White? Why not pay more?

[Ostroeuropa]

How can you possibly expect white people to trust progressives when they've so badly botched feminism and misandry and such?

Could you keep your vendetta against feminism out of this entirely unrelated thread? Thx.

Strong and persistent criticism is not a vendetta, and the only reason to frame it in those terms is to dismiss or belittle the criticism offered and not engage with it.
Further, it's directly relevant as it's a previous fuck up from this kind of framework being applied. It's the same mechanics, just a different coat. There is no reason to think it won't produce the same bad results.

How can you possibly expect white people to trust progressives when they've so badly botched feminism and misandry and such?

The other side has the Nazis. So yeah, it's not been as bad.

The rise of anti-minority and anti-immigrant sentiment across the west should be a strong indication that there needs to be alternatives for white people and western natives to give voice to their grievances with these kind of things. This kind of stuff isn't working.

[Cekoviu]

Could you keep your vendetta against feminism out of this entirely unrelated thread? Thx.

Strong and persistent criticism is not a vendetta, and the only reason to frame it in those terms is to dismiss or belittle the criticism offered and not engage with it.
Further, it's directly relevant as it's a previous fuck up from this kind of framework being applied.

Eh, I've tried engaging with it multiple times and it's really not that fun, and it really isn't relevant at all to this thread. If you must use one of your favorite topics, do anti-white racism, as that's at least relevant here.

The other side has the Nazis. So yeah, it's not been as bad.

The rise of anti-minority and anti-immigrant sentiment across the west should be a strong indication that there needs to be alternatives for white people and western natives to give voice to their grievances with these kind of things. This kind of stuff isn't working.

Or people are xenophobic, but yeah, it's definitely because the poor disenfranchised whites don't have a voice to speak up.

[Liriena]

Yeah, this thread demonstrated the problem with trying to highlight racial inequality with even voluntary experiments that directly, personally engage white people: white fragility. This experiment was meant to bring attention to what is clearly a serious racial disparity with serious consequences... but instead of that we have to listen to a lot of fellow white people shout in fear of "reverse discrimination".

How can you possibly expect white people to trust progressives when they've so badly botched feminism and misandry and such?

I mean, I don't really "expect" anything out of any demographic in terms of loyalty to a movement. It's our job to make the argument for our worldview to white people and others. Sometimes some of us will muck it up.

[Cekoviu]

How can you possibly expect white people to trust progressives when they've so badly botched feminism and misandry and such?

I mean, I don't really "expect" anything out of any demographic in terms of loyalty to a movement. It's our job to make the argument for our worldview to white people and others. Sometimes some of us will muck it up.

See, that's where you're wrong. Progressives are a monolithic block, and it's definitely the case that nobody likes us because Ostro doesn't, and he's a barometer for the entire world.

[Ostroeuropa]

Strong and persistent criticism is not a vendetta, and the only reason to frame it in those terms is to dismiss or belittle the criticism offered and not engage with it.
Further, it's directly relevant as it's a previous fuck up from this kind of framework being applied.

Eh, I've tried engaging with it multiple times and it's really not that fun, and it really isn't relevant at all to this thread. If you must use one of your favorite topics, do anti-white racism, as that's at least relevant here.

The rise of anti-minority and anti-immigrant sentiment across the west should be a strong indication that there needs to be alternatives for white people and western natives to give voice to their grievances with these kind of things. This kind of stuff isn't working.

Or people are xenophobic, but yeah, it's definitely because the poor disenfranchised whites don't have a voice to speak up.

They're turning to xenophobes because they're the only game in town with a large presence in terms of recruiting, and they distort and malform their grievances and supply them with a twisted lens to view them through. They need new organizations to frame their grievances in constructive ways.
Whites should have a seat at the table, and racism against them should not be tolerated in the name of anti-racism.

Liriena called it "White fragility" because whites are offended by racism against them in this instance. That's because the framework they operate from, the progressive framework, is a system of double standards. it is not "Black fragility" when black people are offended by racist statements and such.
This kind of double standard should be addressed, and can be addressed by being more inclusive of whites and their grievances with progressivism rather than assuming that they have to be white supremacists to want that.

Regardless, the rise of xenophobia is showing that the progressive approach is outright failing. You attribute it to them "Being xenophobes", as though it's something wrong with them intrinsically and there's nothing we can do about it, rather than a result of a system of push and pull factors that we can influence to reduce it's prevalence.

