Why don't SJW/feminists go after rappers?

[IDL]

Actually I didn't lump all White people, I said it was understood that while not every single White person was responsible , the culture as a whole (of the Euro nations involved in it) did carry it out. Do you argue with people when they say Japan in WW2 carried out atrocities . I mean you can nitpick and say how dare someone lump all Japanese as guilty. You know as well as I do that no one ever means all Japanese, but the culture as a whole was responsible. Do you nitpick and attack anyone who says Muslims imposed their religion on non-Muslims in much of the Near East, cause you know Not every Muslim did it.

The retort is bullshit, and I have explained why umpteen times. Because this retort doesn't differentiate between North Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans and it doesn't take into account that Sub-Saharan Africa itself is composed of different races and linguistic groups. And the hypocrisy in this retort is how this argument is never used vis-a-vis ancient Egypt.

You just lump all Sub-Saharan Africans as 1 Black entity. Do you lump people from South Asia, Near East, Anatolia and Europe as 1 entity. Do you lump all Eurasian peoples (From Western Europe to Japan) as 1 entity , cause you know they all live on the same continent . So why do you lump all Africans as 1 entity .

Hey why don't we say 9/11 was Whites killing Whites, since MENA folks are Caucasoid (and considered White by the US gov ) , but ofcourse rightwingers wouldn't ever say this. What about saying ISIS is White, since Baghdadi is a Caucasoid and he could just as easily look like an Eastern Orthodox priest if he wore their garb.

So you wouldn't say 'white people are responsible' but you would say 'white culture is responsible'

When it comes to Japan, no I wouldn't hold Japanese culture responsible especially today. There are a lot of factors when it comes to wars, especially on that scale. It brings out the beast in people and most are ultimately geo-political in nature.

The retort isn't bullshit at all when placed into the proper context of the initial narrative (whites enslaved blacks). On it's own sure, it's dumb. but in context of challenging an initial narrative, no it's not dumb at all. It's quite logical.

 

[dontsnitch]

but the concept isn't wrong.

I can't have a conversation with you if you're adopting an illogical and racist premise, which consequently, explains why you take issue with a rather benign and intuitive counter-argument to an explicitly racist idea.

 

[MicroBrew]

Therefore what? Provide some conclusion to this statement.

That statement is complete , not my problem you don't acknowledge it.

White people had superior technology and could perform almost all actions better, even those that are by modern standards bad.

Chinese had superior technology at 1 point, but didn't go invading the whole world. So having superior technology somehow makes it ok to conquer and genocide as much as possible. So can 1 say this as a counter argument to critics of the Nazis.

Here's a small list
1. It promotes the idea of Whites being morally inferior to other groups
2. It promotes the idea that a White kid born 30 years from now as guilty for something that happened 200 years before he was born.
3. It lumps all Whites in the world together for some action that was most prominent in the Southern USA.
4. It destroys the idea of having an individual identity.
5. It's the "original sin" in social justice form
6. It is used to decrease resistance to questionable government policies by virtue of using emotion and guilt rather than logic. A fallacious appeal to emotion.

Considering slavery was not long ago and segregation was even more recent and we still have police brutality and quite a lot of overt and subtle racism , it isn't something that is the past.

Trump's campaign is all the proof one needs to show how much racial hatred still exists. I am not saying that is the only reason people support Trump, but it is a big reason. Trump pandered to the Alt-Right / White Nationalists , and he wouldn't have done so if he didn't think it was a large untapped segment. Trump rose to political prominence on racism, namely Birtherism . He never had any kind of momentum behind him before he latched onto Birtherism.

There are a lot of White Americans who can't stand the progressive changes over the last few decades, they want to go back to a time when Blacks and other minorities 'Knew their Place' and when schools and academia weren't soo critical of America's colonial past.

If this was all that it was then almost everybody would be constantly encouraged to accept guilt and make amends for the actions of those who came before them (that happened to share their skin colour). This doesn't happen.

The original Whites who bought the Blacks slaves in Africa did not keep segregation alive in the 50s. The Chinese invaded Tibet and Uighur lands several decades ago, but every generation maintains the hold on power and increases it.
Salafists trying to expand into the West today are not the same people who spread Islam into the MidEast during Muhammed's time.

Now in the West, things changed quite a bit where you have Whites genuinely changing and becoming tolerant , and White guilt had a lot to do with this. Do you think if the 3rd Reich had won, the Germany of today would try to make amends for WW2 atrocities. Point is that you can only really say a group isn't like their ancestors if they genuinely try to make amends; if they maintain their ancestor's attitudes then why should they be absolved of guilt. There is some valid reasons to be critical of White guilt but the people knee-jerk critical of White guilt and progressive causes do not like the change in society, they rather America be more like it was pre 1950s. liberals sometimes get carried away in applying White guilt, but there is also no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water because some people get carried away.

