It's Okay To Be White campaign

[Kibbutz Unions]

This is for "shits and giggles" but most definitely also has a far-right agenda behind it. Having one doesn't mean the other isn't present.

I agree that it has an agenda, and its to show how reactionary and over-reactive the left really is. If this gets under your skin, then aren't you going to far?

Reactionary? In what way is this reactionary? I get the claim that it's over-reactive even though I disagree but reactionary??

[Ostroeuropa]

The MRM has a higher level of LGBT persons than the public. They don't "Mock queers."
I suspect you have merely been reading feminist propaganda about how their movement isn't hateful and the criticism of the MRM (Based on their historical actions, the laws they lobby for, and what feminist organizations get up to) is wrong, and in any case MRAs are evil people because (lie,lie,lie.)
It's fairly common these days.

Some 25% of MRAs are bisexual, gay, lesbian, or trans, according to their internal polling.
Disproportionately white too, unfortunately, though that could be because many mens issues are miscast as race issues.

Consider why you believed this lie and who told you it.

Nor do they merely laugh at feminists, much work has been done, despite the resistance received from feminist groups and institutions.

We do not misrepresent feminists. The schism began in the 60s when NOW (The largest feminist organization in the world) backed default primary custody for women when they seek it. This alarmed many male feminists who were subsequently vilified for opposing it, and this prompted the birth of the mens rights movement.

It is an incident that has repeated itself routinely. You are not misrepresented. You are misunderstanding the institutions of feminism and confusing them for the propoganda. Like institutions of ultra-right capitalism waffling about freedom.

Their ACTIONS speak louder to MRAs than the WORDS you hear.

I have read plenty of feminist nonsense.

The jargon is an aspect of the hatefulness.


That you defend the Jargon as "Not really meaning that" shows you're aware of the problem, but don't want to confront the effects of it.

Feminisms historical treatment of men makes it clear that it is indefensible, especially when you note the "Jargon" problem which you accepted, but don't seem to have properly thought about to its logical conclusion.

First of all is that even though queers do exist in anti-feminist circles and that a lot aren't anti-LGBT too, however there is an alarming amount of people influential in those circles that are. And on top of that, even though Bi. Homo or Trans people are slowly being more accepted non-binary people, for example, are being mocked and memed to a grotesque extent.

Also, what you don't get, is that the majority of feminists are more like me (I hope I am not excessively vain to regard myself as a good example) than the caricature that you're used to in those circles and that Men's Rights and Feminism are compatible. I generally tend to support moving to new branding, it's kinda like how I don't go around saying that "I want to create the dictatorship of the proletariat", when talking to non-Marxists I don't refer to dialectics, historical materialism or use all of that jargon. Hell, I don't use the term "patriarchy" anymore unless in an academic debate. I think this current jargon makes the wrong perception that the oppressed group is the only one suffering and the only one to benefit of the breaking of the gender norms and the achievement of social equality and the only reason I came back to the Feminism term (I just called myself a supporter of Gender Equality and Social Justice) is as a protest against the toxic antifeminists.

Nazis exist in anti-communist circles but Nazis are not the same thing as capitalists.

The mens rights movement is a distinct thing. Conflating it with all anti-feminism is dishonest. I have never seen, nor has anybody supplied when it is asked for, anti-gay material written by an MRA. We have some issues with trans denial, as does feminism and indeed most of society at this point. I noticed a drop off in this after a few trans MRAs become vocal and prominent advocates for men, so its better than it was a decade ago.

It is not a caricature, it is an accurate assessment of feminist institutions, laws, and media appearances, as well as the history of the movement. Many modern mens issues are the direct result of feminist activity.

Would you call yourself a racist to protest the soviets too?

Do you have a source on "Majority of feminists"?

Because the largest feminist ORGANIZATIONS, seem to contradict that.

As well as this:

I would argue that this is why "good feminists" will ALWAYS be a minority in "Their own movement." Because only a small amount of the population is going to be resistant to dehumanizing rhetoric.

