It's Okay To Be White campaign

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's okay to be White.

[Washington Resistance Army]

(Image)
It's okay to be White.

>posting that big of a failure

[Revolutionary Equestria]

[...] Constructive dialogue is impossible when we can't even agree on the basic definitions of words.

MAW! This is it. I can't tell you how long I've just argued with pseudo-intellectuals over the definition of RACE and ETHNICITY. Words have to be defined and understood for a conservation to go on... But democracy no longer had objective definitions and it can no longer agree upon definitions for whatever discussion.

[Bakery Hill]

Their rationale makes sense, they just use different definitions for racism.

Okay then... I hate the Jews. I just use different definitions for "hate" and "Jews."

Constructive dialogue is impossible when we can't even agree on the basic definitions of words.

They have a more systematic view of racism where it is prejudice + power.

[Proctopeo]

It's a good campaign.
8/10 would make a new save file and do again

[Omakhandia]

Okay then... I hate the Jews. I just use different definitions for "hate" and "Jews."

Constructive dialogue is impossible when we can't even agree on the basic definitions of words.

They have a more systematic view of racism where it is prejudice + power.

From a simple Google search:

"[Racism is] prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Institutional power has nothing to do with it whatsoever. That's a common yet enduring myth. And it only endures because some progressives have literally chosen to unilaterally redefine the word in order to suit their own ends.

That's not how language works.

[Bakery Hill]

MAW! This is it. I can't tell you how long I've just argued with pseudo-intellectuals over the definition of RACE and ETHNICITY. Words have to be defined and understood for a conservation to go on... But democracy no longer had objective definitions and it can no longer agree upon definitions for whatever discussion.

That's a good point, but I would argue that democratic society began its decline when we could no longer agree that grown men obsessing over a cartoon made for small girls was really fucking weird.

[Sovaal]

Their rationale makes sense, they just use different definitions for racism.

Okay then... I hate the Jews. I just use different definitions for "hate" and "Jews."

Constructive dialogue is impossible when we can't even agree on the basic definitions of words.

Someone had posted a great comic on this a while back.

[Proctopeo]

Okay then... I hate the Jews. I just use different definitions for "hate" and "Jews."

Constructive dialogue is impossible when we can't even agree on the basic definitions of words.

They have a more systematic view of racism where it is prejudice + power.

It's a bull view tbh

[Bakery Hill]

They have a more systematic view of racism where it is prejudice + power.

From a simple Google search:

"[Racism is] prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Institutional power has nothing to do with it whatsoever. That's a common yet enduring myth. And it only endures because some progressives have literally chosen to unilaterally redefine the word in order to suit their own ends.

That's not how language works.

Adam spent a lot of effort going around naming everything, we should respect that and keep to his holy definitions.

[Revolutionary Equestria]

That's a good point, but I would argue that democratic society began its decline when we could no longer agree that grown men obsessing over a cartoon made for small girls was really fucking weird.

I'm a fourteen year old girl you dick -.-

[Farnhamia]

That's a good point, but I would argue that democratic society began its decline when we could no longer agree that grown men obsessing over a cartoon made for small girls was really fucking weird.

I'm a fourteen year old girl you dick -.-

You're also unofficially warned for flaming, too. We have Rules here, read them and follow them.

[Bakery Hill]

That's a good point, but I would argue that democratic society began its decline when we could no longer agree that grown men obsessing over a cartoon made for small girls was really fucking weird.

I'm a fourteen year old girl you dick -.-

Then you'd agree with me right?

And yes, I mean you probably should have grown out of it by now, but I apologise unreservedly to my Aryan pegasister.

[Imperializt Russia]

The goal is to expose the media’s anti-white bias through their reaction to a harmless flyer. It is working. Stick to the plan. There is no phase 2. Anyone who suggests change is a shill.

It's almost as though there is an ulterior motive in promoting a white nationalist narrative in the most innocuous way possible in order to try and discredit "the left" by making them look like they're overreacting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

[Proctopeo]

The goal is to expose the media’s anti-white bias through their reaction to a harmless flyer. It is working. Stick to the plan. There is no phase 2. Anyone who suggests change is a shill.

It's almost as though there is an ulterior motive in promoting a white nationalist narrative in the most innocuous way possible in order to try and discredit (((the left))) by making them look like they're overreacting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

That doesn't exactly make sense when people are overreacting to the campaign, and no small part of the people overreacting are leftist to some degree.
Sounds like you're wearing one of these bad boys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat

[Omakhandia]

From a simple Google search:

"[Racism is] prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Institutional power has nothing to do with it whatsoever. That's a common yet enduring myth. And it only endures because some progressives have literally chosen to unilaterally redefine the word in order to suit their own ends.

