Recent comments in /f/Whiteness

earfuck70 wrote (edited )

This is some old gen insane level shit. Like some demented hysteria of hemorrhaged ignorance imploding as fanaticism.

I wonder what would become of such a people in any life. To use fear as a tactic instead of friendliness to defeat one's enemies, sucks away the savory juices of life doesn't it?

Lolz, she tried to "scare" POC. Does she have any idea what she is dealing with?

The real danger is that everything she does will backfire and that POC are going to have to defend these crazies from themselves... how pathetic.

-3

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

Thanks for engaging me, I appreciate it.

Thanks also for explaining where I was crossing concepts. That makes sense. I haven't finished mulling this over, but I think you make a solid case - there should be two completely separate labels for (very loosely) "light skinned people", which is a morally neutral characterization vs (again, loosely) "the class of people who enjoy all kinds of privilege on the basis of light skin", which is immoral. I was mixing the two categories and that's abominable. I'll try to be clearer in the future.

Does that head in the right direction?

So I'll try to rephrase my original point. There is no genocide against the category I labeled light skinned people. Is that a safe assertion, having no connection to white superiority, etc...?

3

celebratedrecluse wrote (edited )

Nearly all right-wing extremists have something in common: They’re men.

Wow, this piece turned me off from line 1. Very impressive lol

Immediate counterpoints: http://dailyutahchronicle.com/2017/03/09/women-alt-right/ https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544134546/the-women-behind-the-alt-right https://harpers.org/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-valkyries/ and that's just top results on search engines. It's reaaaally outdated to refer to all the alt right guys and men only. It's definitely a major thread in their movements, toxic masculinity. but ignoring the role of women and invisibilizing it, ironically, is more than a bit misogynist. Historically, there have been women who have supported right wing, classist, white-identity and other terrible movements (duh), and there are a lot of women who like to play one of the "good women" to these asshole misogynists. This is all part of the process of reactionary bullshit. There's even trans women who work with the alt-right. WOMEN CAN BE RACIST POS TOO :^( i thought we all figured this out a year or two ago...

I don’t think it’s particularly effective as a way to get guys out. Nazi punching is expressive but not instrumental. It’s expressive of your own frustration and anger and rage at these guys, their ideas, their visibility and newfound legitimacy in this administration.

OK, the point is not to convince them to join liberal society like this author wants, and certainly not to join our revolutionary activity. The point is to stop them organizing, and to make them choose not to invade public space. This guy is basically trying to say "Let's do Keynesian econ 101 for these guys and then they'll be good", when in reality, fuck these guys. This is war, and we need to demobilize them, not fucking convince them to join us. In fact, reabsorbing them into dominant society will only make dominant society fucking worse, more entrenched and oppressive. Ironically, the atttitude of being so concerned with alt-right men and which side they choose is reactionary/misogynist itself. We should be more concerned with producing a revolutionary movement which can 1) mobilize our side to achieve our goals and 2) demobilize our opponents. But liberals like this author, they cannot see their way past the existing society at all. So they are doomed to ignore revolutionaries and focus entirely on converting the worst people in society to join them, which is why liberalism will destroy itself if left to deal with fascism by its own devices.

This article didn't really offer too much that was new ideas, quite short as well. This might have been a passable article in December 2016, or before Charleston attack at least, but it was published like two years into Trump administration...galaxy level brain right here

edit: grammar

4

selver wrote

That does not seem to be the argument you were making before. You said ""there should be some morally neutral label for people with light skin town and certain racial descent." That's not really the same argument as explaining whiteness via social hierarchy. If the only reason that categorization is useful is in relation to social hierarchy, then it's not morally neutral.

If I came off a bit aggressive I apologize, General_Fuckhead put me on edge with his race science. I think some of the comments you're getting are overly harsh & unwarranted.

6

amongstclouds wrote

I'm not speaking of 'race' as in 'possessing of measurable differences in IQ, EQ, sex drive, sexual orientation, or any other quantifiable metric from other homo sapiens save strictly skin tone and eye shape'.

What is your point?

You're missing my point. I'm strictly asserting that people of European descent tend to have lighter skin tones and more similar eye shape compared to other homo sapiens from other parts of the world.

Because, uhhhhhhhh.

4

Mango wrote

When I label someone as "white", all I mean is "their position in the social hierarchy & the effects that has had, not anything essential about their biology".

Yet the existence of whiteness and phrenology is all about trying very hard to prove that "white race" is superior. You are doing the service by using this argument, Edmund the Fascist.

I'm not trying to make any genetic distinction of any kind, just find a label for the appearance category that has unfair privileges.

Your last dozen or so posts were just asserting that the 'white race' is genetically exist. Shut the fuck up fascist.

1