Can blacks be racist?

Can blacks really be racist? They have been opressed by everyone through history.

pambazuka.org/governance/black-people-can’t-be-racist

Other urls found in this thread:

20minutes.fr/insolite/1914099-20160827-twitter-licra-compare-ku-klux-klan-camp-decolonial-ca-fait-polemique
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Panther_Party
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

They are racist against themselves a lot of times.

I know this is bait but

>Can animals be carnivore if other animals also eat them?

Its not really bait. I wanna hear an intelligent answer from a non-SJW person.

No because racism is prejudice plus power

Why do you expect an intelligent answer when you open up the discussion with an absolutely absurd "argument".

Of course you can be racist even if people are racist towards you, just like a jew isn't allowed to deny the holocaust in holocaust-laws countries, and just like any woman would be hated by her peers if she said something horribly phallocratic.

>Can blacks really be racist?
what kind of retarded question is that? Have you ever heard of Mugabe or the Rwandan Genocide?

Blacks are the most racist race on earth
They can even be racist with other noggers who are literally undistinguishable from them
Countless black on black genocides still happen in Africa

If we're going by the version of racism where you can only be racist if it's against a group that's being oppressed, then it can only be racism if the blacks are systematically oppressing other blacks somehow.

Lets pretend for a second that the absolutely retarded SJW definition of racism is correct and that Blacks cannot be racist since they "have no power" (EVEN THOUGH FOR 8 GOD DAMN YEARS OUR PRESIDENT WAS BLACK).
This definition only allows for Blacks to not be racist since they stand to gain no benefit from racist institutions, it does not however allow them to not hold prejudice.
I know at that point its a semantics thing but even if not everyone can be "racist", everyone can be prejudiced.

>Why do you expect an intelligent answer when you open up the discussion with an absolutely absurd "argument".
This. But as an actual answer to the question, of course they can. They only way to argue that black people can't be racist is to redefine the word in a nonsensical and dishonest (because the only time people every do it is to control discourse) way. By the standard and commonly-used definition of racism, though, yes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanzibar_Revolution

>During the revolution, there was an orgy of violence committed against the South Asian and Arab communities with thousands of women being raped by the Okello's followers, much looting and massacres of Arabs all over the island.[39] The American diplomat Don Petterson described the killings of Arabs by the African majority as an act of genocide.[40] Petterson wrote "Genocide was not a term that in the vogue then, as it came to be later, but it is fair to say that in parts of Zanzibar, the killing of Arabs was genocide, pure and simple".[40] Okello, an eccentric, power-crazed man with a taste for cruelty frequently went on the radio to urge his followers in thunderous Old Testament language to kill as many Arabs as possible, with the maximum of brutality.

>Okello's revolutionaries soon began reprisals against the Arab and Asian population of Unguja, carrying out beatings, rapes, murders, and attacks on property.[1][29] He claimed in radio speeches to have killed or imprisoned tens of thousands of his "enemies and stooges",[1] but actual estimates of the number of deaths vary greatly, from "hundreds" to 20,000. Some Western newspapers give figures of 2,000–4,000;[30][42] the higher numbers may be inflated by Okello's own broadcasts and exaggerated reports in some Western and Arab news media.[1][4][43] The killing of Arab prisoners and their burial in mass graves was documented by an Italian film crew, filming from a helicopter, for Africa Addio and this sequence of film comprises the only known visual document of the killings.

Seems racist to me.

Let me preface my comment by saying I have no hatred or anger towards anybody based on their race. Racism is a thing that is not looked around clearly in American culture because of our history. Any kind of prejudice or even just acknowledgment of differences is quickly deemed hateful and ignorant. Racism is kind of instilled in us to a degree the way sexism is. We just have differences; it doesn't mean we want to kill eachother or even that those differences are at the forefront of our thought. But when coupled with personal negativity towards someone, it's what our minds go to because emotions might run high and when you don't know someone you go with what you do know which is sometimes just a prejudice. None of that means you want to beat up people for their race or drive them out of their neighborhood or fire them from their drive.

Anyway, black people are far more racist than whites. There is no such thing as a white neighborhood that you cannot enter if you're not white or you'll be killed. A lot of the racism from blacks and perceived racism by them from whites stems from their insecurities because of America's history and culture

So have whites you fucking inbred.