White societies are already the fairest societies on Earth.[/QUOTE[
I have often said that the West is far more tolerant and fair than most of the world, and when we consider historically dominant groups, it is the West that changed towards a more just society.

You keep bringing up a statement used in a way that nobody on this site except you appears to be familiar with. There's already been multiple people in this thread who have stated that the primary reason for mentioning blacks enslaving blacks/africans enslaving africans is to counter certain fallacious ideas. Particularly the idea that whites are particularly evil and that the world would be holding hands under a rainbow if not for the white devil.

Re.Bolded
And now you resort to a strawman like some of the others. Guess if you can not actually argue the point , then make shit up.

And I keep stating that this argument is fallacious because it refuses to acknowledge that a) the Caucasoid slavers in Africa and b) racial diversity in SSA. To say Blacks enslaved Blacks applies a racial standard to Africa that is not applied elsewhere. The entire premise of the argument "Africans enslaved Africans" is wrong from the get go, so what point can be made that isn't fallacious from the start.

You have a weird obsession with classifying blacks as one group. It is not a necessary condition for the common usage of said argument so it's a waste of time.

Actually it is you guys who are lumping Blacks as 1 group since you keep saying "Africans enslaved Africans, with African = common parlance for Black African. I am stating the opposite, namely that you can not lump all people in Africa as 1.

---

All this is going off on a tangent and deflection. The point in my 1st post is quite simple :
* Talk about slavery = all Africans (aka Black) are 1 group
* Talk about Ancient Egypt = All Africans are not Black
* No distinction is made to differentiate the various African races, linguistic groups and peoples but distinction is made to differentiate the many non-African peoples.

 

[MicroBrew]

So you wouldn't say 'white people are responsible' but you would say 'white culture is responsible'

When it comes to Japan, no I wouldn't hold Japanese culture responsible especially today. There are a lot of factors when it comes to wars, especially on that scale. It brings out the beast in people and most are ultimately geo-political in nature.

The retort isn't bullshit at all when placed into the proper context of the initial narrative (whites enslaved blacks). On it's own sure, it's dumb. but in context of challenging an initial narrative, no it's not dumb at all. It's quite logical.

No I would not say each individual is, I would say it is the culture/society (of the specific colonial powers) that is responsible.

But would you ever disagree with someone who said the "Japanese committed atrocities in WW2" . My point is that a person saying this isn't necessarily saying every Japanese person is responsible, they are saying the culture as a whole is. I have said that Saudis are very racist and intolerant; ofcourse I am not saying every single 1 of them is, rather the culture in general is . I have said minorities in Muslims countries are made to 'Know their Place' , ofcourse I am not saying every single Muslim is engaged in oppressing minorities.

 

[dontsnitch]

.

That statement is complete , not my problem you don't acknowledge it.



Chinese had superior technology at 1 point, but didn't go invading the whole world. So having superior technology somehow makes it ok to conquer and genocide as much as possible. So can 1 say this as a counter argument to critics of the Nazis.



Considering slavery was not long ago and segregation was even more recent and we still have police brutality and quite a lot of overt and subtle racism , it isn't something that is the past.

Trump's campaign is all the proof one needs to show how much racial hatred still exists. I am not saying that is the only reason people support Trump, but it is a big reason. Trump pandered to the Alt-Right / White Nationalists , and he wouldn't have done so if he didn't think it was a large untapped segment. Trump rose to political prominence on racism, namely Birtherism . He never had any kind of momentum behind him before he latched onto Birtherism.

There are a lot of White Americans who can't stand the progressive changes over the last few decades, they want to go back to a time when Blacks and other minorities 'Knew their Place' and when schools and academia weren't soo critical of America's colonial past.




The original Whites who bought the Blacks slaves in Africa did not keep segregation alive in the 50s. The Chinese invaded Tibet and Uighur lands several decades ago, but every generation maintains the hold on power and increases it.
Salafists trying to expand into the West today are not the same people who spread Islam into the MidEast during Muhammed's time.

Now in the West, things changed quite a bit where you have Whites genuinely changing and becoming tolerant , and White guilt had a lot to do with this. Do you think if the 3rd Reich had won, the Germany of today would try to make amends for WW2 atrocities. Point is that you can only really say a group isn't like their ancestors if they genuinely try to make amends; if they maintain their ancestor's attitudes then why should they be absolved of guilt. There is some valid reasons to be critical of White guilt but the people knee-jerk critical of White guilt and progressive causes do not like the change in society, they rather America be more like it was pre 1950s. liberals sometimes get carried away in applying White guilt, but there is also no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water because some people get carried away.

