Pages
Here’s a video I watched recently by @SteelOwls who I think has way too few followers at the moment.
What do you think?
Update 4:03
Sorry I forgot to mention this, but there is a small amount of bad language in the video. I just decided I should add a small warning in case you’re thinking about watching it around children.
20 comments
1 |
CuriousLurker Sat, Oct 26, 2013 5:55:01pm |
Why doesn’t he cite the book where he read the (incorrect) definition of racism as something confined only to white people. That’s absurd.
Institutionalized racism—which is what he’s talking about based on the definition he said he read—requires that the group imposing the racism have the power control the the political, economic, and social opportunities of whatever group they are oppressing. This was the case in the United States until the civil rights movement changed things.
This is different from (though still related to) racism in the supremacist sense where a particular group believes that it is intrinsically superior and therefore should have the right to rule over, mistreat, or expel inferior “others” who don’t belong to its group.
In the U.S. it’s still not possible for non-whites to impose institutionalized racism on whites because they don’t control all the levers of power necessary to do so. This is not the case in other countries, where it absolutely is possible for non-whites to do so.
This is why, IMO, white supremacists and other far-right racist groups have allied themselves with the Tea Party (which seems to have taken over the GOP) and, in some cases, with Christianity (in the form of Christianity Identity)—they want to bring institutionalized racism back to the U.S. lest the racism they’ve perpetrated in the past be turned back on them.
They intend to do this by getting their hands back on the levers of power through getting elected to public office, and they’re playing on white fear/guilt to do so. The “professional” Islamophobes help to feed fear & anger where religion is concerned, seemingly feeling no trepidation whatsoever that in so doing they’re also assisting groups that have historically been virulently antisemitic.
2 |
CriticalDragon1177 Sat, Oct 26, 2013 6:02:15pm |
re: #1 CuriousLurker
You made some important points. I told @SteelOwls that I posted this here. He might show up later and respond. I’m kind of interested in what his response will be.
3 |
HappyWarrior Sat, Oct 26, 2013 8:48:55pm |
The people who claim “double standards” ignore the fact that groups like the SPLC were criticizing groups like the New Black Panthers for racial militancy before the right wing got paranoid about them. No, not only white people can be racist but whites do deserve more blame for the racism that exists in this country than racial minorities do and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.
| 4 |
CriticalDragon1177 Sat, Oct 26, 2013 9:12:06pm |
re: #3 HappyWarrior
Whites do deserve more of the blame when it comes to racism. I agree with you on that.
Also, people who want to make the ridiculous claim that “Anti Racist is Anti white” ignore how groups like the SPLC has condemned anti white racists repeatedly.
5 |
b_sharp Sun, Oct 27, 2013 8:45:07am |
re: #1 CuriousLurker
Why doesn’t he cite the book where he read the (incorrect) definition of racism as something confined only to white people. That’s absurd.
Institutionalized racism—which is what he’s talking about based on the definition he said he read—requires that the group imposing the racism have the power control the the political, economic, and social opportunities of whatever group they are oppressing. This was the case in the United States until the civil rights movement changed things.
This is different from (though still related to) racism in the supremacist sense where a particular group believes that it is intrinsically superior and therefore should have the right to rule over, mistreat, or expel inferior “others” who don’t belong to its group.
In the U.S. it’s still not possible for non-whites to impose >institutionalized racism on whites because they don’t control all the levers of power necessary to do so. This is not the case in other countries, where it absolutely >is possible for non-whites to do so.
This is why, IMO, white supremacists and other far-right racist groups have allied themselves with the Tea Party (which seems to have taken over the GOP) and, in some cases, with Christianity (in the form of Christianity Identity)—they want to bring institutionalized racism back to the U.S. lest the racism they’ve perpetrated in the past be turned back on them.
They intend to do this by getting their hands back on the levers of power through getting elected to public office, and they’re playing on white fear/guilt to do so. The “professional” Islamophobes help to feed fear & anger where religion is concerned, seemingly feeling no trepidation whatsoever that in so doing they’re also assisting groups that have historically been virulently antisemitic.
Right on the money CL.
There are two types of systemic racism, one of which is exactly as you’ve stated it, institutional racism. The other type, and the one that ties personal racism to institutional racism and where the informal remnants of institutional racism hides is cultural racism.
