• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White Anxiety, and a President Ready to Address It

And it is ironic hearing people who talk about "whiteness" say things like

Originally Posted by truthatallcost
I agree with you, but unfortunately the top 1% don't. Which is why you and I will be replaced by a global citizen, or a machine. The center of both the DNC and GOP are in agreement that you and I need to be replaced, and while we were too busy fighting each other, and calling each names, they were busy changing the world to suit their goals.
Click to expand...

None of the DNC and the GOP leaderships are controlled by some anti-white minorities. They are controlled by some economic elite (which is actually mostly white)and which has managed to convince the average American to fight each other calling each names, while the DNC and GOP are busy changing the world to suit their goals. The skin color of the powerless is not a threat for the average American. The real threat is the economic class of the powerful.
 
pamak said:
Exactly my point throughout this thread.

The skin color cannot provide a unifying group identity without a common narrative.
Click to expand...

And the common narrative is a constant barrage against whites as a group.
 
phattonez said:
But I'm all of them.



You just told me that I had to pick one ethnicity and exclude all of the others. Is that fair?
Click to expand...

I did not. Identify yourself however you will.
 
phattonez said:
And the common narrative is a constant barrage against whites as a group.
Click to expand...

Which is "common" only when it is accepted by the "white group." You like it or not, such narrative cannot convince more than about half of whites while the other half strongly rejects such nonsense! Now, if you convince people to accept a fake narrative, then this is a different story. Nazis did this in the past when they invented a narrative of " constant barrage" against the Germans by the Jews. Of course, it is EXACTLY because of such historical events that white race cannot be used today to convince white people to accept it as a bond that unifies them against your claimed "barrage."
 
Last edited:
Unitedwestand13 said:
But does that trait really matter beyond being a superficial trait?
Click to expand...

It's possible it does not.

But the amount of importance attached to the trait largely comes down to the subjective judgement of those identifying with that trait.
 
JMaximus said:
It's possible it does not.

But the amount of importance attached to the trait largely comes down to the subjective judgement of those identifying with that trait.
Click to expand...

Shouldn’t our common humanity be a source of unity. Shouldn’t we be able to find a common culture as humans.
 
phattonez said:
And the common narrative is a constant barrage against whites as a group.
Click to expand...

What are you babbling about?

The overwhelming majority of people in the top positions in the USA, be it government, media, or business, are white. Please explain why all these white people have gotten together and are creating "a constant barrage against whites as a group"?
 
pamak said:
You may think as well that eye color can be used to classify people in groups without historical context. And as long as you are unable to provide such example, you cannot convince people.
Click to expand...

Of course you can classify people by eye color without reference to "historical context"! What an absurd statement it would be to claim otherwise.

Adding "historical context" to an eye-color based classification would more likely render the classification confusing and useless rather than reveal any meaningful insights.

It's the same for skin color.
 
pamak said:
Which is "common" only when it is accepted by the "white group." You like it or not, such narrative cannot convince more than about half of whites while the other half strongly rejects such nonsense! Now, if you convince people to accept a fake narrative, then this is a different story. Nazis did this in the past when they invented a narrative of " constant barrage" against the Germans by the Jews. Of course, it is EXACTLY because of such historical events that white race cannot be used today to convince white people to accept it as a bond that unifies them against your claimed "barrage."
Click to expand...

Apparently all the white people at the top of government, business, and the media have gotten together to attack whites as a group. SMH.
 
JMaximus said:
Of course you can classify people by eye color without reference to "historical context"! What an absurd statement it would be to claim otherwise.

Adding "historical context" to an eye-color based classification would more likely render the classification confusing and useless rather than reveal any meaningful insights.

It's the same for skin color.
Click to expand...

You make no sense because you take my argument out of this discussion's context!
I did not imply that one cannot classify people based on eye color.
In the context of our conversation here, the argument I made was that you CANNOT form a GROUP identity based on such classification!
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Shouldn’t our common humanity be a source of unity. Shouldn’t we be able to find a common culture as humans.
Click to expand...

I guess you'd have to take that up with the folks who identify on the basis of their skin color. I'm not one of them.
 
pamak said:
You make no sense because you take my argument out of this discussion's context!
I did not imply that one cannot classify people based on eye color.
In the context of our conversation here, the argument I made was that you CANNOT form a GROUP identity based on such classification!
Click to expand...

But of course you can do that, too.

There would be a group of people with brown eyes, a group with hazel eyes, a group with grey eyes, ...

As I already pointed out to you, anything you can identify and group can form a group identity.

It's not even a matter of argument or reasoning or evidence - it's just a matter of the meaning of words.
 
JMaximus said:
But of course you can do that, too.

There would be a group of people with brown eyes, a group with hazel eyes, a group with grey eyes, ...

As I already pointed out to you, anything you can identify and group can form a group identity.

It's not even a matter of argument or reasoning or evidence - it's just a matter of the meaning of words.
Click to expand...

You do not address what I said.

Classifying people in different groups based on some common biological characteristic like their eye color does not mean that these people will adopt such group identity and act like they belong to such group. It will not make them feel like they are truly connected to other members of that group and that they should collaborate with them in the pursue of some common interest of the "blue-eye" people.
 
pamak said:
You do not address what I said.

Classifying people in different groups based on some common biological characteristic like their eye color does not mean that these people will adopt such group identity and act like they belong to such group.
Click to expand...

What it means for people to "act like they belong to ... a group" is up to the people who "adopt such group identity".

What "(c)lassifying people in different groups based on some common biological characteristic like their eye color" means is up to those people - not you.

