Whiteness

What did they mean by this?

Other urls found in this thread:

imediaethics.org/huffington-post-south-africa-editor-resigns-fake-shelley-garland-blogpost/

they meant muh white people

This is the Dems doing damage control right now.
If they can paint him as a racist and further slander his record, he might not take the party for the 2020 election.

Porky is very upset that the proles are waking up to identity politics.


This too.

((^(Whiteness)^))

You mean jewishness.

He will not take the party for 2020 election regardless, if Clinton runs again, he will get cucked again.

Hard to worry about Clinton when we're all so clearly about to get Zucked

the Party is Good,
The Party is Woke
Without the Democratic Party There Would Be No New China
I Love the Party, And the Party Loves Me

If the white supremacy is real, then why is this acceptable when replacing white with any other race would be a career end?

at least Howard will be happy

Would be hard ball when Holla Forums starts cheering for Zuck.

real talk, black people and white people are both discriminated against in america in different ways. this is the true redpill

Other than the accelerationist memers, why would anyone do that?

makes me think.

because we can't have class unity. There is no way a white guy can have solidarity with the black working class. No way.

Reality is this is the media trying to divide the proletariat among racial lines to stop class unity.

...

what did he mean by this?

idpol news here
nothing to see

But if the white supremacy is real, then the most destructive response should be when "white" is used instead of any other race. For how supreme is this white supremacy, if attacking it receives less reprisal than attacking a different race?

I like it when liberal publications, like pitchfork or some sports media gush about the 'unapologetic black excellence' of some rapper or basketball star, you can tell the guys who wrote that shit are frame glasses soyblobs who are terrified of black ppl irl

Out of curiosity, what context are you talking about?

I think most of us would agree that the US being institutionally racist on a lot of levels is not necessarily the same as our society itself being white supremacist, as the white supremacist ideology is much more blatant and extreme and more closely reflected in the existence of white supremacist groups themselves.

If it is institutionally racist, then it is institutionally racist against whites. For it were not, then writing about whites in the ways that such is done nowadays would be less acceptable than writing about jews or blacks in the same manner.

u coward dont even collectivize profits

It's just neoliberal idpol trying to slander him, nothing really exciting.


He'll be like 80 by then, he's not running in 2020. Maybe some other socdem will run but they'll just be crushed in the name of "not splitting the vote"

It can also be taken as a sign of its supremacy, that an "attack" is not perceived as an attack at all. What is seen as damaging to any other race is completely beneath white notice.

This logic can be applied to any attack that is approved of to make oneself an eternal victim.

All discourse has an underlying agenda. the seemingly radical, edgy discourse of liberal identity politics is a cover for the milquetoast managerial class. The experts and technocrats who make a living off 'fighting racism'. 'Racism' and 'White Supremacy' are definitely not material things but vague sins or psychological states of some sort that can only be managed by technocrats

Yeah it could be, which is why we can do things like "examine context"

Zuckerberg/Land 2020

Whoever has Bernie's endorsement will have a huge advantage. If he's smart he'll play his cards close and make the candidates compete for his approval by moving further and further left.

The biggest risk is we get some shitty opportunist who claims to be a soc-dem, but then turns into a neo-lib after they win.

The context being the contradiction of a supreme white racist system that at the same time has whites as it's most acceptable target.

The only reason it's "acceptable" (and this acceptability is largely partisan) is because the country has historically (for largely porky-favor reasons) given power exclusively to white people and discriminated against others to violent extents. It's the same reason it doesn't offend that many people if you go after straight people - straight people weren't getting regularly killed or arrested just for being straight a few decades ago, and gay people are still a minority and are at an obvious disadvantage if straights suddenly decide they want to get rid of them again.

White people, in the west, don't have a historical institutional reason to feel threatened by someone writing up some retarded piece about what a bunch of assholes white people are for clicks and giggles. Also, most Jews are white - and even though Jews as a specific cultural group actually do have a history of being targeted in the US, they're not generally exempted from "whiteness" except by Holla Forumstards.

Both white and black racist groups and racist ideas are proliferated in the US. Both of them speak. If I wanted to quantify institutional racism just on that, I could ask why it is that War on the Horizon or the Nuwaubians or whoever else are not as circulated as or any more "accepted" than Varg Vikernes or various Stormfront-founded rags.

But that would be almost as stupid as assuming that the extent of our society ends at whatever clickbait thinkpieces some Holla Forums torture chamber is hatejerking over.

If a society has a legal history of effectively forcing certain groups into poverty, denying them certain rights, and using the cops as a weapon against them and this same group still faces worse poverty levels and disproportionate amounts of police violence, then it's worth considering that the problem has not been totally removed. Denying it would be like denying that our system favors the very rich, as well.

If you think the worst thing that happens to people because of their race is clickbait articles, you're not really equipped to discuss this. An article cannot pull you over because of the color of your skin.

Its mostly self hating white liberals/lefties who write and consume this kind of shit, they get an almost sexual enjoyment from performative self flagellation of guilt like the good Calvinists they are. You can even sense it with some of the posters on here, you know nothing gets them harder than pontificating to their 'fellow white people'

Is Zucc the Architect?

wow, what a great guy. I hope I can siphon resources from stupid people and then give 1% of them back to people

DIVIDE AND CONQUER

hobbyist

The point still stands, if there is white supremacy, then why would it only allow whites as targets for articles like this, why it would make one a pariah when written about any other race?

