Abolish the White Race - By Any Means Necessary

[puddleglum]

@rat_avatar

But yes the goal is to “Stop pretending my complexion means I have any special ties to anyone else,”

Are you saying we should judge each other as individuals and not as members of a race? is there more to it?

[rat_avatar]

@puddleglum

From the article "Recently, one of our editors, unfamiliar with New York City traffic laws, made an illegal right turn there on a red light. He was stopped by two cops in a patrol car. After examining his license, they released him with a courteous admonition. Had he been black, they probably would have ticketed him, and might even have taken him down to the station. A lot of history was embodied in that small exchange: the cops treated the miscreant leniently at least in part because they assumed, looking at him, that he was white and therefore loyal. Their courtesy was a habit meant both to reward good conduct and induce future cooperation.

Had the driver cursed them, or displayed a bumper sticker that said, “Avenge Rodney King,” the cops might have reacted differently. We admit that neither gesture on the part of a single individual would in all likelihood be of much consequence. But if enough of those who looked white broke the rules of the club to make the cops doubt their ability to recognize a white person merely by looking at him or her, how would it affect the cops’ behavior? And if the police, the courts, and the authorities in general were to start spreading around indiscriminately the treatment they normally reserve for people of color, how would the rest of the so-called whites react?"
From another essay “What would the determined minority have to do? They would have to break the laws of whiteness so flagrantly as to destroy the myth of white unanimity. What would it mean to break the rules of whiteness? It would mean responding to every manifestation of white supremacy as if it were directed against them. On the individual level, it would mean, for instance, responding to an anti-black remark by asking, What makes you think I’m white? On the collective level, it would mean confronting the institutions that reproduce race”
So they only give two examples of what a race traitor should do and in both instances the solution is to act black. Black in their parlance meaning someone who is in defiance of the culture and being oppressed by the culture.
Of course to ask for coherence from these people is obviously too much to ask.

Where did they say “act black”

It appears that you are putting words in their mouths.

I think that you are misunderstanding “What makes you think I’m white?” Where do they say to act black?

Also please provide a cite that the institutional racism in our legal system is the result of individuals taking back or displaying bumperstickers.

That is a reduction fallacy.

[octopus]

So Han Chinese in China need to act like what? The Japanese in Japan need to act like what? You are asking for humans, a social animal, to disavow any traits that signal they belong to a particular set. For what purpose? Why would any substantial number choose to live sub-optimally?

It isn’t even restricted to race. This concept can be applied to height, weight, gender, sex, so-called beauty, religion, political party even, sports team fan etc. Most people are going to work either subconsciously or consciously to signal to society certain attributes in order to achieve some benefit or goal. It’s biology. Even if the particular subsets aren’t strictly biological the desires are.

Even if you get rid of the so-called white race, that doesn’t eliminate any problems. Hutus and Tutsis are an example of tribal differences being somewhat apparent. Bush people in Africa are enslaved to this day. Why? They look different.

[rat_avatar]

@octopus

So Han Chinese in China need to act like what? The Japanese in Japan need to act like what? You are asking for humans, a social animal, to disavow any traits that signal they belong to a particular set. For what purpose? Why would any substantial number choose to live sub-optimally?

It isn’t even restricted to race. This concept can be applied to height, weight, gender, sex, so-called beauty, religion, political party even, sports team fan etc. Most people are going to work either subconsciously or consciously to signal to society certain attributes in order to achieve some benefit or goal. It’s biology. Even if the particular subsets aren’t strictly biological the desires are.

Even if you get rid of the so-called white race, that doesn’t eliminate any problems. Hutus and Tutsis are an example of tribal differences being somewhat apparent. Bush people in Africa are enslaved to this day. Why? They look different.

Did you read my post and build this strawman intentionally? If not search for “faction” on this page and come back with a relevant argument.

[rat_avatar]

@puddleglum

Are you saying we should judge each other as individuals and not as members of a race? is there more to it?

While that is an honorable personal goal, that is not the intent of this effort.

The intent of this effort is to break down an institutionalized categorization which is directly being leveraged to oppress fellow Americans.

The intent is to quit being an active participant in that very un-American activity while also trivializing the core foundation of that flawed concept that has very real consequences for a large number of individuals.

[ITR_champion]

@rat_avatar

But you may want to look up above for the responses from ITR etc…

Would you care to explain what you mean by this comment? What exactly is Wesley Clark supposed to see when he looks at my responses?

