It's Okay To Be White campaign

[Ostroeuropa]

http://wjla.com/news/local/its-okay-to- ... r-hs-in-md
https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/ ... d-america/

A campaign began to demonstrate the extent of anti-white racism in the US by handing out flyers with 5 words on them. "It's okay to be white."

Instructions:

Do Not Alter The Message
Do Not Alter The Flyers
Anyone Who Tries To Change Things Is A Shill
There Is No Phase 2

It’s Okay To Be White. 5 words. Simple, elegant, effective. The plan is working. Stick to the plan. There is no phase 2.

If you take part remember; print the original flyers in the pic, post them in legal areas, be aware of cameras, and get home safely.

Do not trespass. Do not Vandalize. Do not post over other signs or flyers. Do not say anything racist or provocative in the comments of news stories. We are giving the left all the rope they want and they are racing to hang themselves. The goal is to expose the media’s anti-white bias through their reaction to a harmless flyer. It is working. Stick to the plan. There is no phase 2. Anyone who suggests change is a shill.

Reaction;

“Really? Those type of posters? In a school as diverse as Blair,” asked senior Antoinette Ntomb.
School stats show 15 percent of Blair’s student body is Asian, 24 percent are black, and 33 percent are Hispanic.
“As a parent, yeah, it’s something that troubles me. It troubles us,” said parent Shaun Burke.

Principal Renay Johnson sent parents a letter that said in part “… we will not fall victim to attempts to divide us. We are committed to providing a safe and welcoming environment for every student.”
“I am hoping there is not a repeat, but I guess we will see,” said parent Mayu Mishina.

According to San Francisco’s CBS affiliate KPIX, UC Davis students found posters in their college and this immediately caused students to react negatively.

“Are you insinuating that people of color are saying it’s bad to be white?” asked Ales Lee, of the UC Davis Black Leadership Council. “Whoever is posting these photos, I don’t think they’re realizing how triggering these posters are for people.”
UC Davis Chancellor Gary May wrote in the California Aggie that UC Davis encourages dialogue about ideas “many find disturbing,” he added that “fliers, however, are not dialogue.”

Josh Dalavai, president of the undergraduate student association at UC Davis said it was okay to be white, then immediately added that the fliers were a “brazen appeal to white victimhood,” which is a “very primitive, very tribal, narrow-minded ideology.”

According to HuffPo, Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring, Maryland found the fliers in their school and sent a letter home to parents to tell them that this was “a concerted national campaign to foment racial and political tension in our school and community” in order to divide community members.

President of Concordia College in Moorhead, Minnesota, William Craft, added it’s okay to be white, but added that non-whiteness is viewed by too many as “not okay,” adding that “to be other than white is all too often to be subjected to discrimination, lack of opportunity, and even the threat and reality of violence.”

(Note, the last is the only reasonable response, though doesn't highlight anti-white sentiments demonstrated to exist by this campaign and others.)

Universities and schools across the country, as well as some other areas, are being targeted by the poster campaign.
I approve of the campaign and think it makes its point fairly straightforwardly. The stunt relies on the same rhetorical justifications as "Black lives matter", though doesn't rely on the argument of disproportional shootings that prompted the saying which has been shown to be dubious when stats are evaluated.

The statement should not be controversial, but is. That's somewhat revealing for both phrases.

EDIT:
If you believe the phrase "Black lives matter" should have been put forward as "All lives matter" and reject the rhetorical justifications, arguing it heightens racial tensions and such, it is consistent to oppose this campaign, unless you view it as making a point along those lines or highlighting it by provoking progressives into making the argument that it should say "It's okay to be any race" or whatever.

[Pilarcraft]

yeah I don't give a fuck about the race, but it's the same Black lives matter "ALL LIVES MATTER!!!!!!!!!" thing.

[Ostroeuropa]

yeah I don't give a fuck about the race, but it's the same Black lives matter "ALL LIVES MATTER!!!!!!!!!" thing.

I agree that if you disapprove of the rhetorical justifications for black lives matter phrase, it's consistent to oppose this one too.
If you think it heightens racial tension to act in such a way, that's consistent.

[The East Marches II]

This is going to send alot of people into hysterics. I'm excited tbh.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It is indeed okay to be white and I applaud the campaign solely because it's made some on the left look really silly.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Enough about fucking triggers. You have to confront your triggers to overcome them.

[Herador]

Of course it is. Memelords used a purposefully loaded slogan as a dog whistle in response to spooky identity politics to incite a conflict where there was none.

Everyone who falls for this is dumb.

It is indeed okay to be white and I applaud the campaign solely because it's made some on the left look really silly.

Why am I not surprised?

[Hirota]

It is indeed okay to be white and I applaud the campaign solely because it's made some on the left look really silly.

It doesn't really take much these days does it.

[Irona]

yeah I don't give a fuck about the race, but it's the same Black lives matter "ALL LIVES MATTER!!!!!!!!!" thing.

I agree that if you disapprove of the rhetorical justifications for black lives matter phrase, it's consistent to oppose this one too.
If you think it heightens racial tension to act in such a way, that's consistent.

It just completely misses the message though. Nobody thinks it's not okay to be white, or that white lives don't matter. That's not what people are saying when they criticise these sort of campaigns.

"It's okay to be white" implies that some people think it isn't okay to be white, which implies that white people are being oppressed. That's what people are complaining about. White people aren't oppressed and by claiming they are your diluting the message of people who actually suffer discrimination because of their skin colour.

[36 Camera Perspective]

It just completely misses the message though. "It's okay to be white" implies that some people think it isn't okay to be white, which implies that white people are being oppressed.

Not necessarily...prejudice does not always lead to oppression.

That's what people are complaining about. White people aren't oppressed and by claiming they are your diluting the message of people who actually suffer discrimination because of their skin colour.

Why do so many people who support social justice consider the intersectionality of everybody except for white people? Once you ponder this question, you'll start to see how hostile the rhetoric of social justice can be to whites.

[Ostroeuropa]

Of course it is. Memelords used a purposefully loaded slogan as a dog whistle in response to spooky identity politics to incite a conflict where there was none.

Everyone who falls for this is dumb.

There's nothing to fall for.
It's a simple statement of five words and seeing how people react to it.

You cannot rightly call it a pro-white racist dog whistle when the purpose of the campaign is to attract the attention of attention of progressives and subsequently have them do their thing, so you're just using snarl words imo.

The purpose of the campaign is to provoke behavior and rhetoric akin to:
"SEGREGATION NAOW, SEGREGATION TOMMORA, SEGREGATION FOREVER!" - George Wallace, the speech that acted as the tombstone of segregation in the US.
From progressives that will disgust and alienate moderates.

if progressives don't act like racist bigots and expose themselves, then there is no conflict.

Whats your basis for arguing otherwise?

[Pilarcraft]

It just completely misses the message though. "It's okay to be white" implies that some people think it isn't okay to be white, which implies that white people are being oppressed.

Not necessarily...prejudice does not always lead to oppression.

That's what people are complaining about. White people aren't oppressed and by claiming they are your diluting the message of people who actually suffer discrimination because of their skin colour.

Why do so many people who support social justice consider the intersectionality of everybody except for white people?

Except for Cishet White Males*
(Then again, it might be because, at least in the West, the White Man has, for the most part, been the only voice so to speak, and has spared nothing in oppressing every possible minority. both in the West and out of it.

(The same can be said for Arabs in the Middle East, ofc. but meh)

[Albrenia]

Uh... of course it is ok to be white.

The campaign itself doesn't really interest or bother me much. I appreciate their focus on doing no criminal harm and avoiding the utterance of racism, even if it is only because they want to 'trap' SJWs.

It does smell a little of the persecution complex some on the right seem to have, but that particular flaw is very common all over politics nowadays.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Five inoffensive words prompt a torrent of negative associations about whiteness which make the point more persuasively than any campaign you can imagine.

Pure performance art. I love it. Bravo.

[Ostroeuropa]

I agree that if you disapprove of the rhetorical justifications for black lives matter phrase, it's consistent to oppose this one too.
If you think it heightens racial tension to act in such a way, that's consistent.

It just completely misses the message though. Nobody thinks it's not okay to be white, or that white lives don't matter. That's not what people are saying when they criticise these sort of campaigns.

"It's okay to be white" implies that some people think it isn't okay to be white, which implies that white people are being oppressed. That's what people are complaining about. White people aren't oppressed and by claiming they are your diluting the message of people who actually suffer discrimination because of their skin colour.

I disagree with this linear and marxist outlook on race and gender relations.
People have stereotypes about them, including white people, propagated by society as a whole and within subgroups in that society, these stereotypes can calcify into oppression.

(For instance, check the study that shows people donate more to black homeless people than white ones, because of progressive stereotypes about oppression.)

[Irona]

It just completely misses the message though. "It's okay to be white" implies that some people think it isn't okay to be white, which implies that white people are being oppressed.

Not necessarily...prejudice does not always lead to oppression.

That's what people are complaining about. White people aren't oppressed and by claiming they are your diluting the message of people who actually suffer discrimination because of their skin colour.

Why do so many people who support social justice consider the intersectionality of everybody except for white people? Once you ponder this question, you'll start to see how hostile the rhetoric of social justice can be to whites.

As you just said, at the very least it implies widespread discrimination against white people. Which doesn't exist.

It's because white people historically aren't oppressed or discriminated against in the west. So why would they be included in rhetoric linking groups that have suffered systematic discrimination or oppression. It's really not that hard to get your head around.

[Ostroeuropa]

Not necessarily...prejudice does not always lead to oppression.



Why do so many people who support social justice consider the intersectionality of everybody except for white people? Once you ponder this question, you'll start to see how hostile the rhetoric of social justice can be to whites.

As you just said, at the very least it implies widespread discrimination against white people. Which doesn't exist.

It's because white people historically aren't oppressed or discriminated against in the west. So why would they be included in rhetoric linking groups that have suffered systematic discrimination or oppression. It's really not that hard to get your head around.

Your basis for arguing it doesn't exist is ideological assertions that are contrary to evidence.
Historically does not matter compared to presently. Policy must be aimed at present problems.

[USS Monitor]

(Note, the last is the only reasonable response, though doesn't highlight anti-white sentiments demonstrated to exist by this campaign and others.)

I dunno. I think this one is pretty accurate, given the context:

According to HuffPo, Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring, Maryland found the fliers in their school and sent a letter home to parents to tell them that this was “a concerted national campaign to foment racial and political tension in our school and community” in order to divide community members.

Haven't seen the whole letter so there may be issues with other parts besides this line about "a concerted national campaign to foment racial and political tension." But it is a campaign to heighten racial and political tension.

The statement, "It's okay to be white," isn't wrong in and of itself, but the intent of the campaign is obviously to get a rise out of people and spark arguments.

[36 Camera Perspective]

As you just said, at the very least it implies widespread discrimination against white people. Which doesn't exist.

You are still failing to distinguish between people simply harboring prejudices, which does not necessarily entail any kind of power dynamic, and oppression, which does.

It's because white people historically aren't oppressed or discriminated against in the west. So why would they be included in rhetoric linking groups that have suffered systematic discrimination or oppression. It's really not that hard to get your head around.

Oh, it's not that they aren't included in the rhetoric of social justice. They certainly are! It's just that if you're white, your intersectionality doesn't matter. All white people just live in white picket-fenced suburban apple-pied paradises. But if you ask a professor, I'm sure they'll be able to tell you all about the intersectionality of being black, trans, low-income, and autistic.

[Irona]

It just completely misses the message though. Nobody thinks it's not okay to be white, or that white lives don't matter. That's not what people are saying when they criticise these sort of campaigns.

"It's okay to be white" implies that some people think it isn't okay to be white, which implies that white people are being oppressed. That's what people are complaining about. White people aren't oppressed and by claiming they are your diluting the message of people who actually suffer discrimination because of their skin colour.

I disagree with this linear and marxist outlook on race and gender relations.
People have stereotypes about them, including white people, propagated by society as a whole and within subgroups in that society, these stereotypes can calcify into oppression.

(For instance, check the study that shows people donate more to black homeless people than white ones, because of progressive stereotypes about oppression.)

That means white people are oppressed? People donating more to black homeless people than white ones (could you link the study?) doesn't mean they think it's "not okay to be white".

[Irona]

As you just said, at the very least it implies widespread discrimination against white people. Which doesn't exist.

You are still failing to distinguish between people simply harboring prejudices, which does not necessarily entail any kind of power dynamic, and oppression, which does.

It's because white people historically aren't oppressed or discriminated against in the west. So why would they be included in rhetoric linking groups that have suffered systematic discrimination or oppression. It's really not that hard to get your head around.

Oh, it's not that they aren't included in the rhetoric of social justice. They certainly are! It's just that if you're white, your intersectionality doesn't matter. All white people just live in white picket-fenced suburban apple-pied paradises. But if you ask a professor, I'm sure they'll be able to tell you all about the intersectionality of being black, trans, low-income, and autistic.

Yeah that's a strawman

[36 Camera Perspective]

If you don't think there's a sizeable amount of people who think it's ok to be prejudiced against white people, who think it's ok to stereotype white people, who think it's ok to consistently mock and deride white people as nothing more than rich, privileged, ignorant people ready to reveal their true inner racism at any point, then I recommend you search Twitter for the term "white people" and see the horrific bigotry that results, or just ask me about many of the people I've met during my time at the UC system.

[36 Camera Perspective]

You are still failing to distinguish between people simply harboring prejudices, which does not necessarily entail any kind of power dynamic, and oppression, which does.



Oh, it's not that they aren't included in the rhetoric of social justice. They certainly are! It's just that if you're white, your intersectionality doesn't matter. All white people just live in white picket-fenced suburban apple-pied paradises. But if you ask a professor, I'm sure they'll be able to tell you all about the intersectionality of being black, trans, low-income, and autistic.

Yeah that's a strawman

That's not a strawman. That is very frequently how white people are portrayed. For every advocate of social justice talking about the intersectionality of being white, there are a hundred talking about the intersectionality of being a "person a color", and I wager that estimate is incredibly generous. The rhetoric of contemporary social justice almost never takes into account intersectionality when it comes to white people.

[Ostroeuropa]

I disagree with this linear and marxist outlook on race and gender relations.
People have stereotypes about them, including white people, propagated by society as a whole and within subgroups in that society, these stereotypes can calcify into oppression.

(For instance, check the study that shows people donate more to black homeless people than white ones, because of progressive stereotypes about oppression.)

That means white people are oppressed? People donating more to black homeless people than white ones (could you link the study?) doesn't mean they think it's "not okay to be white".

It's one issue among others I could go into. The point being, there are times and situations white peoples race disadvantages them compared to others because of narratives about race, this disadvantaging can be financial, social, etc, and this constitutes oppression.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencen ... story.html

[Irona]

Yeah that's a strawman

That's not a strawman. That is very frequently how white people are portrayed. For every advocate of social justice talking about the intersectionality of being white, there are a hundred talking about the intersectionality of being a "person a color", and I wager that estimate is incredibly generous. The rhetoric of contemporary social justice almost never takes into account intersectionality when it comes to white people.

As I just said. Obviously people are going to talk about the intersectionality of people who are discriminated against, that's the whole point of intersectionality.

White people haven't been historically oppressed, it's not racist to not include white people in a group of people who have faced historic discrimination.