91–100 of 133 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't matter much what is said - consider that as keywords. The accumulation of keywords that creates a clearer and clearer signal. If you see someone with a celtic cross and 1488 written below, do you really think that person is "pretty reasonable"?
I don't think I can tell that much about a person based on an accessory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is exactly why we need to learn these signals - to recognize people who so strongly want to identify, with something that would seem strange or benine to the uninitiated. About a celtic cross and 1488 written below, someone in this thread said they can't "tell that much about a person based on an accessory." I believe it is a grave mistake to ignore such extremely strong signals, especially the person seems aggr…
That person is also defending the 14 words, saying "it's ok to be white", and throwing around phrases like "white genocide". I'm pretty sure they're just a straight up white nationalist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's sort of like the "All Lives Matter" thing. The "it's ok to be white" argument structure is designed so that either accepting it or denying it furthers the goals of white nationalists, because either has to be done in an extremely nuanced way that can't really happen in the context of a protest sign or a meme.
I think accepting would've worked. Implying that some demographic is bad makes the movement lose support, the only people who benefit from it are people trying to gain status within the movement. (Edit: that answers my question above.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you agree that the person you had previously said is just innocuously defending "it's ok to be white" is actually a white supremacist or a troll pretending to be one? You keep pretending like there's these innocent victims, and it turns out these people where actually what we had said they were all along.
I am getting confused now. My ESL'ness might be getting in the way of us communicating. Based on how the okay sign thing went, with all of its false positives (which are the innocent victims), I don't think the "dog whistles" give a clear enough signal. Your examples also use judgement from context rather than the dog whistles which is in line with what I've said. The other poster turned out to be a clear troll, and…
Can you give an example of one of these false positive victims?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you agree that the person you had previously said is just innocuously defending "it's ok to be white" is actually a white supremacist or a troll pretending to be one? You keep pretending like there's these innocent victims, and it turns out these people where actually what we had said they were all along.
I am getting confused now. My ESL'ness might be getting in the way of us communicating. Based on how the okay sign thing went, with all of its false positives (which are the innocent victims), I don't think the "dog whistles" give a clear enough signal. Your examples also use judgement from context rather than the dog whistles which is in line with what I've said. The other poster turned out to be a clear troll, and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Either you are being disingenuous or you have a very naive understanding of the quote. I could just as easily say: "work sets you free" doesn't sound so unreasonable! How could anyone take issue with that?!
That work sets you free is an unsubstantiated claim. I'm working and I don't think that this set me free. On the contrary, I think it's pretty shackling. What would be a not naive understanding of the quote? I think it is reasonable to want a future for your own children. How are we living in a world where this is controversial?
The words chosen are relatively vague and could mean a number of things, but in context both this and the 14 words are clearly part of the white supremacist movement. You can't ignore the history and context of language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've taken their bait. What they are trying to demonstrate is that there is a massive double standard. There are organizations, government programs, scholarships, etc which are explicitly designed to help the futures of children of color. Many people are openly, consciously, and unapologetically acting in a focused way to make the future better for them. But merely saying that we should be concerned about the futur…
White is a dumb category anyways. A lot of non-whites have significant European heritage. Its asymmetrical in a way that can only be identified as cultural racism. But yeah, the correct full position is we want to secure a good and fair future for all children, and fair sometimes means compensating for historical and ongoing inequalities and injustices created by racism.
Starting off as AnimalMuppet did (basically, trying to make white people feel bad for merely wanting for people of their category something which numerous institutions openly, explicitly, and unapologetically try to provide to people of other categories) is a pretty good way to convince white people that you can't be trusted to look out for their children without bias.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am getting confused now. My ESL'ness might be getting in the way of us communicating. Based on how the okay sign thing went, with all of its false positives (which are the innocent victims), I don't think the "dog whistles" give a clear enough signal. Your examples also use judgement from context rather than the dog whistles which is in line with what I've said. The other poster turned out to be a clear troll, and…
> Based on how the okay sign thing went, with all of its false positives (which are the innocent victims), I don't think the "dog whistles" give a clear enough signal. Your examples also use judgement from context rather than the dog whistles which is in line with what I've said. Can you give an example of one of these false positive victims?
Sure, I can. There was a viral example when Zina Bash, a white house advisor, was sitting in a senate hearing, with her hand on her arms, in a way where her fingers kind of looked like the OK sign, but not really.
As in, she did not "flash" the OK sign. Instead she had her hand resting on her arm in a certain position. And this went viral and everyone accused her of being a white supremicist because of it, even though the situation was clearly ridiculous.
You can look it up, if you want more details.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. it takes like 20 minutes to communicate the context and how this isn't so innocuous as it looks. I've had to explain this to my aging boomer parents, and they still don't buy it. It is truly a subversive phrase because it takes control of the argument from a place that requires, IMO, a lot of basics to be explained and/or challenged... which most people don't want to sit through. It's like a self-generating min…
I don't think you can construct "It's okay to be white" as something wrong, because it's just inherently correct. It worries me, that you even try to find something wrong the the slogan.
It depends on the context of the comment.
This phasing in particular was literally created by 4chan people, for the purpose of demonstrating some sort of anti SJW agenda.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a big prisoner's dilemma thing going on. If you're charitable, and the people you're discussing with are too , you can have better discussions. If you're operating in an environment like the internet where you can more or less guarantee that there will be one comment based on the the worst possible interpretation of what you said, being charitable in advance just makes things worse for you. You're playing "co…
I've found it to be pretty effective to simply not engage with those who keep taking the worst possible interpretations of your (or others) arguments. It sort of simulates an environment where everyone is charitable. In other words, "Don't feed the trolls"
I don't think the option of "don't feed the trolls" really works in such scenarios.