Over time institutional racism and personal racism become incorporated into such things as language. An example would be the phrase ‘call a spade a spade’ which has nothing to do with the shovel or the playing card. Now when used by an individual, even if that individual wouldn’t normally be considered racist, it perpetuates a racist attitude.
Cultural racism is the most difficult to excise from our culture because of its insidious nature. Many people simply do not recognize, or in fact reject, the necessity of denormalizing language in order to denormalize the attitude.
6 |
Decatur Deb Sun, Oct 27, 2013 10:11:27am |
re: #5 b_sharp
Been calling spades ‘spades’ for a very long time.
Wiki:
Its ultimate source is Plutarch’s Apophthegmata Laconica (178B) which has την σκαφην σκαφην λεγοντας (ten skafen skafen legontas). σκαφη (skafe) means “basin, trough”, but Erasmus mis-translated it (as if from σπάθη spáthe) as ligo “shovel” in his Apophthegmatum opus. Lucian De Hist. Conscr. (41) has τα συκα συκα, την σκαφην δε σκαφην ονομασων (ta suka suka, ten skafen de skafen onomason) “calling a fig a fig, and a trough a trough”.
The phrase was introduced to English in 1542 in Nicolas Udall’s translation of Erasmus, Apophthegmes, that is to saie, prompte saiynges. First gathered by Erasmus:
Philippus aunswered, that the Macedonians wer feloes of no fyne witte in their termes but altogether grosse, clubbyshe, and rusticall, as they whiche had not the witte to calle a spade by any other name then a spade.
It is evident that the word spade refers to the instrument used to move earth, a very common tool. The same word was used in England, Denmark, and in the Netherlands, Erasmus’ country of origin.
The Oxford English Dictionary records a more forceful variant, “to call a spade a bloody shovel”, attested since 1919.
The phrase predates the use of the word “spade” as an ethnic slur against African Americans, which was not recorded until 1928; however, in contemporary U.S. society, the idiom is often avoided due to potential confusion with the slur[3] and/or confusion with playing card references such as “black as the ace of spades”.
7 |
blueraven Sun, Oct 27, 2013 11:56:10am |
How the hell are we supposed to take him seriously when he never names the book, or author he is citing? It is the proverbial “some people say”.
It could be, and probably is, some idiot.
| 8 |
SamOwl Mon, Oct 28, 2013 9:41:27am |
The reason I didn’t cite the book was because I’m lazy.
Adams, Maurianne, Warren J. Blumenfeld, Carmelita Rosie Castañeda, Heather W. Hackman, Madeline L. Peters, and Ximena Zúñiga. “Racism: Race as a Sociopolitical Construction.” Readings for Diversity and Social Justice. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2010. 60. Print.
In other words, a college-accepted textbook on racism.
In real terms:
Book: Readings for Diversity and Social Justice
Edition: 2
Editors: Maurianne Adams, Warren J. Blumenfeld, Carmelita Rosie Castañeda, Heather W. Hackman, Madeline L. Peters, and Ximena Zúñiga
Published in 2010.
Section: 2, Racism
Chapter: Race as a Sociopolitical Construction
Page: 60
Quote:
“Racism is the set of institutional, cultural, and interpersonal patterns and practices that create advantages for people legally defined and socially constructed as “White”, and the corollary disadvantages for people defined as “non-White” in the United States.”
The definition of racism is general and refers only to the United States, and I think that’s a very limited perspective given what it actually said.
You could argue that this was talking about institutional racism, but the fact is it just said “racism”, and then described racism as having a set of institutional patterns, and the patterns mentioned have to benefit people constructed as “white”.
Even if it WERE talking about institutional racism, it’s still not entirely accurate. I don’t deny that whites have the most impact on the institution of racism, but I deny that whites are the only ones, and by far they are not the only ones. We just don’t hear about it as often.
| 10 |
CuriousLurker Mon, Oct 28, 2013 7:27:11pm |
re: #8 SamOwl
The reason I didn’t cite the book was because I’m lazy.
That’s not going to be popular here and it definitely won’t win you any debates. If you care about a subject, then take the time to research it, collect facts, cite reputable sources (with links), and make a logical case for your conclusions. If you can’t be bothered, then don’t expect us to waste much time discussing things with you and don’t be surprised if you’re ridiculed. I’m not saying that just to be snarky, I’m saying it because that’s how things work around here.
