Sure, and Iberians also enslaved the Guanches of the Canaries, but, as far as I'm aware, there's zero evidence it was perpetrated because of anyone's appearance. If anything, it bears far more resemblance, though still far less systematized, to viking thrall raids than it does the African slave trade into which the Europeans would soon thereafter become integrated.
Europeans weren't taught how to enslave people they were enslaving Europeans before they moved on to Africans...
By blackace Go To PostEuropeans weren't taught how to enslave people they were enslaving Europeans before they moved on to Africans…To be honest, I'm not sure what this is in response to.
Kind of sounds like you were saying the Europeans just stepped into a pre-existing slave trade when in fact the African slave was at first thought of a way to supplement the slave trade already happening and then it replaced it... but slaving wasn't new to Europeans
Ah. Then I'm miscommunicating.
You're right: slaving was nothing new to Europe when they became integrated into the African slave trade, but the African slave trade did preexist European involvement. Europeans, obviously, over the centuries expanded and intensified it (the triangular trade with which the African slave trade is ordinarily associated was, of course, a European invention), but the basic systems at its core were something Europeans inserted themselves into, rather than created ex nihilo.
But all of that runs parallel to where my original point was going: Attention shouldn't primarily be paid to institutional racism over attitudinal racism only because it's more insidious and harmful, but also because, historically, it predates it. If you want to trace the roots of unequal power relations (including for the purposes of preventing the establishment of new ones), you look at the social systems themselves, not the ideas that surround and justify them, which arise epiphenomenally. Contrary to what these reactionary fools insist, insulting a person who believes they are white for being white isn't the start of some new, horrible system of oppression - just a glimpse at history disproves that inanity.
You're right: slaving was nothing new to Europe when they became integrated into the African slave trade, but the African slave trade did preexist European involvement. Europeans, obviously, over the centuries expanded and intensified it (the triangular trade with which the African slave trade is ordinarily associated was, of course, a European invention), but the basic systems at its core were something Europeans inserted themselves into, rather than created ex nihilo.
But all of that runs parallel to where my original point was going: Attention shouldn't primarily be paid to institutional racism over attitudinal racism only because it's more insidious and harmful, but also because, historically, it predates it. If you want to trace the roots of unequal power relations (including for the purposes of preventing the establishment of new ones), you look at the social systems themselves, not the ideas that surround and justify them, which arise epiphenomenally. Contrary to what these reactionary fools insist, insulting a person who believes they are white for being white isn't the start of some new, horrible system of oppression - just a glimpse at history disproves that inanity.
Ok, so maybe back when Viking raids and the thinly veiled expansionism of Catholicism or Alcoholism or whatever were the standard fare, maybe back then attitudinal racism really was driven by the institutional racism. Who's to say besides you and RAU.
But I think the reverse is true now, it's institutional racism driven by attitudinal racism. You can't convince me otherwise. White people be stopping themselves from having anything good like universal healthcare and food stamps just so black people and brown people can't partake.
How about that "White Flight" shit just so black peoples couldn't go to their schools and integrate with them?
Yo, I don't know who you are. Maybe you think you're some above-it-all professor or graduate student or some shit, but don't come for my boy LFK like that. Even if I agree with you, I won't.
"Reactionary fools" my ass.
But I think the reverse is true now, it's institutional racism driven by attitudinal racism. You can't convince me otherwise. White people be stopping themselves from having anything good like universal healthcare and food stamps just so black people and brown people can't partake.
How about that "White Flight" shit just so black peoples couldn't go to their schools and integrate with them?
Yo, I don't know who you are. Maybe you think you're some above-it-all professor or graduate student or some shit, but don't come for my boy LFK like that. Even if I agree with you, I won't.
"Reactionary fools" my ass.
Oh yeah, and rent control.
Why dont White people institutionalize some rent control?
Because their attitude is, like, "Nah, I'm good."
All the while, three times more housing units sit empty than there are homeless people (Source: Ocasio-Cortez).
Where is all the urban and housing development supposed to be?
They don't want housing development, because they want all the land for themselves in order to keep accruing generational wealth.
Their whole attitude is like, "Fuck you; keep getting mines."
Anyway, I digress.
Why dont White people institutionalize some rent control?
Because their attitude is, like, "Nah, I'm good."
All the while, three times more housing units sit empty than there are homeless people (Source: Ocasio-Cortez).
Where is all the urban and housing development supposed to be?
