The question is how we bring that about. Do you really believe that de-platforming straight white males is a way to bring about greater tolerance and understanding? — counterpunch

No one's going into Burns Nights and shutting them down for being white supremacist events promoting a pasty poet are they? Do me a favour will you, give me a list of events in which white men were deplatformed for being white men, You don't just get to list events there with your interpretation, you have to establish that white men are being deplatformed for being white men.

White privilege is a concept that delegitimises opinions based on skin colour. The infamous example is that of Lawrence Fox on Question Time - told by a woman in the audience that he couldn't have an opinion on the British Royal family because he's white. How the FUCK are you so purblind to what's going on in the name of political correctness?

Its not wrong that if you question the existence of white privilege you get called a racist. That was the point of what you quoted. Your reply simply doesn't address what I said, but that is expected from you. — Harry Hindu

Try reading it properly:

Who and when on these forums have generalized whites by using terms like, "white privilege"? Lots of people in this forum. And when you disagree with them and point out the weak points of their argument, they call you a "racist".
— Harry Hindu

Well either it is advantageous to be white in which case generally white people are privileged in that respect, or racism doesn't manifest itself statistically. Since racism is statistically manifest, it is generally advantageous to be white. — Kenosha Kid

In short, either white privilege is real and denying it is denying its victims, or white privilege isn't real in which case we should see no evidence of it. Not sure how you're missing the connection here. If I live in a racist society, and I am advantaged by that, and I refute the existence of that racism, I am protecting a racist society, therefore am racist.

I don't think that above makes him a fascist. Note the "if". — ssu

I do. Note the conclusions, and therefore his evaluation of the "if".

And note that those that have accused others of a fraud have been the leadership of the US administration itself. — ssu

This is a substitution error. The subject was not people accusing other people of fraud, baseless or otherwise. The subject was violent insurrectionists attacking and killing police with the intent to attack and kill lawmakers.

So is the solution to ban renting? Does that really make a lot of sense? You know that renting out part of the house can also make paying off a mortgage easier. — BitconnectCarlos

No, the solution to a problem is not always to ban it. I don't actually think there is a solution, not one that reverses the damage anyway. Either we price most people out of the housing market to be exploited by landlords charging exorbitant rents, or we act to reverse the housing price rise and effectively sink the value of private property. It's lose-lose, which is why it should have been regulated ages ago.

Effectively making housing an investment opportunity meant naturally drawing those with capital to snap it up in large quantities and drive up its price. Housing should not be about making money: it's a basic necessity.

The infamous example is that of Lawrence Fox on Question Time - told by a woman in the audience that he couldn't have an opinion on the British Royal family because he's white. — counterpunch

The worst part about engaging in good faith with people like yourself is that I actually have to fucking check your sources just in case what you're saying is right. All that to avoid filterbubbling myself.

Here's the dialogue, and yes I transcribed it:

Rachel Boyle: "The problem we've got with this is that Megan has agreed to be Harry's wife and then the press have torn her to pieces. And let's be really clear about what this is, let's call it by its name, it's racism. She's a black woman and she has been torn to pieces"

Lawrence Fox interrupts: "No it's not, we're the most tolerant lovely country in Europe, you can't just throw the charge of racism at everybody, it's really starting to get boring now..."

Rachel Boyle: "The worst thing about your comment is that you are a white privileged male"

Lawrence Fox interrupts, groaning, the audience joins in, some applaud: "Ohhh god, I can't help what I am. I was born like this it's an immutable characteristic, so to call me a white privileged male is to be racist"

Rachel Boyle: "You cannot dismiss..."

The Question time hosts then interrupt her again and move segment.

If you look at it in context, the reason Boyle invoked the concept of "white privilege" was because Fox was hostilely dismissive of the claim that the reason the press tore Megan to shreds for marrying Harry had anything to do with her skin colour. If you look at it, privilege is invoked quite precisely as being informative of Fox's perspective which he expressed in the statement, and his hostile, groaning dismissal of the very idea that the British tabloids went apeshit on Harry and Megan in a racially loaded manner. It was actually Fox who interpreted the claim as "shut up because you're white" and acted thusly. Boyle's comments were regarding press coverage.

Considering that the role racism played in how tabloids treated Megan had some evidence for it, it shouldn't've been dismissed outright, and certainly not in Fox's hyperbolic and posturing tone. He head-desked at the very idea that being white in the UK doesn't get you exposed to racism much and thus your perspective may not have a good barometer for racism's presence and extent.

I think you've been living in a filterbubble.

And even if Boyle did want Fox to respond to an accusation of white privilege on a news platform, that already disqualifies it from being a deplatforming event. Unless, of course, you think a charged discussion on a national news platform is deplatforming...

Considering that the role racism played in how tabloids treated Megan had some evidence for it, it shouldn't've been dismissed outright, and certainly not in Fox's hyperbolic and posturing tone. — fdrake

Certainly not by Fox full stop. His privilege goes so far beyond his whiteness that his touted authority on ground level Britain ("the most tolerant lovely country in Europe") is quite ridiculous. I'm quite sure Fox's upbringing was lovely and tolerant. And white as snow. But that says nothing about Britain.

Certainly not by Fox full stop. His privilege goes so far beyond his whiteness that his touted authority on ground level Britain ("the most tolerant lovely country in Europe") is quite ridiculous. I'm quite sure Fox's upbringing was lovely and tolerant. And white as snow. But that says nothing about Britain. — Kenosha Kid

Yes. It is quite ridiculous that a scholar of ethnicity and culture in the UK's opinion on whether racism is implicated in an event is dismissed as deplatforming and racism, whereas Fox interrupting her, accusing her of racism and the show itself changing segment was not.

Regardless, the idea that a dialogue between two people on a major news platform is taken as an instance of deplatforming is just nuts. No one was denied access to a venue, and the only person who was interrupted (repeatedly) was Boyle.

Sure, we muddle along, trying to fix stuff up. That's what BLM are doing. — Banno

Can you document and verify that?

Isn't fairness a zero sum game? How can you make things fairer without increasing the advantages of the disadvantaged and decreasing the advantages of the advantaged? — Luke

You increase fairness by expanding access and opportunity. Redistribution does not work. People have to do it (succeed) themselves in order for it to be sustainable.

Effectively making housing an investment opportunity meant naturally drawing those with capital to snap it up in large quantities and drive up its price. Housing should not be about making money: it's a basic necessity. — Kenosha Kid

But what do you have against homeowners building equity in their property and gaining wealth through that? That's not only for the upper class, the middle class does it too. Why are you against wealth creation? I know leftists might like it if everyone is poor but equal, but most people don't.

Really, what I have been trying to say in the brief snippets of discussion I have been having with you is that prejudiced hatred arises from projecting on to others. It is not an easy problem to address but our own sense of superiority can be damaging. — Jack Cummins

But how can our own sense of superiority be damaging?
Can you explain, other than on the example of the Nazis?

You mention the Nazis. On the other hand, take parents, teachers, or doctors who routinely consider themselves superior to children/students/patients; without doing so, they couldn't do their job or fulfill their roles.

With the few comments I have made, you keep directing them back at me. I have awareness that any comment which I make about others has personal significance too. I am aware of that but I would say that I think that many ignore this dimension.

Yes, but it later comes out that they believe they are superior, even though they are reluctant to openly admit it.

I feel that you are going to tell me that I think that I am superior for saying that and I would say, absolutely not.

Actually, it seems this is the only viable path for judging/assessing others: to start with the position that one is superior to them. How else is one's judgment/assesment of others supposed to be relevant?

It has just been that is the way my own life experiences has led me to think and that I am coming more from a psychological angle than a political one. But I do believe that there is an important dialogue between politics and psychology. The psychological view can benefit from an understanding of the political and the political can gain from a psychological perspective.

A psychologist deems himself superior to other people, at least to his patients.

This entire racist thing was a political scam like it always is.
— synthesis

I think you are right. There will be white Democrats using the issue as leverage.

Do you think the BLM black supporters are part of that scam? Or do they think they have a real grievance? — Banno

BLM seems to be a Marxist political group with their own agenda and they have every right to that. Hey, Marx was a brilliant economist (but he unleashed one of the great social horrors in history). I have no problem with that until they start advocating violence and believe that terrorizing people is an acceptable MO.

Here's more good news: The gap between the number of blacks and whites in prison is shrinking

But this: Countries with the largest number of prisoners per 100,000 of the national population, as of June 2020
What's that about? Look at your competition, man! — Banno

That's old news and is a completely different subject. The U.S. is basically a police-state in many ways. These are complex problems with many layers and you just can't say, "Look at that problem, obviously everybody is racist."

In order for the black community to move on, they are going to have to take responsibility for a lot of it. And so will the politicians who thought that creating a welfare state would do anything but end-up as it always does, creating massive dependency (three generations now).

There are ways to fix these problems but its going to take a lot of effort from all involved. The Democratic politicians (on the whole) that have been presiding over these ravaged areas could care less. Go visit the slums of Chicago or Baltimore or Philadelphia and see for yourself.

