Right? I was half joking with my insults towards him but I actually didn't go far enough. He nagged me to answer his questions and I answer them. He tells me I didn't and changed his question completely, ignores half of my answers and then ignores my question while pretending like he didn't do anything wrong. I'd be mad if it wasn't funny.

A ballpark figure? Of how many black people were confronted with negative consequences due to their skin colour over the last 450 years? And how many women suffered from sexism? You give me a ballpark figure, I won't talk to you anymore until you do. I want you to appreciate at least a little how stupid your questions were rather than trying to put on a show.

You misrepresented both my arguments and the arguments used against me. You never fail to meet the expectations I've got for you fdrake. I wouldn't dare deny that slavery and racism have ripple effects that are hugely responsible for the wealth gap today. Nor would I deny that there is contemporary systemic racism in many large institutions both public and private which sustain or increase the gap. Nor did I ever utter such nonsense.

I never said economic redistribution alone would solve the problem of systemic racism. I replied to Benkei's post about how economic redistribution for the purpose of repairing damage whites have caused blacks. You can read his thread and make what you want of it. Another piece of work giving me grief.

That wasn't your question you utter moron. You asked:

What number of white males have been confronted with negative consequences as a result from the colour of their skin or being a man in the past 450 years in the USA? — Benkei

Look at what you just said now.

You don't know whether in the past 450 years many white people were enslaved or not based on the colour of their skin? — Benkei

You went from what number of white males have been confronted with negative consequences to whether or not they were enslaved. You want me to respect your intelligence? You are out of your mind. You're a real piece of work.

I'm of the opinion that how things are articulated matters as does the reason for doing it. I'm not interested in the colour of the people that are being impacted by economic redistribution because I don't care what your skin colour is.

Yes, it would, what's your point?

I didn't word that as well as I could have, what I mean is that the emphasis on recording inequality by race is optional. There are wealthy cities and poor cities, poor parts of town and wealthy parts and there's a reason behind the wealth and the poverty and the history of racism has a large role in it, that cannot be denied.

As someone who hates to see poverty, particularly as widespread and unaddressed as it is in the states, it's a really sad state of affairs. I want this issue of poverty to be addressed in a humanitarian way that doesn't inflame and emphasise racial differences. I see this as separate issues, economic redistribution and then reducing the importance of race. I don't accept economic redistribution that reinforces racial histories and inequalities. The racial inequality is fact but it's overly emphasised and promotes racialised worldviews.

That's all I'll say because I am derailing this thread and OP complained about it. If you make a thread on this topic then I will probably post there but otherwise I'm going to stop posting here about unrelated topics after this.


You might persuade me by telling me what you're unsatisfied with but you want me to just pretend I failed to answer all of your questions and reanswer them? That appears unreasonable to me. I'm also interested as to whether you think that I also have failed to understand your position, Your questions are also really stupid, I don't know how you don't see that but you actually seem kind of proud of them? Okay, since you asked like three times, I'll answer them again but this time I'll number them and answer them directly.

1. I don't know

2. I don't know

3. I don't know

4. The dead are dead, I'm an atheist and a pragmatist, for these people who have suffered due to sexism, slavery and racism 100-400 years ago, you are too late. You cannot compensate them or help them in anyway. But I do understand what you are trying to say and it's complete nonsense. You are trying to say that because slavery affected black people and sexism affected women, that this has something to do with black people and women who are alive today. However, take slavery, individuals suffered horribly. They were degraded, humiliated, harmed physically and psychologically, deprived of freedom and dignity. Then they died. It's sad but you cannot help this individual and helping people who have the same skin colour is to my mind, an absolutely outrageous and absurd way of trying to help. A total insult to the actual person who had a name and character, they're not just a black person who can be helped by helping other black people.

If someone claimed they could help me by helping other white people, I'd flip my shit.

5. Again, the landowner who owned slaves and his wife, got to live better lives by having slaves. They didn't have to do the chores and hard labour nor pay their workers. You want me to say white people but you should already know that I won't say that. Is it complex for you?

6. You can't hold the dead accountable as you know nor can you help the dead, the injustices cannot be addressed. If you want to address injustices, then there are plenty of people today who aren't having their injustices addressed.

What are you unsatisfied with? Don't ask me to respect your intelligence, I'm convinced that you are an idiot. I cannot debate someone who simply ignores what I write, what insurance do I have that you won't simply ignore what I write in the future as well, calling it a monologue? lol It is a waste of my time.