[ITR_champion]

@Revenant_Threshold

This blog post has come up before (is it from an aggregator site?); sadly, to the contrary, it does not match up to either of your claims about it.

See the second paragraph of this post.

[rat_avatar]

@ITR_champion

Would you care to explain what you mean by this comment? What exactly is Wesley Clark supposed to see when he looks at my responses?

@ITR_champion

To start off with, this is not a fact. Donald Trump may have been abnormal in many ways, but when talking about race he spoke in the same politically correct bromides as any other politician:

“When I am President, I will work to ensure that all of our kids are treated equally, and protected equally. Every action I take, I will ask myself: does this make life better for young Americans in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Ferguson who have as much of a right to live out their dreams as any other child in America?”

“African-American citizens have sacrificed so much for this nation. They have fought and died in every war since the Revolution, and from the pews and the picket lines they have lifted up the conscience of our country in the long march for Civil Rights.”

“I employ thousands and thousands of Hispanics. I love the people. They’re great workers. They’re fantastic people and they want legal immigration.”

“Just as immigrant labor helped build our country in the past, today’s legal immigrants are making vital contributions in every aspect of national life. Their industry and commitment to American values strengthens our economy, enriches our culture, and enables us to better understand and more effectively compete with the rest of the world. We are particularly grateful to the thousands of new legal immigrants, many of them not yet citizens, who are serving in the Armed Forces and among first responders. Their patriotism should encourage all to embrace the newcomers legally among us, assist their journey to full citizenship, and help their communities avoid isolation from the mainstream of society.”

This blog post debunks at length the claim that Trump is openly racist, or that racist groups were the core of his support.

(added bolding)

Your argument is supportive and dependent on the idea idea of race exists, while it simultaneously trivializes efforts to address the subject.

If you want me to directly address the problems with “the blacks” or “the hispanics” as a divisive form of language let me know.

Your post also directly diminished the value of such efforts as politically correct bromides which is dismissive even before providing your cite.

[Shodan]

But if enough of those who looked white broke the rules of the club to make the cops doubt their ability to recognize a white person merely by looking at him or her, how would it affect the cops’ behavior?

I’m still not clear on what I am supposed to do that will make the cops doubt my whiteness. Do I have to announce it, or will a few repetitions of “Hands up! Don’t shoot!” do the trick?

Would wearing a hoodie help?

Help a brother out here.

Regards,
Shodan

[John_Mace]

It’s “Help an other out here”, Shodan.

[octopus]

@rat_avatar

Did you read my post and build this strawman intentionally? If not search for “faction” on this page and come back with a relevant argument.

It’s not a strawman and it’s perfectly relevant.

[puddleglum]

@rat_avatar

Where did they say “act black”

It appears that you are putting words in their mouths.

I think that you are misunderstanding “What makes you think I’m white?” Where do they say to act black?

Also please provide a cite that the institutional racism in our legal system is the result of individuals taking back or displaying bumperstickers.

That is a reduction fallacy.

The paragraph I quoted said “But if enough of those who looked white broke the rules of the club to make the cops doubt their ability to recognize a white person merely by looking at him or her,” the club in this instance being the white race and the rules to acquiesce and obey the police. What he is saying is to act in a nonwhite way.

[puddleglum]

@rat_avatar

While that is an honorable personal goal, that is not the intent of this effort.

The intent of this effort is to break down an institutionalized categorization which is directly being leveraged to oppress fellow Americans.

The intent is to quit being an active participant in that very un-American activity while also trivializing the core foundation of that flawed concept that has very real consequences for a large number of individuals.

This is gobbedly gook. Can you articulate what it means to be a race traitor and how that would manifest in your daily life?

[HurricaneDitka]

@puddleglum

What he is saying is to act in a nonwhite way.

What does that mean (with regards to police interactions)?

[rat_avatar]

@octopus

It’s not a strawman and it’s perfectly relevant.

No, it is misdirection and not relevant, do I need to point you to the “fallacy fallacy” again.

[QUOTE=octopus]
You are asking for humans, a social animal, to disavow any traits that signal they belong to a particular set. For what purpose? Why would any substantial number choose to live sub-optimally?
[/QUOTE]

What universal traits or cultural background means that you are “white”

I am no way suggesting that anyone deny that they are English, German or Japanese.

