• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Australian government senators condemn 'anti-white racism'

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,077
984
136
^Even if the dude above is a legit turd-burger, you dudes are looking like muppets if you can't climb any higher than second rung on the levels of disagreement pyramid...
Its not worth the effort of proceeding to the higher levels of the pyramid over and over again when the other person repeatedly demonstrates he doesn't even know the basic definitions of words critical to the discussion such as racism. He thinks that programs that are designed to help people based on race are racist. Based on the basic definition of racism, which holds a requirement that racism is based on the belief that one race is superior to another, this simply isn't the case.
"Racism - prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

I also find it ironic that you made it only to the first level of the pyramid while chastising others for operating at the second level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: greatnoob

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,632
7,694
126
What other racism is socially acceptable?
Is this a joke? Maybe you just don"t get it, but real evil is common and banal. It's the shit people do every day to prove to everyone that they don't give a shit about anyone else. Real racism is that black kid walking through his own neighborhood must have been a criminal thug because I'm afraid of black people and if you call me a racist for saying that then means you're racist against white people. Real racism is that those black people peacefully protesting against government abuses must hate America and the flag because I don't want to give a fuck about how government treats people that I consider different from myself. Real racism is the idea that government should be empowered to keep people separate and unequal. Real racism is the idea that a person's inhetent rights under the law are dependent on the accident of their birth.
And all of these forms of racism are not only socially acceptable today, but current government policy at the highest level.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
22,531
4,699
136
Sometimes I wonder if climate change is causing folks with a melanin deficiency to go wacko. Would explain the growing nationalist/ white supremacist movements worldwide.

Maybe we need a safe haven for white people once climate change really kicks in. Greenland??
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,354
126
Is this a joke? Maybe you just don"t get it, but real evil is common and banal. It's the shit people do every day to prove to everyone that they don't give a shit about anyone else. Real racism is that black kid walking through his own neighborhood must have been a criminal thug because I'm afraid of black people and if you call me a racist for saying that then means you're racist against white people. Real racism is that those black people peacefully protesting against government abuses must hate America and the flag because I don't want to give a fuck about how government treats people that I consider different from myself. Real racism is the idea that government should be empowered to keep people separate and unequal. Real racism is the idea that a person's inhetent rights under the law are dependent on the accident of their birth.
And all of these forms of racism are not only socially acceptable today, but current government policy at the highest level.

Most of that this made up garbage, all of that would be socially unacceptable. Show me someone’s rights being different based on skin color. You got all grandiose about it so I’m assuming there’s a plethora of examples. Whose rights are different based on skin color?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,632
7,694
126
Most of that this made up garbage, all of that would be socially unacceptable. Show me someone’s rights being different based on skin color. You got all grandiose about it so I’m assuming there’s a plethora of examples. Whose rights are different based on skin color?
Like I said, real evil is common and banal. It's the things we do everyday. It's the product of when we willfully ignore what our actions do to others.
My favorite example of true evil was an interview of Gary Ridgway, the Green River killer of more than 100 women. He was asked, "Gary, what makes you different than other people?" He replied, "I dunno.. maybe that caring thing."
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,632
7,694
126
Oh wait, I'm supposed to show you examples.. how about a teenaged white girl walking through her own neighborhood being stalked by a black man because she didn't belong there? I think this story ends because she deserved to be shot and killed because she dared defend her house from the righteous black man, am I right?
You see, real racism happens when you switch the racial roles in the narrative, and all else being equal, your perception of right and wrong changes too.
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,354
126
Oh wait, I'm supposed to show you examples.. how about a teenaged white girl walking through her own neighborhood being stalked through her own neighborhood because she didn't belong there? I think this story ends because she deserved to be shot and killed because she dared defend her house from the righteous black man, am I right?
You see, real racism happens when you switch the racial roles in the narrative, and all else being equal, your perception of right and wrong changes too.
I don’t think anyone deserves to be shot because of the color of their skin and neither does the rest of America.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,632
7,694
126
I don’t think anyone deserves to be shot because of the color of their skin and neither does the rest of America.
I am certain that's how most of America feels, but that's not what actually happened. And continues to happen.
Everyone wants to believe that they're a good person who cares about other people.. when they're not freaking out about what they think other people might do to them.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
998
126
You're a vocal part of a political movement that dehumanizes and advocates the use of violence against its political opponents, whether real, perceived, or just plain faked. That's why no one believes you.
Are you talking about Democrats with Maxine Waters and Hillary Clinton calling to end civility and harass people that have a different political opinion than them? Antifa?
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
998
126
That's a lie, and no matter how often you repeat it, that won't make it true.

Besides, you're saying you're not a bigot in one breath when we just saw you being virulently transphobic in another thread. You're not even a good liar. You're a bigot, and you're too much of a chickenshit to admit it even as you practice it.