I am not saying that laws cannot be interpreted (unambiguously) to be beneficial for white people or unfairly implemented in a way that hurts coloured people but rather that the language of the law does not specifically mention race. Honestly, the emphasis on historical racism is unhelpful because here, today, racism exists and among many areas of society. I think that because historically, the law has mentioned race and treated people differently based on race, there's some confusion about whether that's what's being talked about.

It's just a term to me, I'm no expert on US law but systemic racism is not as overt as it was in the past, it is not an open secret. We can simply see it and analyse it and that's how we know.

I do not acknowledge the long-lasting economic consequences in the way that people want me to because it means continuing to treat black people as having a separate history because of their skin colour. I reject it, people are people, they aren't Africans, they're Americans, who share the same history as all Americans as Americans. Slavery was people hurting people, I won't view history the same way that the slavers we call evil did.

I'm not American, I'm Australian and for me, once you're Australian that's it. There's no "white Australian history" and "foreigner Australian history" because that's a dumb, racist, exclusive attitude that makes it sound like you need to be white to be Australian which is bullshit.

I'm a fan of people such as Andrew Yang and UBI, let economic redistribution be a way of reducing divisions between Americans rather than highlighting them.

My post doesn't become a monologue just because you refuse to read and deal with what I'm saying. I understand your argument perfectly fine, I've articulated my rejection of it, I'm not surprised that it went over your head but I'm done responding to you. OP is getting annoyed at me derailing his thread by responding to your garbage.

You cannot "reverse" racism and sexism, you can only stop it. Economic redistribution based on race only reinforces the narrative of racial histories while excluding poor people from different backgrounds in the name of an irrational interpretation of fairness based on group identities. The benefits of economic redistribution cannot be used to justify doing it by race.

I answered your questions, you just don't like the answers. Suffering happens to people, not groups, the people you are talking about are gone and there's nothing you can do for them.

You want to say "black people should do this" and "white people should pay" and have me seriously respond using your asinine framing? You must be joking.

You don't need to give me the context for why you were frustrated and said something silly, you can just say that you misspoke and didn't mean it.

What does the rest of the thread have to do with you comparing systemic racism to the aftereffects of slavery and the subsequent injustices?

I don't really get why other people being stupid justifies you saying something stupid. StreetlightX isn't saying stupid stuff because he's agitated he's always like this. I'm going to be honest and say that I put you in the same boat as him, banno, fxdrake and other suspect posters on this forum. Adding Benkei to my list now.

I did read some of the comments, I just don't think you appreciate what makes what you're talking about difficult. It's against the law for systemic racism to exist, I think that for some people, that alone makes it hard to say that it does. I just haven't read anyone saying anything like "big picture, there's no difference between how the police or courts treat black people and others" or similar absurdities. Maybe some of the posters are making those claims, didn't read every post.

I like how you don't understand the thing that you wrote. You are consistently hilarious, never fail to make me smile.

You've come too late, there is nothing you can do for those people, they are gone. The individuals who have suffered in the past due to racism and sexism whether it's 100 or 400 years ago, they're gone now. You can't repair their damages, it's pretty childish of you to think you can.

You cannot address the injustices done to them.

As for people who live today, racism and sexism are inexcusable. We must do what we can.

I'm done with this anyways. For all I care, blacks should just go get revenge if white people don't want to listen. Burn this shit down and take it all. — Benkei

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and decided not to simply call you a racist but there's no need for me to refrain. You are no different from the people you claim to hate, racism is justified under your worldview.

It's cute how those who are not regularly murdered everyday on the basis of their skin color get to explain how skin colour does not matter. It's like those celebs who, while hiding out in their multi-million dollar mansions, got to tell everyone that 'we're all in this together'. — StreetlightX

Isn't "those" referring to me? I know I haven't been murdered on a daily basis but please don't try to undermine my views just because of that.


It's a nonsense point is what it is.

But if people are saying that there's not a shred of systemic racism in the US then I'd suggest your description of them is accurate. It just seems to me that the term is a bit vague to some people and it's hard to really confirm or deny it. I don't think denying systemic racism necessarily means they are denying all of the things that you might infer but I'm not sure since you didn't name anyone specifically.

I dare say that one cannot be murdered on an everyday basis.

You are one of the funniest posters I've ever come across. To so consistently be such a moron is really quite something.

What's ironic about discussions about economic redistribution based on race is that it parallels the very same racist policies that it is trying to help undo the consequences of. The government recognises your right to specific economic and social advantages by virtue of your race. They are specifically crafted advantages based on your race. It's not comparable to interpreted advantages based on statistics on race.

I'm very much for increasing economic redistribution, I think America is doing far less than it should but none of the benefits of economic redistribution should be used as an argument for doing it based on race.

The history of racism is a history of tribalism and ignorance, where people justified cruelty and hate based on something we now know is only slightly less superficial than the colour of one's hair. The way forward is to reject this thinking. People of all races are capable of great cruelty because people are just people and their skin colour doesn't matter. The continuation of this emphasis on race is a curse given to us by the past. All forms of its perpetuation are wrong, sharing a skin colour with past evildoers is nothing, how can it be anything?

The responsibility of economic redistribution is a true and real one but the history of America must be shared by Americans, skin colour can't be the most prominent thing that comes before anything else.

Anyway, the way that you use terms like "the white man did this" is absolute nonsense, it's like you're just simplifying all of history for convenience. White men don't fucking agree with each other, the way you talk about group responsibility is utterly asinine. The way you say "we" when talking about white people is asinine. There's a real good chunk of your OP that is so out of touch with reality that it's scary.

The power relations have not changed much since the end of slavery and women's suffrage. — Benkei

Why do you do it? Why do you simplify history by talking about race and gender and then hyperbolize in this way about it? What's ironic is that you only demean slavery by saying this, how can you possibly compare the freedom of a slave and a black person today, unbelievable.

Do you think that's what systemic racism is?

it's a combination of coronavirus and covid-19 because I want to be inclusive towards all terms. I'm pretty much the most inclusive awesomeist person out there.

I don't think people are wearing face masks for show, I know the CDC in Australia has recommended the use of face masks, what makes you think they are ineffective? I think virtue signalling is a kind of "one-upmanship", it's edgy and in your face. People trying to reduce the spread of corvid-19 or reduce their own risk of getting it. Wearing a mask and washing their hands and without even saying anything about it. I find your conclusion to be strange. That being said I don't wear a mask and it's because idgaf.

There are infinite reasons to give for living, evaluating them by whether or not they're compelling or objective is a choice. If someone gives a reason for living and you say their reason is not objectively true and therefore invalid, you have missed how your argument lacks any objective validity. You are just like the others, you have opinions and reasons for doing/thinking things which are not going to be agreed upon by everyone, they're subjective and whether or not they're compelling, valid or rational to you or anyone else doesn't help fundamentally change the subjective nature of opinions.

It is asinine to reject reasons for living based on their subjective nature, there are no reasons for any action that aren't subjective and I would describe it as a complete misunderstanding on the subjective/objective dichotomy.

Communism, really even in its most pure form where there is no corruption, error or greed should be viewed as a wrecking ball of a movement. It must forcibly rip wealth and property from the people for redistribution, conformity in areas of religion, speech, thought has to be enforced by a totalitarian regime. In capitalism, people point to how it covertly manipulates and keeps you down but communism and alternatives overtly control. There simply isn't communism without this control, if people are free to do what they want then communism will not function.

I think some people focus on the economic aspect (mostly economic redistribution) of communism without looking at how it controls how you live your life. Class dynamics, cultural dynamics, private property, freedom for individuals and so on need to be managed and it cannot be managed without a level of violence and coercion.

The notion of peaceful hippie communism is a fantasy, the truth of communism is that it is a form of totalitarianism, it strips you of your rights and freedoms. Their means of doing this will always involve violence, imprisonment, etc. There is no outcome for communism other than the outcome which has already happened and the problem isn't people, it's the ideology.

Well, that's the problem for me, Sanders will be a difficult sell for anyone who isn't at least left-leaning if not an outright radical provided he continues to play ball with people and groups that are literal memes outside those circles.

I'm a moral relativist/nihilist and I've argued with a number of people on the topic, your summary opinion of how we don't know therefore there's no more reason to be a nihilist than not be one is probably the second or third most popular counterargument from my experience.

I think most of your issues with moral relativism are all pretty common, at least with people who don't like it.

Most Western countries have seen the problems Sanders is talking about and addressed them or at least are in the process of addressing them, America is lagging behind in so many regards and something should change.

My only concern with Sanders comes less with him and rather the people and movement he aligns himself with. The far left in America seems just as concerned with practical changes as they are with their various hateful ideologies. He's been mixed with BLM, The young turks, Alexandra ocasio-cortez and other far left-wing, ridiculous people/organisations. Instead of just being a reasonable, humanistic candidate with a belief in furthering economic redistribution. Throwing around the term of "democratic socialism" doesn't really help either.

The other criticism seems to be that his promises, much like what Trump offers, are just good-sounding (to the supporters) ideas with no real substance. Sanders doesn't know exactly what things cost or how to pay for it in ways which should actually get passed legislatively.

