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

[jt512]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

95% seems high. I doubt there are that many mediocre white guys out there who are irrationally threatened by Black people being allowed to teach. But I’m open to persuasion. Perhaps you could link to a YouTube video with 600 views that will convince me to change my mind.

As I have said, nothing will convince an ideologue's mind. Now, I suggest we stop before we get an official warning or worse.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by jt512

As I have said, nothing will convince an ideologue's mind. Now, I suggest we stop before we get an official warning or worse.

Yes, the ideologue in this scenario is the person who doesn’t accept outlandish right wing claims at face value. That’s exactly how reasoned discourse works. Another rousing debate victory for the conservative intelligentsia.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by varwoche

How about some specificity? Do you consider the entities on the following list to be (A) white supremacist (B) sufficiently adjacent to warrant call-out or (C) neither... ?

David Duke
Richard Spencer
Nick Fuentes
Jason Kessler
KKK
Identity Evropa
American Freedom Party
Paul Gosar
Donald Trump

Seeing as jt512 didn't reply, anyone else want to take a crack at it? Just maybe there's a common understanding of the term, which would mean it has some meaning.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by varwoche

Seeing as jt512 didn't reply, anyone else want to take a crack at it? Just maybe there's a common understanding of the term, which would mean it has some meaning.

You won’t get an honest reply from a conservative on this. Their game is to muddy the waters and derail discussion rather than admit to the truth about Republicans embracing white supremacy.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

95% seems high. I doubt there are that many mediocre white guys out there who are irrationally threatened by Black people being allowed to teach. But I’m open to persuasion. Perhaps you could link to a YouTube video with 600 views that will convince me to change my mind.

There's still a plethora of mediocre white guys and they bolster their influence with self-serving white women. It's partly how they have far more power than their numbers would suggest in a democracy.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Donal

There's still a plethora of mediocre white guys and they bolster their influence with self-serving white women. It's partly how they have far more power than their numbers would suggest in a democracy.

Yes, there’s definitely plenty of them, but 95% of the population is still ludicrously high. Ironically amusing that a mediocre white guy proclaimed such vast overrepresentation for mediocre white guys in a stunning display of his own mediocre grasp of reality.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

You won’t get an honest reply from a conservative on this. Their game is to muddy the waters and derail discussion rather than admit to the truth about Republicans embracing white supremacy.

Edited by sarge:

edited to remove uncivil content

I had higher hopes for this website. Unfortunately, I now see that it is swirling the same woke drain that the SGU forum went down.

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally Posted by Donal

There's still a plethora of mediocre white guys and they bolster their influence with self-serving white women. It's partly how they have far more power than their numbers would suggest in a democracy.

One might even say they’re white surpremacists.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Did colonial age Europeans take a more supremacist view than their Roman forebears?

https://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/e...em%20a%20favor

More racially supremacist, definitely. Roman prejudices were more likely to center around class and region of origin. They didn't have much use for racial ideology; they were perfectly capable of making the empire a miserably oppressive ******** without it.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by jt512

Only a lunatic woke like you would think I am conservative.

I had higher hopes for this website. Unfortunately, I now see that it is swirling the same woke drain that the SGU forum went down.

Woke-wokety-woke-woke-woke!

- Dude who’s totally not a conservative.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

One might even say they’re white surpremacists.

One might, if only we could ever figure out what “white supremacist” means. Words are hard.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by varwoche

Do you consider the entities on the following list to be (A) white supremacist (B) sufficiently adjacent to warrant call-out or (C) neither... ?

David Duke
Richard Spencer
Nick Fuentes
Jason Kessler
KKK
Identity Evropa
American Freedom Party
Paul Gosar
Donald Trump

Originally Posted by varwoche

Seeing as jt512 didn't reply, anyone else want to take a crack at it?

Seems to me that Duke, Spencer, Fuentes, & Kessler are clearly white supremacists in the usual sense of the term, and perhaps also the social justice sense mentioned at #51 which primarily has to do with the nature of systems rather than the beliefs of individuals.

Gosar & Trump have significantly more plausible deniability, since they rarely openly affirm the idea that European Americans are somehow better than Indigenous Americans or African Americans or what-have-you. They are certainly supremacist adjacent, though, since they've both been known to signal boost memes from the alt right.

If you consider fearmongering about the southern border to be prima facie evidence of upholding white supremacy (in the post #51 sense) then you'd probably have to put them all in that bin, along with the entire GOP and most NIMBYs.

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

More racially supremacist, definitely. Roman prejudices were more likely to center around class and region of origin. They didn't have much use for racial ideology; they were perfectly capable of making the empire a miserably oppressive ******** without it.

That's sort of my point. Europeans had little trouble oppressing people (including non-Europeans in North Africa and the Middle East) for centuries prior to the cultural construction of whiteness; it took American innovation to make it about "race" rather than the raw exercise of power over neighboring nations and peoples.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

That's sort of my point. Europeans had little trouble oppressing people (including non-Europeans in North Africa and the Middle East) for centuries prior to the cultural construction of whiteness; it took American innovation to make it about "race" rather than the raw exercise of power over neighboring nations and peoples.

Europeans have plenty of differences that they have used to segregate themselves, including language and physical appearance. it's less pronounced now, but 500 years ago in Europe you could easily tell who's part of your local group and who isn't just by looking at them.

Most of these distinctions melted away within a generation of immigrating to America, leaving skin color as the only clear visible marker for dividing in-group vs out-group so it makes sense that Americans have adopted the attitude that it's the only thing that matters. Historically, however, divisions within "white" Europeans ran at least as deep.



I don't mention "race" anywhere above because the notion of race has different and more specific origin than more common ethno-cultural differences. Nonetheless, the real differences between ethnic and cultural groups are often larger than the differences between so called "races".

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by jt512

Only a lunatic woke like you would think I am conservative.

I had higher hopes for this website. Unfortunately, I now see that it is swirling the same woke drain that the SGU forum went down.

In the interests of avoiding misunderstandings, since there does seem to be a rather large range of idiosyncratic definitions of the term "woke", perhaps you might share your own meaning of the word as you are applying it in the above post.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by jt512

Edited by sarge:

edited to remove uncivil content

I had higher hopes for this website. Unfortunately, I now see that it is swirling the same woke drain that the SGU forum went down.

Did you hear about the man whose son joined the Army? He went to his son's first parade and when he returned he boasted that he was so proud because his son was the only soldier who marched in step!

We're not the ones swirling the drain.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Did you hear about the man whose son joined the Army? He went to his son's first parade and when he returned he boasted that he was so proud because his son was the only soldier who marched in step!

Did you hear about the surveys that show that the woke comprise between 4 and 8 percent of the population? The rest of the us aren’t out of step, and most of us aren’t conservative.

Quote:

We're not the ones swirling the drain.

Yeah. SGU has really evolved into a thriving community.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by jt512

Did you hear about the surveys that show that the woke comprise between 4 and 8 percent of the population? The rest of the us aren’t out of step, and most of us aren’t conservative.

No, I haven't. Please provide links to these surveys, making sure you include their explicit definitions of the pseudo-demographic "woke".

[jt512]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

No, I haven't. Please provide links to these surveys, making sure you include their explicit definitions of the pseudo-demographic "woke".

https://www.google.com/

[jt512]

Pew: Only 6% of Americans are progressive left.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...gressive-left/

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by jt512

Pew: Only 6% of Americans are progressive left.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...gressive-left/

Oh, thanks. You know what I did? I went to that page, did a Ctrl-F (Find On This Page) and searched for the word "woke". Do you know how many hits there were? Go on, guess. I'll give you three guesses.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Oh, thanks. You know what I did? I went to that page, did a Ctrl-F (Find On This Page) and searched for the word "woke". Do you know how many hits there were? Go on, guess. I'll give you three guesses.

That was a predictably fallacious response, and a perfect example of why it is a waste of time to attempt to rationally argue anything here.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by jt512

That was a predictably fallacious response, and a perfect example of why it is a waste of time to attempt to rationally argue anything here.

Any time you try to bring the pseudo-demographic "woke" into the discussion, yeah.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by jt512

https://www.google.com/

Still waiting on how you consider the term to be defined.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

That's sort of my point.

It’s not your point that eludes me, but the point of your point. How does the possibility of oppression along other axes inform this debate at all?

Quote:

Europeans had little trouble oppressing people (including non-Europeans in North Africa and the Middle East) for centuries prior to the cultural construction of whiteness; it took American innovation to make it about "race" rather than the raw exercise of power over neighboring nations and peoples.

How often do you think an 8th century Briton came into contact with people from Africa or Asia? Nationalism didn’t even develop until the 18th century—the idea that there was extensive commonality among the peoples of France, let alone white people, would have struck the people of the day as somewhat peculiar prior to that. Unless you think Enlightenment Europe was taking its intellectual cues from its backwater colonies, the idea that “Americans” came up with these racial hierarchies is fairly absurd. Took to them like ducks to water, sure.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by gnome

Still waiting on how you consider the term to be defined.

You and everybody else knows what it means.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by jt512

You and everybody else knows what it means.

I know of several variant and sometimes conflicting definitions, so unless you intend to take refuge in ambiguity I don't see why you aren't making yourself more clear here.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by gnome

I know of several variant and sometimes conflicting definitions, so unless you intend to take refuge in ambiguity I don't see why you aren't making yourself more clear here.

********. You know what I mean by "woke," as does everybody else pretending they don't.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by jt512

********. You know what I mean by "woke," as does everybody else pretending they don't.

Oh cool. Then you should have zero trouble defining it.

We'll wait.

[JoeMorgue]

"My evil or whatever my evil is in response to is just like so suuuuuper hard to define guys" is a well worn tactic.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Seems to me that Duke, Spencer, Fuentes, & Kessler are clearly white supremacists in the usual sense of the term, and perhaps also the social justice sense mentioned at #51 which primarily has to do with the nature of systems rather than the beliefs of individuals.

Gosar & Trump have significantly more plausible deniability, since they rarely openly affirm the idea that European Americans are somehow better than Indigenous Americans or African Americans or what-have-you. They are certainly supremacist adjacent, though, since they've both been known to signal boost memes from the alt right.

I mostly agree. Gosar is so deeply and repeatedly adjacent that it's not a stretch. Trump is adjacent, plus he has unambiguous racism on his resume, such as when his office placed a "C" (for colored) on rental applications submitted by black people, in order to facilitate their rejection.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

How does the possibility of oppression along other axes inform this debate at all?

Consider the axis of religious oppression, for example:

Could slaves become Christian? If so, did their conversion lead to freedom? If not, then how could perpetual enslavement be justified? In Christian Slavery, Katharine Gerbner contends that religion was fundamental to the development of both slavery and race in the Protestant Atlantic world. Slave owners in the Caribbean and elsewhere established governments and legal codes based on an ideology of "Protestant Supremacy," which excluded the majority of enslaved men and women from Christian communities. For slaveholders, Christianity was a sign of freedom, and most believed that slaves should not be eligible for conversion.

When Protestant missionaries arrived in the plantation colonies intending to convert enslaved Africans to Christianity in the 1670s, they were appalled that most slave owners rejected the prospect of slave conversion. Slaveholders regularly attacked missionaries, both verbally and physically, and blamed the evangelizing newcomers for slave rebellions. In response, Quaker, Anglican, and Moravian missionaries articulated a vision of "Christian Slavery," arguing that Christianity would make slaves hardworking and loyal.

Gerbner argues that white supremacy wasn't stitched out of whole cloth, it was patched onto an existing structure of "Protestant Supremacy" which had previously provided the moral justification American slavery.

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

How often do you think an 8th century Briton came into contact with people from Africa or Asia?

Rarely, I imagine, but then I don't recall making any claims about Britons.

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

Unless you think Enlightenment Europe was taking its intellectual cues from its backwater colonies, the idea that “Americans” came up with these racial hierarchies is fairly absurd.

In that case, we ought to be able to find European examples of "whiteness" (as a racial denomination) which predate the examples from North America.

[Shalamar]

The woke woking wokesters from wokeistan are so woke that everyone knows the definition of othe stupid woke wokesters that I will never define it while I continually complain about the wokeing woke woke woke WOKE woke!

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by gnome

Still waiting on how you consider the term to be defined.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Why wait? If jt512 won't give a definition they want to use, simply use the historical definition and ask why anybody but a racist would be against woke.

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally Posted by jt512

********. You know what I mean by "woke," as does everybody else pretending they don't.

I think you can almost define "woke" as someone who asks the definition of the word woke. Since asking is seen as such a "gotcha" in woke circles.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by jt512

********. You know what I mean by "woke," as does everybody else pretending they don't.

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

I think you can almost define "woke" as someone who asks the definition of the word woke. Since asking is seen as such a "gotcha" in woke circles.

These messages brought to you in thread in which conservatives pretend to not know what "white supremacy" means.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by jt512

********. You know what I mean by "woke," as does everybody else pretending they don't.

In terms of how it's been applied to me in this thread, it apparently means declining to uncritically accept "It's hard to be white in America" propaganda people who are totally not conservatives are pushing.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by jt512

********. You know what I mean by "woke," as does everybody else pretending they don't.

I honestly don't. If it's so obvious could you just say? Even people that are against "wokeness" tend to have their own refinements on the idea.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by jt512

You and everybody else knows what it means.

I know what it means:

Woke: a word currently employed for purposes of perjoration of the word itself.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Consider the axis of religious oppression

When challenged on the relevance non-racialized systems of oppression in ancient Rome, you compound the error with another irrelevant digression.

Quote:

Rarely, I imagine, but then I don't recall making any claims about Britons.

If you're making broad claims about Europeans, you're making claims about Britons, Britons being European. Europeans had little use for racial categories prior to the beginning of their wretched colonial projects, so there's no surprise in the fact that they didn't come up with them until then. (Arguably, Jews at least in some places and at some times, had been racialized prior to this.)

Quote:

In that case, we ought to be able to find European examples of "whiteness" (as a racial denomination) which predate the examples from North America.

Well, no, that doesn't follow. Any racial categorization at all would be sufficient to demonstrate a racialized worldview.

But here's an example from 1613: https://aeon.co/ideas/how-white-peop...wright-in-1613

[jt512]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Oh cool. Then you should have zero trouble defining it.

We'll wait.

Yes, you will.