• 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

pamak said:
You are in a debate forum!
Click to expand...

I know where I'm at.

Do not insult my intelligence ...
Click to expand...

You need no help with that...

... by saying that you do not try to push a particular agenda and that you just let individuals decide what they want to do !
Click to expand...

When it comes to convincing people that murder is bad, I have an agenda. When it comes to how people choose to identify themselves, I really don't give a ****.

if you want to make a claim about the validity of a characteristic such as "skin color" to unite the people the you have to establish some threshold.
Click to expand...

You are the only one who cares about uniting people (or at least pretending you do). And you have yet to demonstrate the necessity of your threshold requirement. As far as is apparent from everything you've written, it's something you just made up on the spot (along with other conditions, requirements, and criteria) out of convenience to your argument and not because it has any relation to logic, reason, or reality.

If such characteristic fails to unite more than 50% and even alienates the other half of whites who do NOT want to be identified based on their "skin color" then it is not a characteristic that can be claimed is valid to unite the whites.
Click to expand...

Uniting people is not a relevant criterion - as mentioned. Like your other criteria, you've just invented it out of convenience to your argument and not because it has any relation to logic, reason, or reality.

Of course, it can still be a valid characteristic to unite white racists! And even then, it is not just the skin color.
Click to expand...

I know you believe it can't just be about skin color. The problem for your belief, though, is that it's wrong.

Even then the narrative of the "oppressed white person" is needed to unite those people!
Click to expand...

No, it's not. That's just one more irrelevant stipulation you've invented out of convenience to your argument and not because it has any relation to logic, reason, or reality.

I told you before that you ignore the context of the whole conversation which is about forming a collective identity for a social group.
Click to expand...

And the people forming that group based on that collective identity get to choose what is relevant to their identity and group - not you.

You pretend that just because there is a biological group of people with white skin that such characteristic can form a social group.
Click to expand...

I pretend nothing.

I just point at the reality which shows that it cannot form such identity in modern America because it lacks the common narrative to create such union.
Click to expand...

And what you point out is nonsense. It has nothing to do with anything except the irrelevant stipulations, conditions, requirements, and criteria you've invented and introduced on the spot throughout this thread out of convenience to your argument and not because they have any relation to logic, reason, or reality.

I know very well that a group of racists will see themselves as whites, ...
Click to expand...

Racists can identify themselves as belonging to any race - but you knew that.

I know very well that a group of racists will see themselves as whites, and I know very well that social groups of such bigots such as alt-right, KKK and other such groups will exist regardless of what I believe about the white skin.
Click to expand...

If you admit that such group identities exist but you're only argument is that they're 'racist', then you have no argument.

My argument is that the characteristic of white skin cannot be used to create a common identity for whites in general.
Click to expand...

I know what your position is. I also know it's really bad and has no grounding in logic, reason, or reality.
 
JMaximus said:
I know where I'm at.



You need no help with that...



When it comes to convincing people that murder is bad, I have an agenda. When it comes to how people choose to identify themselves, I really don't give a ****.



You are the only one who cares about uniting people (or at least pretending you do). And you have yet to demonstrate the necessity of your threshold requirement. As far as is apparent from everything you've written, it's something you just made up on the spot (along with other conditions, requirements, and criteria) out of convenience to your argument and not because it has any relation to logic, reason, or reality.



Uniting people is not a relevant criterion - as mentioned. Like your other criteria, you've just invented it out of convenience to your argument and not because it has any relation to logic, reason, or reality.



I know you believe it can't just be about skin color. The problem for your belief, though, is that it's wrong.



No, it's not. That's just one more irrelevant stipulation you've invented out of convenience to your argument and not because it has any relation to logic, reason, or reality.



And the people forming that group based on that collective identity get to choose what is relevant to their identity and group - not you.



I pretend nothing.



And what you point out is nonsense. It has nothing to do with anything except the irrelevant stipulations, conditions, requirements, and criteria you've invented and introduced on the spot throughout this thread out of convenience to your argument and not because they have any relation to logic, reason, or reality.