Are you just ignoring the reality of the origin of “white” or are you truly uninformed?

Bacon’s Rebellion of 1676 was against the elites of Virginia society. After Bacon’s Rebellion was put down, a series of laws was passed which made it very clear that there were different penalties in Virginia for whites and blacks. Which provided different restrictions depending upon whether you were white or black, and generally made it more difficult for interracial alliances to be established.

In 1712 the Slave Conspiracy, there were American Indians and white Americans who were executed for participating in that conspiracy.

In the Boston massacre in 1770, all of the “mobs” were interracial groups because blacks and whites suffered from similar economic issues and they joined together to protest.

In fact from first slave ship in Jamestown to most areas until after the Constitution was enacted people would have described them selves as belonging to a group based on a nation, an ethnic group, a familial group, or a political group.

It is only over a period of time that these people from a variety of backgrounds face a common oppression, find themselves in a common situation, and start to identify themselves first as Africans, but then as African Americans.

The process of becoming African American is an evolutionary process and it is determined in large degree by things that are happening in America. Just as becoming white is was determined by conditions in America, becoming black or becoming African American is a result of a process, which is determined by conditions in American society.

It was only after the constitution was passed and African Americans start to lose the right to vote in states like New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania or at least having that right to vote severely restricted. At same time, property requirements which limited the right of white people to vote if they didn’t have a certain amount of property are being removed.

During this same time chattel slavery is being established. IN the south the slave owners needed the support of the 75 percent of non-slave holding whites to support slavery that things start to change across the country.

This is when whiteness was really first leveraged as a political tool. The Elite could claim: “although I am rich and you are poor, the thing we have in common and the thing that binds us together is that we are both white. You have more in common with me rich white person as a poor white person than you do with a poor black person.”

Once this artificial, new and novel divide is firmly established each successive group of people who are now considered “white” but were “taking our jobs” were labeled as less humans and not white.

This is demonstrated by the term “Black Irish” where skull shapes were leveraged to debase these immigrants as not being "white.

It extended on with each new immigration group. As another example hard rock mine owners feared that immigrants from modern day Finland would create unions, so they attempted to limit their immigration through the “Asian Exclusion Act” based on skull shape or features.

Of course those who have traits that fit within this definition are forever restricted to the “other” groups and debased. While the definition of what “white” was was extended to include these new groups into the same political fold.

It is absurd for you to claim that dropping the label of being “white” is the same as denying ones lineage. It is purely dropping a decisive political tool in order to allow your fellow Americans to have some of the benefits that you have received purely based on birthright and arbitrary changing definitions.

To claim that “whiteness” which didn’t exist and or wasn’t inclusive of the currently defined group until very recently is the intrinsic measure of group membership is an absurd claim.

I am not sure why I bothered to compile this list as I am sure you will just hand wave away the claims again but I hope that you will present a substantive argument.

[octopus]

@rat_avatar

No, it is misdirection and not relevant, do I need to point you to the “fallacy fallacy” again.

What universal traits or cultural background means that you are “white”

I am no way suggesting that anyone deny that they are English, German or Japanese.

Are you just ignoring the reality of the origin of “white” or are you truly uninformed?

Bacon’s Rebellion of 1676 was against the elites of Virginia society. After Bacon’s Rebellion was put down, a series of laws was passed which made it very clear that there were different penalties in Virginia for whites and blacks. Which provided different restrictions depending upon whether you were white or black, and generally made it more difficult for interracial alliances to be established.

In 1712 the Slave Conspiracy, there were American Indians and white Americans who were executed for participating in that conspiracy.

In the Boston massacre in 1770, all of the “mobs” were interracial groups because blacks and whites suffered from similar economic issues and they joined together to protest.

In fact from first slave ship in Jamestown to most areas until after the Constitution was enacted people would have described them selves as belonging to a group based on a nation, an ethnic group, a familial group, or a political group.

It is only over a period of time that these people from a variety of backgrounds face a common oppression, find themselves in a common situation, and start to identify themselves first as Africans, but then as African Americans.

The process of becoming African American is an evolutionary process and it is determined in large degree by things that are happening in America. Just as becoming white is was determined by conditions in America, becoming black or becoming African American is a result of a process, which is determined by conditions in American society.