I'm absolutely NOT transphobic. Let me be 100% clear here, I don't care how others go about finding happiness and living their lives as long as they'er not affecting the rights of others. A man pretending he's a woman doesn't risk the rights of anyone and causes zero harm to society, if that's how that individual finds happiness and wants to go about life, then I'm all for that, this is what America is supposed to be. Just because I think that person would still be a man doesn't make me a transphobic person, it makes me a realist.

Just think, I support Trump who was pro-LGBT before it was cool. Democrat candidate Clinton only supported LGBT's after her her puppet masters said society is ready, it was the right political move for her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UglyCasanova

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,096
18,861
136
Is this a joke? Maybe you just don"t get it, but real evil is common and banal. It's the shit people do every day to prove to everyone that they don't give a shit about anyone else. Real racism is that black kid walking through his own neighborhood must have been a criminal thug because I'm afraid of black people and if you call me a racist for saying that then means you're racist against white people. Real racism is that those black people peacefully protesting against government abuses must hate America and the flag because I don't want to give a fuck about how government treats people that I consider different from myself. Real racism is the idea that government should be empowered to keep people separate and unequal. Real racism is the idea that a person's inhetent rights under the law are dependent on the accident of their birth.
And all of these forms of racism are not only socially acceptable today, but current government policy at the highest level.
It’s frankly amazing to me that racism is so fundamentally baked into every day life in America that some people have stopped seeing it as racism at all.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
998
126
It’s frankly amazing to me that racism is so fundamentally baked into every day life in America that some people have stopped seeing it as racism at all.
Ironic seeing as you are a proponent of the only socially acceptable institutionalized racist policies that we have, championed by the Democrats of course.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
7,867
4,865
136
I'm absolutely NOT transphobic. Let me be 100% clear here, I don't care how others go about finding happiness and living their lives as long as they'er not affecting the rights of others. A man pretending he's a woman doesn't risk the rights of anyone and causes zero harm to society, if that's how that individual finds happiness and wants to go about life, then I'm all for that, this is what America is supposed to be. Just because I think that person would still be a man doesn't make me a transphobic person, it makes me a realist.

Just think, I support Trump who was pro-LGBT before it was cool. Democrat candidate Clinton only supported LGBT's after her her puppet masters said society is ready, it was the right political move for her.
Denying the gender of a trans person is transphobia, you asshole. You're denying the core of who they are, and pretending that their gender identity is something they could toggle at will like a switch. That's not how it works.

Trump is not LGBT. Someone who endorsed banning transgender people from the military, stripped anti-discrimination measures for LGBT people and has a homophobic Vice President is not on their side. Have you actually asked LGBT people what they think of Trump? No, of course not, because they would tell you the truth you refuse to hear.

It would actually be hilarious to see you explain your transphobic views to a transgender person, because you wouldn't last two minutes.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
998
126
Denying the gender of a trans person is transphobia, you asshole. You're denying the core of who they are, and pretending that their gender identity is something they could toggle at will like a switch. That's not how it works.

Trump is not LGBT. Someone who endorsed banning transgender people from the military, stripped anti-discrimination measures for LGBT people and has a homophobic Vice President is not on their side. Have you actually asked LGBT people what they think of Trump? No, of course not, because they would tell you the truth you refuse to hear.

It would actually be hilarious to see you explain your transphobic views to a transgender person, because you wouldn't last two minutes.

I do believe that a trans man that thinks he is a woman really believes that and it isn't a choice for them, well no more so than it would be a choice for me to suddenly be gay or decide I'm a woman. That being said, there is hard reality to deal with, DNA doesn't lie. There is a reason I am not a 73 year old African American alien, even if I honestly believed I was. That being said, if that's how they go about their life (or I as a 73 year old African American alien) is their right. Me not acknowledging their belief is mine, and I have science, evidence, logic, and critical thinking with me.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,210
456
126
Yep. The wealthy pay big dollars to keep white Americans blaming minorities for their struggles.
And you can thank this President for setting it all in motion and laying the foundation for the problems we have today.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lbj-convince-the-lowest-white-man/

President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who grew up in the South and understood the politics of racism from the inside, saw it in part as a ploy to divide and conquer.



CLAIM
President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

RATING
True
ORIGIN
As we’ve had occasion to point out previously, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson had a complicated relationship with issues of race. Born and raised in the South in the early part of the 20th century, Johnson grew up immersed in the prejudices of that time and place, then carried them with him into his nascent political career. MSNBC reporter Adam Serwer wrote:

For two decades in Congress he was a reliable member of the Southern bloc, helping to stonewall civil rights legislation. As [biographer Robert] Caro recalls, Johnson spent the late 1940s railing against the “hordes of barbaric yellow dwarves” in East Asia. Buying into the stereotype that blacks were afraid of snakes (who isn’t afraid of snakes?) he’d drive to gas stations with one in his trunk and try to trick black attendants into opening it. Once, Caro writes, the stunt nearly ended with him being beaten with a tire iron.

Yet by the time Johnson became president after the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963, he was ready to plow all of his political capital to the passage of the civil rights legislation initiated by his predecessor. By most accounts, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 couldn’t have become law when it did had not LBJ personally wheedled, cajoled, and shamed his former colleagues in the House and Senate into voting for it. One of the secrets of his success was the ability to speak the racially insensitive language of his fellow Southerners. He understood them. He understood their reluctance and in some cases downright refusal to tear down the walls of racial segregation. He knew racism from the inside, and he knew well the role the rich and powerful played in promulgating it.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
7,867
4,865
136
I do believe that a trans man that thinks he is a woman really believes that and it isn't a choice for them, well no more so than it would be a choice for me to suddenly be gay or decide I'm a woman. That being said, there is hard reality to deal with, DNA doesn't lie. There is a reason I am not a 73 year old African American alien, even if I honestly believed I was. That being said, if that's how they go about their life (or I as a 73 year old African American alien) is their right. Me not acknowledging their belief is mine, and I have science, evidence, logic, and critical thinking with me.
They don't "believe" that; they are that. The whole point is that being a man or woman (or something in between) is gender, not sex... and it's not a question of faith, it's a biological reality for them.

I call bullshit on your "science, evidence, logic, and critical thinking" claim. Gender dysphoria is a real, studied fact, and while the exact cause isn't clear, there is evidence of genetic factors. And besides, if you actually believed in everything you said you did, you would reject Trump -- the man rejects policies built around science and evidence on a regular basis.
 

richaron

Golden Member
Mar 27, 2012
1,350
329
136
[...blah blah...] He knew racism from the inside, and he knew well the role the rich and powerful played in promulgating it.
Cool example of an insular group circle-jerking and re-enforcing each others insular views. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do. In fact I'm vehemently against it.

But this sort of long winded targeted post really doesn't support the argument you think you are saying. It's simply an example of the human condition. Any group who gets together because of "X" is almost destined to fall back to back-slapping and bonding against "not-X". Again it's the human condition, we are pack animals and there are certain paths in our psychology which drive us to an "us vs them" pack mentality because of evolution.

But this feature of the human condition isn't inherently racist, even if it does describe members from both sides of a racist dispute. The same thinking can be seen in "feminists", "environmentalists", "revolutionists", "LGBT activists", "3rd world aid activists", religious proponents, or whatever else floats your boat. I call it a circle-jerk because it's circular thinking, usually because the proponents are surrounded by those whom already hold the same beliefs, and it only goes to reinforce the thought pathways already in place.

It's insular and decisive thinking. Not an aspect of any particular thought, but an aspect of the human condition. And the solution is to be open and inclusive; not to fight in their "us vs you" terms.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
6,920
2,243
136
^Even if the dude above is a legit turd-burger, you dudes are looking like muppets if you can't climb any higher than second rung on the levels of disagreement pyramid...
The irony being this post doesn't get above the first level of the pyramid it proposes. Seems a mite hypocritical.

I have my doubts about this pyramid anyway.

It is, for starters, presuming that there _is_ a central point to refute. I don't see one here. Australian conservatives are every bit as bad as American ones, so it's hardly surprising they are playing the victim (in a way that has been refuted, or at least strongly contested, a zillion-times over already).

Even if there were such a a central point (and I don't think there is) who says that the purpose of a thread is to refute it (rather than, say, people expressing exasperation at someone they have had a long history of futile arguments with)? You don't seem to be doing any refuting yourself, why demand it of others?

How does name-calling differ from ad hominem, incidentally? Surely it's just a sub-class of the same thing? Are there any kinds of name-calling that aren't ad-hom?

And why does 'the mistake' have to be explained 'using quotes'? Is there always going to be one single 'mistake'?

Often arguments involve deeply incompatible views of the world, mostly themselves a function of different experiences, current contexts and self-interests, and in the end it's real-world developments that resolve them, not intellectual arguments.

Nice colour scheme though.
 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,483
3,805
136
Why can't we just oppose racism itself? Doesn't have to have a "anti-white" or "anti-black" moniker or whatever. Racism is racism regardless of which direction it goes.
 

richaron

Golden Member
Mar 27, 2012
1,350
329
136
The irony being this post doesn't get above the first level of the pyramid it proposes. Seems a mite hypocritical.

I have my doubts about this pyramid anyway.

