“It’s Okay to be White” ?

#51
#51
Vol8188 said:
What was radical 20 years ago is mainstream today. Farrakhan gets asked to speak to congress, Ibram X is treated as a left wing thought leader and Rutgers professors want to take out whites.

You really can’t find right wing equivalents. When’s the last time we invited a klan member to speak before congress? The last time a professor openly called for killing whites people?

The problem is black racism is treated with kid gloves.
Click to expand...

I would say Farrakhan is still not a representative of the mainstream, even 50 years after hitting the public eye.

You're still talking about a double standard, not mainstream sentiment. Farrakhan didn't get canceled and that's a double standard regarding sensitivity, but his hateful ideas about whites are not mainstream.
 
#52
#52
n_huffhines said:
I would say Farrakhan is still not a representative of the mainstream, even 50 years after hitting the public eye.

You're still talking about a double standard, not mainstream sentiment. Farrakhan didn't get canceled and that's a double standard regarding sensitivity, but his hateful ideas about whites are not mainstream.
Click to expand...

Farrakhan isn’t a matter of “sensitivity”. He’s an open bigot.

Saying there’s a double standard and that it’s not mainstream is contradictory. It’s the mainstream embracement of radical racial ideas that forms the double standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLS INC.
#53
#53
MercyPercy said:
I understand your point but let's not pretend like they didnt do disgusting things. It's hard to claim the moral high ground when you wipe out an entire race of people to take their land. I don't believe in reparations or anything, there's nothing to be done about history that far away. But let's also not "whitewash" (if I may use that term) it and act like white folks just showed up and crushed the natives out of the kindness of their heart lol.
Click to expand...
What was done is a tragedy, but how is it any different than any conqueror/conquered story throughout history?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO, dovervolz and allvol123
#54
#54
n_huffhines said:
I would say Farrakhan is still not a representative of the mainstream, even 50 years after hitting the public eye.

You're still talking about a double standard, not mainstream sentiment. Farrakhan didn't get canceled and that's a double standard regarding sensitivity, but his hateful ideas about whites are not mainstream.
Click to expand...
Vol8188 said:
Farrakhan isn’t a matter of “sensitivity”. He’s an open bigot.

Saying there’s a double standard and that it’s not mainstream is contradictory. It’s the mainstream embracement of radical racial ideas that forms the double standard.
Click to expand...
I'll give @Vol8188 this - the media has a tendency to label non-mainstream bigots on the left as such, but label non-mainstream bigots on the right as being quasi-representative or maybe even entirely representative of thought within the conservative movement.

For example, neither Farrakhan or David Duke are mainstream figures. However, it seems like conservative politicians are called upon way more often than progressive ones to denounce what people like this say. They are both kooks, but conservatives get the finger pointed at them more often than progressives and directed to disavow their kook, as though he's speaking for the entire political movement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and Rickyvol77
#55
#55
05_never_again said:
I'll give @Vol8188 this - the media has a tendency to label non-mainstream bigots on the left as such, but label non-mainstream bigots on the right as being quasi-representative or maybe even entirely representative of thought within the conservative movement.

For example, neither Farrakhan or David Duke are mainstream figures. However, it seems like conservative politicians are called upon way more often than progressive ones to denounce what people like this say. They are both kooks, but conservatives get the finger point at them more often than progressives and directed to disavow their kook, as though he's speaking for the entire political movement.
Click to expand...

Duke is only even slightly known because the left uses his name. Farrakhan is openly embraced by left wing politicians
 
#56
#56
Vol8188 said:
Here’s some examples of what I mean. The Covid stuff I’m mainly talking about the wide spread sentiment that racial equity instead of age and co morbidities should be the main factor in determining distribution. Now similar things are being done with monoclonal antibodies.

Stanford student senator says ‘White people need to be eradicated’ | The College Fix

New Jersey professor on White people: 'I want to say ... we got to take these motherf---kers out'

Vaccine Distribution—Equity Left Behind?

New York says it will prioritize non-White people in distributing low supply of COVID-19 treatments
Click to expand...
This gave me a chuckle

“Yes I think white people need to be eradicated”

Her student senate page biography states that she aspires to be a “human rights attorney” and “address racial violence.”
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
#57
#57
Vol8188 said:
Farrakhan isn’t a matter of “sensitivity”. He’s an open bigot.

Saying there’s a double standard and that it’s not mainstream is contradictory. It’s the mainstream embracement of radical racial ideas that forms the double standard.
Click to expand...

We're talking about "mainstream anti-white sentiment" with the context that it's OK to be white. A lack of sensitivity towards whites is not opposition to whites and does not indicate that it's not OK to be white. The fact that there is a double standard about sensitivity has no bearing on whether or not anti-white sentiment is mainstream.
 
#58
#58
I'm not going to be going around "It's okay to be white" signs, but how is this really any different than Black Lives Matter? We're supposed to be outraged at one message, yet somehow "enlightened" by the other? I don't get it.
 
#59
#59
Vol8188 said:
Duke is only even slightly known because the left uses his name. Farrakhan is openly embraced by left wing politicians
Click to expand...
David Duke actually has held political office as a Republican, so I'm not sure I agree totally. However I agree that Farrakhan has fraternized with Democratic politicians and the only people who draw any kind of attention to it are extremely partisan Republicans, not the media at large. You contrast this with a situation like David Duke, where Trump was repeatedly asked to disavow him by the mainstream media.

Of course, the irony is that both Duke and Farrakhan like Trump. Politics makes strange bedfellows.
 
#60
#60
n_huffhines said:
We're talking about "mainstream anti-white sentiment" with the context that it's OK to be white. A lack of sensitivity towards whites is not opposition to whites and does not indicate that it's not OK to be white. The fact that there is a double standard about sensitivity has no bearing on whether or not anti-white sentiment is mainstream.
Click to expand...

What I’m talking about is well beyond “a lack of sensitivity”. The issues I raised were not people being insensitive and it’s disingenuous to portray it as such.

Eradicate whites, Hitler was a great man, Jews are termites, white people are villains, these are not issues of “a lack of sensitivity”
 
#61
#61
Weezer said:
I'm not going to be going around "It's okay to be white" signs, but how is this really any different than Black Lives Matter? We're supposed to be outraged at one message, yet somehow "enlightened" by the other? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

BLM is actually why something like this evolves.

BLM is a racist organization but somehow has been accepted by much of mainstream media and large corporations. Thus, you get this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO, UT_Dutchman and VOLS INC.
#62
#62
So it looks like we are all in agreement that it is “Ok” to be white.

Tangential - is it ok to be “proud” to be white?
 
#63
#63
05_never_again said:
David Duke actually has held political office as a Republican, so I'm not sure I agree totally. However I agree that Farrakhan has fraternized with Democratic politicians and the only people who draw any kind of attention to it are extremely partisan Republicans, not the media at large. You contrast this with a situation like David Duke, where Trump was repeatedly asked to disavow him by the mainstream media.

Of course, the irony is that both Duke and Farrakhan like Trump. Politics makes strange bedfellows.
Click to expand...

Both of those claims at the bottom are incorrect. Farrakhan and Duke are both democratic socialist and Dukes openly supported Biden.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dovervolz
#68
#68
85SugarVol said:
So it looks like we are all in agreement that it is “Ok” to be white.

Tangential - is it ok to be “proud” to be white?
Click to expand...
It's not okay to be "proud", "Southern", and "white".
 
#69
#69
MercyPercy said:
I regard the SJWs that pound home all white people are evil with the same apathy that I give to the 'necks that act like black people are all thugs. They are vocal minorities with hate in their heart and not worth my attention.

As a white man I've never felt discriminated against in this country. Egypt was a different story; they charged me 10x what they charged the locals for anything. I understand the hustle though.
Click to expand...

I was in Alexandria and Cairo in the 80s and they treated me like a ****ing king, there's nothing those people wouldn't do for a zippo lighter or Levi's and the price and availability of hash was outta this world..😮‍💨
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol
#71
#71
Weezer said:
I mean, jmo, but I think when you see concepts like "white guilt" and "white privilege", it's fair to claim there's a message being pushed that being white "is not okay".
Click to expand...

It's OK to be white as long as you acknowledge your privilege and fragility and ask black Jesus for forgiveness for your white sins. If, on the other hand, you're white and tell the liberal guilt mafia to go **** themselves, then you're a white devil. Simple really.
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123, FLVOL69 and VOLS INC.
#72
#72
Vol8188 said:
What was radical 20 years ago is mainstream today. Farrakhan gets asked to speak to congress, Ibram X is treated as a left wing thought leader and Rutgers professors want to take out whites.

You really can’t find right wing equivalents. When’s the last time we invited a klan member to speak before congress? The last time a professor openly called for killing black people?

The problem is black racism is treated with kid gloves.
Click to expand...
Robert Byrd routinely spoke in Congress just about a decade ago.
 
#75
#75
05_never_again said:
For example, neither Farrakhan or David Duke are mainstream figures. However, it seems like conservative politicians are called upon way more often than progressive ones to denounce what people like this say. They are both kooks, but conservatives get the finger pointed at them more often than progressives and directed to disavow their kook, as though he's speaking for the entire political movement.
Click to expand...
I don't like the way that "denounce Person X" game is played by the media on either side. Its pointless. People don't have a choice in who decides to support them. It's just a way to dismiss people through guilt by association.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 05_never_again
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top