Alt-right. A terrorist movement in the making?

[The Emerald Legion]

And thus begins the narrative to redirect the national attention from far-left movements such as Antifia, and divide the nation more by focusing on the opponents of the democratic party.

Bunch of sheep.

Antifa hasn't shot up or burned multiple places of worship since 2015.

They have however repeatedly tried to assassinate people and successfully shot up police officers and lit GOP headquarters on fire.

Stop ignoring it.

[Diarcesia]

And thus begins the narrative to redirect the national attention from far-left movements such as Antifia, and divide the nation more by focusing on the opponents of the democratic party.

Bunch of sheep.

How about some people direct attention towards Antifa, and then some others on the Alt-right?

It's not zero sum.

[Saiwania]

How about some people direct attention towards Antifa, and then some others on the Alt-right? It's not zero sum.

It is a zero sum world that we live in. Conservatives as one example, can't flourish in a world with too many Liberal policies and vice versa.

There is always going to be one winner and one loser. It makes more sense to me that if one thing is changed, that the rest of something is changed as well. It is a matter of perspective though, whether someone considers that change to be good or bad. More often than not, I consider it to be bad. I want my world to endure and not be disrupted by those seeking to undermine it for their own purposes.

If the net effect of my opponent's policies is to destroy all that I stand for, of course its going to be zero sum. One can't exist without the other losing. This applies to many other areas of life. Most things can be thought of as zero sum.

[Diarcesia]

How about some people direct attention towards Antifa, and then some others on the Alt-right? It's not zero sum.

It is a zero sum world that we live in. Conservatives as one example, can't flourish in a world with too many Liberal policies and vice versa.

There is always going to be one winner and one loser. It makes more sense to me that if one thing is changed, that the rest of something is changed as well. It is a matter of perspective though, whether someone considers that change to be good or bad. More often than not, I consider it to be bad. I want my world to endure and not be disrupted by those seeking to undermine it for their own purposes.

If the net effect of my opponent's policies is to destroy all that I stand for, of course its going to be zero sum. One can't exist without the other losing. This applies to many other areas of life. Most things can be thought of as zero sum.

Then let's agree to disagree.

Edit: To elaborate, yes, there are things - a lot of them - that are zero sum. And it makes more sense for it to be that way. However, to increase it to the degree of destroy-or-be-destroyed need not to be the case. This premise is a cornerstone on why we rose above petty barbarism.

[The Emerald Legion]

Which benefits.

You mean other than having exclusive ownership of the means of production, exclusive control over the system of government, exclusive access to the tools that enabled social mobility, and exclusive access to the goods and services necessary for a dignified quality of life?

I am not in cahoots with a murderer who stole their victims wallet merely because i'm not the victim, and I don't benefit from it.

But we do benefit from it. We are the heirs of the murderers of the not-too-distant past and the wealth that they accumulated in no small part because they guaranteed through violence and exclusion their control over social, political, cultural and economic power.

Moreover if I only earn enough to eat, that doesn't benefit my descendants, even if someone elses ancestor died of starvation.

It's almost as if racial discrimination is not the only force that drives socioeconomic inequality in the world.

Moreover you're now the one pushing the zero sum narrative. Minority historical disadvantage does not discount white disadvantage in the modern day. Nor does existing minority disadvantage, because it is situational.

Disadvantaged white people in majority white nations today aren't disadvantaged because there is a systematic effort by the most powerful institutions to specifically exclude white people from ownership of the means of production or access to social mobility. That's just "the West" cannibalizing itself as a mass human sacrifice to capitalism.

Literally everything you just said is wrong.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It is a zero sum world that we live in. Conservatives as one example, can't flourish in a world with too many Liberal policies and vice versa.

There is always going to be one winner and one loser. It makes more sense to me that if one thing is changed, that the rest of something is changed as well. It is a matter of perspective though, whether someone considers that change to be good or bad. More often than not, I consider it to be bad. I want my world to endure and not be disrupted by those seeking to undermine it for their own purposes.