Which you've accepted is the case with the Jargon.

It's also not the experience of MRAs, nor polling data on certain issues.

In any case, many of the problems we're discussing here can be translated over to the whites issue, though there has been much less legal discrimination and lobbying for anti-white laws.

[Kibbutz Unions]

First of all is that even though queers do exist in anti-feminist circles and that a lot aren't anti-LGBT too, however there is an alarming amount of people influential in those circles that are. And on top of that, even though Bi. Homo or Trans people are slowly being more accepted non-binary people, for example, are being mocked and memed to a grotesque extent.

Also, what you don't get, is that the majority of feminists are more like me (I hope I am not excessively vain to regard myself as a good example) than the caricature that you're used to in those circles and that Men's Rights and Feminism are compatible. I generally tend to support moving to new branding, it's kinda like how I don't go around saying that "I want to create the dictatorship of the proletariat", when talking to non-Marxists I don't refer to dialectics, historical materialism or use all of that jargon. Hell, I don't use the term "patriarchy" anymore unless in an academic debate. I think this current jargon makes the wrong perception that the oppressed group is the only one suffering and the only one to benefit of the breaking of the gender norms and the achievement of social equality and the only reason I came back to the Feminism term (I just called myself a supporter of Gender Equality and Social Justice) is as a protest against the toxic antifeminists.

Nazis exist in anti-communist circles but Nazis are not the same thing as capitalists.

The mens rights movement is a distinct thing. Conflating it with all anti-feminism is dishonest. I have never seen, nor has anybody supplied when it is asked for, anti-gay material written by an MRA. We have some issues with trans denial, as does feminism and indeed most of society at this point.

It is not a caricature, it is an accurate assessment of feminist institutions, laws, and media appearances, as well as the history of the movement. Many modern mens issues are the direct result of feminist activity.

Would you call yourself a racist to protest the soviets too?

Racist is not at all comparable to feminist. This is a red herring. (And by the way, if the East Bloc would have been around today I would probably support it over the West but whatever)
And yes, this is misrepresenting- as you are talking to me do you hear someone who is hateful of men or anything? (By the way, I'm a Man so it would be kinda weird if you did call me that) I am, I can guarantee you, more representative of feminist thought than some random radical feminist or a feminist taken out of context for the clicks.

[Ostroeuropa]

Nazis exist in anti-communist circles but Nazis are not the same thing as capitalists.

The mens rights movement is a distinct thing. Conflating it with all anti-feminism is dishonest. I have never seen, nor has anybody supplied when it is asked for, anti-gay material written by an MRA. We have some issues with trans denial, as does feminism and indeed most of society at this point.

It is not a caricature, it is an accurate assessment of feminist institutions, laws, and media appearances, as well as the history of the movement. Many modern mens issues are the direct result of feminist activity.

Would you call yourself a racist to protest the soviets too?

Racist is not at all comparable to feminist. This is a red herring. (And by the way, if the East Bloc would have been around today I would probably support it over the West but whatever)
And yes, this is misrepresenting- as you are talking to me do you hear someone who is hateful of men or anything? (By the way, I'm a Man so it would be kinda weird if you did call me that) I am, I can guarantee you, more representative of feminist thought than some random radical feminist or a feminist taken out of context for the clicks.

You are?
Tell me, which domestic violence model is used, yours? Or the duluth model?

Ah, I see.
Perhaps you can point me to the multittudes of feminists demanding changes to university culture so more men will apply to every course OTHER than STEM, etc, etc.

What context is there for the largest feminist organization in the world supporting women always getting custody if they ask for it not being anti-male?

Perhaps you could outline for me the context behind vilifying men over rape and blaming male attitudes and such, ignoring equivalent numbers of male victims?

You are vastly overestimating the influence of "reasonable" feminists on the institutions feminism is powerful in.

You are waffling about how Stalin isn't a thing and talking to me about a paradise that surely exists beyond the urals.

(I have to go.)

[Liriena]

Human beings are social creatures. Our identity is largely built on our place in society and our relationships with others.

