• 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.

arthwollipot said:
Next thing you know they'll be quoting Joe Rogan. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You clearly missed the bit where I equated the current use of White Supremcacist with terms like woke on the right. Nah, there's no way I could have done that because I only defend racists and white supremacists and think it fine to use ad hom against lefties.

JoeMorgue said:
Again the only sin wrong people recognize is being "too much" against wrong people.
Click to expand...

arthwollipot said:
Next thing you know they'll be quoting Joe Rogan. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

d4m10n said:
McWhorter seems pretty highly qualified to weigh in on the current meaning of phrases like "white supremacy," though, having studied linguistics and written books about race relations.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You must have missed the experts in this thread, McWhorter is no more qualified than Joe Rogan and Bill Maher.
 
I missed ******* nothing, I just noticed yet again the people who only jump into discourse when the provably wrong side gets treated with just a tad too much snark and then suddenly remember they have morals that didn't exist 5 minutes before.

If you don't tell the person saying 2+2=6 they are wrong I DO ******* NOT want to hear your 2 cents about civility or rudeness when someone calls them dumb.
 
While we're sorting out semantics here, I like to think we can all agree that people who identify as white nationalists or white separatists are just thinly veiled supremacists.

In today’s racially charged environment, there’s a label that even the KKK disavows: white supremacy...
“We’re not white supremacists. We believe in our race,” said a man with a Midwestern accent and glasses just hours before a pro-Trump Klan parade in a nearby town. He, like three Klan compatriots, wore a robe and pointed hood and wouldn’t give his full name, in accordance with Klan rules...
“We are white separatists, just as Yahweh in the Bible told us to be. Separate yourself from other nations. Do not intermix and mongrelize your seed,” said one of the Klansmen
Click to expand...
link
 
varwoche said:
While we're sorting out semantics here, I like to think we can all agree that people who identify as white nationalists or white separatists are just thinly veiled supremacists.
Click to expand...

People declare themselves Nazis all the time and we still have to listen to the "Oh the left just calls everyone they don't like a Nazi."
 
JoeMorgue said:
I missed ******* nothing, I just noticed yet again the people who only jump into discourse when the provably wrong side gets treated with just a tad too much snark and then suddenly remember they have morals that didn't exist 5 minutes before.

If you don't tell the person saying 2+2=6 they are wrong I DO ******* NOT want to hear your 2 cents about civility or rudeness when someone calls them dumb.
Click to expand...
That's the thing, I think anyone arguing that White Supremacy is not currently being used by a lot of folks to just mean people I disagree with is demonstratable wrong. Not idiots just blinded by ideology to the fact they are taking an unfalsiable.

varwoche said:
While we're sorting out semantics here, I like to think we can all agree that people who identify as white nationalists or white separatists are just thinly veiled supremacists.

link
Click to expand...
Totally agree, White nationalism, white separatists, the kkk, Neo-NAZIs are all just white supremacists.

That's what white supremacy used to mean, now it seems to cover all of american society. As I quoted up thread:

The OP is entirely about semantics, so we should resort to them.

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...
More or less starts by saying, "by white supremacy, I don't mean what it meant before now...."

But them I'm just a racist idiot.

I'll leave the audience to decide because I'm getting to irritated to engage productively.
 
ahhell said:
That's the thing, I think anyone arguing that White Supremacy is not currently being used by a lot of folks to just mean people I disagree with is demonstratable wrong.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. This is just "The libruls call everyone a Nazi!" again.

Nazis and White Supremist aren't some boogeymen that lefties made up to make Conservatives look bad and when we've got people spouting out "Race is a type of subspecies" in a thread I don't really think "Oh but we're over-diagnosing racisms" is a hot take you really need to wander into the discussion to drop on the rest of us.

I get it. You think concern trolling the correct side makes things "fair." It doesn't. It just makes you on the wrong side's team whether you like it or not.

Again if you watch a 100 homes burn down and don't say anything but the second the a firefighter uses 10 gallons of water a minute instead of the "technically correct" 8 gallons of water a minute and you pick that moment to enforce a standard... YOU'RE ON THE SIDE OF THE FIRE in every functional way that matters.
 
ahhell said:
Totally agree, White nationalism, white separatists, the kkk, Neo-NAZIs are all just white supremacists.

That's what white supremacy used to mean, now it seems to cover all of american society. As I quoted up thread:

The OP is entirely about semantics, so we should resort to them.

More or less starts by saying, "by white supremacy, I don't mean what it meant before now...."

But them I'm just a racist idiot.

I'll leave the audience to decide because I'm getting to irritated to engage productively.
Click to expand...

As d4m10n mentioned, we could consider the relatively new academic usage of white supremacy as just another flavor of ingroup-outgroup conflict.

I don't think this invalidates it. It's a conflict that is probably relevant to mixed white-diaspora societies today, so it is worth evaluating on its own terms. There are racial and ethnic conflicts going on on the other side of the world which most Westerners are unaware of that may be analogous to the white-black conversation here.

I do think it'd be rather strange to label someone "white supremacist" in this regard though. I'll stick to calling the system that.
 
well, colloquially i think it's fine to call people who don't consider themselves white supremacists but just agree with white supremacists about race stuff, hang out with them, excuse and defend them, or otherwise ingratiate them as white supremacists. they might not think it's fair, but knock it off then. these guys are showing up to your rallies carrying flags, it's your job to tell them to **** off.
 
JoeMorgue said:
[snip]

ETA: Why the hell do I keep wanting to spell discriminate with an e? It's not descriminate Joe.
Click to expand...


Don't worry too much about it, Joe.

We've got right wing-nut bigots claiming it's just fine for them to redefine a perfectly respectful century old expression to whatever the hell pejorative they want to because ... reasons, so I don't see where an occasional spelling blip is a big deal.
 
ahhell said:
More or less starts by saying, "by white supremacy, I don't mean what it meant before now...."

But them I'm just a racist idiot.

I'll leave the audience to decide because I'm getting to irritated to engage productively.
Click to expand...

I think your complaint is, frankly, silly. "White supremacist" may be a broader term now than it used to be, but the "new" meaning is still very clearly and strictly tied to the original. It still has to do with the conceptual supremacy of white people, it just now encompasses the covert or unconscious as well as the open and explicit. It's not like the word "gay" where it used to mean "happy" and now it means something utterly different and unrelated like "what kind of people you want to have sex with".

In my experience, generally speaking this kind of complaint is made by individuals who are more upset that the underlying concept is being discussed at all and are disputing the word choice as a kind of proxy protest against the larger discussion.

If I'm having a conversation right now, in 2023, unless I've specified otherwise naturally I'm going to be using words the way they are meant right now, in 2023. If you want to use words strictly the way they "used to mean" without having to explain that's what you're doing, then you can always go to a Renaissance fair or SCA confab and talk to the cosplayers in character.
 
lomiller said:
No credible scientist uses race as a synonym for population group.

Again, there is some acceptance for the term in the context of ethnocultural groups, but these are as more about cultural identity then any meaningful biological difference. The traditionally defined "races" don't make ANY sense in terms of population groups from a genetic perspective.
Click to expand...

Well, other than, say, for blood or organ donation. But whether you call it race, population group, ethocultural, whatever, the point is that this clustering of people is based on who your ancestors are. Everyone does not share the same ancestors. Over time, as evolution and natural selection would obviously suggest, these clusters get genetically distant from one another.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I'll never stop being tickled at people who care about literally nothing except wrong people being treated .000000000000000001% worse then they thing they should.
Click to expand...

Agreed. No person should be treated differently due to their race. No advantage or disadvantage. That used to be the liberal position. What the hell happened?
 
Trausti said:
Everyone does not share the same ancestors.
Click to expand...
Actually they do, if you go back far enough.

Think about it: you had 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 greatgrandparents ...

How many generations since the number of people from whom you are descended is greater than the population then was of the earth?

Of course long before then there would be overlap, i.e.you're descended from the same person multiple ways, but even allowing for that you quickly reach enormous numbers of ancestors and the overlap between everyone's ancestors increases. So it really shouldn't be a surprise that a person from whom everyone who is alive today is descended probably lived just a few thousand years ago.

Over time, as evolution and natural selection would obviously suggest, these clusters get genetically distant from one another.
Click to expand...
Only if they're isolated from each other. Any mixing at all, and the opposite happens.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
I'll never stop being tickled at people who care about literally nothing except wrong people being treated .000000000000000001% worse then they thing they should.
Click to expand...

Trausti said:
Agreed. No person should be treated differently due to their race. No advantage or disadvantage. That used to be the liberal position. What the hell happened?
Click to expand...

Didn't you comment something about the kind of people that turn everything into a race discussion?
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
Actually they do, if you go back far enough.

Think about it: you had 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 greatgrandparents ...

How many generations since the number of people from whom you are descended is greater than the population then was of the earth?

Of course long before then there would be overlap, i.e.you're descended from the same person multiple ways, but even allowing for that you quickly reach enormous numbers of ancestors and the overlap between everyone's ancestors increases. So it really shouldn't be a surprise that a person from whom everyone who is alive today is descended probably lived just a few thousand years.


Only if they're isolated from each other. Any mixing at all, and the opposite happens.
Click to expand...

No. Unless you believe in a supernatural deity who specially created humans in HIS own image, people do not have the same ancestors. Geographic and cultural separation does that. There is less genetic distance between a dog and a wolf as compared to sub-saharan African and everyone else.

