ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

rojimboo wrote:

I've decided upon certain criteria that I will use to decide whether I will converse with someone.

Ability to perform simple arithmetic maths on a calculator is my new requirement.

You fail Xav, yet are still convinced you are right.

Not much more to say.

Ta ta.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Regarding the assertion that "most Americans of being aware and tolerant of racism against white people", sorry that is false. During my career as a manager for a large software engineering firm, I saw plenty examples of discrimination against non-whites and women. This was a company that had very strict rules against such discrimination and the company took those rules very seriously. Yet real discrimination still existed there. I never saw any discrimination against white males there. Just to be clear, I'm a white male and this idea of widespread racism and sexism against white males is silly.

Turtledove, I don't know exactly how old you are, but I know it's roughly retirement age. What I'm talking about is a relatively new development — more than 20 years ago it existed almost solely in the minds of activist professors, and it didn't really pick up steam until about 2010 or so. But by now, thanks to media hysteria beginning in 2016, it's completely status quo.

I cited evidence. Here it is again:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Just a little light reading: Axios, Bustle, CNN, The Denver Post, The New York Times, Politico, RealClear Politics, Slate, The Washington Examiner, and The Washington Post.

Every one of these ten recent articles, from media outlets big and small, is either reporting on bigotry against white males in a tolerant manner, or is bigotry against white males. You can detect this easily by applying a simple anti-bias filter: replace all instances of "white" with "person of color," "male" with "female," etc, and vice versa.

I don't believe for a second you would read a NYT headline that read "Should a black woman be the face of the Republican Party in 2024?" with interviews where people expressed their hesitation regarding such an outcome, and not think to yourself that the article was covering racist and sexist attitudes.

Get with the times, Grandpa. You're living in the past.

I totally agree that we've had the opposite problem, and worse, in the past. In a way we still do: as the Unite the Right rallies unfortunately showed, the rise of anti-white racism does not mean the death of pro-white racism. Each have their own centers of influence. But overall, we pushed the pendulum past the equilibrium point. I don't even regret that — we should have moved the pendulum from where it was and in the direction we did, and I'm not perfectionist about progress. But since then we have been willfully ignorant or tolerant of the new problem, and that is not okay.

"

Turtledove wrote:

All things being equal in the last election I had tendency to vote for the minority or the female on the ballot.

"

Turtledove wrote:

The Democratic party will have great success against the Republicans, as long as the Republicans are the party for old white men (like me, 67 BTW) and the Democrats are the party for the young, for women and for minorities.

"

Turtledove wrote:

This reverse racism and sexist thing that you folks have going on will likely really help the Democrats.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

All things being equal in the last election I had tendency to vote for the minority or the female on the ballot.

So racist and sexist motivations aren't your primary considerations, they're low-priority tiebreakers for you. Well, at least that isn't very racist nor very sexist. My appreciation for your candor outweighs my disappointment.

"

Turtledove wrote:

The Democratic party will have great success against the Republicans, as long as the Republicans are the party for old white men (like me, 67 BTW) and the Democrats are the party for the young, for women and for minorities.

No party should be any more nor less for ethnic minorities than for white people. That makes political parties racist. "In this election, blacks and women won, and old white guys lost." Or vice versa. Neither is okay.

Additionally, the least racist party — technically, the one perceived as least racist, but ideally perception matches reality — has an advantage in a two-party system. Let's say one party is (perceived as) racist against black people and the other party isn't (perceived as) significantly racist against anyone (just some minor accidental stuff, because no one is perfect). If there's any blacks who are racist against non-black people, it's not rocket science who they're going to vote for, even if the second party doesn't cater to them even a tiny bit. (If you truly understand this you'll understand why the left is putting out anti-Semitic dog whistles, then backpedaling when they get too much heat for it.)

"

Turtledove wrote:

This reverse racism and sexist thing that you folks have going on will likely really help the Democrats.

I acknowledge that risk, and probably understand it a lot better than you do.

I know that the fringe right engages in pro-white racism and uses an anti-Semitic persecution narrative to justify that racism. By pointing to institutional racism and sexism against white males, I understand that I'm partially agreeing with them on the problem (although definitely not the anti-Semitic half). I don't like publicly agreeing with them on anything, because I don't like confirming their narrative, even partially.

My most important point of disagreement with them is on the solution. They believe the answer to racism against whites is racism against non-whites. I don't think racism and reverse racism work that way, like matter and antimatter where one cleanly cancels out the other. (Even in physics that's a myth; the energy created is enormous and disastrous.) Instead you get racism against X here, and racism against Y there. It's like saying the solution to seeing guys in a different uniform is to shoot them; it might be an okay method for war, but it's a shitty method for peace.

And I like peace. A lot.

All of this is why I'm trying my level best to not exaggerate the situation. That's why I say that I don't think there's a lot of zealous anti-white racists, but instead a small minority of the left. It is institutional, though; this is because a great many don't agree but tolerate them, and a great many more — like you — partially agree but put it further down your priority list. Nor is any of this anti-white racism particularly severe at the moment. My main worry is that it has the ear of the corporatist media and, so far, is broadly tolerated. I'd rather fight it while it's small, but as it is now no one wants to fight it — indeed, they want to defend it, because they've bought into the persecution narrative. And it's not difficult to fall for — it's more misleading truths than straight-up lies (although it does have plenty of the latter).

But I digress. My point is that I worry, and worry hard, that talking about things this way will encourage pro-white racism more than it encourages anti-racism. I don't want white people or men to think of themselves as victims in a system rigged against them. That's loser mentality, even if the system IS rigged against you. Don't be a victim, be a winner, goddamn it! Racism is for cowards; it's the defeatism of those who believe they can only win if they cheat as they believe their enemies cheat.

But I fear someone will read my words and decide to cheat anyway. It only takes a handful of cowards to lose a fight, as you predict. Hopefully more will choose a better path.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Nice post.

I seem to have the same long range hopes.

"

Turtledove wrote:

In the meantime, here's the current tally.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

All things being equal in the last election I had tendency to vote for the minority or the female on the ballot.

So racist and sexist motivations aren't your primary considerations, they're low-priority tiebreakers for you. Well, at least that isn't very racist nor very sexist. My appreciation for your candor outweighs my disappointment.

"

Turtledove wrote:

The Democratic party will have great success against the Republicans, as long as the Republicans are the party for old white men (like me, 67 BTW) and the Democrats are the party for the young, for women and for minorities.

No party should be any more nor less for ethnic minorities than for white people. That makes political parties racist. "In this election, blacks and women won, and old white guys lost." Or vice versa. Neither is okay.

Additionally, the least racist party — technically, the one perceived as least racist, but ideally perception matches reality — has an advantage in a two-party system. Let's say one party is (perceived as) racist against black people and the other party isn't (perceived as) significantly racist against anyone (just some minor accidental stuff, because no one is perfect). If there's any blacks who are racist against non-black people, it's not rocket science who they're going to vote for, even if the second party doesn't cater to them even a tiny bit. (If you truly understand this you'll understand why the left is putting out anti-Semitic dog whistles, then backpedaling when they get too much heat for it.)

"

Turtledove wrote:

This reverse racism and sexist thing that you folks have going on will likely really help the Democrats.

I acknowledge that risk, and probably understand it a lot better than you do.

I know that the fringe right engages in pro-white racism and uses an anti-Semitic persecution narrative to justify that racism. By pointing to institutional racism and sexism against white males, I understand that I'm partially agreeing with them on the problem (although definitely not the anti-Semitic half). I don't like publicly agreeing with them on anything, because I don't like confirming their narrative, even partially.

My most important point of disagreement with them is on the solution. They believe the answer to racism against whites is racism against non-whites. I don't think racism and reverse racism work that way, like matter and antimatter where one cleanly cancels out the other. (Even in physics that's a myth; the energy created is enormous and disastrous.) Instead you get racism against X here, and racism against Y there. It's like saying the solution to seeing guys in a different uniform is to shoot them; it might be an okay method for war, but it's a shitty method for peace.

And I like peace. A lot.

All of this is why I'm trying my level best to not exaggerate the situation. That's why I say that I don't think there's a lot of zealous anti-white racists, but instead a small minority of the left. It is institutional, though; this is because a great many don't agree but tolerate them, and a great many more — like you — partially agree but put it further down your priority list. Nor is any of this anti-white racism particularly severe at the moment. My main worry is that it has the ear of the corporatist media and, so far, is broadly tolerated. I'd rather fight it while it's small, but as it is now no one wants to fight it — indeed, they want to defend it, because they've bought into the persecution narrative. And it's not difficult to fall for — it's more misleading truths than straight-up lies (although it does have plenty of the latter).

But I digress. My point is that I worry, and worry hard, that talking about things this way will encourage pro-white racism more than it encourages anti-racism. I don't want white people or men to think of themselves as victims in a system rigged against them. That's loser mentality, even if the system IS rigged against you. Don't be a victim, be a winner, goddamn it! Racism is for cowards; it's the defeatism of those who believe they can only win if they cheat as they believe their enemies cheat.

But I fear someone will read my words and decide to cheat anyway. It only takes a handful of cowards to lose a fight, as you predict. Hopefully more will choose a better path.

Nice post.

I seem to have the same long range hopes. In the meantime, here's the current tally.

U.S. Senate
25 women total 17 Democrat women and only 8 Republican women, 25% of 100 seats are women

U.S. House
102 women total 89 Democrat and a pitifully low only 13 Republican women, 23.4% of 435 seats are women

https://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/current-numbers

Racial diversity

The contrast is even greater for racial diversity. Democrats have nearly six times more minority members than the Republicans.


African-American 48 Democrats and 3 Republicans

Hispanic/Latino 30 Democrats and 13 Republicans

Asian/Indian/Pacific Islander 16 Democrats and 0 Republicans

Total 94 Democrats and 16 Republicans are minorities

Diversity in Congress: Democrats have women and minorities, Republicans have white men over 55?

So right now, Republicans in congress are the party of over 55 white male and Democrats are the party of the young, women, and minorities. (The young and old thing I just threw that in as a bonus bit of a troll.)

"

faerwin wrote:

Why would these minorities want to be republican? I honestly do not believe they are purposely discarded because they are minorities but rather that because their value do not match republican value (kind of hard to want to go on a side that want to shit on you compared to going to a side that wants to empower you).