Whiteness (according to the National Museum of African American History and Culture)

[GreyICE]

*flings poop*

See what I mean? If I don't respond to this, then in your head you've won some amazing point, but here in reality does this relate to the subject of the thread in any way? Or even anything I said? Or is it just you trying to score some points by flinging poop?

I mean literally if we go check your last post about the economics of slavery wasn't to debunk anything I said. It was random drivel about reparations. I didn't respond to it because it was so far off topic for anything regarding whether slavery made economic sense (spoiler: it didn't) that it isn't worth responding to.

Apparently you chalk that up as a victory. Okay, whatever makes you feel better about yourself. See, if you want to keep clicking reply with this sort of shit, it just means you are an unpleasant person who isn't worth talking to. If that's your self-image. Eh, probably accurate. But you don't have to be that way.

[Antiboyscout]

In its entirety and its fullest directive it means nothing more than not obligating themselves to live by family traditions with western European roots. More consciously it has more to do with recognizing themselves as both Black Americans and as a people whose history was commandeered and ended up here.

You look at the term disrupt and you think of it in terms of sabotage, and that's nowhere near what the word is intended for nor implicated in suggesting. Using the term in this sense amounts to western European eccentric family structures not being ubiquitous throughout society in terms of traditional family values. More directly signifying that they're allowed to sustain what they have as a culture while still calling themselves American. There's more to go on with this, but your reading of this is pretty outlandish.

Jesus crhist man what was your reaction to Willow Smith's I Whip My Hair? She's totally trying to turn classrooms gay with her rainbow graffiti all over the wall!

Allowed to sustain suggest they are currently living by those cultural practices. They aren't. If you can show me groups of black americans living this way I'll concede the point. Otherwise, this is why disrupt is sabotage in this context. The attempt to make room for something they want by destroying something they don't like.

I do thank you for disproving your own point about this being satire and GREYice's point on this being a neutral list of cultural quirks. The nuclear is a highly effective form of organization and east asians have taken it farther and more effectively than we have. And you claim this community based social almost tribal child rearing is actually for black people none of that white people nuclear crap.

My reaction to Willow Smith's "I Whip my Hair" was, this is the perfect example of a black woman with privilege. Willow lacks talent, yet at such a young age, she has a studio produced single with a music video cuz her daddy is rich and famous.

[Antiboyscout]

See what I mean? If I don't respond to this, then in your head you've won some amazing point, but here in reality does this relate to the subject of the thread in any way? Or even anything I said? Or is it just you trying to score some points by flinging poop?

I mean literally if we go check your last post about the economics of slavery wasn't to debunk anything I said. It was random drivel about reparations. I didn't respond to it because it was so far off topic for anything regarding whether slavery made economic sense (spoiler: it didn't) that it isn't worth responding to.

Apparently you chalk that up as a victory. Okay, whatever makes you feel better about yourself. See, if you want to keep clicking reply with this sort of shit, it just means you are an unpleasant person who isn't worth talking to. If that's your self-image. Eh, probably accurate. But you don't have to be that way.

Reparations was completely on topic. You're the one that brought it up. The economic argument started that way.

Plz keep ignoring the argument that ended the debate in the first place. Nothing about reparations to be found in my last post. Only your ignorance about economics and the collapse of the USSR.

Ok movie bob. I'll let you go back to brow beating an autistic person.
and you have the audacity to claim I'm flinging poop.

[Rocketboy1313]

Good to see you've rewritten history in your head like the good socialist that you are. The last post we had in that argument was you completely misidentifying the flaw and cause of collapse of the USSR. You said it was the mandatory work. In reality, it was the state owned industry who's failures pilled up until the entire system collapsed. I can see why you reject this idea. You support state owned industry. Utilities, social safety nets, public works, You want more bigger versions. In the USSR every single business and industry was a public work.

You think you have any right to insult me and claim my argumentation is embarrassing? Which one of us has spent over a week in dozens of posts in 3 or 4 different thread browbeating someone with a developmental disorder to make them bend the knee and have them say all cops have collective guilt. I've seen some of your argumentation for this. I guess ISIS isn't responsible for the Pulse nightclub shooting as the only entrance requirement seems to be pledging allegiance the second before you start killing. Meanwhile, Rose City Antifa is one of the most organized antifa blocks with the strictest requirements, including a background check. You still bounce back and forth between antifa is just anti facist and isn't an organization or it's voluntary so you can only judge individuals not the group. It's garbage. Somehow an organization that has standards or tests to enter have collective responsibility and guilt for all of its members but voluntary organizations don't?

You're understanding of economics is garbage (nice appeal to authority too bad it sucked). You're philosophy on individualism and group dynamics is garbage. Not surprised you are just a garbage person in general and support abortion as a form of progressive eugenics like your F*cking MovieBob or something.

I don't know how to respond to any of this.
This is nonsense. It is like looking at the wall of a conspiracy theorist who has yarn running between push pins tied to antifa and socialists, eugenics and state owned industries, ISIS and antifa.

