It's Okay To Be White campaign

[Reutoa]

It's very important that we look at the overall picture, Black Lives Matter was specifically created to combat hundreds of years of racial inequality created by white people who continue to think they are above us and others. However, It's Okay To Be White, in reality, is an outcry from centrist and conservative whites who can feel their privilege slipping away. We've seen this happen with Jim Crow, Racial Riots after Jim Crow and here we are again today. White People feel their systematic oppression of others and the privilege they've enjoyed slipping away so their reaction, to create a campaign alleging social injustice against their race when in reality the very campaign is racist because it once again disenfranchises minorities especially black people.

Black Lives Matter: Fight hundreds of years of racial injustice.
It's Okay To Be White: Fight... two years of racial isolation caused by groups created to combat our systematic oppression.

I'm sure those poor Whites all over America were so terrible to the Blacks (White privilege doesn't exist everywhere, don't blame all Whites.)

[Alvecia]

Trying to claim that white people have had it as bad as blacks in the west to the same degree is laughable and dishonest.

Someone with a chest infection doesn't have it as bad as someone with cancer, but hordes of cancer advocates screeching the former needs no medical attention and wasn't "Historically ill" like the cancer survivor had been 6 months ago would still be a detriment to society.

If I have cancer and bruise my knee, I'm not going to spend as much time, effort, and money treating my bruised knee with the same level of urgency and severity as my cancer. To do so is laughable and dishonest.

[Trumpisslavia]

OK, OK, OK.

So if it's not crafted to implicitly pander to bigoted sensibilities or to trigger liberals, then what is the purpose of telling yourself and others "It's OK to be White?" To boost one's self-esteem?

I mean, there are a lot of self-help books. Buy them?

[Cedoria]

The statement is controversial because of the intent behind it.

It's controversial because it clearly states a simple, true statement, that it is okay to be white. This in turn has thrown the media into a frenzy, and has finally revealed their true colors on race: That it is not okay to be white.

No. It's controversial because of the suspect motivations and agendas of those who use and promote it.

If I thought it was really about promoting harmony and non-racialism, I'd gladly support the campaign. Given the nature and calibre of some of the people who are making use of the slogan (and defending it), making that assumption would be foolish in the extreme. Whatever this is, it's not an attempt at improving cooperation and (as much as I hate this term) race relations.

[Washington Resistance Army]

OK, OK, OK.

So if it's not crafted to implicitly pander to bigoted sensibilities or to trigger liberals, then what is the purpose of telling yourself and others "It's OK to be White?" To boost one's self-esteem?

I mean, there are a lot of self-help books. Buy them?

The point is to make people say it's not okay to be white and drive whites further to the right, or redpill them as pol says.

[Cedoria]

Historically, black lives haven't mattered as much.

I'm sure you'll be joining the anti-tsarist revolution any day now.

Apparently, many people don't understand the effect the passage of time has on politics.

Present advocacy should be based on present problems.

CURRENTLY, there is an attitude of anti-white sentiment in the media. That's the thing this is protesting.

Prove it.

[Alvecia]

OK, OK, OK.

So if it's not crafted to implicitly pander to bigoted sensibilities or to trigger liberals, then what is the purpose of telling yourself and others "It's OK to be White?" To boost one's self-esteem?

I mean, there are a lot of self-help books. Buy them?

The point is to make people say it's not okay to be white and drive whites further to the right, or redpill them as pol says.

So you're saying it's basically just asking "Do you still beat your wife? Yes/no" then getting all uppity at the answer?

[Washington Resistance Army]

The point is to make people say it's not okay to be white and drive whites further to the right, or redpill them as pol says.

So you're saying it's basically just asking "Do you still beat your wife? Yes/no" then getting all uppity at the answer?

That doesn't really make any sense.

[Cedoria]

The statement is controversial because of the intent behind it.