It will not make them feel like they are truly connected to other members of that group and that they should collaborate with them in the pursue of some common interest of the "blue-eye" people.
Click to expand...

Who are you to tell people how they will or will not feel?
 
JMaximus said:
What it means for people to "act like they belong to ... a group" is up to the people who "adopt such group identity".

What "(c)lassifying people in different groups based on some common biological characteristic like their eye color" means is up to those people - not you.



Who are you to tell people how they will or will not feel?
Click to expand...

It is up to the people, but it is also up to the type of the classification. You cannot expect the people to form a group identity under every type of the classification you use to classify them.

So, you are faced now with the simple reality that you cannot provide examples of how eye-color and white skin are effective today in forming such group identities when such links cannot even convince more than half of the white people (in the case of skin color). and when there are not any visible groups of "blue-eye" citizens working towards a common objective.

In other words, both concepts are not perceived as being valid to form a group identity, and I explained the reason (lack of common narrative).
 
Last edited:
JustHanging said:
What are you babbling about?

The overwhelming majority of people in the top positions in the USA, be it government, media, or business, are white. Please explain why all these white people have gotten together and are creating "a constant barrage against whites as a group"?
Click to expand...

The top political donors are certainly not WASPs.
 
Airyaman said:
Then there's this...

Natasha Bertrand on Twitter: "FBI Director Chris Wray: FBI has made about 100 domestic terrorism arrests this year—more than last year. A majority of the suspects are motivated by some version of white supremacy, he says."
Click to expand...

As much as I'd like to blindly believe in a Tweet from an MSNBC media personality, which contains no link to a main source, I think I've learned how foolhardy that is.

Let's unpack Ms Bertrand's Tweet now:

Asked for more specific data, an FBI spokeswoman clarified after Wray’s testimony that the bureau has recorded about 90 domestic terrorism arrests, compared with about 100 international terrorism arrests.
Click to expand...

International terrorism arrests were higher than arrests for domestic terrorism, which Chris Wray's spokeswoman had to admit amounted to 90, not 100.

The official also said that when Wray asserted a “majority of the domestic terrorism cases we’ve investigated are motivated by some version of what you might call white supremacist violence,” he meant only that a majority of the domestic terrorism cases involving a racial motive were believed to be spurred by white supremacy.
Click to expand...

Hmm, we're getting more vague by the second. Now the 'statistic' rules out much of domestic terrorism, to only focus on domestic terrorism with a racial motivation attached.

At a congressional hearing in May, the head of the FBI’s counterterrorism division testified that the bureau was investigating 850 domestic terrorism cases and that of those, about 40 percent involved racially motivated violent extremists. Most in that group, he said, were white supremacists.
Click to expand...

'Most' of the 40% of domestic terrorism cases that involve racial motivation, are white supremacists. Well, now we have no idea what percentage of domestic terrorism cases are attributable to white supremacists, besides that its 'most of 40%', which could be any number from 20.1% to 39.9%.

:doh :doh :doh :doh :doh

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f352c66a0c3b
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
The top political donors are certainly not WASPs.
Click to expand...

You tryyyy so hard to conceal it but it comes out natural...

Why do you restrict white people to only WASPs? If a donor is a Jewish-American (the conservatives have become obsessed with such Democratic Jewish donors such as Soros) is not he white too? Your words show that you do not seem him as being exactly white....
 
pamak said:
You tryyyy so hard to conceal it but it comes out natural...

Why do you restrict white people to only WASPs? If a donor is a Jewish-American (the conservatives have become obsessed with such Democratic Jewish donors such as Soros) is not he white too? Your words show that you do not seem him as being exactly white....
Click to expand...

That's probably based upon what Jewish folks say about themselves, rather than what Phattonez believes. Not to speak for him, but from my own observations, Jews don't consider themselves to be in the same category as WASPs either, so I think that explains what you're describing.
 
truthatallcost said:
That's probably based upon what Jewish folks say about themselves, rather than what Phattonez believes. Not to speak for him, but from my own observations, Jews don't consider themselves to be in the same category as WASPs either, so I think that explains what you're describing.
Click to expand...

Of course Jews are not WASPs since WASP means White Anglo Saxon Protestant. But most Jews DO consider themselves whites. The same is true with the Greeks, Italians, and other whites who are not Anglo Saxons and Protestants. The fact that his response equated whites with only WASPs shows the mentality of an old era where Jews and Southern Europeans were not considered "true" whites.
 
pamak said:
You tryyyy so hard to conceal it but it comes out natural...

Why do you restrict white people to only WASPs? If a donor is a Jewish-American (the conservatives have become obsessed with such Democratic Jewish donors such as Soros) is not he white too? Your words show that you do not seem him as being exactly white....
Click to expand...

They don't call themselves white. They call themselves Jews.
 
pamak said:
Of course Jews are not WASPs since WASP means White Anglo Saxon Protestant. But most Jews DO consider themselves whites. The same is true with the Greeks, Italians, and other whites who are not Anglo Saxons and Protestants. The fact that his response equated whites with only WASPs shows the mentality of an old era where Jews and Southern Europeans were not considered "true" whites.
Click to expand...
Yet the whole thing about white privilege that those elites push doesn't apply to them.

Very convenient.
 
phattonez said:
They don't call themselves white. They call themselves Jews.
Click to expand...

Which ethnic group call itself "whites"? We call ourselves Greeks! Italians call themselves Italians or they can perhaps Latin. Are you going now to argue that all these people are not white?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom