You're the one who doesn't appreciate that what I've just described is an interpretation and not something that can be called a fact. — Judaka

It's not that, it is just that you're not making any sense. If I'm giving an overview of something it is meant to give you a wider perspective of the coming answer I'm going to give you. It is to help you why I'm stating that answer. For example a person might like the color red because long ago, said person wore a read shirt and was given a compliment of how good the color looked on the person. therefore, such person may like the color red because the color resonates with good memories of being complimented.

Your facts, if you call them that, to me are not making any sense. I thought we were talking about the alt-right and the double standards, yes? Well, again, there is no double standard when other cultures appreciate their lineage because how one presents their pride is a lot different than the alt-right. This is where I got into my historical revisionist explanation using the African-American diaspora model.

Let me re-explain.....

White supremacy in the United States as well as elsewhere have demonized many people of darker complexion over the centuries, from colonial times to present. People of color were taught indirectly and directly that their culture was inferior in comparison to the white culture. Fast forward today and post civil rights movement later in the United States, many people of color have grown to openly display pride of their culture, something that was taboo of the past. So when we have days in the United States that celebrate Pacific-Islanders, and African-Americans, and other cultures that have contributed to mankind it is to appreciate these hidden gems that were forgotten in a racist past.

When alt-right does it, they do it not to celebrate Polish history, or Celtic history, it is to promote the "white man's achievements" as Richard Spencer have stated several times. Richard Spencer, the spokesman of the alt-right wants a white utopia, free of anyone of color. This is different than how people of color celebrate their heritage. So to have the audacity to even insinuate a double standard is stupid at best, and retarded at worse.

I don't think the OP was well explained at least to me...Instead of all this unnecessary jargon why can't people come out and just say

"I think the alt-right should not be demonized from their position as it appears to me that other groups similarly are expressing themselves the same way as the alt-right."

Simple.

They did!

Edit: either you knew this in the beginning and pretended not to, or you just got it.

What are my "facts"? I'm offering interpretations to you, not facts, you actually still can't tell the difference lol.

I have told you many times that I understand you are arguing from the context of history, that is a choice you've made. As a pragmatist and an individualist, my priority is the individual and his current circumstances. I wonder what you might think about the movie The Black Panther if you've watched it? There might be historical reasons why The Black Panther is palatable for people in a way a similar movie of a different race might not be but I don't see why we should tolerate promotions of race being something that can elicit a moral imperative as it was in that movie. It shouldn't just be bad when it's white people.

Now, people keep using the word celebration but I'm not interested in it. I think "celebration" is being purposefully used as the least egregious example or even possibly the only acceptable example of highlighting racial differences. I have been talking about the alt-right thinking politically as a group of whites, thinking culturally as whites, evaluating people based on their race and so on. I'm not saying the alt-right are just trying to peacefully celebrate their race, that's clearly not their motivation.

As for the alt-right white ethnostate, that's clearly going to be unique for a white person living in the west because compared to other races who don't even hold a majority, it's a bit pointless to talk about turning the west into an ethnostate of their race. That's why I liken that aspect of the alt-right to other countries like in east-Asia and across the world.

Also, I'm not saying the alt-right shouldn't be demonized for their position, I'm actually in favour of demonizing other groups/individuals which replicate alt-right thinking rather than limiting criticism to groups of white people. However, I do think it is inconsistent to criticise particular aspects of the alt-right without also criticising it from other groups, although people like you do give their reasons which are not inconsistent, even if I disagree with them.

I also feel that the alt-right position becomes more or less strong based on how well we're able to reduce the prevalence of race being interpretatively significant. You telling me that you're not a westerner when you were born in the west and presumably subscribe to cultures originating in the west is really the kind of thing that makes the alt-right look like they have a good point. As someone who values western culture, is it true that I should want to maintain the white majority in western countries? If all non-whites thought like you, then the answer to that would probably be yes, thankfully, I don't believe that to be the case.

Thing is that white people don't celebrate their racial background, but simply their national background. After all, since the fall of the last empires, Europe has been a collection of nation states. They celebrate being Irish, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Danish etc. The multiculturalism of these national identities is quite new, and although the authorities of these countries are now eagerly promoting some new multicultural identity of their country and search desperately for something that can define as a new common thing, their roots aren't at all so multicultural. The simple fact is that people don't relate to something as general as 'race' when they have had an ethnicity, a nationality to relate to.

Simply put it, people far less trouble in defining a national identity, than they have in defining a continental (European, Asian, African) identity or a racial identity.

As the US is this mixture of various people, there the term 'white' or 'caucasian' have gotten a totally different role to play. Again something that is quite an American phenomenon than anything else (perhaps with the exception of South Africa, where being white unifies the people from British and Boer origins).

↪Terrapin Station

Yeah, I don't know what you disagree with or what post you're referring to, is this a comedy routine? — Judaka

You said, "I don't think I even gave any evidence in your quote."

Right. You gave supposed evidence after that, when it was questioned by someone else. That was what I was referring to.

Although I haven't been participating in a while, I've tried to keep up with the discussion. I don't think this has been brought up, but if it already has, steer me towards it.

Definition of "oppression." - Prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.

Let's look at race for now, just to keep the discussion focused. In particular the status and condition of black people vs. that of white people in the United States today. Not historically, now.

Let's make an assumption - Black people in the United States today are subject to oppression by the dominant white society and culture. We're not going to argue this right now. We're taking it as true for the purposes of this discussion. Please do not start an argument about whether or not black people are oppressed. We can do that later if someone wants to.

Given all that, I'll make a statement of personal belief, which is open for discussion:

Given the oppressed status of black people, it is completely reasonable that their thoughts and feelings about ethnic and racial concerns should be given more consideration than those of white people.

So, given the specified assumption, the answer to your question "Is criticism of the alt-right inconsistent?" is yes, and that inconsistency is appropriate.

National identity certainly is less ambiguous, I really want people to be able to band together on this because national identities are great fun, they're inclusive and they give people some common ground to work together constructively. There is a pathological element to the way the "white" race is referred to, it creates a new us vs them which didn't exist in the past, as you've previously pointed out. I think that the way we refer to the "white" race as somehow encompassing all of these very different cultures shows that we could do this for western culture as well. Similarly encompassing differences which we once felt were so important but for it to work, people have got to let go of their ethnic histories and differences, they've got to find that common ground like "whites" seem to have done, with how not just the alt-right but many just don't think the differences between "whites" are all that important anymore.


Black individuals, as believers in equal opportunity, angry at their unjust treatment, desiring a better future for America and as individuals who want better lives for themselves, would have every right to resent their circumstances and the people and structures causing them. I would hope that people with similar values, irrespective of their skin colour would stand in solidarity with them on these issues. I hope the takeaway from these terrible circumstances would be that unfair prejudice based on race is wrong, no matter which race is being prejudiced against.

I would hope that these circumstances helped to demonstrate the destructive and unreasonable consequences of making race the defining factor in how you perceive and treat others. It would be a terrible mistake if black individuals would retaliate with the same incorrect, harmful way of thinking of making race an interpretative focus and basing their own perspectives around race and racial histories.

It's true that their race being meaningful is a choice that has been made for them by those who prejudice against them based on their race but somebody has to start being better. While I can appreciate that the temptation is there, it is not okay to condone bad behaviour because someone else did it first. I do not think that what would be required in those circumstances was consideration but rather trying to convince both sides that they're in the wrong, trying to encourage both sides to adopt a better perspective. I want to seriously believe in the potential of everyone for that.

I said:

Given the oppressed status of black people, it is completely reasonable that their thoughts and feelings about ethnic and racial concerns should be given more consideration than those of white people. — T Clark

I had hoped you would respond to that specifically. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

Yeah, my answer is that I'm not giving consideration to anyone under any circumstances and 0=0.

Yeah, my answer is that I'm not giving consideration to anyone under any circumstances and 0=0. — Judaka

Well, we can leave it at that, but I don't see what the point is.

You ask "Is criticism of the alt-right inconsistent?"

I respond "Yes, and it's appropriate it should be that way."

Then you reply "I don't care" as if I weren't answering a question you yourself had asked.

I don't know why you're asking me if I agree or disagree with your statement, I have heard your answer and appreciate you explaining your thought process.

I don't know why you're asking me if I agree or disagree with your statement, I have heard your answer and appreciate you explaining your thought process. — Judaka

You asked a specific question in the OP. I gave you a direct, specific answer. You won't respond.

I mean you didn't give me an answer, you asked me a question and and I think I gave you a comprehensive answer. You're saying think that black people are oppressed, that this makes their instances of racialised thinking and rhetoric less egregious than when white groups, like the alt-right do it, despite being guilty of race-based motivations and perspectives, is that right?

It is not like you are the only one to give an answer, some said it was inconsistent and others said it wasn't and others just disagreed with the question altogether but everyone has their own reasoning and your answer is just one possible answer. I don't know what more to say, I walk away from our conversation more aware of how others think on the subject, good talk.

I have debated whether to get into an argument about whether Jews are Caucasian or not but I decided it wasn't worth it because I am not Jewish and I don't really care. I have always been under the impression that there was a Jewish race and culture which was separate from the religion and after doing a bit of research because I was challenged on it, realised that I could easily find sources that confirmed and denied it and I guess I'd have to dig deeper to determine the truth. You're even talking about Indians and Iranians being causation and while you're welcome to give me an argument for whatever it is you believe, I wouldn't have said what I said if I realised people were going to dispute it so strongly and I got no real stake in what the truth is. — Judaka

I am not Jewish either, at least as far as I know. I'd be fine with it if I was. I do care about race: I like the fact that there are distinct racial groups, with their various features. What we need to remember is that we are all one species, pretty much, even if some of us are mixes of archaic and modern humans, and mixes of races and ethnicities.

Apply the American motto: e pluribus unum, out of many, one. The PC Left seems to think it we are e unus unum--out of one, one. No, we are several races, many ethnicities, all human, and the variety is good.

Multiculturalism means nothing (and is indeed pernicious) if it fails to honor the cultures of the world, one of which happens to be the white, European, North American, Australian culture, with its additional established territories. Third world cultures are good, and so is the now dominant first world culture, the culture that colonized much of the rest of the world (but maybe not long enough and thoroughly enough), the culture that injected the scientific and industrial revolutions into the whole world -- for better and for worse.

White people have no more, and no less, to be proud of, and/or embarrassed about than any other people -- Africans, Asians, Aboriginals, etc. As a species, we are not all that nice, and never have been. Sure. we try to be decent, but our primate drives are powerful, and our systems of control only somewhat effective.

Always remember: Homo sapiens are primates, animals. Talk about metaphysics and ethics all you want; just remember it is an ape that is doing the talking.

The idea that Jews--and western asian people--are caucasian comes out of studies of ancient population history going back around 20,000 years. Two examples of this kind of research are: Jean Manco, Ancestral Journeys: The Peopling of Europe from the first venturers to the Vikings. 2013 & 2015, Thames & Hudson, Ltd, London.

The Horse, The Wheel, And Language: How Bronze-age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes shaped the modern world, David. W. Anthony, Princeton University Press, 2007.

What these books (and others) show is that between the first arrivals (early homo sapiens and Neanderthals) and the finally settled Europe well after the Roman Empire collapse, there was a great deal of population movement, both into Europe from Eurasia and within Europe. What was true in Europe was true elsewhere, too. Nobody, for all practical purposes, ever just arrived and stayed put for ever after. Everyone was pretty much pushed or shoved out of the way from behind, supplemented or suppressed, refreshed or replaced. Someone estimated that since the beginning of the species about 100 billion people have been born. All these people had feet and so traveled around. Sometimes they formed large groups, and their movements were very significant in the long pre-historical run.

Jews are a unique ethnic group, which is a subset or maybe sub-subset of one of the 4 or 5 racial groups). Jews are to caucasians what the Celts are to caucasians, or what Eskimos are to Amerindians: part of a larger whole.

Neanderthals and Denisovans (and maybe other archaic humans) lived among and mated with homo sapiens on the Eurasian continent. Over time there has been a lot of mating going on, and while there are several racial groups, there are hundreds of ethnic groups.

Always remember: Homo sapiens are primates, animals. Talk about metaphysics and ethics all you want; just remember it is an ape with a bad attitude that is doing the talking. — Bitter Crank

Just saying... don't get too uppity about being a human.

I am a moral relativist but surely anyone can find something to value particular cultures above others from a pragmatic standpoint. Alternatively looking at a country like Iraq, it's obvious they'd be better off being split into three new countries, sharing a government with people who think so differently to you, that's no way to live.

Whites have nothing to be proud of except what that individual achieved for themselves or was a part of themselves. It amazes me how someone can take responsibility for or take pride in individuals who lived ages before them as their own based on such a superficial similarity. The modern white American has more in common with a modern black American than he does with the white Americans who killed the native Americans or owned slaves but all the same, people want to take responsibility for that.

What's more amazing is that the time being talked about you'd think whites all got along but of course, they absolutely didn't even within a specific culture. With their disagreements and even contempt based on differences in religion, class, politics, region and you name it really. You've had no chance tracking down what your actual ancestors were doing not that it would matter. Racial histories are just stupid.

I am really not sure about the Jews, perhaps genetically they're caucasian but I wonder how old this knowledge is and what interpretations preceded any new understanding based on any scientific discoveries.

I'm talking about ethnocentric perspectives, favouring the main race and trying to maintain ethnic hegemony. That's what the alt-right is preaching and that's the similarity I see.

