7 ms·

I didn’t make the argument that racism against whites doesn’t exist. I am a white male who has been a victim of racism, too. I’m making the point that policing

I didn’t make the argument that racism against whites doesn’t exist. I am a white male who has been a victim of racism, too. I’m making the point that policing instances of racism perpetrated against people of color doesn’t make white people victims. Don’t like the association with racism just because you’re white? Then do something about it. Spread the word that racism is wrong. And well, if don’t mind the association with racism quite so much as the fact that many white people are starting to be held accountable for their racist actions, then you are a racist.

leereeves 6y ago
> I’m making the point that policing instances of racism perpetrated against people of color doesn’t make white people victims. But this discussion is about reddit declaring that they will not police instances of racism perpetrated against white people.
- lowtolerance 6y ago
  That is not what they declared, repeating a misrepresentation of the truth doesn’t make it any more truthful.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    It most certainly is what they declared. > the rule on hate ... does not protect groups of people who are in the majority That statement has nothing to do with protecting minorities, it's a declaration of not protecting the majority.
    - lowtolerance 6y ago
      > While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate. Not a single word about white people not benefiting from such protections.
      - leereeves 6y ago
        > people who are in the majority Who do you think that refers to?
        lowtolerance 6y ago
        The majority of the community in question, as clearly indicated by that statement. This might be shocking to a white supremacist, but the majority of the world is not white.
        leereeves 6y ago
        You haven't answered the question. Who are "the majority of the community in question"? But after looking at your history here, I see you don't discuss anything in good faith, so I'm not surprised you aren't discussing this in good faith.
        lowtolerance 6y ago
        Anyone can look at my comment history and verify for themselves that you are trying to poison the well by accusing me of arguing in bad faith. I assure you I am just here to get my side of the argument out in the open, but the irony of a “free speech advocate” trying to censor me with lame ad hominem attacks is pretty rich. How about you answer your own question: who is the majority? You seem to be assuming that each individual community on reddit is frequented by a white majority. Where is your evidence?
        leereeves 6y ago
        I'll support my statement, and save anyone who is reading this the trouble of checking your comment history, by citing a selection of attacks you wrote in every single comment at the top of your history right now, to several different people: > Maybe consider consulting a dictionary. > What the fuck is the matter with some of you... > then you very clearly don’t give a flying duck about right or wrong, either. > You appear to be admitting in plain — though horribly ungrammatical — English that you don’t care about the difference between right and wrong > your writing is so bad that I’m genuinely struggling to make sense of it. > Someone doesn’t understand the terms... > What kind of fucking creep sees ... I think it's unproductive to continue this discussion at this time.

leereeves 6y ago

> I’m making the point that policing instances of racism perpetrated against people of color doesn’t make white people victims. But this discussion is about reddit declaring that they will not police instances of racism perpetrated against white people.

lowtolerance 6y ago
That is not what they declared, repeating a misrepresentation of the truth doesn’t make it any more truthful.
- leereeves 6y ago
  It most certainly is what they declared. > the rule on hate ... does not protect groups of people who are in the majority That statement has nothing to do with protecting minorities, it's a declaration of not protecting the majority.
  - lowtolerance 6y ago
    > While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate. Not a single word about white people not benefiting from such protections.
    - leereeves 6y ago
      > people who are in the majority Who do you think that refers to?
      - lowtolerance 6y ago
        The majority of the community in question, as clearly indicated by that statement. This might be shocking to a white supremacist, but the majority of the world is not white.
        leereeves 6y ago
        You haven't answered the question. Who are "the majority of the community in question"? But after looking at your history here, I see you don't discuss anything in good faith, so I'm not surprised you aren't discussing this in good faith.
        lowtolerance 6y ago
        Anyone can look at my comment history and verify for themselves that you are trying to poison the well by accusing me of arguing in bad faith. I assure you I am just here to get my side of the argument out in the open, but the irony of a “free speech advocate” trying to censor me with lame ad hominem attacks is pretty rich. How about you answer your own question: who is the majority? You seem to be assuming that each individual community on reddit is frequented by a white majority. Where is your evidence?
        leereeves 6y ago
        I'll support my statement, and save anyone who is reading this the trouble of checking your comment history, by citing a selection of attacks you wrote in every single comment at the top of your history right now, to several different people: > Maybe consider consulting a dictionary. > What the fuck is the matter with some of you... > then you very clearly don’t give a flying duck about right or wrong, either. > You appear to be admitting in plain — though horribly ungrammatical — English that you don’t care about the difference between right and wrong > your writing is so bad that I’m genuinely struggling to make sense of it. > Someone doesn’t understand the terms... > What kind of fucking creep sees ... I think it's unproductive to continue this discussion at this time.