It was only after the constitution was passed and African Americans start to lose the right to vote in states like New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania or at least having that right to vote severely restricted. At same time, property requirements which limited the right of white people to vote if they didn’t have a certain amount of property are being removed.

During this same time chattel slavery is being established. IN the south the slave owners needed the support of the 75 percent of non-slave holding whites to support slavery that things start to change across the country.

This is when whiteness was really first leveraged as a political tool. The Elite could claim: “although I am rich and you are poor, the thing we have in common and the thing that binds us together is that we are both white. You have more in common with me rich white person as a poor white person than you do with a poor black person.”

Once this artificial, new and novel divide is firmly established each successive group of people who are now considered “white” but were “taking our jobs” were labeled as less humans and not white.

This is demonstrated by the term “Black Irish” where skull shapes were leveraged to debase these immigrants as not being "white.

It extended on with each new immigration group. As another example hard rock mine owners feared that immigrants from modern day Finland would create unions, so they attempted to limit their immigration through the “Asian Exclusion Act” based on skull shape or features.

Of course those who have traits that fit within this definition are forever restricted to the “other” groups and debased. While the definition of what “white” was was extended to include these new groups into the same political fold.

It is absurd for you to claim that dropping the label of being “white” is the same as denying ones lineage. It is purely dropping a decisive political tool in order to allow your fellow Americans to have some of the benefits that you have received purely based on birthright and arbitrary changing definitions.

To claim that “whiteness” which didn’t exist and or wasn’t inclusive of the currently defined group until very recently is the intrinsic measure of group membership is an absurd claim.

I am not sure why I bothered to compile this list as I am sure you will just hand wave away the claims again but I hope that you will present a substantive argument.

The fallacy fallacy fallacy is what we are witnessing here.

You are missing the point. People, around the planet, aren’t going to shed useful associations in a quixotic quest for cosmic justice. Feel free if you wish. More power to you. And I am not sure the fascination with whiteness when many nesses have local advantages that are just as disproportionate.

I find this Americentric point of view slightly ironic.

[rat_avatar]

@octopus

The fallacy fallacy fallacy is what we are witnessing here.

You are missing the point. People, around the planet, aren’t going to shed useful associations in a quixotic quest for cosmic justice. Feel free if you wish. More power to you. And I am not sure the fascination with whiteness when many nesses have local advantages that are just as disproportionate.

I find this Americentric point of view slightly ironic.

OK, I no longer consider you a serious poster, and your strawman has failed but it is very obvious that you have no argument and are now just tossing things at the wall in the hope they stick.

[octopus]

@rat_avatar

OK, I no longer consider you a serious poster, and your strawman has failed but it is very obvious that you have no argument and are now just tossing things at the wall in the hope they stick.

Not accepting as a fact your ridiculous premise is very serious. Especially since you haven’t refuted a single persons counter to your premise. You are relying on reputation, inaccurately labeling arguments as fallacies, and now ad hominem attacks.

Facts aren’t a function of popular vote but how many folks here are agreeing with your premise?

[Nava]

@octopus

The fallacy fallacy fallacy is what we are witnessing here.

You are missing the point. People, around the planet, aren’t going to shed useful associations in a quixotic quest for cosmic justice. Feel free if you wish. More power to you. And I am not sure the fascination with whiteness when many nesses have local advantages that are just as disproportionate.

I find this Americentric point of view slightly ironic.

Well, the usage of “white” as a shorthand for “socially acceptable to WASPs”, rather than as a descriptive, is completely Americentric… anything linked to it will be Americentric too.

[rat_avatar]

@octopus

Not accepting as a fact your ridiculous premise is very serious. Especially since you haven’t refuted a single persons counter to your premise. You are relying on reputation, inaccurately labeling arguments as fallacies, and now ad hominem attacks.

Facts aren’t a function of popular vote but how many folks here are agreeing with your premise?

No you are trying to get me to fight your strawman, which is to discredit my ideas because it doesn’t solve the worlds problem with bias.

The entirety of your point is to say that it doesn’t solve every problem in the world when it was never my claim, that IS a strawman and I cannot say anything else without moving to a different segment of this board.

Your argument an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an my real argument.

Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

Go back and read your posts again, they are all strawmen.

Your arguments are all strawmen, rephrase them to address my original claim.

You are substituting my actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the my of the argument.

Can you address any of those comments or are you going to say that the entire concept is invalid because it doesn’t address minivan owners dislike for Prius drivers in candyland?