3 ms·

>Fact: it was much harder in Western societies if you were not white, straight, male, and Christian. This isn't a point for debate. It's not an opinion. You can

>Fact: it was much harder in Western societies if you were not white, straight, male, and Christian. This isn't a point for debate. It's not an opinion. You can either accept the fact, as uncomfortable as it is, and move on. Or you can be willfully ignorant to avoid feeling uncomfortable. It may be a fact (I question the "much"), but is it a meaningful fact? Or just a dumb rhetorical device to bully and silence people for perceived crimes made by their ancestors? 1. Was there any country in the 1940s, ANYWHERE in the world, where outsiders/visitors were treated the same as the native majority? And for countries ruled by minorities, was there one where the people in power treated people of other races better than they treated the people of their own race? 2. If white men need to be loudly and constantly reminded of the sins of their ancestors (that every other society is guilty of but no one talks about it), then is it OK if white men loudly and constantly remind you about the accomplishments of their ancestors that the whole world benefits from today? Electricity, vaccines, antibiotics, computers, the Internet, trains, planes, and automobiles, TVs, air conditioning... Can you admit that the world owes all of this to white men? That their advances in medicine and agriculture saved billions of lives? ...or would that be an "uncomfortable truth"?

malcolmgreaves 3y ago
> And for countries ruled by minorities Whew! There's a lot you need to unpack here. There is no place ruled by "minorities." You might want to take some time to reflect on what your word choice says about how you view other people in the world. > 1. Was there any country in the 1940s, This is irrelevant. An answer to this question has no bearing on the fact that I brought up earlier. > 2. If white men need to be loudly and constantly reminded of the sins of their ancestors (that every other society is guilty of but no one talks about it), then is it OK if white men loudly and constantly remind you about the accomplishments of their ancestors that the whole world benefits from today? The premise of this is invalid. Why do you incorrectly think that there exists a kind of arithmetic where bad deed in the past + good deed in the past = net good ? Additionally, why are you taking all of this so personally? Have you personally done any of these "sins of their ancestors" you speak of? No? Then why do you feel any sort of need to defend these sins? I hope you realize that you are not your ancestors. > It may be a fact (I question the "much"), but is it a meaningful fact? It's meaningful so that people can realize that there's a choice to be made. Knowing the past empowers people in the present to decide if they want to continue or fight against unjust inertia. If you choose to be misled about what actually occurred, or are in the unfortunate position where everyone else around you is deluding themselves and thus impart that delusion onto you, then you may find yourself in a position where you don't understand the world. > Or just a dumb rhetorical device to bully and silence people for perceived crimes made by their ancestors? Do you feel like you're being silenced? Why? > Can you admit that the world owes all of this to white men? You talk about things you believe are solely due to people of a particular race - you say "the world owes all of this to white men" without realizing a couple of key facts. First, due to systematic racism, it was outright impossible for non-white folks in European (and colonies thereof) to be in positions to make any sort of contributions to these things you mention. Same thing applies to women. This is what people mean when they point out that racial and gender diversity is important. You will never have inventions and discoveries take place by folks that are explicitly excluded from the institutions that gate keep these functions in society. -- Overall...I fear that you are falling into the trap of believing that there's any genuine, natural validity to the artificial construct that is race. Race does not exist in nature. Ancient Europeans invented the concept of race, around the same time they invented the concept of Capitalism. In reality, people have different complexions as a result of their exposure to UV light. They inherit genes from people that control the production of melanin in their skin. If you have ancestors that had lots of UV light exposure, then the genes that will be passed down to you will cause your skin to produce more melanin to safely absorb more UV light. That's it.
- gettodachoppa 3y ago
  >Whew! There's a lot you need to unpack here. There is no place ruled by "minorities." You might want to take some time to reflect on what your word choice says about how you view other people in the world. In your haste to virtue signal with the bingo card you brought from Twitter, you either forgot what the word 'minority' actually means, or forgot that there absolutely were/are countries ruled by groups that were ethnic minorities in that country. For example Rwanda up to the mid 20th century was run by the Tutsis who were only 15% of the population. What am I supposed to use to describe them, if not 'minority'? >The premise of this is invalid. Why do you incorrectly think that there exists a kind of arithmetic where bad deed in the past + good deed in the past = net good ? Additionally, why are you taking all of this so personally? Since people like you keep bringing bad deeds from the past, it's only fair that good deeds be brought up too. I personally do not judge anyone by the history of their ancestors. But evidently you do (or you wouldn't be going on about historical racism), so within your worldview, I expect you to be consistent and not a hypocrite. If you bring up the bad, people can bring up the good. Simple as. I can't take it personally, if only because I'm not white and come from the other side of the world. But I have a sense of justice and I dislike seeing people treated worse than others because of the color of their skin. Which is what I think you're doing with your targetted snipes at white people, which I strongly doubt you do at other ethnicities with the same shortcomings. >you say "the world owes all of this to white men" without realizing a couple of key facts. First, due to systematic racicm, blah blah, women, excuses excuses I don't get it, do you agree with that factual statement or not? I see you're giving excuses for why that fact is a fact, but I'd like to see if you still have a foot in reality or not, by seeing you say "yes I agree with that fact, we owe most of our advances to white men" or "I disagree". If you disagree, then please let me know why, so I can flip your argument against you to absolve current white people for whatever original sin you think they're guilty of. Also, what about in non-European countries? Why didn't any of those countries invent the sort of things that save billions of lives? >I fear that you are falling into the trap of believing that there's any genuine, natural validity to the artificial construct that is race. Race does not exist in nature Although I don't treat anyone differently due to their race, there are definitely biological differences between different ethnicities, and anyone who claims there isn't, even if they are so-called distinguished American """scientists""", is simply trying to gaslight me for political correctness' sake. I roundly reject appeal to authority when it comes to anything even slightly infected by American humanities majors, because those professors aren't doing science, they're doing politics and careerism. Otherwise how do you explain that Olympic sprinting is dominated specifically by Jamaicans and West Africans? I certainly don't go around talking about white men's accomplishments normally. It's only when I see white people under attack for ancestral sins that I use this counter-argument. Basically you set the tone of the discussion and I counter-punched. If you had acted like a pleasant normal person, and didn't try the woke religion's favorite activity that is dunking on whitey, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

malcolmgreaves 3y ago

> And for countries ruled by minorities Whew! There's a lot you need to unpack here. There is no place ruled by "minorities." You might want to take some time to reflect on what your word choice says about how you view other people in the world. > 1. Was there any country in the 1940s, This is irrelevant. An answer to this question has no bearing on the fact that I brought up earlier. > 2. If white men need to be loudly and constantly reminded of the sins of their ancestors (that every other society is guilty of but no one talks about it), then is it OK if white men loudly and constantly remind you about the accomplishments of their ancestors that the whole world benefits from today? The premise of this is invalid. Why do you incorrectly think that there exists a kind of arithmetic where bad deed in the past + good deed in the past = net good ? Additionally, why are you taking all of this so personally? Have you personally done any of these "sins of their ancestors" you speak of? No? Then why do you feel any sort of need to defend these sins? I hope you realize that you are not your ancestors. > It may be a fact (I question the "much"), but is it a meaningful fact? It's meaningful so that people can realize that there's a choice to be made. Knowing the past empowers people in the present to decide if they want to continue or fight against unjust inertia. If you choose to be misled about what actually occurred, or are in the unfortunate position where everyone else around you is deluding themselves and thus impart that delusion onto you, then you may find yourself in a position where you don't understand the world. > Or just a dumb rhetorical device to bully and silence people for perceived crimes made by their ancestors? Do you feel like you're being silenced? Why? > Can you admit that the world owes all of this to white men? You talk about things you believe are solely due to people of a particular race - you say "the world owes all of this to white men" without realizing a couple of key facts. First, due to systematic racism, it was outright impossible for non-white folks in European (and colonies thereof) to be in positions to make any sort of contributions to these things you mention. Same thing applies to women. This is what people mean when they point out that racial and gender diversity is important. You will never have inventions and discoveries take place by folks that are explicitly excluded from the institutions that gate keep these functions in society. -- Overall...I fear that you are falling into the trap of believing that there's any genuine, natural validity to the artificial construct that is race. Race does not exist in nature. Ancient Europeans invented the concept of race, around the same time they invented the concept of Capitalism. In reality, people have different complexions as a result of their exposure to UV light. They inherit genes from people that control the production of melanin in their skin. If you have ancestors that had lots of UV light exposure, then the genes that will be passed down to you will cause your skin to produce more melanin to safely absorb more UV light. That's it.

gettodachoppa 3y ago
>Whew! There's a lot you need to unpack here. There is no place ruled by "minorities." You might want to take some time to reflect on what your word choice says about how you view other people in the world. In your haste to virtue signal with the bingo card you brought from Twitter, you either forgot what the word 'minority' actually means, or forgot that there absolutely were/are countries ruled by groups that were ethnic minorities in that country. For example Rwanda up to the mid 20th century was run by the Tutsis who were only 15% of the population. What am I supposed to use to describe them, if not 'minority'? >The premise of this is invalid. Why do you incorrectly think that there exists a kind of arithmetic where bad deed in the past + good deed in the past = net good ? Additionally, why are you taking all of this so personally? Since people like you keep bringing bad deeds from the past, it's only fair that good deeds be brought up too. I personally do not judge anyone by the history of their ancestors. But evidently you do (or you wouldn't be going on about historical racism), so within your worldview, I expect you to be consistent and not a hypocrite. If you bring up the bad, people can bring up the good. Simple as. I can't take it personally, if only because I'm not white and come from the other side of the world. But I have a sense of justice and I dislike seeing people treated worse than others because of the color of their skin. Which is what I think you're doing with your targetted snipes at white people, which I strongly doubt you do at other ethnicities with the same shortcomings. >you say "the world owes all of this to white men" without realizing a couple of key facts. First, due to systematic racicm, blah blah, women, excuses excuses I don't get it, do you agree with that factual statement or not? I see you're giving excuses for why that fact is a fact, but I'd like to see if you still have a foot in reality or not, by seeing you say "yes I agree with that fact, we owe most of our advances to white men" or "I disagree". If you disagree, then please let me know why, so I can flip your argument against you to absolve current white people for whatever original sin you think they're guilty of. Also, what about in non-European countries? Why didn't any of those countries invent the sort of things that save billions of lives? >I fear that you are falling into the trap of believing that there's any genuine, natural validity to the artificial construct that is race. Race does not exist in nature Although I don't treat anyone differently due to their race, there are definitely biological differences between different ethnicities, and anyone who claims there isn't, even if they are so-called distinguished American """scientists""", is simply trying to gaslight me for political correctness' sake. I roundly reject appeal to authority when it comes to anything even slightly infected by American humanities majors, because those professors aren't doing science, they're doing politics and careerism. Otherwise how do you explain that Olympic sprinting is dominated specifically by Jamaicans and West Africans? I certainly don't go around talking about white men's accomplishments normally. It's only when I see white people under attack for ancestral sins that I use this counter-argument. Basically you set the tone of the discussion and I counter-punched. If you had acted like a pleasant normal person, and didn't try the woke religion's favorite activity that is dunking on whitey, we wouldn't be having this conversation.