..... I think that goes uncriticised [In cases other than the alt-right] — Judaka

and you have been given examples of where it has been criticised.

If you think there are important examples where it has not been criticised then mention them by name and we can discuss them.

If you want to claim inconsistency, you need to give actual real examples of the inconsistency, not just speculate that there might be some.

We gunna talk about the Chinese ethnocentric culture which genuinely put emphasis on race — Judaka

Tu quo que much?

If you don't think America has a race problem, you haven't been paying attention.

You realise when you talk about terms like white blindness and white=normal that you're telling me about how I think as a white person right? Those things couldn't exist if white people didn't think in those ways. White privilege directly impacts and affects me but you're not making any claims based solely on skin colour? — Judaka

Fallacy of Division.

Yes, the white population of America as a whole has white blindness and white privilege. That does not necessarily apply to all individual constituents. It does, however, apply to the majority. And non-whites can have it too.

My assessment that you exhibit white-blindness stems from your words. I didn't know you were white until you just told me. Your OP doesn't seem to mention it. But of course, it's just another example of assuming white as the status quo to assume that we all know you're white.

Whites have nothing to be proud of except what that individual achieved for themselves or was a part of themselves. — Judaka

Perhaps you are asserting that society does not exist, and are throwing out culture as well. "it's all individual activity. Nothing else."

It amazes me how someone can take responsibility for or take pride in individuals who lived ages before them as their own based on such a superficial similarity. — Judaka

Well, the connection to the past is a two-way street. We look back and the people of the past looked forward. People of past centuries, or past decades, or the past 15 minutes, thought, spoke, acted, and wrote and their thoughts, words, and actions are carried forward by their witnesses. Going back a ways, Hammurabi (ancient king in Babylonia, 1792 BC to 1750 BC) had an audience. When Hammurabi spoke, people listened. King David and Isaiah also spoke, and people listened. Jesus and Paul spoke and people listened. Julius Caesar, Charlemagne, Joan of Arc, William Shakespeare, and John Donne spoke, and the people listened. Donald Trump speaks not very well but the people nevertheless listen. (MEMO TO THE PEOPLE: Pay no attention to the fat man with bad hair standing behind the podium. He is an artless clod.)

We are still reading words from the past--at least if we aren't completely uncultured slobs and dolts, we are.

The modern white American has more in common with a modern black American than he does with the white Americans who killed the native Americans or owned slaves but all the same, people want to take responsibility for that. — Judaka

That assertion could be challenged. Some quite careful observers (white and black) think that black and white Americans practically live in two separate countries. Again linking up with the past, there are quite specific historical reasons WHY most white Americans are better off than most black Americans, and why even middle-income whites are much, much better off than poor blacks. Slavery, the Civil War, Reconstruction, the severe backlash by whites tagged "Jim Crow laws" which have largely been eliminated, and contemporary housing discrimination (and more besides) account for the differences between black and white fortunes in the United States. There is an unbroken chain between the present and the past. If there wasn't, there would never be any material or intellectual development or progress. Each individual would have to start all over.

If we want to understand where we are now we have to understand the past, and to understand the past we have to be familiar with the who, what, when, how, why, and where of the past.

Whites have nothing to be proud of except what that individual achieved for themselves or was a part of themselves. — Judaka

So what is it that you have accomplished and are proud of, that DID NOT DEPEND on the efforts of people who lived and died before you?

Wait, what? They did what?

Very good synopsis of the early humans...It was a good read

Thank you! I've been asking him that!

Donald Trump speaks not very well but the people nevertheless listen. (MEMO TO THE PEOPLE: Pay no attention to the fat man with bad hair standing behind the podium. He is an artless clod.) — Bitter Crank

hahahahaha

You can't just extrapolate me disagreeing with racial/ethnic pride and histories to

Perhaps you are asserting that society does not exist, and are throwing out culture as well. "it's all individual activity. Nothing else." — Bitter Crank

. I'm certainly not always happy with how simplistically people talk about society and culture but I don't reject either of the terms meaning.

You also can't honestly extrapolate me saying sharing a skin colour is insufficient for interpretations like pride, guilt and the like to me denying that the past continues to impact the present/future in a variety of ways. We as philosophers constantly look back to the past and past people to learn but I am not going to take your post seriously, it's relevance to my assertion is not there.

Careful observers? No, pathological observers might say that and I'm sure they do. It doesn't take much effort to put emphasis on particular differences, what exactly people want to do about it is something else entirely. I'm pretty sure we've talked about the importance of wealth redistribution and likely we'd agree generally on the importance of education, reducing crime and other important social issues.