Ignoring that and writing it off as "Just xenophobes" is ignoring that, hey, there's more of them than there were yesterday and the day before, because we've fucked up the push/pull factors and polarized society due to letting progressives run the show.

Christs sake.
Germany has people in parliament who want prussia back. Dozens of them. At what point do you guys admit you don't know how to eliminate racism, and seem to be making it worse?
(Much like you did with sexism.)

[Liriena]

Yeah, this thread demonstrated the problem with trying to highlight racial inequality with even voluntary experiments that directly, personally engage white people: white fragility. This experiment was meant to bring attention to what is clearly a serious racial disparity with serious consequences... but instead of that we have to listen to a lot of fellow white people shout in fear of "reverse discrimination".

Because of course, discrimination is okay so long as you do it to this particular set of people, because those people totally deserve it. Also 'reverse discrimination' isn't discrimination just discrimination no matter who its against?

Amazing how you argue so strongly against an argument I did not make.

[Liriena]

This does serve as a pretty good example of white fragility, though. Any possibility of a deeper conversation about the vast income inequality between races in that area is shut down entirely because the personal offense of being offered the voluntary option of paying more takes precedent.

Yeah, those white people are so fragile. You offer to charge them more because they are supposedly the descendants of people who treated other races poorly and they get all offended. We should replace all white people with Asians or something, or at least keep white people as slaves.

In all seriousness

No need for that clarification. That rant was blatantly ridiculous because it had nothing whatsoever to do with the actual argument being made in favour of this experiment.

its not like this money was even going to a charity for low income households (of any color, I hope) it was going to an upper-class-catering business.

Indeed. That's my primary criticism of this.

[Fartsniffage]

Eh, I've tried engaging with it multiple times and it's really not that fun, and it really isn't relevant at all to this thread. If you must use one of your favorite topics, do anti-white racism, as that's at least relevant here.

Or people are xenophobic, but yeah, it's definitely because the poor disenfranchised whites don't have a voice to speak up.

They're turning to xenophobes because they're the only game in town with a large presence in terms of recruiting, and they distort and malform their grievances and supply them with a twisted lens to view them through. They need new organizations to frame their grievances in constructive ways.
Whites should have a seat at the table, and racism against them should not be tolerated in the name of anti-racism.

Liriena called it "White fragility" because whites are offended by racism against them in this instance. That's because the framework they operate from, the progressive framework, is a system of double standards. it is not "Black fragility" when black people are offended by racist statements and such.
This kind of double standard should be addressed, and can be addressed by being more inclusive of whites and their grievances with progressivism rather than assuming that they have to be white supremacists to want that.

Regardless, the rise of xenophobia is showing that the progressive approach is outright failing. You attribute it to them "Being xenophobes", as though it's something wrong with them intrinsically and there's nothing we can do about it, rather than a result of a system of push and pull factors that we can influence to reduce it's prevalence.

Ignoring that and writing it off as "Just xenophobes" is ignoring that, hey, there's more of them than there were yesterday and the day before, because we've fucked up the push/pull factors and polarized society due to letting progressives run the show.

White people don't have a place at the table. We are the fucking table.

We choose who gets to have a voice and how big the voice is.

[Ostroeuropa]

I mean, I don't really "expect" anything out of any demographic in terms of loyalty to a movement. It's our job to make the argument for our worldview to white people and others. Sometimes some of us will muck it up.

See, that's where you're wrong. Progressives are a monolithic block, and it's definitely the case that nobody likes us because Ostro doesn't, and he's a barometer for the entire world.

*chuckles*
You should go over my predictions over my years on the forum. I'm good at this shit.
And besides, it's not the entire world. It's a growing trend, and we need to fix it.

[Bombadil]

its not like this money was even going to a charity for low income households (of any color, I hope) it was going to an upper-class-catering business.

Indeed. That's my primary criticism of this.

Wait.. what upper class catering business, the Nigerian food shack?

[Cekoviu]

See, that's where you're wrong. Progressives are a monolithic block, and it's definitely the case that nobody likes us because Ostro doesn't, and he's a barometer for the entire world.

*chuckles*
You should go over my predictions over my years on the forum. I'm good at this shit.
And besides, it's not the entire world. It's a growing trend, and we need to fix it.

The moon will be visible tonight assuming there are no clouds in the sky.

[Ostroeuropa]

They're turning to xenophobes because they're the only game in town with a large presence in terms of recruiting, and they distort and malform their grievances and supply them with a twisted lens to view them through. They need new organizations to frame their grievances in constructive ways.
Whites should have a seat at the table, and racism against them should not be tolerated in the name of anti-racism.