So... yeah, to a large extent, you're defined by your ingroup (and your outgroup).

Every person is unique, but that doesn't mean every person grew in a vacuum and formed their own identity in isolation.

That's not "identity politics". That's just social science.


Yes, we can. Whether they be left-wing, right-wing, centrist, feminist... if the students don't want that person in their campus, using their resources, the students have the right to keep them out.

Rights like freedom of association, freedom of assembly may be new to you.

Not really.

Students are clients of the university

Thanks for the reminder that the American education system is a commercialistic hellhole.

and any extracurricular activity falls outside of their direct mandate. They can organize lectures and meetings, but not cancel other's events. It is also illegal to physically prohibit fellow students and their invitees from practicing these rights. If this does happen without repercussions you are looking at a defunct university.

Is there any actual law, jurisprudence or constitutional amendment that has explicitly stated this?

[Liriena]

Sure they do. Private individuals and groups have that right. The state doesn't, but people do.

One would be wise not to advocate for things he wouldn't want to be directed against oneself.

Except I'd be fine with it if students at any given university chose to no-platform me.

Yes, we can. Whether they be left-wing, right-wing, centrist, feminist... if the students don't want that person in their campus, using their resources, the students have the right to keep them out.

lol no
If the university decide a conference should be allowed to take place, students can go fuck themselves if they ain't happy about it.

Or they can protest, maybe even apply a healthy bit of civil disobedience.

The students shouldn't delude themselves into thinking they're the masters. They come to the university to learn, not to make their law.

To many students, their university is a second home, a community, and a community has a right to choose who can use their platforms... specially if the person who wants to use their platform is a notorious extremist or propagandist with no academic value whatsoever.

[Liriena]

It seems they are 38 leftist racists in this thread looking at the poll or trolls...

Quoth the unironic, well-established racist with a history of peddling white identity politics, fake news and conspiracy theories.

[Kibbutz Unions]

Racist is not at all comparable to feminist. This is a red herring. (And by the way, if the East Bloc would have been around today I would probably support it over the West but whatever)
And yes, this is misrepresenting- as you are talking to me do you hear someone who is hateful of men or anything? (By the way, I'm a Man so it would be kinda weird if you did call me that) I am, I can guarantee you, more representative of feminist thought than some random radical feminist or a feminist taken out of context for the clicks.

You are?
Tell me, which domestic violence model is used, yours? Or the duluth model?

Ah, I see.
Perhaps you can point me to the multittudes of feminists demanding changes to university culture so more men will apply to every course OTHER than STEM, etc, etc.

What context is there for the largest feminist organization in the world supporting women always getting custody if they ask for it not being anti-male?

Perhaps you could outline for me the context behind vilifying men over rape and blaming male attitudes and such, ignoring equivalent numbers of male victims?

You are vastly overestimating the influence of "reasonable" feminists on the institutions feminism is powerful in.

You are waffling about how Stalin isn't a thing and talking to me about a paradise that surely exists beyond the urals.

Actually, the duluth model in which all the focus is on domestic violence against women is more popular because it conforms to the existing gender roles (The man being inherently the violent/abusing party), but feminists such as myself recognize that domestic abuse is split pretty evenly but that the different genders tend to use different "tactics" against their partners such as men more likely to use physical violence and women are more likely to use verbal violence etc.

When it comes to academic studies, men tend to be over-represented in higher-earning professions that are regarded as "masculine" and women are over-represented in lower-earning professions that are regarded as "feminine"- there are different feminist perspectives on that but the one I support is the Socialist model in which the different earnings of the different professions are arbitrary and might be even counter-productive (For example, I think teachers are infinitely more valuable and important compared to businessmen, but the latter earn more and are more "masculine", while teaching is more "feminine").
Helping more men enter "feminine" professions? I'm all for that.

And you are referring to media and social treatment of rapes of women vs. men, like I mentioned- rape culture must be fought against but also the perception that men aren't victims of rape too that deserve acceptance and the support of society. In fact, the reason that the former is much more covered is because..... it better conforms to the existing gender-roles. So if anything, feminism wishes to fight those gender roles.

You assume as if society is feminist thus its' treatment of issues is feminist, and that's not the case. Society is "pop feminist" or "bourgeois feminist"- which aren't really feminist but rather the appropriation of the feminist struggle to bourgeois perception of society and existing gender roles. You are blaming the wrong people here.

[Kibbutz Unions]

Racist is not at all comparable to feminist. This is a red herring. (And by the way, if the East Bloc would have been around today I would probably support it over the West but whatever)
And yes, this is misrepresenting- as you are talking to me do you hear someone who is hateful of men or anything? (By the way, I'm a Man so it would be kinda weird if you did call me that) I am, I can guarantee you, more representative of feminist thought than some random radical feminist or a feminist taken out of context for the clicks.

You are?
Tell me, which domestic violence model is used, yours? Or the duluth model?

Ah, I see.
Perhaps you can point me to the multittudes of feminists demanding changes to university culture so more men will apply to every course OTHER than STEM, etc, etc.

What context is there for the largest feminist organization in the world supporting women always getting custody if they ask for it not being anti-male?

Perhaps you could outline for me the context behind vilifying men over rape and blaming male attitudes and such, ignoring equivalent numbers of male victims?

You are vastly overestimating the influence of "reasonable" feminists on the institutions feminism is powerful in.

You are waffling about how Stalin isn't a thing and talking to me about a paradise that surely exists beyond the urals.

(I have to go.)

By the way, I don't think at all it was a paradise and the quality of life in the west was still higher because of much greater personal freedoms but rather I referred to that it had a better international influence. (Such as supporting popular resistance groups and anti-imperialist movements across the globe instead of the American juntas and military dictatorships).

[Liriena]

You are free to believe what you want. Though I would heavily disagree. Just because you are not in favor of white privilege doesn´t mean you are racist in my book. However from what i´ve seen in this thread, that is exactly what the right wing is trying to do. Ignoring context, assuming false things or simply putting words in peoples mouths. Last but not least for instance also the fact that this campaign had little coverage at all, and because of that the OP made this thread to actually spark exactly that coverage and then go: "See! See! I told ya!"

white privilege isn't a thing anymore.

Except we still see widespread racial bias in law enforcement and the criminal justice system, combined with voter suppression tactics.

See:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/opinion/sunday/unequal-sentences-for-blacks-and-whites.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/03/04/the-12-key-highlights-from-the-dojs-scathing-ferguson-report/
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/30/547065920/under-pressure-north-carolina-draws-new-voting-maps

[Des-Bal]

Except we still see widespread racial bias in law enforcement and the criminal justice system, combined with voter suppression tactics.

See:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/opinion/sunday/unequal-sentences-for-blacks-and-whites.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/03/04/the-12-key-highlights-from-the-dojs-scathing-ferguson-report/
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/30/547065920/under-pressure-north-carolina-draws-new-voting-maps

That widespread racial bias in the justice system is less than the disparity we see between men and women. You can't argue that it's white privilege without acknowledging that it's inferior to female privilege.


Further those "voter suppression tactics" you're referencing are not what you seem to think they are. What they're doing is drawing districts so they're full of black voters, thereby letting black people vote as a block and dictate the results of elections for their districts. The statistical result is more black representatives. This "voter suppression" you're talking about was adored by the NAACP. They fought for it, spent money defending it against pissed off white voters from black neighborhoods in the supreme court. They don't do this to undercut black votes, they're using demographics to isolate likely democratic voters from contested districts.

[Albrenia]

I was thinking, it seems plausible that both sides have some decent points, even if this campaign is just politically-aimed meme stuff. Racism and sexism exist, but are not only afflicted on any one race or gender.

So do you folks agree that it's possible that we don't live in a racist hivemind, but instead a society of individuals, some of whom are misogynists, misandrists or the many flavours of racist which afflict this world? By the same not, we are not all born racist or sexist, nor is racism or sexism a trait of any particular gender or race.

