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

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Next thing you know they'll be quoting Joe Rogan.

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.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Again the only sin wrong people recognize is being "too much" against wrong people.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Next thing you know they'll be quoting Joe Rogan.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

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

You must have missed the experts in this thread, McWhorter is no more qualified than Joe Rogan and Bill Maher.

[JoeMorgue]

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.

[varwoche]

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.

Quote:

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

link

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by varwoche

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.

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."

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

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.

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.

Originally Posted by varwoche

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

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.

Quote:

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]

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.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by ahhell

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.

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.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by ahhell

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.

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.

[dirtywick]

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.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

[snip]

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

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.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by ahhell

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.

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.

[Trausti]

Originally Posted by lomiller

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.

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.

[Trausti]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

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.

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?

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Trausti

Everyone does not share the same ancestors.

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.

Quote:

Over time, as evolution and natural selection would obviously suggest, these clusters get genetically distant from one another.

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

[gnome]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

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.

Originally Posted by Trausti

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?

Didn't you comment something about the kind of people that turn everything into a race discussion?

[Trausti]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

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.

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.

[Trausti]

Originally Posted by gnome

Didn't you comment something about the kind of people that turn everything into a race discussion?

Race exists. But you shouldn't treat people differently based on it. It just is.

[Pixel42]

How long ago everyone's last common ancestor lived is debatable; their existence is not.

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

Go back far enough and you'll get to the common ancestor of every living thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_u...ommon_ancestor

[Trausti]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

How long ago everyone's last common ancestor lived is debatable; their existence is not.

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

Go back far enough and you'll get to the common ancestor of every living thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_u...ommon_ancestor

Did we all have the same ancestors 1000 years ago? 500 years ago. 100 years ago? Of course, not.

[Babbylonian]

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.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by Trausti

Race exists. But you shouldn't treat people differently based on it. It just is.

Joe Morgue's comment wasn't about treating people differently by race. Was it?

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Trausti

Race exists. But you shouldn't treat people differently based on it. It just is.

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)

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

Racists want to convince people on this forum that white supremacy isn't real.

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 discovery^WP.

[Trausti]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

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)

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.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

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)

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.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by jt512

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.

nope, they don't.

it's no longer a scientific term, just a holdover left for convince and communication.

[sackett]

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]

Originally Posted by sackett

If you start playing Rassenwissenschaft, i.e., race science, the table's wide open.

Fördert hier jemand die Rassenwissenschaft?

[sackett]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Fördert hier jemand die Rassenwissenschaft?

I'm showing my immense age. I expected everybody to be familiar with quaint relics of Nazism.

[d4m10n]

Which claims made in this thread are substantively related to the relics of Nazism?

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

If a given phenomenon grew out of an earlier phenomenon then we cannot claim to understand it without understanding both.

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.

Quote:

Which specific question did you think you were answering?

The one you asked, about whether 17th century Europe was more supremacist than Ancient Rome.

Quote:

It would be interesting to read what justifications they came up with, but I've already decided to just take your word for it.

In reality, you're deciding to accept the evidence I've already provided while playing the martyr.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

nope, they don't.

it's no longer a scientific term, just a holdover left for convince and communication.

The biologists I know say you don't know what you are talking about.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

"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.

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.

[Trausti]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

nope, they don't.

it's no longer a scientific term, just a holdover left for convince and communication.

And yet it moves.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

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

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.

[catsmate]

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.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by jt512

You and everybody else knows what it means.

Pathetic.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Trausti

Well, other than, say, for blood or organ donation.

Did you seriously just suggest race is a factor in blood transfusions and organ donations?

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by jt512

The biologists I know say you don't know what you are talking about.

what kind of biologists are those?
And what kind of Race or Species definition do they use?

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Trausti

There are differences in human population groups, as evolution and natural selection would predict.

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

Originally Posted by Trausti

Whether we call that difference race, phenotype, or population group is beside the point.

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.

[sir drinks-a-lot]

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".