It is, for starters, presuming that there _is_ a central point to refute. I don't see one here. Australian conservatives are every bit as bad as American ones, so it's hardly surprising they are playing the victim (in a way that has been refuted, or at least strongly contested, a zillion-times over already).

Even if there were such a a central point (and I don't think there is) who says that the purpose of a thread is to refute it (rather than, say, people expressing exasperation at someone they have had a long history of futile arguments with)? You don't seem to be doing any refuting yourself, why demand it of others?

How does name-calling differ from ad hominem, incidentally? Surely it's just a sub-class of the same thing? Are there any kinds of name-calling that aren't ad-hom?

And why does 'the mistake' have to be explained 'using quotes'? Is there always going to be one single 'mistake'?

Often arguments involve deeply incompatible views of the world, mostly themselves a function of different experiences, current contexts and self-interests, and in the end it's real-world developments that resolve them, not intellectual arguments.

Nice colour scheme though.
Apologies, I failed the first step of objective discussion and failed to cite my sources. I've seen this diagram before and thought it was apt, it's Graham's hierarchy of disagreement I grabbed from this Wikipedia page.

It was OT but I thought it was apt because the discussion degenerated into a bunch of people, with an obvious prior history, posting a bunch without providing and substance to the topic at hand.

I'd like to think my on topic posts were much higher up the pyramid and was hoping the rest of the discussion followed suit. Maybe you should reply to my posts on the subject instead of picking holes around the edge if you want a discussion.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,121
13,062
136
Cool example of an insular group circle-jerking and re-enforcing each others insular views. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do. In fact I'm vehemently against it.

But this sort of long winded targeted post really doesn't support the argument you think you are saying. It's simply an example of the human condition. Any group who gets together because of "X" is almost destined to fall back to back-slapping and bonding against "not-X". Again it's the human condition, we are pack animals and there are certain paths in our psychology which drive us to an "us vs them" pack mentality because of evolution.

But this feature of the human condition isn't inherently racist, even if it does describe members from both sides of a racist dispute. The same thinking can be seen in "feminists", "environmentalists", "revolutionists", "LGBT activists", "3rd world aid activists", religious proponents, or whatever else floats your boat. I call it a circle-jerk because it's circular thinking, usually because the proponents are surrounded by those whom already hold the same beliefs, and it only goes to reinforce the thought pathways already in place.

It's insular and decisive thinking. Not an aspect of any particular thought, but an aspect of the human condition. And the solution is to be open and inclusive; not to fight in their "us vs you" terms.
You miss the point entirely. Racial prejudice has been a tool of top down class warfare in the US since forever. It's promulgated by the Rich Class to divide & conquer the non-Rich.
 

richaron

Golden Member
Mar 27, 2012
1,350
329
136
You miss the point entirely. Racial prejudice has been a tool of top down class warfare in the US since forever. It's promulgated by the Rich Class to divide & conquer the non-Rich.
How exactly did I miss the point? I completely accepted the point. But I also said this isn't an issue solely related to racism. To which you replied with...? What?

Guess which one of us is missing the point.

Everything you have said can be applied to organised feminism, environmentalism, religion, and more. Excepting the current "power" (social/political/financial) of each group varies. But more than that, the apparent or perceived racism is more a result of the "rich and powerful" banding together over "being rich and powerful" rather than banding together over racism. As I said before, if a group forms because of "X" the human condition and pack mentality means they likely bond as being agains "non-X". So I propose and group of "rich US people" are just as likely to be "racist" as they are to be prejudiced against wallmart shoppers, prison inmates, hospitality workers, and many other groups who aren't represented in their "rich US people" circle-jerk.

What you are talking about is an issue of segregation in general.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,121
13,062
136
How exactly did I miss the point? I completely accepted the point. But I also said this isn't an issue solely related to racism. To which you replied with...? What?

Guess which one of us is missing the point.

Everything you have said can be applied to organised feminism, environmentalism, religion, and more. Excepting the current "power" (social/political/financial) of each group varies. But more than that, the apparent or perceived racism is more a result of the "rich and powerful" banding together over "being rich and powerful" rather than banding together over racism. As I said before, if a group forms because of "X" the human condition and pack mentality means they likely bond as being agains "non-X". So I propose and group of "rich US people" are just as likely to be "racist" as they are to be prejudiced against wallmart shoppers, prison inmates, hospitality workers, and many other groups who aren't represented in their "rich US people" circle-jerk.

What you are talking about is an issue of segregation in general.
It's not an issue of the Rich being prejudiced but rather of prejudice being one of their tools to enhance their privilege. It's not a universal thing among the Rich, obviously, but it is for the conservative faction. They've played straight white middle class people off against everybody else in a ruthless fashion. They've cultivated deeply divisive attitudes & beliefs because it helped them win elections from Gingrich forward. It's the basis for Trumpism entirely.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY