This Is Social "Justice"

ecofarm said:

That's not remotely the same thing. How idiotic. You understand that white people do not suffer disadvantage as a group?

Click to expand...

Like it or not there is a difference between being racist and there being disadvantaged as a group. The two can be mutually exclusive.

Kal'Stang said:

Like it or not there is a difference between being racist and there being disadvantaged as a group. The two can be mutually exclusive.

Click to expand...

You cannot equate the two things. That's racist.

ecofarm said:

You cannot equate the two things. That's racist.

Click to expand...

No, what's racist is believing that only one group of people with a certain skin color can be racist.

Kal'Stang said:

No, what's racist is believing that only one group of people with a certain skin color can be racist.

Click to expand...

The dictionary definition includes "system". The sociological definition, accepted by the academic world, is not racist. You're calling every sociology department in the country, world, racist. How ludicrous is that?

But we don't need definitions to see your false equivalence.

When a black person declares hate for white people, it means nothing to me personally. It's name calling, nothing more. I can safely ignore it knowing I will get a fair shake in employment, housing and the justice system. Whites are not oppressed as a group because we are the majority power.

When a white person declares hate for black people, it means something to everyone. It's not merely name calling. It cannot be safely ignored. It harms society through the marginalization of the innocent via the perpetuation of white privilege. It represents and validates inescapable oppression. It's a threat to society and black people as a group.

This threat to the group as a whole that exists for black people and not white people is the reason that minorities riot at instances of perceived injustice. Criminal elements use that threat to the group as a whole to rationalize their crimes as protection of the group. This rationalization does not exist for whites and thus they do not riot. Instances of perceived injustice do not threaten whites as a whole because whites have the power.



If one can understand that, then one can see the chasm between a white person and a black person being a racial bigot. It's not the same thing.

ecofarm said:

The dictionary definition includes "system". The sociological definition, accepted by the academic world, is not racist. You're calling every sociology department in the country, world, racist. How ludicrous is that?

But we don't need definitions to see your false equivalence.

When a black person declares hate for white people, it means nothing to me personally. It's name calling, nothing more. I can safely ignore it knowing I will get a fair shake in employment, housing and the justice system. Whites are not oppressed as a group because we are the majority power.

When a white person declares hate for black people, it means something to everyone. It's not merely name calling. It cannot be safely ignored. It harms society through the marginalization of the innocent via the perpetuation of white privilege. It represents and validates inescapable oppression. It's a threat to society and black people as a group.

This threat to the group as a whole that exists for black people and not white people is the reason that minorities riot at instances of perceived injustice. Criminal elements use that threat to the group as a whole to rationalize their crimes as protection of the group. This rationalization does not exist for whites and thus they do not riot. Instances of perceived injustice do not threaten whites as a whole because whites have the power.



If one can understand that, then one can understand the chasm between a white person and a black person being a racial bigot.

Click to expand...

Like I said, if one doesn't consider any race but one capable of being racist then they are racist. Doesn't matter what you say to try and justify why that is. In fact it is no different than what white supremacists do to excuse their racist rhetoric.

Kal'Stang said:

Like I said, if one doesn't consider any race but one capable of being racist then they are racist. Doesn't matter what you say to try and justify why that is. In fact it is no different than what white supremacists do to excuse their racist rhetoric.

Click to expand...

That's ignorant. The qualification is not based on race or dna, it's based on social dynamics and majority power. If black people were the majority power, only they could be racists as opposed to racial bigots because they would have the system behind them.

Racism is a social construct. Racial bigotry is an individual act. Anyone can be a racial bigot. There are the same number of them in every group. But only a member of the majority power carries with their bigotry the weight of the system.


If you're going to object to an educated understanding of racism, at least understand the basics. Social dynamics is not based on DNA; it's not biology, it's sociology. There are no claims regarding racial attributes; all groups are presumed equal. Differences are social not genetic.

One can't even begin to understand social justice without some concept of majority privilege. Without a clue about majority privilege (you thought it was biology), you're failing a step removed from grasping social justice. You can't see the target.

ecofarm said:

That's ignorant. The qualification is not based on race or dna, it's based on social dynamics and majority power. If black people were the majority power, only they could be racists as opposed to racial bigots because they would have the system behind them.

Racism is a social construct. Racial bigotry is an individual act. Anyone can be a racial bigot. There are the same number of them in every group. But only a member of the majority power carries with their bigotry the weight of the system.

Click to expand...