No because racism is prejudice + power and PoC have no power in the world.

Most PoC actually have a good reason to be prejudicial since white KKK members are lynching them all the time. Not to mention the new fascist government is going to put them in camps or deport them.

2/10 bait

i've gotten into this argument many many times with sjw's at my school.

let me relate the worst one.

>Watching Ferris Bueller's Day Off in rec room
>people coming and going
>group of ghetto muslim girls walk in
>they constantly roast the movie, making white people jokes
>they laugh at the twist and shout scene saying that "whites pretend they have culture"
>I turn around and tell them to please keep their racist comments to themselves
>everyone looks at me in disbelief, confused about what I said
>"how can I be racist? im making fun of white people?"
>I tell them that any one can be racist, you don't magically get a free card just because you are usually discriminated against more often than Ferris
>they get upset and talk about male white privilege
>I seriously don't understand how they can't hear what they are saying. I try to tell them how their comments are making me and my friends uncomfortable, and given the ratio of brown:white students in that room we are very much a minority being oppressed. Sure in the larger scale of things this means nothing, but if you really do want everyone to accept your culture then you should set a good example instead of perpetuating a cycle of hate.
>Racism wasnt invented by white people because we want to oppress everyone forever, its a human thing. If I was a Gaul who immigrated to Rome, yes I would be treated poorly. If I was an African who immigrated to the Ottoman empire, yes I would be treated poorly. If I was Greek and I tried to live in the Persia, i would be treated poorly.
>its all about whos in power at the time. if you don't want to get your feelings hurt then don't go outside.
If you want to stop this cycle then don't hate white people, stop the cycle with yourself
>they don't adress any of my points, call me a racist, and leave

k

Can anyone give me constructive criticism here? Am I incorrect? I just want people to stop complaining while continuing the cycle

20minutes.fr/insolite/1914099-20160827-twitter-licra-compare-ku-klux-klan-camp-decolonial-ca-fait-polemique
>live in france
>some SJWs want to make a "decolonial summer camp" ie a camp where white aren't allowed
>the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA) compare them to the KKK and tell them it's racist.
So yes black can be racist, and it's not me who tell it.

Not criticism, but there is a lesson to be learned. For adults, the standard of winning an argument is to convince the other sign that you are correct, or at least a third party. For children, winning just means getting the last word. If they are not willing to discuss the issue, beat them at their own game. Make it an argument about argument and belittle them for their inferior debate tactics. You will find that they resort to interrupting, taking over you and repeating themselves. Recognize this, and instead of getting flustered, acknowledge it and make fun of them for it. Use words like childish and immature, and as long as they don't want to make the conversation about the issue, make sure the conversation is about them and not you

This can be useful if you want to make them look like idiots, but it will never convince them or others who already sympathize with them.

Funny question!

Africans are actually usually racist towards American blacks.

Yes. Same as any other opressed group. I live in Guatemala, where for hundreds of years indians have been opressed and portrayed as the poor souls treated bad by the evil white man, but you soon realize those motherfuckers are racist between themselves (there are 22 different indigenous groups here), and racist towards whites and mestizos.

black people cantdu nuffin

Does anyone know where this new monolithic idea of racism comes from?
Of racism not as something that shapes preconceptions in individual relationships, but as an omnipresent entity that constantly oppresses anyone not white?

convincing them is not always just a matter of out-thinking them and adequately conveying the logic of your position. sometimes people are nearly impossible on certain issues. forcing them to acknowledge their behavior and even embarrass them for it won't score you any points with them, but it might make them think differently down the road.

Why is the multiculturalism meme being pushed so hard when it's clear different groups of people fucking despise each other?

Homie

Black people are so racist we think that the VILLAGE next door is subhuman

My grandma was disowned by her clan for marrying a man from a different clan

My grandma said people had the same sentiments when was growing up in rural Croatia. People 10km was nothing more than degenerates and drunks. kek

Well no one in any political discussion ever just says "ok you convinced me, i was wrong", but it doesn't mean people never change their minds.

If you show them their way of thinking is flawed, they may eventually reconsider it.

Story behind this photo?

That stuff is learned, though. For a personal anecdote, I grew up in a neighborhood full of people of different ethnicities, and we all got along because there was no reason to hate anyone. A few studies have show similar things (that the more diversity someone grows up in, the less prejudiced they are).

