Political correctness versus Mathematics; will liberals win?

[opinterph]

Here is a good introduction. http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/23/how-anti-white-rhetoric-is-fueling-white-nationalism/

How Anti-White Rhetoric Is Fueling White Nationalism (The Federalist; May 2016)​

Enter Stage Right: A Republican in New York Theatre (Narratively; 2013)​

 

[gsdx]

I do not understand why you cannot see the anti-white movement. I gave you the article by the professor who complains of white couples have children, because it promotes supremacy.

It's not that we cannot see it. We just see it differently than you do.

 

[TX-Beau]

I do not understand why you cannot see the anti-white movement. I gave you the article by the professor who complains of white couples have children, because it promotes supremacy. Notice that the supremacy she complains of is numerical supremacy maintained by having children. But I guess you don’t see racism in that. Suppose I complained of “black privilege” or “blackness”, or the numbers of blacks, you would see racism. You have not engaged in debate but merely asked questions. I do not know you position, except by inference.

White men have to share. BOO HOO we're being oppressed...

 

[TX-Beau]

It's not that we cannot see it. We just see it differently than you do.

I can't see it, of all the pointless whining on the right,the most ridiculous is is that there is some kind of cabal out to get Benvolio.

 

[gsdx]

^ It all comes down to immigration. There are too many non-whites immigrating to the US and that is upsetting the 'white/non-white balance'. Ben doesn't like that and he's trying to convince us that multiculturalism is detrimental to the (white supremacy of the) country. And, of course, all the blame goes to the Democrats.

 

[opinterph]

I do not understand why you cannot see the anti-white movement.

What I see in “your argument” is a proactive effort to encourage and strengthen white nationalism.

 

[Benvolio]

What I see in “your argument” is a proactive effort to encourage and strengthen white nationalism.

Clearly you are applying a different standard to whites than other groups. It stems from your false equation of culture with race. People come from all over the world to participate in the culture and way of life which we have created and in Europe. But any attempt to defend what we have created is in your mind racism. But, attacks on whites and white culture and people is in your mind, not racism.
Even when others want to reduce the numbers and percentage of whites, you cannot see that as racism. But if anyone complained of the number of blacks or Asians, etc, that would be racism in your mind. Clearly a different standard.
Most importantly, American and European culture contains certain qualities which critically need to be preserved. The ability to innovate, for instance has been critical to our economy and way of life, but it is not found in all cultures. Your rules do not allow us to discuss other cultures but if you will think about it you should be able to see that this aspect of culture explains why most of the areas of the world have been stagnant while ours has progressed. Critically when you suppress "whiteness" in favor of other cultures, you cannot expect the innovation to continue. It is not a function of the real estate, but of the culture.
Other cultures have failed to engender human freedoms and especially economic freedom, which is another aspect of our culture central to the way of life which attracts others. I think we are losing freedom as a trade for mandated equality. Other cultures and people are more willing to accept authoritarian government and that can be seen in all the countries which have tried and failed to maintain democracy. Historically, Americans were not willing to trade freedom for equality, but that is changing.

 

[Kulindahr]

And, yes, the liberals/democrats have an anti white agenda

Either you're painting with too broad a brush or failing to focus the lens you use for examining things, because you take anti-white-privilege material as being anti-white, indulging the same fallacy that many do when they insist that opposing an overseas war equals not supporting our troops. Both these share not just a fallacy but an error that follows from it, namely that just as opposing an overseas war can actually mean supporting the troops, so opposing white privilege can actually mean supporting whites.

 

[Kulindahr]

Obama declared he wanted an hodgepodge

Except he didn't -- he merely noted that this is happening, and expressed hope that it would result in people being more tolerant and less divisive.

America's history has been one of a hodgepodge resulting in ongoing redefinitions of who/what comprises the "in" group and who is outsiders. The original definition didn't include Scots and Irish unless they were well-educated; it didn't include Germans unless they became well-to-do and/or learned English; it didn't include Catholics until it was seen that they weren't subversives working for the Pope; it didn't include native Americans even though they were here first. It still doesn't really include Asians and only barely includes blacks. The real trouble is that at each stage, those in power and privilege fought from the definition becoming more inclusive; currently it's to an extent still WASPs leading the fight, though since the nineties it's more accurately WECs, white European Christians.