"The worst thing about your comment is that you are a white privileged male" — fdrake

In other words, your opinion has no validity because you're white. Which is exactly what I said the concept of white privilege achieves - de-platforming white people based solely on skin colour!

I don't know if the tabloids attacked Meghan, or if they did, why they did so. I don't read tabloid newspapers. But I doubt it was racism. The tabloids may have been critical of Meghan - after all, from what little I know, she refused to play the princess. But Rachel Boyle is imparting a motive for that criticism, saying it's motivated by racism. That's a matter of opinion. Fox disagrees, he doesn't believe it's motivated by racism, and he gets told, in essence, your opinion has no validity because you're white.

You wanted examples:

give me a list of events in which white men were deplatformed for being white men, — fdrake

- you got one. And what do you do with it? You agree that he's a white privileged male and that his opinion has no legitimacy, and then say in the same fucking breath, that that doesn't happen.

Considering that the role racism played in how tabloids treated Megan had some evidence for it, it shouldn't've been dismissed outright, and certainly not in Fox's hyperbolic and posturing tone. He head-desked at the very idea that being white in the UK doesn't get you exposed to racism much and thus your perspective may not have a good barometer for racism's presence and extent. — fdrake

It does happen. You're doing it right here. How can you deny it?

The worst part about engaging in good faith with people like yourself is that I actually have to fucking check your sources just in case what you're saying is right. All that to avoid filterbubbling myself. — fdrake

I don't understand this passage. I assure you I am neither dishonest nor stupid. I am engaging in good faith. I don't tell lies, and nor am I blinkered by prejudice - like you are. Also, what the fuck is a filterbubble? I think I get it from context, but I'd rather you spare me the lefty buzzwords and use plain English if it's all the same to you!

BLM leaders made the strategic decision to focus on black deaths at the hands of the police, who are agents of civil power. — Bitter Crank

This would be like having an organisation fight against heart disease by pointing out the few times that cardiac surgeons made mistakes doing complex procedures. Yes, its a small part of the problem (patients dying from cardiac disease) but its nothing compared to all the other factors (plus its only going to enrage the vast majority of cardiologists that are busting their asses to save lives).

Obviously there are problems everywhere and you could probably find some among the very best in any human endeavor, but does it make sense to alienate the very people who can fix the problems you seems so concerned about? I suppose their intention was to get a lot of attention, but I am not sure they could have done anything more to marginalize their own case. After all, the number of white people out there who buy into this self-hatred thing must be waning fast.

Redistribution does not work. People have to do it (succeed) themselves in order for it to be sustainable. — synthesis

Redistribution does not work. People have to do it (succeed) themselves in order for it to be sustainable.
— synthesis — fdrake

Despite your animation, redistribution is a temporary solution (at best, and a poor one at that).

Nearly Half Of Democrats Think The 2016 Election Was ‘Rigged’

NOVEMBER 18, 2016 By Sean Davis

Nearly half of Democrats think the 2016 presidential election was “rigged,” according to a new poll released this week by YouGov. The poll found that a whopping 42 percent of Democrats believe the election was rigged. Only 58 percent of Democrats responded that Donald Trump was “legitimately” elected on Nov. 8.

https://thefederalist.com/2016/11/18/nearly-half-democrats-think-election-rigged/

Yet somehow, in 2020 - it's all proper and above board. I don't know what the truth of the matter is, but I know this, the Democrats started it. We can deduce from this fact that either the Democrats were lying in 2016 - or that now, they don't care that the election was a fraud because they won. So, which is it? Or maybe, it's that Trump - fixed the electoral process, and then, with typical modesty, declined to take credit for it??

Don't you see any dangers in a sense of superiority? Of course, I would guess that it does depend on how you understand the idea of superior and my own working definition is of is of being intrinsically better.

You speak of a parent's role. In that role, the parent is in the position of having greater experience since he or she has lived longer. However, that is best seen of a transitional state, probably to the point where a child reaches adulthood because we would not always see older people as having more knowledge. Of course, that is not to dismiss the wisdom of older people , who were revered as elders in more traditional societies.

Nevertheless, the point which I feel that you are missing is that a sense of superiority can be a way of putting others down. It may bolster the ego but it is an aspect of power dynamics and I would say that it lies at the heart of oppression.

This is a substitution error. The subject was not people accusing other people of fraud, baseless or otherwise. The subject was violent insurrectionists attacking and killing police with the intent to attack and kill lawmakers. — Kenosha Kid

There have been many incidents of people wanting to kill and killing the police in the US recently, and I don't think lawmakers would be a bad target for them. That's where the US is now.