You continue to speak about white people as one monolithic group, while objecting to people doing the same with black people.

If you want to group all Europeans as "white people" without differentiating between the different countries, and then blame white people for slavery (LOL), don't complain when people do the same with black people in Africa, both are identical in their ignorance.

For the record, the actual racist argument that is used against black people is that they commit more violent crime, not that they also took party in slavery. The latter is obviously a rebuttal to white guilt.

 

[MicroBrew]

I can't have a conversation with you if you're adopting an illogical and racist premise, which consequently, explains why you take issue with a rather benign and intuitive counter-argument to an explicitly racist idea.

I can say the same of you and anyone else who keeps defending this racist meme of "Africans enslaving Africans".

There is nothing benign about the meme, it is a very racist meme that deliberately misleads to further a White supremacist agenda.

 

[dontsnitch]

I can say the same of you and anyone else who keeps defending this racist meme of "Africans enslaving Africans".

There is nothing benign about the meme, it is a very racist meme that deliberately misleads to further a White supremacist agenda.

Defending a meme? LOL. You're proudly defending actual racism.

 

[MicroBrew]

.


You continue to speak about white people as one monolithic group, while objecting to people doing the same with black people.

If you want to group all Europeans as "white people" without differentiating between the different countries, and then blame white people for slavery (LOL), don't complain when people do the same with black people in Africa, both are identical in their ignorance.

For the record, the actual racist argument that is used against black people is that they commit more violent crime, not that they also took party in slavery. The latter is obviously a rebuttal to white guilt.

Europeans came up with the term White to differentiate European people from others. I said in the context of New World slavery, "White" refers to the Euro cultures engaged in slavery/colonialism . When a person talks about slavery and Whites enslaving Blacks, they are simply using a term (White) that Whites created to describe themselves. You don't have to connect the dots to know they mean the White cultures that brought the slaves over here.

If you are soo mad at Europeans being described as White (as opposed to Germans, Italians,Swedes,Fins,English,Welsh,Serbs,Albanians,Estonians etc...), why didn't you say anything to all the umpteen posts in countless threads where people use the term White.How is it you have no problem with American society, the US government and posters using "White" to denote a myriad of Euro ethnicities.

Also: comparing Europeans as a group to Africans as a group is apples to oranges. You are comparing a subset of Caucasoids (Europeans) to ALL Negroids/Blacks, Capoids, Pgymies and Caucasoid North Africans. Would be more accurate to compare all Caucasoids to all Negroids.

The racist argument used *in this thread* by the poster I was responding to was about Blacks enslaving Blacks . Domestic African American crime rate doesn't come into this argument.

 

[MicroBrew]

Defending a meme? LOL. You're proudly defending actual racism.

I am opposing the racist logic being spewed here by those like you who are defending the racist meme. You are just trying to spin this into making your side look like the victim, because if you had to be honest, you couldn't actually defend the meme since it makes no Anthropological sense.

 

[Handsomebwonderfull]

SJW are scared rappers would 'Pull Up Wit Ah Stick' on them that's why they only target peaceful white men who build society's.

So whit bois need to pull up wit ah sthick

 

[TheGreatA]

It looks like you've bought into right-wing libertarianism propaganda about classical liberals being these psychos that didn't care about people suffering (because these right-wing libertarians themselves don't care)

It has nothing to do with being a psycho that doesn't care about people suffering. It has more to do with acknowledging that it will be to everyone's detriment ultimately if the man, who contributes more, must carry the burden of those, who contribute less.

What productivity and resources, on the part of the more talented men, could be used on technological innovation (truly the greatest remedy against inequality, poverty and suffering), will instead be used to uplift those without the means, nor the will, to sustain themselves, leading to a stagnant society which becomes pre-occupied with maintaining a false sense of equality, which in reality does not exist. In doing so, the state must begin to control all aspects of society, as any "uncontrolled" aspect of the society will lead to inequality, since that is the natural state of things.

Adam Smith actually condemned the rich merchants of his time. He believed in "free markets" because he thought they'd create perfect equality. He strongly criticized English colonization of India and if he was the sociopath right-wingers think he was, he'd have been perfectly fine with it.

One can be against colonization without believing men to be equal.

Adam Smith wasn't necessarily what I was talking about. He laid down the economic foundation of classical liberalism, but is not necessarily recognized as one. He held liberal and nonliberal views.

