The Guardian's 'we hate white people' agenda backfires spectacularly today...

Sweetemotion · 08-05-2017 07:54PM

Sham Squire wrote: »

You're right about that but wrong about everything else. I'm sorry you haven't bothered to educate yourself so I'm gonna be very generous despite your ignorance and point you in the right direction. The rest is up to you. Take the blindfold off, or don't.

"in order for racism to exist, it must be backed by systemic oppression. That means that in order for something to be racist against a white person, it would have to be said somewhere they represent an abused and unpopular minority."

You're welcome

Do you actually believe that bollox?

Wibbs · 08-05-2017 08:00PM

Sham Squire wrote: »

You're right about that but wrong about everything else. I'm sorry you haven't bothered to educate yourself so I'm gonna be very generous despite your ignorance and point you in the right direction. The rest is up to you. Take the blindfold off, or don't.

And there's the condescension again. Man that's some atomic powered patronisation indeed. Kudos Sir. *tips hat*

"in order for racism to exist, it must be backed by systemic oppression. That means that in order for something to be racist against a white person, it would have to be said somewhere they represent an abused and unpopular minority."

My example of the English towards the Irish(and Scots and Welsh). Fulfils your criteria. Oh wait... maybe again it's because whites don't really matter, so that criteria doesn't fit for you? OK. Let's extend it further. In America Europeans looked down on Asians(and Hispanics), both looked down on Africans. So Asians and Hispanics are "allowed" to be racist, but they're not really because they're oppressed? Consider the Japanese, who have long looked down upon non Japanese Asians. Hell they looked down upon Europeans(as did the Chinese). Are they allowed to be racist, or again do they get a pass because *gasp* they're not White? Sounds like this nonsense has its own reverse apartheid. Bad White people, Bad.

G'way outa that.

Wibbs · 08-05-2017 08:01PM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Do you actually believe that bollox?

I've met people who totally believe this. Sometimes the more fervent believers are of European stock. White guilt or some such.

jackboy · 08-05-2017 08:03PM

Sham Squire wrote: »

You're right about that but wrong about everything else. I'm sorry you haven't bothered to educate yourself so I'm gonna be very generous despite your ignorance and point you in the right direction. The rest is up to you. Take the blindfold off, or don't.

"in order for racism to exist, it must be backed by systemic oppression. That means that in order for something to be racist against a white person, it would have to be said somewhere they represent an abused and unpopular minority."

You're welcome

Tell that to the Jews. They will 'educate' you on racism.

benjamin d · 08-05-2017 08:04PM

Sham Squire wrote: »

You're right about that but wrong about everything else. I'm sorry you haven't bothered to educate yourself so I'm gonna be very generous despite your ignorance and point you in the right direction. The rest is up to you. Take the blindfold off, or don't.

"in order for racism to exist, it must be backed by systemic oppression. That means that in order for something to be racist against a white person, it would have to be said somewhere they represent an abused and unpopular minority."

You're welcome

To 99% of the world, racism is prejudice against someone of a different race. Just because a bunch of academics decided to appropriate the word for their own use and make it mean something different doesn't mean that the vast majority of the world won't continue to use the word as it has always been used.
Pretending you can't be racist to white people is stupid, and encourages division.

08-05-2017 08:07PM

Japanese attitudes were incredibly racist to all others for most of their history

MikeenRonanJr · 08-05-2017 08:28PM

Icemancometh wrote: »

Racism equals prejudice and power apparently. This young lad was a victim of prejudice, not racism. Judge got it wrong too.

"Parker and Toms were walking to visit her friend's house[16] when they were confronted by a gang of around ten Pakistani youths, some of whom were wearing balaclavas;[5][4][19][20] they had planned to find "a white male to attack simply because he was white".[3] They warned Parker he had "better start running", but then blocked his path and quickly sprayed him in the face with CS gas.[21] He was punched in the stomach then stabbed three times from behind through the throat and chest with a foot-long hunting knife.[3] The knife penetrated completely through his body on two occasions and as he was lying on the ground he was repeatedly kicked and struck with a panel beater's hammer"

Yeah bud, nothing at all racist about that.

hatrickpatrick · 08-05-2017 08:42PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The mislabeling of Irish people as British is annoying, but I don't know if I'd call it a spectacular anything.

Seems more like a nice chance to take an easy shot at that lefty liberal cultural marxist thingy.

It's spectacular when racism occurs in the context of trying to accuse non-racists of racism

It's kinda like when someone tries to call you thick, but in the process of doing so makes an epic grammatical fail and therefore falls on their arse.

Icemancometh · 08-05-2017 08:43PM

MikeenRonanJr wrote: »

"Parker and Toms were walking to visit her friend's house[16] when they were confronted by a gang of around ten Pakistani youths, some of whom were wearing balaclavas;[5][4][19][20] they had planned to find "a white male to attack simply because he was white".[3] They warned Parker he had "better start running", but then blocked his path and quickly sprayed him in the face with CS gas.[21] He was punched in the stomach then stabbed three times from behind through the throat and chest with a foot-long hunting knife.[3] The knife penetrated completely through his body on two occasions and as he was lying on the ground he was repeatedly kicked and struck with a panel beater's hammer"

Yeah bud, nothing at all racist about that.

Online communication could really use a sarcasm tag. Of course it was racist, only an academic could deny it.

mzungu · 08-05-2017 09:05PM

Sham Squire wrote: »

You're right about that but wrong about everything else. I'm sorry you haven't bothered to educate yourself so I'm gonna be very generous despite your ignorance and point you in the right direction. The rest is up to you. Take the blindfold off, or don't.

"in order for racism to exist, it must be backed by systemic oppression. That means that in order for something to be racist against a white person, it would have to be said somewhere they represent an abused and unpopular minority."

You're welcome

Afraid not. The "prejudice plus power" definition you used above is a stipulative definition used in academia to simplify the discussion, it is not a replacement definition. Racism is still "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

hatrickpatrick · 08-05-2017 09:13PM

mzungu wrote: »

Afraid not. The "prejudice plus power" definition you used above is a stipulative definition used in academia to simplify the discussion, it is not a replacement definition. Racism is still "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

SJWs like to use it as a replacement definition, which is one of the many reasons they've managed to alienate even traditional far left liberals like myself.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz · 08-05-2017 10:34PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No. You're really missing nothing.

"Some things, unfortunately, don't change. Neither does the increasingly dull formula of sending white Black British men to far-flung places in search of "strange and quirky" aspects of other cultures."

If the Guardian had used 'Black' instead of 'White', someone would be getting fired, and possibly a visit from the Met's hate crimes unit.

red ears · 08-05-2017 11:51PM

Sham Squire wrote: »

You're right about that but wrong about everything else. I'm sorry you haven't bothered to educate yourself so I'm gonna be very generous despite your ignorance and point you in the right direction. The rest is up to you. Take the blindfold off, or don't.

"in order for racism to exist, it must be backed by systemic oppression. That means that in order for something to be racist against a white person, it would have to be said somewhere they represent an abused and unpopular minority."

You're welcome

Says who sham squire? Under what definition is that the way racism works. I don't accept that definition, that's a fairly new and contentious view anyway. Its far from an accepted definition.

Yourself isit · 08-05-2017 11:57PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Speaking as a white guy, I don't feel at all hated when the "MSM" expresses the view that people who share my gender and skin colour are over-represented pretty much everywhere in the media. I feel like that's obviously true.

Why does OP feel hated? Does OP consider himself to be just like the targets of this criticism? Is that not buying into the race thing bigtime?

What, Darby o gill and the little people?

If you see british or Americans on your screens, they may be white, but they don't really represent you. You're Irish. Presumably.

That's actually the point of this thread.

Yourself isit · 09-05-2017 12:01AM

Wibbs wrote: »

Of course it's utter BS TV. One can be racist towards any group. indeed Europeans have been racist against other Europeans they saw as a different "race". QV the English ruling caste towards the Irish. I'd love to see how the "you can't be racist towards Whites" peddlers square that particular circle.

They can't. Anyway their tiny colonised and Americanised minds think they are Euro Americans, so they don't even think like that.

They probably don't know Irish history.

Yourself isit · 09-05-2017 12:05AM

Sham Squire wrote: »

You're right about that but wrong about everything else. I'm sorry you haven't bothered to educate yourself so I'm gonna be very generous despite your ignorance and point you in the right direction. The rest is up to you. Take the blindfold off, or don't.

"in order for racism to exist, it must be backed by systemic oppression. That means that in order for something to be racist against a white person, it would have to be said somewhere they represent an abused and unpopular minority."

You're welcome

OK grand so. That's historically the case of the Irish in Britain so the guardian is being racist. Case closed. Thanks very much.

NinjaKirby · 09-05-2017 11:17AM

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

If the Guardian had used 'Black' instead of 'White', someone would be getting fired, and possibly a visit from the Met's hate crimes unit.

They never would though because there is no audience for articles that are critical of "black people", nor should there be. (well, not among fair and right minded folks anyway)

Despite that there seems to be some demand for articles that could loosely be described as "anti-white". Where is that demand coming from though?

Content from places like The Guardian, Huffington Post, BuzzFeed etc is mostly consumed by people living in countries where white people are the majority. Countries like the UK and the USA. The majority of the audience is white. Even if the person writing the article is non-white, the owners are white.

I think it's clear that this anti-white sentiment is not coming from non-white people. In fact, most people in minority groups probably understand that openly deriding the majority group without extremely good cause (ie not over frivolous things like travel documentaries) is likely to make them an unpopular individual.

These articles against white people are produced by white people FOR white people.

It's basically self flagellation for privileged folks.

Your average, righteous, well off, comfortable living, Guardian reader is unlikely to give up their phone or their ipad or their nice car/laptop/house/job to some poorer person who has nothing. Hell, they probably wouldn't even go into a "black" neighborhood. I doubt they'd feel comfortable sitting down for a family dinner with people from minority groups who have to do what's necessary just to put food on the table.

Nah, it's easier to just give themselves a few metaphorical lashes across the back as a reminder of their continued sinfulness and then pop down to Starbucks before going to their job/college.

I honestly don't think people should see these articles as "racism against white people" because it isn't true. Most normal people are actually just fine with getting along with different races and genders and identities and I don't feel like there is demand among minority groups for anti-white content.

These articles are aimed at white people who want to repent for their sins. They don't want to atone for their sins, of course, just a wee half hour of repentance on their lunch break.

conorhal · 09-05-2017 11:34AM

My name is URL wrote: »

You seem desperate to find something to be offended by OP

robindch wrote: »

A lot of the alt-right spend an inordinate amount of time reading what they refer to as the "mainstream media" in order to find things which they can affect offence at in order to virtue-signal to their own virtual friends.

Such people would be better off finding some real friends :rolleyes:

Ya'll seem desperate to draw some strawman equivelance between the OP's post and the perpetually offended Guardianista's, possibly because you don't understand the difference between 'being offended' and having a good ol' chuckle and a gloat when the perpetually offended hoist themselves on their own petard. Social Justice will eat itself, and it's delicious!

topper75 · 09-05-2017 12:08PM

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Why am I being associated with the knuckledraggers who threatened a girl scout?

Because left-leaning folk hate the middle ground. You know that awful sensible place where you have a working immigration system that actually checks entrants and filters undesirables? Hate that they do.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz · 09-05-2017 12:09PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

SJWs like to use it as a replacement definition, which is one of the many reasons they've managed to alienate even traditional far left liberals like myself.

Or as the SJW's would prefer to call you, an alt-right Nazi baby eating woman hating racist xenophobe anti-immigrant fascist etc etc.

If you're not with them, they see you as the enemy who must be destroyed. Welcome to the club...

Elemonator · 09-05-2017 12:16PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The mislabeling of Irish people as British is annoying, but I don't know if I'd call it a spectacular anything.

Seems more like a nice chance to take an easy shot at that lefty liberal cultural marxist thingy.

The Irish do it too. The British are the worst for it though. A relative of mine is a well known British businessman with Irish heritage and the Irish papers constantly go on about how he's an Irish businessman that grew up here.

He's from Birmingham.

wes · 09-05-2017 12:28PM

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Why am I being associated with the knuckledraggers who threatened a girl scout? (And they are knuckledraggers, just to be clear.)

Well, on the one hand, you have the guardian writing an article, and on the other we have Neo-Nazi's threantening girl scouts. I don't know man, it seems that one side is way worse than the other.

**EDIT**
BTW, when exactly did I associate you with Neo-Nazi's? Did you read the post that I replied to? I was taking the piss out of the alt-right, and didn't mention you or respond to your post directly. The only way you could take this personally, is if you consider yourself as being Alt-right, a group that are known Neo-Nazi, with a name change. Otherwise, I wasn't talking about you.
**EDIT**

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

It's idiotic posts like this, where anyone who dares to dissent against the narrative is immediately labelled 'far-right', that has driven a huge amount of people to vote for Trump, Le Pen, Geert Wilders etc. Hasn't that worked out well for you.

Nice job.

Both Le Pen and Wilders didn't do so well recently. Trump lost the popular vote, and won due to a combination of gerrymandering, voter suppression, and a rather messed up electorcal collegage system, that results in the person with most votes not winning.

Also, if you vote for that crowd, then your are far right, and the whole special snowflake arguement of people, were taking the piss on the Internet, so I decided to support facism is a wee bit silly, don't you think. Do you honestly believe that people are supporting facism due to that? Also, doesn't supporting facism, kind of prove that the other guy was right all along? Your logic is really rather flawed.

ScumLord · 09-05-2017 12:50PM

Wibbs wrote: »

EG if you find Neandertal and/or Denisovan gene sequences the person being tested is not of direct African ancestry.

How do you mean not direct? Neanderthals came out of Africa too and if the genes are showing up in modern humans then they breed with Africans to make the hybrid don't they?

Like you point out, the problem with the word "race" is that it comes with so much horrible history. It's been associated with culture a good few times by people that stained history with pure bigotry.

I don't see race as something very defined, if you stood me next to an African black man we'd look very different, but we're opposite ends of a spectrum (I'm too white, could do with some of that melanin stuff). I suppose it's a bit like evolution at one end you've the T-rex at the other the chicken and no definitive jump from one to the other in between.

Would it be fair to say that human race is the same thing as dog breeds? And that maybe the word race isn't really a good word anymore because it means different things to different people? and doesn't really describe the real world effectively?

NinjaKirby · 09-05-2017 01:13PM

wes wrote: »

BTW, when exactly did I associate you with Neo-Nazi's? Did you read the post that I replied to? I was taking the piss out of the alt-right, and didn't mention you or respond to your post directly. The only way you could take this personally, is if you consider yourself as being Alt-right, a group that are known Neo-Nazi, with a name change. Otherwise, I wasn't talking about you.

For what it's worth, my reading of the post by robindch and your reply to that post was that you were implying that the OP is either alt-right or supportive of the alt-right.

Your follow up post hasn't done much to change my mind on that either.

When I try to break it down it looks like...
1. The alt-right and fascists and neo-nazis etc are all bad. The worst of the worst.
2. The Guardian is hated by the alt-right.
3. If you have criticism of The Guardian you are indirectly supporting the alt-right because your thoughts align with them regarding The Guardian.
4. If you indirectly align with the alt-right then you may as well be alt-right. So your blah blah blah threatening girl scouts and supporting blah blah blah voting for Trump blah blah.

Now, I actually am not sure I agree with the OP that labeling everything "far right" is causing people to vote for far right candidates.

I can, however, at least see that people on the "left" are frequently engaging in dishonest tactics such as attempting to smear people who have opposing views or simply smearing people who think "haha the Guardian tried to call out racism and ignorance while being kind of racist and ignorant themselves". This is pretty well demonstrated by the posts from yourself and robindch.

Yourself and the other poster have disingenuously tried to conflate the OP with knuckle dragging alt right types and you haven't even blinked when called out on it. You aren't even embarrassed at all?

wes · 09-05-2017 01:21PM

NinjaKirby wrote: »

For what it's worth, my reading of the post by robindch and your reply to that post was that you were implying that the OP is either alt-right or supportive of the alt-right.

Your follow up post hasn't done much to change my mind on that either.

Fair enough, but I have no idea about the OPs political beliefs. I was taking the piss out of the alt-right.

NinjaKirby wrote: »

When I try to break it down it looks like...
1. The alt-right and fascists and neo-nazis etc are all bad. The worst of the worst.
2. The Guardian is hated by the alt-right.
3. If you have criticism of The Guardian you are indirectly supporting the alt-right because your thoughts align with them regarding The Guardian.
4. If you indirectly align with the alt-right then you may as well be alt-right. So your blah blah blah threatening girl scouts and supporting blah blah blah voting for Trump blah blah.

Sure thats one way to look at it, but again its AH, and I was taking the piss. I would say that some people are pretty easily "triggered".

NinjaKirby wrote: »

I can, however, at least see that people on the "left" are frequently engaging in dishonest tactics such as attempting to smear people who have opposing views or simply smearing people who think "haha the Guardian tried to call out racism and ignorance while being kind of racist and ignorant themselves". This is pretty well demonstrated by the posts from yourself and robindch.

Yourself and the other poster have disingenuously tried to conflate the op with knuckle dragging alt right types and you haven't even blinked when called out on it. You aren't even embarrassed at all?

I see no reason to be embarrassed for taking the piss, and the replies that resulted, just confirmed that a little piss taking was needed, when the reply that you get is, if people are mean, then people will suddendly support facism.....