That's not how language works.

Adam spent a lot of effort going around naming everything, we should respect that and keep to his holy definitions.

I'm not sure what to make of this comment, but I will assume that the intended implication is that language evolves (and also possibly that I am a Bible-thumping conservative).

Yes, language evolves. But there's no reason for it to do so in this case. "Institutionalized discrimination" is a perfectly fine substitute for the progressive definition of "racism." And I would completely agree to the claim that white people do not experience this type of race-based discrimination, at least not nearly on the level that black people do. There is no reason to narrow down the definition of racism when a perfectly suitable definition already exists.

And there are many other types of racism aside from institutionalized discrimination. Leaving those out of the definition of "racism" not only ignores real discrimination aimed at white people, but it also ignores other types of discrimination directed at blacks, Hispanics, and Asians.

[Valgora]

MAW! This is it. I can't tell you how long I've just argued with pseudo-intellectuals over the definition of RACE and ETHNICITY. Words have to be defined and understood for a conservation to go on... But democracy no longer had objective definitions and it can no longer agree upon definitions for whatever discussion.

That's a good point, but I would argue that democratic society began its decline when we could no longer agree that grown men obsessing over a cartoon made for small girls was really fucking weird.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's almost as though there is an ulterior motive in promoting a white nationalist narrative in the most innocuous way possible in order to try and discredit (((the left))) by making them look like they're overreacting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

That doesn't exactly make sense when people are overreacting to the campaign, and no small part of the people overreacting are leftist to some degree.
Sounds like you're wearing one of these bad boys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat

The reaction to the campaign is largely going to be along the lines of "the underlying message is pro-white nationalism"

The counter-reaction is clearly intended to be "how silly, look how they're reacting at people saying 'it's okay to be white', we're obeying all forms of flyer campaign etiquette, this is totally grassroots".

In such a manner intended to make the "normies" go "fucking leftists, what don't they think is ridiculous lelelel" and inadvertently, be open to supporting white nationalist views or agendas, or supporting the existence of their platforms.
It's not "tinfoil hatting" when it's an established practice in politics that's been widely used over the decades, and even been used by the alt-right. They've done it with trying to push "the OK sign is a hate symbol (because it spells "WP for white power")", leading the SPLC to label it a hate sign because it was clearly a narrative being pushed by white nationalists, and they get to sit back and go "silly leftists, it's the fucking OK sign".

[Italios]

It's almost as though there is an ulterior motive in promoting a white nationalist narrative in the most innocuous way possible in order to try and discredit (((the left))) by making them look like they're overreacting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

That doesn't exactly make sense when people are overreacting to the campaign, and no small part of the people overreacting are leftist to some degree.
Sounds like you're wearing one of these bad boys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat

Sorry but it's pretty blatant dogwhistling (ironic, eh?). Good luck to everyone trying to explain that it's really just what it looks like and it really is as simple as tolerance towards skin colour.

[Farnhamia]

The goal is to expose the media’s anti-white bias through their reaction to a harmless flyer. It is working. Stick to the plan. There is no phase 2. Anyone who suggests change is a shill.

It's almost as though there is an ulterior motive in promoting a white nationalist narrative in the most innocuous way possible in order to try and discredit (((the left))) by making them look like they're overreacting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

Triple parens are trolling. Do not use them, in any context.

[Sanctissima]

Okay then... I hate the Jews. I just use different definitions for "hate" and "Jews."

Constructive dialogue is impossible when we can't even agree on the basic definitions of words.

They have a more systematic view of racism where it is prejudice + power.

Which is complete and utter nonsense.

By that logic it's not racist for a white person to hate black people if they live pretty much anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa.

It's just stupid worldplay that's designed to dodge the question of whether or not certain people are truly the knights in shining socially just armour that they claim to be.

[Cannot think of a name]

From the original post:

"We are giving the left all the rope they want and they are racing to hang themselves. The goal is to expose the media’s anti-white bias through their reaction to a harmless flyer. It is working."

A campaign like "Black lives matter" is a positive campaign. However misguided you may think the principle is, the intention is to improve the lot of a portion of society.

This campaign is a negative campaign. It's stated goal is to make a fool of the left. So this campaign sucks.

