Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Mist_sl said:

All involve some kind of whining and shaming if you actually use one in an encounter.

Click to expand...

Says the white woman whining about and shaming men for having "passive auras".

Mist_sl said:

So white people bringing up the fact that their ancestors worked hard is okay, but black people bringing up the fact that their ancestors were enslaved is discarded as irrelevant to their current societal ills...

Click to expand...

Um what? Im specifically talking about this stupid idea that I can go back in time and be alright because I'm white and there was some sort of advantage. No fucking advantage present in a society where everyone is the same damn color. I appreciate the attempt to some how shoehorn fucking slavery into this.

I've got Bohemian and Irish blood in me. You fucking white males keeping my ancestors down.

Lightning Lord Rule_sl said:

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! Look over here!

Click to expand...

It's bad debate 101. When an objective observation that is damaging to the feminine is made, rather than argue against that point, sidestep the issue. Or, my favorite, "Well, women might do that, but men are worse!".

Mist_sl said:

Not shaming at all forhavingthem. You just have to admit it's there. The only shame is in not admitting that it's there.

Click to expand...

Ladies and Gentlmen, I present to you theliteral definition of racism in practice.

Tanoomba_sl said:

See, these claims are self evident to people who aren't assholes. Mist gets it, Louis CK gets it, liberals get it, academics get it, women get it, non-whites get it, even lots of white people get it! Basically everyone gets it except entitled white guys who are easily offended. The same can not be said for lizard people.

Click to expand...

The claims aren't self evident; they are anecdotally asserted, and perhaps have statistically significantcorrelativequalities (Well, there are some significant ones too). The main problem is when these "self evident" anecdotes are used as if they were gospel to shoot down arguments and evidence to the contrary. Now, not all feminist/anti-racism/bigotry groups do this--for example the AAUW is actually a decent feminist organization that chooses to do research rather than accept blank privilege as their counter argument. But the fact is,many, many groups (And more poignantly academic guest speakers) tend to use privilege as a catch all. And the reason why it's incredibly annoying to me (Even though I agree, whites on average have an unequal availability of opportunity--but mostly through economic status)--is because of thehypocrisyof using a stereotype to combat racist/bigoted groups that use stereotypes.

This is whyLABELof "privilege" really disturbs me; because we've come full circle and the very groups which were fighting for equality, are now using nearly the same tactics as the ignorant hate groups they once fought against. Those hate groups, don't forget, used to label all black men as X or all women as Y because it was "self evident"before "GOD"that women were mentally deficient or black people were lesser than whites. And going back in history, I can name some big names that "agreed" with that statement; so I'm not sure why you think Louis CK making some stupid observation is "evidence"--plenty of very intelligent people were racist bigots, fuck even Ghandi was a racist. AND these people were able to bring up correlated statistics; like African American crime rates or female productivity being lower--to back up their arguments with "evidence" (Much like this modern movement can show how white populations go to X schools more--so obviously the defining factor is skin color...correlation is fun!). Even though there were TONS of other explanations for these statistical findings.

Painting with broad brushes and using anecdotal observations and weak correlative evidence to diminish a group of people based off of flimsy associations (like skin color)IS racism. It's something we, as a people, should avoid. Yet now it's being trotted out by fringe academics as if it's something noble--and it's not, it's a terrible call back to the same kind of thinking that kept entire groups of people shackled with stereotypes for decades. (And yes, I know--you said it really doesn't mean anything, it's just an "acknowledgement"--but the fact is MANY groups do use it as a trump card and a baiting measure.)

Tanoomba_sl said:

But hey! More men in the US are raped than women! By whom, I wonder...

Ah. By other men (in over 2/3 of cases).

Click to expand...

I said all the above, but really, this post puts it as eloquently as I ever could. You touch on it with a knife, Tan. If men are raping other men; and creating male victims, then wouldn't it logically stand to reason that it's really dumb to label all men "the same"--when, in fact, it's evident there are hierarchies among men; and even different classes of men, with some obviously being more prone to being victims themselves than sharing in the "privilege" that seems to be engendered to all men by some groups?

I'm not going to sit here and cry about how bad men have it--I understand on average men have it better.Butwhat you should take away from those statistics is that labeling all men with the same privilege brush, just because you saw some lady being hit on and yet a man can dress in sweat pants and be ignored, is just sexism; it's the exact same species of sexism as men who used to claim all women would buckle in a work environment because anecdotally their 1960's housewives had break downs when they helped with the taxes The fact that you actually spent a post railing against stereotypes; and then use the privileged stereotype is going to make my head explode; but I thought I'd bring this up before I go get a bucket to clean my brains up from reading this thread.

(And another note; something else you should take away. You point to the fact that men might just commit more serious crimes. Why is it okay to assume that the imbalance in prison populations is due to sexual dimorphism leading men to commit more serious crimes--but it's sexist to believe the difference in wages is due to sexual dimorphism making men more productive? Don't get me wrong, I AGREE that wage discriminationISsexist; but this is a useful thought exercise to see if maybe you are ALSO a little biased here. I mean, after all, a lot of feminists that I've encountered are comfortable attributing incarceration rates to "masculinity"--but then they are completely uncomfortable attributing production rates to anything but sexism and poor work environments. )

Mist_sl said:

Admitting your own biases is racism?

Click to expand...

Everyone that is of____________ Race is ________________.

Mist_sl said:

Oh that retarded argument. Yeah we're supposed to all close our eyes and pretend to sky is green when everyone knows it isn't.

Click to expand...

So you agree you're a racist.

Mist_sl said:

So you agree you're a moron making a stupid argument.

Your point is basically "Anyone that admits that race exists, and is a factor inanything, is a racist, despite the fact that everyone knows it's true."

Click to expand...

As long as you admit it's ok for us to racially profile and discriminate based on statistics. This is the side of the argument you're now on.

Tanoomba_sl said:

What the fuck, really? You don't think being able to go back to any point in history up to and including the present and still be on top of the social food chain (uber-rich excepted) is a sign of privilege? And then you have the nerve to tell me that I'm the one who can't be taken seriously?

Click to expand...

Man, please stop using comedic anecdotes from Louis CK like he's some historian. Most people on this board, I bet, are either protestants or Athiests; which means if they went back a few centuries too many, they'd be burned alive or stoned to death. If they were Irish (For example), depending on the time period, they'd be culled, starved or any number of atrocities (And we can take any ethnic sub class of white and find large swaths of history where they'd essentially be on the menu). And IF they were smart enough to accept their meager place and not speak out against the local despot and not be one of the many "slave" or "trouble" ethnic groups of Europe (At whatever time); they might be able to work as a quasi-slave on some lord's land, and have a chance of making it through winter if they put in 12+ hours a day of back breaking farm labor. Of course, if the noble ever needed money, he could toss them and starve them on a whim and if he ever got angry at another noble, they'd have to die in his army--but he'd be "privileged" to die in service!

This is the problem with overly simplistic classifications. 90% of white people in the past were one step above slaves; they were serfs. Many groups of "white skinned" people actually belonged to a different ethnic class than the rulers, and were consistently either treated like dogs or straight up starved, stolen from and killed. The lucky ones were forced to join peasant armies and killed by the millions in horrific wars waged by some rich asshole who hated them. Read about the wars between the reduction of the Byzatine Empire and the Enlightenment. We're talking yearly skirmishes with thousands of "modern white men" (But at the time they were called X ethnic class, like Irish or Germanic) dying between harvesting the crops--women didn't have it any better mind you, as they were essentially baby factories for the next crop/war. But regardless, the reality is, at most points in history--white people lived as slaves, except for an exceedingly small aristocratic class.

Do you honestly believe just because they had white skin they'd do well? Read about the actual history in Europe since the rise of Rome. Guess which color most slaves in the Roman Empire were. The term "slave" even evolved from an ethnic European group of people who were collected specifically for service. This whole notion of "white" is a purely modern phenomenon generated by the wealthy to pit the lower classes against each other based on superficial conditions or minor benefits (So again, I'm not arguing that there is privilege, there is, it's just not something that should be used to end debates or create divides). It's the same technique of racial off setting the Belgians developed for their African colonies (And why, for example, the Rwandan genocide happened.) As a white man, or ANY man, you SHOULD be terrified of time travel, because the past sucked balls (Unless you go back with like an unlimited fuel tank or something and can become the king of those primitives like Army of Darkness, then hell yeah.).