My Facebook page has been intentionally blank, with all past content deleted, for almost two years.

I shared The Guardian's version of the article with the caption "If you're not against what is happening at the border, we are not friends, we are not family, and you can go straight to hell."

I trumpet this man's writing over and over, but if you read Alfie Kohn's books on research into human motivation, it turns out that:

• Hierarchy is bad for morale, creativity, and productivity. (I know the anarchists will be shot.)
• People work better when they self-organize and have a lot of autonomy. (Which is really just another way of stating the previous point.)
• Any program that uses competition tends to hurt creativity and teamwork - every second I spend helping you with your work means a higher chance you get the raises and bonuses instead of me.
• External motivators, positive and negative, tend to hurt creativity and interest in the tasks being done. (Kids and adults given money to read books tend to read less over time compared to kids and adults not paid to read.)

One of the things I learned from the Eyes Left podcast is that ICE/BP don't patrol the whole border. They patrol areas where you are unlikely to die trying to cross, as part of a strategy to drive the people to the dangerous errors.

This isn't an accident. This is their fucking strategy working as intended.

I've seen it suggested periodically, it's not clear how much widespread support it has.

Capitalism being what it is, I'm sure the companies selling electronic voting machines have seized upon blockchains as one more excuse to charge more money to governments.

That's awesome. I'm trying to imagine some Christians telling each other about all of the primates, giraffes, lions, rats, and elephants burning in hell for homosexuality.

All of this is on the radar of a lot of my family and friends. Nobody cares. I fear the battle is simply lost.

Thanks for putting that together. Dammit, I liked a lot of other things he said.

Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2030/

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...?

I drive into Philadelphia a few times a year for work. All this time, I've been paying $20 for two hour parking and the lot employees earn fuckall? I shouldn't be surprised, but I am. If you have one person working a lot that holds 50 cars for 8 hours, you could pay that person $100 an hour and still make a hefty profit. Assholes.

Sounds good to me. The sooner, the better.

"""Are fucking kidding me that you're gonna call people as "white" now based on their class?"""

You have my point backwards. I'm saying there is no white race in genetic terms. I'm saying white is a social class that has unfair privileges in European and especially North American society based on light skin appearance. Not that it's right, not that it's desirable, simply that it's what the world is like today. My first comment on this discussion is that there is no genocide or other oppression against people who have light skin.

I'm not saying skin tones make a difference in any genetic, moral, spiritual, etc... terms. I'm saying that in modern American society skin tone should not make a difference in class but does. "White" is my label for the class that has an unfair advantage, and the distinguishing feature of that class is simply lighter skin color - on average.

And these are hugely broad categories. I realize Scandinavians and Italians and Greek generally have different skin tones and other characteristics, and Iroquois and Sioux have different skin tones and other characteristics, and the Aztec and Tupis, and Berber and Zulu, and so forth.

You and I are going around in circles. I think there is some kind of communication disconnect here.

It seems to me like you and I are saying a lot of the same things but still speaking past each other. I completely agree with your statement, "When we identify someone as a race, we simply identify their position in the social hierarchy & the effects that has had, not anything essential about their biology."

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".

And I think the easiest way to identify "whiteness" in the US is broad appearance categories. Someone who looks like their ancestors are from Italy, or Norway, or Wales in the US typically enjoys social, economic, legal, and political advantages in the US compared to people who looks like their ancestors are from elsewhere. Now as you said, with "one drop" rules someone with lighter skin than my own northern European would face different treatment. But if he or she was driving through Minnesota they would probably be as unlikely to be subject to a random search of their vehicle as I am.

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

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.

I'm not asserting they had, have, or should have a unity of purpose, nor that they had, have, or should have any kind of superiority of any kind over other homo sapiens, nor that they have been humane in their treatment of each other or others.