Liriena called it "White fragility" because whites are offended by racism against them in this instance. That's because the framework they operate from, the progressive framework, is a system of double standards. it is not "Black fragility" when black people are offended by racist statements and such.
This kind of double standard should be addressed, and can be addressed by being more inclusive of whites and their grievances with progressivism rather than assuming that they have to be white supremacists to want that.

Regardless, the rise of xenophobia is showing that the progressive approach is outright failing. You attribute it to them "Being xenophobes", as though it's something wrong with them intrinsically and there's nothing we can do about it, rather than a result of a system of push and pull factors that we can influence to reduce it's prevalence.

Ignoring that and writing it off as "Just xenophobes" is ignoring that, hey, there's more of them than there were yesterday and the day before, because we've fucked up the push/pull factors and polarized society due to letting progressives run the show.

White people don't have a place at the table. We are the fucking table.

We choose who gets to have a voice and how big the voice is.

In terms of dealing with racism against whites we don't, because it's just denied to be a thing worth doing anything about.
Much like the MRM brought to light reams and reams of evidence of sexism against men when it got going, despite prior claims there wasn't any, I'm highly suspicious that the lack of organizations dedicated to fighting anti-white racism is effecting the amount of awareness of issues.

If we let whites organize and discuss racism against themselves, even if there was less of it, that would be productive, because it would amount to awareness raising that they don't actually have that many problems.

Instead, we scream and shout and shut it down and say there isn't any, and leave the only people talking about it the far-right.

[Liriena]

They're turning to xenophobes because they're the only game in town with a large presence in terms of recruiting, and they distort and malform their grievances and supply them with a twisted lens to view them through. They need new organizations to frame their grievances in constructive ways.
Whites should have a seat at the table, and racism against them should not be tolerated in the name of anti-racism.

Liriena called it "White fragility" because whites are offended by racism against them in this instance. That's because the framework they operate from, the progressive framework, is a system of double standards. it is not "Black fragility" when black people are offended by racist statements and such.
This kind of double standard should be addressed, and can be addressed by being more inclusive of whites and their grievances with progressivism rather than assuming that they have to be white supremacists to want that.

Regardless, the rise of xenophobia is showing that the progressive approach is outright failing. You attribute it to them "Being xenophobes", as though it's something wrong with them intrinsically and there's nothing we can do about it, rather than a result of a system of push and pull factors that we can influence to reduce it's prevalence.

Ignoring that and writing it off as "Just xenophobes" is ignoring that, hey, there's more of them than there were yesterday and the day before, because we've fucked up the push/pull factors and polarized society due to letting progressives run the show.

White people don't have a place at the table. We are the fucking table.

We choose who gets to have a voice and how big the voice is.

See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... 4194ae7814

[Reblibre]

Because of course, discrimination is okay so long as you do it to this particular set of people, because those people totally deserve it. Also 'reverse discrimination' isn't discrimination just discrimination no matter who its against?

Amazing how you argue so strongly against an argument I did not make.

ok, sorry, I was Strawmanning you a bit there but let me read what you said back to you with the only difference being the race mentioned:

Yeah, this thread demonstrated the problem with trying to highlight racial inequality with even voluntary experiments that directly, personally engage black people: black fragility. This experiment was meant to bring attention to what is clearly a serious racial disparity with serious consequences... but instead of that we have to listen to a lot of fellow black people shout in fear of "discrimination".

If I said this everyone would be hounding after me and calling me a racist without a doubt, if you can change the race being mentioned and make the thing said racist it means it was racist from the start.

[Liriena]

Indeed. That's my primary criticism of this.

Wait.. what upper class catering business, the Nigerian food shack?

I mean, it ain't a Gordon Ramsay restaurant, but I can't help but feel like a business owner using their prices to raise awareness is kind of peak neoliberal capitalist ineffectiveness. It doesn't really go beyond being a symbolic gesture. Symbolic gestures are good, but they don't go a long way materially in terms of helping against a socioeconomic injustice.

[Liriena]

Amazing how you argue so strongly against an argument I did not make.

ok, sorry, I was Strawmanning you a bit there but let me read what you said back to you with the only difference being the race mentioned:

Yeah, this thread demonstrated the problem with trying to highlight racial inequality with even voluntary experiments that directly, personally engage black people: black fragility. This experiment was meant to bring attention to what is clearly a serious racial disparity with serious consequences... but instead of that we have to listen to a lot of fellow black people shout in fear of "discrimination".