That's part of why this new definition of racism is so baffling. Not only is it not useful, it's actually kind of harmful. It gives certain groups of people automatic free passes when it comes to hate, and indirectly vilifies another group of people at the same time. If the goal is to get people to be less racist, that's not a good way of accomplishing it. All it does it reinforce those boundaries and alter what's considered hate to the point where even hate itself is a racist idea.

For sure. "Prejudice plus power" bullshit is a meme created by bourgeois liberal academics who can only comprehend race and racism as individual experiences rather than social phenomena. Some modern-day black groups (such as the Nation of Islam and the shamefully-named New Black Panther Party) are racist against whites, because they espouse black superiority and the natural evil of white individuals. These groups are vaguely fascist, attacking white America for its whiteness rather than its collective action. This racialized outlook is useless, inaccurate, and dangerous, essentially amounting to white supremacy in reverse.

What matters is that the social dynamics of American race relations are almost invariably white against black. Black efforts at community betterment are invariably suppressed by a minority of the white population, and this suppression is met with apathy by the majority of whites. By keeping blacks mostly out of the professional world, white professionals have less competition for desirable jobs. The low cost of living in impoverished black communities, paired with government assistance, means black people can work for low wages without starving, thus keeping down the prices of goods and services in the industries driven by black labor.

Pic related is a shit example though. The Black Panther Party of the 60s and 70s was expressly non-racist and eagerly cooperated with non-black socialist organizations like the White Panthers.

Civil war in Central Africa
Shirtless dude is from some tribe that the knife dude dislikes, so he tries to stab him

Shirtless dude didnt die btw, he was saved by French soldiers

>filename

there is a variety of way someone can acknowledge they're wrong, but the point is it depends on the kind of person your dealing with and the kind of issue being discussed.

>Can blacks be racist?
Blacks are one of the most racist people on the planet.

What kind of retarded people needs to ask such an absurdity?

I want to destroy the people, that need to ask such a question.

>They can even be racist with other noggers who are literally undistinguishable from them

That's what you think. Africa is genetically the continent with the most native races there. No one is going to say a San is the same as a Zulu, or a Tutsi is the same as a Twa, or a Tuareg is the same as an Ashanti, or even an Igbo is the same as a Malagasy.

You remind me of dumbass blacks who question why "white people killed each other when they're all the same". Humans are tribalistic apes.

I guess that's why Africans are so diverse, they hate each other too much to interbreed.

>White Panthers

Didn't know that was a thing.

Really cool story behind them

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Panther_Party

They weren't anywhere near as organized or militant as the BPP but the FBI still did them dirty

>even far left anti racist groups sympathetic to socialism segregated themselves by race in the 60s

Is this the power of American intellectuals?

impressive right

American society was even more segregated back then than it is now. Grassroots activism was inherently racialized.

Part of the conceptual problem seems to be that (in the US, anyway), "race relations" means "whites and blacks." Everything is run through that filter.

In reality, there are more "hispanics" now than blacks in the US, by quite a bit, and a lot of interracial interactions involve no white people at all.

So we're going to need a more complex race-relations model than the ones academics have been offering for the past 50+ years.

Those 22 indigenous groups are all Mayan, I bet. The only difference is probably what dialect they speak, so I don't think they're racist towards each other.

Blacks can participate in institutional racism in countries where they are the political majority, like Jamaica or Kenya. Blacks in countries where they are not the political majority, like the US or Japan, can only participate in racism on a casual level.

So, yes, blacks can be casually racists and have racial prejudices--more specifically towards themselves and other minorities, not necessarily against the political majority race--but for the most part, blacks cannot participate in institutional racism.

If one accepts the idea that there are different types of racism, as opposed to thinking racism can only be casual or institutional, it's easy to accept that blacks should be held accountable for their own individual prejudices while still accepting that they as a whole deal with institutional racism.

Correct

If you abide by the concept of racism than the answer is no. Because racism requires someone be in a powerful position as well as act in prejudice manner.
Racism however is a concept. It was defined to be this way in order to disarm the majority culture from protecting and expressing itself.
It's best to outright reject it. Much in the same manner an atheist rejects the notion of God.

>>Racism wasnt invented by white people because we want to oppress everyone forever, its a human thing. If I was a Gaul who immigrated to Rome, yes I would be treated poorly. If I was an African who immigrated to the Ottoman empire, yes I would be treated poorly. If I was Greek and I tried to live in the Persia, i would be treated poorly.

