast majority of political disasters in history have all happened when politicians employ the idea that the ends justifies the means - I strongly advise you don’t do the same. Well that’s painting with a rather broad brush - at the level we’re discussing you could say that about EVERY government policy or action. In fact we could say that about **your** ideas, in which the end (helping “working class whites”) justifies the means (getting rid of programs designed to mitigate systemic biases). > [@](#): > > Anyway, you once again took the stance of _majority vs minority_ instead of under-representation vs over-representation. if 80% of a country is one ethnicity, and 20% of it is another ethnicity, do you think the aim of racial discrimination laws should be to ensure 80%/20% representation, or 50%/50% representation? The aim of “racial discrimination laws” is to deter racial discrimination. Have you suddenly decided that quotas are a good thing? > [@](#): > > I’m just trying to get a hold of your basic principles here - because it seems like nobody has any. Speak for yourself. As for the rest of your post, the quotes you’re responding to are from **steronz** , not me. Do please try to keep this clearer in future multi-quotes. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2017, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4chan-trolls-its-ok-to-be-white/800496/125 "2017-12-07T23:46:33Z")
> [@Senn1](#): > > I actually read it from the daily express newspaper (conservative) which was left on a bus seat, which was why I hadn’t cited a source in the first place. We could sit here back and forth all day debating about “where news comes from” and going “hurr durr _evil white nationalist sources_” Do you usually wade into ongoing online debates with “this is something I read in a copy of the _Daily Express_ that I found on a bus” as your opening cite? Or have you singled out the Dope as the first trial for this tactic? ---
**Author:** ![Senn1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@Senn1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senn1)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2017, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4chan-trolls-its-ok-to-be-white/800496/126 "2017-12-07T23:54:16Z")
> [@](#): > > because a bunch of racist 4chan trolls thought it would be fun to stir up shit. Yes they stirred it, but they didn’t put the food in the pan in the first place. > [@](#): > > Except that it isn’t leaving the working class white community “severely disadvantaged in our society”. It really isn’t. The working class are being screwed over by current economic policies. So when minority groups of working class are disadvantaged it’s all because of historical racism, but when white people of working class are disadvantaged, and when there are current laws as well as public and private institutions specifically causing disadvantages to them in clear broad daylight, it’s economic policies? Wow… > [@](#): > > The future effect of these practices is that as the level of qualified women and minorities in previously underrepresented areas begins to reach proportional levels to their levels in overall society, the need for these programs will fall away. Fix it for areas that females are under-represented in, don’t bother with the male areas, then get rid of it - gotcha. (Same for minorities). > [@](#): > > In the meantime **“older middle and upper class”** (fixed that for you) white men will still have a societal advantage in finding employment and getting promoted. There are an unbelievable amount of reports out there clearly stating that women are far over-represented in universities and has now recently reached record levels of gender disparity. Do you think we should continue to ignore this until such point that the income gap is non existent? Because by then, all of these older privileged white men will be retiring, and we will have the > **[Gender gap in UK degree subjects doubles in eight years, Ucas study finds](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jan/05/gender-gap-uk-degree-subjects-doubles-eight-years-ucas-study)** > > Women outnumber men in 112 of 180 degree subjects, with females from poorer backgrounds 50% more likely to go to university than their male counterparts The gender gap doubled in 8 years between 2007 and 2015, and has only gotten worse. Yet how often do you hear politicans comment on it? It doesn’t fit the straight white male narrative I suppose. > **[Why don't politicians care about the gender gap in education?](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11807119/Why-dont-politicians-care-about-the-gender-gap-in-education.html)** > > A prevailing feminist mentality in our approach to education means that no politician wants to act over the increasingly disadvantaged state of men, writes Neil Lyndon The interview is not surprising. If we continue this until the income gap is closed (which by the way is a load of bollocks anyway, it’s already been debunked numerous times over decades. When you filter the impactful criteria regarding taking time off to have children, and comparing part/full time work separately, women are already ahead, and were ahead even 40+ years ago in the states!). This idea wouldn’t even help anyway, because the older women who (apparently, like I said) earn less, really couldn’t care less that younger women are earning more, and the young men definitely wouldn’t be sitting there saying “It’s alright that we earn less than the women at our age group, because the old fogeys make more”. So it won’t even represent equality in the gender-pay gap across age groups even remotely. It would just continue this humongous gender-gap within education, and a growing gender-pay gap that couldn’t possibly be fairly evened out for at least another 2 generations. > [@](#): > > I live in London. Really? I could never have guessed. > [@](#): > > Well that’s painting with a rather broad brush - at the level we’re discussing you could say that about EVERY government policy or action. Haha true, I should have worded that better. - We all need to set out red lines or it gets out of hand. That’s what I was asking with the 50/50, 80/20 question. Where is your red line on when these programs have gone too far? > [@](#): > > The aim of “racial discrimination laws” is to deter racial discrimination. The purpose of legalising racial discrimination is to deter racial discrimination. Gotcha. ---
**Author:** ![Senn1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@Senn1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senn1)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2017, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4chan-trolls-its-ok-to-be-white/800496/127 "2017-12-08T00:14:11Z")
> [@bonzer](#): > > Do you usually wade into ongoing online debates with “this is something I read in a copy of the _Daily Express_ that I found on a bus” as your opening cite? > > Or have you singled out the Dope as the first trial for this tactic? > **[Outrage as BBC internship scheme only open to those who aren't WHITE](https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/885434/bbc-trainee-job-advert-open-to-non-white-applicants-only)** > > THE BBC has been accused of discrimination after an advert for a trainee position with the broadcaster’s World Service specified applications would only be considered from candidates who are not white. I must admit, that made me laugh 😃 Anything else? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4chan-trolls-its-ok-to-be-white/800496.md?page=6)