If I said this everyone would be hounding after me and calling me a racist without a doubt, if you can change the race being mentioned and make the thing said racist it means it was racist from the start.

That doesn't make the argument wrong. It makes it uncomfortable, for cultural reasons, when its subject is changed.

[Ostroeuropa]

ok, sorry, I was Strawmanning you a bit there but let me read what you said back to you with the only difference being the race mentioned:

Yeah, this thread demonstrated the problem with trying to highlight racial inequality with even voluntary experiments that directly, personally engage black people: black fragility. This experiment was meant to bring attention to what is clearly a serious racial disparity with serious consequences... but instead of that we have to listen to a lot of fellow black people shout in fear of "discrimination".

If I said this everyone would be hounding after me and calling me a racist without a doubt, if you can change the race being mentioned and make the thing said racist it means it was racist from the start.

That doesn't make the argument wrong. It makes it uncomfortable, for cultural reasons, when its subject is changed.

How do you justify the usage of the term white fragility?
It seems to me to be nothing but a double standard made up to dismiss white people being offended by racist rhetoric, treatment, or statements. The same troublesome dynamic that caused feminism to jump the shark.

[Reblibre]

ok, sorry, I was Strawmanning you a bit there but let me read what you said back to you with the only difference being the race mentioned:

Yeah, this thread demonstrated the problem with trying to highlight racial inequality with even voluntary experiments that directly, personally engage black people: black fragility. This experiment was meant to bring attention to what is clearly a serious racial disparity with serious consequences... but instead of that we have to listen to a lot of fellow black people shout in fear of "discrimination".

If I said this everyone would be hounding after me and calling me a racist without a doubt, if you can change the race being mentioned and make the thing said racist it means it was racist from the start.

That doesn't make the argument wrong. It makes it uncomfortable, for cultural reasons, when its subject is changed.

So when I stereotype the entire black race and make a phrase like 'Black Criminal Mindedness' it's okay because statistically there is a much greater proportion of black criminals to other races? Nah, I think I'm going to stick to treating everyone as an individual, free from pre-judgement because of their race. Unlike you, who says that there is a 'white fragility'-complex that makes it ok to ignore genuine offenses like having it be said that your entire race is rich from dishonest means or that your entire race has a 'fragility'-complex that makes them over-sensitive to racial insults, I mean cold-hard facts.

[Liriena]

That doesn't make the argument wrong. It makes it uncomfortable, for cultural reasons, when its subject is changed.

How do you justify the usage of the term white fragility?
It seems to me to be nothing but a double standard made up to dismiss white people being offended by racist rhetoric, treatment, or statements. The same troublesome dynamic that caused feminism to jump the shark.

I do understand why the term would be inflammatory to some, but I nevertheless use it because it's the best short-hand I can find for the very specific phenomenon I often see of talk about racial discrimination against non-white people becoming an ugly mess of white defensiveness and steaming hot takes that, in my experience, generally reveal an unwillingness to think critically out of personal discomfort.

I guess we could try to find a better term, maybe one more encompassing that could also include under its umbrella stuff like some cis straight people only asking "why is there no straight pride day?" when the issue of LGBT+ pride comes up, or some men only talking about International Men's Day during International Women's Day.

I don't think it really is a double standard, in principle. I think it's more an attempt to give a name to a sort of behavior often seen in certain kinds of social interactions in certain societies.

[Ostroeuropa]

How do you justify the usage of the term white fragility?
It seems to me to be nothing but a double standard made up to dismiss white people being offended by racist rhetoric, treatment, or statements. The same troublesome dynamic that caused feminism to jump the shark.

I do understand why the term would be inflammatory to some, but I nevertheless use it because it's the best short-hand I can find for the very specific phenomenon I often see of talk about racial discrimination against non-white people becoming an ugly mess of white defensiveness and steaming hot takes that, in my experience, generally reveal an unwillingness to think critically out of personal discomfort.

I guess we could try to find a better term, maybe one more encompassing that could also include under its umbrella stuff like some cis straight people only asking "why is there no straight pride day?" when the issue of LGBT+ pride comes up, or some men only talking about International Men's Day during International Women's Day.

I don't think it really is a double standard, in principle. I think it's more an attempt to give a name to a sort of behavior often seen in certain kinds of social interactions in certain societies.

The term isn't the problem. It's the mechanics of it.

