5 ms·

I don't think I'm facing a backlash, one person is upset - that same person also claimed that his race deserves to be dominant because it's genetically superior

I don't think I'm facing a backlash, one person is upset - that same person also claimed that his race deserves to be dominant because it's genetically superior, so I've given up as there's no arguing with that depth of bigotry. You're missing valuable context in that comment, you can't own the hard work of your ancestors without owning their atrocities either, it might not have been your direct ancestors but it is the history of your society. You either forget that history or own all of it.

cptskippy 10y ago
You failed to qualify or contextualize your remarks. You're speaking in generalities and with broad strokes. People don't choose how, when, or where they are born. They come into the world a blank slate and are shaped by those before them. They little choice in the matter. You can't forgive or dismiss the errs of one culture while holding another completely accountable for things that came before them. You can't dismiss their experience as invalid or insignificant because you feel that someone else is more important. That's the same type of reasoning and ignorance that led to the situation we're in.
- disordinary 10y ago
  The context is in the conversation, we're talking about marketing material remember. I'm not dismissing anything, I'm saying we have the opportunity to break the cycle of inequality and anyone fighting that is not just ignorant but also deeply selfish.
  - cptskippy 10y ago
    Someone saying that they feel disenfranchised because their race, a prominent race in the industry, was excluded from a marketing message specifically trying to make everyone feel welcome and included isn't fighting against anything. They're expressing a feeling. You're dismissing and rejecting their feelings. You go a step further by saying that the person is selfish, privileged, and needs own up to all the atrocities their race has ever committed.
    - disordinary 10y ago
      White people weren't excluded from the marketing campaign. There was a white man and a white woman there, which at 10% of the worlds population meant that they were over represented. Plenty of races were not represented at all. The guy wasn't upset about not being represented, he was upset that other races were also included so prominently, or in some cases were more prominent. Did you also miss the part where he said that his race deserved to be the prominent race because it is genetically superior? Is it okay to express feelings like that? I feel sick.
bluthru 10y ago
>that same person also claimed that his race deserves to be dominant because it's genetically superior, so I've given up as there's no arguing with that depth of bigotry. "Dominant"? No, not at all. Left alone in our out countries without people who enjoy population privilege displacing us? Yes. If you have a problem with this ask your self why. If whites are horrible oppressors then surely they should be left alone so that they cannot oppress others? If whites are so terrible why do others crawl their way into white countries? If we are truly all equal then surely non-white countries won't be left behind, right?
- disordinary 10y ago
  Well it's not your country, it's a country made up of immigrants, of which your ancestors were one. You aren't the indigenous people, the US is built 100% on immigration.
flukus 10y ago
> You're missing valuable context in that comment, you can't own the hard work of your ancestors without owning their atrocities either, it might not have been your direct ancestors but it is the history of your society. You either forget that history or own all of it. Is there anyone on earth that doesn't have ancestors that committed atrocities? Why is it only white people that have to answer for these atrocities?
- disordinary 10y ago
  Surely it's not who did what, but lets just do whats right? I think you'll find that the Japanese payed reparation after WW2. You shouldn't think of things in terms of white and not white, that is just insane. In general civilised countries pay for their mistakes. In New Zealand we have a tribunal who's goal is to pay for any atrocities and acts of theft perpetrated by the British Empire, a completely different country to modern day NZ, yet we as a society do it because it's the right thing to do.
  - flukus 10y ago
    SO where is the tribunal that pay for atrocities committed by Maori's? Do Maori's not do what's right? >I think you'll find that the Japanese payed reparation after WW2. I think you'll find Japan doesn't even recognize many atrocities it committed in WW2.
    - disordinary 10y ago
      I'm sure historically Maori were convicted disproportionate to crimes. Modern day? Well just in the court. The Treaty of Waitangi is for historic issues. Japan paid reparation after WW2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations#World_War_II_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations#World_War_II_J...
      - flukus 10y ago
        Japan still won't recognize the rape of Nanking. They're also about as xenophobic as you can get but I don't see you complaining about that.

cptskippy 10y ago

You failed to qualify or contextualize your remarks. You're speaking in generalities and with broad strokes. People don't choose how, when, or where they are born. They come into the world a blank slate and are shaped by those before them. They little choice in the matter. You can't forgive or dismiss the errs of one culture while holding another completely accountable for things that came before them. You can't dismiss their experience as invalid or insignificant because you feel that someone else is more important. That's the same type of reasoning and ignorance that led to the situation we're in.

disordinary 10y ago
The context is in the conversation, we're talking about marketing material remember. I'm not dismissing anything, I'm saying we have the opportunity to break the cycle of inequality and anyone fighting that is not just ignorant but also deeply selfish.
- cptskippy 10y ago
  Someone saying that they feel disenfranchised because their race, a prominent race in the industry, was excluded from a marketing message specifically trying to make everyone feel welcome and included isn't fighting against anything. They're expressing a feeling. You're dismissing and rejecting their feelings. You go a step further by saying that the person is selfish, privileged, and needs own up to all the atrocities their race has ever committed.
  - disordinary 10y ago
    White people weren't excluded from the marketing campaign. There was a white man and a white woman there, which at 10% of the worlds population meant that they were over represented. Plenty of races were not represented at all. The guy wasn't upset about not being represented, he was upset that other races were also included so prominently, or in some cases were more prominent. Did you also miss the part where he said that his race deserved to be the prominent race because it is genetically superior? Is it okay to express feelings like that? I feel sick.

bluthru 10y ago

>that same person also claimed that his race deserves to be dominant because it's genetically superior, so I've given up as there's no arguing with that depth of bigotry. "Dominant"? No, not at all. Left alone in our out countries without people who enjoy population privilege displacing us? Yes. If you have a problem with this ask your self why. If whites are horrible oppressors then surely they should be left alone so that they cannot oppress others? If whites are so terrible why do others crawl their way into white countries? If we are truly all equal then surely non-white countries won't be left behind, right?

disordinary 10y ago
Well it's not your country, it's a country made up of immigrants, of which your ancestors were one. You aren't the indigenous people, the US is built 100% on immigration.

flukus 10y ago

> You're missing valuable context in that comment, you can't own the hard work of your ancestors without owning their atrocities either, it might not have been your direct ancestors but it is the history of your society. You either forget that history or own all of it. Is there anyone on earth that doesn't have ancestors that committed atrocities? Why is it only white people that have to answer for these atrocities?

disordinary 10y ago
Surely it's not who did what, but lets just do whats right? I think you'll find that the Japanese payed reparation after WW2. You shouldn't think of things in terms of white and not white, that is just insane. In general civilised countries pay for their mistakes. In New Zealand we have a tribunal who's goal is to pay for any atrocities and acts of theft perpetrated by the British Empire, a completely different country to modern day NZ, yet we as a society do it because it's the right thing to do.
- flukus 10y ago
  SO where is the tribunal that pay for atrocities committed by Maori's? Do Maori's not do what's right? >I think you'll find that the Japanese payed reparation after WW2. I think you'll find Japan doesn't even recognize many atrocities it committed in WW2.
  - disordinary 10y ago
    I'm sure historically Maori were convicted disproportionate to crimes. Modern day? Well just in the court. The Treaty of Waitangi is for historic issues. Japan paid reparation after WW2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations#World_War_II_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations#World_War_II_J...
    - flukus 10y ago
      Japan still won't recognize the rape of Nanking. They're also about as xenophobic as you can get but I don't see you complaining about that.