Alleging intent behind these kind of things has been the modus operandi of the progressive left for a while and has been used to ignore and dismiss the mens rights movement as well as white advocacy.

I can only conclude your intent for pretending there's nefarious intent behind the words "It's okay to be white" is that you want white genocide.

See how useless that is to discussion?
That's you. That's how you sound.

Spamming in the media that the intent behind advocacy of mens issues is mens supremacy has prevented much progress on that front and led to a multitude of unnecessary rapes, abuses, imprisonments, etc, continuing unabated.

Why the hell should we accept the progressive evaluation on white peoples advocacy based on alleging nefarious intent, when it's clear they've been so wrong before?

Look at some of the people organising behind this slogan. Analyse some of their publicly stated views and opinions. If they seem to have a long history of prejudicial, or simple bigotry, it's fairly safe to say there's a hidden motivation.

Now sure, it's not an assumption that should be made automatically about everybody, but it's equally foolish to presume that people who come out with an opinion are always going to be honest about that opinion or the motivations behind it, particularly if being honest would trigger opprobrium from decent, civilised people.

Looking at some of the people hiding behind this rather piddling attempt at a slogan, I'd say a case could be made for hidden motivations in quite a lot of cases, don't you?

[Ostroeuropa]

Someone with a chest infection doesn't have it as bad as someone with cancer, but hordes of cancer advocates screeching the former needs no medical attention and wasn't "Historically ill" like the cancer survivor had been 6 months ago would still be a detriment to society.

If I have cancer and bruise my knee, I'm not going to spend as much time, effort, and money treating my bruised knee with the same level of urgency and severity as my cancer. To do so is laughable and dishonest.

your analogy isnt comparable, and I'd say mine is better. A bruised knee doesn't degrade into worse conditions if left allowed to run amok unchecked and such.
A better one would be you went in for throat cancer treatment and they found a chest infection alongside it, then didn't treat the infection. That would be lawsuit worthy behavior.

I'm sure you'll be joining the anti-tsarist revolution any day now.

Apparently, many people don't understand the effect the passage of time has on politics.

Present advocacy should be based on present problems.

CURRENTLY, there is an attitude of anti-white sentiment in the media. That's the thing this is protesting.

Prove it.

There's examples abound.
How many examples would you need? Set the bar you're willing to accept, and if it's reasonable, it will be met.

Note that BLM was started based on a faulty premise, but it was perceived to be real.
(Black criminals are shot less than white ones, there's just more black criminals, because of poverty.)

[Vassenor]

It's very important that we look at the overall picture, Black Lives Matter was specifically created to combat hundreds of years of racial inequality created by white people who continue to think they are above us and others. However, It's Okay To Be White, in reality, is an outcry from centrist and conservative whites who can feel their privilege slipping away. We've seen this happen with Jim Crow, Racial Riots after Jim Crow and here we are again today. White People feel their systematic oppression of others and the privilege they've enjoyed slipping away so their reaction, to create a campaign alleging social injustice against their race when in reality the very campaign is racist because it once again disenfranchises minorities especially black people.

Black Lives Matter: Fight hundreds of years of racial injustice.
It's Okay To Be White: Fight... two years of racial isolation caused by groups created to combat our systematic oppression.

So it's another "but why can't we have a Straight Pride festival?" thing?

[Ostroeuropa]

Alleging intent behind these kind of things has been the modus operandi of the progressive left for a while and has been used to ignore and dismiss the mens rights movement as well as white advocacy.

I can only conclude your intent for pretending there's nefarious intent behind the words "It's okay to be white" is that you want white genocide.

See how useless that is to discussion?
That's you. That's how you sound.

Spamming in the media that the intent behind advocacy of mens issues is mens supremacy has prevented much progress on that front and led to a multitude of unnecessary rapes, abuses, imprisonments, etc, continuing unabated.

Why the hell should we accept the progressive evaluation on white peoples advocacy based on alleging nefarious intent, when it's clear they've been so wrong before?