They don't want housing development, because they want all the land for themselves in order to keep accruing generational wealth.
Their whole attitude is like, "Fuck you; keep getting mines."
Anyway, I digress.
Not defending him. LFK is perfectly capable of defending himself. More capable than I am. I would've asked him to stop defending White people, myself. But anyway, the discussion turned into a lot of things at once. I just should've kept staying out of it.
By Smoke Dogg Go To PostNot defending him. LFK is perfectly capable of defending himself. More capable than I am. I would've asked him to stop defending White people, myself. But anyway, the discussion turned into a lot of things at once. I just should've kept staying out of it.yeah, what Flabber did was debating about the subject. Saying you won't agree with him because he came at LFK is something.
Take some time and read his thoughts on the matter.
I did read his thoughts, distilled down to whether institutional racism begets attitudinal racism, or the other way around. I picked a side and then provided a couple supporting examples. But yeah, I thought the comment "reactionary fools" was something too.
So Trump must littey admitted his son went to meet with Russians to get political dirt and his lawyers (sukalow now) are doing media tours claiming it’s not a crime.
Also hope hicks was spotted on AF1 and spoke with Mueller.
I feel like an indictment is coming
Also hope hicks was spotted on AF1 and spoke with Mueller.
I feel like an indictment is coming
@Smoke Dogg
First, "reactionary fools" was aimed at Andrew Sullivan and his ilk, not LFK. The "reactionary" bit would've, I'd thought, made that clearer, since it characterizes more of a person's views than something relatively small, like what I disagree with LFK on. If I really thought LFK was as bad as all those charlatans and bigots, I'd've come at him much more harshly than I did (just ask footyslaent how I tend to go after the rubbish that blows into the thread from time to time).
Second, I still completely disagree that the attitudinal racism is driving things today. Self-identified "white" people rarely also self-identify as "racist"; most of them think they're perfectly 'normal' (the irony, I know), not contributing in any way to the marginalization, suppression, oppression, and endangerment of people of color. They have black friends; they like Dave Chappelle; they thought Black Panther was "lit"; they wear LeBron's shirt and call him the GOAT; and they're fucking ignoring all of the issues you're bringing up. That's why institutional racism is such an important topic: because it implicates all these supposedly innocent people. And that's why so many of them hate it: because it implicates them when they think they're innocent.
Yes, attitudinal racism is a problem. Anyone who sees all these confederate flag-waving, jackbooted, white supremacist thugs and doesn't think it is a problem are part of that problem. But plenty of "white" people don't identify with them - they'll even criticize them or lament their actions - while continuining to blithely benefit from the structures of society that rob, rape, and murder people of color.
First, "reactionary fools" was aimed at Andrew Sullivan and his ilk, not LFK. The "reactionary" bit would've, I'd thought, made that clearer, since it characterizes more of a person's views than something relatively small, like what I disagree with LFK on. If I really thought LFK was as bad as all those charlatans and bigots, I'd've come at him much more harshly than I did (just ask footyslaent how I tend to go after the rubbish that blows into the thread from time to time).
Second, I still completely disagree that the attitudinal racism is driving things today. Self-identified "white" people rarely also self-identify as "racist"; most of them think they're perfectly 'normal' (the irony, I know), not contributing in any way to the marginalization, suppression, oppression, and endangerment of people of color. They have black friends; they like Dave Chappelle; they thought Black Panther was "lit"; they wear LeBron's shirt and call him the GOAT; and they're fucking ignoring all of the issues you're bringing up. That's why institutional racism is such an important topic: because it implicates all these supposedly innocent people. And that's why so many of them hate it: because it implicates them when they think they're innocent.
Yes, attitudinal racism is a problem. Anyone who sees all these confederate flag-waving, jackbooted, white supremacist thugs and doesn't think it is a problem are part of that problem. But plenty of "white" people don't identify with them - they'll even criticize them or lament their actions - while continuining to blithely benefit from the structures of society that rob, rape, and murder people of color.
Damn, my bad. Thanks for explaining. Apologies for my misunderstanding. I like both you and LFK now. (Actually, I didn't know you were Flabber. I do remember a Flabber fondly.)
No worries. Misunderstandings and miscommunications are practically the atmosphere of the internet. And it certainly isn't helped by someone like myself who derives too much pleasure from pointless nick changes.
