[Politics] What matters more? My Sex or my Race? (Interesting MCU conversation explored)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6
 

Saelune:
It really fucking is. You need to just stop. You 100% are white washing slavery in an attempt to justify white people owning slaves and it is abhorrent of you to do so.

The British Empire committed endless attrocities and no amount of slavery ended by them absolves them.

You want to entirely praise a whole empire while blatantly ignoring its evils? Thats fucked up and hypocritical.

Employ some god damn reading comprehension, Saelune.

Again, I do not have the time or crayons to explain basic English to you.

undeadsuitor:

Dreiko:

undeadsuitor:

And that's why civil rights activists who are part of the community they represent, and have experienced the hardships their people have, and better at their jobs.

And you want the best people for the job right?

Nothing I said lays the groundwork for someone being inherently more capable at reviewing games because of their upbringing and random general life experiences, it's all about how much work you put in writing and gaming.

Real simple example, imagine you have a black 7 year old with first grade education or a white 50 year old veteran activist, who would be better for coming up with a strategy for civil rights? If you don't pick the 7 year old for some reasons, these same reasons are why anyone can be the best at this job.

I'm not saying that being part of the community is not a factor, I'm just saying it's not insurmountable. I think other factors can make someone better at it than someone who has that insider insight. Hence, your organization should leave open the possibility.

This is not an original thought, I believe the leader of the NAACP was white a few years back.

Why is the only black choice someone in first grade?

Do you think black people's educations stop at first grade? Can you not imagine an adult educated black person?

Because according to their logic, the black 7 year old is more suitable for that job.

At this point this is a silly and absurdist attempt at twisting my words to sound somehow vaguely discriminatory. Why do you think I was implying that? Do you have some deep bias that makes you jump to that assumption as irrational as that jump is? (see how easy it is to do this?)

My point simply is that it's the education, not being black, that truly matters. A hypothetical person may exist that is the most educated out of everyone else and is also black, but you can't be 100% sure that they will be black and not white, hence, your organization ought to be open to anyone.

Marik2:
Slavery never really ended. It just has extra steps thanks to capitalism.

It's not even the 'wage slave' angle. Abolition hasn't stopped all actual slavery in America. There are an estimated 2.8 million slaves in America right now, which makes it more prevalent than during the Antebellum period.

Dreiko:

trunkage:

Dreiko:

White people came up with the idea of ending slavery.

Go home Dreiko, you're drunk.

White people were the only ones able to do anything about slavery in America because minorities were marginalized, especially the slaves. The ideas from slave were NOT valued or even heard. You can tell their attitude though as they kept running away. The slaves thought slavery was terrible and wanted to abolish it but you will never hear about because who cares about beings who aren't 'actually people.' A black person 'couldn't' come up with the idea becuase they didn't have any power or voice.

See, I disagree with that.

Sure, enslaved blacks escaped, they didn't want to BE slaves. Not wanting to be a slave yourself is not the same as slavery ending. Most everyone doesn't want to be the slave, even those who thought slavery is awesome and fought a civil war to retain it would have tried to escape if it came to be that they were slaves somehow. That's not enough to show that someone's against slavery, that's just showing they're against being the slave themselves.

Anti-slavery movements from people who weren't themselves slaves, from people against slavery as a thing and not merely against it being perpetrated on them, begun in the UK. Before that lots of peoples had both been enslaved and held/sold slaves but they never seemed to end slavery when it was within their capacity to be the owner and not the slave up until that point.

Firstly, mine and your interpretation are not mutually exclusive. As poeple have pointed out, many people from different races have been anti-slavery, especially if you're taking a long view like you.

But, as I've stated, slaves have no rights. They are literally unable to talk anything negative about slavery. For fear of beatings or death.

So no, they literally could say anything anti-slavery. But for the exact same reasons Russians couldn't speak against Communism. It was highly likely it lead to death.

But it does raise an important point. The ONLY way for minorities to get the same rights as citizens is for allies (probably white males) to support them. Or more likely, lead the charge

Marik2:
Slavery never really ended. It just has extra steps thanks to capitalism.

Pretty much. I mean we have people trumpeting the horn in here over British abolition and "warring against" the trans-Atlantic slave trade, as if the British Empire had made a moral decision as opposed to slavery no longer being profitable in the face of the Industrial Revolution, end of mercantilism, death of British colonial aspirations in the Americas, and Caribbean slave revolts running up operating prices and endangering sugar supplies.

Or that the cause of abolition was immediately seized upon by the British to trade war with Spain and Portugal to protect its own economic interests, while simultaneously justifying colonial aspirations in Africa directly, and setting up shop elsewhere in the world whilst relying upon "indentured servants".