THIS IS THE CORRECT ANSWER

>If you abide by the concept of racism than the answer is no
Oh holy head full of fuck. Yeah if you twist the fucking word up beyond all recognition in some sort of politically correct brainwash.

But in reality, with normal people, racism means being prejudiced against people because of the color of their skin.

AND THAT'S IT

EVERYBODY CAN AND DOES DO IT

>If you abide by the concept of racism than the answer is no. Because racism requires someone be in a powerful position as well as act in prejudice manner

No. Racism is belief in a racial hierarchy. Plain and simple. Everyone is capable of being racist and indeed everyone is racist at times.

Instead of demonizing racism and getting people's careers/lives ruined over it we should treat it as an undesired social phenomenon. We shouldn't root it out and demonize. That creates a persecution complex in the person being demonized.

That "power + prejudice" argument is an example of rhetorical newspeak meant to redefine racism in terms that it can only apply to certain people.

That Anita-Sarkeesian-tier "power plus prejudice" bullshit is every bit as toxic as racism itself. It is an example of a person in power (a white woman with free media coverage) getting away with redefining old words just because she's a person in power. It's every bit as toxic as Clinton's emails, Trump's tax returns, because it masquerades as something meant to erode the power structure but it's gradually becoming part of the power structure. It's part of a series of myths meant to divide and conquer the common people.

The truth is the rich and powerful want lower class whites to get angry at the rhetoric that rich black people are incapable of being racist because the hypocrisy creates a fixation, a distraction, and a frustration in the lower class person. They become thereby more focused on the hypocrisy of race and class relations than on the specifics of the tricks being played on them financially.

>But in reality, with normal people, racism means being prejudiced against people because of the color of their skin.

Yes. And more specifically ethnicity. As an "octaroon" most people regard me as white, but I can't forget that I might've once been slaves like these girls.

Believe it or not. It's the other way round. You're the one who's redefined racism.
Racism from the get go was a defined form of discrimination. It plays upon the human feeling of rejection and requires education from a young age to be taken seriously (Because it's perfectly natural to reject and accept the people you want in your life)
It was always designed to be a disable mechanism. A way to rot away at the system, by destroying the host culture. With racism taken seriously you can now allow smaller cultures to take root and express themselves within the host.
A short introduction (which are becoming increasingly popular) to ideological subversion will show you how the concepts of racism and sexism gained so much traction and allowed western societies to be radically transformed in such a small space of time.

>Racism is belief in a racial hierarchy.
No. No it's not. It was always defined to be "power + prejudice"
You've correctly pointed out that racism is designed to be toxic and undermine society. But it's not like when it was introduced to academia it was meant to be anything less than a disabling mechanism.

>racism has anything to do with power

are you trying to tell me pol isnt racist

>Racism from the get go was a defined form of discrimination.

Correct

>It plays upon the human feeling of rejection and requires education from a young age to be taken seriously

Not necessarily. An uneducated person who is a victim of racism and other forms of discrimination can take it quite seriously.

>It was always designed to be a disable mechanism. A way to rot away at the system, by destroying the host culture.

...? I don't understand. Are you saying belief in racism is a way for "parasitic" cultures to take over "dominant" cultures?

>With racism taken seriously you can now allow smaller cultures to take root and express themselves within the host.

>A short introduction (which are becoming increasingly popular) to ideological subversion will show you how the concepts of racism and sexism gained so much traction and allowed western societies to be radically transformed in such a small space of time.

Western cultures changed because of technology, war, journalism, drugs, economic changes, and social movements.


You still haven't explained how being in a position of power is required for someone to be racist. A poor white person, for instance, with bad health, genetic disadvantages, poor education, bad social standing, etc. can look upon a rich black person with way more measurable social advantages and regard them as inferior on race/ethnicity alone. That is still racism.

Power+Prejudice is a transparent farce. It is an attempt to rhetorically balance the scales by redefining racism in terms that it only applies to powerful people. But that's not fair or correct since we have no way to measure power or advantage completely. Sure, it's apparent that some people are more advantaged than others but there are so many hidden factors. Privilege can not be accurately checked. There are too many factors of overlap.