It seems, in mechanical terms, indistinguishable from the Male tears meme, which was used to dismiss, erase, mock, and deny the extent of sexism against males.

This is an example of you categorizing racism against whites poorly.
You don't see it, because when it comes up, you think "White fragility" and don't tally it up in your list of examples, reinforcing your overall impression there isn't a problem. It seems to be a way for you to ignore racism against whites and not allow it being pointed out to you to influence your view of how pervasive it is.

Similar in mechanical terms to feminism and its routine reframing of mens issues as misogyny.

It serves no purpose but to erase the problem, and cause adherents of this worldview to not realize they are miscategorizing things.

A hundred instances of anti-white racism, individually dismissed one at a time as "White fragility" by you, and put out of your mind, instead of tallied up and counted.
"It's white fragility because it doesn't exist, look at the pile of anti-white racist things, it's empty. So this one isn't going there either.", repeated ad nauseum, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means you're not counting it properly. Then you circularly use the empty pile to justify the term in the first place.

This is the troublesome and dangerous dynamic progressivism pushes on the issues of misandry and anti-white racism. It affects the way its adherents engage with those issues. It's a cycle of confirmation bias informing their actions.

If something is racially insensitive and offensive to whites, that isn't white fragility.
It's the speaker being racist.

[Bombadil]

How do you justify the usage of the term white fragility?
It seems to me to be nothing but a double standard made up to dismiss white people being offended by racist rhetoric, treatment, or statements. The same troublesome dynamic that caused feminism to jump the shark.

I do understand why the term would be inflammatory to some, but I nevertheless use it because it's the best short-hand I can find for the very specific phenomenon I often see of talk about racial discrimination against non-white people becoming an ugly mess of white defensiveness and steaming hot takes that, in my experience, generally reveal an unwillingness to think critically out of personal discomfort.

I guess we could try to find a better term, maybe one more encompassing that could also include under its umbrella stuff like some cis straight people only asking "why is there no straight pride day?" when the issue of LGBT+ pride comes up, or some men only talking about International Men's Day during International Women's Day.

I don't think it really is a double standard, in principle. I think it's more an attempt to give a name to a sort of behavior often seen in certain kinds of social interactions in certain societies.

It's no worse than condescendingly asking black people to just get over it, it was history.. we're all friends now.

[Reblibre]

That doesn't make the argument wrong. It makes it uncomfortable, for cultural reasons, when its subject is changed.

How do you justify the usage of the term white fragility?
It seems to me to be nothing but a double standard made up to dismiss white people being offended by racist rhetoric, treatment, or statements. The same troublesome dynamic that caused feminism to jump the shark.

To put it in lay man's terms. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy

[Liriena]

This is an example of you categorizing racism against whites poorly.
You don't see it, because when it comes up, you think "White fragility" and don't tally it up in your list of examples, reinforcing your overall impression there isn't a problem. It seems to be a way for you to ignore racism against whites and not allow it being pointed out to you to influence your view of how pervasive it is.

Not really, though. I don't use white fragility as a concept to handwave away, say, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, or that one dickhead who argued white people were somehow "biologically inferior".

[Reblibre]

This is an example of you categorizing racism against whites poorly.
You don't see it, because when it comes up, you think "White fragility" and don't tally it up in your list of examples, reinforcing your overall impression there isn't a problem. It seems to be a way for you to ignore racism against whites and not allow it being pointed out to you to influence your view of how pervasive it is.

Not really, though. I don't use white fragility as a concept to handwave away, say, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, or that one dickhead who argued white people were somehow "biologically inferior".

No one's saying that your Hilter, but that doesn't mean what your saying isn't at least mildly racist.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is an example of you categorizing racism against whites poorly.
You don't see it, because when it comes up, you think "White fragility" and don't tally it up in your list of examples, reinforcing your overall impression there isn't a problem. It seems to be a way for you to ignore racism against whites and not allow it being pointed out to you to influence your view of how pervasive it is.

Not really, though. I don't use white fragility as a concept to handwave away, say, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, or that one dickhead who argued white people were somehow "biologically inferior".

You've used it here on this topic.

There's times it's reasonable mechanically, this isn't one of them.
When there is an outright refusal to engage with a concept of racism against others by whites, rather than complaining about the racist manner it's brought up.

But then the reaction of feminism to the mens rights movement would be "Female fragility." on a ridiculous scale. Notably, we don't feel the need to use that term, because it would be condescending, dismissive, etc. It's far better to point out what's actually going on there.