The link between the Enlightenment and anarchism (which developed side by side with socialism):




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchism#Development_of_Anarchism

Everything has a link to the Enlightenment. Not all anarchist ideals developed side by side with socialism.

Were socialists influenced by Enlightenment ideas and did they draw their own conclusions from it? Yes. Is socialism the legimate heir to Enlightenment ideas and liberalism, as you seem to think it is? No. Absolutely not. It can, at best, be seen as a perversion of the original liberal ideas. And we are, again, beginning to see why, as our societies slowly reach the point of stagnation due to adopting socialist ideals, while abandoning liberal ideals.

This should serve to make the distinction:

https://books.google.com/books?id=lvLMCwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA26&ots=Nvn8cG6S9w&dq=classical liberalism egalitarian&hl=fi&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q=classical liberalism egalitarian&f=false

The hyper individualist interpretations of liberalism came about over a century later. Naturally, it came through the business lobby. The first libertarian institution was started by a business magnate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Read

Hyper-individualist ideals existed long before libertarians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism#Individualist_anarchism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#History

 

[dontsnitch]

Europeans came up with the term White to differentiate European people from others. I said in the context of New World slavery, "White" refers to the Euro cultures engaged in slavery/colonialism . When a person talks about slavery and Whites enslaving Blacks, they are simply using a term (White) that Whites created to describe themselves. You don't have to connect the dots to know they mean the White cultures that brought the slaves over here.

If you are soo mad at Europeans being described as White (as opposed to Germans, Italians,Swedes,Fins,English,Welsh,Serbs,Albanians,Estonians etc...), why didn't you say anything to all the umpteen posts in countless threads where people use the term White.How is it you have no problem with American society, the US government and posters using "White" to denote a myriad of Euro ethnicities.

Also: comparing Europeans as a group to Africans as a group is apples to oranges. You are comparing a subset of Caucasoids (Europeans) to ALL Negroids/Blacks, Capoids, Pgymies and Caucasoid North Africans. Would be more accurate to compare all Caucasoids to all Negroids.

The racist argument used *in this thread* by the poster I was responding to was about Blacks enslaving Blacks . Domestic African American crime rate doesn't come into this argument.

When people use the term "white people" and "black people" they are referring to people who have white and black skin.

Let me simplify this for you- When group X does action Y, the colour of X's skin has not caused action Y and can't be blamed for said action. If you want to imply that those who share some arbitrary characteristic (skin colour) with group X hundreds of years after Y, you're racist. Not "your side", not those whose ideas you adhere to, but you.

White people are not guilty for slavery no more than black people are guilty for violent crime. Your battle is with your own inconsistency.

 

[moneyfight]

So whit bois need to pull up wit ah sthick

bu whit bois dont be doin' dat cause dey stay bussy buildin' socitees n sheit

 

[Deleted member 196663]

Actually I didn't lump all White people, I said it was understood that while not every single White person was responsible , the culture as a whole (of the Euro nations involved in it) did carry it out. Do you argue with people when they say Japan in WW2 carried out atrocities . I mean you can nitpick and say how dare someone lump all Japanese as guilty. You know as well as I do that no one ever means all Japanese, but the culture as a whole was responsible. Do you nitpick and attack anyone who says Muslims imposed their religion on non-Muslims in much of the Near East, cause you know Not every Muslim did it.

The retort is bullshit, and I have explained why umpteen times. Because this retort doesn't differentiate between North Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans and it doesn't take into account that Sub-Saharan Africa itself is composed of different races and linguistic groups. And the hypocrisy in this retort is how this argument is never used vis-a-vis ancient Egypt.

You just lump all Sub-Saharan Africans as 1 Black entity. Do you lump people from South Asia, Near East, Anatolia and Europe as 1 entity. Do you lump all Eurasian peoples (From Western Europe to Japan) as 1 entity , cause you know they all live on the same continent . So why do you lump all Africans as 1 entity .

Hey why don't we say 9/11 was Whites killing Whites, since MENA folks are Caucasoid (and considered White by the US gov ) , but ofcourse rightwingers wouldn't ever say this. What about saying ISIS is White, since Baghdadi is a Caucasoid and he could just as easily look like an Eastern Orthodox priest if he wore their garb.

You're comparing a nation-state (Japan) to an entire racial group. Something is a bit odd about that.

 

[TheGreatA]

The retort is bullshit, and I have explained why umpteen times. Because this retort doesn't differentiate between North Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans and it doesn't take into account that Sub-Saharan Africa itself is composed of different races and linguistic groups. And the hypocrisy in this retort is how this argument is never used vis-a-vis ancient Egypt.