:coffeepap Same ole same ole from you eco. There will never be a time where one group will not have a disadvantage against a group that has majority power or where one group isn't disadvantaged socially. The color of ones skin will not change this fact. Every single person on the planet could have the same skin color and there will still be groups that will be disadvantaged.

Your belief is based on a generalization of entire groups. Specifically generalizations about ones skin color. It does not take into account individuals or individual circumstances. Generalizations ALWAYS have exceptions to them. Which is why generalizations are always wrong. You say that its not based on DNA or race...yet the entire concept that you present is based on race. Without it your concept falls flat.

Kal'Stang said:

Your belief is based on a generalization of entire groups. Specifically generalizations about ones skin color. It does not take into account individuals or individual circumstances. Generalizations ALWAYS have exceptions to them. Which is why generalizations are always wrong.

Click to expand...

You're wrong; completely wrong. You're putting stupid and uneducated words in my mouth. Read my previous post again. There are no generalizations made about any group.

You say that its not based on DNA or race...yet the entire concept that you present is based on race. Without it your concept falls flat.

Click to expand...

Idiotic. Of course racism is based on race. Majority privilege is not based on race or dna, it's sociology not biology.

Are you suggesting that any recognition of race is racist? That's your final and desperate pathetic swing against an educated understanding of racism? hah

ecofarm said:

Wrong. Completely wrong. Putting stupid and uneducated words in my mouth. Read my previous post again.

Click to expand...

Already did read it. I don't need to read it again. Without generalizations and race your entire concept falls flat on its face.

Tell you what. Explain to me how your concept applies to me. I have no power. I cannot enact policy. The business that I run is a one person job so hiring anyone to do it is not needed. Even if I wanted to hire someone to help me I couldn't because I have no money to hire anyone. I'm an ex-felon so no cop is going to believe me without evidence to back me up. No Congressmen is going to want to associate with me because of that also. Nor will I ever be voted for for anything because of it also. Only reason I got into the place that I am at currently is because of a black person that was part of a group trying to help homeless people. My family and I were rejected from two other apartments prior to obtaining this one because of my felony and our economic circumstances. I've been pulled over and searched multiple times both while driving and while walking. All because I "looked suspicious" (their words, not mine). I've been denied welfare because of my skin color, age, and being male before also. I was literally told by the social worker that if I had been a black female of the same age I would have gotten the benefits. If I had been 1 years younger I might have gotten them also, I was 26 at the time.

Tell me, how does your concept apply to me?

Kal'Stang said:

Already did read it. I don't need to read it again. Without generalizations and race your entire concept falls flat on its face.

Tell you what. Explain to me how your concept applies to me. I have no power. I cannot enact policy. The business that I run is a one person job so hiring anyone to do it is not needed. Even if I wanted to hire someone to help me I couldn't because I have no money to hire anyone. I'm an ex-felon so no cop is going to believe me without evidence to back me up. No Congressmen is going to want to associate with me because of that also. Nor will I ever be voted for for anything because of it also. Only reason I got into the place that I am at currently is because of a black person that was part of a group trying to help homeless people. My family and I were rejected from two other apartments prior to obtaining this one because of my felony and our economic circumstances. I've been pulled over and searched multiple times both while driving and while walking. All because I "looked suspicious" (their words, not mine). I've been denied welfare because of my skin color, age, and being male before also. I was literally told by the social worker that if I had been a black female of the same age I would have gotten the benefits. If I had been 1 years younger I might have gotten them also, I was 26 at the time.

Tell me, how does your concept apply to me?

Click to expand...

You're claiming white privilege doesn't exist based on your personal situation?

You have no understanding of white privilege. One must understand majority privilege to understand social justice. So, you don't have the concept before social justice needed to understand it.

And you can't begin to grasp how far I'd need to lead you by the hand through intellectual understanding to get a sniff. It's hopeless.

I don't believe you want to learn anyway. You just wanna support the cornerstone of white supremacy - the denial of white privilege.

ecofarm said:

You're claiming white privilege doesn't exist based on your personal situation?

You have no understanding of white privilege. One must understand majority privilege to understand social justice. So, you don't have the concept before social justice needed to understand it.

And you can't begin to grasp how far I'd need to lead you by the hand through intellectual understanding to get a sniff. It's hopeless.

I don't believe you want to learn anyway. You just wanna support the cornerstone of white supremacy - the denial of white privilege.

Click to expand...

Like I said, all you have is generalizations, and race. Tell me, can you even discuss economic and power advantage and disadvantage without bringing race into the equation? Serious question.

