It's Okay To Be White campaign

[Kibbutz Unions]

"Anti-racist = Anti-white" doesn't imply mere bias.

The goal is to expose the media’s anti-white bias through their reaction to a harmless flyer.

really actives the almonds

What the **** is this pseudo-intellectual rambling? Literally, the whole point of this campaign is to troll the left. They don't hide it. They wish to present themselves as some sort of a marginalized group to radicalize politically-fragile centrist white people.

To put it in simpler terms - even though it was already very simple - is that the meaning behind the phrase "it's okay to be white" has a meaning based out of definition and language, and meanings formed out of context. The contextual meanings are less objective than the definition-based meanings. The "troll the left" part is, sure, part of it, but your latter part is an opinion.
You may perceive it in that way, but it's not inherently correct.
this is returning to tinfoil territory I stg

I understand what your saying- and my reaction is that it's a terrible pseudo-epistemological argument.
Society is based on perception, thus disregarding it as.... god forbid... SUBJECTIVE, is silly.

[Ostroeuropa]

really actives the almonds


To put it in simpler terms - even though it was already very simple - is that the meaning behind the phrase "it's okay to be white" has a meaning based out of definition and language, and meanings formed out of context. The contextual meanings are less objective than the definition-based meanings. The "troll the left" part is, sure, part of it, but your latter part is an opinion.
You may perceive it in that way, but it's not inherently correct.
this is returning to tinfoil territory I stg

I understand what your saying- and my reaction is that it's a terrible pseudo-epistemological argument.
Society is based on perception, thus disregarding it as.... god forbid... SUBJECTIVE, is silly.

This is the problem. The progressive mentality causes you to perceive racism where there is none, and the consequences for that are anti-white.

Example:

"Historical context."
You know lenses are a thing right?
There is no uniform context in which to view statements, and if you always insist on viewing every pro-white statement from that lens you're basically being racist. That's the problem here.

It's like I said.
It's like in the midst of a debate between civil rights protestors and conservatives that black people should be paid the same, we put that on pause and just say the following:

"Black people contribute to the economy."

And half the business owners absolutely lose their fucking shit over it, thus alerting people to the fact that much of their opposition to things was based in hatred and an unrelenting insistence on hostility and using a lens that would never accept any form of statement that benefited the group or portrayed them positively, rather than the arguments and rationalizations they used to excuse the discrimination like them being not historically oppressed.

Sorry, inferior, same difference.

Same as the "Historical context!" does.

If you insist on always using a particular lens to view a situation, a lens that always casts power dynamics a particular way and dismisses one groups concerns, you are being a racist.

The MECHANICS of what you are doing are indistinguishable from the businessmen in that example.

Much like if a union got taken over by people who outright refused to accept anything the management had to contribute in negotiations, at all times, in all places, and just screamed about them being capitalist pigs when they did.

companies that have that happen tend to fall apart as either negotiations completely break down constantly (As they have in our societies over progressive unreasonableness, leading to skyrocketting hate crimes, KKK membership, etc.) or capitulation on idiotic ideas that ultimately fuck over everybody involved. (Such as the feminist fuck up on domestic violence perpetuating the cycle of violence, leaving men oppressed and uncovered and women still being beaten and dying, and escalating costs throwing money at a problem they don't want to admit they misdiagnosed.)

Your "Whites weren't historically oppressed" and "This statement is racist" is a manifestation of the same Conflict based ideology. You will never, never, never see the end of racism if you and the others doing this carry on with it.

The point of the campaign was to reveal people like you, who are fundamentally opposed to whites having a seat at the table, unless they are sat there to be screamed at and concede to demands, and how oblivious you are to that fact about yourself.

[Cannot think of a name]

Is it hidden if they say it out loud?

My question is why do you make yourself angry at this? You are falling for the troll's trap.

Who’s angry?

[Petrasylvania]

My question is why do you make yourself angry at this? You are falling for the troll's trap.

Who’s angry?

Stating that it's a bait requires Hulk level rage obviously.