Do we also want to discriminate against people who need help based on the reason that they need help? If we've got a predominantly black city and a predominantly white city and they're both struggling with the same serious social issues, does it really matter that across the country, other white people who have nothing to do with this city whatsoever are better off than black people across the country who have absolutely nothing to do with the struggling city in question?

If we're talking about helping two struggling people to find a job, they've got families to support and their situations are nearly identical but one of them is black and one of them is white, does it matter? If the whtie person might have an easier time in some situations than the black man, should we also ask who of them is more attractive? If the black man is miles better looking, surely that's a huge advantage for him. What if the black man is far more intelligent? Surely, intelligent people generally have it better than less intelligent people?

Like honestly, what do you want to do? Nobody here is denying the past, blacks as a group are disadvantaged by their history but once you strip the racial focus and start caring about individuals and towns/cities, what is the advantage in continuing the same racialised thinking that created the very problems you're talking about? Nobody is going to convince me that adopting a pahological racialised perspective and evaluation of society to have any advantages which aren't only visible to those who similarly evaluate and percieve based on racial differences.

So what is it that you have accomplished and are proud of, that DID NOT DEPEND on the efforts of people who lived and died before you? — Bitter Crank

My grandfather is dead, I wouldn't be alive without him, so nothing, happy? What a dumb question.

You're asking for examples of it within the West or outside? I've given plenty of examples of the latter to you... I also need to ask what does it mean for something to "have already been criticised"? When we talk about the alt-right, particular aspects of their ethnocentric and racialised motivations make them deplorable, not criticised but make them considered a hate group. Now Anaxagoras, for instance, disagrees with that and says that the alt-right is more than just what I've laid out and you might agree with that, that's fine.

I've been exposed to a lot of talk from example, immigrants to China from across the world and their difficulties in living in China because of their nationality and race, you get the same type of comments in SK/Japan and I wouldn't have difficulties giving examples across the world. The term "racism" has been confusing so far, let me explain my stance a little. I would personally like to call any significant interpretative relevance on race racism but that's not where most people stand, they would say any negative interpretative relevance was racist. With that definition, we've got to determine how to characterise interpretations of different racial/ethnic groups. Both in whether it's negative and whether it's got more to do with language/cultural barriers, all of these things are factors.

So by the general definition of racism, if I point out that your race has serious implications for you and a lot of meaning to others when you're living in Japan, that isn't me saying that Japan is racist. We can talk in more detail when I ascertain whether you want to talk about within the west or outside.


Fair enough, that is a fallacy as you've pointed out, my apologies. I did say I am white though, first two lines of my OP.

I'm not part of the alt-right, actually I'm a hardcore individualist who cares about ideas and principles but I won't ignore the fact that race is important to most people just because I'm white. — Judaka

I'm actually in favour of demonizing other groups/individuals which replicate alt-right thinking rather than limiting criticism to groups of white people. — Judaka

and you have been repeatedly asked for an example of this alleged double standard, and have failed to supply a single example.

In the few examples you have supplied, either the behaviour was based on race or skin colour, and has been roundly criticised, or it was a celebration of culture and hence had no similarity to what the alt-right does.

This has been pointed out to you many times, yet you just ignore it.

I've given plenty of examples of the latter to you. — Judaka

Name one.

China, Japan, South Korea are nations which are wealthy like the West, you'd assume people would want to go there but they're some of the most ethnically homogeneous nations in the world.

Many countries in the middle east are infamous for their treatment of workers from India and Africa. Most of the nations there are not easy to immigrate to and any lack of ethnic hegemony can be explained historically.

Africa and South America are notoriously having difficulties with racism and tribalism, you see the same in many countries in Eastern Europe who for the most part are also trying to maintain their ethnic hegemony. Countries in SEA are often ethnically diverse but once again, extremely racist countries with very complicated situations. India is the same once again, it's not like there's no celebration of culture, my thread was never about a celebration of culture to begin with but the ways in which people are looking through a collectivist, racial lens which is similar to the alt-right.

I would say Jews in the West are another example of alt-right thinking but it appears the Jewish race is a controversial topic so I won't bother talking about that. If you want to try to go specifically into something to analyse it more deeply, pick a country and we can do some research.. — Judaka

I've talked broadly and I've asked if you wanted to go into it more deeply then we can but pick a country, I am confident to give examples in anything I've listed. I prefer you choose so there's no problems.

I am confident to give examples — Judaka

Then give one. The above are not examples. They are vague, generalised asserted slurs.
Let's have some names, places, dates and quotes, rather than nebulous insinuations.