Racists can identify themselves as belonging to any race - but you knew that.



If you admit that such group identities exist but you're only argument is that they're 'racist', then you have no argument.



I know what your position is. I also know it's really bad and has no grounding in logic, reason, or reality.
Click to expand...

The fact that you debate this issue of identity shows clearly that you give a lot of s***

I told you again that arguments are not experiments to "demonstrate". I gave clearly my reasoning and the evidence to support that "white identity" does not unite whites and I explained why it cannot do it in modern America. You failed to give any reasonable counterargument and your counterpoint was the irrational expectation that I have to "demonstrate" to you what I say.

You can play whatever games you want. I explained clearly that I am not making an argument that a racist cannot use his skin color for himself and the scums around him who have the same ideology. I just gave you the arguments and the hard truth that hurts you soooo much that you insist on debating it even though you have no arguments. That truth is that the skin color cannot provide today an identity for the whites in the US.

If you want to argue that the color of the skin can unite the KKK or alt-right group, I have no problem with that. I already said before that the white skin cannot unite more than 50% of the whites. Obviously, the KKK and the Alt-right are part of this 50%. But as long as you try to pretend that the white skin can be used to unite whites in general, I will remind you again the harsh reality. You can NOT normalize racism and white superiority no matter how much hard you try.
 
pamak said:
The fact that you debate this issue of identity shows clearly that you give a lot of s***
Click to expand...

I care about the topic and find it interesting. But no, I don't care what identity people choose to relate to.

I gave clearly my reasoning and the evidence to support that "white identity" does not unite whites and I explained why it cannot do it in modern America.
Click to expand...

Unity is irrelevant. As I already said, it's just one of the at least half dozen unrelated stipulations you've introduced out of convenience to your argument and not out of necessity or appeal to logic, reason, or reality.

You failed to give any reasonable counterargument and your counterpoint was the irrational expectation that I have to "demonstrate" to you what I say.
Click to expand...

Expecting you to back up your argument is an "irrational expectation"?

:roll:

You can play whatever games you want. I explained clearly that I am not making an argument that a racist cannot use his skin color for himself and the scums around him who have the same ideology.
Click to expand...

If your argument is just that you don't like racists, then you don't have an argument - just a complaint.

I just gave you the arguments and the hard truth that hurts you soooo much that you insist on debating it even though you have no arguments. That truth is that the skin color cannot provide today an identity for the whites in the US.
Click to expand...

Says you, based on a slew of nonsense criteria, stipulations, and conditions that have nothing to do with the topic but only exist in this thread because you introduced them out of convenience to your argument and not out of necessity or appeal to logic, reason, or reality.

If you want to argue that the color of the skin can unite the KKK or alt-right group, I have no problem with that.
Click to expand...

I don't want to argue that. As I've said repeatedly in just the last couple posts, unity is irrelevant to the topic.

I already said before that the white skin cannot unite more than 50% of the whites.
Click to expand...

Nobody cares about unity except you.

But as long as you try to pretend that the white skin can be used to unite whites in general, I will remind you again the harsh reality.
Click to expand...

I'm not "pretending" anything about unity because unity is irrelevant.

You can NOT normalize racism and white superiority no matter how much hard you try.
Click to expand...

Who is trying to "normalize racism and white superiority"?
 
JMaximus said:
I care about the topic and find it interesting. But no, I don't care what identity people choose to relate to.



Unity is irrelevant. As I already said, it's just one of the at least half dozen unrelated stipulations you've introduced out of convenience to your argument and not out of necessity or appeal to logic, reason, or reality.



Expecting you to back up your argument is an "irrational expectation"?

:roll:



If your argument is just that you don't like racists, then you don't have an argument - just a complaint.



Says you, based on a slew of nonsense criteria, stipulations, and conditions that have nothing to do with the topic but only exist in this thread because you introduced them out of convenience to your argument and not out of necessity or appeal to logic, reason, or reality.