Oh and I think someone else brought up immigration, completely unprompted as well, for some bizare reason, despite no one being replied to bringing it up.

osarusan · 09-05-2017 01:28PM

Sham Squire wrote: »

"in order for racism to exist, it must be backed by systemic oppression."

I don't agree. I think we can differentiate between racism at a personal level and systemic or institutional racism.

If person A avoids dealing with person B because person A believes everybody with the same skin colour as person B is dumb or lazy or untrustworthy or predisposed to violence or crime or whatever, I think that's racism in its purest form, regardless of the skin colour of person A or B. They are literally making assumptions about them based on race.

NinjaKirby · 09-05-2017 01:30PM

wes wrote: »

Fair enough, but I have no idea about the OPs political beliefs. I was taking the piss out of the alt-right.

Sure thats one way to look at it, but again its AH, and I was taking the piss. I would say that some people are pretty easily "triggered".

I see no reason to be embarrassed for taking the piss, and the replies that resulted, just confirmed that a little piss taking was needed, when the reply that you get is, if people are mean, then people will suddendly support facism.....

That's fine. I'm just telling you how it looks to me.

OP: The Guardian tried to point out ignorance whilst being pretty ignorant themselves. Haha.

My name is URL: You seem desperate to be offended OP.

Robindch (in reply to My name is URL): a lot of the alt right blah blah blah.
(I'm sorry but this is basically saying that the OP is alt right)

Wes (in reply to Robindch): the alt right are threatening girl scouts.

I'm sorry lads but this was a (failed) attempt at a hatched job on the OP. Pretty disrespectful that you think the rest of us are total mugs who would buy into it.

(of course if the OP is actually alt-right and actually wants to threaten girl scouts then I am indeed a mug...)

NinjaKirby · 09-05-2017 01:37PM

osarusan wrote: »

I don't agree. I think we can differentiate between racism at a personal level and systemic or institutional racism.

If person A avoids dealing with person B because person A believes everybody with the same skin colour as person B is dumb or lazy or untrustworthy or predisposed to violence or crime or whatever, I think that's racism in its purest form, regardless of the skin colour of person A or B. They are literally making assumptions about them based on race.

I think the alternative definition of Racism just exists so that academic papers and think pieces in news outlets of blogs can get themselves out there without too much criticism.

Imagine if the alt-right found a way to avoid being labelled as white supremacists or racists or Nazis or whatever, wouldn't they take that? Wasn't that the whole intention of "alt-right" in the first place?

It just so happens that the "prejudice plus power" definition of racism is quite compelling in an American context. I don't think anyone can deny that, both historically and in modern times, the African-American population has gotten a severely raw deal.

The "new" definition of racism makes little sense outside of America but we seem to adopt so many American ways of thinking so here we are...

wes · 09-05-2017 01:37PM

NinjaKirby wrote: »

That's fine. I'm just telling you how it looks to me.

OP: The Guardian tried to point out ignorance whilst being pretty ignorant themselves. Haha.

My name is URL: You seem desperate to be offended OP.

Robindch (in reply to My name is URL): a lot of the alt right blah blah blah.
(I'm sorry but this is basically saying that the OP is alt right)

Wes (in reply to Robindch): the alt right are threatening girl scouts.

I'm sorry lads but this was a (failed) attempt at a hatched job on the OP. Pretty disrespectful that you think the rest of us are total mugs who would buy into it.

I fail to see the disrespect really, and its not like we all planned it together or something. People read into things what they want, and again the thread deserved to have the piss taking out of it. Its pretty much someone being triggered by some nonsense in the guardian.

NinjaKirby wrote: »

(of course if the OP is actually alt-right and actually wants to threaten girl scouts then I am indeed a mug...)

Fair enough, my intent was mostly taking the piss out of the Alt-right. I have 0 idea about the OPs politics, but again I do find it funny that the response was that if you take the piss, then people will vote for facists, and someone going on about immigration unprompted.

RGDATA! · 09-05-2017 02:43PM

red ears wrote: »

The contempt for white people these days in some media outlets is worrisome, its racism no matter what their intentions. Its perplexing in times of such political correctness where saying the wrong thing can get you in big trouble that disparaging white people has almost become fashionable.

Asked for a single example of "contempt for white people" earlier in thread, none was forthcoming surprisingly. Load of guff about "political correctness" but won't support your own argument with single example. Hard to take seriously.

The Guardian's 'we hate white people' agenda backfires spectacularly today...

Comments