Just like in America, the moral arguments in favor of abolition and emancipation had existed for nearly a century before the deed was done, and all of them put together had less impact than a steam engine and a sugar beet.

Dreiko:

At this point this is a silly and absurdist attempt at twisting my words to sound somehow vaguely discriminatory.

You crossed the silly and absurdist line when you said the two people available for a job were a 50-year-old white guy and a 7-year-old black child. I mean, doesn't that seem like a silly and absurd example to you?

Abomination:

Saelune:
It really fucking is. You need to just stop. You 100% are white washing slavery in an attempt to justify white people owning slaves and it is abhorrent of you to do so.

The British Empire committed endless attrocities and no amount of slavery ended by them absolves them.

You want to entirely praise a whole empire while blatantly ignoring its evils? Thats fucked up and hypocritical.

Employ some god damn reading comprehension, Saelune.

Again, I do not have the time or crayons to explain basic English to you.

People call me uncivil, but it is you resorting to just calling me stupid as your entire defense. If you want to prove to me that what is a blatant attempt at racist twisting of history is not that, then you are going to have to make the time.

Hawki:

Saelune:
Participating in a conversation relies on a goal. From 'gaining information' to trying to persuade a point. You clearly had some sort of goal to interject, or you would not have interjected.

No, you don't. You really don't. If this was a debate, then yes, there'd be a goal, but conversation isn't predicated on having a goal. And if it was, this thread lost its "goal" long ago, as we shifted from discussing whether sex or race matters more, to slavery.

I think the topic of slavery is absolutely still on topic for this.

'Socializing' is a common goal of any conversation. I do think this argument is more off-topic than slavery, but my own goal of this with you is to figure out where your position lies relative to Dreiko's. Do you agree with Dreiko here? Disagree? I am genuinely curious.

Saelune:

but my own goal of this with you is to figure out where your position lies relative to Dreiko's. Do you agree with Dreiko here? Disagree? I am genuinely curious.

I don't even know what Dreiko's position is.

"White people first thought of ending slavery?" That's historically false. The concept of abolitionism goes at least as far back as the Achmaid Empire. Most of the thread is just all over the place.

Baffle2:

Dreiko:

At this point this is a silly and absurdist attempt at twisting my words to sound somehow vaguely discriminatory.

You crossed the silly and absurdist line when you said the two people available for a job were a 50-year-old white guy and a 7-year-old black child. I mean, doesn't that seem like a silly and absurd example to you?

Not at all, actually. Also there's no malicious aspect of maligning someone in my example either, so it's loads better.

The point is illustrating that what matters the most is competence and not life experiences.

trunkage:

But it does raise an important point. The ONLY way for minorities to get the same rights as citizens is for allies (probably white males) to support them. Or more likely, lead the charge

This is the point I've been making for a while here, yes. It's silly to inherently treat any groups as subservient.

Dreiko:

trunkage:

But it does raise an important point. The ONLY way for minorities to get the same rights as citizens is for allies (probably white males) to support them. Or more likely, lead the charge

This is the point I've been making for a while here, yes. It's silly to inherently treat any groups as subservient.

If you're agreeing with me here, and all I'm doing is repeating you here, is that you MUST be subservient. The African American slaves had to suck up to the exact people group who enslaved them to get out of slavery.

That sounds exactly like subservience to me

Dreiko:

You crossed the silly and absurdist line when you said the two people available for a job were a 50-year-old white guy and a 7-year-old black child. I mean, doesn't that seem like a silly and absurd example to you?

Not at all, actually. Also there's no malicious aspect of maligning someone in my example either, so it's loads better.

No, your example is silly. Sticking to your guns on this one just makes your judgement look questionable (well, not questionable, just bad). Recommend you do a quick Google image search for 'old white guy' and 'young black boy' to make sure you know what those things are.

Saelune:

Abomination:

Saelune:
It really fucking is. You need to just stop. You 100% are white washing slavery in an attempt to justify white people owning slaves and it is abhorrent of you to do so.

The British Empire committed endless attrocities and no amount of slavery ended by them absolves them.

You want to entirely praise a whole empire while blatantly ignoring its evils? Thats fucked up and hypocritical.

Employ some god damn reading comprehension, Saelune.

Again, I do not have the time or crayons to explain basic English to you.

People call me uncivil, but it is you resorting to just calling me stupid as your entire defense. If you want to prove to me that what is a blatant attempt at racist twisting of history is not that, then you are going to have to make the time.

Don't want to, don't care to.

This isn't a matter of philosophy or argument, it's a matter of you simply lacking the reading comprehension to process what I have been saying. I am not your high school English teacher.