“Racism is the set of institutional, cultural, and interpersonal patterns and practices that create advantages for people legally defined and socially constructed as “White”, and the corollary disadvantages for people defined as “non-White” in the United States.”
The definition of racism is general and refers only to the United States, and I think that’s a very limited perspective given what it actually said.
You could argue that this was talking about institutional racism, but the fact is it just said “racism”, and then described racism as having a set of institutional patterns, and the patterns mentioned have to benefit people constructed as “white”.
I don’t understand your logic in asserting that it’s a “general” definition of racism (presumably overly so) while at the same time saying it’s “a very limited perspective given what it actually said.” It’s a very limited perspective precisely because it’s based on a very specific definition. It’s quite clear to me based on the the snippet you provided that they’re addressing racism as a group (set) of circumstances (patterns and practices) in the United States that make up White privilege (create advantages for people legally defined and socially constructed as “White”). It’s not about other countries & cultures or individual groups, institutions, or people.
Another thing: According to its description, the second edition of the book is a 688-page anthology containing over 130 readings/chapters. Based on those numbers and my perusal of the table of contents of the first edition, each essay is only a few pages long. Given those constraints, the essays would either have to be sweepingly general overviews or very narrow & precise examples.
Additionally, you provided the section & page number, but failed to mention whether the portion quoted was from the introduction or from one of the chapters, and if so which one (I was unable to locate a TOC for the 2nd edition). In the context of an anthology, it matters much more than it would in a book covering the subject in a more general way.
It’s especially relevant with this particular book since the back cover points out that each of the book’s sections are purposely divided into subsections called Contexts, Personal Voices, and Next Steps and Actions, the first two containing “theoretical essays and personal reflections” designed to stress “critical thinking while providing vivid portraits”, and the third containing essays “designed to challenge the reader to take action”.
You don’t seem to be approaching the book the way it was intended.
Even if it WERE talking about institutional racism, it’s still not entirely accurate. I don’t deny that whites have the most impact on the institution of racism, but I deny that whites are the only ones, and by far they are not the only ones. We just don’t hear about it as often.
You’re wrong. Please carefully re-read my definition of institutional racism in comment #1. Both at present and historically speaking, it simply is not possible for non-Whites to impose institutional racism in the U.S. because they are not the dominant group (at least not yet).
If you’re asserting otherwise—and it seems that you are—then, as mentioned previously, you’re going to need to provide proof from reputable sources (in the form of links). Mind you, I’m not saying that it’s impossible for individual non-White institutions (say a school, business, or other organization) to be racist towards Whites, but that’s not what people talking about when—as in the book you cited—they refer to institutional racism on a national scale.
11 |
palomino Mon, Oct 28, 2013 9:25:28pm |
re: #8 SamOwl
The reason I didn’t cite the book was because I’m lazy.
Adams, Maurianne, Warren J. Blumenfeld, Carmelita Rosie Castañeda, Heather W. Hackman, Madeline L. Peters, and Ximena Zúñiga. “Racism: Race as a Sociopolitical Construction.” Readings for Diversity and Social Justice. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2010. 60. Print.
In other words, a college-accepted textbook on racism.
In real terms:
Book: Readings for Diversity and Social Justice
Edition: 2
Editors: Maurianne Adams, Warren J. Blumenfeld, Carmelita Rosie Castañeda, Heather W. Hackman, Madeline L. Peters, and Ximena Zúñiga
Published in 2010.
Section: 2, Racism
Chapter: Race as a Sociopolitical Construction
Page: 60Quote:
“Racism is the set of institutional, cultural, and interpersonal patterns and practices that create advantages for people legally defined and socially constructed as “White”, and the corollary disadvantages for people defined as “non-White” in the United States.”The definition of racism is general and refers only to the United States, and I think that’s a very limited perspective given what it actually said.
You could argue that this was talking about institutional racism, but the fact is it just said “racism”, and then described racism as having a set of institutional patterns, and the patterns mentioned have to benefit people constructed as “white”.
Even if it WERE talking about institutional racism, it’s still not entirely accurate. I don’t deny that whites have the most impact on the institution of racism, but I deny that whites are the only ones, and by far they are not the only ones. We just don’t hear about it as often.
We don’t hear about it as often because it’s miniscule compared with the white dominated institutionalized racism that’s been pervasive throughout American history.
A recent example would be the voter ID laws passed in several states. Some of the laws’ architects have admitted what is obvious: white dominated institutions (state governments) attempting to maintain hegemony through targeting non-whites for disenfranchisement. Different tactic, but same goal as the Jim Crow days of poll taxes.
There is no analogy running the other direction, wherein non-whites possess so much institutional power that they can attempt to marginalize whites, particulary not in an area as fundamental as the right to vote. Non-whites simply don’t have the institutional clout in America to pull something like this off; nor do non-whites have the numbers, as the nation is still 63% non-Hispanic white. Not to say this couldn’t change, but demographics still put us decades away from such an altered dynamic.
Finally, it’s essential that we clarify a distinction between personal bigotry (practiced by members of all racial/ethnic groups in the US) and systemic/historical racism (a nearly exclusively white-on-nonwhite phenomenon in the US).
| 12 |
SamOwl Tue, Oct 29, 2013 10:57:04am |
re: #10 CuriousLurker
That’s not going to be popular here and it definitely won’t win you any debates. If you care about a subject, then take the time to research it, collect facts, cite reputable sources (with links), and make a logical case for your conclusions. If you can’t be bothered, then don’t expect us to waste much time discussing things with you and don’t be surprised if you’re ridiculed. I’m not saying that just to be snarky, I’m saying it because that’s how things work around here.
I don’t understand your logic in asserting that it’s a “general” definition of racism (presumably overly so) while at the same time saying it’s “a very limited perspective given what it actually said.” It’s a very limited perspective >precisely because it’s based on a very specific definition. It’s quite clear to me based on the the snippet you provided that they’re addressing racism as >a group (set) of circumstances (patterns and practices) in the United States that make up White privilege (create advantages for people legally defined and socially constructed as “White”). It’s not about other countries & cultures or individual groups, institutions, or people.
Another thing: According to its description, the second edition of the book is a 688-page anthology containing over 130 readings/chapters. Based on those numbers and my perusal of the table of contents of the first edition, each essay is only a few pages long. Given those constraints, the essays would either have to be sweepingly general overviews or very narrow & precise examples.
Additionally, you provided the section & page number, but failed to mention whether the portion quoted was from the introduction or from one of the chapters, and if so which one (I was unable to locate a TOC for the 2nd edition). In the context of an anthology, it matters much more than it would in a book covering the subject in a more general way.
It’s especially relevant with this particular book since the back cover points out that each of the book’s sections are purposely divided into subsections called Contexts, Personal Voices, and Next Steps and Actions, the first two containing “theoretical essays and personal reflections” designed to stress “critical thinking while providing vivid portraits”, and the third containing essays “designed to challenge the reader to take action”.
You don’t seem to be approaching the book the way it was intended.
You’re wrong. Please carefully re-read my definition of institutional racism in comment #1. Both at present and historically speaking, it simply is >not possible for non-Whites to impose >institutional racism in the U.S. because they are not the dominant group (at least not yet).
If you’re asserting otherwise—and it seems that you are—then, as mentioned previously, you’re going to need to provide proof from reputable sources (in the form of links). Mind you, I’m >not saying that it’s impossible for >individual non-White institutions (say a school, business, or other organization) to be racist towards Whites, but that’s not what people talking about when—as in the book you cited—they refer to institutional racism on a national scale.
I actually didn’t expect a thing, since I am not the one who introduced my video to this website. I came here by request of another person, who introduced this video here as he/she thought it was worth the discussion. My videos are my creations which I make in the manner I wish. If I haven’t held up to the way things work “around here”, then it’s because I didn’t make my video to that standard. It was a video blog essentially, not an introduction to an extensive debate.
Hence why I didn’t bother to cite a source. If you look at where I actually debate somebody, you’ll see I’m more than capable of citing my sources, and that’s because I’m adhering to the premise of debate. The premise of a video blog is not in empirical verifiability, but in the expression of one’s thoughts.
By the way, in my comment above, I did specify what chapter it was from, and the page. Introductions are at the beginning of each section, not each chapter. The section is just Section 2: Racism. The chapter is Race as a sociopolitical construction, and the page is 60. If you have the book, with that information, it is very easy to find what I was referring to.
A good summation of what my views are concerning the topic are found on that video in the comments, in response to somebody who tried explaining to me how all white people practice racism. The claim is inconsistent and ass-backwards. My issue is with individuals such as the one I just mentioned.
re: #11 palomino
We don’t hear about it as often because it’s miniscule compared with the white dominated institutionalized racism that’s been pervasive throughout American history.
A recent example would be the voter ID laws passed in several states. Some of the laws’ architects have admitted what is obvious: white dominated institutions (state governments) attempting to maintain hegemony through targeting non-whites for disenfranchisement. Different tactic, but same goal as the Jim Crow days of poll taxes.
There is no analogy running the other direction, wherein non-whites possess so much institutional power that they can attempt to marginalize whites, particulary not in an area as fundamental as the right to vote. Non-whites simply don’t have the institutional clout in America to pull something like this off; nor do non-whites have the numbers, as the nation is still 63% non-Hispanic white. Not to say this couldn’t change, but demographics still put us decades away from such an altered dynamic.
Finally, it’s essential that we clarify a distinction between >personal bigotry (practiced by members of all racial/ethnic groups in the US) and >systemic/historical racism (a nearly exclusively white-on-nonwhite phenomenon in the US).
I am familiar with voter ID laws (which is essentially just a replacement for voter literacy tests), gerrymandering, and the like. I am familiar with institutional racism. My issue is not with explaining to people what these issues are, but with the way they are expressed. As I said, to give the definition that all white people benefit from racism, and then the subsequent thought that all white people practice racism or that all white people are racist, is very, very dangerous.
The problem so many white people have, including myself at one point in time, with identifying where white privilege exists and how we can run faster than the escalator can slide us up (an analogy for the way one must fight the system of racism in order for it to have any effect), is that the way the message is being conveyed is in a way that just causes people to resent whites, and for whites to feel guilty just for being born the way they are.
That paragraph above sums up what my overall message is about this topic.
| 13 |
CuriousLurker Tue, Oct 29, 2013 3:04:56pm |
re: #12 SamOwl
I actually didn’t expect a thing, since I am not the one who introduced my video to this website. I came here by request of another person, who introduced this video here as he/she thought it was worth the discussion. My videos are my creations which I make in the manner I wish. If I haven’t held up to the way things work “around here”, then it’s because I didn’t make my video to that standard. It was a video blog essentially, not an introduction to an extensive debate.
Hence why I didn’t bother to cite a source. If you look at where I actually debate somebody, you’ll see I’m more than capable of citing my sources, and that’s because I’m adhering to the premise of debate. The premise of a video blog is not in empirical verifiability, but in the expression of one’s thoughts.
By the way, in my comment above, I did specify what chapter it was from, and the page. Introductions are at the beginning of each section, not each chapter. The section is just Section 2: Racism. The chapter is Race as a sociopolitical construction, and the page is 60. If you have the book, with that information, it is very easy to find what I was referring to.
A good summation of what my views are concerning the topic are found on that video in the comments, in response to somebody who tried explaining to me how all white people practice racism. The claim is inconsistent and ass-backwards. My issue is with individuals such as the one I just mentioned.
LOL, I see. In that case, I’ll stick to discussing things with the adults here and won’t bother pointing out the fallacies in your comments above, nor will I make any further attempt to have a serious discussion with you. Oh, and good luck with that stream of consciousness video blogging. //
| 14 |
SamOwl Thu, Oct 31, 2013 7:16:42am |
Not trying to be snarky, eh? Very well, but perhaps before you have those ‘adult’ discussions, you work on your pretentious attitude towards people who don’t agree with you.
In addition, watch the underlying ageism in your comment. If you’re going to preach to me about the realities behind white supremacy and racism, at least make sure you’re consistent.
Other than that? Have a nice day.
| 15 |
CuriousLurker Thu, Oct 31, 2013 1:43:22pm |
Effing uppity brown people!!11!
LOL
| 16 |
SamOwl Fri, Nov 1, 2013 9:30:55am |
I have two considerations here:
1) If you’re white, then chances are despite your criticisms of me and preachings concerning racism and its surrounding schools of thought and practice, you have done absolutely nothing to fight the system, and are indeed nothing more than a talker who still participates in a system of white supremacy, as well as (apparently) ageism.
2) If you’re not white, then it seems you only speak out against institutional forms of discrimination and hierarchy when it benefits you to do so, and actively participate in those which benefit you.
Based on your general attitude toward me, even from the beginning, I question whether or not this will have made any difference in your way of thinking. Your preemptive dismissal of any further serious discussion would probably answer that question for me. That being said, I think I’ve overstayed my “welcome” now.
17 |
wrenchwench Fri, Nov 1, 2013 10:02:40am |
re: #16 SamOwl
That being said, I think I’ve overstayed my “welcome” now.
Hold on there, pardner. There are commenters here who are MUCH more obnoxious than you are, and they haven’t been given the boot.
I was a very smart young person once. Now I’m older. It’s not ageism to note a difference. It’s only annoying and pointless to say, ‘you’ll see’.
From your comment at #12:
[…]
I am familiar with voter ID laws (which is essentially just a replacement for voter literacy tests), gerrymandering, and the like. I am familiar with institutional racism. My issue is not with explaining to people what these issues are, but with the way they are expressed. As I said, to give the definition that all white people benefit from racism, and then the subsequent thought that all white people practice racism or that all white people are racist, is very, very dangerous.
The problem so many white people have, including myself at one point in time, with identifying where white privilege exists and how we can run faster than the escalator can slide us up (an analogy for the way one must fight the system of racism in order for it to have any effect), is that the way the message is being conveyed is in a way that just causes people to resent whites, and for whites to feel guilty just for being born the way they are.
That paragraph above sums up what my overall message is about this topic.
In that bolded part, is the ‘subsequent thought’ part of the definition of racism? Or the thought you have when someone says ‘All white people benefit from racism’?
Did you know you can benefit from racism without feeling guilty about it? If you didn’t cause it, and are fighting it, why should you feel guilty? Recognizing your own white privilege doesn’t have to cause resentment. How you deal with it is up to you.
Your comment just above is pretty rude. First of all, you don’t indicate who you are addressing. Secondly, it looks to me like you’re saying, ‘If you’re white, I’m going to make one set of assumptions about you. If you’re not white, I’m going to make a different set of assumptions about you.’
You don’t have to make assumptions about anyone here. You can stick around and get to know them, and discuss these things. But if you’re rude, you’re more likely to get the snark first. If you continue that way, snark is all you’ll get.
| 19 |
SamOwl Fri, Nov 1, 2013 9:01:04pm |
re: #17 wrenchwench
I feel as though it’s necessary to clarify my views. To start, just in defense of myself, I don’t think I showed any image of obnoxiousness until I received the comment from CuriousLurker which read:
LOL, I see. In that case, I’ll stick to discussing things with the adults here and won’t bother pointing out the fallacies in your comments above, nor will I make any further attempt to have a serious discussion with you. Oh, and good luck with that stream of consciousness video blogging. //
Although, I was very obnoxious after that, I feel as though it was with at least some good reason.
Up until that point, I was clarifying my intentions in the video. I didn’t cite the source for two reasons, the first being that I’m lazy, but more importantly, the second being that I felt no obligation to because I was simply making a video about my personal thoughts on the topic. I was not introducing it as a premise for debate, but as a personal reaction to something that disturbed me.
The ageism in the comment was in saying “I’ll stick to discussing things with the adults here”. The underlying assumption in such a statement is that I’m not an adult, and speaking to someone who is an adult is preferred in order for intellectual discourse. We could argue how this expresses his underlying beliefs, but you could replace the word “adults” with pretty much any other word and have a very derogatory statement. For example, replace “adults” with “men”.
The subsequent thought was not a part of the definition, it was that all white people benefit from racism. More specifically, I referred to one comment where the person said all white people practice racism, which is a very different statement.
My comment above was rude, but again I tend to lose cordiality when faced with deliberate provocation.
Basically, here is what I saw:
Somebody felt my video was worth discussing, and posted it here.
Multiple people demand a source, and one asks “how the hell are we supposed to take him seriously?”
I provide a source as prompted to do so, and explain why I didn’t provide one originally.