I don't want to argue that. As I've said repeatedly in just the last couple posts, unity is irrelevant to the topic.



Nobody cares about unity except you.



I'm not "pretending" anything about unity because unity is irrelevant.



Who is trying to "normalize racism and white superiority"?
Click to expand...

If you really want to participate in an argument learn to actually make one and try to make it stronger that that of your opponent.
Your total stance in this thread is nothing but sitting without even attempting to support your view and without bringing any cutter evidence to face the points I make. Again, I wrote extensively posts which explained my argument and provided evidence. You are just into writing a single sentence to express your feelings without forming a coherent counterposition.


Unity is very relevant in this discussion since the people who sue such rhetoric make an argument for a more white America. If a concept such as the color of the skin cannot unite whites in general, then you simply talk about an ideology which is related only to those on the fringe. That is why I say that your attitude is nothing more than an attempt to normalize racism and white supremacy.

You desperately try to present a concept of skin color as some valid identity while at the same time you stay silent when posters in this thread are making comments which show that the white skin color they accept is that of WASPs- White AngloSaxon Protestants and does not include Jews or Catholics. Sometimes, the silence of the poster says more about him than the actual posts.
 
Last edited:
dixon01767 said:
Most dont "identify" themselves as white. Unlike for instance many of the LGBTers whose very existence seems to be defined by their sexual orientation or gender identity whereas most whites dont see their white skin as a part of some identity.
Click to expand...

Naturally so, there has never been a time in this country's history where people have been either de jure or de facto discriminated by any level of government for specifically being white. There has never been a time where vast majority of American society was structured specifically to view white skin as inferior, defective, or dangerous.

You can make references about the Irish and Jewish, etc, but that was not because of their skin color, that was their ethnic or national roots.

White skin has never been treated as the "other" before.

Of course, LGBT or other "minority groups" group together based on their shared traits; they aren't grouping together to form a sewing circle, they're uniting under a shared experience of widespread societal discrimination and forming communities to fight against it.
 
The major problem with the sudden rise of a white identity crisis and more specifically white nationalism is that the whole premise follows a zero-sum game approach—they're viewing this as "we can only succeed if these other groups somehow fail" or "these groups are gaining success at the expense of our own."

That's generally a problem with most nationalist groups in general, but especially with American whites. And it does come from a place of (oh boy, here comes the P WORD) Privilege.

What the heck does privilege mean? It means there has never been a time in American history where people who are white have been discriminated against by the government or shut down by societal norms specifically because their skin color was white.

There have been poor white people who were denied the right to vote because they were POOR, but not white. There were European immigrants who were discriminated against because of their NATIONAL origin, but not because their skin was white. There were white LGBT Americans who were discriminated against because of sexual orientation, not because they were white. There were women who were discriminated against because they were women, not because they were white.

But then we have clear cases where the pigmentation of someone's skin color WAS a major (or they only) factor that determined how society would treat them. African slaves were counted as 3/5s of a white man initially, and we all are aware of the timeline from then. Their skin color very much was the reason they were treated differently.

That is privilege, the history of discrimination of white didn't really come from skin color in the majority of cases, but other factors unrelated to it.

Now that demographics are changing, and other racial/ethnic populations are finally starting to catch up and being able to compete, that fear stems from the idea that white society loses if other groups gain—that these groups that were on the lower rack are now able to compete at the same level; there's a sense of entitlement that things were better off when those other competing groups were unable to compete because of the past oppression they had from a society that (and this is true) dominated and controlled mostly by wealthier, whiter communities.
 
pamak said:
If you really want to participate in an argument learn to actually make one and try to make it stronger that that of your opponent.
Your total stance in this thread is nothing but sitting without even attempting to support your view and without bringing any cutter evidence to face the points I make. Again, I wrote extensively posts which explained my argument and provided evidence.
Click to expand...

The only point you make is that you want to - and perhaps even think you have the power to - dictate how other people identify themselves.

