Ah I’m being accused of being a brony… I’m not, and I’ve no idea why I should consider it offensive.
Tough one.
I’m not searching through the posts either, so I’ll remain skeptical.
Liar. Or do you have a link to me doing so this time? Unlike the last time, when you just slunk away when pressed.
Liar.
Suuuuure you don’t 
No u.
You just love to call people racists without a shred of fucking evidence, based on nothing but your projections of your own views onto theirs, but you’re incapable of looking at yourself the same way. Sad. pathetic moron that you are.
I had to google Yiffer. :eek:
I’d love to see a cite – you made some rather specific claims about MrDibble.
Well, here’s the first obvious one where he makes it clear that he doesn’t give a shit about racism towards white people. Just read that whole thread if you’re bored, it’ll tell you a great deal about Dibble. And me, but I doubt you’ll need too much more evidence that I can be an abrasive cunt when provoked.
Me too. Am I better for it, though?
And * yif er*? Yikes.
Hoofs Up… Don’t Shoe!
Conservatives here seem to think you have to know a lot about a person to detect racism. You don’t really. Words and deeds are usually quite sufficient.
See, it doesn’t matter if we can’t prove that you are a racist “in your heart” or whatever bullshit standard is thrown up. What you say and how you say it is quite enough.
We don’t have to know whether you are a racist as a matter of status or identity. Acting racist is enough.
That’s something I’ve said all along. However, some people seem to think that, despite someone neither saying or doing anything racist, they can read some sort of “code” that says they actually are.
I’m glad to see you disagree with that sort of thinking, and will now take people at their word when they say they’re not racist. Especially if their deeds match that.
I’m not particularly concerned about racism towards white people either (in the United States, anyway) – it certainly exists, but it’s nowhere near the problem that other forms of racism are, has a tiny fraction of the history of it, and has barely caused a smidgen of the grief that other forms of racism have caused.
And that thread doesn’t tell me much about MrDibble that I didn’t already know.
So I see nothing hear that he doesn’t trust “whitey” or anything comparable, nor do I see any actual racist statements by him.
The difference (obviously) is which statements one thinks qualifies as “racist”.
For example, I see the following statement (and many variations that say the same thing) as racist: “black people are inherently less intelligent on average due to their genetics”. It doesn’t matter, to me, whether the one saying it is a white guy in white sheets, or a black scientist in a lab – the statement is racist by itself. I also see the following statement (and its many variations) as racist (or bigoted, to be more specific): “Jews are inherently less trustworthy and more greedy on average due to their genetics”. It doesn’t matter, to me, whether the one saying it is a goosestepping asshole with a swastika tattoo or a Jewish scientist – the statement is bigoted by itself.
What about you – do those statements qualify as racist/bigoted to you?
Saying he doesn’t care about racism towards white people makes him at least as racist as me, the standard I’m gonna use to judge him. Now, I think I’m not particularly racist, and if I am it’s unintentional and if it actually caused a problem I’d deal with it. But that, to Dibble, makes me almost Hitler. So he needs to accept he’s exactly the same.
Basically, if you’re actually concerned about racism, you should be concerned about all of it, and support measures towards equality that will make things better for all sufferers, whatever their race. Because if a white person has their life ruined by racism - even if it’s only one person in the whole country - they’re just as fucked as any black or brown person who the same thing happens to. And the same solutions should work for both instances - treat people as you find them, regardless of skin colour or racial identification.
I don’t know if you’re racist. I don’t recall any racist statements by you, off the top of my head. But not being particularly concerned about anti-white racism is not racism – that just reeks of “anti-racism is code for anti-white”… racism has a history, and it’s not an “even” or “balanced” history. It’s reasonable to be most concerned with the forms of racism that have actually caused immense suffering and grief, and to not be as concerned with the forms that have caused a relatively miniscule amount of suffering and grief.
I’m not that concerned about anti-white racism in society or as an institutional problem. It doesn’t mean that I (and presumably MrDibble) don’t have sympathy for a white guy who is beaten because he’s white – that sucks just as much as any black guy getting beaten for being black. But I’m not as concerned with the former as a problem in society because it has happened much, much less often than the latter, and has caused so much less grief than the latter.
Are you as concerned with women raping men as you are with men raping women? I certainly am not, even though the former occasionally happens, and when it does, it’s as bad as the latter. But I’m just not nearly as concerned with it as a societal problem, because it’s so much less of a problem in society.
Does that make sense?
We were talking about whether people are racist, not statements, and that’s a fundamental difference in my opinion. If the scientist finds proof of that statement, then they are not racist to point it out, because it’s true. And the race of the scientist is irrelevant.
Fundamentally, what matters is whether a statement is true or false. Whether different groups have different genetic predispositions to intelligence, and whether those groups correlate with race, are (theoretically) testable propositions.
Statements, ultimately, are neither racist nor non-racist, because racism is a property of behaviour (and by extension, the people behaving). So, what you need to judge is whether the utterance of the statement is racist behaviour. And this is where the difference between the guy in the sheet and the scientist comes in. One is uttering a statement the have no reason to believe is true, for the purpose of white supremacy. The other is uttering a statement he reasonably believes to be true, for the purpose of scientific advancement. A term that includes both types of speech, and denigrates both of them equally, is so broad as to be meaningless, in my opinion.
Which is a very longwinded way to say “no, they’re not”.
Yes, absolutely. But that’s not the standard MrDibble has used to (repeatedly) call me racist. I’m pointing out that, by his own standards, he’s racist.
I’m about as concerned about racism towards whites as I am with anti-straight discrimination - it happens, but whatever consideration it gets should be included with concerns about prejudice in general, they don’t need their own movement or whatever.
However, it’s important to be careful with things like that. One example would be domestic violence, which has traditionally (and with some good reason) been treated as a problem for women only. However, at least a quarter of victims here in the UK are men, usually from female partners but also gays, and there is almost no provisions for them. The amount of shelter beds is a fraction of a percent of that for women, and it’s treated as a joke mostly. Point being, if ever there is a credible claim of discrimination in a different way to normal, it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.