By FligureSkatingFan Go To Post@Smoke DoggGood post this is where it's important to tackle the issues of private prisons, voting disenfranchisement of all flavors, harsher sentencing, redlining, workplace discrimination, housing discrimination, police brutality, predatory loans, on and on. Stuff many of us are not actively dealing with that is actually more easily solved than dealing with the internal conflicts of another person. It sounds ridiculous but here me out, it would be much more productive and simpler for all the anti-racist white people, especially as majority voting blocks to deal with something like putting measures on ballots (or demanding legislation from their reps) that demand better oversight of police, more regulation over banking and credit institutions as two examples. To try to simply make a person be less racist doesn't really cut it and doesn't tackle the myriad of inequities we could be handling right here, right now.
First, "reactionary fools" was aimed at Andrew Sullivan and his ilk, not LFK. The "reactionary" bit would've, I'd thought, make that clearer, since it characterizes more of a person's views than something relatively small, like what I disagree with LFK on. If I really thought LFK was as bad as all those charlatans and bigots, I'd've come at him much more harshly than I did (just ask footyslaent how I tend to go after the rubbish that blows into the thread from time to time).
Second, I still completely disagree that the attitudinal racism is driving things today. Self-identified "white" people rarely also self-identify as "racist"; most of them think they're perfectly 'normal' (the irony, I know), not contributing in any way to the marginalization, suppression, oppression, and endangerment of people of color. They have black friends; they like Dave Chappelle; they thought Black Panther was "lit"; they wear LeBron's shirt and call him the GOAT; and they're fucking ignoring all of the issues you're bringing up. That's why institutional racism is such an important topic: because it implicates all these supposedly innocent people. And that's why so many of them hate it: because it implicates them when they think they're innocent.
Yes, attitudinal racism is a problem. Anyone who sees all these confederate flag-waving, jackbooted, white supremacist thugs and doesn't think it is a problem are part of that problem. But plenty of "white" people don't identify with them - they'll even criticize them or lament their actions - while continuining to blithely benefit from the structures of society that rob, rape, and murder people of color.
And how long would it take to convince this person? What would you gain? Could you guarantee they're going to vote for the less racist option? That they'll advocate for the interests of the marginalized? You can't. Your energy is honestly better spent dealing with the countless forms of racism (or any discrimination really) that create inequities to keep people marginalized and on the fringes of society. Their voice is rendered even smaller because of incarceration and violence, this is not by coincidence. It's deliberate. It's malicious. It's by design. The reason I don't even bat an eye at being insulted is because there's absolutely no power to it, no system to fear, no cops looking to beat or kill me, no one trying to draw trumped up charges, no one trying to throw me in ICE, I inherited generational wealth because my heritage is one that was not redlined out of mortgages, I can easily apply for credit, I'm not tailed in stores, called pejoratives for merely existing. My needs for safety, financial security have been met in my life and when I've dealt with the police they act reasonable and professional. This is not the reality of many other individuals and that is the injustice we need to seek to remedy.
And none of this even gets into how a lot of wishy washy bullshit (or even straight up racism) has come about from white liberals and their tight grip on their property and its value. But that's a discussion for another day.
By Pennywise Go To PostI don't even know what world I'm living in right now.
Hahaha.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/08/05/trump-tweeted-what/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.da0b7c5a1c30
Trump fails to understand that the very meeting he is acknowledging is collusion — or conspiracy, if you will — to break campaign-finance laws. Insisting that it is legal to get dirt from a foreign national is politically and morally offensive (Trump was picked by the Kremlin) and contradicts his claim the Russians didn’t want him to win (another lie in the coverup). He knows they did — they had a meeting to help his campaign.
The email also suggests that Trump Jr. (allegedly with drafting help from his father) tried to conceal the true purpose of the meeting with a false cover story (it was all about adoption, you see.) According to news reports, Trump Jr. may also have lied to Congress by suggesting his father was not intimately involved in drafting the false written statement.
Trump’s insistence that the meeting was perfectly legal and perfectly normal is wrong on both counts. No presidential campaign has gone to a hostile foreign power for help in winning an election. It’s a invitation for a foreign power to help pick our elected leaders, a constitutional abomination and a repudiation of the very concept of democracy (i.e., we pick our own leaders).
The political implications of Trump’s latest confession are quite stunning. Will the rest of the GOP go along with the position that it was perfectly fine for Russia to help Trump? That would sure be a change from “No collusion” (to “Collusion, so what?!”). I don’t know how a major political party can maintain the view that hostile powers have carte blanche to influence our elections. Every Republican in elected office or on the ballot should be asked his or her view on the matter.
