Yes, yes it is.
While not quite a direct parallel, I wonder if the writer ever looked into how that turned out for Zimbabwe after the land reform.
Um, everything?
I mean they’d come in for a massive public shaming, they’d be bombarded with abuse from every corner of the internet, and they’d probably be as likely to work in journalism again as Michael Richards is to work in comedy. Of course, such an essay about any other race wouldn’t get published on any mainstream news site in the first place. But you already knew that. Why are you insisting I spell out the bleeding obvious?
Why is the size of the parent company irrelevant? The subsidiaries are supposed to represent the values of the parent company. If the parent company allows the subsidiary to host race-baiting articles, why is it unreasonable to infer that the parent company is OK with race-baiting?
I don’t think I’ll be taking advice on racial prejudice from an anti-American bigot like you.
You do know the *difference *between being anti-American and being a racist, right?
As far as I’m concerned, they’re just different species of bigotry. I don’t see why I should take lessons on racial prejudice from a bigot or vice versa. But if it makes you feel better then by all means expound on the distinction. I look forward to reading your explanation, which I’m sure will be completely free of nitpicking, or tedious, witless pedantry.
coming from a racialist bigot, that is funny.
I am not at all anti American.
I am in fact very pro American.
But it does seem you are one of those bigots who think to be slightly critical of Americans blindnesses and ignorance about some things is to be “anti American”
Americans lack of a sense of history is a wide observation, made by many over the decades. A positive some times when it is giving Americans a forward looking optimism. A negative when it blinds them to the historical roots - American presentism…
But for a certain kind of bigot, the slight criticism = anti American…
As you can see, he does not.
Of course he confuses having a moderate criticism of Americans ignorance and blindness in general to history to be “anti American”
Oh the butt hurt whining of the bigot…
Of course to be critical of a country is not any way like being a racist.
Of course our two racist observers could not trouble themselves to go beyond the White Is Right thinking and actually look at data.
I would not defend Egyptian equality, it is not of a positive kind, but it is obvious for example that among the Asian countries there are very good performers among middle and upper income that do better than most of the “white” countries in the income equality.
You don’t think every white SA reactionary (and further afield) is doing just that? Or does that not count as “massive public shaming” or “abuse”?If not, why not?
Even assuming what you say is true, can you imagine why a piece advocating for the disenfranchisement of say, black men on a South African site, a country where blacks where only able to vote from 1994, might be received just a little bit differently?
Because we are talking about an article written by a South African on a site aimed at South Africans. Huffingtonpost.**CO.ZA **is a small news site in terms of readership, which is why I called it a “minor news site”. The size of the parent company doesn’t change that.
How does this link to anything I or anyone else has said on this thread?
In any event, I have no idea how independent it is of the parent company WRT editorial policy and I don’t think you do either.
I’m not a racialist bigot. I’ve never generalised about a race. I’ve never generalised about a nation of people. You, on the other hand, are an anti-American bigot, because you’ve generalised about all Americans. Repeatedly. You can deny it all you like but we can read what you’ve written and come to our own conclusions.
When you generalise about an entire group of people like you’ve literally just done, you’re a bigot.
There you go again.
Jesus fucking Christ! Stop getting in your own way!
Actually, no. Keep going. This is hilarious.
The matter at hand is mostly trying to get through to you that SJWs are not a thing, and that we’re not going to let you have a thread where you peddle your ignorant bullshit.
SJW is just an insult for people who care about things you don’t think are important. The very concept doesn’t even make sense as an insult, since fighting for social justice is a good thing.
Did you notice that Derek was gotten rid of because of his transphobic bigotry? The people who actually use “SJW” would have considered that SJW bullshit.
So you just CAN’T have a thread about stupid SJW bullshit of the day. Either you’ll repeat a bunch of right wing biased news (or fake news) or you’ll just have to reach and reach to find anything.
There is no agreement on what SJW is, and the actual use of the word usually doesn’t describe anything bad, since it’s mostly used by bigots.
No, you are a bigot when you hold hatred and intolerance
The defination from your American dictionary
Now I have seen already you are not a very smart person but the mere fact of a generalization is not a bigotry. If I make a generalization that the French have a strong bias to the centralized administrative state and have the built in reflex to desire regulation (and this from a specific historical experience), it is not bigotry, it is a reasonable generalization.
So it is the same to note that the Americans are not history minded and have a strong bias towards presentism.
There is no “bigotry” or even “anti Amerianism” in this. It is a factual generalization.
The fact of the generalization is not an error, it is a necessary process of the analytical process. It is the over generalization and the assertion of inherent attributes where there is not support that can be the problem. I have never made any statement about inherent attributes to Americans (of course it would make no sense), but there is indeed a distinct American culture and it has its own distinct blindnesses as well as advantages.
(of course it is very funny you claim to have made no racial statement but agreed so readily to the racial statement about only the white-led countries came to mind as being income equal)
Not nice things were said or implied about the West and /or white men. Ergo, SJW.
To put it in context, the student is a “fallist” linked to ongoing protests over high tertiary education costs and decolonisation of university curricula. Its a concept that may find applicability in say, humanities, arts, perhaps even commerce but to a far more limited extent in science classrooms.
Its also telling that just about everyone at the meeting laughed at her.
Of course they are a thing. A thing in the same way that “rednecks” are a thing.
SJW is merely a term meant to encompass a group that shares some particular set of values. Yes the definitions are vague and the edges fuzzy as with most things like this but they do exist like liberals and conservatives exist.
Nah, an SJW is some random person on the internet who dares to express an opinion that straight white males (of which I am one) with thin skin and poor logic find offensive, as it makes them question their superior position, and it hurts to realize that you are not better than others simply because of your skin, gender, and orientation.
Now, this article does qualify a bit more as trying to take the white guy down a peg, as it does in fact advocate for removing rights from white men, rather than just equalizing the rights and opportunities for others. If this had been written in the US, I’d have a bit more :dubious:, but given the very recent history of south africa, where there where white guys directly oppressing the population well within the current generation, I can certainly see a much harsher criticism of their actions.
Please don’t use we when throwing shit at the wall. Most of us aren’t imbeciles, and would prefer not being lumped with you. “I” is a perfectly acceptable pronoun.
What we REALLY need is a “You might be a SJW” series. Maybe Amy Schumer can do it.
“If even your friends think your views on remedying economic disparity are ridiculous, you MIGHT be a SJW.”
Well, if you are doing vague definitions then throw in “you MIGHT be a liberal/conservative” and “you MIGHT be a Christian/Jew/Muslim/Atheist” and “you MIGHT be white/black/whatever” and so on.
If you are going to be pedantic on what, precisely, an SJW is and then claim no such creature exists you have to allow that there are no crisp definitions for most groupings of people.
And groups cloaking themselves in righteousness (“all we want is JUSTICE so we are good!”) does not make them so.
I'm open to other series as well.
Gosh. It’s almost as if punching down isn’t appreciated!
You do know what a shit hole SA is becoming under black presidents, right? They’re not known for spreading around wealth all equally and stuff.
Ooh, it’s a legacy of white colonialism! Um, then why on earth would you expect anything to change?