Donald Trump and US politics

The thing with "It's okay to be white" is that the context in which it is used will generally be as a mean to dismiss inequalities of people of skin color.

There can be some exceptions when it comes to areas that are mostly colored, especially if there's racism/oppression against white people (gangs, ghettos and arabian countries come to mind) and the message of "it's okay to be white" is one of integration and equality but I can assure you that the vast majority of its usage is not gonna be for that purpose.


First, you have to understand why it's a thing, who could feel it's something to say and finally, what's the message it tries to pass.

First, it comes from a derivative of "all lives matters", which is something that's only used to minimize the "black lives matters" and to essentially dismiss racism and police discrimination that black people suffer in the US. What "Black lives matters" really try to say is that the lives of black people are just as important as those whites (Obviously, all lives are equals but white privilege is a reality in the US) and that they should be treated equally instead of being victims of profiling and a much higher risk of death from what should be a regular police control. People that say "all lives matters" understand that. Still, what they want to truly say is that this movement is not warranted and that things shouldn't change because that would (somehow) give privilege to black people and/or remove some white privilege. Only someone that's intolerant (at the very least) or straight up racist would say that as a retaliation to BLM. Now, the whole "it's okay to be white" is a lesser variant of "all lives matters" but it's perpetuated by the same people. In reality, it means that it's okay to have white privilege (again, in the US) and that you shouldn't advocate for equity of colored people because that means that you would lose that privilege. The context is what gives it meaning. In this very context, it's pretty much the same as saying "it's okay if the other races doesn't have it as good as whites", which is a view that SHOULD be opposed by everyone.

Now, of course there's nothing inherently wrong with being white. It's something that you have no control over and it's something that just doesn't matter in who you are, what you can do and what you will do. it's just a skin pigmentation and that's it. Also, there's nothing wrong with being white, black, red, brown, yellow or any other skin color that there is/could be.

If you truly believe that some people are exercising racism towards whites, a more appropriate answer would be "skin color doesn't matter to me".

hmmmm

"

None of that really matters in the here and now.

Currently, for better or worse, the majority of racists/racist sympathizers are also republican voters.

(No. I am NOT saying all republican voters are racists.) (However, a large portion of Trump voters would certainly fit into the sympathizer group.)

It wasn't republicans that Donna Brazile accused of treating her like a slave.

"a conference call in which she told three senior campaign officials, Charlie Baker, Marlon Marshall and Dennis Cheng, that she was being treated like a slave."

The news source is questionable, being another one of those right wing rags that always abuses the DNC... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/brazile-i-considered-replacing-clinton-with-biden-as-2016-democratic-nominee/2017/11/04/f0b75418-bf4c-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html

"

faerwin wrote:

"

pneuma wrote:

"

Jennik wrote:

(quoting pneuma "It's an innocuous statement with the goal of making people call it racist. The more you call it racist, the more it succeeds. As far as I can tell, the only reason you're upset about it is because you can't control yourself.")


I called the people saying it racist.

The message is not racist. You agree on this.

The people saying it are not racist for saying it. It's not a racist message, as you already agreed.

What more knowledge do you have? The answer is of course nothing and everything else is your own speculation and projection.

People are laughing about this, and there's no reason to bring such animosity into such a light-hearted topic/thread. Maybe you're just hungry?

The svastika isn't antisemite on its own, but I think we can agree that anyone using it is.

"It is a common practice for Hindus to draw Swastika symbol on the doors and entrances to their houses during festivals, which is believed to symbolize an invitation to goddess Lakshmi." "The symbol is believed to have originated in the Harappan period and the culture of the Indus Valley Civilization, migrated from India –through the Tartar Mongoodi route via Kamchatka to the Americas, the reason why the symbol can be found among the Aztec and Maya civilizations."

I would agree with you that most people, including myself, who saw one would assume an antisemitic intent. There are a few exceptions though, some of which are being caused by our failure to teach history properly, imo. One of these exceptions is someone using a swastika could be doing so to provoke a reaction such as someone younger who doesn't understand the horrific things the Nazis did, but does understand how people react when they see it. This usage is like that of a 2 year old child who has learned the F word and notices how adults react vigorously to the 2 year old using he F word.

A good history lesson would ensure kids didn't grow up with that kind of knowledge gap.

There are of course people who are antisemitic and/or white supremacists or endorse nazism in some way.

We also have evidence (a few court cases this year and last) of people who have used swastikas or other racist comments as graffiti to make it look like a nazi loving group did the crime.

"Feds: Racist graffiti, arson at south KC church were cover-up for theft by employee"
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article181683621.html

A good question for people to ask is which is worse, the symbol or the horrific acts in history that it represents?

Where do you think Hitler found staunch support - even Scientific support for the horrible ideas that inspired his actions? If you answered American left wing eugenicists, then you passed your history lesson. If you guessed anything else, you have missed some key elements of what really happened in the past.

Like modern day leftists, the leftists of the past wanted to control everyone. They thought their ideas of superiority justified sterilization of inferior people, putting them in asylums or lobotomizing them.

This is the far leftist lineage. The modern group avoids the blatant racism (at least in public) but still thinks in terms of using the full force of the nation against anyone they think is inferior. It could be those whose political ideology they despise, but it could be for any reason. They feel they are superior and other people should either defer to their judgement, or be very harshly punished.

To put it in simple terms, since people's judgements are so clouded by politics -
Let's say there are two camps of players - those who like blood magic and those who don't. The group that likes blood magic then assumes that not only is the other group wrong, but they should be penalized - not by a skill nerf, but by actual prison time.

That is modern day leftism. Bigotry with a B that is taller than Mt Everest. The target of their hate can change at a whim, but hate is the caffeine that gets them up and out of bed in the morning.

When a leftist leaves that hate behind and decide to stand for 'progressive' ideas, and dislike other ideas, without hating the people supporting the competing ideas, then you become an old fashioned liberal.

We need more old fashioned liberals. People who stand up for ideas and other people, without wanting to hurt someone else. The Path is yours to choose, Exile.

"

Jennik wrote:

Being "bigoted" against the intolerant is perfectly reasonable. Allowing intolerance to run rampant is irrational and dangerous. Also, boogeymen don't exist. Racists do.

"

"they may"

(supposition - as in all users of green gems may become terrorists IRL)

"

We should therefore

The result is based on a hypothetical premise, one that has not been established by fact or preponderance of evidence.

"

the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

They can demand the right to divide by zero as well.

In any case, the logic espoused by those unwilling to tolerate ideas they find beneath them leads to terrible things.

"'What Have We Done to You, Rosie?' Distraught Rose Kennedy on the Lobotomized Daughter She Didn't See for 20 Years"

As an example, if the leftists had their way, Climate Change deniers would be lobotomized.

"

Jennik wrote:

Forgot why I stopped by again.

Spoiler

Image quote: Robert Phalen saying "Modern air is a little too clean for optimum health"


"Barnyard Dust Offers a Clue to Stopping Asthma in Children"
(from shameful right wing science denier New York Times...)

'Scientists say they may have found a sort of magic ingredient to prevent asthma in children: microbes from farm animals, carried into the home in dust.

The results of their research, published on Wednesday in The New England Journal of Medicine, were so convincing that they raised the possibility of developing a spray to do the same thing for children who do not have regular contact with cows and horses.'

"“We never thought we would see a difference,” said Carole Ober, an author of the study and the chairwoman of the department of human genetics at the University of Chicago. To the researchers’ astonishment, she said,“we saw whopping differences with very, very different cell types and cell numbers.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/health/dust-asthma-children.html




"Too Clean for Our Children’s Good?"
By PERRI KLASS, M.D. APRIL 17, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/well/family/too-clean-for-our-childrens-good.html

"Many parents, quite reasonably, worry about germs and dirt finding their way into a child’s mouth. But many have also heard in recent years of the “hygiene hypothesis,” which holds that some exposure to germs and microorganisms in early childhood is actually good for us because it helps develop the immune system. A 2013 Swedish study, for example, showed that children whose parents just sucked their pacifiers clean had a lower risk of developing eczema."

"“The built environment is the place in which our children grow up,” said Jack Gilbert, the director of the Microbiome Center and a professor of surgery at the University of Chicago."

"Dr. Gilbert is a co-author, with Rob Knight and Sandra Blakeslee, of a book on the topic coming out in June called “Dirt Is Good: The Advantage of Germs for Your Child’s Developing Immune System.”"



Look at what we know now on children and Peanut allergies vs what we thought we knew five, ten and fifteen years ago. The things people were doing (avoiding peanut exposure) were causing more and more serious peanut allergies.

TL/DR Robert Phalen's views on this issue match up with the published opinions and/or studies by:

Dr. Donata Vercelli, an associate director of the asthma and airway research center at the University of Arizona
Dr. Anne I. Sperling, associate professor of immunology and medicine at the University of Chicago.
Dr. William Busse, professor of allergy, pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Wisconsin.
Dr. Talal Chatila, immunologist at Harvard Medical School
Dr. Maria Gloria Dominguez-Bello, ecologist and associate professor in the Human Microbiome Program at New York University School of Medicine
Dr. Jack Gilbert, director of the Microbiome Center and a professor of surgery at the University of Chicago.

Some of this is new to the scientific community (one study was published in 2016, and one in 2017). The good news is that Rober Phalen's view on this is more up to date on the science than the people criticizing him for his unscientific statements. For those who may consider the timing of his statement, the concept was well known to parents, physicians and lots of people before these studies.

As Calvin's dad from Calvin and Hobbes would say "It builds character"

"

Jennik wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

The intersectional minority-identitarianism variety, commonly known as SJWs.

I've explained to you before that these insane and outrageous characters you see in those right-wing hate videos are a vanishingly small fringe minority. The number of Americans who have those insane views can fit inside a small room.

The small rooms in your house must be bigger than the small rooms in my house...

Jennik btfo.

DL, nothing I ever say could possibly bring you to reason. The completely irrational ways you dismiss arguments makes it impossible to have an honest conversation with you. Focusing on a few bits of wording while dismissing the entirety of an argument is beyond dishonest. I talk about how people like you don't argue in good faith often (and it was hilarious to see Xav go all "I'm rubber and you're glue" and say it back to me), but your latest string of posts highlight the fact that you're not at all interested in an honest conversation that leads to the truth.

The fact that you actually defend a guy who says we should pollute the air more by cherry-picking examples that are obviously not what he's talking about showcases your absurdity. You're like the anti-vaxxers who swing one paper around while ignoring the thousands that disagree. Many of the things you say are quite literally insane.

"

As an example, if the leftists had their way, Climate Change deniers would be lobotomized.

At your best, you sound like the worst of the anti-vaxxers. At your worst, you sound like the people on street corners screaming about implants in their teeth. Please seek help.

For any remotely rational people following along (sorry, Xav, you can play along next time), do you truly believe that's a photograph of the insane people branded "SJW" in those right-wing hate videos Scrotes was referring to? If so, please stop considering yourself remotely rational. That's the equivalent of taking a photograph of a Nascar crowd and claiming it's evidence that there are Nazis everywhere. It's dishonest and delusional.