The notion that collusion with a hostile power is no big deal is so preposterous and unpalatable, you would think Republicans would not dare try to defend Trump on this point. But this crowd? They might just try it.
Article about how juvenile curfew does not reduce crime at all: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/07/31/the-curfew-myth
Also talks about how the "super-predator" rhetoric negatively affected youth.
Also talks about how the "super-predator" rhetoric negatively affected youth.
Apple, Spotify, YouTube and some more have banned/terminated Alex Jones and Info Warz from their services.
By s y Go To PostApple, Spotify, YouTube and some more have banned/terminated Alex Jones and Info Warz from their services.
Apple still has the infowars app and it's download rate has increased. However ... this hasn't fueled right wing media from crying conspiracy to suppress.
Now that Alex Jones has been banned, conservatives will have to seek out batshit conspiracies via alternate means, such as the president of the United States or the biggest news channel on earth.
By Kibner Go To Post
e: be sure to read the thread because the tweeter points out so many security holes its ridiculous
From what I understand this is only available to over seas vets. A problem for sure but I don't think the scope is all that troublesome. Vote Dems in and fix that shit for 2020
By Fenderputty Go To PostFrom what I understand this is only available to over seas vets. A problem for sure but I don't think the scope is all that troublesome. Vote Dems in and fix that shit for 2020If it is that insecure, it doesn't matter that it is only "available" to overseas vets.
Turns out the Saudis are really upset at us for criticizing their appalling human rights record.
To that I say, fuck them.
Apparently one of the responses they pulled was to withdraw 12,000 Saudi students from Canadian universities. Which is bizarre because that only hurts them and the students, not us.
To that I say, fuck them.
Apparently one of the responses they pulled was to withdraw 12,000 Saudi students from Canadian universities. Which is bizarre because that only hurts them and the students, not us.
By Perfect Blue Go To PostTurns out the Saudis are really upset at us for criticizing their appalling human rights record.Aren't the Saudis just calling out the hypocrisy of western democracies, though?
To that I say, fuck them.
Apparently one of the responses they pulled was to withdraw 12,000 Saudi students from Canadian universities. Which is bizarre because that only hurts them and the students, not us.
America violates human rights all the time but then Canada was all about trading with America no matter what anyway.
Also, I can see it hurting Canadian universities by the fact that Saudis are known to be smart and rich, so now the universities'll have a brain drain and possibly a money drain and then miss out on their social networks of vacationing in Dubai and stuff like that and whatnot.
Wow it's almost as if it was never about the "legality" of immigration at all?
Who could've seen this coming?
By Lunatic Go To PostDubai is apart of the UAE not Saudi Arabia.Yeah I know but it's all Arabian anyway. The point is social networks and oil money ok.
By HasphatsAnts Go To Post
Wow it's almost as if it was never about the "legality" of immigration at all?
Who could've seen this coming?
plenty of people on this site couldn't.
By Smoke Dogg Go To PostYeah I know but it's all Arabian anyway. The point is social networks and oil money ok.Smoke man, no.
By Smoke Dogg Go To PostAren't the Saudis just calling out the hypocrisy of western democracies, though?No, the point of Saudi Arabia doing this is they don’t want foreign states to “interfere” in their domestic affairs, no matter how small the interference actually is. They are going through a sensitive time at the moment with MBS ascending to the throne and any doubt being cast on his rule and policies will invite more turmoil in the kingdom. It has nothing to do with “the hypocrisy of western democracies”.
America violates human rights all the time but then Canada was all about trading with America no matter what anyway.
Also, I can see it hurting Canadian universities by the fact that Saudis are known to be smart and rich, so now the universities'll have a brain drain and possibly a money drain and then miss out on their social networks of vacationing in Dubai and stuff like that and whatnot.
By HasphatsAnts Go To Postits not about legality or zombie armies m8
Wow it's almost as if it was never about the "legality" of immigration at all?
Who could've seen this coming?
Again, I want to meet either the latino girl that turned Stephen Miller down in high school, or the latino dude that "stole" his girlfriend. Either way. You know all of Miller's issues with immigration are over a girl.
Unless he's gay, I don't know. Then they're sure as shit over a dude. Either way.
Unless he's gay, I don't know. Then they're sure as shit over a dude. Either way.
By Fenderputty Go To PostHow can we make the VA worse 🤔
Classic Bioware