Abomination:

Saelune:

Abomination:
Employ some god damn reading comprehension, Saelune.

Again, I do not have the time or crayons to explain basic English to you.

People call me uncivil, but it is you resorting to just calling me stupid as your entire defense. If you want to prove to me that what is a blatant attempt at racist twisting of history is not that, then you are going to have to make the time.

Don't want to, don't care to.

This isn't a matter of philosophy or argument, it's a matter of you simply lacking the reading comprehension to process what I have been saying. I am not your high school English teacher.

You said racist things, I called you out on it, now you're calling me stupid because you have no actual defense of the racist things you said.

Dreiko:
but you can't be 100% sure that they will be black and not white, hence, your organization ought to be open to anyone.

Alirght. why can't the hypothetical super educated savior of the black race be latino? you seem pretty convinced and are fighting very hard for the savior of everyone to be white

Saelune:
You said racist things, I called you out on it, now you're calling me stupid because you have no actual defense of the racist things you said.

No, you accused me of saying racist things without actually specifying what I said that was racist.

I am saying your reading comprehension is terrible because nothing that I said was racist. This is going to continue until you somehow point out how what I said was racist.

As long as you continue to just declare "That's racist" without even hinting at context, folk will continue to dismiss you for simply not comprehending the written word.

Saelune:
Know what else white people did? THE HOLOCAUST! But suddenly #notallwhitepeople, right?

Well... it wasn't all white people, was it? It was the Axis powers. Against which a number of white people (two or three at least) fought. Honestly, I'm not sure where you're going with this Holocaust angle.

What's really bad (not worse than the Holocaust, obviously) is that people want eiderdown duvets but aren't keen on knowing they're made by ripping the feathers from live birds whose wounds are subsequently stitched up so they can grow more feathers to be ripped out later. They'll be stitched up again, obviously.

Jesus, life is horrible sometimes. I just found out that cashmere is pretty much in the same boat too (I have no guilt on this one, I don't think I've ever been able to afford cashmere.

Baffle2:

Saelune:
Know what else white people did? THE HOLOCAUST! But suddenly #notallwhitepeople, right?

Well... it wasn't all white people, was it? It was the Axis powers. Against which a number of white people (two or three at least) fought. Honestly, I'm not sure where you're going with this Holocaust angle.

What's really bad (not worse than the Holocaust, obviously) is that people want eiderdown duvets but aren't keen on knowing they're made by ripping the feathers from live birds whose wounds are subsequently stitched up so they can grow more feathers to be ripped out later. They'll be stitched up again, obviously.

Jesus, life is horrible sometimes. I just found out that cashmere is pretty much in the same boat too (I have no guilt on this one, I don't think I've ever been able to afford cashmere.

It's very easy for people to justify doing terrible things when they look at things as "products" and "profit" rather than as living things.

As to the question, I don't think you can get a clear cut answer to it. Your sex and race (or appearance) are both part of you and they both send signals to other people around you. In some situations your sex has the center stage, like if your friend were to set up a date for you and vice versa.
Sorry that I can't give a good answer to you.

Also, what exactly your friend was assuming was going to happen if you went and watched the movie? Like, has it come to this? Watch movie X = you're an enlightened and empathic human being
Don't watch movie X = Your moral is reprehensible? Or at the very least, the act of noth watching the movie is a bad thing?

Also, is it just me, or does the word race sound pretty weird when talking about fellow human beings?

Abomination:

Saelune:
You said racist things, I called you out on it, now you're calling me stupid because you have no actual defense of the racist things you said.

No, you accused me of saying racist things without actually specifying what I said that was racist.

I am saying your reading comprehension is terrible because nothing that I said was racist. This is going to continue until you somehow point out how what I said was racist.

As long as you continue to just declare "That's racist" without even hinting at context, folk will continue to dismiss you for simply not comprehending the written word.

Saelune:

Abomination:

erttheking:

Do you think Fredrick Douglas is a fairy tale?

He was born 11 years after the British Empire started applying military pressure to end slavery on a global scale.

The point Dreiko was trying to make is that if you want to really make a social change, you want to encourage those in power to take up your cause. But you don't convince those in power to take up your cause by hurling insults at them when they start to offer their opinion on the best way to achieve your goal.

The US required a civil war that resulted in the deaths of over half a million people to end slavery. The British Empire passed it with legislation and no civil war. Of course, the political structure of both nations was very very different but one can't help but agree that the British Empire obtained the better result.

That is some of the white washingist bullshit ever.

Seriously, all these claims of white people ending slavery is just racist and beyond over generalizing. Know what else white people did? THE HOLOCAUST! But suddenly #notallwhitepeople, right? White people also fought a war to KEEP slavery, but you guys aren't going to use that against ALL white people, are you?

And people tell me -I- over generalize.

Baffle2:

Saelune:
Know what else white people did? THE HOLOCAUST! But suddenly #notallwhitepeople, right?

Well... it wasn't all white people, was it? It was the Axis powers. Against which a number of white people (two or three at least) fought. Honestly, I'm not sure where you're going with this Holocaust angle.

Dreiko is trying to justify the 'White Savior' trope by giving all white people credit for ending slavery. I am using the Holocaust to point out how it is a mistake to do what Dreiko is doing.

Saelune:

Abomination:

Saelune:
You said racist things, I called you out on it, now you're calling me stupid because you have no actual defense of the racist things you said.

No, you accused me of saying racist things without actually specifying what I said that was racist.

I am saying your reading comprehension is terrible because nothing that I said was racist. This is going to continue until you somehow point out how what I said was racist.

As long as you continue to just declare "That's racist" without even hinting at context, folk will continue to dismiss you for simply not comprehending the written word.

Saelune:

Abomination:
He was born 11 years after the British Empire started applying military pressure to end slavery on a global scale.

The point Dreiko was trying to make is that if you want to really make a social change, you want to encourage those in power to take up your cause. But you don't convince those in power to take up your cause by hurling insults at them when they start to offer their opinion on the best way to achieve your goal.

The US required a civil war that resulted in the deaths of over half a million people to end slavery. The British Empire passed it with legislation and no civil war. Of course, the political structure of both nations was very very different but one can't help but agree that the British Empire obtained the better result.

That is some of the white washingist bullshit ever.

Seriously, all these claims of white people ending slavery is just racist and beyond over generalizing. Know what else white people did? THE HOLOCAUST! But suddenly #notallwhitepeople, right? White people also fought a war to KEEP slavery, but you guys aren't going to use that against ALL white people, are you?

And people tell me -I- over generalize.

I do not see how what I said was racist at all. Are you saying that the US did not have a Civil War? That the British Empire did not outlaw slavery without a civil war?

It also was not their whiteness that led them to making those decisions, but the social and political situations in those nations and their power on the world stage.

Then, with the same breath, you say that white people could not have done good things because white people did bad things like the holocaust - and have the nerve to call others racist.

Abomination:

Saelune:

Abomination:
No, you accused me of saying racist things without actually specifying what I said that was racist.

I am saying your reading comprehension is terrible because nothing that I said was racist. This is going to continue until you somehow point out how what I said was racist.

As long as you continue to just declare "That's racist" without even hinting at context, folk will continue to dismiss you for simply not comprehending the written word.

Saelune:
That is some of the white washingist bullshit ever.

Seriously, all these claims of white people ending slavery is just racist and beyond over generalizing. Know what else white people did? THE HOLOCAUST! But suddenly #notallwhitepeople, right? White people also fought a war to KEEP slavery, but you guys aren't going to use that against ALL white people, are you?

And people tell me -I- over generalize.

I do not see how what I said was racist at all. Are you saying that the US did not have a Civil War? That the British Empire did not outlaw slavery without a civil war?

It also was not their whiteness that led them to making those decisions, but the social and political situations in those nations and their power on the world stage.

Then, with the same breath, you say that white people could not have done good things because white people did bad things like the holocaust - and have the nerve to call others racist.

I am not surprised you don't see the racism, but there in lies the problem.

Saying white people ended slavery is like saying that Republicans ended slavery, while ignoring that the Conservative Southern Confederates share the same political views as today's modern Confederate Flag toting Southern Republicans. Or calling modern Germans Nazis cause Germans in 1945 were Nazis.

I am saying that YOU and Dreiko are wrong for blanket praising ALL white people for ending slavery, that that is as unfair as someone blanket condemning ALL white people for the Holocaust. That you missed that point entirely doesn't surprise me though.

But it is you and Dreiko who want to make it White vs Not-White, not me. No, it is Bigots vs Anti-Bigots. And plenty of straight white men, such as say, erttheking, who DO see the problems of bigotry and the unfair racial privilege that white men had, have and will likely continue to have for way too long.

Saelune:
I am not surprised you don't see the racism, but there in lies the problem.

Saying white people ended slavery is like saying that Republicans ended slavery, while ignoring that the Conservative Southern Confederates share the same political views as today's modern Confederate Flag toting Southern Republicans. Or calling modern Germans Nazis cause Germans in 1945 were Nazis.

I am saying that YOU and Dreiko are wrong for blanket praising ALL white people for ending slavery, that that is as unfair as someone blanket condemning ALL white people for the Holocaust. That you missed that point entirely doesn't surprise me though.

But it is you and Dreiko who want to make it White vs Not-White, not me. No, it is Bigots vs Anti-Bigots. And plenty of straight white men, such as say, erttheking, who DO see the problems of bigotry and the unfair racial privilege that white men had, have and will likely continue to have for way too long.

Nobody has said that white people ended slavery - it has not ended. I never said it was white people who ended it, only that the British Empire was the first nation to make genuine roads into ending slavery on a global scale.

The point was made in direct contention to the implication that white people are the "worst" at slavery or deserve the most scorn for the practice that was universal between every ethnicity. But apparently mentioning the direct evidence against such a notion is racist for implying that white people are not to blame for every ill on the planet. But of course, white people (in their entirety) ARE to blame for the Holocaust, because the people in power in Germany during the mid 20th century enacted such policy.

Nobody has ever said that the British Empire gets a free pass for all the horrible things it did, but it as much to blame for the bad things as it is for the good it did as well.

Saying the British Empire did stuff is not racist.

Abomination:

Saelune:
I am not surprised you don't see the racism, but there in lies the problem.

Saying white people ended slavery is like saying that Republicans ended slavery, while ignoring that the Conservative Southern Confederates share the same political views as today's modern Confederate Flag toting Southern Republicans. Or calling modern Germans Nazis cause Germans in 1945 were Nazis.

I am saying that YOU and Dreiko are wrong for blanket praising ALL white people for ending slavery, that that is as unfair as someone blanket condemning ALL white people for the Holocaust. That you missed that point entirely doesn't surprise me though.

But it is you and Dreiko who want to make it White vs Not-White, not me. No, it is Bigots vs Anti-Bigots. And plenty of straight white men, such as say, erttheking, who DO see the problems of bigotry and the unfair racial privilege that white men had, have and will likely continue to have for way too long.

Nobody has said that white people ended slavery - it has not ended. I never said it was white people who ended it, only that the British Empire was the first nation to make genuine roads into ending slavery on a global scale.

The point was made in direct contention to the implication that white people are the "worst" at slavery or deserve the most scorn for the practice that was universal between every ethnicity. But apparently mentioning the direct evidence against such a notion is racist for implying that white people are not to blame for every ill on the planet. But of course, white people (in their entirety) ARE to blame for the Holocaust, because the people in power in Germany during the mid 20th century enacted such policy.

Nobody has ever said that the British Empire gets a free pass for all the horrible things it did, but it as much to blame for the bad things as it is for the good it did as well.

Saying the British Empire did stuff is not racist.

Dreiko said white people ended slavery. Then you defended that. You made a highly reductionist and misleading comment that ignores the context of the situations.

Abomination:
The point was made in direct contention to the implication that white people are the "worst" at slavery or deserve the most scorn for the practice that was universal between every ethnicity. But apparently mentioning the direct evidence against such a notion is racist for implying that white people are not to blame for every ill on the planet.

When was this stated or implied by people in this thread?

Can we quit here. For sanity's sake. There's a reason why R&P was closed down. We're making it redundant.
.

undeadsuitor:

Dreiko:
but you can't be 100% sure that they will be black and not white, hence, your organization ought to be open to anyone.

Alirght. why can't the hypothetical super educated savior of the black race be latino? you seem pretty convinced and are fighting very hard for the savior of everyone to be white

.
It was, in Haiti. Singular slave colony to have rebelled successfully in history. Very interesting history... I'd recommend listening to Mike Duncan's revolutions about Haitian revolution, it's very good.
.
Neither, really. Who you are builds or breaks your personality and world-view. You shouldn't be judged based on your race or gender... You are who you are. If you do have to judge, do it based on a person's actions and words.

TheIronRuler:

.
It was, in Haiti. Singular slave colony to have rebelled successfully in history. Very interesting history... I'd recommend listening to Mike Duncan's revolutions about Haitian revolution, it's very good.

Just started! I see you too are a man of culture. (Had to take a long break from him. I binged the French Revolution and I think I fried my brain in the process). But I'm back in now!

Abomination:
The point was made in direct contention to the implication that white people are the "worst" at slavery or deserve the most scorn for the practice that was universal between every ethnicity. But apparently mentioning the direct evidence against such a notion is racist for implying that white people are not to blame for every ill on the planet.

I don't think anyone has claimed this (white slavery = worst) on this thread.

I'd point out that American South slavery took a massive nose dive after 1808, making it hereditary among other things. They did a lot worse than other white slavery institutions. So blanket blaming Whites for the South is wrong.

And then Boko Haram is probably worse than American South, so...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here