If the net effect of my opponent's policies is to destroy all that I stand for, of course its going to be zero sum. One can't exist without the other losing. This applies to many other areas of life. Most things can be thought of as zero sum.

Then let's agree to disagree.

Edit: To elaborate, yes, there are things - a lot of them - that are zero sum. And it makes more sense for it to be that way. However, to increase it to the degree of destroy-or-be-destroyed need not to be the case. This premise is a cornerstone on why we rose above petty barbarism.

Saiwania is, and I can't believe I'm saying this, actually right though. When you really get down to it, especially in politics, opposing views often can't coexist and requires the destruction whether literal or figurative of the opposition to truly pursue their ideas. Conservatism and progressivism cannot coexist together, one of them has to be destroyed for the other to flourish etc etc.

[Liriena]

That's alienation. We live in shitty times, socioeconomically, and it bleeds into our psychology. Different groups deal with it differently, depending on the tools and narratives available to them.

Could it be that alienated whites don't always have the tools available to deal with it? Because of the fear that most whites have of in-grouping and identity politics, thus leading any white identity movement to turn supremacist?

Yes and not necessarily. In that order.

[The Emerald Legion]

Then let's agree to disagree.

Edit: To elaborate, yes, there are things - a lot of them - that are zero sum. And it makes more sense for it to be that way. However, to increase it to the degree of destroy-or-be-destroyed need not to be the case. This premise is a cornerstone on why we rose above petty barbarism.

Saiwania is, and I can't believe I'm saying this, actually right though. When you really get down to it, especially in politics, opposing views often can't coexist and requires the destruction whether literal or figurative of the opposition to truly pursue their ideas. Conservatism and progressivism cannot coexist together, one of them has to be destroyed for the other to flourish etc etc.

Incorrect. This is the point of the separation of states. As much as I like joking about California as the next guy, it is important that they be able to rule themselves as they wish. If California wants to be liberal as fuck? Let them! It's fine! That's the whole damn point of Tolerance. I might not like the way they live, but as long as they don't try to force me to live like that? Then we can coexist.

[Liriena]

You're trying to play chicken-and-egg on white supremacy and white identity politics, and it's stupid. The progressivism you endlessly complain about is a lot younger than white supremacism, so you don't get to complain that good white identity politics don't exist because mean progressives scared good white identitarians off organizing. Y'all had more than enough time to create some nice, big white organizations that weren't racist before progressivism came along.

Not within the left wing we couldn't mate.

Think it might have something to do with the fact that every time white grievance movements are formed leftists are among the first to get killed by them?

It's not a coincidence that as religiosity fades away, the alt-right is replacing it.

Of course. The narrative of religion as a sort of cultural glue that gave people a simple sense of meaning is in crisis and people try to seek simple meanings elsewhere... and white supremacist movements are probably the easiest, simplest meaning an alienated, isolated white person can find.

No, we couldn't, because we weren't born yet.

And yet every attempt at creating a white grievance movement in currently or formerly white-dominated societies today still ends in white supremacism and right-wing extremism, and I see nothing that comes even close to guaranteeing that any future attempts will do any better.

[Liriena]

You mean other than having exclusive ownership of the means of production, exclusive control over the system of government, exclusive access to the tools that enabled social mobility, and exclusive access to the goods and services necessary for a dignified quality of life?


But we do benefit from it. We are the heirs of the murderers of the not-too-distant past and the wealth that they accumulated in no small part because they guaranteed through violence and exclusion their control over social, political, cultural and economic power.


It's almost as if racial discrimination is not the only force that drives socioeconomic inequality in the world.


Disadvantaged white people in majority white nations today aren't disadvantaged because there is a systematic effort by the most powerful institutions to specifically exclude white people from ownership of the means of production or access to social mobility. That's just "the West" cannibalizing itself as a mass human sacrifice to capitalism.

Literally everything you just said is wrong.

Ah-huh.