I really like Andrew Yang as a candidate but doesn't seem like there's much of a shot for him.

Meaning is HAD for someone about something, no someones, no meaning.

Things that are useful can be consistently used throughout any example, similar to a moral principle. — chatterbears

That's absurd, you have quite a way of thinking about things. "Nobody's perfect" can mean different things based on the context, it absolutely never means "I'm disputing your position that you're perfect" except when perfection was actually claimed but I am genuinely amazed that you've taken it that way.

I do enjoy how you've tried to misrepresent the phrase as being a way of apologising for rapists and feeling as if since you did that there's no possible utility to the phrase anymore.

It's shorthand for "don't worry about it" pretty much, just a different way of saying something which is unambiguously fine to say. You probably know that but I won't try to speculate how this could be a problem for you, I don't want to.

You really gave stupid examples, intent matters and context matters. You can't make a phrase sound bad by giving ludicrous examples of people using it to say absurd things like "forgive your rapist nobody is perfect" and whatnot lmao.

Might be a relevant link to this discussion too, it's all about cognitive biases which I think sometimes get simplified as conformity unfairly and incorrectly.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/50-cognitive-biases-in-the-modern-world/

Anti-conformity is more often than not a kind of virtue signalling, it's not usually a well-thought-out position. I find most people who are anti-conformity, tried to conform, failed at it and found the answer was to dislike conformity. It's not a dysfunctional way of dealing with failing at it but it makes for a weak position.

On a philosophical note as opposed to advice to someone that I don't know, anything we think "society" thinks is a pristine, unrealistic version of what's real. Seemingly happy marriages that aren't happy, great jobs that make people miserable and levels of attractiveness that only a small handful of the population have access to. There's something for everyone but that something often isn't what we're taught to think it is and it can feel counterintuitive.

Luck plays a bigger role than most people are happy to admit but even if you got a raw deal that prevents you from succeeding in a stereotypical way, it doesn't mean you should give up on being content with your life. Flip the table and stop playing the game you were playing and make new rules that redefine success as the thing you want to do and are able to do.

I've always thought there are two ways to solve a problem.

You tackle the nature of the problem or you interpret differently so that which was once a problem is no longer a problem or at least less of a problem.

Why don't you give up on tackling the nature of the problem, that would be better than not giving up and not doing anything which just creates a cycle of stress and discontent. Or at least take a break from not giving up.

Turn your wallowing into cynicism - or something like that. Try to find a better way of not being okay with your situation, one that allows you some strength. Then use that strength to slightly improve the things that you can't stop caring about. In any case, stop trying to do that which you know you can't do and try to find something which you can because even if it leads to no progress whatsoever, it will at least have you walking forward rather than standing still.

There are almost certainly things you need to give up on but contentment isn't one of them.

What kind of duress?

It is okay to give up, the question is always what do you do after you've given up. If it's to wallow in self-pity then wallowing in self-pity is bad and that makes giving up look bad. As usual, your thread lacks any context.

Give up and try again - in a way that doesn't resemble trying to do the exact same thing that just failed. Do it until you reach an outcome that's acceptable. Don't just try to do the same way of achieving the same goal - which might've always been unrealistic, unattainable or just unlikely to give you the result you thought it would.

Why would anyone whether they wanted what's best for you or not, think that giving up and wallowing in self-pity is a respectable choice?

People aren't sceptical enough about the problem, go government has ever or will ever be outside of the influence of those they govern. Neither will the power or influence that people can exert be even across all social statuses and wealth levels. So, people point to Western democracy and see these issues and say 'ah-hah, so capitalism or democracy is imperfect" rather than see this as a problem that is essentially impossible to fix.

There are things we can do to lessen the problem and we are which is why in the West things are better than basically everywhere else bar other successful advanced capitalism/democracy countries such as Japan and SK. Democracy in of itself is a political game - no government isn't a political game and people with great wealth, status, power and connections are going to have an easier time playing that game than others. As well as protecting themselves against the law and other similar government actions.

How can it not be relevant? If you don't know what the "confounding factors of C" are then how can you know whether people aren't trying to address those things? You obviously can't. How can you agree that nobody is addressing A and B when you have no idea what the other person is thinking A and B is. This is becoming quite funny.

There's no point telling me you knew what Wallows was talking about, I know you're not telepathic. I'm not either and since you're just talking about your feelings, I can only guess what they're a reaction to specifically. You've got like 1000 words in this thread without even once addressing what you're specifically talking about. I wonder how long you could go on agreeing with someone on everything until you figured out what they actually knew and thought.