• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread "White Supremacist" really has no meaning anymore.

johnny karate said:
I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean, but best of luck to you in whatever it is you’re trying to do here.
Click to expand...

I'm also not sure in what way the link relates to the question it purports to respond to. However, it does lead to a couple of interesting links, describing the concepts and arguments white supremacists are wont to use in diverting organizations and discussions, and it seems worth the read.

The page referred contains links concerning racism and the fight against it, an external resource for the parent organization which concerns gender violence. It provides links to a couple of PDF files containing some discussion that seems worth reading, describing how these and other concepts (aside from those listed in the post, there's an "and more" in the original) are used by racists attempting to divert and disarm efforts toward diversity.

There is no suggestion here that the concepts discussed equal white supremacy, nor that they are exclusive to white supremacists, nor that they are inherently always wrong.

For those hesitant to open links without more context, I suggest that this one is harmless, and worth looking at, but arguing about the content of the articles linked is probably not quite on topic here.

e.t.a. and if you do happen to be interested in the issue of gender violence, the parent organization linked to, "VAWNET" appears at least on surface to be worth a browse.
 
Last edited:
Trausti said:
"White Supremacist" really has no meaning anymore.

[qimg]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F4nYSyEXsAAoMiQ?format=jpg&name=small[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I find that statement odd. What do you man by having no meaning? I have always thought that it meant something specific - people who consider themselves to be members of a white race who believe that they should prevail in some way over others they presume to belong to other races.

One could certainly dispute whether the term is correctly applied in all cases (including the example given, though part of that dispute might depend on how you read it and how sensationalist the presentation) , but in what way does that deprive it of meaning?

e.t.a. for those not interested in following down the whole race and fitness rabbit hole, it appears that a scholar from the New School (no honor for my alma mater here) over-zealously connected the fact that a number of enthusiastic supporters and popularizers of exercise, including the peripheral issue of getting women out of corsets, did so for unsavory reasons, such as fighting black crime, counteracting racial replacement, and so forth, and made the claim that this somehow means they invented exercise and that there's something fishy about fitness....or something. I didn't bother to read much beyond the beginning, because it seems pretty obviously nonsense. I do not, however, think that this makes the white supremacists in question any less despicable, nor that what I would consider the ill-begotten backward logic of the whole thing makes white supremacy a non-issue, or the term meaningless.
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
I find that statement odd. What do you man by having no meaning? I have always thought that it meant something specific - people who consider themselves to be members of a white race who believe that they should prevail in some way over others they presume to belong to other races.
Click to expand...

I rarely see it used that way nowadays, and I think that's what the poster was referring to. Like the word "racism", once it has been sued to describe such a wide range of phenomena bearing little to no association with its original definition it sort of loses any sense of meaning whatsoever.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
I rarely see it used that way nowadays, and I think that's what the poster was referring to. Like the word "racism", once it has been sued to describe such a wide range of phenomena bearing little to no association with its original definition it sort of loses any sense of meaning whatsoever.
Click to expand...
I suppose you have a point, in that when a term is misused enough its original meaning can be lost. Which is a pity, I think, because the the actual thing it originally meant still exists, and there really ought to be a term for it that fits it.

I am not convinced that the example above fits, though. It really comes down to a rather shabby well poisoning fallacy. The people cited as touting exercise and fitness really were, by a reasonable standard, white supremacists. If the report cited is reasonably accurate, they are on record as having taken that position. The problem is not that, but the presumption that their endorsement of it somehow tainted it.

But people with an axe to grind certainly can and do make useful terms useless by stretching their definition to the breaking point. You shouldn't have to attach a defining footnote.

Back when I was reading a lot of philosophy, I came across a statement by C.S. Peirce, who invented what he called "pragmatism," which others, including his friend William James, took over, and expanded into something he had not quite intended. He remained a friend of James, who was one of the few people in the world who tolerated him, but lamented that he had to rename his idea "pragmaticism," an admittedly cumbersome word, and that if you don't want your ideas to be stolen, you should find an ugly name right from the start.
 