Look at some of the people organising behind this slogan. Analyse some of their publicly stated views and opinions. If they seem to have a long history of prejudicial, or simple bigotry, it's fairly safe to say there's a hidden motivation.

Now sure, it's not an assumption that should be made automatically about everybody, but it's equally foolish to presume that people who come out with an opinion are always going to be honest about that opinion or the motivations behind it, particularly if being honest would trigger opprobrium from decent, civilised people.

Looking at some of the people hiding behind this rather piddling attempt at a slogan, I'd say a case could be made for hidden motivations in quite a lot of cases, don't you?

The same can be said of any progressive campaign, or indeed, any campaign at all.

[Cedoria]

If I have cancer and bruise my knee, I'm not going to spend as much time, effort, and money treating my bruised knee with the same level of urgency and severity as my cancer. To do so is laughable and dishonest.

you analogy isnt comparable, and I'd say mine is better. A bruised knee doesn't degrade into worse conditions if left allowed to run amok unchecked and such.
A better one would be you went in for throat cancer treatment and they found a chest infection alongside it, then didn't treat the infection. That would be lawsuit worthy behavior.

Prove it.

There's examples abound.
How many examples would you need? Set the bar you're willing to accept, and if it's reasonable, it will be met.

Just a few will do for starters, and then we can discuss them and see if I think that's enough. A lot depends on how detailed they are and what sources they come from, etc.

Exact numbers are arbitrary, it depends on source quality as well. That is entirely dependant upon you.

[Cedoria]

Look at some of the people organising behind this slogan. Analyse some of their publicly stated views and opinions. If they seem to have a long history of prejudicial, or simple bigotry, it's fairly safe to say there's a hidden motivation.

Now sure, it's not an assumption that should be made automatically about everybody, but it's equally foolish to presume that people who come out with an opinion are always going to be honest about that opinion or the motivations behind it, particularly if being honest would trigger opprobrium from decent, civilised people.

Looking at some of the people hiding behind this rather piddling attempt at a slogan, I'd say a case could be made for hidden motivations in quite a lot of cases, don't you?

The same can be said of any progressive campaign, or indeed, any campaign at all.

Indeed, it can be. If the standards are applied there, then they should be applied here too. You're quite right.

Asking yourself why someone is saying what they are saying is just as important as trying to understand what they are saying. Particularly when said person may have motives for concealing or de-emphasising certain things that would detract from whatever goal they are trying to serve.

My point? Simply taking people at their word is often a bad idea in that respect.

[Arduo]

......

I'm beginning to wonder if flame wars break out this easily on NS++...

[Ostroeuropa]

you analogy isnt comparable, and I'd say mine is better. A bruised knee doesn't degrade into worse conditions if left allowed to run amok unchecked and such.
A better one would be you went in for throat cancer treatment and they found a chest infection alongside it, then didn't treat the infection. That would be lawsuit worthy behavior.



There's examples abound.
How many examples would you need? Set the bar you're willing to accept, and if it's reasonable, it will be met.

Just a few will do for starters, and then we can discuss them and see if I think that's enough. A lot depends on how detailed they are and what sources they come from, etc.

Exact numbers are arbitrary, it depends on source quality as well. That is entirely dependant upon you.

The edit:
Note that BLM was started based on a faulty premise, but it was perceived to be real.
(Black criminals are shot less than white ones, there's just more black criminals, because of poverty.)

Here's just one to start off with, the OP and reactions to the innocuous statement of it's okay to be white.

Beyond that, you can rationalize away many paradigms and rhetorical arguments that vilify or disadvantage a group, but ultimately, if it does those things it shouldn't happen. I'd argue "The intent" behind rationalizing away statements like that professor who argued "Having white babies is racist" is to provide cover for voicing racist sentiments the speaker knows will only be brought up in places with far less exposure.

(So like, "It's racist to have white babies" gets spammed over and over and is the main thing people remember, and the defense is only brought up on in depth analysis.)

Sort of like if I aruged

"Blacks are criminal" and it got massive exposure, with some arrogant white supremacists saying "No, it's not racist, because if you look here, you'll see the justification for the statement is based in statistics and redefining certain words to mean something other than what popular culture accepts them to mean."

If you can argue against these examples without duplicitous sophistry, go ahead, but I doubt you can.

[Vassenor]

......

I'm beginning to wonder if flame wars break out this easily on NS++...

Contradicting conservative talking points is akin to holding a match into a balloon of hydrogen gas, yes.

[Anarchitaria]

Oh sure, this campaign is sensible and grounded when it kicks-off, until it will be corrupted by social justice warriors, the alt-right, etcetera, such was the case with Black Lives Matter.

Nowadays this fate for such groups is ineludible.

[Alvecia]

So you're saying it's basically just asking "Do you still beat your wife? Yes/no" then getting all uppity at the answer?

That doesn't really make any sense.

Why not?

It's a leading statement, said with suspect motivations and implications.

[Alvecia]

If I have cancer and bruise my knee, I'm not going to spend as much time, effort, and money treating my bruised knee with the same level of urgency and severity as my cancer. To do so is laughable and dishonest.

your analogy isnt comparable, and I'd say mine is better. A bruised knee doesn't degrade into worse conditions if left allowed to run amok unchecked and such.
A better one would be you went in for throat cancer treatment and they found a chest infection alongside it, then didn't treat the infection. That would be lawsuit worthy behavior.

And that's why it's the perfect analogy. That's exactly the issue.
It is a bruised knee situation, but you're the hypochondriac who thinks they're gonna die if the doctor doesn't operate immediately. The average well put together person know that it's not a seriously enough situation to warrant that much attention, and that fussing over it, constantly poking and prodding, will only make it worse.

[Ostroeuropa]

That doesn't really make any sense.

Why not?

It's a leading statement, said with suspect motivations and implications.

If white supremacy were so commonplace and normal, then how come putting up an innocuous poster that people claim is white supremacist was noticed so easily, so quickly, and jumped on with such vigor?

Wouldn't it just fade into the background?

The reason it didn't is that that is a progressive lie based in ideological assertions and not reality.

[Alvecia]

Why not?

It's a leading statement, said with suspect motivations and implications.

If white supremacy were so commonplace and normal, then how come putting up an innocuous poster that people claim is white supremacist was noticed so easily, so quickly, and jumped on with such vigor?

Wouldn't it just fade into the background?

Simple answer, because the news doesn't make its money by letting things fade into the background.

[Ostroeuropa]

your analogy isnt comparable, and I'd say mine is better. A bruised knee doesn't degrade into worse conditions if left allowed to run amok unchecked and such.
A better one would be you went in for throat cancer treatment and they found a chest infection alongside it, then didn't treat the infection. That would be lawsuit worthy behavior.

And that's why it's the perfect analogy. That's exactly the issue.
It is a bruised knee situation, but you're the hypochondriac who thinks they're gonna die if the doctor doesn't operate immediately. The average well put together person know that it's not a seriously enough situation to warrant that much attention, and that fussing over it, constantly poking and prodding, will only make it worse.

You're now arguing that it is literally impossible for white people to be subjected to racism, and early warning signs of that happening or first stages of it occurring aren't cause for concern.

Zimbabwe.

[Ostroeuropa]

If white supremacy were so commonplace and normal, then how come putting up an innocuous poster that people claim is white supremacist was noticed so easily, so quickly, and jumped on with such vigor?

Wouldn't it just fade into the background?

Simple answer, because the news doesn't make its money by letting things fade into the background.

But if there were a background to sink into, how would the news notice it above the other things supposedly there?
Your assertion on the nature of the status quo is incoherent.

[Sovaal]

Where's the "I don't give a shit" option?

E: And who the fuck voted for "it's not okay to be white"?