It's easy to make a positive campaign. For example, in the UK, working class white males fall behind their peers in education. This is a genuine issue that impacts the future prospects of these children. Positive action needs to be taken to address this issue. That's something worth campaigning about, not some BS designed to make the left look stupid.

I agree positive campaigning on those issues is important, and i'd prefer to see it, and have it work.
However, those campaigns are often opposed by the left for noting disadvantages males and whites face. That is why campaigns like this are aimed at "The Left."
(Said as a syndicalist.)

Gandhism is based on a similar concept.
Provoking the enemy into revealing their barbarism to alienate moderate support.
Is Gandhism "Negative"?

Gandhi? You just invoked motherfucking Gandhi...

That is some premium high octane delusion right there. Distill that shit and sell it to the kids like a villain in a hacky superhero story.

[Proctopeo]

That doesn't exactly make sense when people are overreacting to the campaign, and no small part of the people overreacting are leftist to some degree.
Sounds like you're wearing one of these bad boys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat

The reaction to the campaign is largely going to be along the lines of "the underlying message is pro-white nationalism"

And those who react that way are idiots, plain and simple.

The counter-reaction is clearly intended to be "how silly, look how they're reacting at people saying 'it's okay to be white', we're obeying all forms of flyer campaign etiquette, this is totally grassroots".

Close, but not quite.

In such a manner intended to make the "normies" go "fucking leftists, what don't they think is ridiculous lelelel"

Maybe. Probably.

and inadvertently, be open to supporting white nationalist views or agendas, or supporting the existence of their platforms.

Now you've entered conspiracy theory territory.

It's not "tinfoil hatting" when it's an established practice in politics that's been widely used over the decades, and even been used by the alt-right.

It's dog-whistling, to an extent, sure, but that doesn't change that you're tinfoiling.

They've done it with trying to push "the OK sign is a hate symbol (because it spells "WP for white power")", leading the SPLC to label it a hate sign because it was clearly a narrative being pushed by white nationalists, and they get to sit back and go "silly leftists, it's the fucking OK sign".

That's a different situation; the OK hand sign was to fake a hate symbol to see if the Anti-Defamation League and similar groups were gullible enough.
This situation is to use a completely legitimate and clean statement to see who's gonna overreact.
The former was to test gullibility while this is to test racism.

[Cannot think of a name]

The reaction to the campaign is largely going to be along the lines of "the underlying message is pro-white nationalism"

And those who react that way are idiots, plain and simple.

The counter-reaction is clearly intended to be "how silly, look how they're reacting at people saying 'it's okay to be white', we're obeying all forms of flyer campaign etiquette, this is totally grassroots".

Close, but not quite.

In such a manner intended to make the "normies" go "fucking leftists, what don't they think is ridiculous lelelel"

Maybe. Probably.

and inadvertently, be open to supporting white nationalist views or agendas, or supporting the existence of their platforms.

Now you've entered conspiracy theory territory.

It's not "tinfoil hatting" when it's an established practice in politics that's been widely used over the decades, and even been used by the alt-right.

It's dog-whistling, to an extent, sure, but that doesn't change that you're tinfoiling.

They've done it with trying to push "the OK sign is a hate symbol (because it spells "WP for white power")", leading the SPLC to label it a hate sign because it was clearly a narrative being pushed by white nationalists, and they get to sit back and go "silly leftists, it's the fucking OK sign".

That's a different situation; the OK hand sign was to fake a hate symbol to see if the Anti-Defamation League and similar groups were gullible enough.
This situation is to use a completely legitimate and clean statement to see who's gonna overreact.
The former was to test gullibility while this is to test racism.

“Test racism”...

You cats get so proud of yourselves...

[Imperializt Russia]

They have a more systematic view of racism where it is prejudice + power.

Which is complete and utter nonsense.

By that logic it's not racist for a white person to hate black people if they live pretty much anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa.

It's just stupid worldplay that's designed to dodge the question of whether or not certain people are truly the knights in shining socially just armour that they claim to be.

If you have no power, your prejudice isn't able to do anything.

We have the "dictionary definition" of racism, that is a generalised understanding for trying to teach a layperson what a word is.
Then we have a substantive, contextual definition of racism that actually means something, to describe a phenomenon. This is, power and prejudice.

Yes, a white person in a majority non-white country where a majority of the institutions are controlled and run by non-white people obviously can "be racist", much as blacks in white-majority countries can "be racist". But these are movements that are minorities within minorities, they have no control and limited influence. They cannot capitalise on their views. The majority can.

(fyi, majority also has two meanings - numerical majority and social majority - who controls the power and influence in society)