It depends who you ask lol
I don't care much for racism, nor do I take it seriously. I'll discriminate against who I want whenever I want. So I would say pol discriminates.
But yes, pol is very racist. Not that this should concern anybody.

I see no evidence that having social power is an essential part of being racist.

Is an impoverished KKK member with hemophilia, no education, and abusive parents, no not racist because he doesn't have adequate privilege? No. Of course he is still racist.

Privilege is not an essential component of racism. It is merely a common component.

You have altered the venn diagram of racism, prejudice, and power. I pray you do not alter it further.

I agree with your point but:

>I pray you do not alter it further.
*TIPS*

>Western cultures changed because of technology, war, journalism, drugs, economic changes, and social movements.
>social movements
This is the key. Who funded the social movements? Who was behind them gaining so much traction and so much power in such a short space of time? This is where the ideological subversion comes in.

>Are you saying belief in racism is a way for "parasitic" cultures to take over "dominant" cultures?
It's a way for any culture, no matter how small, to be taken care of within the larger sphere of society and not feel any discrimination. So for racism is exist you need to define where it stems from, so terms like "Majority" Majorities have power and are therefore oppressive. Meanwhile minorities don't have power and therefore are oppressed.

Not that I agree with any of this.

>You still haven't explained how being in a position of power is required for someone to be racist
You're not listening to me. I don't care much for racism. I don't follow these dumb rules. Can someone "discriminate" against somebody else for skin colour differences? Yes. Does this require power? No.
Do I give a shit? Absolutely not lol

Someone in sociology would tell you that the KKK member is part of a majority group (Europeans) and therefore acts in an oppressive manner no matter how lowly his position in society is. So this is where his privlege would come from in this context.
Just to be clear, do I agree with any of this? Absolutely not.

>Because racism requires someone be in a powerful position as well as act in prejudice manner.
Because a black person NEVER finds themselves in a position of power in relation to someone else

>He made a tiny star wars joke as a rhetorical flourish
>Therefore he's a fedora

Much like "racist" the definition of what constitutes a fedora is getting wider, it seems

You're acting like I'm not the one who made the rules lol

Pic related is my stance. I'm not some idiotic liberal utopian, I know it would take ages to actually get rid of racial antagonisms. The best course of action is to prevent people from acting out on their race war fantasies.

So yeah, black people can be racist. But to say they're not more disadvantaged than white people is ignorant.

Yes. I am aware of this trend.

As someone who gets most of his humanities knowledge from textbooks and wikipedia articles, I find myself woefully (or is it thankfully) out of touch with College Liberals. I major in Comp Sci. The myths I hear about the social studies people sometimes sound like smear campaigns, they're so absurd. When I talk to them they don't seem that bad. A bit preoccupied with identity politics, maybe. Failing to notice the multiethnic oligarchy that continues to take advantage of the multiethnic underclass through divide and conquer politics, maybe. But I don't hate them.

I work with a lot of college liberals. That's the most exposure I get. Most of them sit out front, where I sit in the back with the middle management folks who are mostly white (hmm, maybe they have a point about that privilege thing)

I overhear them (the libs out front, who mostly do the grunt work in our office) talk about trump and the GOP and conservatives in general. They are often factually incorrect but absolutely ooze good intentions and empathy.

It's frustrating to overhear.

For the underclass, all the bridges have been burned, across racial and ethnic and religious lines.

For the upper class, the bridges have never been stronger.

>So yeah, black people can be racist. But to say they're not more disadvantaged than white people is ignorant.

As a general, rule, yes. That's correct. However treating people as individuals is more important than noticing general trends, in my experience. Privilege between any two given people ought to be assessed on an individual level. Even though blacks are STATISTICALLY more disadvantaged than whites, instances in which individual whites are less advantaged than individual blacks shouldn't be downplayed or gone unnoticed where they become relevant. I'm not saying we should be like omniscient when it comes to privilege. We should simply pay attention to situations that are laid out before us to the best of our ability and withhold prejudice of any sort.

As for your image, I understand his quote. It is rhetorically powerful. However, as you pointed out with your own words
>black people can be racist
It is not factually correct.

I don't think the white man with the power to lynch him is necessarily *more racist* than the white man without power to lynch him. He is simply more powerful. That power is threatening, and a form of privilege all its own, but it does not enhance the racism.