Populations.png
 
Last edited:
Racists want to convince people on this forum that white supremacy isn't real. That dumb argument goes nowhere, so the thread is now a general racist sprawl.

Good stuff, really.
 
Trausti said:
Race exists. But you shouldn't treat people differently based on it. It just is.
Click to expand...

phenotype exists.
race doesn't.

from what we know from animals, species doesn't
(for example, all bears in the world can fertile interbreed, so the standard definition is useless)
 
Babbylonian said:
Racists want to convince people on this forum that white supremacy isn't real.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is wise to start labeling fellow posters as racists, but I'd be interested to know whether you think the highlighted proposition could ever be true, either in the distant future or perhaps prior to the age of discoveryWP.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
phenotype exists.
race doesn't.

from what we know from animals, species doesn't
(for example, all bears in the world can fertile interbreed, so the standard definition is useless)
Click to expand...

That's getting lost in semantics. There are differences in human population groups, as evolution and natural selection would predict. Whether we call that difference race, phenotype, or population group is beside the point. It just is.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
phenotype exists.
race doesn't.

from what we know from animals, species doesn't
(for example, all bears in the world can fertile interbreed, so the standard definition is useless)
Click to expand...

Yet biologists recognize the existence of races in many non-human species, and they define them the same as they do in humans: groups geographically separated due to historical migration that develop phenotypically distinctly.
 
jt512 said:
Yet biologists recognize the existence of races in many non-human species, and they define them the same as they do in humans: groups geographically separated due to historical migration that develop phenotypically distinctly.
Click to expand...

nope, they don't.

it's no longer a scientific term, just a holdover left for convince and communication.
 
If you start playing Rassenwissenschaft, i.e., race science, the table's wide open. Anybody can dream up anything, and as long as Herr Rassendoktor makes no reference to reality -- you know, physical observations and repeatable experiments -- he can utter fabulous claptrap and rope in the hateful creduloids like netting whitebait.

The Aryan Brothers' doctrine is positively a museum of exploded notions about race. When I hear some good ole boy expounding it, I conclude that he's done serious time in the joint.

Or his daddy has.
 
d4m10n said:
If a given phenomenon grew out of an earlier phenomenon then we cannot claim to understand it without understanding both.
Click to expand...
That's false, and another example of the fallacy in question. "Understanding" 21st century white supremacism in terms of the sins of Ham not only fails to inform, it actively distracts, because it's extinct as a justification for racism today. There is a distinction between meaning and origin. I don't need to know that the word silly once meant innocent to understand how the word is used today.

Which specific question did you think you were answering?
Click to expand...
The one you asked, about whether 17th century Europe was more supremacist than Ancient Rome.

It would be interesting to read what justifications they came up with, but I've already decided to just take your word for it.
Click to expand...
In reality, you're deciding to accept the evidence I've already provided while playing the martyr.
 
mumblethrax said:
"Understanding" 21st century white supremacism in terms of the sins of Ham not only fails to inform, it actively distracts, because it's extinct as a justification for racism today.
Click to expand...
No idea why you're limiting the phenomenon under discussion to the 21st century context; that seems arbitrary at best.

I also disagree that understaning the "sins of Ham" justification tells us nothing of interest here. Bible believers reached out for a justification of existing power relations rooted in their own understanding of where humanity came from and that's what they came up with. Sometime later, we saw the rise of scientific racism recapitulating essentially the same process but with a non-agentic optimizer in place of the Hebrew god. In either case, folks were reasoning to a foregone conclusion for the sake up upholding the status quo.
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
These messages brought to you in thread in which conservatives pretend to not know what "white supremacy" means.
Click to expand...

Oh I know what it means, that somehow whiteness is equal to superior and all other shades of humans are inferior. It's just that I have a hard time believing anything more than a handful of people could find the argument credible; there are far too many trashy whites and classy blacks/asians/whatever. Of course it does seem to be mostly the trashy whites who believe this, which strikes me as classic Dunning-Krueger.
 
Trausti said:
There are differences in human population groups, as evolution and natural selection would predict.
Click to expand...

The differences between human population groups are insignificant when compared to other large mammals.

Trausti said:
Whether we call that difference race, phenotype, or population group is beside the point.
Click to expand...

That isn't how it works. Alleles radiate outwards from where they first arise and eventually find their way into the entire population. There are no barriers to gene flow between Africa and the rest of the world. Even skin tone exists on a cline with far more correlation to local UV conditions than anything else.
 
This editorial is nothing short of comedy gold. Nowhere is the phrase "white supremacy" mentioned, but it's all about racism (as indicated in the passage on "end of race-based affirmative action". I think it's what joe Morgue would call a "dog whistle". :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom