Political Correctness

[huskeR32]

You answered your self.

I don't recall asking a question.

 

[mustafur]

I don't recall asking a question.

No, but you answered your own counter.

 

[Danoff]

He described the Evergreen State College situation as "wanting segregation," and then he invoked MLK. I'd have to go out of my way to not interpret that as a counter example to this:

Really? Let's break it down for a second. The "evergreen state college situation" was advocating a day without white people. Do you not think that's "wanting segregation" for a day? I'm surprised you think you need to go out of your way to not interpret the segregation that comes with "a day without white people" as "MLK-era-style society-wide segregation", as the two things seem very different. They are related in that they are both "segregation", but one of them needs all those extra descriptive terms in front of it to help you understand the scope.

So no, your interpretation was not required, easy, self-evident, or warranted.

Clearly it's only a one-day perpetual motion machine. There are big differences between the segregation MLK fought against and this temporary craziness. If they had advocated permanently banning white people from the college it might be another story.

Why would it be a one-day perpetual motion machine? Because MLK would presumably only spin in his grave at undermining his message while that undermining was currently happening in active demonstration, and afterward he'd be just fine? That makes no sense. How did you even think to type that?

 

[Famine]

I don't recall asking a question.

I'm not sure how you're reading this wrong, but for clarity:

Going from fighting against segregation to wanting segregation in 60 years. MLK is spinning so hard in his grave he's turning into a perpetual motion machine.

Martin Luther King fought against segregation.
In his era, it was society-wide.

It's a crazy stunt and the students' reaction to people who didn't agree with it is even crazier but a one day event like this sounds like a stunt rather than an example of permanent MLK-era-style society-wide segregation.

But then no-one said it was society-wide in this instance, just that it is still segregation - against which Martin Luther King fought:

Going from fighting against segregation to wanting segregation in 60 years. MLK is spinning so hard in his grave he's turning into a perpetual motion machine.

Which is what @Danoff said in response:

I don't think anyone argued that it is MLK-era-style society-wide segregation. They'd surely be wrong to do so. But, then again, it doesn't have to be to go against his message, ostensibly in the name of his message.

I think it's pretty easy to see that wanting segregation of blacks and whites is very much against the message of Martin Luther King.

 

[huskeR32]

The "evergreen state college situation" was advocating a day without white people. Do you not think that's "wanting segregation" for a day?

Sure, the label fits. I didn't dispute that.

I'm surprised you think you need to go out of your way to not interpret the segregation that comes with "a day without white people" as "MLK-era-style society-wide segregation"

That's not at all what I said. I was referring to my interpretation of Dennisch's post, not of the "day without white people."

I'm simply pointing out that this:

I don't think anyone argued that it is MLK-era-style society-wide segregation.

Seems contradicted by this:

Going from fighting against segregation to wanting segregation in 60 years. MLK is spinning so hard in his grave he's turning into a perpetual motion machine.

If I'm missing anything here, it's how Dennisch's post could be interpreted as doing anything other than comparing "a day without white people" to the segregation that MLK fought against.

 

[mustafur]

To be fair on that he said "wanting" segregation.

It's a comparison that isn't the same thing though.

 

[Danoff]

If I'm missing anything here, it's how Dennisch's post could be interpreted as doing anything other than comparing "a day without white people" to the segregation that MLK fought against.

Yes, it was. At least that's the way I interpret it (we could let him say for sure). Comparing segregation to segregation. It is suggesting that the desire for segregation for one day would bother MLK, who fought against segregation in general, including fighting against the systemic segregation of his time. That is not the same thing as equating the two. How are you missing that? I even gave you a direct quote from MLK that suggests that he wanted black people and white people (not exactly, but that was the idea) to sit down together in brotherhood. Why do you think that something which goes directly against that sentiment (for which he was so famous), where people request to expressly NOT sit down together in brotherhood as a display which by its nature fights against brotherhood on the basis of skin color, would not bother him?