My point is that such a goal is at the very least ridiculous.

You are just into writing a single sentence to express your feelings without forming a coherent counterposition.
Click to expand...

You would be hard-pressed to find even one example of me arguing on the basis of feelings or even expressing such.

Unity is very relevant in this discussion since the people who sue such rhetoric make an argument for a more white America.
Click to expand...

They can make whatever argument they want or no argument at all. It has nothing whatsoever to do with their identity, which they freely choose - your blessing to do so notwithstanding.

If a concept such as the color of the skin cannot unite whites in general, then you simply talk about an ideology which is related only to those on the fringe. That is why I say that your attitude is nothing more than an attempt to normalize racism and white supremacy.
Click to expand...

You've said a lot of things. Few of them have been true. This is no exception. And if you honestly believe that anything I've said has been "an attempt to normalize racism and white supremacy" (as opposed to just being obtuse for sake of argument), then you clearly have not read anything I've posted here with any amount of comprehension.

You desperately try to present a concept of skin color as some valid identity while at the same time you stay silent when posters in this thread are making comments which show that the white skin color they accept is that of WASPs- White AngloSaxon Protestants and does not include Jews or Catholics.
Click to expand...

"White skin color" is of many people - specifically all of those who are white. Some may identify on that basis alone and some may identify on that basis along with other things; some may identify with it singly and with other things singly as well. It's a muddy thing because it is the free choice of free people who are all complex yet each unique. You want to box it in with stipulations and conditions that you choose out of convenience to your beliefs about the way the world should be. But you are wrong.

Sometimes, the silence of the poster says more about him than the actual posts.
Click to expand...

Your veiled attempt at declaring me a racist doesn't help your argument It just reveals its weakness (not that such wasn't already apparent...)
 
JMaximus said:
The only point you make is that you want to - and perhaps even think you have the power to - dictate how other people identify themselves.

My point is that such a goal is at the very least ridiculous.



You would be hard-pressed to find even one example of me arguing on the basis of feelings or even expressing such.



They can make whatever argument they want or no argument at all. It has nothing whatsoever to do with their identity, which they freely choose - your blessing to do so notwithstanding.



You've said a lot of things. Few of them have been true. This is no exception. And if you honestly believe that anything I've said has been "an attempt to normalize racism and white supremacy" (as opposed to just being obtuse for sake of argument), then you clearly have not read anything I've posted here with any amount of comprehension.



"White skin color" is of many people - specifically all of those who are white. Some may identify on that basis alone and some may identify on that basis along with other things; some may identify with it singly and with other things singly as well. It's a muddy thing because it is the free choice of free people who are all complex yet each unique. You want to box it in with stipulations and conditions that you choose out of convenience to your beliefs about the way the world should be. But you are wrong.



Your veiled attempt at declaring me a racist doesn't help your argument It just reveals its weakness (not that such wasn't already apparent...)
Click to expand...

You keep creating straw men to cover the fact that you have no counterarguments.

I explicitly said in previous posts that I know that the white skin is considered a valid identity for white supremacists. I only challenge the idea that such identity can unite anything more than a fringe section of the whites.

And unity is the issue here because these people who care about the "white skin" argue for policies that will make American more white. It is not the they are content with some personal identity they adopt for themselves to call themselves whites. It is that they do not want to live around people who are not white and push for polices to accomplish that! It is for this reason that they want to push for an identity that is NOT at personal level. They want to create a group identity that encompasses the vast majority of the society!

Also, you like it or not when you appear in a thread such as this one where you heavily participate in a discussion to defend the validity of using skin color to identify ourselves which obviously concerns you a lot, and then you remain silent when other posters here reveal that their concept of "white skin" is one which includes only WASPs and not Jews or Catholics, then you give me the right to question your motives.
 
Last edited:
pamak said:
You keep creating straw men to cover the fact that you have no counterarguments.

I explicitly said in previous posts that I know that the white skin is considered a valid identity for white supremacists.
Click to expand...

It's considered a valid identity for anyone who wants to adopt it. Your accusations of bigotry, racism, and white supremacism are worthless to the discussion as they are to any discussion.

I only challenge the idea that such identity can unite anything more than a fringe section of the whites.
Click to expand...

There are close to a billion white people on this earth and all of them (and more) could - if they chose - "unite" under the identify of "white". That they all don't says more about their personal decisions not to than about the actual possibility of them doing so.

And unity is the issue here because these people who care about the "white skin" argue for policies that will make American more white. It is not the they are content with some personal identity they adopt for themselves to call themselves whites. It is that they do not want to live around people who are not white and push for polices to accomplish that! It is for this reason that they want to push for an identity that is NOT at personal level. They want to create a group identity that encompasses the vast majority of the society!
Click to expand...

If that's what you want to argue, then why not just argue that? Why try to argue against the validity of people's personally-chosen self-identities?

No reasonable person will disagree that attempting to racially 'cleanse' the US is bad - regardless of the identities of the people involved.

If you were actually arguing that, you'd have an easy time of it.

Also, you like it or not when you appear in a thread such as this one where you heavily participate in a discussion to defend the validity of using skin color to identify ourselves which obviously concerns you a lot, and then you remain silent when other posters here reveal that their concept of "white skin" is one which includes only WASPs and not Jews or Catholics, then you give me the right to question your motives.
Click to expand...

You can question whatever you want. But you're still wrong.
 
JMaximus said:
It's considered a valid identity for anyone who wants to adopt it. Your accusations of bigotry, racism, and white supremacism are worthless to the discussion as they are to any discussion.



There are close to a billion white people on this earth and all of them (and more) could - if they chose - "unite" under the identify of "white". That they all don't says more about their personal decisions not to than about the actual possibility of them doing so.



If that's what you want to argue, then why not just argue that? Why try to argue against the validity of people's personally-chosen self-identities?

No reasonable person will disagree that attempting to racially 'cleanse' the US is bad - regardless of the identities of the people involved.

If you were actually arguing that, you'd have an easy time of it.



You can question whatever you want. But you're still wrong.
Click to expand...

I separate what racists thing is valid from what the whites in general consider as valid identity. Again, this thread is about politics which by its nature is NOT about people making private decisions. Read the OP again!

I am talking about the whites in the US and in today's time. In the past, whites did use the skin of their color, and because of what happened as a result of such identities, TODAY whites are reluctant to adopt such identification.

And something else, I never disputed that someone who adopts the color of the skin as part of his personal identity does this because he sees the skin color as valid identity. His personal opinion though does not address the arguments I made regarding why such identity makes no sense. I gave the example of the "blue-eye identity" to make my point clear regarding why such identity makes no sense. Nor does his personal view counters my point that white identity is based on a false narrative of oppression by non-whites.
 
Last edited:
truthatallcost said:
White Anxiety, and a President Ready to Address It - The New York Times

Emily Badger & Nate Cohn @ NYT postulate that Donald Trump's Presidency is giving white people the confidence to view themselves as having a unique identity of their own! Oh noes! How can we stop this? Should white people be encouraged to view themselves as lacking an identity, and is a unique identity which contains an element of racial identity something that only minorities should be encouraged to possess?

D_8Z2-CXoAAkNMA


Emily Badger once wrote an article detailing how the Talmud may be used to uncover the building blocks of the US Constitution.

Talmud, Internet Unlock James Madison - Pacific Standard
Click to expand...

Trump is liberating the majority!

:rofl
 
devildavid said:
Why Mestizo?
Click to expand...
Well, he doesn't see race like liberals do. He's been trying to us that for quite some time.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.
 
iguanaman said:
Everyone but the top 5%. Those are the poor souls who vote against their own best interest if the vote Republican
Click to expand...

You did not answer the question. I know they are other than the top 5%. In what regard?
 
devildavid said:
So only by income. You don't take anything else into account? Not political or ideological views. It is that simple?
Click to expand...

Income inequality is the major economic problem we face today. The current trends are unsustainable.
 
devildavid said:
So only by income. You don't take anything else into account? Not political or ideological views. It is that simple?
Click to expand...

You have to clarify what you mean. Are you talking about political or ideological views related to income inequality or are you talking about political and ideological views related to the white race?
 
pamak said:
I separate what racists thing is valid from what the whites in general consider as valid identity.
Click to expand...

Not that either of their opinions matter...

Again, this thread is about politics which by its nature is NOT about people making private decisions. Read the OP again!
Click to expand...

Too funny. Not only is publicity in some form not required for valid identity (it's just yet another stipulation you've introduced out of convenience to your argument and not because it has any relation to logic, reason, or reality), the notion of political decisions being non-private by "nature" is ridiculous on its face. The most important political decision most people ever make - voting - is entirely a private decision. On top of this, people hold countless private opinions about politics and pretty much everything else.

To claim a decision (be it self-identity or anything else) must be public to be political is just nonsense.

I am talking about the whites in the US and in today's time. In the past, whites did use the skin of their color, and because of what happened as a result of such identities, TODAY whites are reluctant to adopt such identification.
Click to expand...

And they're free to do so. What's your point?

And something else, I never disputed that someone who adopts the color of the skin as part of his personal identity does this because he sees the skin color as valid identity. His personal opinion though does not address the arguments I made regarding why such identity makes no sense.
Click to expand...

That's fine. And he doesn't care. In fact, no one really cares whether their identity 'makes sense' to some nobody with a 'pamak' username on the Internet (or a nobody with a JMaximus username for that matter).

I gave the example of the "blue-eye identity" to make my point clear regarding why such identity makes no sense. Nor does his personal view counters my point that white identity is based on a false narrative of oppression by non-whites.
Click to expand...

And nor does he care...
 
JMaximus said:
Not that either of their opinions matter...



Too funny. Not only is publicity in some form not required for valid identity (it's just yet another stipulation you've introduced out of convenience to your argument and not because it has any relation to logic, reason, or reality), the notion of political decisions being non-private by "nature" is ridiculous on its face. The most important political decision most people ever make - voting - is entirely a private decision. On top of this, people hold countless private opinions about politics and pretty much everything else.


To claim a decision (be it self-identity or anything else) must be public to be political is just nonsense.
Click to expand...

EVEN a vote presupposes that SOMEBODY (or a party) will publicly link an issue (in this case white identity) to politics. You cannot have spontaneously minds coming together in a common political objective. Also, politics is more than just voting. All those who demonstrate during political rallies or during the unite-the-right rallies or post in social media including media where they use their real name such as facebook and tweeter also vote in private. This does not mean that they want to keep such identity private in the closet. That there are some who do not want to publicize their views is true, but their choice does not mean that the political issue is a private one. They STILL participate in a public democratic process.

They want to do what gays for example wanted to do when at some point kept their identity private. So, all those white supremacists put their identification as whites in the public forum in order to normalize it. And it is Trump who helps them in that effort. It is not that these people adopted their "white identity" after Trump came to power. That was always there. It is just that now they feel that they can "come out of the closet"

So, all those white supremacists put their identification as whites in the public forum in order to normalize it. And it is Trump who helps them in that effort. It is not that these people adopted their "white skin identity" after Trump came to power. That personal identity was always there for most of them. It is just that now they feel that they can "come out of the closet." So AGAIN, this is not about JUST having a personal identity. It is about POLITICIZING IT


And they're free to do so. What's your point?
Click to expand...

And am free to expose the irrationality of their choice. What is YOUR POINT on insisting that I should not do it?

That's fine. And he doesn't care. In fact, no one really cares whether their identity 'makes sense' to some nobody with a 'pamak' username on the Internet (or a nobody with a JMaximus username for that matter).



And nor does he care...
Click to expand...


But you care! If you do not care then why do you try to debate it?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom