White Supremacy

2456716

Comments

  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate
    edited August 10
    The only tell is that I'm trying to be polite about challenging your nonsense.

    If we're going to play these sorts of games I must say you seem "uncomfortable" with having your broad brush suppositions called into question.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I did not make an accusation, I made an observation. One that you do not like which underlines my basic point, people do not like their sense of self challenged.
    You made a sweeping generalization:
    Talking about white supremacy makes white people uncomfortable.
    Can't imagine why anyone would be put off by that!
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I live in a remain area, but I have had to march through the streets of my city to counter protest the white nationalists who decided to come here to demonstrate. I vote for the least racist party I can find with a chance to govern. I live and work alongside, and for, people of multiple ethnicities and backgrounds. I do my best to ensure that the people I train and supervise are aware of these issues.

    I suppose my default assumption is that most people who consider racism to be a problem do this.
    But I do not think this is true. Most people who see an injustice quietly disapprove.

    Quiet disapproval can be problematic. One of the most common conceits of white supremacists is that all (or most) white people secretly agree with them but have been too intimidated by [ political correctness / the government / the international Jewish conspiracy / whatever ] to admit how they "really" feel. Vocal opposition from fellow whites can puncture this conceit.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I live in a remain area, but I have had to march through the streets of my city to counter protest the white nationalists who decided to come here to demonstrate. I vote for the least racist party I can find with a chance to govern. I live and work alongside, and for, people of multiple ethnicities and backgrounds. I do my best to ensure that the people I train and supervise are aware of these issues.

    I suppose my default assumption is that most people who consider racism to be a problem do this.
    But I do not think this is true. Most people who see an injustice quietly disapprove.

    Quiet disapproval can be problematic. One of the most common conceits of white supremacists is that all (or most) white people secretly agree with them but have been too intimidated by [ political correctness / the government / the international Jewish conspiracy / whatever ] to admit how they "really" feel. Vocal opposition from fellow whites can puncture this conceit.

    Which is indeed why, when faced with neo-nazis standing for election in places I have lived in the past, I've helped local churches organise letters to the press denying the Nazi's claims to represent Christians and Christianity, and worked with ANL and UAF to distribute leaflets and flyers opposing them.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    Methinks the lack of activity on this thread may indicate something important about white supremacy.

    Is it not that we all agree that racial supremacy is a doctrine without merit ? Something that belongs in the dustbin of history (with the phlogiston) ?

    Just as nobody has a good word to say about mass shootings...



  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    Maybe we just need to take the topic further. What can white people do about white supremacy? We can talk about it and make other white people address it, we can vote the bastards out, and we can donate money to causes that fight it. But still one can feel quite helpless when so many powerful people seem to be working to bolster it.
  • You call it out when it happens. It's actually easier than you think. "That's pretty racist" isn't that hard to say. Neither is asking someone what they are doing and noting that it looked racist. Done very politely.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    "That's pretty racist" isn't that hard to say.

    How hard it is depends on the situation. If you're talking to someone with more power than you, it can be dicey. Last time I did it I was talking to a peer in a social situation, and the conversation foundered very quickly. I didn't change her mind. Telling people they've said something racist does not tend to go down well at all.

    The Atlantic has an interesting interview with a former white nationalist who is working to get people out of that movement: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/08/conversation-christian-picciolini/595543/ . He talks to people one-on-one and gradually gets them to change their minds. I'm sure he's successful in a way I could never be because he was in the movement and made his way out.
  • Generally people saying racist things know it will be perceived as racist, hence "I'm not racist but..." I tend to find more success in challenging the underlying suppositions. Asking who "they" are, and following up with whether the speaker really thinks "they" all behave a certain way. Often people's own logic and sense of justice is enough to make them back down.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited August 11
    I think it shows the innate, probably atavistic, tribal instinct. There may be some value in beefing up education. Personally I'm rather more concerned that internet freedoms make the propagation of such tribal thoughts more available. But I have no idea about how that might be regulated without opening the door to other kinds of government-led propagandist abuse.

    The increasingly popular distrust of authorities seems also to have opened up this can of worms.

    Does Liberty endanger itself?
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    It is the white areas that voted most strongly for Brexit. Because one doesn't have to confront the more visible aspects doesn't mean something doesn't exist.

    To chuck in some statistics, in the 2011 census, Aberdeenshire, where I live, was 98.6% white. Scotland as a whole was 96% white. The whole of Scotland voted remain.

    SImply because one area bucks a trend, it doe not then disprove the trend.

    It does if it's a large enough area. And I'd suggest the whole of Scotland is a pretty big area.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    The Atlantic has an interesting interview with a former white nationalist who is working to get people out

    Interesting that he likens it to Islamic radicalisation.

    Both exploit an underlying issue - that a society in peacetime has little use for the martial energies of young males, the natural warriors of the tribe.
  • Russ wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    The Atlantic has an interesting interview with a former white nationalist who is working to get people out

    Interesting that he likens it to Islamic radicalisation.

    Both exploit an underlying issue - that a society in peacetime has little use for the martial energies of young males, the natural warriors of the tribe.

    Warriors are not natural. Treating militarism and violence in this way is an act of surrender, a more wordy version of "boys will be boys".
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited August 11
    Russ wrote: »
    Ohher wrote: »
    Methinks the lack of activity on this thread may indicate something important about white supremacy.

    Is it not that we all agree that racial supremacy is a doctrine without merit ? Something that belongs in the dustbin of history (with the phlogiston) ?

    I'm not sure "we all" agree on that. After all, some here are willing to argue that racial prejudice is based on "first-hand experience" and the "empirically correct" wisdom of the ancients. In other words, that racial discrimination is fully justified and that white people should run everything.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Russ wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    The Atlantic has an interesting interview with a former white nationalist who is working to get people out

    Interesting that he likens it to Islamic radicalisation.

    Both exploit an underlying issue - that a society in peacetime has little use for the martial energies of young males, the natural warriors of the tribe.

    Warriors are not natural. Treating militarism and violence in this way is an act of surrender, a more wordy version of "boys will be boys".

    Certainly, if we're looking for young men to expend their energies (because that's what they are, there's nothing inherently martial about them), give them heavy manual labour - there's nothing quite so malleable as an older teenager who's been hod-carrying or chopping timber all day. And especially if they're in the care of older men who they grow to respect.
  • It's a popular view. Like Ohher I was instructed in racism by my parents, especially my mother. I remember being told that, for instance, Asian women became ugly when they got older. I don't know why, but racism never really took within me, whereas religious bigotry towards Protestants, especially English Protestants, clearly did. I think its because I was plied with stories of Irish suffering which actually had a basis in reality, even though the connection between individuals and the offences was not there. Its easy to hate a group of people when you can reel off a list of their collective crimes from memory. It's all bullshit of course but it is enticing and romantic bullshit that uses phrases like 'righting injustice' and 'freedom at last'. And then the car bomb goes off in the main street of Armagh.

    The racism my parents taught me was different to the bigotry. We Australians, who were all white, weren't being oppressed by the wogs or the asians. We were the ones doing the oppression.

    So maybe the insight is that what makes a prejudice powerful is that sense of injustice. Maybe that's what needs to be looked at.
  • A mosque was attacked in Norway yesterday. A horrible action for sure, but luckily the outcome was zero deaths in the mosque. (There was a death likely perpetrated by the terrorist earlier during the day). The reason? The attacker, despite being young and well armed, was stopped by a 65-year old Muslim, who prevented him from doing any major damage. The terrorist was later handed over to the police by the mosque.

    While only the future will show, I'm hoping this will lead to a considerably weaker extreme right - movement in Norway. Simply because this messes with these guys self-perception as tragic heroes.

    The previous Norwegian terrorists, Breivik, was an inspiration to the Christchurch killings. The Christchurch killings were in turn an inspiration to the terrorist yesterday. (He even referred to the Christchurch shooter as "saint Tarrant".)

    However, a failed terrorist, stopped by an elderly gentleman, without a single dead in the mosque? Most likely won't be inspiring anyone.

    My point is not that we should leave the defense of mosques or people to (surprisingly tough) older men, but that attacking their narrative of being "knights", "saviours" and so forth is vulnerable to ridicule. Yesterday's terrorist wrote, before heading out to do his crime, that he would see everyone again in Valhalla. Instead he'll be seeing maybe 30 years behind bars, without having accomplished any of his intended goal. That will hopefully hurt his ideology. Which will hopefully make anyone thinking along the same lines, think again.

  • @Ruth is correct, it sure does depend on circumstances. It's a response that must be considered however.
    Russ wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    The Atlantic has an interesting interview with a former white nationalist who is working to get people out

    Interesting that he likens it to Islamic radicalisation.

    Both exploit an underlying issue - that a society in peacetime has little use for the martial energies of young males, the natural warriors of the tribe.

    Warriors are not natural. Treating militarism and violence in this way is an act of surrender, a more wordy version of "boys will be boys".
    Flipping this. Violence, xenophobia, war, aggression are natural and part of all human heritage. We are violent and nasty to each other. It's in the collective history of all humans: more the father of us all than the mother. We must actively recognize this trait and desire for domination, winning and competing with each other by violence and the attitudes which we often don't question and just act on instinctively. There's no point in denying my human nature. I must admit it and not do as I would but as I should.
  • @Ruth is correct, it sure does depend on circumstances. It's a response that must be considered however.
    Russ wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    The Atlantic has an interesting interview with a former white nationalist who is working to get people out

    Interesting that he likens it to Islamic radicalisation.

    Both exploit an underlying issue - that a society in peacetime has little use for the martial energies of young males, the natural warriors of the tribe.

    Warriors are not natural. Treating militarism and violence in this way is an act of surrender, a more wordy version of "boys will be boys".
    Flipping this. Violence, xenophobia, war, aggression are natural and part of all human heritage. We are violent and nasty to each other. It's in the collective history of all humans: more the father of us all than the mother. We must actively recognize this trait and desire for domination, winning and competing with each other by violence and the attitudes which we often don't question and just act on instinctively. There's no point in denying my human nature. I must admit it and not do as I would but as I should.

    I suspect we're using different words and definitions to arrive at the same conclusion for similar reasons.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    It is the white areas that voted most strongly for Brexit. Because one doesn't have to confront the more visible aspects doesn't mean something doesn't exist.

    To chuck in some statistics, in the 2011 census, Aberdeenshire, where I live, was 98.6% white. Scotland as a whole was 96% white. The whole of Scotland voted remain.

    SImply because one area bucks a trend, it doe not then disprove the trend.

    It does if it's a large enough area. And I'd suggest the whole of Scotland is a pretty big area.
    If we were discussing only Scotland, this would be a different discussion, but the vote was the UK entire.
    Look at any mapping of the Brexit demographics and the areas with the highest percentage of Brexit support are mostly white. This does not mean that every, mostly white area voted Brexit.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I did not make an accusation, I made an observation. One that you do not like which underlines my basic point, people do not like their sense of self challenged.
    You made a sweeping generalization:
    But is it? A generalisation, yes, but how sweeping?

    One of my grans was racist. Made flat-out, no interpretation needed racist statements. But she treated her grandbabies of different colour no different to those of her colouration. She had friends in all manner of colour and background. She had an admirable attitude of forgiveness of those who wronged her and encouraged that in others. She was generous of heart, a good person and she was my gran. Which made it uncomfortable to confront her racism. So mostly I didn't.
    White nationalism is the far end of the spectrum, yes, But it is a spectrum, not just a single stopping point.
    Confronting white supremacy is not just denouncing the BNP or the KKK, but addressing how the other points of the spectrum support them. And that is becoming increasingly more complicated because racism is not binary. Most white people would denounce white supremacy groups. But as far as denouncing every point they make, it gets a bit more complicated.
    White nationalism is not on the rise because the fringe just decided to get more public. Brexit and Trump didn't just happen because people were cross and wanted a change.
    Talking about white supremacy makes white people uncomfortable.
    Can't imagine why anyone would be put off by that!
    [/quote]I'f I'd written a less provocative post, it would still be the most recent one on this thread,
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I live in a remain area, but I have had to march through the streets of my city to counter protest the white nationalists who decided to come here to demonstrate. I vote for the least racist party I can find with a chance to govern. I live and work alongside, and for, people of multiple ethnicities and backgrounds. I do my best to ensure that the people I train and supervise are aware of these issues.

