Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 149: Open 24/7 365 Snowflakes or not!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Far Left will Far Left.

*Yawn* anyways... Seems like Pelosi is soft defending Conyers. Conyers steps down off a committee also. Trump is attacking the Democrat for Senate in Alabama while the Democrat attacks Moore while Trump attacks Franken.

Trump is more concerned about the Senate vote than the allegations from what it seems.
---

Corrik posted...

Far Left will Far Left.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/NuxAaE4hDS4/hqdefault.jpg
---

Kenri posted...

It's more like, white people can't experience racism without having whiteness denied to them at the same time.

...

Ah... ha... man.
---

I was unaware that my ancestors' skin color temporarily darkened when they were being denied jobs.

The more you know.
---

IIRC what Kenri is referring to there was written about by Coates(?) recently. At the very least, I think he discussed it recently with Colbert last time he was with him.

The gist of the argument being that the definition of "whiteness" has changed over time. IIRC, Colbert asked him if changing demographics would change things and Coates replied that he believed it more likely that more people would be included as "white" to expand it and cited Irish Americans as an example of it happening in the past.

I'm sure it's written/explained/discussed far better elsewhere either from the original source or really just anyone better at it than me.
---

kevwaffles posted...

I was unaware that my ancestors' skin color temporarily darkened when they were being denied jobs.

The more you know.

I disagree with the original argument, but Im pretty sure the Irish were specifically treated as not-white in the past.

Unless every single Right wing the blacks didnt have it SO bad meme out there lied to me.
---

They were actually probably more hated by and large by other white people, but that's because they were still viewed as "human". Most people don't really need to hate a subjugated race. They view themselves as so superior that there is no point.
---

The Irish/Italians/Polish were hated on, but were never denied that they were white.

Of course they didn't use "white" back then, Europeans were split by their nationalities (British, French etc.)
---

Contrary to popular belief, they actually did become black. Then God even forsake them by denying them potatoes. It is only recent history and revisionism where the Irish became white again and were given the blessing of being hearty ale drinkers in hopes to have all forgiven for their saga of being non-white.
---

Of all the things I've been disappointed about over the Trump presidency, the fact that he doesn't have single shred of decency and couldn't distance himself from Roy Moore is amongst the worst.

All he had to do was say "I endorse Sessions as a write in candidate and implore all Republicans to vote for him". He'd win by 10+ points even against a second Republican. Trump's endorsement means something in a state like Alabama and Sessions is already very well liked. Instead we're going to have Roy Moore, which is a tremendous downgrade over even Sessions.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Trump's endorsement means something in a state like Alabama

Counterpoint: Alabama's primary.
---

Mm good counterpoint.

But that isn't representative of the full Republican electorate in Alabama . Moore got something like 160k to win while Sessions got 800k in his last Senate race in 2014 (an off presidential election year) running against literally no one. A push for a popular politician like Sessions with Trump's backing would have likely resulted in a landslide.
---

I really don't think a write-in campaign would work honestly. There's also the question of if Sessions even wants the seat back. He's stuck around despite all of the comically petty passive-aggressive stuff that Trump threw his way so presumably he wants to stay AG.

Re: Disappointment. This is exactly what I expected from him.

More generally, I wouldn't write off the Senate race just yet though I totally understand the heavy skepticism.
---

charmander6000 posted...

The Irish/Italians/Polish were hated on, but were never denied that they were white.

Of course they didn't use "white" back then, Europeans were split by their nationalities (British, French etc.)

Actually they were considered less than white, by my understanding.

Ive even seen political comics where the whites bemoan the Irish because at least the negroes know their place as subhuman and can be controlled
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Of all the things I've been disappointed about over the Trump presidency, the fact that he doesn't have single shred of decency and couldn't distance himself from Roy Moore is amongst the worst.

All he had to do was say "I endorse Sessions as a write in candidate and implore all Republicans to vote for him". He'd win by 10+ points even against a second Republican. Trump's endorsement means something in a state like Alabama and Sessions is already very well liked. Instead we're going to have Roy Moore, which is a tremendous downgrade over even Sessions.

No one can win a write in in a major election.
---

Corrik posted...

No one can win a write in in a major election.

Do you consider an Alaska Senate seat major?
---

xp1337 posted...

Corrik posted...

No one can win a write in in a major election.

Do you consider an Alaska Senate seat major?

Not rly
---

oh

well carry on i guess

If you did I was going to point out a current member of the Senate won a write-in campaign (after losing their primary!)
---

xp1337 posted...

oh

well carry on i guess

If you did I was going to point out a current member of the Senate won a write-in campaign (after losing their primary!)

What is the Alaska vote totals in comparison to say the average states vote totals?
---

https://transition.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2010/federalelections2010.pdf

You can see on Page 11 of this PDF that the popular vote count for Alaskas Senator election that Murkowski won by write-in was 33rd out of 36 that year, beating only both Dakotas and Vermont
---

Corrik posted...

xp1337 posted...

oh

well carry on i guess

If you did I was going to point out a current member of the Senate won a write-in campaign (after losing their primary!)

What is the Alaska vote totals in comparison to say the average states vote totals?