If someone with skin tone like mine says, "I don't see color", they get blasted for being blind to bigoted treatment of people with different skin tones. So now I'm saying, "I see color", I recognize a difference between whites and blacks, and whites and Latinos, and so forth, and I'm looking for ways non-whites are mistreated and trying to do what I can. And now you're screaming at me for using the term white at all.

What alternative term would you have me use in its place to described the privileged - but not necessarily wealthy - class of people in the US?

I think I'm miss-communicating my point. I'm thinking of "white" as the broad term for people with lighter skin color that do not have the eye shape of, for example, the most common occupants of south east Asia.

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'.

Are you suggesting there be no label of any kind for that?

I'm confused by your comment, alex_'s, and Notech's. Don't the central and western European ethnicities constitute some kind of ethnic group? What label should it have, if not white?

I realize Raddle is an anarchist, anti-establishment haven and I'm happy about it. I'm here because I find myself agreeing with ideas presented here more than almost any other discussion site I've found. But this discussion feels silly. I'm trying to say, in effect, "There should be some morally neutral label for people with light skin town and certain racial descent." And the response seems to be, "By even discussing such a label you implicitly support hatred for and genocide against all that don't fit the label."

I don't see that connection.

Not always. Two of my brothers and a sister and I were conservative Christians in our teens and early twenties and we've all become atheists and had our political views shift towards anarchist since. (Well, my sister is more socialist than anarchist. But even though many here might disagree I'll take a tankie over the alt-right any day.)

I think there is a white race. Just no white genocide, no killing spree, etc...

Someone on Twitter put it brilliantly. "The real thing whites in America are afraid of is population growth of other groups until whites are a minority. They know how shitty minorities get treated in America, and they're terrified."

Two of the closest friends my wife and I had through college have shifted into ultra-conservative, religious, "We're not bigoted but we love Trump" people. My wife is still friends with them on Facebook. They're the single biggest reason I'm not on Facebook any more.

How is he shitty overall? His website is pro-LGBTQ+, pro-abortion rights, pro-universal health care, etc... etc...

Again, he categorically rejects the alt-right and white supremacists. Wanting to reduce white suicide and drug overdoses does not automatically make one a white supremacist or anti-immigrant or similar.

In other news, water is wet.

The article seems to attack Yang too, or if it doesn't then it's worded poorly. If you read his website and Twitter feed he's not going to popular with anarchists but I don't see him as any kind of friend to libertarians, American political 'moderates', or the alt-right.

"US incarceration rates are four times higher than other industrialized nations, and it's a disgrace." "The idea of American meritocracy is on ever shakier ground." "In that spirit, I again denounce and disavow hatred, bigotry, racism, white nationalism, anti-Semitism and the alt-right in its many forms. Full stop." "The shooting in New Zealand is a horrific tragedy and reflects the worst form of depravity. Islamophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment are the opposite of what we stand for. My heart goes out to the families and communities affected. Love and humanity first." "Portugal decriminalized opiates in 2001; if you are caught with 10 days or less supply they simply take your drugs away and you are referred to a doctor, counselor and social worker for treatment. http://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalization/ … Both the overdose rates and usage rates dropped." etc... etc...

How would Trump supporters follow this guy?

I don't have anything to add, I just wanted to throw in an "Everything you wrote makes complete sense to me" with more than an upvote.

I didn't come up with this explanation for the situation, though I wish I should have. The problem is probably knowledge. Knowledge how fucked the environment is, how fucked capitalism is, how fucked politics are, etc...

I had an easy time as a teenager first and foremost because I was a cishet white male but secondly and significantly I had the vague idea that bad things happened around the world but that was it. My teenagers know specific details of the state of the world like I couldn't imagine at their age.

This is especially frustrating to me because I like to joke at work. The jokes are silliness and puns, never anything sexual, bigoted, or political.

But if I can do that and still maintain good career prospects and women can't, then I shouldn't be doing it.

If you're not going to read the article and address the points it raises then you're just a troll.