d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Internet Socialists
Prev12345610Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 906Replies: 98Track Topic
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
#31
May 18 2020 10:54am
Quote (InsaneBobb @ May 18 2020 11:51am)
Your critical theory nonsense really needs to give way to critical thought, friend.

First: Initially, neither "whites" nor "blacks" accepted half white half blacks. That's why the term mulatto originated. They were pariahs accepted by neither. You seem to hint that only "whites" have ever been racist, and that's 100% opposite the fact. Regardless of what your critical theory courses taught you. Just as whites were neither the only "slavers" nor the "first slavers" nor the "last slavers" nor even the "largest slave traders". All of that falls on others. I don't hate myself for my skin tone. It's something I can't control, and didn't choose. Anyone who WOULD judge me by that skin tone is a racist. :)

But forget history, we're talking now. When it comes to skintone, yellow-tinted brown has always been the predicted future. Both "black" and "white" are becoming less common. It turns out, in the modern age, people would rather just be with whoever they're attracted to who they share interests with. It seems mostly like racebaiters like you who make a person's skin color such an issue. For reasonable people, the natural gravitation will lead to a blending.

I mean, assuming China doesn't decide to conquer the world. That could lead to some severe problems of it's own.


You're putting a lot of "hints" that I never hinted at. I've never taken a critical theory class, I've only ever taken introductory sociology. Sorry to disappoint, but you're trying to dismiss my opinions by associating me with something I've never been associated with, and then assuming my opinions based on that association.

So I'll give you an opportunity to retype this post based on what I said and not based on what you wish I said.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 18 2020 10:54am
Member
Posts: 93,001
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
#32
May 18 2020 10:57am
Quote (Thor123422 @ May 18 2020 11:33am)
Whiteness has always been an ethnicity based on exclusion. It Isn't So Much its own group as it is a group of people claiming to be apart from others. When the number of white people shrinks they include other groups to bulk up their numbers. Jews and Irish used to not be considered white. And we are in the process of potentially seeing whiteness expanded to Hispanics.

The number of white people can only go down because a half white half black person has historically only been considered black. So they've needed to expand the definition of few times


no different than black people excluding light skinned people as not being "black enough" until they need bigger numbers.
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 286.00
#33
May 18 2020 11:00am
Quote (thesnipa @ May 18 2020 12:57pm)
no different than black people excluding light skinned people as not being "black enough" until they need bigger numbers.


Blacks because 3/5ths human for congressional seats.

This post was edited by Skinned on May 18 2020 11:00am
Member
Posts: 21,486
Joined: Jul 21 2005
Gold: 438.40
#34
May 18 2020 11:15am
Quote (Thor123422 @ May 18 2020 09:54am)
You're putting a lot of "hints" that I never hinted at. I've never taken a critical theory class, I've only ever taken introductory sociology. Sorry to disappoint, but you're trying to dismiss my opinions by associating me with something I've never been associated with, and then assuming my opinions based on that association.

So I'll give you an opportunity to retype this post based on what I said and not based on what you wish I said.


You quoted me with a specific idealism of "whiteness" that is purely racist in origin that I do not hold, that was completely irrelevant to my post. That's racebaiting.

Then you proceeded to say half-white half-black were "black" when the "black" people of the time would have absolutely rejected that.

Your opinions are clear. You're attempting to paint me as some kind of racist, while being so racist you're trying to rewrite the history of two races to justify your point.

That's the kind of bullshit they teach in critical theory. Don't tell me how to read what you write. If that's not what you meant, think before you post.
Member
Posts: 93,001
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
#35
May 18 2020 11:16am
Quote (Skinned @ May 18 2020 12:00pm)
Blacks because 3/5ths human for congressional seats.


compromise really is a beautiful thing.
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 286.00
#36
May 18 2020 11:16am
Quote (thesnipa @ May 18 2020 01:16pm)
compromise really is a beautiful thing.


Especially in Missouri.


Quote (InsaneBobb @ May 18 2020 01:15pm)
You quoted me with a specific idealism of "whiteness" that is purely racist in origin that I do not hold, that was completely irrelevant to my post. That's racebaiting.

Then you proceeded to say half-white half-black were "black" when the "black" people of the time would have absolutely rejected that.

Your opinions are clear. You're attempting to paint me as some kind of racist, while being so racist you're trying to rewrite the history of two races to justify your point.

That's the kind of bullshit they teach in critical theory. Don't tell me how to read what you write. If that's not what you meant, think before you post.


One drop is all it takes.

This post was edited by Skinned on May 18 2020 11:17am
Member
Posts: 93,001
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
#37
May 18 2020 11:19am
Quote (Skinned @ May 18 2020 12:16pm)
Especially in Missouri.




One drop is all it takes.


one has to wonder if Ferguson would have been as up in arms if Michael Brown was instead Michael Medium Tan.
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 286.00
#38
May 18 2020 11:22am
Quote (thesnipa @ May 18 2020 01:19pm)
one has to wonder if Ferguson would have been as up in arms if Michael Brown was instead Michael Medium Tan.


Michael High Yellow.
Member
Posts: 21,486
Joined: Jul 21 2005
Gold: 438.40
#39
May 18 2020 11:59am
Quote (thesnipa @ May 18 2020 10:19am)
one has to wonder if Ferguson would have been as up in arms if Michael Brown was instead Michael Medium Tan.


Had he been anything that "appeared" white, it would never have hit the news cycle.

It's ironic that Wilson was cleared of any wrong-doing, all the facts indicated that his account was correct, and the Obama DoJ not only cleared him, but insisted racism was not a factor, yet the false "hands up don't shoot" narrative lingers on, and Wilson has been hidden away under a rock where the pitchfork-wielding mob can't get to him.

Look at Zimmerman. He wasn't white, but he looked white-ish. And as much of an absolute dick as that guy is, he did nothing wrong either. Yet there are still those calling for blood.

If I went out and stole from a liquor store, then walked in the middle of the street, started punching a cop and reaching for his gun, and got shot for my trouble? The comments would simply be, "Justice served." And rightfully so.

The fact that color of skin makes a difference indicates who the real racists are.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on May 18 2020 12:00pm
Member
Posts: 54,184
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
#40
May 18 2020 12:22pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ 18 May 2020 18:33)
Whiteness has always been an ethnicity based on exclusion. It Isn't So Much its own group as it is a group of people claiming to be apart from others. When the number of white people shrinks they include other groups to bulk up their numbers. Jews and Irish used to not be considered white. And we are in the process of potentially seeing whiteness expanded to Hispanics.

The number of white people can only go down because a half white half black person has historically only been considered black. So they've needed to expand the definition of few times


This might change when ethnicity is understood in a cultural instead of a biological sense. In the 19th and early 20th century, the divide between catholics and protestants was very deep and salient. One could argue that Catholics were only increasingly included in the definition of "whiteness" once this confessional divide fizzled out, and once the catholic immigrants had assimilated into American culture. Without assimilation, or in case of continued high immigration levels from southern europe, I'm not so sure that they would have been "accepted" as part of the white majority and mainstream. I think the same logic applies to hispanics. If latino immigration abates for at least a decade and those already in the country assimilate, they imho will be eventually accepted as "white". Otherwise, they will continue to be considered a separate ethnic group from the rest of "white america".

Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev12345610Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2026 d2jsp  Contact