Murkowskis last senate election had like 300k votes total. Sessions last one had 800k for comparison.

Its a larger state, obviously, but Murkowski won against significantly worse odds. I guess Sessions couldve turned it down, but I feel like most reasonable republicans (a.k.a. almost every single one outside of Donald Trump) wants nothing to do with Roy Moore in the senate because they are aware of how bad that makes them look.
---

Corrik posted...

He literally just said if someone white is being subjected to racism that they are no longer white.

White and black describe power relationships, not skin color, biology, or ancestry or anything (it's clearly not skin color because people with light skin aren't always treated as white, it's not biology because there's really no such thing as "biological race", and it's clearly not ancestry because most people don't even really know their ancestry, nor the ancestry of others). One way of thinking about it is as an analogue for terms like rich and poor. Can a poor person be wealthier than a rich person, or does that change which terms apply to them?

Aren't you a history major? Have you really not heard this before? This has been an important concept in literally almost every single upper-division or graduate level history class I've ever taken.

kevwaffles posted...

I was unaware that my ancestors' skin color temporarily darkened when they were being denied jobs.

Just to clarify, are you also claiming here that light-skinned black people don't exist?

xp1337 posted...

IIRC what Kenri is referring to there was written about by Coates(?) recently. At the very least, I think he discussed it recently with Colbert last time he was with him.

Probably, Coates seems like someone who would write about it. I think the concept predates him but I'm not 100% sure about that. In either case I haven't seen that episode of Colbert so that's not, like, where I'm directly getting this from, but your gist of it sounds like the same thing I'm talking about yeah.
---

Kenri posted...

Just to clarify, are you also claiming here that light-skinned black people don't exist?

What the fuck is wrong with you?
---

White and black describe power relationships, not skin color

wat
---

(I fully admit I have never taken a graduate level history course so you are far more informed that I am on the subject matter, but I am also fairly certain that the majority of people using "white" and "black" when describing people are talking primarily about skin color.)
---

They describe power relationships if you're a white person who wants to be black I guess, which I suspect a lot of people who are spewing this kind of tripe are.
---

Real talk, no troll, I have no idea if kenri is being serious or not.
---

Alternatively if you're really really into Chess and you instinctively think of that 52% win rate when you hear about white privilege-- which hey, I respect that
---

I'm a history major and I definitely understand what Kenri is talking about. It's mainly talking about situations where it's not so black and white. Though, I don't think that's really the case in this specific conversation.
---

I've just never heard any one look at someone and go "I can't tell you what skin color they are yet until I hear about what sort of power dynamics they experience in their day to day life".

Maybe I just don't get invited to the cool parties.
---

fedorafreak posted...

I'm a history major and I definitely understand what Kenri is talking about. It's mainly talking about situations where it's not so black and white. Though, I don't think that's really the case in this specific conversation.

Most people I know who are mixed race just self identify as mixed race. Some identify as black or white depending on the specifics of growing up, but to most people in most situations, I'd say black or white has almost everything to do simply with skin color.

Colloquially, at least. Academically could be something else entirely, I have no idea.
---

Yeah, I never heard of white and black being the specific name of these power dynamics, but everything else is stuff I'm familiar with. And yes, I agree that in most situations and for most people, white and black refers to skin color. And skin color is one of the larger aspects (if not the largest aspect) of power dynamics, but it's not always the case. That said, the power dynamic itself is stronger than the ethnicity/skin color, which I think is what Kenri was going for.
---

So basically Kenri was arbitrarily moving the goal posts from what people were talking about to some academia definition no one in the world with the sense to not major in humanities knows about to win an argument. Got it.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

fedorafreak posted...

I'm a history major and I definitely understand what Kenri is talking about. It's mainly talking about situations where it's not so black and white. Though, I don't think that's really the case in this specific conversation.

Most people I know who are mixed race just self identify as mixed race. Some identify as black or white depending on the specifics of growing up, but to most people in most situations, I'd say black or white has almost everything to do simply with skin color.

Colloquially, at least. Academically could be something else entirely, I have no idea.

Well the entire point is that to a large extent you dont get to define your color. Not to every one at least.

You can be mixed and identify as white and have people treat you like youre black still.

That's the part where racism is bullshit.
---

I mean technically by Kenri's definition I could choose to identify as black if I wanted to

I'm not sure I'd call that racism or common sense if people scoffed at me when I tried to tell them I'm black though.
---

so are we gonna get a new Corrik Containment Topic
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

White and black describe power relationships, not skin color

wat

Its about the psychology behind racism.

The dominant group over time regulates who counts as white and who doesnt.
---

Well the bullshit part is that you can be treated differently for a thing you have no control over.

Like you can live as though culturally you sre black but if you have white skin people will treat you differently than those who have black skin living the same way.
---

Eddv posted...

Well the bullshit part is that you can be treated differently for a thing you have no control over.

Like you can live as though culturally you sre black but if you have white skin people will treat you differently than those who have black skin living the same way.

This is what I was trying to say but better
---

I dunno where you get this idea about identifying as black when you're white thing. It's not really something you could "identify" as, it's more of a "this is what it is" thing, like factual statements.