[Liriena]

Antifa hasn't shot up or burned multiple places of worship since 2015.

They have however repeatedly tried to assassinate people and successfully shot up police officers and lit GOP headquarters on fire.

Stop ignoring it.

Mind being more specific?

Also, whatever cases you bring up don't change the fact that, statistically, right-wing terrorism remains the larger threat.

[-MAFDET-]

Ostroeuropa

Example of white privilege being bullshit;

If something benefits both Asians and White people, why say it's white privilege? Isn't it more accurate to say it's Black disadvantage?

The examples of white privilege you bring up, ask yourself this;

Is it only whites benefitting from the example?

If not;
Would "Jewish privilege" be acceptable to you too? Along with a narrative about Jews similar to the one you advance for whites? What justification for the boundary you have chosen do you have?

Especially within the context of that kind of argument then supplying say, non-Jewish white people, the social capital to be racist to Jews and dismiss complaints about it because "Jewish privilege" and "Privilege+power", like Sarah Jeong, for instance.

Me

I would ask you to name specific policies and social attitudes that explicitly work only to the advantage of Asian and white people. I can name one instance off the top of my head that is actually a subversion; a vastly smaller proportion of German and Italian Americans were detained by the US government in comparison to the Japanese-American populace. Certainly, the amount of Japanese-Americans versus Italian and German Americans had to pale in comparison. This observation, however, doesn't support the side of a racist. If the millions of German and Italian Americans living in the United States were innocuous during the war, why were the Japanese so callously detained?

Because they were not white. Even with war-time phobia, German and Italian Americans still had the privilege of being part of the in-group. Their temporary discrimination was not the same.

Jews do benefit from white privilege. Even when taking anthropological distinctions into account, Judaism is not a race but a religion. The same institutions which target people of color do not marginalize American Jews. Of course, in what is ostensibly an oxymoron, Jews are also the targets of white supremacists. Despite benefiting from the white system, they are also the subjects of dehumanizing conspiracy theories and hate crimes, like the one which took place in California so recently. Queer white people are also the subjects of hate and discrimination, but they too are the beneficiaries of the system by virtue of being white. So you see, it's possible to be white and still face discrimination, albeit for something other than the pigment of your skin.

I'll restate: white privilege does not mean that a white person will live a completely easy existence. The point is that white people benefit from the racial barriers that divide American society.

Ostroeuropa

2. You're right and I misspoke. I meant to say Disproportionate police violence, not racial violence. It's late here. Half of all white people, men, suffer disproportionate violence too. Half of all black people suffer less violence than average, women.

Me

This is shamefully wrong.

https://www.nyaprs.org/e-news-bulletins ... -black-men

"Across the country, black men are over three times more likely to be killed by police than white men, according to a study published Thursday in the American Journal of Public Health. In an analysis of all male homicides between 2012 and 2018, 8 percent occurred at the hands of police, researchers found.

Of nearly 6,300 reported deaths during the six-year count, almost 1,800 were black, researchers found. Police killings remained highest among black men across the United States, though the risk varies dramatically by region: In some Midwestern cities, rates of black men killed by police are eight times higher. Interestingly, nearly two-thirds of the reported killings were concentrated in suburbs and rural areas, lead author Frank Edwards said."


The data I provided in one of my previous quotations, which you apparently did not look at it, also proves you wrong.

https://policeviolencereport.org/

Ostroeuropa logged off around the time this was posted. Just quoting it so it doesn’t get buried. I’m eager to continue the discussion.

[Diarcesia]

Then let's agree to disagree.

Edit: To elaborate, yes, there are things - a lot of them - that are zero sum. And it makes more sense for it to be that way. However, to increase it to the degree of destroy-or-be-destroyed need not to be the case. This premise is a cornerstone on why we rose above petty barbarism.

Saiwania is, and I can't believe I'm saying this, actually right though. When you really get down to it, especially in politics, opposing views often can't coexist and requires the destruction whether literal or figurative of the opposition to truly pursue their ideas. Conservatism and progressivism cannot coexist together, one of them has to be destroyed for the other to flourish etc etc.

I did a little bit of further thinking about this, and concluded that this is correct in the sense of calling a spade a spade. It is a fact of life. And is it as objectively true as the laws of physics are true?

I personally often have a hard time articulating my thoughts, and as I typed the above paragraph, I still feel something is missing. I think I found what I was trying to convey: to bring it more in line with the topic, if the alt-right and the left are indeed zero sum, would that mean either one has a monopoly on what is correct? In what degree would this correctness be pursued? Up to and including unprovoked terrorism and violence?

[The Emerald Legion]

They have however repeatedly tried to assassinate people and successfully shot up police officers and lit GOP headquarters on fire.

Stop ignoring it.

Mind being more specific?

Also, whatever cases you bring up don't change the fact that, statistically, right-wing terrorism remains the larger threat.

Yes. I've brought them up before and quite honestly you should know given they weren't quiet events. The shooting of Dallas Police officers by a BLM Activist, the multiple attempted assassinations of Trump, The general wide scale street violence and anarchy. The Firebombing of the Orange county GOP office. The attack on the senators as they played baseball, Etc, Etc. Hell, I'll even throw in a fresh one in the form of the Burnette Chapel Shooting. These things happen. These things are DIRECTLY caused by Progressive rhetoric, that you so blithely spout.

Statistically speaking, Right Wing Terrorism is attributed to a much wider variety of causes.

[Fedel]

Then let's agree to disagree.

Edit: To elaborate, yes, there are things - a lot of them - that are zero sum. And it makes more sense for it to be that way. However, to increase it to the degree of destroy-or-be-destroyed need not to be the case. This premise is a cornerstone on why we rose above petty barbarism.

Saiwania is, and I can't believe I'm saying this, actually right though. When you really get down to it, especially in politics, opposing views often can't coexist and requires the destruction whether literal or figurative of the opposition to truly pursue their ideas. Conservatism and progressivism cannot coexist together, one of them has to be destroyed for the other to flourish etc etc.

It's almost as if a person doesn't have to adhere solely to all policies that fall under progressivism and conservatism respectively and can believe that some aspects of both are good. :/

[Communist Zombie Horde]

Saiwania is, and I can't believe I'm saying this, actually right though. When you really get down to it, especially in politics, opposing views often can't coexist and requires the destruction whether literal or figurative of the opposition to truly pursue their ideas. Conservatism and progressivism cannot coexist together, one of them has to be destroyed for the other to flourish etc etc.

It's almost as if a person doesn't have to adhere solely to all policies that fall under progressivism and conservatism respectively and can believe that some aspects of both are good. :/

No- you are a commie or a patriot. No middle ground except for traitors to their side,

[The Emerald Legion]

Not within the left wing we couldn't mate.

Think it might have something to do with the fact that every time white grievance movements are formed leftists are among the first to get killed by them?

It's not a coincidence that as religiosity fades away, the alt-right is replacing it.

Of course. The narrative of religion as a sort of cultural glue that gave people a simple sense of meaning is in crisis and people try to seek simple meanings elsewhere... and white supremacist movements are probably the easiest, simplest meaning an alienated, isolated white person can find.

No, we couldn't, because we weren't born yet.

And yet every attempt at creating a white grievance movement in currently or formerly white-dominated societies today still ends in white supremacism and right-wing extremism, and I see nothing that comes even close to guaranteeing that any future attempts will do any better.

The fuck is a White Identity? It doesn't exist. The very idea is in itself discriminatory against 'white' people.

[Kowani]

Then let's agree to disagree.

Edit: To elaborate, yes, there are things - a lot of them - that are zero sum. And it makes more sense for it to be that way. However, to increase it to the degree of destroy-or-be-destroyed need not to be the case. This premise is a cornerstone on why we rose above petty barbarism.

Saiwania is, and I can't believe I'm saying this, actually right though. When you really get down to it, especially in politics, opposing views often can't coexist and requires the destruction whether literal or figurative of the opposition to truly pursue their ideas. Conservatism and progressivism cannot coexist together, one of them has to be destroyed for the other to flourish etc etc.

Technically, Conservatism has yet to win a single lasting victory outside of the third world, so I suppose you’re right.

[Diarcesia]

Saiwania is, and I can't believe I'm saying this, actually right though. When you really get down to it, especially in politics, opposing views often can't coexist and requires the destruction whether literal or figurative of the opposition to truly pursue their ideas. Conservatism and progressivism cannot coexist together, one of them has to be destroyed for the other to flourish etc etc.

It's almost as if a person doesn't have to adhere solely to all policies that fall under progressivism and conservatism respectively and can believe that some aspects of both are good. :/

If anything I learn a lot of the Western attitudes towards a dichotomy. In contrast, the Chinese have the concept of yin and yang where two polar opposites exist in a balance.

[Liriena]

Mind being more specific?

Also, whatever cases you bring up don't change the fact that, statistically, right-wing terrorism remains the larger threat.

Yes. I've brought them up before and quite honestly you should know given they weren't quiet events. The shooting of Dallas Police officers by a BLM Activist

BLM and antifa aren't synonyms and, in fact, BLM is an overwhelmingly peaceful movement.

the multiple attempted assassinations of Trump

You mean like the assassination attempts on everyone Trump hates by the MAGA bomber and the Coast Guard?

The general wide scale street violence and anarchy

Oh, man, I wish there was actual anarchy.

Also, antifa didn't invent street violence.

The Firebombing of the Orange county GOP office.

Who did it, specifically? Did they ever catch the culprit? Did they leave anything to identify them or their motivations?

The attack on the senators as they played baseball

That's

Hell, I'll even throw in a fresh one in the form of the Burnette Chapel Shooting.

Around one week after the mass shooting, the suspect said that the attack was revenge for the 2015 Charleston church shooting.

That's not antifa.

These things happen.

Never said they didn't?

Left-wing violence exists, yes. But that's not what this thread is about, nor is it as large a threat as right-wing terrorism.

These things are DIRECTLY caused by Progressive rhetoric, that you so blithely spout.

How so?

I mean, a lot of these recent right-wing terrorists actually named influences in their manifestos or left behind evidence of who influenced them. Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, etc.

Statistically speaking, Right Wing Terrorism is attributed to a much wider variety of causes.

It's also a larger threat than left-wing terrorism, with quite a substantial difference in terms of scale and sheer brutality.

[Liriena]

Think it might have something to do with the fact that every time white grievance movements are formed leftists are among the first to get killed by them?


Of course. The narrative of religion as a sort of cultural glue that gave people a simple sense of meaning is in crisis and people try to seek simple meanings elsewhere... and white supremacist movements are probably the easiest, simplest meaning an alienated, isolated white person can find.


And yet every attempt at creating a white grievance movement in currently or formerly white-dominated societies today still ends in white supremacism and right-wing extremism, and I see nothing that comes even close to guaranteeing that any future attempts will do any better.

The fuck is a White Identity? It doesn't exist. The very idea is in itself discriminatory against 'white' people.

Hey, I happen to agree with you there... but you might want to talk this out with Ostro.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Then let's agree to disagree.

Edit: To elaborate, yes, there are things - a lot of them - that are zero sum. And it makes more sense for it to be that way. However, to increase it to the degree of destroy-or-be-destroyed need not to be the case. This premise is a cornerstone on why we rose above petty barbarism.

Saiwania is, and I can't believe I'm saying this, actually right though. When you really get down to it, especially in politics, opposing views often can't coexist and requires the destruction whether literal or figurative of the opposition to truly pursue their ideas. Conservatism and progressivism cannot coexist together, one of them has to be destroyed for the other to flourish etc etc.

Tbh, the only way to accept he's right is to accept that conservatism in general has been the against American and Western values of liberty and freedom since the beginning. Conservatives were generally the royalists during the Revolution, the slavers and anti-abolitionists during the civil war and against the civil rights movement during the 1950s and 60s. Conservatism as an ideology is against the ideals of freedom since conservatism is rigidly against any kind of change.

[The Emerald Legion]

Yes. I've brought them up before and quite honestly you should know given they weren't quiet events. The shooting of Dallas Police officers by a BLM Activist

BLM and antifa aren't synonyms and, in fact, BLM is an overwhelmingly peaceful movement.

the multiple attempted assassinations of Trump

You mean like the assassination attempts on everyone Trump hates by the MAGA bomber and the Coast Guard?

The general wide scale street violence and anarchy

Oh, man, I wish there was actual anarchy.

Also, antifa didn't invent street violence.

The Firebombing of the Orange county GOP office.

Who did it, specifically? Did they ever catch the culprit? Did they leave anything to identify them or their motivations?

The attack on the senators as they played baseball

That's

Hell, I'll even throw in a fresh one in the form of the Burnette Chapel Shooting.

Around one week after the mass shooting, the suspect said that the attack was revenge for the 2015 Charleston church shooting.

That's not antifa.

These things happen.

Never said they didn't?

Left-wing violence exists, yes. But that's not what this thread is about, nor is it as large a threat as right-wing terrorism.

These things are DIRECTLY caused by Progressive rhetoric, that you so blithely spout.

How so?

I mean, a lot of these recent right-wing terrorists actually named influences in their manifestos or left behind evidence of who influenced them. Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, etc.

Statistically speaking, Right Wing Terrorism is attributed to a much wider variety of causes.

It's also a larger threat than left-wing terrorism, with quite a substantial difference in terms of scale and sheer brutality.

Which is to be expected given the Right Wing is out of favor at the moment, politically speaking. Desperate people do stupid things. Republicans are overwhelmingly peaceful as well. And yet a few nutjobs seem sufficient to condemn all conservatism as violent bigotry.

More or less.

They didn't catch who did it, but given they spraypainted a swastika on the building along with the words "Nazi Republicans leave town or else."

Not really. Right Wing Terrorism while common is typically poorly planned. It's literally mostly 'Some redneck guy gets a gun and shoots some people.' With the possible exception of that time a guy got inventive and slammed a prop plane into an IRS building.

Also, I don't care whether it was Antifa or not. Antifa is just a branch on a tree.

And again, because a violent person agreed with something makes it inherently wrong? This is prime 'Hitler at sugar.'

[Ostroeuropa]

Ostroeuropa

Example of white privilege being bullshit;

If something benefits both Asians and White people, why say it's white privilege? Isn't it more accurate to say it's Black disadvantage?

The examples of white privilege you bring up, ask yourself this;

Is it only whites benefitting from the example?

If not;
Would "Jewish privilege" be acceptable to you too? Along with a narrative about Jews similar to the one you advance for whites? What justification for the boundary you have chosen do you have?

Especially within the context of that kind of argument then supplying say, non-Jewish white people, the social capital to be racist to Jews and dismiss complaints about it because "Jewish privilege" and "Privilege+power", like Sarah Jeong, for instance.

Me

I would ask you to name specific policies and social attitudes that explicitly work only to the advantage of Asian and white people. I can name one instance off the top of my head that is actually a subversion; a vastly smaller proportion of German and Italian Americans were detained by the US government in comparison to the Japanese-American populace. Certainly, the amount of Japanese-Americans versus Italian and German Americans had to pale in comparison. This observation, however, doesn't support the side of a racist. If the millions of German and Italian Americans living in the United States were innocuous during the war, why were the Japanese so callously detained?

Because they were not white. Even with war-time phobia, German and Italian Americans still had the privilege of being part of the in-group. Their temporary discrimination was not the same.

Jews do benefit from white privilege. Even when taking anthropological distinctions into account, Judaism is not a race but a religion. The same institutions which target people of color do not marginalize American Jews. Of course, in what is ostensibly an oxymoron, Jews are also the targets of white supremacists. Despite benefiting from the white system, they are also the subjects of dehumanizing conspiracy theories and hate crimes, like the one which took place in California so recently. Queer white people are also the subjects of hate and discrimination, but they too are the beneficiaries of the system by virtue of being white. So you see, it's possible to be white and still face discrimination, albeit for something other than the pigment of your skin.

I'll restate: white privilege does not mean that a white person will live a completely easy existence. The point is that white people benefit from the racial barriers that divide American society.

Ostroeuropa

2. You're right and I misspoke. I meant to say Disproportionate police violence, not racial violence. It's late here. Half of all white people, men, suffer disproportionate violence too. Half of all black people suffer less violence than average, women.

Me

This is shamefully wrong.

https://www.nyaprs.org/e-news-bulletins ... -black-men

"Across the country, black men are over three times more likely to be killed by police than white men, according to a study published Thursday in the American Journal of Public Health. In an analysis of all male homicides between 2012 and 2018, 8 percent occurred at the hands of police, researchers found.

Of nearly 6,300 reported deaths during the six-year count, almost 1,800 were black, researchers found. Police killings remained highest among black men across the United States, though the risk varies dramatically by region: In some Midwestern cities, rates of black men killed by police are eight times higher. Interestingly, nearly two-thirds of the reported killings were concentrated in suburbs and rural areas, lead author Frank Edwards said."


The data I provided in one of my previous quotations, which you apparently did not look at it, also proves you wrong.

https://policeviolencereport.org/

Ostroeuropa logged off around the time this was posted. Just quoting it so it doesn’t get buried. I’m eager to continue the discussion.

1. That's largely the point. A lot of "White privilege" isn't white privilege, it's black disadvantage relative to all other races. Same as anti-Semitism isn't "White privilege", it's anti-Semitism, and it's something Jews put up with. It isn't "White privilege" for people not to make fun of the shape of your nose, for instance, because plenty of races don't put up with that. White privilege as a narrative places the focus on white people even where that is not justified, and erases inter-minority racism as existing. It does so to create an in-group and out-group distinction between whites and everyone else, where whites are the enemy based on often spurious reasoning.

2. It's not shamefully wrong, you simply didn't understand it. I was very explicit. Half of all white people suffer disproportionate police violence, and half of all black people are treated more leniently than average by the police. If we were to average out the police treatment of all citizens, half of all black people would need to be treated worse, and half of all white people would need to be treated better. Specifically, white men and black men would need to be treated better, and white women and black women worse. Given that that is the case, "White privilege" miscasts the issue and attributes privilege to a large body of people where it doesn't exist. This is because the progressive narrative is anti-white. I don't doubt you'd consider it ridiculous to argue a rape victim privileged because they aren't a gangrape victim, offensive even. It's like I said, when you fuck around with statistics to fit a preconceived narrative you can make it say whatever you want. Anti-white racists wanted a reason to hate white people, so they pulled this shenanigan. Not much different to when Christian fundamentalists threw out the stat that pre-marital sex increases your chances of being divorced later in life as part of their overall narrative against sexual promiscuity, and ignored the fact this is only the case if you include rape victims in the stats because trauma does things to peoples ability to relate, remove those people from the data set and suddenly it isn't true. It's about framing the data.

Anti-white racists want to push this idea that white people are privileged, and so throw this crap out there, despite it not actually describing white experience and being more accurately understood as a female privilege, something usually denied by the progressive left as existing.

[Ostroeuropa]

Disadvantaged white people in majority white nations today aren't disadvantaged because there is a systematic effort by the most powerful institutions to specifically exclude white people from ownership of the means of production or access to social mobility. That's just "the West" cannibalizing itself as a mass human sacrifice to capitalism.

Disagree, these effects can stack up pretty quickly Lir. The impact of the progressive left and so on.