We can't get MLK here to answer that question, but at the very least, I've provided his own statements that suggest he would be bothered.

Seriously, this is not rocket science. The differences that you're citing do nothing to invalidate the point.

 

[Famine]

I'm simply pointing out that this:

Seems contradicted by this:

It isn't, unless you insert the words 'society-wide' into @Dennisch's post...

Going from fighting against segregation to wanting segregation in 60 years. MLK is spinning so hard in his grave he's turning into a perpetual motion machine.

Original post, no contradiction.

Going from fighting against society-wide segregation to wanting society-wide segregation in 60 years. MLK is spinning so hard in his grave he's turning into a perpetual motion machine.

How you seem to be reading it, contradiction.

 

[Dennisch]

I can't add anything more than @Famine and @Danoff already said.

 

[ryzno]

How is that an example of political correctness?

It's just as stupid as no whites day and both are segregation in their own respects...

 

[huskeR32]

Why do you think it that something which goes directly against that sentiment (for which he was so famous), where people request to expressly NOT sit down together in brotherhood as a display which by its nature fights against brotherhood on the basis of skin color, would not bother him?

Again, I didn't say it wouldn't.

I haven't taken any position on whether the whole thing constitutes segregation, nor taken any position on whether it's comparable to "MLK-era-segregation."

I commented on the fact that his post seems to contradict yours. That's it.

--

It isn't, unless you insert the words 'society-wide' into @Dennisch's post...

This bit...

Going from fighting against segregation to wanting segregation in 60 years.

...reads as a comment on how society-at-large, or at least a sizable portion of it, has reversed its position.

I wouldn't characterize the existence of the Flat Earth Society as "Going from knowing the world is round to thinking that it's flat," because almost nobody has actually "gone from" one side to the other. The vast majority have always been in the former group, and a small group of idiots have likely always made up the latter.

 

[Famine]

This bit reads as a comment on how society-at-large, or at least a sizable portion of it, has reversed its position.

There is no mention of the size of the population involved in that quote. It might be everyone. It might be one person.

The person who wrote the post originally has literally posted just two posts above yours to concur that you're reading something that isn't there. It's just a comment that some people now view segregation as desireable when previously it was not.

That was probably the point to go "Oh" and move on.

 

[huskeR32]

That was probably the point to go "Oh" and move on.

Indeed it was. Didn't see it until after I had posted.

 

[mister dog]

Great video about white privilige:

 

[Carbonox]

"Is it fair to say all white people are racist?"
"Yes, absolutely."
"Is it wrong to judge people collectively?"
"Yes."

Bitch, please. At this rate, what's the point of parody anymore when these dense people make fools out of themselves this competently?

 

[Northstar]

"I put my hand on her so people see that I'm with her. I extend my white privilege over to her"

That may actually be one the most racist things I've heard in quite awhile.

 

[LeMansAid]

Just more "Yeah but...." reactions to the posting about the college racism thing, such as was seen in a great portion of this thread.

I think that a scarily high number of people will not be satisfied until white people are widely regarded as effectively vermin. It's a sick revenge mentality, not helped at all by instances like this where the idea of ostracising white people can't be exposed without a load of "Yeah but...."s as some feeble and offensive attempt at a counter.

 

[Johnnypenso]

"I put my hand on her so people see that I'm with her. I extend my white privilege over to her"

That may actually be one the most racist things I've heard in quite awhile.

Oh this is a good one. I can't wait to see the gf, put my arm around her as we walk into a restaurant and say, "Well get better seats now honey because I've extended my white privilege to you. Oh, by the way, please smile a lot and act really white so you don't embarass me." She's small, but the slap will still probably sting.

EDIT: Not to be outdone by Evergreen, Hunter College in New York City is offering an undergraduate class called the “Abolition of Whiteness". I suppose they hope to join the many other publicly funded institutions of higher learning (so called) like Ohio State University and it's course called, “Crossing Identity Boundaries,” that teaches students how to detect microaggressions and white privilege. The University of Wisconsin-Madison offers a course called, “The Problem of Whiteness”.

 

[PeterJB]

It seems that through hours of meditation, guilt over things you haven't done or can't change, apologising for things you had nothing to do with, and offering help to the socially and genetically disadvantaged whilst still falling short, you can be cleansed of your whiteness, despite your skin tone not changing at all. It's like a race-based religion; Minorityism.

 

[Dotini]

In my opinion, the "social contract" has been broken - or is in the process of breaking.

In the free, enlightened and liberal society envisaged by Locke, people would respect and defend each other's differing morals, rights, opinions, beliefs and lifeways.

In the absolutist, centrally governed society of Hobbes, stern laws and authorities enforce the social contract.

Given the absence/obsolescence/failure of either of these centuries-old philosophical options, another way of organizing and governing society needs to be implemented. I don't think you will like it.

 

[Carbonox]

Some insanity from Finland for a change. You'd think that this kind of ideology has poisoned America bad enough, so why import this level of baloney to a country whose history isn't even closely comparable to the States'?

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure dividing people into white and colored used to be a pretty racist concept, so how is it suddenly OK for the other side to start doing the same exact thing?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Some insanity from Finland for a change. You'd think that this kind of ideology has poisoned America bad enough, so why import this level of baloney to a country whose history isn't even closely comparable to the States'?

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure dividing people into white and colored used to be a pretty racist concept, so how is it suddenly OK for the other side to start doing the same exact thing?

A website for people who identify with a particular heritage isn't necessarily evil and certainly isn't illegal. I think you're reading a whooooole agenda there that simply doesn't exist.

 

[Johnnypenso]

A website for people who identify with a particular heritage isn't necessarily evil and certainly isn't illegal. I think you're reading a whooooole agenda there that simply doesn't exist.

If this were the Illegal Thread or the Evil Thread you might have a point.

 

[Carbonox]

A website for people who identify with a particular heritage isn't necessarily evil and certainly isn't illegal. I think you're reading a whooooole agenda there that simply doesn't exist.

I didn't know something had to be illegal before being eligible to condemnation.

 

[PeterJB]

Probably the most reported "microaggression" is white people touching black people's hair. I really struggle to believe that it happens as much they claim it does, or that a flight attendant would do so.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If this were the Illegal Thread or the Evil Thread you might have a point.

I didn't know something had to be illegal before being eligible to condemnation.

You're both right, but Carbonox did call this racist. That's definitely illegal and arguably evil.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You're both right, but Carbonox did call this racist. That's definitely illegal and arguably evil.

Holding a racist view of the world is illegal? In Finland?

 

[Spurgy 777]

You're both right, but Carbonox did call this racist. That's definitely illegal and arguably evil.

Being racist isn't illegal, not sure what you mean?

 

[MisterWhiskers]

Am I the only person who thinks that the edgy people and the easily triggered snowflakes are more outspoken than people who try to make sense of everything without resorting to violence or radical action? This generation has been warped and twisted into very strange people. I subscribe to more traditional views, but the world is so complex now. It's not the same as it was before. I think this is partially due to the mass media warping children, and degeneration. Very sad to see, nonetheless.

When you talk about revolution, it's very easy to romanticize picking up a gun or marching in the street, but I think before we take any of those actions, violence of course being the last one, we first have to have a revolution of the mind.

Immortal Technique

 

[Johnnypenso]

All the Dykes are welcome...except da dirty zionist Jews!

LGBT Pride festivities in Chicago took an ugly turn over the weekend when three women were ejected from a march because their rainbow flags bore a Jewish Star of David. The Chicago Windy Times, the city's LGBT paper, reported that the women were told that they could not take part in the city's Dyke March because their flags" made people feel unsafe." The Dyke March is separate from Chicago's main Pride Parade and is described by organizers as being "more inclusive" and "more social justice-oriented" than the main event.

Looks like the dykes felt threatened by the Jewish dykes invading their safe space by carrying threatening looking symbols. Where have I heard that before?