You can be mixed and identify as white and have people treat you like youre black still.

This actually 100% applies to my dad. 50% Mexican, 25% Filipino, 25% Italian. Appearance-wise, he looks very white. I don't know much about what he identifies as, but he doesn't seem to like identifying as a Mexican. He mentions several times that he looks white and doesn't have any cultural pride of Mexico or the Philippines or Italy. However, because of his Hispanic last name, white employers have treated him as if he's Mexican and he doesn't understand why. And Mexicans don't like him because he doesn't embrace his heritage.

life is complicated
---

I agree. I'm saying Kenri's definition isn't really based on facts.
---

FFDragon posted...

Real talk, no troll, I have no idea if kenri is being serious or not.

He is and it's sad as fuck.
---

Kenri posted...

Probably, Coates seems like someone who would write about it. I think the concept predates him but I'm not 100% sure about that. In either case I haven't seen that episode of Colbert so that's not, like, where I'm directly getting this from, but your gist of it sounds like the same thing I'm talking about yeah.

Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if it did predate him, and I didn't mean to suggest you got it from there.

It's just I found it strange that everyone was reacting like they had no idea what you were saying. I don't consider myself someone who has some academic background that would have naturally placed me in the path of the idea but I don't think what you were saying was hard to follow at all, but I guess maybe my having read articles/listened to talks about that, and similar issues, may have contributed?

I guess I just felt people weren't understanding what you were saying and trying to help explain it a bit by referring to something that may have had more play with people (no proof but I expect crossover between posters in this topic and Colbert watchers is fairly high)
---

kevwaffles posted...

Kenri posted...

Just to clarify, are you also claiming here that light-skinned black people don't exist?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Like, you're implying it's based on skin color, so I'm asking a pretty simple follow up question. Idk what this overreaction is.

Suprak the Stud posted...

(I fully admit I have never taken a graduate level history course so you are far more informed that I am on the subject matter, but I am also fairly certain that the majority of people using "white" and "black" when describing people are talking primarily about skin color.)

They're really not otherwise a lot of Asian people would be white, just for one example.

Suprak the Stud posted...

I've just never heard any one look at someone and go "I can't tell you what skin color they are yet until I hear about what sort of power dynamics they experience in their day to day life".

For an historical example, when a white slaveowner raped a slave and the resulting child happened to be VERY light-skinned, they still weren't treated as white. Power dynamics defined their race, not skin color.

Lopen posted...

So basically Kenri was arbitrarily moving the goal posts from what people were talking about to some academia definition no one in the world with the sense to not major in humanities knows about to win an argument. Got it.

The conversation literally started because we were talking about the rhetoric used in a college course.

Also history and sociology aren't humanities.

Jakyl25 posted...

The dominant group over time regulates who counts as white and who doesnt.

This is very well put and succinct.

xp1337 posted...

It's just I found it strange that everyone was reacting like they had no idea what you were saying. I don't consider myself someone who has some academic background that would have naturally placed me in the path of the idea but I don't think what you were saying was hard to follow at all, but I guess maybe my having read articles/listened to talks about that, and similar issues, may have contributed?

tbh I think I just shitpost too much so everything I say now is just covered with a veneer of bullshit

But I appreciate you saying you can follow it because sometimes I feel like I'm going crazy when I post something that seems straightforward and everybody's just like "what. the. FUCK."
---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanities
---

Lopen posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanities

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science

(I'll concede that history is classified as both, especially historically (no pun intended), but almost everyone I've studied under has considered it a social science. Maybe my experience isn't universal.)
---

Sociology is also a branch of humanities-- sorry if you would like to be considered more important than people who study literature or music but it's true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_the_humanities

Not mutually exclusive groups. Many social sciences are humanities and vice versa

Anyway either way not that important. Main point is I think most people understood what you were saying. They were just intentionally being dense about it because racism isn't really the right word for what you're describing, nor would it be accurate by any stretch to say "non-white people can't be racist" in this particular use, without also redefining the word white on top of that which sends you further down the pointless rabbit hole of redefining words, and it's funnier to make jokes about their black Irish ancestors than to say that.

If in academia this is a widely accepted way to describe racism, it just speaks to that particular branch of academia having a desire to overly inflate the value of what they're studying more than anything. Happens a lot in humanities because well, what they're studying doesn't have all that many practical applications so you gotta stretch out.

Like it's not that it's hard to understand what you were saying per se. It's just that it's hard to accept it as something that isn't self-important academia bullshit.
---

Lopen posted...

Sociology is also a branch of humanities-- sorry if you would like to be considered more important than people who study literature or music but it's true.

I mean, you're the one shitting on entire fields of knowledge -- I think studying literature and music is important. If you really think anyone who studies law or technology or whatever else listed on Wikipedia "should have had the sense not to major in humanities" then I can't help you.

Lopen posted...

Like it's not that it's hard to understand what you were saying per se. It's just that it's hard to accept it as something that isn't self-important academia bullshit.

All academia is self-important but that doesn't make it bullshit. My definition has a lot more factual and historical backing than any of this nonsense about skin color, which at most correlates and frequently doesn't even get that far.
---

lol
---