The question is what to do with the current hodgepodge and thus what the future holds. To make it about ethnicities and skin color is to betray America, because it is a refusal to admit that when Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal" he actually referred to all men. What it should be about is whether America -- as with the Jews over the centuries who welcomed and incorporated other people so that they, too, could speak of God bringing their forefathers out of Egypt -- is able to expand the definition of who is "in" by enabling more people to see themselves as being descended from those at Lexington and Concord and Bunker Hill.

 

[Kulindahr]

What happens when people who don't resemble a thing get described as it?

Nothing, because that's not how good intentions work. Feminists have been called nazis for years, and not a damn thing. Blaming republican actions on democrats believing republicans will be racist is ridiculous.

Also, diversity is not the enemy of unity. A melting pot (located in a kitchen) keeps individual ingredients in a flavorsome whole. Your ass is thinking of a smelting pot at the forger's which burns impurities away. Other people are not a cultural or religious or skin-toned impurity. Your mind seems diseased on these subjects.

Melting v smelting - a fascinating distinction.

Only a few decades ago historians began to realize that the U.S. has never really been a melting pot anyway, but more of a stew pot. So long as we keep "stewing", we do well; the trouble is when people insist either that we become a cook pot where everything is reduced to an indistinguishable mush on the one hand or a batch of little plastic packets that just happen to be in the same pot.

Sociologically speaking, the greatest impetus to the latter danger has been a form of conservatism that despises the "other", the very same thing Ben is doing here: by refusing to accept that outsiders can possibly be a part of the country, those outsiders are forced to form their own tight communities and hang on to their own unique cultural "flavors". The German experience in the U.S. is illustrative; for a long time they were viewed as outsiders, to the point that they had their own churches and own clubs and in many cases their own towns, right up to WWI when the rest of the country learned that these "outsiders" would sign up and fight for the country as much as and well as anyone else, with the result that German uniqueness faded rapidly. (It's also instructive in that there were enough German folk in the country that adopting German as a official language was actually debated in Congress, a matter resolved by deciding that the country should have no official language for the very reason that such a thing would be divisive.)

 

[Kulindahr]

@ Benvolio

I’m running out of polite things to say to you.

You're doing better than most.

From an article linked in the article he linked to, a bit I found valuable:

"Think before asking people to explain an entire race, religion, civilization or geographic region to you simply because they happen to identify with that background. Don’t expect a 14-year-old girl who covers her hair to explain all of Islam to you in ten minutes or less simply because you’re too lazy to read a book. Get a library card and let her eat her lunch in peace."

I'm currently reading a book by a Muslim scholar about Islam in the modern world, and the more I've read the more I've found myself thinking that people who aren't willing to read a nine hundred page book about Islam should just shut their traps. The principle applies to this topic.

 

[Kulindahr]

Clearly you are applying a different standard to whites than other groups. It stems from your false equation of culture with race. People come from all over the world to participate in the culture and way of life which we have created and in Europe. But any attempt to defend what we have created is in your mind racism. But, attacks on whites and white culture and people is in your mind, not racism.
Even when others want to reduce the numbers and percentage of whites, you cannot see that as racism. But if anyone complained of the number of blacks or Asians, etc, that would be racism in your mind. Clearly a different standard.
Most importantly, American and European culture contains certain qualities which critically need to be preserved. The ability to innovate, for instance has been critical to our economy and way of life, but it is not found in all cultures. Your rules do not allow us to discuss other cultures but if you will think about it you should be able to see that this aspect of culture explains why most of the areas of the world have been stagnant while ours has progressed. Critically when you suppress "whiteness" in favor of other cultures, you cannot expect the innovation to continue. It is not a function of the real estate, but of the culture.
Other cultures have failed to engender human freedoms and especially economic freedom, which is another aspect of our culture central to the way of life which attracts others. I think we are losing freedom as a trade for mandated equality. Other cultures and people are more willing to accept authoritarian government and that can be seen in all the countries which have tried and failed to maintain democracy. Historically, Americans were not willing to trade freedom for equality, but that is changing.

Your opposition of freedom to equality is a false dichotomy.