Sub-Saharan Africans enslaved and sold off each other. Enslaving captured people was part of tribal warfare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kongo#Slavery_and_royal_rivalries

If the Finns were conquered and enslaved by the Swedes, and sold off to the Chinese, I wouldn't necessarily hold a grudge with the Chinese, especially if they eventually liberated the slaves, and became known as the greatest critics of slavery, and the greatest defenders of world-wide liberty.

In the meanwhile, forced labour is still a thing in Africa. There are literally men, women and children currently living under a state of slavery in Africa.

If the black Americans wish to condemn historical villains, then they start by condemning the African warlords who conquered other people and enslaved them.

Instead though, they are probably taught to admire these men through Afro-centrism.

 

[TheComebackKid]

And what is wrong with White guilt; it is just accepting that one's culture did a lot of shit and the effects of that stuff continues to this day. Sure sometimes it can get carried away but the concept isn't wrong. I would say the same for Japanese guilt, Arab guilt, Turkish guilt etc...I know those on the right (too many) carte-blanche abhor White guilt because they hate to see White culture try to make amends for the past and progress towards a fairer society. If the Germans can have guilt for their war time atrocities then why shouldn't Whites who enslaved and genocided Blacks and Amerindians

 

[MicroBrew]

When people use the term "white people" and "black people" they are referring to people who have white and black skin.

Let me simplify this for you- When group X does action Y, the colour of X's skin has not caused action Y and can't be blamed for said action. If you want to imply that those who share some arbitrary characteristic (skin colour) with group X hundreds of years after Y, you're racist. Not "your side", not those whose ideas you adhere to, but you.

White people are not guilty for slavery no more than black people are guilty for violent crime. Your battle is with your own inconsistency.

Nope
When people say White people, in common parlance it is a euphemism for European peoples. It also is used as an euphemism for Caucasoid but that is more something you hear in HBD and Anthro discussions. Chechnyans, North Africans, Iranians, Arabians , Egyptians, Levantines and all of the Near East are considered White by the US government because they are deemed to be mostly Caucasoid.

Blacks is a euphemism for Negroid peoples, and synonymous with African. Even though North Africans are African technically, when people say African they mean Sub-Saharan/Black African. So saying "Africans enslaved Africans" is soo disingenuous because a lot of these Africans were Caucasoid and as such considered White. Levantines were allowed to emigrate to the US before the 1965 immigration act that allowed non-Whites to come here.

When Group X does shit and then Group X's descendants follow in the footsteps of their forefathers, that means the descendants of Group X aren't innocent. They are just continuing the policies of their forefathers. If the descendants of Group X changed their ways and aren't treating the descendants of Group Y like shit anymore then they don't share the guilt.

On the bright side, the West isn't treating the descendants of Group Y like their forefathers did , but there is still a ways to go.

White culture in the past , the White culture of the colonial powers, were guilty of slavery. Slavery was not just a few individuals doing it ; it had societal support behind it. This (communal support for wars , expansionism, slavery , ethnic cleansing, colonization ) is true for any culture regardless of racial or ethnic origins. I think it was Sun Tzu ; he said something along the lines of the fish need the ocean to swim , which is meant to say that a rebellion needs the support of the people to carry on.

 

[My Spot]

Are you still "doing research" on Stormfront?

 

[moneyfight]

Sub-Saharan Africans enslaved and sold off each other. Enslaving captured people was part of tribal warfare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kongo#Slavery_and_royal_rivalries

If the Finns were conquered and enslaved by the Swedes, and sold off to the Chinese, I wouldn't necessarily hold a grudge with the Chinese, especially if they eventually liberated the slaves, and became known as the greatest critics of slavery, and the greatest defenders of world-wide liberty.

In the meanwhile, forced labour is still a thing in Africa. There are literally men, women and children currently living under a state of slavery in Africa.

If the black Americans wish to condemn historical villains, then they start by condemning the African warlords who conquered other people and enslaved them.

Instead though, they are probably taught to admire these men through Afro-centrism.

Finally someone just came with a post full of honesty and truth without semantics

 

[MicroBrew]

You're comparing a nation-state (Japan) to an entire racial group. Something is a bit odd about that.

In this context it was simply meant to explain to IDL that when people say XYZ did this, they aren't necessarily saying everyone who is a member of XYZ did it. Whether it is Japan (with its 3 racial and or ethnic minorities) or Europeans with countless different groups , the point was to say that not everyone is being blamed. Earlier I used the example of the British empire , where I said that when people criticize the Brits for their crimes, they aren't necessarily say every single Brit did the crime.