[WhatsamattaU]

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".

In a much smaller and recent time-frame, I have been told that because I'm white that I "don't get it".
I have been told that I'm guilty for the sins of people who shared a similar skin color and that I should be taxed to pay off the descendants of slaves that were brought to the U.S.
I'm sure I'm not alone in saying "fuck that shit!".
When are we going to reach the statutory limit in the U.S. for slavery? All the slave owners are dead.
I don't owe you shit and you don't owe me shit based on the colors of our skins.

[Katzenstaat]

People continue to talk about what does not matter, namely morals.

Might is right.
Darwinism is truth.
Ayn Rand was awesome.

The future belongs to whoever rules. Those are exactly who will deserve to rule.

Neither BLM nor KKK matter.

[Kash Island]

"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".

In a much smaller and recent time-frame, I have been told that because I'm white that I "don't get it".
I have been told that I'm guilty for the sins of people who shared a similar skin color and that I should be taxed to pay off the descendants of slaves that were brought to the U.S.
I'm sure I'm not alone in saying "fuck that shit!".
When are we going to reach the statutory limit in the U.S. for slavery? All the slave owners are dead.
I don't owe you shit and you don't owe me shit based on the colors of our skins.

same scenario, I get told that " I don't get it"

not to mention the ridiculous notion of "cultural appropriation"

I said I believed in more border security and all of a sudden I was being called a white supremacist christian conservative(which is far from what I am on many levels)

not to mention a host of other bull crap. White people are basically not allowed to have an opinion involving other ethnicities/colored people because any small disagreement and your immediatly branded as hitler reincarnate.

also, while there is some serious problems with anti-black bias hate crimes(50% of racial hate crimes were because of anti-black bias, though no mention of who was doing the bias behavior) White people come in second place at 20%(while this number is definatley lower than anti-black bias, it's still very high, at almost a QUARTER(though, as with anti-black bias, this dosn't indicate it's blacks/a specific race being biased towards whites.)

Source FBI Hate Crimes 2016: https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2016/topic-pages/victims

to say there isn't a problem with "anti-white" behavior is ridiculous.

[Tahar Joblis]

There are some feminists who only believe in furthering women's rights, but they are a minority (And not a very liked one). Women's issues aren't more important than men's but rather that their issues are more outreaching, anyway, treating one issue doesn't mean that you have to ignore the other.

Feminists who believe that it is morally right to actively pursue the oppression of men are in the minority.

Feminists who do not care about men's rights are in the majority of the movement.

Feminists who actively object to seeing any attention paid to men's rights are in control of the movement.

And this is where the Men's Rights group comes in- you see, the way of legitimizing men's rights isn't to have some misogynistic people laugh at feminists, misinterpreting them and mocking queers.

Your implicit description of men's rights groups matches feminist rhetoric surrounding men's rights groups and key ideological figures, but not the actual content and behavior of said groups and key ideological leaders.

Warren Farrell is, in the current context, the most notable key ideological figure on hand. This is not just my judgement. He is currently one of only two "notable persons" listed on Wikipedia's men's rights portal. The other "notable person" is/was part of the "mythopoetic" men's movement, which are the New Age / Jungian dream analysis / drum circle types - not men's rights activists by any stretch of the imagination.

Warren Farrell is a polite, highly educated, well-spoken liberal who started off inside the feminist movement. His books have gained most of their exposure thanks to his appearances on Oprah's television show and interviews on NPR. I'm not sure if he still identifies himself as being feminist, but you can see him continue to offer respect to and identify with the feminist movement in many of his older interviews in spite of the hostility directed towards him from within the movement (which began as soon as he started to write about men's issues).

What are the major men's rights groups, such as they are? NCFM doesn't meet that description (that's the oldest "boots on the ground" group with accordingly the most impressive record of activism), nor does AVFM (the most visible single "voice" of the movement), nor does /r/MensRights (which is probably the largest community).