 

[opinterph]

@ Benvolio

Your “attempt to defend [the culture and way of life] of [white people]” involves promoting the label of “anti-white racism” to describe government or institutional policies of restriction or benefit to which you presumably object.

You have promoted this “anti-white mantra” in numerous posts and in threads discussing a wide variety of topics. (A number of those posts never appeared in the public forum.) In this case, you cited a news article about a professor’s research study as proof that anti-white racism is engulfing our educational institutions and that it will eventually result in the end of all things good.

Promotion of the anti-white mantra also fuels white nationalism as David Marcus points out in the article you described as “a good introduction.”

Your complaint also includes your confession; to wit,

Critically when you suppress "whiteness" in favor of other cultures, you cannot expect the innovation to continue.

[We] are losing [human freedoms and especially economic freedom] as a trade for mandated equality.

---

Promotion of white nationalism is not allowed here.

 

[Kulindahr]

Critically when you suppress "whiteness" in favor of other cultures, you cannot expect the innovation to continue. It is not a function of the real estate, but of the culture.

I've been reading a history of World Vision, and that history proves you wrong: innovation can ad does arise in any culture where basic needs are met sufficiently that some leisure time is available. Their efforts around the globe have led to economic growth and innovation that has more than a few times put Western efforts to shame -- including in India and Africa where cultural structures impose major obstacles.


BTW, you'd better define what you mean by "whiteness", especially since historically there has been an abundance of innovation in non-white cultures/places as well as stifled innovation in white cultures/places.

 

[Benvolio]

@ Benvolio

Your “attempt to defend [the culture and way of life] of [white people]” involves promoting the label of “anti-white racism” to describe government or institutional policies of restriction or benefit to which you presumably object.

You have promoted this “anti-white mantra” in numerous posts and in threads discussing a wide variety of topics. (A number of those posts never appeared in the public forum.) In this case, you cited a news article about a professor’s research study as proof that anti-white racism is engulfing our educational institutions and that it will eventually result in the end of all things good.

Promotion of the anti-white mantra also fuels white nationalism as David Marcus points out in the article you described as “a good introduction.”

Your complaint also includes your confession; to wit,

---

Promotion of white nationalism is not allowed here.

So it is our noticing the ant-white hostility which promotes white nationalism and not the anti white hostility itself. That is twisted. OK I have to accept the prohibition, but you are for forclosing discussion of the major political currents of our time and a major turning point in US history, if not the Western World.

 

[gsdx]

Promotion of white nationalism is not allowed here.

Is it just me or have his posts become less anti-Muslim and more white supremacy since Charlottesville?

 

[opinterph]

the anti white hostility itself.

Perhaps therein lies your homework.

 

[eastofeden]

So it is our noticing the ant-white hostility which promotes white nationalism and not the anti white hostility itself. That is twisted. OK I have to accept the prohibition, but you are for forclosing discussion of the major political currents of our time and a major turning point in US history, if not the Western World.

Where do you live? I am assuming you noticed this personally.... because if you listen to the right wing news outlets...... I am sure they notice it "everywhere" LOL

I do notice the things you say are parroted on places like Facebook alot...like some kind of daily script (or talking point...eh?)

I haven't noticed any anti white hostility......none.......zero....

I have noticed anti hate group and anti racist hostility......and if they are white.....it isn't the skin color......it is the ideology...

 

[Kulindahr]

Where do you live? I am assuming you noticed this personally.... because if you listen to the right wing news outlets...... I am sure they notice it "everywhere" LOL

I do notice the things you say are parroted on places like Facebook alot...like some kind of daily script (or talking point...eh?)

I haven't noticed any anti white hostility......none.......zero....

I have noticed anti hate group and anti racist hostility......and if they are white.....it isn't the skin color......it is the ideology...

Interestingly, the closest thing to anti-white hostility I've ever seen personally was actually anti-union hostility.

 

[TX-Beau]

Interestingly, the closest thing to anti-white hostility I've ever seen personally was actually anti-union hostility.

I've spent a fair amount of time listening to old white farmers complain about evil Yankee Unions ruing the country, yeah, down at the diner across from the Farmer's Co-Op, to which they all belong.