What the fuck does legalizing recreational marijuana and ending the prohibition that has ruined thousands of working class people's lives over a harmless drug got to do with any of that, you fucking insufferable nerd?

lol

weed culture is degenerate and totally vapid. It deserves hatred and scorn. Weed is fine, if not a medicine in its own right. But, the culture is fucking gross

I smoke every day so don't call me a nerd

Spooky

You're right, the purity of your posting is powerful and stronger than a material gesture.

I don't see how weed culture, as dumb as it is, has anything to do with that garbage its lumped in with in that image.

Only tangentially related

I hate so much that "white supremacy" has gone from meaning "literal swastikas and burning crosses" to "white people are usually at an advantage".

Of course the latter's true, that hardly needs to be said. Black people have it distinctly worse than white people in America, and that's not just the result of historical oppression but because of prejudices that are ongoing today, from white people who think they have something to lose. There are so many damn examples, and so few white people that would ever want to be black, that anyone who denies it is a fucking moron.

Yes, this shit happens, and yes, it is bad. But why the fuck call it "white supremacy", a phrase that up until a decade ago in the popular imagination implied horrific physical violence? The tendency to turn down black-sounding names for jobs - which does happen - is not at all like what goes on in Dylann Roof or Richard Spencer's twisted minds. Implying that they are the same makes it practically impossible to effect actual change in America; a phrase like "white supremacy" has no coherent plan of action behind it. All it does is divide people by race - the very thing it's supposed to do away with! - and slobber over liberal politicians' empty promises of "a national conversation". It's absolutely pathetic.

no i'm sure Damien Lillard is a great guy, Bill Gates is too. And the Rothschilds. They give billions to charity. The Rockefellers and Rothschilds give huge portions of their wealth to charity. Also Zuckerberg too. They're great guys. I'm proud of them. I want to be like them. I want to be PORKY

This is now a capitalist board, some black entertainer gave a quarter million to a group of like 6-12 people who were underpaid and facilitating his non-productive consumption based labor/service. We are not worthy. We must create wealth TO SHARE WEALTH

also watching sports is fucking gay

Calm down retard

SAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He'll throw his support behind the DNC approved candidate just like he did this past time. The sad thing is some of you actually believe Bernie Sanders isn't in on the game.

See my first reply to you:

I don't consider our society white supremacist, I consider it institutionally racist. The difference is that white supremacy is largely explicitly ideological. The Klan is white supremacist, and their existence answers your question.

Our overall society is not white supremacist. Not now. But our institutions frequently do show racial biases against minorities, and this has a long history. This is institutional racism, and the prison-industrial complex, politicians, and the government are beneficiaries of it.


Also: it doesn't. Literally anyone is allowed to be targeted, and some of these articles have met with serious backlash afterwards. You just kind of willfully ignore that to the extent that literally the only thing you're looking at is shitty liberal clickbait circljerks.

Also, this:

congradulations

lol

Are people being fired for them for mainstream publications?

No, they're being hired exactly to write this sort of stuff.

Yes.

imediaethics.org/huffington-post-south-africa-editor-resigns-fake-shelley-garland-blogpost/

Of course, this particular case was also in SA, where white people are an ethnic minority.


They're being hired by (mostly white) people to write ineffectual "thinkpieces" for other (mostly white) people to jerk off over or fight about because it is the business those specific companies have decided they're in.

It's like pointing to Malcolm X in the '60s and accusing him of representing society's racial bias against whites, except he wasn't doing it to get liberal/controversybux. And Malcolm X was also, for a period, actually deeply triggering and problematic - most of the thinkpiece stuff is foremost accusing x white person of x racist slight so other white people can feel good about themselves or get super outraged at the edgy lingo.

Not one of these things at all negates what's simultaneously occurring in the rest of the media, in employment, in education opportunities, in poverty and homelessness, in politics, in the police forces, in the prisons. But I'm sure Arianna or whoever is top-dog in this sort of thing now doesn't mind if the only thing you pay attention to is how her rag makes you feel.

Lmao, well-played, wordfilter.

I don't know maybe the journalists is trying to paint him as a racist just because the working class just happen to be white. Without the working class then there would be no welfare for the promiscuous black people, which mean massive riots across the country. Nobody wants that to happen, do we?

No, you only get to wear that label if you're a neoliberal. Any Jew to the left of Haim Saban has to give their card back.

Again, you ignore the central point. Why is it professionally acceptable to write about white people in ways that would make one a hounded pariah if the target was any other race (it doesn't even has to be this explicit, one remark or "dog whistle" is enough) if there is institutional white supremacy that protects it's own interests?

That they're getting paid to do so does not negate it, to the contrary.

is that Zizek by the dumpster? eating out of the trash maybe?

just neoliberalism doing its thing

Wasn't there polls chowing that most black peoples liked him?

...

Wrong picture.

Based on your post I expected a swastika and not a hammer and sickle.

The article admit that only white people work.

And again liberals have to ruin everything.