What the fuck are you even on about? Let's look at Rose City Antifa, so you are complaining that they are what? Ultra organized and thus should be judged as a group? Okay, aside from doxing Neo-Nazis what have they done that you find objectionable? Do you have something more substantive than, "They are antifa therefore they are socialist; socialism bad, therefore they are bad"? Because that seems to be the chain of logic you have set up in your vision board up there and I have to tell you, it doesn't add up.

There is a spectrum of socialist policy, just like there is for all economic and political policy. The idea that there is some level at which you feel uncomfortable an that you do not trust it to function is fine, lots of people have opinions, both personal and professional on those kinds of topics. In theory finding a balance between such various perspectives is what democracy is about. But you have to stop coupling ideas that are not related.

Antifa is not socialism. Antifa is anti fascism. That is to say they oppose the violent machismo groups that in their current forms are overwhelmingly racist and homophobic, pushing to suppress the rights of minorities thru intimidation while hiding behind a police force that is increasingly militarized and mobilizing against the American population. This is not an inherently harmful mission statement even if there are bad actors within it.

Socialism is a system that pushes for greater social safety nets like, Medicare for all, Universal Basic Income, Social Security, Public Housing, and Unemployment Insurance. This is not an inherently harmful mission statement, even if there are problems with implementation.

The circles overlap, but they are different circles, and you have to start looking at things with a great level of nuance, because as is you sound like a lunatic.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

In its entirety and its fullest directive it means nothing more than not obligating themselves to live by family traditions with western European roots. More consciously it has more to do with recognizing themselves as both Black Americans and as a people whose history was commandeered and ended up here.

You look at the term disrupt and you think of it in terms of sabotage, and that's nowhere near what the word is intended for nor implicated in suggesting. Using the term in this sense amounts to western European eccentric family structures not being ubiquitous throughout society in terms of traditional family values. More directly signifying that they're allowed to sustain what they have as a culture while still calling themselves American. There's more to go on with this, but your reading of this is pretty outlandish.

Jesus crhist man what was your reaction to Willow Smith's I Whip My Hair? She's totally trying to turn classrooms gay with her rainbow graffiti all over the wall!

Allowed to sustain suggest they are currently living by those cultural practices. They aren't. If you can show me groups of black americans living this way I'll concede the point. Otherwise, this is why disrupt is sabotage in this context. The attempt to make room for something they want by destroying something they don't like.

The fuck does that even mean? You made that shit up completely.

"I'm allowed to breath air"

"by you saying that, that means that you're being forced to not breathe air by something, therefor blah blah blah." That is complete horseshit.

Being allowed to do anything doesn't imply that something is working to impede it, and it means literally nothing more than they are able to. There's no implication of direct force there.

[GreyICE]

Reparations was completely on topic. You're the one that brought it up. The economic argument started that way.

First time Reparations was brought up:

The economic collapse of the south

the adoption of sharecropping that people like you accuse of being defacto slavery

the fact that sharecropping didn't end until the invention of the mechanical cotton picker nearly a century later. Meaning the problem wasn't actually solved until then.

Having a climate that makes mechanized farming, like in the north, impossible it draws one toward slavery as there are no alternatives. Means to an end, not an end of itself.

Considering the mechanical cotton picker was so widely adopted after it's introduction that it is one of the main causes of the second great migration, it seems those southerners were perfectly willing to use an alternative when it presented itself.

it was a matter of survival

a modern equivalence would be if NYC passed a law banning the ownership of internal combustion engines in the entire state. Easy enough for the city slickers who can walk and drive electric. Not so easy for the farmer up-state who must scrap his tractor and combine and semi. If NYC offered no alternative, exemption, or timetable to ween off the use of the tractor it would look like a naked power grab of the urban cities weakening rural economies for their own benefit.

So your justification is that slavery was "the only viable economic solution". Which is total and complete horseshit. Slavery is economically inefficient. From an economists perspective, and setting aside the morality, you have to devote extra labor to having overseers who do nothing but try to keep slaves in line. With paid workers, they keep themselves in line since, y'know, they're getting paid. Similarly slaves still require food, clothing, housing, all the essentials. And finally, slaves have no incentive to work any harder than they need to to avoid beatings. Since they don't profit from their labor, they don't have any incentive to work harder than the bare minimum.

So from an economic perspective as well as a moral one, slavery is a dismal failure. All it does is result in less wealth, less innovation, and concentrating that wealth into a small number of hands who use it inefficiently. With no economic freedom or mobility, the free market literally cannot exist (see the word FREE in free market) - slavery is basically communism where the output of the communist system is used for enriching the wealthy, rather than the people (so, communism but with more beatings).

https://fee.org/articles/slavery-was-never-economically-efficient/
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-08-25/how-slavery-hurt-the-u-s-economy
https://mises.org/wire/left-argues-slavery-was-economic-blessing-heres-why-they-are-wrong

These are three conservative sources condemning slavery as economically inefficient. Each of them is on the right wing of the American political spectrum - in case of Mises, on the bleeding crazy edge of the far right where they can't help but choose breakfast cereals on the basis of which one pwns the libtards. And they all disagree with you.

Mmm, maybe you should have paid more attention in school and less attention to crazy shit fed to you from "alternative education".

Then you need to tell that to black activists, who claim that the wealth of the United States, or at least a majority of it, was created by slave labor. It is the basis of the reparations argument after all.

And as we can clearly see, you're lying. What a surprise.

Plz keep ignoring the argument that ended the debate in the first place. Nothing about reparations to be found in my last post. Only your ignorance about economics and the collapse of the USSR.

As we can see above, your only response to my post was "what about reparations?"

If you've wandered so far off field that you're trying to tie the fall of the USSR to slavery in the American south during the 1800s, I think I'm perfectly fine laughing at you.

[Nealithi]

Please correct me if I am wrong.
But this is supposed to be a list of things wrong with white people?
Which if this is supposed to be all bad things.
people should not work hard.
Do not be self sufficient
Be irrational thinkers
And cap off with be impolite?

Like my god they go out of their way to list good things about white culture, be as fair and even handed as possible, and we have people reacting like this. Why. Christ. Why. Is it possible to discuss any fucking things without goddamn snowflakes reacting like this?


Like understand, all of these qualities are bad and good. Hard work is great! It can also lead to you neglecting your family, your personal development, and your empathy and compassion to throw yourself farther into work. Then it's not so great.

Being self sufficient is great! Until you need help, and don't have the tools to reach out for it. Want to know the suicide rate for white men in American culture, one of the groups that has the least tools to reach out for help? Yeah... not good. Lot of people swallowing gun barrels out there.

Etc. Traits are neither completely good or completely evil. A loss of nuance is one of the dangers of a very rigid "things must be one way" mindset. Self sufficiency must be good or evil! It cannot be both! But what if it is both? White culture must be good or evil, it cannot be both! But what if it does have aspects of both?

Now I wish to thank you for when I ask to be corrected because it sounded like they were listing off what was considered bad included being polite. I thank you for starting off by calling me a snowflake for asking for a correction. Because I hoped to God I read that wrong. But hey someone reached out for help and you smack them the hell down.
Good for you.

[GreyICE]

Now I wish to thank you for when I ask to be corrected because it sounded like they were listing off what was considered bad included being polite. I thank you for starting off by calling me a snowflake for asking for a correction. Because I hoped to God I read that wrong. But hey someone reached out for help and you smack them the hell down.
Good for you.

If you were genuinely reaching for help then I apologize. I just cannot wrap my head around how anyone could genuinely look at that and see that as a list of 'bad things'. Some of them are indeed pretty negative - the "barbie beauty standard" has been heavily criticized for its impact on women who don't conform to it - and yet this continues to be Fox News:



Some of them are obviously usually positive. But I really don't see how you read that list and think 'wow those are supposed to be a list of bad things' except from an instantaneous knee-jerk reaction that bypasses conscious thought. Like you said "you hoped to god you read it wrong". Which begs the question: "how did you read it?"

[Antiboyscout]

If you've wandered so far off field that you're trying to tie the fall of the USSR to slavery in the American south during the 1800s, I think I'm perfectly fine laughing at you.

OF COURSE economic growth was hindered when 40% of the population had no economic agency. That's just obvious. As I said, setting aside the morality, any economist would tell you that that sort of system is garbage. It's like the worst form of USSR communism times twenty - "We say peasant work in factory or we shoot peasant." It's not good economic policy.

First time the USSR was brought up.

I think I'm perfectly fine laughing at you actually.

[Antiboyscout]

In its entirety and its fullest directive it means nothing more than not obligating themselves to live by family traditions with western European roots. More consciously it has more to do with recognizing themselves as both Black Americans and as a people whose history was commandeered and ended up here.

You look at the term disrupt and you think of it in terms of sabotage, and that's nowhere near what the word is intended for nor implicated in suggesting. Using the term in this sense amounts to western European eccentric family structures not being ubiquitous throughout society in terms of traditional family values. More directly signifying that they're allowed to sustain what they have as a culture while still calling themselves American. There's more to go on with this, but your reading of this is pretty outlandish.

Jesus crhist man what was your reaction to Willow Smith's I Whip My Hair? She's totally trying to turn classrooms gay with her rainbow graffiti all over the wall!

Allowed to sustain suggest they are currently living by those cultural practices. They aren't. If you can show me groups of black americans living this way I'll concede the point. Otherwise, this is why disrupt is sabotage in this context. The attempt to make room for something they want by destroying something they don't like.

The fuck does that even mean? You made that shit up completely.

"I'm allowed to breath air"

"by you saying that, that means that you're being forced to not breathe air by something, therefor blah blah blah." That is complete horseshit.

Being allowed to do anything doesn't imply that something is working to impede it, and it means literally nothing more than they are able to. There's no implication of direct force there.

"I'm allowed to sustain my air breathing" Does that imply you have yet to start breathing or that you are currently breathing?