LogFAQs > #923633434

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Let's note that they have an in-bias too, it's not like they went "I know we war amongst eachother all the time, but you're white so we welcome you with open arms!" In a hostile land we challenged the hostile natives and dominated.

I hate to bring facts into your revisionism, but what killed the North American natives wasn't the white man and his mighty warriors, it was cholera, small pox, typhus, measles, tuberculosis, and the host of other pathogens they introduced to the new world. Tens of millions died to these diseases and what was left over was a shell of what once was.

The absence of historical knowledge in this post is just staggering...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Current Americans are effectively native as they've established themselves in the land and adapted to it as a distinct group from their originators.

By your logic a brand new British immigrant should face far more discrimination and hostility than a third-generation citizen of Arabic descent, but we both know that's not even close to true.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Note where I corrected your nonsense as native bias, not racial bias.

So, in your fever-dream logic, why does this only apply to whites? After all, white colonizers brought black slaves (and African American communities are culturally distinct from their African ancestors in the same way you're saying white Americans are), so blacks should be equally as "established" as the whites and, therefore, should have that same "nativist" boost. Yet they don't - black families that can trace their roots in America back to the time of Washington are subject to worse discrimination than first generation white immigrants.

Again, your premise is ridiculous.

Judgmenl posted...

I don't even believe race is a thing.

Good for you. You're demonstrably wrong, but kudos all the same.

Judgmenl posted...

I inherently treat everyone equally.

Again, good for you - you, however, are not everyone. And you would have to be blind not to acknowledge that there are people out there who treat people differently based on sex, race, or sexual orientation, sometimes violently so.

The_tall_midget posted...

Except for the part where choosing "female" gives you a ton of free perks that you don't have when you're male.

Perks like increased rates of sexual violence, lower average salary, lack of representation at highest levels of business and politics, and under-representation in STEM fields? Because those don't sound all that great to me.

Now I'll go ahead and head off the obvious response here in advance - yes, women do have it better than men in some areas. Men are underrepresented in education. Boys' grade levels and graduation rates are lower than women. Men, particularly non-white men, typically are convicted at higher rates and sentenced to longer prison terms than women convicted of the same crime. I acknowledge all of that is true.

At no point in any of my posts have I said or suggested that things are always easier for men, in every way, all the time. What I've said is, on the balance, women still have it harder than men. That gap is narrowing, as it should, and there are inequalities where men get the short end of the stick that also need to be attended to.

But to suggest - as you did in this post - that women are basically men with easier lives and no areas where they have to deal with issues that men do not is straight-up wrong, and dangerously so.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!