Racism should still be taken seriously when it is decoupled from economic and social power. Racism among disadvantaged people is often born of class resentment, and is a lot more stubborn to get rid of even if it is less of an existential threat than someone with power.

>Who funded the social movements? Who was behind them gaining so much traction and so much power in such a short space of time? This is where the ideological subversion comes in.

Many people just find discrimination abhorrent. They don't need George Soros or whoever lining their pockets. I have fought for years for what I think is right and I've never gained so much as a penny for it. The truth is, it's multifaceted. It's not *just* cultural subversion.

>It's a way for any culture, no matter how small, to be taken care of within the larger sphere of society and not feel any discrimination.

Your narrative, then, is that minorities aren't actually discriminated against. They just pretend to be in order to maximize benefits for themselves.

Two examples:

My father got fired from a job once after he was accused of being a racist. He isn't. The charges were fabricated, so that a group of people could remove him as a perceived social threat. My worry is you think accusations of racism only ever manifest in an illegitimate way, like what happened to my father.

But my father also had rocks thrown at him as a kid, and was called a "nigger lover." by people who knew he and his parents were anti-segregation.

Is it possible that racism HAPPENS, and some unprincipled people, seeing that they can use accusations of racism to increase their own social standing, do so?

I don't know what percentage of accusations of racism are a ploy to get free welfare or whatever, but I think you overestimate.

> terms like "Majority" Majorities have power and are therefore oppressive. Meanwhile minorities don't have power and therefore are oppressed.

This is a fringe left argument, that I think is getting repurposed by people on the fringe right to reduce all accusations of racism to "social subversion." Your idea is people who accuse other people of racism are trying to take advantage of their own status as a minority to get free stuff

> Do I give a shit?

You do.

Please stop spacing your posts out excessively

Technically people's attitudes overlap a little with practical problems.

When the word was invented it meant a political ideology that put some races above others in society so this is what SJWs mean with that shit. It's just nitpicking about the etymology because the word changed its meaning like over 50 years ago.

>However treating people as individuals is more important than noticing general trends, in my experience.
especially since persons of all races have the same rights

Looks good on mobile. You know, the way people who don't have time to sit in front of a computer browse this site?

Fucking normalfags

>Because racism requires someone be in a powerful position as well as act in prejudice manner.
Say you are an extremely rich business owner. One day, as you park your car somewhere and leave, a mugger shows up and points a gun to your head.

Who is in a position of power here?
Being "powerful" is completely a matter of circumstance, it's not written on your curriculum.

And if you do disagree with this notion of power, tell me, if the rich guy is black, and the mugger is a white guy who shoots him in the face beacause he hates niggers, then you're telling me that this was not in fact a racist act, because it didn't happen from a social position of power.

But user the white guy's GROUP has more societal power :^) (even though that does absolutely nothing for the mugger)

You mean the way underage browse this site to not leave trace on their family computer?

Yes, and any denial is the result of contemporary """leftists""" using Nazi racial theory to fight Nazi racial theory. If you fight a raging forest fire with fire, you're going to burned really fucking hard.

Contemporary leftism is a mental disorder, and I say this as a pretty left-wing person.

Critical Theory + French Philosophy
Philosophies dissatisfied with then present analysis of power. Can actually be really useful tool for analysis just gets a bad reputation because its most common public adherent is a screaming vengeful lunatic. But that's like all philosophies, amiright?

Guess what buddy your not a leftist anymore. There's a new left and they like race theory so buy in or join any dissenters in getting called "alt-right nazis"

Just ask me - I was leftist until every leftist I knew informed me that I was a right winger because I DIDN'T believe in a race based theory of social power :(

Blacks are often racist, especially in countries where they're a majority group. Fucking oppression has nothing to do with whether or not someone from a group will hold discriminatory views. Remove this bait thread.

When I did my own "study" I found that multiculturalism to be a "double edge sword" at best.

Everything is fine when the economy is going well. As soon as something bad happens to it we all become divided and deeply distrusting at the critical time when we need to be united.

Multiethnic societies can work fine
Multiculturalism is just cancer unless all the cultures are on the same level of development

Not him but I just wonder how this is all going to go.

I was fine with /pol/ until they fully bought into white identity politics to counter SocJus left wingers.

Now we've got a walking strawman for a president that SJW can validate themselves with, and the right seems intent to fight fire with fire.

If moderate liberals can somehow carve out a platform that:

>acknowledges there's still institutional racism that liberals haven't even really helped solve
>rejects the idea that you can Condecend the bigotry out of people
>Point out that it was the left that enabled Trump to gain popularity
>Turn progressivism back towards advocating for apathy towards differences in people, instead of witch-hunting for bigotry.

Growing up, I always had the idea of "walking a mile in someone's shoes" (from to kill a mockingbird). To be able to empathise from a position of understanding. Now I'm told that the shoes don't fit, and that there's no possible way to even understand a black dude's problem. Thus I'm supposed to essentially kiss ass, IE empathise from a position of willful ignorance, and give up a sense of pride in my own struggles, instead of using them to better understand another person.

It's about the most unprogressive thing I can think of, that I am apparently fundamentally unable to understand another man.

Im not gonna stop calling myself liberal because a bunch of misguided fools are running around saying this shit, but any reform is going to have to come from the left itself.

Foucault's idea of power seems to go against this however.

Nice trips, fampai.

Anyways, there is still a left in the West and we're shunned by Western bourgeousie liberals because we refuse to support a literal warmonger and regime change specialist like Hillary.

This

No, that would imply that blacks as a group are capable of being racist. Only individuals can be racists, individuals can be racist and individuals can be black, but blacks cannot be racist. This goes for any category of simularity that people incorrectly identify as.

>Only individuals can be racists

substantiate

>blacks cannot be racist
>black individuals cannot be racist

both of those are a group, but you already said black individuals can be racist.

some nigga done got drawn on and barely had time to get his hand around his own before the nigga that done drawn on him gained advantage

dat one niggas in the back think this shit is hilarious

I would love to see a state's rights Democratic platform for once.

Black people seem to be the most cohesive ethnogroup in the United States desu, go dig up on the internet dating back a year about how many vowed to show up to vote for Carson in droves just because he's black.

...

>the truth is, it's multifaceted
lol no. No it isn't. You'd be really surprised just how much money has been funnelled into "grassroots" social movements over the years.
>Your narrative, then, is that minorities aren't actually discriminated against. They just pretend to be in order to maximize benefits for themselves.
But it's observable that some do lol. Clock boy Ahmed? But I never actually said this, you've just extrapolated this from racisms true meaning. This is a consequence of having anti-discrimination laws.
>this is a fringe left argument
No it isn't. It's always been this way lol
>Your idea is people who accuse other people of racism are trying to take advantage of their own status as a minority to get free stuff
>Your idea
Why are you telling me what my idea is?

Considering you're being smug and posting reactions of people laughing in an arrogant way, I actually don't think you're capable of understanding the message I'm trying to get a across to you. I reject the notion of racism. I believe that all people have ethnic interests and all peoples have a legitimate right to assert their interests.

I fundamentally do not give a shit if white people discriminate against blacks or the other way around.

>I was fine with /pol/ until they fully bought into white identity politics to counter SocJus left wingers.
You're a newfag lol You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Let me tell you something underage b&, pol is tame at the moment from all the new traffic it has been receiving. A huge cross section of pol has always been staunch white nationalists lol

Groups can't be racist because they do not have agency. People don't thinking in hiveminds.
Black individual racist are not a group, they are a singular person that shares categorical similarities with other individuals.
Groups is just a reductive and incorrect view of the world we humans have. Parts in a system not members of a group.

Social cohesion doesn't make a collective an agent.

Anyone can be racist. If you need the reasons explained to you, then get a dictionary and read the definition of the word

No because ethnicity begets culture.

If the individuals who make up the collective identify with it based on the same single feature they are actually choosing to make that collective an agent. For example, if you unconditionally support a political party regardless of what it offers,you're responsible for its wrongdoings because you don't question them. Choosing to identify with a group implies the exclusion of other groups. By denying your individuality you're enabling blanket statements about the group you identify with. I know that identity is necessarily based on defining yourself in comparison with others, but if you categorize others and yourself based on overly broad features such as race or gender you're both a dumb fuck who's unable to grasp even the concept of individuality of others and a dumb fuck who's denying his own individuality. People who primarily define themselves as "part of an oppressed minority" (and not as individuals) are enabling the oppression by the majority.

Right, immigrants can never integrate and adoptees are never part of the family because blood matters more than thought, innit