Yet I was referring to Trump here. The guy who talked of an "the egregious assault on democracy" and was going to walk down with them to the Capitol and was saying that "you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated".

And if Trump's autocoup would have been successful?

So what if the Electoral voting count on January 6th would have been stopped, the votes (as Trump wished) would have sent to be re-certified to the states and a committee (that was actually suggested) would have been formed to inspect the "widespread election fraud", perhaps lead by Rudy Giuliani, and for the time being that the committee works (perhaps 6 to 12 months or more) the current Trump administration would have continued for the time being despite what Article II the Constitution says? Perhaps Biden and the democratic leadership would be put into house arrest, into pretrial detention?

How terrible insurrectionists would be those violently protesting the events then?

(This is of course quite hypothetical as Trump simply is so inept leader that he couldn't manage to stage a successful autocoup, but still just shows logic behind those who believe the falsehoods said to them over and over.)

But what do you have against homeowners building equity in their property and gaining wealth through that? — BitconnectCarlos

I've already said: it prices the next generation out of the housing market.

Nearly Half Of Democrats Think The 2016 Election Was ‘Rigged’ — counterpunch

Yet I remember Hillary Clinton accepting the outcome.

Yes, that elections have been manipulated has been a long lasting topic in the US. But again here it's the way that Trump far over the top than anyone other had done before him. As I wrote earlier, the culture of vitriolic accusations to motivate your base has been for long the basic problem in US politics. And since there is no possibility of the two ruling parties having to have coalition parties, the discourse can be as hostile as it has been.

The housing market is always going to price out some part of the population, it's just a matter of how big that part it. Even if prices were dirt cheap some still won't be able to afford it, and those with the houses won't be able to accumulate wealth through their homes. I get what you're saying though - it is what it is.

Yet I was referring to Trump here. — ssu

Yes, I dig that you're drawing me into a different point. But it has so little to do with mine that it can't stand as a refutation of it. Violent insurrectionists wanting to overthrow democracy to install an unelected populist figure ticks a large number of fascist boxes.

How terrible insurrectionists would be those violently protesting the events then? — ssu

Sorry, do you mean the the insurrectionists who do exist who attempted to overthrow democracy, or some hypothetical insurrectionists who attempt to reinstate it? If the former, very. If the latter, not at all. America is a constitutionally democratic country. A fascist dictatorship would be an internal enemy.

The housing market is always going to price out some part of the population, it's just a matter of how big that part it. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, that is the matter. When home ownership becomes elitist, that's a problem.

Yet I remember Hillary Clinton accepting the outcome. — ssu

Despite conceding the election, she spent the next four years saying that he was not the legitimate president.

Bottom-line...it's politics, they all (99.9% of them 99.9% of the time) lie.

Everybody is on their own as the political system is not going to save anyone. It is and has always been a system designed by the few for the benefit of the few. Make your own way the best you can by seizing what opportunities exist. And help those to see what they must do the best you can.

Ok but in a sense it could just always be elitist, it's just a matter of how much elitism we're talking. The homeless guy isn't going to be able to afford even a $400 down payment and could call those who could "the elites." It's all relative.

that elections have been manipulated has been a long lasting topic in the US. — ssu

No it hasn't. Gerrymandering aside, there was up until 2016 - a general belief in the integrity of the process and a tradition of coming together after elections. A widespread belief that the election was rigged, and howls of "not my president" after an election is something Democrats cooked up in 2016, and now, blame Trump supporters for believing.

I'll say it again, I don't know if the election was a fraud. But it seems to me profoundly unjust to hound people, disgrace and prosecute them - for seeking to defend democracy from what they had been told by both sides, was a flawed and fraudulent process. The Dems can't wash their hands of what they instigated, in the blood of patriots.

Ok but in a sense it could just always be elitist, it's just a matter of how much elitism we're talking. — BitconnectCarlos

By definition an elite can't be all that inclusive. It can't, for instance, simply be a large minority.

Irrespective, I am very comfortable in salary and savings and feel lucky to just bought a house again. The equivalent of me in 10 years with my financial status adjusted for inflation will not afford it. Me twenty years ago on a starter's salary and a few grand in the bank bought a house effortlessly. So the issue is that home ownership is becoming increasingly elitist, however large you allow an elite to be.

Sorry, do you mean the the insurrectionists who do exist who attempted to overthrow democracy, or some hypothetical insurrectionists who attempt to reinstate it? If the former, very. If the latter, not at all. — Kenosha Kid

A very telling answer from you.