[Proctopeo]

TIL that claiming anti-white bias == claiming white people are the people actually oppressed

Oh come on, we all know those people either pretend to think or really think that whites are being persecuted, and that this campaign is clearly based in this sentiment (As if implying that the wide public doesn't think that it's ok to be white).

Try saying that again, but with less conspiracy theorism. I'll wait.

really actives the almonds


To put it in simpler terms - even though it was already very simple - is that the meaning behind the phrase "it's okay to be white" has a meaning based out of definition and language, and meanings formed out of context. The contextual meanings are less objective than the definition-based meanings. The "troll the left" part is, sure, part of it, but your latter part is an opinion.
You may perceive it in that way, but it's not inherently correct.
this is returning to tinfoil territory I stg

I understand what your saying- and my reaction is that it's a terrible pseudo-epistemological argument.
Society is based on perception, thus disregarding it as.... god forbid... SUBJECTIVE, is silly.

I disregard your opinion not because it's subjective, but because there are multiple possible interpretations, all equally subjective, and purporting one interpretation as right because of what is, in essence, a gut feeling is invalid.

[Shofercia]

If saying that "It's okay to be white" is sufficient to "bait" minorities and """progressives""", then the problem lies probably with the aforementioned people.

"It's okay being white" implies that whites were historically oppressed and shamed in the United States, which obviously didn't happen. It's absurd and baity like "It's okay being a millionaire".

It implies nothing of the sort to me. It's is short for it is and they're talking in the present tense. That said, don't think that white immigrants weren't oppressed. If you hold that thought, one can say that you Know Nothing, pun intended.

"It's okay being white" implies that whites were historically oppressed and shamed in the United States, which obviously didn't happen. It's absurd and baity like "It's okay being a millionaire".

No, it only implies that it's okay to be white, much like "it's okay to be a millionaire" only implies that it's okay to have a million or more dollars.

Plus due to inflation, being a millionaire ain't what it used to be

Ben Franklin's saying should be changed to "a quarter saved is a quarter earned"

[Petrasylvania]

"It's okay being white" implies that whites were historically oppressed and shamed in the United States, which obviously didn't happen. It's absurd and baity like "It's okay being a millionaire".

It implies nothing of the sort to me. It's is short for it is and they're talking in the present tense. That said, don't think that white immigrants weren't oppressed. If you hold that thought, one can say that you Know Nothing, pun intended.

But let's pretend the oppressed immigrants were considered white at the time period.

[Ostroeuropa]

It implies nothing of the sort to me. It's is short for it is and they're talking in the present tense. That said, don't think that white immigrants weren't oppressed. If you hold that thought, one can say that you Know Nothing, pun intended.

But let's pretend the oppressed immigrants were considered white at the time period.

They often were. Just within lesser castes of white. Same as colorism is a thing where black people discriminate based on shade, inter-white racism is a thing. There's also tribal racism between black people sometimes.

If you take the Nazi line as definitive of what is considered "White" and note Franco and Mussolini's appeals to Germanic heritage, it gets even murkier.

(Spain and portugal by the visigoths and suebi, italy by the lombards, france by the franks, britain by the anglos, scandinavia the norse, and germany the other germanic tribes.)

Slavs and Irish perhaps not under that standard, though sometimes you'd get someone going "Kievan Rus is norse!" and the russians would go "We don't... think so... but maybe." so the potential for them to be included as germanic whites in the nazi mythology was there, just not utilized for realpolitik reasons. (Namely, that they wanted to kill all of them and take their land.)

The potential for a pan-european nazi white supremacy myth always existed, because it's based on mythology and narrative alongside, well, skin color basically.

All of that is irrelevant to modern whites though.
If you identify as white, you're white. Probably.

[Holy Tedalonia]

I'm really questioning your logic. This troll group attempt was to point out the reaction of the left. If you truly think that this is racist then you fell for their trap. They're just a bunch of trolls, no hidden intent other then the intent to see your reaction. In reality this is not a racist attack, but a troll attack which (like they intended you to do) reacted assuming racism because anything that has the word "white" in it is clearly "racist"

The political sphere doesn't work that way. It isn't about "traps" and "falling into traps" but about consciousness, if you raise consciousness of those tactics and what they are trying to achieve- you win. If they manage to mislead people, then their propaganda worked.

Clearly this is not a typical case on the political sphere, since all this is trolling and your falling for it. Clearly politics have never dealt with trolls- actually fake news on facebook has daily trolling attempts. Seriously its not racist, its trying to make you assume its racists, so they can laugh at your reactions.

[Kibbutz Unions]

This is fallacy by irrelevancy. This was an organized campaign that is meant to further white-supremacism. If it was a group of milk-enthusiasts and that it included a bunch of neo-nazis promoting their milk products it would have been one thing, but this is clearly different.

By the way, pretending to be ignorant of something and presenting it as an argument- not very constructive.

It's people saying it's OK to be white. If you think it isn't OK to be white, sorry to break it to you but you're racist.

Nice ad hominem attempt.
I explained to you precisely what I meant and yet you're coming back for this. It proves you do not debate in good faith.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

I just think the whole thing is hilarious.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's people saying it's OK to be white. If you think it isn't OK to be white, sorry to break it to you but you're racist.

Nice ad hominem attempt.
I explained to you precisely what I meant and yet you're coming back for this. It proves you do not debate in good faith.

It's been explained to you why your explanation is merely more racist sentiment.
This is like saying "Women being as good as men is female supremacist." and then rattling off an explanation for how, actually, in context, they "aren't as good" for reasons X Y and Z.

...
No dude, you're pretty much just proving their point.

If you object to the statement "It's okay to be white" it's because you're harboring racist memes. You might have explanations for it, you might have arguments, but those are in themselves the problem we're talking about.

Your insistence of looking at the statement from a particular lens and no other is the problem. It's like you're a person who owns only one book, and that's never a good sign.

Ultimately, this is performance art, and you're insisting you have the Official Valid And True interpretation. It's revealing of how far down the rabbit hole you've gone as a result of progressive ideology and propoganda.

[Kibbutz Unions]

This is fallacy by irrelevancy. This was an organized campaign that is meant to further white-supremacism. If it was a group of milk-enthusiasts and that it included a bunch of neo-nazis promoting their milk products it would have been one thing, but this is clearly different.

By the way, pretending to be ignorant of something and presenting it as an argument- not very constructive.

It only furthers white nationalism by outing many people in positions of power as anti-white.

In much the same as an IRA man publicly saying "Being a catholic is okay." and knowing the Protestant authorities will flip out and crack down is a "campaign" to provoke Irish rebellion.

YOU are a part of that dynamic by dismissing it out of hand and screaming "DAS RACIS!"

The way to de-escalate the conflict is to be moderate between the two. In order to do that, you have to acknowledge there are two racist sides here, something the progressive side refuses to admit about itself.

THAT is what fuels white nationalism.

The progressive narrative while it has been pushed has seen escalating levels of hate crime, violence, and far-right sentiment, KKK membership has grown, etc.

At what point will they accept they are wrong and their methods don't work?

First of all, the Catholics in the UK aren't in a position of power. So no, it's not at all the same.

What leads to this far-right sentiment is that historically privileged groups are afraid of losing their privilege. This is how it always is.

This is- by the way, was the same here in Israel when Ashkenazi hegemony was questioned. (Except that no far-right Ashkenazi supremacist groups formed, but many people were still really angry about it).

[Petrasylvania]

But let's pretend the oppressed immigrants were considered white at the time period.

They often were. Just within lesser castes of white. Same as colorism is a thing where black people discriminate based on shade, inter-white racism is a thing. There's also tribal racism between black people sometimes.

If you take the Nazi line as definitive of what is considered "White" and note Franco and Mussolini's appeals to Germanic heritage, it gets even murkier.

(Spain and portugal by the visigoths and suebi, italy by the lombards, france by the franks, britain by the anglos, scandinavia the norse, and germany the other germanic tribes.)

Slavs and Irish perhaps not under that standard, though sometimes you'd get someone going "Kievan Rus is norse!" and the russians would go "We don't... think so... but maybe." so the potential for them to be included as germanic whites in the nazi mythology was there, just not utilized for realpolitik reasons. (Namely, that they wanted to kill all of them and take their land.)

The potential for a pan-european nazi white supremacy myth always existed, because it's based on mythology and narrative alongside, well, skin color basically.

All of that is irrelevant to modern whites though.
If you identify as white, you're white. Probably.

It's disingenuous to apply modern standards to a historical period. The mindset and reasoning for the immigrants being oppressed is they weren't considered white enough. If they were considered white as by modern standards they never would have been oppressed to begin with.

[Kibbutz Unions]

Oh come on, we all know those people either pretend to think or really think that whites are being persecuted, and that this campaign is clearly based in this sentiment (As if implying that the wide public doesn't think that it's ok to be white).

The public is irrelevant to oppression compared to institutions, including the media.
And the media regularly pushes anti-white narratives.

So does much of Academia.

"Oh come on, most of India doesn't support British supremacy."

yeh but a few thousand very important british people do.

"The media regularly pushes anti-white narratives" ummmmm... no. What are you even talking about? They only even report about such issues when it is a hot topic at the moment, overall they serve the white-dominant status-quo, so it merely covers events that involve BLM (Which is, by the way, part of why they are necessary).
Academia is anti-white? No. I mean, if you learn about Sociology you will by nature recognize the concept of privilege, racialization, oppression etc. same with philosophy, and in history you might learn among certain historiographic methods the Postcolonial Historical analysis.
That's not "anti-white narrative", this is just basic knowledge. The effects of imperialism can be analyzed, and measure, and examined. It's just so happens that in this case science happens to support the Progressive worldview assuming your goals are liberty and equality.

[Ostroeuropa]

It only furthers white nationalism by outing many people in positions of power as anti-white.

In much the same as an IRA man publicly saying "Being a catholic is okay." and knowing the Protestant authorities will flip out and crack down is a "campaign" to provoke Irish rebellion.

YOU are a part of that dynamic by dismissing it out of hand and screaming "DAS RACIS!"

The way to de-escalate the conflict is to be moderate between the two. In order to do that, you have to acknowledge there are two racist sides here, something the progressive side refuses to admit about itself.

THAT is what fuels white nationalism.

The progressive narrative while it has been pushed has seen escalating levels of hate crime, violence, and far-right sentiment, KKK membership has grown, etc.

At what point will they accept they are wrong and their methods don't work?

First of all, the Catholics in the UK aren't in a position of power. So no, it's not at all the same.

What leads to this far-right sentiment is that historically privileged groups are afraid of losing their privilege. This is how it always is.

This is- by the way, was the same here in Israel when Ashkenazi hegemony was questioned. (Except that no far-right Ashkenazi supremacist groups formed, but many people were still really angry about it).

It depends on the institutions and situations we're discussing. You're acting like the left wing political institutions aren't a power structure, and that they don't protect their own interests and ideological convictions from upstarts.

mens rights, for instance.

Ultimately, you allude to the fundamental bigotry at the heart of the progressive ideology. Do you think parliament being mostly men is more important to women, or parliament being mostly pro-womens rights? Your ideology asserts that their demography matters and Catholics "Not holding power" would be important, as opposed to Catholicism holding power. (As an example, foreign influence over minor nations of protestant inclination.)

In that context, check the number of parliamentarians who have stood up for mens rights on the issues of domestic violence and such, compared to the number who go to bat for womens rights.

Now look at academia and the media, and note the consistent anti-white rhetoric and arguments used.

Your assertions are based in the notion that peoples demography matters more than their actions, and that is why you have come to racist conclusions such as "It's okay to be white" being an objectionable statement.

"The media regularly pushes anti-white narratives" ummmmm... no. What are you even talking about? They only do so when it is a hot topic at the moment, like events that involve BLM (Which is, by the way, part of why they are necessary).

You concede the media is anti-white "When it's a hot topic."
And it's a hot topic now. so you have already conceded that institutions are anti-white racist on occasion.

Why don't you support the campaign then?

[Kibbutz Unions]

Many white people are oppressed, but not based on their whiteness which is what it tries to imply.
White people of working class are oppressed based on their class for example.

In some cases it is based on their race.
Are you alleging there are no stereotypes about white people?

In addition, progressives offering extra education assistance to minorities but not white people means the white working class lose out because there isn't as much class based extra education assistance. So your "But class" thing matters precisely nothing. It remains a fact many whites if they were born a different color would have had, in some areas, better opportunities. That is racism. Yes, the same is also true in reverse.

This is one example of progressivism leading to anti-white consequences. There are others.

Even the stereotypes, that may on first glance sound somewhat negative in fact tends to hold some characteristics of superiority (I assume you are referring here to "Middle-Class" America and not Rednecks, their stereotypes are most definitely negative but they are also a more specific group with stereotypes that are different from "White proper").
I am an Ashkenazi Jew in Israel (The White People equivalent of Israel) - we have stereotypes of us as well, they may many times sound negative but overall they cement our public image as eventually "less fun people, but more reliable. less warm, but more rational. etc.".

[Ostroeuropa]

In some cases it is based on their race.
Are you alleging there are no stereotypes about white people?

In addition, progressives offering extra education assistance to minorities but not white people means the white working class lose out because there isn't as much class based extra education assistance. So your "But class" thing matters precisely nothing. It remains a fact many whites if they were born a different color would have had, in some areas, better opportunities. That is racism. Yes, the same is also true in reverse.

This is one example of progressivism leading to anti-white consequences. There are others.

Even the stereotypes, that may on first glance sound somewhat negative in fact tends to hold some characteristics of superiority (I assume you are referring here to "Middle-Class" America and not Rednecks, their stereotypes are most definitely negative but they are also a more specific group with stereotypes that are different from "White proper").
I am an Ashkenazi Jew in Israel (The White People equivalent of Israel) - we have stereotypes of us as well, they may many times sound negative but overall they cement our public image as eventually "less fun people, but more reliable. less warm, but more rational. etc.".

That constitutes oppression in some circumstances and in some institutional ways, for instance, applying for a job in a field where you're expected to care for others, and being rejected as a result.
The progressive left is loathed to acknowledge this because they base their mentality in Class Conflict models of how oppression works, rather than admitting it's more complicated than that, that most groups and peoples have some form of institutional oppression against them, and unequal treatment ultimately results in unequal treatment for all. (The only exception being, perhaps, the rich.)
It crafts the rod for our own backs when it occurs.

The progressive class conflict mentality will mean that Ashekenazis and Whites won't be able to combat those prejudices because they'll be shouted down for going against the progressive nonsense, leading to eventualities like feminism has caused. (Duluth model of domestic violence, etc.)

It is a toxic way to view demography relations.

[Kibbutz Unions]

I understand what your saying- and my reaction is that it's a terrible pseudo-epistemological argument.
Society is based on perception, thus disregarding it as.... god forbid... SUBJECTIVE, is silly.

This is the problem. The progressive mentality causes you to perceive racism where there is none, and the consequences for that are anti-white.

Example:

"Historical context."
You know lenses are a thing right?
There is no uniform context in which to view statements, and if you always insist on viewing every pro-white statement from that lens you're basically being racist. That's the problem here.

It's like I said.
It's like in the midst of a debate between civil rights protestors and conservatives that black people should be paid the same, we put that on pause and just say the following:

"Black people contribute to the economy."

And half the business owners absolutely lose their fucking shit over it, thus alerting people to the fact that much of their opposition to things was based in hatred and an unrelenting insistence on hostility and using a lens that would never accept any form of statement that benefited the group or portrayed them positively, rather than the arguments and rationalizations they used to excuse the discrimination like them being not historically oppressed.

Sorry, inferior, same difference.

Same as the "Historical context!" does.

If you insist on always using a particular lens to view a situation, a lens that always casts power dynamics a particular way and dismisses one groups concerns, you are being a racist.

The MECHANICS of what you are doing are indistinguishable from the businessmen in that example.

Much like if a union got taken over by people who outright refused to accept anything the management had to contribute in negotiations, at all times, in all places, and just screamed about them being capitalist pigs when they did.

companies that have that happen tend to fall apart as either negotiations completely break down constantly (As they have in our societies over progressive unreasonableness, leading to skyrocketting hate crimes, KKK membership, etc.) or capitulation on idiotic ideas that ultimately fuck over everybody involved. (Such as the feminist fuck up on domestic violence perpetuating the cycle of violence, leaving men oppressed and uncovered and women still being beaten and dying, and escalating costs throwing money at a problem they don't want to admit they misdiagnosed.)

Your "Whites weren't historically oppressed" and "This statement is racist" is a manifestation of the same Conflict based ideology. You will never, never, never see the end of racism if you and the others doing this carry on with it.

The point of the campaign was to reveal people like you, who are fundamentally opposed to whites having a seat at the table, unless they are sat there to be screamed at and concede to demands, and how oblivious you are to that fact about yourself.

No. We will never see the end of racism unless the apparatus perpetuating it ceases.

Your proposition for us to ignore historically relevent content and ignore group-specific issues is a proposition meant to perpetuate the oppression and to silence the oppressed because it isn't comfortable to you that their identity and circumstances are different than you and that because of that they never truly achieved social equality.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is the problem. The progressive mentality causes you to perceive racism where there is none, and the consequences for that are anti-white.

Example:




If you insist on always using a particular lens to view a situation, a lens that always casts power dynamics a particular way and dismisses one groups concerns, you are being a racist.

The MECHANICS of what you are doing are indistinguishable from the businessmen in that example.

Much like if a union got taken over by people who outright refused to accept anything the management had to contribute in negotiations, at all times, in all places, and just screamed about them being capitalist pigs when they did.

companies that have that happen tend to fall apart as either negotiations completely break down constantly (As they have in our societies over progressive unreasonableness, leading to skyrocketting hate crimes, KKK membership, etc.) or capitulation on idiotic ideas that ultimately fuck over everybody involved. (Such as the feminist fuck up on domestic violence perpetuating the cycle of violence, leaving men oppressed and uncovered and women still being beaten and dying, and escalating costs throwing money at a problem they don't want to admit they misdiagnosed.)

Your "Whites weren't historically oppressed" and "This statement is racist" is a manifestation of the same Conflict based ideology. You will never, never, never see the end of racism if you and the others doing this carry on with it.

The point of the campaign was to reveal people like you, who are fundamentally opposed to whites having a seat at the table, unless they are sat there to be screamed at and concede to demands, and how oblivious you are to that fact about yourself.

No. We will never see the end of racism unless the apparatus perpetuating it ceases.

Your proposition for us to ignore historically relevent content and ignore group-specific issues is a proposition meant to perpetuate the oppression and to silence the oppressed because it isn't comfortable to you that their identity and circumstances are different than you and that because of that they never truly achieved social equality.

I don't propose we ignore group specific issues. I'm proposing we acknowledge every group should be able to advocate for its issues and oppose vilification of itself, put forward campaigns about how it's okay to be X, etc.

I don't propose silencing the oppressed. I propose you stop silencing whites, males, etc, and allow them a seat at the table, without a priori dismissing their issues as illegitimate.

I would argue the progressive lefts hostility to institutions and groups forming around those demographics has kept their discourse stunted, and then you've used that as excuses to shut them up further.

I would wager the first black slaves to get angry enough to rebel about things said very objectionable things.

Allowing whites and males to organize groups for their own issues and such would eventually mature their discourse, as it has in the MRM, despite the best efforts of feminists to crack down on it.

Suppose it was only today we saw Black people arguing for their equality and their issues to be taken seriously, and there was none of the history or the historical arguments.

Suppose that any time they said something mildly objectionable to whites in the process of that, we cracked down and called them racists and said all the discourse progress made thus far was tainted and they had to start over. That, regardless of what else they said, that mistake meant they could never again advocate for equality because they'd now been branded "Racist.", so someone else had to do it. Note, someone else, without any of the experience thus far.

Would that retard progress, or assist it?

[Aellex]

Nice ad hominem attempt.
I explained to you precisely what I meant and yet you're coming back for this. It proves you do not debate in good faith.

It's not an ad hominem, tho. If you think that having a certain skin color isn't OK, you're racist and no amount of your pompous diatribes nor justifications will change that fact.

[Kibbutz Unions]

Oh come on, we all know those people either pretend to think or really think that whites are being persecuted, and that this campaign is clearly based in this sentiment (As if implying that the wide public doesn't think that it's ok to be white).

Try saying that again, but with less conspiracy theorism. I'll wait.

I understand what your saying- and my reaction is that it's a terrible pseudo-epistemological argument.
Society is based on perception, thus disregarding it as.... god forbid... SUBJECTIVE, is silly.

I disregard your opinion not because it's subjective, but because there are multiple possible interpretations, all equally subjective, and purporting one interpretation as right because of what is, in essence, a gut feeling is invalid.

This is not conspiratorial. It is enough to go to the forums that those kinds of people behind the campaign go to to recognize that they literally have this existential dread and feel as if there is even a conspiracy that persecutes white people.
I mean, understanding that as a basis of their opinions isn't difficult, it's enough to hear them speak.

No. There is no "many interpretations that are equally relevant"- this is some "Cartesian Evil Demon" level of mistrust of your senses and empirical analysis.

[Kibbutz Unions]

The political sphere doesn't work that way. It isn't about "traps" and "falling into traps" but about consciousness, if you raise consciousness of those tactics and what they are trying to achieve- you win. If they manage to mislead people, then their propaganda worked.

Clearly this is not a typical case on the political sphere, since all this is trolling and your falling for it. Clearly politics have never dealt with trolls- actually fake news on facebook has daily trolling attempts. Seriously its not racist, its trying to make you assume its racists, so they can laugh at your reactions.

Whatever you say professor.

But until you bring me a well-researched sociological platform I'll stick with my "conservative" methods of viewing the political sphere. Politics are about consciousness vs. propaganda, this trolling is just an example of propaganda, that's all. We need to address it as it is.
Which is what we do.

[Ostroeuropa]

Try saying that again, but with less conspiracy theorism. I'll wait.


I disregard your opinion not because it's subjective, but because there are multiple possible interpretations, all equally subjective, and purporting one interpretation as right because of what is, in essence, a gut feeling is invalid.

This is not conspiratorial. It is enough to go to the forums that those kinds of people behind the campaign go to to recognize that they literally have this existential dread and feel as if there is even a conspiracy that persecutes white people.
I mean, understanding that as a basis of their opinions isn't difficult, it's enough to hear them speak.

No. There is no "many interpretations that are equally relevant"- this is some "Cartesian Evil Demon" level of mistrust of your senses and empirical analysis.

Cock up before conspiracy.
I agree with many of their grievances, and oppose the conspiracy narrative. I think it's merely an ideological error, not a conspiracy.

The reason they jump to conspiracy is the blatant intellectual dishonesty the adherents of progressivist causes like feminism and racial equality sometimes engage in, especially in the media. You cannot blame people for thinking you are deliberately misleading them under those circumstances, even if it is a little archaic to think so.

Personally I think its just dogmatism and refusal to critically examine the ideology they believe in, they don't consciously act dishonest because they view the ideology as The Truth, rather than something to be measured against material reality.

[Kibbutz Unions]

Nice ad hominem attempt.
I explained to you precisely what I meant and yet you're coming back for this. It proves you do not debate in good faith.

It's been explained to you why your explanation is merely more racist sentiment.
This is like saying "Women being as good as men is female supremacist." and then rattling off an explanation for how, actually, in context, they "aren't as good" for reasons X Y and Z.

...
No dude, you're pretty much just proving their point.

If you object to the statement "It's okay to be white" it's because you're harboring racist memes. You might have explanations for it, you might have arguments, but those are in themselves the problem we're talking about.

Your insistence of looking at the statement from a particular lens and no other is the problem. It's like you're a person who owns only one book, and that's never a good sign.

Ultimately, this is performance art, and you're insisting you have the Official Valid And True interpretation. It's revealing of how far down the rabbit hole you've gone as a result of progressive ideology and propoganda.

Yes, I have something called "The Social Sciences" as my "lens".
I already told you that your examples are very different, the context is different and your reasons to proclaim them are different. So no.