Kal'Stang said:

Like I said, all you have is generalizations, and race. Tell me, can you even discuss advantage and disadvantage without bringing race into the equation? Serious question.

Click to expand...

Like I said, there are no generalizations. That's just your ignorance resulting in BS.

Can I discuss racism without bringing race into the subject? How stupid.

There are many kinds of majority privilege (male and hetero for examples) and they are not mutually exclusive. But that means nothing to you because you have absolutely no grasp of the concept beyond racist hysterics.

ecofarm said:

Like I said, there are no generalizations. That's just your ignorance resulting in BS.

Can I discuss racism without bringing race into the subject? How stupid.

There are many kinds of majority privilege and they are not mutually exclusive. But that means nothing to you because you have absolutely no grasp of the concept beyond racist hysterics.

Click to expand...

And yet you can't apply your belief to me. An individual.

Also, see my edit of that post.

Kal'Stang said:

And yet you can't apply your belief to me. An individual.

Click to expand...

You get a fair shake in employment, housing and the justice system. Black people do not. That's privilege.

If you experience racial bigotry, you can move away from it. Black people cannot. That's privilege.

You can't understand social justice because you have no understanding of majority privilege and you can't understand majority privilege because you have no understanding of privilege. That's absurdly pathetic and racist.

ecofarm said:

You get a fair shake in employment, housing and the justice system. Black people do not. That's privilege.

If you experience racial bigotry, you can move away from it. Black people cannot. That's privilege.

Click to expand...

You are still speaking generalities. I'm an individual. Apply your concept to me.

Kal'Stang said:

You are still speaking generalities. I'm an individual. Apply your concept to me.

Click to expand...

The concept applies to you as explained. I've had enough of someone idiotically defending the cornerstone of white supremacy - the denial of white privilege. Good day.

ecofarm said:

The concept applies to you as explained. I've had enough of someone idiotically defending the cornerstone of white supremacy - the denial of white privilege. Good day.

Click to expand...

No, actually it doesn't. You spoke in generalities. I'm an individual. You claimed that I get a fair shake in housing, yet I had already explained to you what it took to get into the apartment I am in right now. I haven't had a job in years. In the justice system, I saw pedophiles get out before me even though my offense was not near as horrible of a crime.

BTW: I never said that white privilege does not exist. We're not talking about white privilege. We're talking about what is and is not racist. I challenged you to show how your concept applies to me. An individual. I did so because you deny that your belief is based on generalities. If it really isn't based on generalities then you should be able to tell me how your concept applies to me as an individual. Yet all you can do is continue to speak in generalities. Because your entire premise is based on generalities. Without it, you have nothing.

Thing is...none of the above has anything to do with "social justice" or any other RW perceived notion of liberal ideology whatsoever. NONE.

That's what makes it desperate.

Kal'Stang said:

No, actually it doesn't. You spoke in generalities. I'm an individual. You claimed that I get a fair shake in housing, yet I had already explained to you what it took to get into the apartment I am in right now. I haven't had a job in years. In the justice system, I saw pedophiles get out before me even though my offense was not near as horrible of a crime.

BTW: I never said that white privilege does not exist. We're not talking about white privilege. We're talking about what is and is not racist. I challenged you to show how your concept applies to me. An individual. I did so because you deny that your belief is based on generalities. If it really isn't based on generalities then you should be able to tell me how your concept applies to me as an individual. Yet all you can do is continue to speak in generalities. Because your entire premise is based on generalities. Without it, you have nothing.

Click to expand...

Ecofarm thinks it isn't racist so long as the victim is white or male.

MSgt said:

Take that descendant! There has to be more to this than just a thirty-five year old comment made by a parent. This doesn't make any sense. Or...does it:

- Diabetes is 60% more common in black Americans than in white.

Click to expand...

:lamo
I'm pretty sure that prevalence of diabetes among African-Americans was NOT among the top 100 considerations in their decision to remove a NASCAR sponsorship.

Dumbest attempted rebuttal I've seen in a while.

But....you made me laugh, so there's that.

ultmd said:

:lamo
I'm pretty sure that prevalence of diabetes among African-Americans was NOT among the top 100 considerations in their decision to remove a NASCAR sponsorship.

Dumbest attempted rebuttal I've seen in a while.

But....you made me laugh, so there's that.

Click to expand...

Obviously, I was just tossing "dumb" crap out there because this whole thing made little sense. Clearly, none of us even cared about this.