5 ms·

I doesn't have to do with public or private support. I think people were scammed to a significant degree. To offer solidarity means to let yourself be exploited

I doesn't have to do with public or private support. I think people were scammed to a significant degree. To offer solidarity means to let yourself be exploited too. I don't see how my position leads to conservatism. If I prefer not making race a relevant attribute in an outreach program, I guess I am. But the label doesn't mean much to me. There perhaps aren't many black women in programming yet, but opposing a new racialized world is not sticking my head in the sand. I am pretty actively opposed to it.

beaconstudios 5y ago
You keep avoiding explicitly saying what you mean. By scamming, do you mean the houses bought by Patrice Cullors? The ones she bought with the profits from her bestselling book, where there's no evidence donations were involved? The idea that progressives are creating a newly racialised world where before everything was meritocratic and equal opportunity /is/ the modern conservative line, and it's a lie. The whole reason for outreach programs is to counteract lack of opportunities that are race based - what exactly do you think racism is? Actively opposing programs designed to counteract racism, is supporting racism, you do realise that?
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  > Actively opposing programs designed to counteract racism, is supporting racism, you do realise that? Your accusation is weak. I disagree and I think a lot of programs are racist and should be opposed on that merit. I am not talking about outreach programs here. There are much more relevant factors why specifically black women might be underrepresented. If I generalize that to women, the reason is sexism. I don't believe in these simple explanations and much more importantly I believe these facts do not allow for anyone to be discriminated, which has to be said specifically also extends to white people.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    This is so pointless; every time I try to get a concrete example out of you, you pivot. First you dislike BLM but don't give a reason, then you dislike black girls code but then "have no problem with outreach programs", now you're vaguely hinting at affirmative action being racist because it considers race. Just figure it out yourself.
nobody9999 5y ago
>but opposing a new racialized world is not sticking my head in the sand. I am pretty actively opposed to it. New? Are you claiming that the genocide of the indiginous peoples of the Americas, the centuries-long enslavement (and then another century of legal discrimination) of Africans, discrimination against indiginous peoples of Australia and New Zealand, domination of South Asia by Britain, etc., etc., etc. wasn't "racialized"? I suppose you could try to argue that all that was a long time ago and is irrelevant to today's society. But that doesn't really work. Laws forbidding marriage between "white" and "black" folks were in full force in my lifetime. Or Are you claimng that The Spanish, Dutch, British and Portuguese conquerors and slave traders in the 16th and 17th centuries were pushing for the equal inclusion of Africans who "emigrated" to the Americas and the indiginous peoples of the America into their societies? Are you claiming that the genocide of indiginous American peoples and the maintenance of slave economies that excusively used POC weren't "racialized"? Are you claiming that the differences in family wealth, quality of education/infrastructure/housing, treatment by law "enforcement" agencies and a dozen other testable, measurable ares aren't the result of centuries of a "racialized" world? What is new is that those who have been murdered, enslaved and discriminated against are being given a platform to speak out about the legacies of those centuries of mistreatment and the ways that discrimination is embedded into our societies. And I haven't even touched on the appalling treatment of half the population (women) as well as those who want to live and love (LGBTQ) as they need to. So, when you say you are opposed to a "new racialized world," to what exactly are you opposed? Is it equal rights and opportunities for all, regardless of gender, melanin content or national origin? If that's what you're opposing, I can certainly understand why you're upset. Please do elucidate.

beaconstudios 5y ago

You keep avoiding explicitly saying what you mean. By scamming, do you mean the houses bought by Patrice Cullors? The ones she bought with the profits from her bestselling book, where there's no evidence donations were involved? The idea that progressives are creating a newly racialised world where before everything was meritocratic and equal opportunity /is/ the modern conservative line, and it's a lie. The whole reason for outreach programs is to counteract lack of opportunities that are race based - what exactly do you think racism is? Actively opposing programs designed to counteract racism, is supporting racism, you do realise that?

raxxorrax 5y ago
> Actively opposing programs designed to counteract racism, is supporting racism, you do realise that? Your accusation is weak. I disagree and I think a lot of programs are racist and should be opposed on that merit. I am not talking about outreach programs here. There are much more relevant factors why specifically black women might be underrepresented. If I generalize that to women, the reason is sexism. I don't believe in these simple explanations and much more importantly I believe these facts do not allow for anyone to be discriminated, which has to be said specifically also extends to white people.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  This is so pointless; every time I try to get a concrete example out of you, you pivot. First you dislike BLM but don't give a reason, then you dislike black girls code but then "have no problem with outreach programs", now you're vaguely hinting at affirmative action being racist because it considers race. Just figure it out yourself.

nobody9999 5y ago

>but opposing a new racialized world is not sticking my head in the sand. I am pretty actively opposed to it. New? Are you claiming that the genocide of the indiginous peoples of the Americas, the centuries-long enslavement (and then another century of legal discrimination) of Africans, discrimination against indiginous peoples of Australia and New Zealand, domination of South Asia by Britain, etc., etc., etc. wasn't "racialized"? I suppose you could try to argue that all that was a long time ago and is irrelevant to today's society. But that doesn't really work. Laws forbidding marriage between "white" and "black" folks were in full force in my lifetime. Or Are you claimng that The Spanish, Dutch, British and Portuguese conquerors and slave traders in the 16th and 17th centuries were pushing for the equal inclusion of Africans who "emigrated" to the Americas and the indiginous peoples of the America into their societies? Are you claiming that the genocide of indiginous American peoples and the maintenance of slave economies that excusively used POC weren't "racialized"? Are you claiming that the differences in family wealth, quality of education/infrastructure/housing, treatment by law "enforcement" agencies and a dozen other testable, measurable ares aren't the result of centuries of a "racialized" world? What is new is that those who have been murdered, enslaved and discriminated against are being given a platform to speak out about the legacies of those centuries of mistreatment and the ways that discrimination is embedded into our societies. And I haven't even touched on the appalling treatment of half the population (women) as well as those who want to live and love (LGBTQ) as they need to. So, when you say you are opposed to a "new racialized world," to what exactly are you opposed? Is it equal rights and opportunities for all, regardless of gender, melanin content or national origin? If that's what you're opposing, I can certainly understand why you're upset. Please do elucidate.