    I suppose my default assumption is that most people who consider racism to be a problem do this.
    But I do not think this is true. Most people who see an injustice quietly disapprove.

    Quiet disapproval can be problematic. One of the most common conceits of white supremacists is that all (or most) white people secretly agree with them but have been too intimidated by [ political correctness / the government / the international Jewish conspiracy / whatever ] to admit how they "really" feel. Vocal opposition from fellow whites can puncture this conceit.

    Which is indeed why, when faced with neo-nazis standing for election in places I have lived in the past, I've helped local churches organise letters to the press denying the Nazi's claims to represent Christians and Christianity, and worked with ANL and UAF to distribute leaflets and flyers opposing them.
    Most sincerely I say good on you. But it doesn't change the fact that most people do not confront. And challenging neo-nazis is good, but it is the quiet racism which supports that which is often left unchallenged.
  • Look at any mapping of the Brexit demographics and the areas with the highest percentage of Brexit support are mostly white. This does not mean that every, mostly white area voted Brexit.

    Whilst simultaneously the areas with the lowest percentage of Brexit support (38%) are also mostly white (96%).
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Gwai wrote: »
    Maybe we just need to take the topic further. What can white people do about white supremacy? We can talk about it and make other white people address it, we can vote the bastards out, and we can donate money to causes that fight it. But still one can feel quite helpless when so many powerful people seem to be working to bolster it.
    Talking about it helps. And not just at the "Nazi's are bad" level. Racism is a spectrum and talking about the low end helps a lot. Unfortunately, it is also the more difficult to penetrate as it remains unseen by the afflicted.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I live in a remain area, but I have had to march through the streets of my city to counter protest the white nationalists who decided to come here to demonstrate. I vote for the least racist party I can find with a chance to govern. I live and work alongside, and for, people of multiple ethnicities and backgrounds. I do my best to ensure that the people I train and supervise are aware of these issues.

    I suppose my default assumption is that most people who consider racism to be a problem do this.
    But I do not think this is true. Most people who see an injustice quietly disapprove.

    Quiet disapproval can be problematic. One of the most common conceits of white supremacists is that all (or most) white people secretly agree with them but have been too intimidated by [ political correctness / the government / the international Jewish conspiracy / whatever ] to admit how they "really" feel. Vocal opposition from fellow whites can puncture this conceit.

    Which is indeed why, when faced with neo-nazis standing for election in places I have lived in the past, I've helped local churches organise letters to the press denying the Nazi's claims to represent Christians and Christianity, and worked with ANL and UAF to distribute leaflets and flyers opposing them.
    Most sincerely I say good on you. But it doesn't change the fact that most people do not confront. And challenging neo-nazis is good, but it is the quiet racism which supports that which is often left unchallenged.

    If it's that quiet it's not always easy to spot.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I live in a remain area, but I have had to march through the streets of my city to counter protest the white nationalists who decided to come here to demonstrate. I vote for the least racist party I can find with a chance to govern. I live and work alongside, and for, people of multiple ethnicities and backgrounds. I do my best to ensure that the people I train and supervise are aware of these issues.

    I suppose my default assumption is that most people who consider racism to be a problem do this.
    But I do not think this is true. Most people who see an injustice quietly disapprove.

    Quiet disapproval can be problematic. One of the most common conceits of white supremacists is that all (or most) white people secretly agree with them but have been too intimidated by [ political correctness / the government / the international Jewish conspiracy / whatever ] to admit how they "really" feel. Vocal opposition from fellow whites can puncture this conceit.

    Which is indeed why, when faced with neo-nazis standing for election in places I have lived in the past, I've helped local churches organise letters to the press denying the Nazi's claims to represent Christians and Christianity, and worked with ANL and UAF to distribute leaflets and flyers opposing them.
    Most sincerely I say good on you. But it doesn't change the fact that most people do not confront. And challenging neo-nazis is good, but it is the quiet racism which supports that which is often left unchallenged.

    If it's that quiet it's not always easy to spot.
    This is true. It remains, however, that quiet racism supports bolder racism.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I did not make an accusation, I made an observation. One that you do not like which underlines my basic point, people do not like their sense of self challenged.
    You made a sweeping generalization:
    But is it? A generalisation, yes, but how sweeping?

    One of my grans was racist. Made flat-out, no interpretation needed racist statements. But she treated her grandbabies of different colour no different to those of her colouration. She had friends in all manner of colour and background. She had an admirable attitude of forgiveness of those who wronged her and encouraged that in others. She was generous of heart, a good person and she was my gran. Which made it uncomfortable to confront her racism. So mostly I didn't.
    I.e., talking about white supremacy made you uncomfortable. And I'd say statements of the form "X makes Y people Z" are quite sweeping.
    Talking about white supremacy makes white people uncomfortable.
    Can't imagine why anyone would be put off by that!
    I'f I'd written a less provocative post, it would still be the most recent one on this thread,
    If you recognized it to be a provocative post, your subsequent "Jesus wept" reaction seems disingenuous.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited August 11
    Dave W wrote: »
    I.e., talking about white supremacy made you uncomfortable. And I'd say statements of the form "X makes Y people Z" are quite sweeping.
    It is human to be unforgettable confronting problematic behaviour in those they care about. It is also human to to be reticent to confront problematic behaviour in people who seem generally good.
    Generalisations are only wrong if the do not generally fit, not if they do not fit every individual.
    My anecdote was supposed to illustrate that that confrontation can be complicated. But if you think that most most people are comfortable with confrontation, then we are probably done with this exchange,

    Dave W wrote: »
    If you recognized it to be a provocative post, your subsequent "Jesus wept" reaction seems disingenuous.
    I expected pushback, but I expected it to be more worked out. I wanted responses I would work with, instead it was simplistic denial.

  • Work with to do what ?
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Work with to do what ?
    If the first responders had given a reasoned confrontation of a perceived general slight, then I'd have had points of reference to talk about the discomfort. I could have done that in the initial post, but again, I think the thread would have rested there. Or at least not explored the discomfort more.
  • Russ wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    The Atlantic has an interesting interview with a former white nationalist who is working to get people out

    Interesting that he likens it to Islamic radicalisation.

    Both exploit an underlying issue - that a society in peacetime has little use for the martial energies of young males, the natural warriors of the tribe.

    But we're not at peace. The US is in umpty different wars.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Work with to do what ?
    If the first responders had given a reasoned confrontation of a perceived general slight, then I'd have had points of reference to talk about the discomfort. I could have done that in the initial post, but again, I think the thread would have rested there. Or at least not explored the discomfort more.

    This is awfully wummy.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Work with to do what ?
    If the first responders had given a reasoned confrontation of a perceived general slight, then I'd have had points of reference to talk about the discomfort. I could have done that in the initial post, but again, I think the thread would have rested there. Or at least not explored the discomfort more.

    This is awfully wummy.
    Is that a word you youngs are using these days? I do not recognise it.
  • WUM= wind up merchant. "wummy" is the adjectival form.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Perhaps we can have a thread debating the merits of eating our own children next. I'm sure we'll have lots of insight into why it's not a great idea.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    WUM= wind up merchant. "wummy" is the adjectival form.
    It was a bit of a windup, but not the real purpose. It was to stimulate reaction, but I'd hoped for more than just blind refusal to see. Because the statement, though not politely phrased, is correct. Not complete, of course, but still correct.
    Funny, my view puts white people in a better light than the refusals of it do.
    If I am correct and white people* don't like talking about white supremacy, it implies that fewer people are racist and the rise is because the actual racists feel emboldened by the lack of pushback. The effect Crœsos mentions.
    If they are correct, then the rise is because there just are more racist people who are not listening to all the people confronting racism.