Yes, who could ever figure out what “white supremacy” means and whether or not Republicans are mainstreaming it. It’s an unknowable mystery.

Well argued as usual, forum conservatives.
 
Trausti said:
"White Supremacist" really has no meaning anymore.

[qimg]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F4nYSyEXsAAoMiQ?format=jpg&name=small[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Once again disregarding that it's about people that literally say they are. We're not talking dog whistles here, whether you think they are valid or not. It's irrelevant to the point.
 
NB, rereading my last post above, I see a dangling-pronoun ambiguity, which I imagine will be understood, but just for the record, in my statement about "endorsement of it and tainting of it" the "it" mentioned was exercise, not white supremacy!
 
Trausti said:
"White Supremacist" really has no meaning anymore.
Click to expand...
According to you and Tommy Tuberville, who has the IQ of a geranium. Although he did backtrack.

[qimg]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F4nYSyEXsAAoMiQ?format=jpg&name=small[/qimg]
Click to expand...
Lacking context, it's not possible to assess this one way or the other.
 
No point in trying but hey, what the post is saying is that "White Supremacy" used to describe the belief that white people are inherently better that other people and action should be taken to ensure white people are in charge. It used to almost exclusive describe groups like the KKK, WAR, and their adherents. Now we've got teh LA times calling Larry Elder the Black Face of White Supremacy. Based on the old definition of White Supremacy, thats a self-contradictory phrase.

A Black man running to be the governor of a state, can't be white supremacy. Unless the phrase now means something else. In which case we need a new phrase describe the philosophy of the klan et al.

Edit to add:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy
White supremacy is the belief that white people are superior to those of other races and thus should dominate them.[1] The belief favors the maintenance and defense of any power and privilege held by white people. White supremacy has roots in the now-discredited doctrine of scientific racism and was a key justification for European colonialism.[2][3]
Click to expand...

By "white supremacy" I do not mean to allude only to the self-conscious racism of white supremacist hate groups. I refer instead to a political, economic and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas of white superiority and entitlement are widespread, and relations of white dominance and non-white subordination are daily reenacted across a broad array of institutions and social settings.[24][25]
Click to expand...
That second quote is basically saying, I'm using white supremacy to mean something other than what most everyone else thinks. And that's not even nearly the most expansive way the term is used.
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
That second quote is basically saying, I'm using white supremacy to mean something other than what most everyone else thinks. And that's not even nearly the most expansive way the term is used.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's just like the words "racism" and "fascism".

What we're seeing is sort of a belief in the magical power of words. If something can be called "racist", "fascist" or "white supremacist" then it must be bad because racism, fascism and white supremacy are bad. Never mind that the original definitions of the words are no longer being used, not even by a long shot.

It even happens on this very forum. A lot.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
Exactly. It's just like the words "racism" and "fascism".

What we're seeing is sort of a belief in the magical power of words. If something can be called "racist", "fascist" or "white supremacist" then it must be bad because racism, fascism and white supremacy are bad. Never mind that the original definitions of the words are no longer being used, not even by a long shot.

It even happens on this very forum. A lot.
Click to expand...

Isn't it irrelevant though? The problem being referred to is the Republican party platforming and normalizing white supremacists of the original definition.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
Exactly. It's just like the words "racism" and "fascism".

What we're seeing is sort of a belief in the magical power of words. If something can be called "racist", "fascist" or "white supremacist" then it must be bad because racism, fascism and white supremacy are bad. Never mind that the original definitions of the words are no longer being used, not even by a long shot.

It even happens on this very forum. A lot.
Click to expand...

Or on the other side, commie or socialist, woke, groomer........
 
gnome said:
Isn't it irrelevant though? The problem being referred to is the Republican party platforming and normalizing white supremacists of the original definition.
Click to expand...