I am all for groups who genuinely want to tackle issues that harm men, and I would recommend you to actually read Feminist books and see that they actually many times address those issues and recognize how men suffer too under the patriarchy. I do agree that Social Justice jargon is very misleading, patriarchy, for those who haven't actually read what it means, might get a false perception that men just kinda sit together in some chambers and conspiring on how to harm women.

There are a wide range of definitions of patriarchy. A few of them involve grand statements about things like dualism. Others are just framing the idea that men systematically oppress women.

We can usefully define patriarchy as a set of social relations between men, which have a material base, and which, though hierarchical, establish or create interdependence and solidarity among men that enable them to dominate women.

Feminists rarely put their backing behind measures to address men's issues, and frequently stir themselves to oppose movement towards gender equality (e.g., in areas related to statutory rape, child custody assignments, domestic violence, parental rights and obligations, the criminal justice system, etc).

In the few cases that feminists have put their backing behind advancing equality for men, it has been quite explicitly done on the basis that it will be helpful to women - e.g., paternal leave, Rostker v. Goldberg, Craig v. Boren, etc.

[Austrasien]

Actually Right-Wing Terrorism in the USA is more widespread than both Left-Wing and Islamic Terrorism (And "Black Lives Matter Terrorism" lol).

Now order them by body count.

[Tahar Joblis]

On the subject of the campaign, I think its success illustrates the degree to which the techniques of literary analysis have come to dominate discourse within the left.

The reaction we see has little to do with the content of the text "it's okay to be white." The reaction is mostly based on subtext - the meaning thought to be implied by the text when placed within its context.

A few people may in fact not think it's okay to be white, and the fact that those people have been permitted to stay in positions of power within left-leaning institutions is a problem that should be fixed, but for the most part, what we're seeing is objections from people who, in another context, would be happy to agree with "it's okay to be white."

Notably, if you placed that statement in a context with other "it's okay to be (RACE)" statements, most of the people objecting to the campaign would happily agree. But the subtext is what they find objectionable.

Subtext can come from several different places. One of those places is the psyche of the reader. What the insistent focus on finding invisible racism and sexism in everything has done is create a situation in which readers oriented towards social justice have been trained to see racist and sexist subtexts in everything that comes from outside the movement.

[Greed and Death]

Didn't apple just fire someone for suggesting 12 white people can be diverse?

[Liriena]

Except we still see widespread racial bias in law enforcement and the criminal justice system, combined with voter suppression tactics.

See:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/opinion/sunday/unequal-sentences-for-blacks-and-whites.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/03/04/the-12-key-highlights-from-the-dojs-scathing-ferguson-report/
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/30/547065920/under-pressure-north-carolina-draws-new-voting-maps

That widespread racial bias in the justice system is less than the disparity we see between men and women. You can't argue that it's white privilege without acknowledging that it's inferior to female privilege.

Further those "voter suppression tactics" you're referencing are not what you seem to think they are. What they're doing is drawing districts so they're full of black voters, thereby letting black people vote as a block and dictate the results of elections for their districts. The statistical result is more black representatives. This "voter suppression" you're talking about was adored by the NAACP. They fought for it, spent money defending it against pissed off white voters from black neighborhoods in the supreme court. They don't do this to undercut black votes, they're using demographics to isolate likely democratic voters from contested districts.

Your first paragraph is an amazing example of purposefully avoiding the actual argument and going on an irrelevant tangent.

[Shofercia]

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 were, hence the "Anglo-Saxon Protestant" part of the designation. Was that not taught in your History class?

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.

Actually, you're failing to address it. Your "but it's 4chan" rebuttal has yet to sway any significant number of people.

Thats BS and you know it. Their plan was to simply troll, they don't really have hate, and they intend to show the BS your promoting.

http://archive.is/klFIy


They are literally using this to just piss you off

How your reacting to this is EXACTLY their intention and is EXACTLY what they want. It's to literally to prove that white people can't start campaigns without being called neo-nazis or white nationalist. You fell for their trap and you know it. Right now they're looking at reactions LIKE YOURS and laughing their balls off.

#PoliticallyIncorrect

Let them laugh. The aim of the political is to fight for the souls of the undecided, I don't intend to appeal to those 4channers. My arguments are made for the frail centrists and Liberals so that they won't be swayed rightwards.

And you're losing. Most of the moderates don't care about 4chan, one way or another. We don't wake up thinking "what did 4chan do?" Yes, a good chunk of them are trolls, so what? Have you ever, even just once, enjoyed Trump being trolled? If so, why can't others enjoy 4chan trolling other people? The rebuttal I'm seeing is basically "but it's 4chan" - so what? We don't agree with 4chan but also, we just don't care. Just because 4chan started it, doesn't mean that it's racist. Most of the people who are against Affirmative Action aren't White Supremacists. Also, calling us frail isn't going to win you points.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Being anti-white is not compatible with being a liberal, which itself is also not remotely compatible with being a "Commie".

It is, because Communism is by definition a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs. It is compatible with LIBERALISM because the Liberals i'm talking about are Socially Liberal. And being anti-white is VERY compatible with being a liberal. If you would like to explain why not, then i welcome your explanation.

No. He was right. Liberalism is, and always has been, a capitalist ideology. From John Locke and Adam Smith to FDR and Barack Obama, the case has always been that if one is a liberal - in whatever context, from whatever source - one is a capitalist. From my perspective, that of the far left, all of y'all are liberals - the GOP, Dems, Conservatives, etc. But liberalism has never incorporated socialism. Socialists are not liberals. This is common knowledge.

[Bakery Hill]

It is, because Communism is by definition a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs. It is compatible with LIBERALISM because the Liberals i'm talking about are Socially Liberal. And being anti-white is VERY compatible with being a liberal. If you would like to explain why not, then i welcome your explanation.

No. He was right. Liberalism is, and always has been, a capitalist ideology. From John Locke and Adam Smith to FDR and Barack Obama, the case has always been that if one is a liberal - in whatever context, from whatever source - one is a capitalist. From my perspective, that of the far left, all of y'all are liberals - the GOP, Dems, Conservatives, etc. But liberalism has never incorporated socialism. Socialists are not liberals. This is common knowledge.

This is true, but they're not like matter and anti-matter. There's liberal ideas in socialism, sometimes regrettably so and socialistic ideas also creep into liberalism. Socialism is also in many ways a fulfillment of the liberal ideas of the French Revolution.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

No. He was right. Liberalism is, and always has been, a capitalist ideology. From John Locke and Adam Smith to FDR and Barack Obama, the case has always been that if one is a liberal - in whatever context, from whatever source - one is a capitalist. From my perspective, that of the far left, all of y'all are liberals - the GOP, Dems, Conservatives, etc. But liberalism has never incorporated socialism. Socialists are not liberals. This is common knowledge.

This is true, but they're not like matter and anti-matter. There's liberal ideas in socialism, sometimes regrettably so and socialistic ideas also creep into liberalism. Socialism is also in many ways a fulfillment of the liberal ideas of the French Revolution.

You can look at it that way, certainly. Political theory is a mire of influence and interpretation. I was just making the point that, in contrast to the modern right-wing narrative, the Clinton political machine is in fact not ideologically equivalent to a Marxist-Leninist vanguard.

[Albrenia]

This is true, but they're not like matter and anti-matter. There's liberal ideas in socialism, sometimes regrettably so and socialistic ideas also creep into liberalism. Socialism is also in many ways a fulfillment of the liberal ideas of the French Revolution.

You can look at it that way, certainly. Political theory is a mire of influence and interpretation. I was just making the point that, in contrast to the modern right-wing narrative, the Clinton political machine is in fact not ideologically equivalent to a Marxist-Leninist vanguard.

I'd hope nobody would actually believe that they were. It seems silly that a lot of people accuse the same people of being 'corporate' and 'elite' whilst also calling them Communist.