    *People in general do not like to confront, but this thread is about white supremacy.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    If you recognized it to be a provocative post, your subsequent "Jesus wept" reaction seems disingenuous.
    I expected pushback, but I expected it to be more worked out. I wanted responses I would work with, instead it was simplistic denial.
    Sure, because people normally respond with worked out, nuanced responses to provocative posts making general statements about their race.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    WUM= wind up merchant. "wummy" is the adjectival form.
    It was a bit of a windup, but not the real purpose. It was to stimulate reaction, but I'd hoped for more than just blind refusal to see. Because the statement, though not politely phrased, is correct. Not complete, of course, but still correct.
    Funny, my view puts white people in a better light than the refusals of it do.
    If I am correct and white people* don't like talking about white supremacy, it implies that fewer people are racist and the rise is because the actual racists feel emboldened by the lack of pushback. The effect Crœsos mentions.
    If they are correct, then the rise is because there just are more racist people who are not listening to all the people confronting racism.

    *People in general do not like to confront, but this thread is about white supremacy.

    Why on earth should I care about what light a claim puts white people in general? The existence of a larger or smaller number of white supremacists and fellow travellers doesn't reflect on me except in regard to my personal response in challenging it. White is not a chosen identity I have an interest in policing or defending. About the only identity I have that I would care to do that about is Christianity, because I believe there is more at stake there than the collective reputation of the group. Even then it is a matter of saying how and why I disagree.

    As best I can tell you seem to be operating within a particular cultural and intellectual framework without explaining what it is and then judging others based on it.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    WUM= wind up merchant. "wummy" is the adjectival form.
    It was a bit of a windup, but not the real purpose. It was to stimulate reaction, but I'd hoped for more than just blind refusal to see. Because the statement, though not politely phrased, is correct. Not complete, of course, but still correct.
    I don’t think the denial was a blind refusal to see your point. I would agree that generally, the average white person is probably uncomfortable, sometimes very uncomfortable, having any serious conversation about white supremacy. I’m guessing many others who posted would too.

    The denial was to the absolutist way in which you phrased the statement. The provocativeness got in the way of the point being made, it seems to me.

  • RussRuss Shipmate

    Mousethief:
    But we're not at peace. The US is in umpty different wars.

    Real wars ? For a noble cause ? So the soldiers win glory ? And are looked up to as heroes by the grateful populace they defend ?

    Or a whole set of peacekeeping missions, anti-terrorist actions and contracted military advisers ? In support of the profits of the oil industry ? So the soldiers are resented by both sides in the foreign country they're despatched to, and largely forgotten by the people at home who aren't seeing any victories ?


  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Perhaps we can have a thread debating the merits of eating our own children next. I'm sure we'll have lots of insight into why it's not a great idea.
    I did wonder, Doc. Much of this feels pretty much like a rant thread to me and we normally send those to Hell. But I reckon there are just enough redeeming posts to save you from that. However ....

    Barnabas62
    Purgatory Host
  • Russ wrote: »
    Mousethief:
    But we're not at peace. The US is in umpty different wars.

    Real wars ? For a noble cause ? So the soldiers win glory ? And are looked up to as heroes by the grateful populace they defend ?

    Or a whole set of peacekeeping missions, anti-terrorist actions and contracted military advisers ? In support of the profits of the oil industry ? So the soldiers are resented by both sides in the foreign country they're despatched to, and largely forgotten by the people at home who aren't seeing any victories ?

    What does that matter to the matter at hand, what to do with surplus young men? They can die in any sort of armed conflict; doesn't require a just war.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    But we're not at peace. The US is in umpty different wars.

    Real wars ? For a noble cause ? So the soldiers win glory ? And are looked up to as heroes by the grateful populace they defend ?

    I'm pretty sure that a war can be "real" even if the cause isn't noble. In fact, I'm pretty sure that insisting on such a criterion leads to some absurd conclusions. For example, ending Nazism was a "noble cause" in most people's estimation so the Allies were engaged in a "real war". The Third Reich, on the other hand, was not pursuing a "noble cause" so it wasn't really at war with the Allies.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    If you recognized it to be a provocative post, your subsequent "Jesus wept" reaction seems disingenuous.
    I expected pushback, but I expected it to be more worked out. I wanted responses I would work with, instead it was simplistic denial.
    Sure, because people normally respond with worked out, nuanced responses to provocative posts making general statements about their race.
    Thing is, not too many people are responding to the more worked out posts I've made regarding the topic.
    Your response in particular implied that people in general are comforatable taking about white supremacy. Which is both counter to my experience, counter to research on the topic and counter to human nature.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited August 12
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    WUM= wind up merchant. "wummy" is the adjectival form.
    It was a bit of a windup, but not the real purpose. It was to stimulate reaction, but I'd hoped for more than just blind refusal to see. Because the statement, though not politely phrased, is correct. Not complete, of course, but still correct.
    Funny, my view puts white people in a better light than the refusals of it do.
    If I am correct and white people* don't like talking about white supremacy, it implies that fewer people are racist and the rise is because the actual racists feel emboldened by the lack of pushback. The effect Crœsos mentions.
    If they are correct, then the rise is because there just are more racist people who are not listening to all the people confronting racism.

    *People in general do not like to confront, but this thread is about white supremacy.

    Why on earth should I care about what light a claim puts white people in general?
    Because that is the only way it gets solved. Or, in reality, minimised. Thinking only about personal interactions won't. It helps, but misses the larger issue.

    The existence of a larger or smaller number of white supremacists and fellow travellers doesn't reflect on me except in regard to my personal response in challenging it. White is not a chosen identity I have an interest in policing or defending.
    We are what society sees us as until we change societies vision. You being white puts you in a place of privilege that POC/BAME cannot go and your ignoring it does not change this.

    Fixed faulty quoting code. BroJames Purgatory Host
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    The denial was to the absolutist way in which you phrased the statement. The provocativeness got in the way of the point being made, it seems to me.
    Maybe a poor choice.
    However, I still don't think a nuanced post would have got any response.

  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    If you recognized it to be a provocative post, your subsequent "Jesus wept" reaction seems disingenuous.
    I expected pushback, but I expected it to be more worked out. I wanted responses I would work with, instead it was simplistic denial.
    Sure, because people normally respond with worked out, nuanced responses to provocative posts making general statements about their race.
    Thing is, not too many people are responding to the more worked out posts I've made regarding the topic.
    And so now you've shown that you can trigger white liberals just as well as the next person. So... well done?
    Your response in particular implied that people in general are comforatable taking about white supremacy.
    Nonsense. My response was that people in general are put off by provocative statements about their race.
  • ECraigRECraigR Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    Mousethief:
    But we're not at peace. The US is in umpty different wars.

    Real wars ? For a noble cause ? So the soldiers win glory ? And are looked up to as heroes by the grateful populace they defend ?

    Or a whole set of peacekeeping missions, anti-terrorist actions and contracted military advisers ? In support of the profits of the oil industry ? So the soldiers are resented by both sides in the foreign country they're despatched to, and largely forgotten by the people at home who aren't seeing any victories ?


    Well the men and women fighting probably think they’re real wars.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    And so now you've shown that you can trigger white liberals just as well as the next person. So... well done?
    Your response in particular implied that people in general are comforatable taking about white supremacy.
    Nonsense. My response was that people in general are put off by provocative statements about their race.
    This is a space for discussion. Triggered is not an excuse for failing to engage.
    Dave W wrote: »
    I.e., talking about white supremacy made you uncomfortable.
    Which implies that I am falsely projecting. Again, a generalisation is only wrong when it does not apply generally, not when it doesn't apply specifically.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Perhaps we can have a thread debating the merits of eating our own children next. I'm sure we'll have lots of insight into why it's not a great idea.

    sometimes I feel like this is the real solution to climate change.
This discussion has been closed.