Commenter states that if I can’t be bothered to cite a source “then don’t expect us to waste much time discussing things with you and don’t be surprised if you’re ridiculed”.
I feel I never expected anything of anyone, and also a bit prejudged.
I explain this, the premise of my video, and why I felt no obligation to cite my sources originally (it was a video of personal expression, not a call for a debate).
Am met with an “LOL”, a dismissal of any serious discussion, and a sarcastic comment about my “stream of consciousness video blogging”.
Begin sarcastic comebacks.
Leaving out the definitions provided for me of institutional racism and white supremacy (which I was already aware of, don’t get me wrong), did I miss anything? I feel as though even before I posted, I received a general reaction of resentment and anger, and then when I did post, I was still met with such a reaction. Then when I simply explain, I’m met with complete dismissal and patronization?
That’s why I stated what I did: that I felt I overstayed my “welcome” - welcome in quotations because I never felt entirely welcome to begin with.
Seeing as how I’ve done my fair share of complaining, I’ll just wait for a reply. (This wasn’t sarcastic, it was me genuinely seeing this entire comment I just made as one huge complaint, and I just want to see if I missed something when making my judgment of the atmosphere of this discussion board).
| 20 |
wrenchwench Fri, Nov 1, 2013 10:36:20pm |
I just want to see if I missed something when making my judgment of the atmosphere of this discussion board
One thing:
SamOwl
Registered since: Oct 28, 2013 at 9:29 am
No. of comments posted: 5
No. of Pages posted: 0
The element of time. I don’t trust your judgement about ‘the atmosphere of this discussion board’, because you haven’t spent much time here, and what you have has all been here on this side thread.
You’re talking about race with people whose race you don’t know, but you think it matters because you would say something different based on that. You’re talking about gender to someone whose gender you seem to have made an incorrect assumption about.
I see that happen here, and I have to figure it happens everywhere you go.
Spend less energy defending yourself, and more time making a case for your claims.
The Good Liars at the Schnecksville Trump Rally [VIDEO] New theories, great tunes and SHOCKING breaking news. SUPPORT US: http://Herohero.co/thegoodliars SEE THE GOOD LIARS LIVE!WASHINGTON D.C. MAY 23RD: https://www.unionstage.com/shows/good-liars-fix-america/NASHVILLE, TN JUNE 6TH: https://www.etix.com/ticket/p/42992972/the-good-liars-nashville-the-lab-at-zaniesSAN FRANCISCO, CA JUNE 25TH: https://www.livenation.com/event/G5vYZbavGvggG/the-good-liars SUBSCRIBE TO OUR AUDIO PODCAST:Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-good-liars-tell-the-truth/id1731178442Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7mgfiwzr32907N4y68eFOCJoin this channel ...
teleskiguy
Trump’s “Stolen Election” Lie Based on Evidence From Pervy Bathroom Cam-Spy OK, this really takes the cake. If you have relatives that still cling to the “election was stolen, dadgum, I jes’ KNOW IT … This should be a slight remedy to the stubborn madness Thanks to online anonymity, the ...
Khal Wimpo (free internal organs upon request!)
Best of April 2024 Nothing new here but these are a look back at the a few good images from the past month. Despite the weather, I was quite pleased with several of them. These were taken with older lenses (made from the ...
William Lewis
Gateway Pundit, Sued by Election Workers, Declares BankruptcyA onetime favorite, now just pathetic figure around these parts, Jim Hoft aka SMOTI ("Stupidest Man On The Internet"), has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in response to the defamation lawsuits filed against him to the same election workers that ... Khal Wimpo (free internal organs upon request!)
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ... Cheechako
Alone in a Bathroom: The Fear and Uncertainty of a Post-Roe Medication Abortion Angel tucked two white pills into each side of her mouth, bracing herself as they began to dissolve. Her deepest fears and anxieties took over. Angel had wanted to talk to a doctor before she took the pills to ... Cheechako
They Were Desperate to Get Pregnant. Then IVF Gave Them Extra Embryos. One morning last spring, Ashley Harrolle put her 1-year-old daughter down for a nap and went to the kitchen. She pulled up her fertility clinic’s contact information. It was time to make the call. In a freezer several hundred ... Cheechako
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ... Cheechako