Not really iirrelevant. If you want the folks to believe that republicans are platforming actual white supremacist then using white supremacy to describe things and people that most folks wouldn't describe as white supremacists.

I've got to go back to my favorite example, a black man running to be governor of CA was called a white supremecist by a major CA newspaper. The average Rep or independant hears that and won't even bother to find out if nick fuentes is or not.
 
ahhell said:
I've got to go back to my favorite example, a black man running to be governor of CA was called a white supremecist by a major CA newspaper. The average Rep or independant hears that and won't even bother to find out if nick fuentes is or not.
Click to expand...
That definitely sounds bad, but I wish I could read what was written. A quick search serves up a lot of outrage from various right-wing sources, but the actual text is elusive.
 
varwoche said:
That definitely sounds bad, but I wish I could read what was written. A quick search serves up a lot of outrage from various right-wing sources, but the actual text is elusive.
Click to expand...

Must have looked as hard as those rebpulicans are going to look for evidence that fuentes is white supremecist.
https://www.latimes.com/california/...larry-elder-is-a-threat-to-black-californians

I suppose you have some reason why:
Column: Larry Elder is the Black face of white supremacy. You’ve been warned
Click to expand...
Isn't really calling him a white supremacist or not really a var more exansive view of white supremecy than most folks use.

I'm sure its a special reason. But forgive me if I continues to think the editiorial was absurd on the face and a clear example of what I'm talking about.

Edit to add, really illustrates the point actually.
 
I would join in this discussion, but I won't debate, because debate is an imperialist capitalist white supremacist cis heteropatriarchal technique that transforms a potential exchange of knowledge into a tool of exclusion and oppression.
 
ahhell said:
Must have looked as hard as those rebpulicans are going to look for evidence that fuentes is white supremecist.
https://www.latimes.com/california/...larry-elder-is-a-threat-to-black-californians
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link.

While there are mitigating factors -- Elder's outrageous positions and inflammatory rhetoric -- this looks like a good example of "white supremacy" being misused and hence diluted.

I suppose you have some reason why:
Click to expand...
Why I wanted to see what was written? In general, I think it's good form for posters (and columnists) to provide precise quotes and a link, and not expect readers to take characterizations at face value.
 
ahhell said:
Not really iirrelevant. If you want the folks to believe that republicans are platforming actual white supremacist then using white supremacy to describe things and people that most folks wouldn't describe as white supremacists.
Click to expand...

I'm having a really hard time parsing this for your point. I'm not sure if we agree or disagree.
 
gnome said:
I'm having a really hard time parsing this for your point. I'm not sure if we agree or disagree.
Click to expand...
Fair criticism.
Point being if folks are stretching the definition of phrases like "white supremacy, fascism, communism....etc" other folks will start to ignore them.

Obviously, George Orwell is a better writer than I am. But he had an essay in the late 40s explaining how this had happened to the word fascism. It went from being a specific political philosophy to just "things I don't like." Thats more or less what is happening to "white supremacy". Its not helpful. It more or less results in folks ignore folks saying "thats white supremacy" even if its white

varwoche said:
Thanks for the link.

While there are mitigating factors -- Elder's outrageous positions and inflammatory rhetoric -- this looks like a good example of "white supremacy" being misused and hence diluted.

Why I wanted to see what was written? In general, I think it's good form for posters (and columnists) to provide precise quotes and a link, and not expect readers to take characterizations at face value.
Click to expand...

I appreciate this response, it was thoughtful, considerate and not at all snarky. Some what different from my line about special reasons. So, thanks. I was a jerk and you are not.
 
varwoche said:
According to you and Tommy Tuberville, who has the IQ of a geranium. Although he did backtrack.

Lacking context, it's not possible to assess this one way or the other.
Click to expand...
I got some of the context, which is that there was an article in Time magazine asserting (with some evidence) that a major force in the popularization of exercise and fitness regimens, as well as seemingly feminist movements such as the discarding of corsets, originated with white supremacists and their organizations, seen as a necessary step in the battle against minorities and the need for increased fertility to prevent racial replacement. The evidence that some of this is true is available. The suggestion that this somehow taints exercise and fitness and makes their practice suspect, is nonsense, as is the implication that this wave of popularization constituted the invention of exercise.

It is indeed unfortunate that real and regrettable things like white supremacy get confused with other ideas, because it makes them harder to identify and target, but most of all because it leads some who ought to know better to argue that the dissipation of the terms justifies their dismissal of the evils they ought to describe.
 
Pointing to examples in which a term is used ambiguously or incorrectly and insisting that somehow renders the term itself meaningless isn’t a rational argument.

This is just another rhetorical shell game by the usual suspects who have nothing of substance to offer.

That Republicans are normalizing white supremacy is an indisputable fact.
 
Does it really exist as a serious philosophy, or is it just Dunning-Krueger? It seems to be most popular among poorly educated Whites.
 
I think it matters more how widespread it is and how much harm its adherents are capable of, rather than how "serious" the ideology is. Especially a prevalence in military and law enforcement.
 
gnome said:
I think it matters more how widespread it is and how much harm its adherents are capable of, rather than how "serious" the ideology is. Especially a prevalence in military and law enforcement.
Click to expand...

And how much Republican normalization of it emboldens its adherents.
 
Umberto Eco had a good definition of Fascism.

The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”

The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”

Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”

Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”

The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”

The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”

Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”

Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”

Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”

Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”

Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”

Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
Click to expand...

Most Republican rhetoric today ticks most or all of these boxes
 
white supremacists thought cultural appropriation was a joke until it happened to them
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
Exactly. It's just like the words "racism" and "fascism".

What we're seeing is sort of a belief in the magical power of words. If something can be called "racist", "fascist" or "white supremacist" then it must be bad because racism, fascism and white supremacy are bad. Never mind that the original definitions of the words are no longer being used, not even by a long shot.

It even happens on this very forum. A lot.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you could expedite the discussion by explaining what your understanding of the "original definitions" of racism, fascism and white supremacy were, and how current common usages* diverge from that.

*- as opposed to cherry-picked tirades by professional pontificators.

Some examples from this very forum would be appropriate, since there are a lot.
 
ahhell said:
Or on the other side, commie or socialist, woke, groomer........
Click to expand...


I disagree with you about “woke.” It is the only succinct term to describe the set of far-left identity-obsessed authoritarian zealots who call anyone who disagrees with their agenda a white supremacist.
 
quadraginta said:
Perhaps you could expedite the discussion by explaining what your understanding of the "original definitions" of racism, fascism and white supremacy were, and how current common usages* diverge from that.

*- as opposed to cherry-picked tirades by professional pontificators.

Some examples from this very forum would be appropriate, since there are a lot.
Click to expand...

I don't see much difference in the original definitions of racism or white supremacy and the current common usage.

Fascism however was always kind of vague and most people don't know what it's core tenets are. It gets used mostly to refer to racist authoritarians, which of course historical fascists certainly were. The main characteristic of Fascism, however, is authoritarian populist hyper-nationalism. Under fascism there is an elite that rules over the middle and lower classes. These middle and lower classes were whipped up in a nationalist frenzy so they would be willing to sacrifice their own well being in order to enhance the "greatness" of the nation.

Comparing it with with the historical accepted definitions of fascism (there isn't just one) MAGA does seem to show most of the same traits as historical fascist movements. IMO though, people generally don't dig that deep and usually refer to any racist authoritarian as a fascist, which isn't necessarily the case.
 
jt512 said:
I disagree with you about “woke.” It is the only succinct term to describe the set of far-left identity-obsessed authoritarian zealots who call anyone who disagrees with their agenda a white supremacist.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree back because it's applied to far more than just zealots, in order to dismiss anyone who advocates for marginalized people as zealots.

The same thing was done with "SJW" and "PC" and "Femenazis" before that. It's an old game with a new word every so often.

Why not just say "zealots" if that's all you mean?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom