Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

White people are banned from participating in diversity event

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Nateyj11 View Post
    I wonder what sense it makes, replacing the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration. Isn't it better to let people who don't want to be around certain other people be able to do so, rather than forcing them together and pushing tensions to a boiling point? Most bigots tend to avoid people they feel bigotry towards, and when they're not around those people they're indistinguishable from anyone else.

    Take Japan, for instance. Anyone who's actually been around the Japanese can tell you they're one of the most racist groups in the world. But they have their own country, keep to themselves, and discourage immigration. They tolerate tourists but don't encourage them to stick around. And does anyone have a problem with Japan's bigotry? No, because they're off to themselves the way they want to be, and nobody's trying to force their way in.

    So where are the places people who don't want to be around the politically correct favored demographics can go and not get hassled by people they don't want to be around, and have their desire for such seclusion be respected the same way Japan's is? If they're white, heterosexual, cisgender, and religious, the answer is nowhere. They'll get attacked wherever they go, have integration forced on them.

    Forced segregation is evil, forced integration is evil. The solution is a middle ground, following the non-aggression principle, where those who want to be segregated can do so without being attacked or vilified, and those who want to be integrated can do the same. And I can guarantee that a lot of the tension and issues would just disappear if people weren't being forced together and called evil for not being happy about it.

    And to be honest personally I'd be happy living anywhere as long as nobody was causing me problems for living there, and I wouldn't have a problem living next to anyone who followed the non-aggression principle. I keep to myself and I'm polite to people I'm around, and if someone's unpleasant I try to avoid them where possible and don't make an issue of it. I'm just sick of everyone on TV, YouTube or Twitch, or basically anywhere on the internet constantly bringing up race or gender or whatever else and using it to slam and vilify and spout bigotry towards the "privileged" demographics. This sea of hypocrisy is pulling me under.
    See I am somewhat curious as to what was going on during segregation and the Jim Crow era and am thinking I should study some of the issues more. I do have to say one thing. I notice that during segregation there was a thriving black business community in segregated areas, which got all destroyed --- and I am realizing segregation actually worked to the benefit of certain black business owners, even while desegregation worked to the benefit of certain white business owners..

    Already, you see motives for forced segregation would have been more complicated than merely white racism. After all, it amounted to white society agreeing to ghettoize the black community, essentially conferring a monopoly on a few black business owners.

    However, I’ve also heard over and over again that it is common for the elites of a particular minority group to be “paid off” or “rewarded” for assisting in the exploitation of the rest of the population by the majority. So, seen that way, one can see how such segregation favorable to a few black business leaders might have been part of a larger system that also included Jim Crow policies and more complicated policies involving the welfare system and exploitation of cheap black labor by favored white businesss, including agrarian farmers as well as Henry Ford and possibly Rockefeller family interests or at least other industrial interests. The abolition of slavery, I think, was carried out solely to open up exploitation of black cheap labor to MORE THAN JUST FARMERS and feminist support of abolition was tied to feminist funding from industrial elites -- and also explains why they were involved in the temperance movement as well. Prohibition was pushed by industrialists who wanted to exploit male labor much harder and didn't want them goofing off as much.

    Let’s see, if you read the following link, you’ll notice an interesting pattern – laws originally billed as intended to help blacks get used by corporations instead:

    http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defc...nnbaron11.html

    Very soon after the Fourteenth Amendment became law, the Supreme Court began to demolish it as a protection for blacks, and to develop it as a protection for corporations. However, in 1877, a Supreme Court decision (Munn v. Illinois) approved state laws regulating the prices charged to farmers for the use of grain elevators. The grain elevator company argued it was a person being deprived of property, thus violating the Fourteenth Amendment's declaration "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." The Supreme Court disagreed, saying that grain elevators were not simply private property but were invested with "a public interest" and so could be regulated.
    One year after that decision, the American Bar Association, organized by lawyers accustomed to serving the wealthy, began a national campaign of education to reverse the Court decision. Its presidents said, at different times: "If trusts are a defensive weapon of property interests against the communistic trend, they are desirable." And: "Monopoly is often a necessity and an advantage."
    By 1886, they succeeded. State legislatures, under the pressure of aroused farmers, had passed laws to regulate the rates charged farmers by the railroads. The Supreme Court that year (Wabash v. Illinois) said states could not do this, that this was an intrusion on federal power. That year alone, the Court did away with 230 state laws that had been passed to regulate corporations.
    By this time the Supreme Court had accepted the argument that corporations were "persons" and their money was property protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Supposedly, the Amendment had been passed to protect Negro rights, but of the Fourteenth Amendment cases brought before the Supreme Court between 1890 and 1910, nineteen dealt with the Negro, 288 dealt with corporations.
    That is such a classic and familiar tactic of demagoguery the US government and business world uses – corporations benefitting themselves under guise of laws originally billed as “protections” for “oppressed” minorities – that enough study of history gives one an obligation to be cynical. Faked gullibility is irresponsible and too unethical for an honest person to stomach in the face of too much information.

    Today we definitely know some groups of blacks are favored by society, even while others suffer all sorts of problems along with mass incarceration. Even during slavery, I read somewhere, there was a group of free slaves who did quite well, apparently, but who were at times accused of being “totally useless” by groups in society who were genuinely interested in the emancipation of black slaves, because they were doing quite well and opposed any change from the status quo.

    In any case, it seems obvious to me that bottom line is that complicated economic motives and motives of greed always seem to have played a role in the oppression of blacks, though all of that seems to be covered up in present history, even while the "narrative" floated is that in the past US citizens were prejudiced and not "sensitive" enough to blacks and tons and tons of other alleged "minorities" including gays and women. Aka, they segregated them ONLY because they thought they were inferior, which was insensitive and insulting, and the only reason to end segregation would have been to rectify said insult.

    Only after they have rectified same insult for white women and white gays – who, judging by the massive amounts of coverage devoted to the oppression of women and gays compared to meager coverage of black issues – obviously enjoy an exceptionally sordid history of past oppression by "society" that is obviously ten times more worse than anything blacks ever had to endure. Or, you know how it is, as in George Orwell's Animal Farm, all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

    It seems to me, it isn't about either saying segregation was bad or forced integration is inherently bad -- it is all in how it is implemented that matters.
    Last edited by dmschlom; 03-15-2014, 02:29 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Nateyj11 View Post
      I wonder what sense it makes, replacing the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration. Isn't it better to let people who don't want to be around certain other people be able to do so, rather than forcing them together and pushing tensions to a boiling point? Most bigots tend to avoid people they feel bigotry towards, and when they're not around those people they're indistinguishable from anyone else.

      Take Japan, for instance. Anyone who's actually been around the Japanese can tell you they're one of the most racist groups in the world. But they have their own country, keep to themselves, and discourage immigration. They tolerate tourists but don't encourage them to stick around. And does anyone have a problem with Japan's bigotry? No, because they're off to themselves the way they want to be, and nobody's trying to force their way in.

      So where are the places people who don't want to be around the politically correct favored demographics can go and not get hassled by people they don't want to be around, and have their desire for such seclusion be respected the same way Japan's is? If they're white, heterosexual, cisgender, and religious, the answer is nowhere. They'll get attacked wherever they go, have integration forced on them.

      Forced segregation is evil, forced integration is evil. The solution is a middle ground, following the non-aggression principle, where those who want to be segregated can do so without being attacked or vilified, and those who want to be integrated can do the same. And I can guarantee that a lot of the tension and issues would just disappear if people weren't being forced together and called evil for not being happy about it.

      And to be honest personally I'd be happy living anywhere as long as nobody was causing me problems for living there, and I wouldn't have a problem living next to anyone who followed the non-aggression principle. I keep to myself and I'm polite to people I'm around, and if someone's unpleasant I try to avoid them where possible and don't make an issue of it. I'm just sick of everyone on TV, YouTube or Twitch, or basically anywhere on the internet constantly bringing up race or gender or whatever else and using it to slam and vilify and spout bigotry towards the "privileged" demographics. This sea of hypocrisy is pulling me under.
      Forced integration doesn't require you to make a black guy your best buddy - it just forces public services and businesses to not discriminate based on skin color. I don't know why this is still rocket science for people.

      If you haven't noticed, for the most part, people are still segregated. I don't really get it as I can enjoy the company of anyone who I enjoy the company of - which isn't very many people regardless of skin color.

      I have a feeling I would absolutely love hanging out with Neil DeGrasse Tyson and I'm pretty damn sure I would hate hanging out with Flavor Flav. I would also love hanging out with Richard Dawkins, but I would hate hanging out with Charlie Sheen.

      Does that mean I think Charlie Sheen and Flavor Flav shouldn't have rights that everyone else does? nope...
      Last edited by Androgen; 03-15-2014, 01:48 PM.
      "Women are like that they dont acquire knowledge of people we are for that they are just born with a practical fertility of suspicion that makes a crop every so often and usually right they have an affinity for evil for supplying whatever the evil lacks in itself for drawing it about them instinctively as you do bed-clothing in slumber fertilising the mind for it until the evil has served its purpose whether it ever existed or no" - William Faulkner

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by ScreachingDragon View Post
        So I don't care what you have to say because I don't respect your opinion because you have not proved to me that it's worthy of respect.
        My "opinion?" What I am engaging in on this site for the most part could be characterized as several different attempts at complex analyses of a whole wide variety of issues, some of which I have changed as my perspective changes, and many of which should be construed as hypothetical, depending……

        If you are going to object to something I say, you should narrow your objection down to specific points and let me know which one SPECIFICALLY you think is in error. Otherwise, I am at a loss, your objections seem too open ended and vague for me to know how to respond. Yet I am troubled. I sort of thought most of them were well researched and logical, maybe sometimes I gloss over a few points without fully clarifying what I mean: If nobody asks me any questions which might help me explain better, how would I know?

        I suppose you could accuse me of thinking out loud. Then again, I see nothing wrong with doing that. How else is one supposed to learn and try to understand issues if one is not willing to consider multiple hypotheses? Including ones that lie outside of conventional thinking?

        I am the sort of person who, when I get curious about things, I try to learn and figure things out. Not everything I write here is necessarily fully enough thought out to make perfect sense to everyone at first reading. At some point I think I want to collect a few things together and maybe figure out how to present it all as part of a coherent whole.

        But perhaps after I have done further research and gotten enough done so I feel I have a more thorough grasp of all of the issues. Is one never allowed to have partially thought out ideas?

        Except, I am sure the best kind of thinking out there takes a long time to develop and doesn’t spring instantaneously from one’s mind unless it’s a bunch of mindlessly regurgitated conventional bullshit.

        I don't think I have to do that on anybody else's time but my own. Furthermore, that would take one on one collaboration with someone or someone’s in person to do that. I am the type of person who articulates things much better when discussing issues in collaboration with others. I need to think out loud verbally, and access to printers also helps.

        But, you know, some things are more easily said than done. I think I have mentioned previously having been a victim of bad behavior perpetrated by a member or members of the gay community. Now I know it probably isn't popular to say so on AVFM, but there really is a rape culture out there, at least there is one in the gay community. It derives legitimacy from the notion that "gay men must be seen as angels who are victims ONLY of homophobic straight male perpetrators behaving badly" -- aka the classic "feminist governance" narrative limiting all grievances to ones involving straight male perpetrators and female OR feminine (meaning gay) victims. Unfortunately it is gay victims and not gay perpetrators who are viewed as the ones responsible for proving to everyone else they are worthy enough to be considered "good enough soldiers" with respect to advancing this narrative or suppressing contradictory ones.

        Combine that with total ignorance of the motto “you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar” and let's just say it seems like it is a bit harder for me to meet people than it ought to be, considering my looks and personality, including the types who are good at discussing intellectual issues with. Unless I try to meet straight people instead to work on intellectual projects with -- but that tends to limit the breadth of the discussion due to issues of awkwardness. At the same time, I am certainly not going to refrain from writing about such issues by myself even if doing so in isolation does not lead to the best articulated ideas as fast.

        At this point, the study of "feminist governance” and a few related issues seems to have captured my interest and fascination – like nothing else has. But – please! – the type of thinker I am means the final product after enough study and thinking (and writing things down somewhere is a very good way to hone one's thinking in absence of one-on-one personal conversations) is sure to be quite interesting and well thought out. But, as for when I'm "in the process" of figuring out things and developing my thinking on some issue, maybe you should think of what they say regarding how anyone who likes sausages should never watch one being made.
        Last edited by dmschlom; 03-15-2014, 01:47 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Androgen View Post
          Forced integration doesn't require you to make a black guy your best buddy - it just forces public services and businesses to not discriminate based on skin color. I don't know why this is still rocket science for people.

          If you haven't noticed, for the most part, people are still segregated. I don't really get it as I can enjoy the company of anyone who I enjoy the company of - which isn't very many people regardless of skin color.

          I have a feeling I would absolutely love hanging out with Neil DeGrasse Tyson and I'm pretty damn sure I would hate hanging out with Flavor Flav. I would also love hanging out with Richard Dawkins, but I would hate hanging out with Charlie Sheen.
          Also, too much political correctness and too much of the media ramming the "need for diversity" down everyone's throat also takes away from the whole process whereby some people choose to hang out with different and sometimes "minority" groups simply because they want to, not because they have to. In a society where sensitivity is mandatory, you take away from people's ability to show themselves as truly decent. Even while you give certain groups who are very good at adhering strictly to political correctness, at least with respect to the letter of the law if not the spirit of the law, too much credit for "tolerance" they don't deserve.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Androgen View Post
            Forced integration doesn't require you to make a black guy your best buddy - it just forces public services and businesses to not discriminate based on skin color. I don't know why this is still rocket science for people.

            If you haven't noticed, for the most part, people are still segregated. I don't really get it as I can enjoy the company of anyone who I enjoy the company of - which isn't very many people regardless of skin color.
            If it isn't rocket science, then how have you managed to misrepresent it? Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone. Unless that person is a woman or a minority or LGBTQQ. If they refuse service to one of those groups, for whatever reason, they can get slammed with a discrimination suit and be crucified in the court of public opinion, destroying their business. Meaning that not only do they not have the right to refuse service to those demographics, but they have to go out of their way to appease them even in the face of bad behavior or risk losing everything to petty vindictiveness.

            Similarly, companies choose the best employees for the job...unless that employee is a woman or minority or LGBTQQ. If they refuse to hire one of those groups, or hire one and later fire them for any reason, they'll be slammed with discrimination suits and crucified in the court of public opinion, destroying their business. Meaning that not only do they not have the right to refuse to hire, or fire those people when appropriate, but they have to walk on eggshells around those employees they were forced to hire or risk losing everything to petty vindictiveness.

            Have you seen the threads around here about how women coworkers, women bosses, women customers tend to be far more unpleasant to deal with than men? Have you considered it's because affirmative action gives them a bludgeon they can abuse to their advantage with no way to stop them?

            So yeah, forced integration is wrong even if it involves discrimination in hiring practices or serving customers. Believe me, I'm not saying it's right to discriminate like that, and in our current political climate if a company refused to employ or serve women/minorities/LGBTQQs they'd almost certainly go out of business even without such policies, but they should have every right to do so without facing litigation.

            Because these policies don't stop discriminate, they police thought. It's impossible in most cases to say whether what happened to a person was motivated by discrimination or some more benign reason, such as that person is unqualified or is a huge dick who's impossible to work with. But thanks to these policies any time someone protected by affirmative action doesn't get their way they can cry discrimination and destroy the people who don't bend over backwards to accommodate them.

            Which is vile and ultimately destructive.
            Last edited by Nateyj11; 03-15-2014, 01:57 PM.
            Disillusionment: Another word for reality.

            Comment


            • #21
              Actually do you know that 80 percent of discrimination complaints are wrongful termination complaints? And only 20 percent allege discriminatory intent in hiring? I know for a fact this leads to situations where businesses sometimes fear hiring minorities because the statistical chances of getting into trouble if you hire minorities is way way higher than if you refuse to. In other words, anti-discrimination laws discourage small businesses without legal departments from hiring minorities. Even while, with regard to the mainstream business world, it's a very open secret out there that they are hegemonic enough so that no one can take them to task for discrimination without being permanently blacklisted from employment in that sector.

              The purpose of anti-discrimination laws, in my opinion, was to greatly tilt the playing field in favor of large corporations and against small businesses.
              Last edited by dmschlom; 03-15-2014, 02:12 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Nateyj11 View Post
                If it isn't rocket science, then how have you managed to misrepresent it? Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone. Unless that person is a woman or a minority or LGBTQQ. If they refuse service to one of those groups, for whatever reason, they can get slammed with a discrimination suit and be crucified in the court of public opinion, destroying their business. Meaning that not only do they not have the right to refuse service to those demographics, but they have to go out of their way to appease them even in the face of bad behavior or risk losing everything to petty vindictiveness.

                ....

                Because these policies don't stop discriminate, they police thought. It's impossible in most cases to say whether what happened to a person was motivated by discrimination or some more benign reason, such as that person is unqualified or is a huge dick who's impossible to work with. But thanks to these policies any time someone protected by affirmative action doesn't get their way they can cry discrimination and destroy the people who don't bend over backwards to accommodate them.

                Which is vile and ultimately destructive.
                Anti-discrimination laws aren't affirmative action. They're laws protecting peoples' rights in society. Businesses deny services to black people all the time when they come in and act like asshats. They deny services to white people as well when they come in and act like asshats. Proving discrimination is extremely difficult in the first place. Yes, I think discrimination laws can act like weapons to prevent discrimination and sometimes send unfair intimidation to someone else, however, I don't think that's as frequent as you declare it. Most people love having women around to interact with the public in businesses - because the public tends to like women as the face of public services. I've only had one female boss, and I hated her guts, but that's because she was a bullying conservative Christian. She laid me off for two weeks once when I didn't check that my coworker had done her job properly - the coworker hadn't and I hadn't been trained to inspect the things my coworker was supposed to do - so I left and applied for a different job, got it and quit.

                Can you name me some instances where discrimination laws truly supported bad behavior on the part of an employee? And I don't mean "well, if they had only hired whites, that black guy that ripped off the company wouldn't have been hired." I mean where the discrimination law actually permitted bad behavior on the part of the employee.

                I'm more than convinced that men are inordinately discriminated against - I've seen the statistics - or I wouldn't be here. But I don't believe there's an excess of discrimination laws resulting in bad employees. Sure, you can find an example here and there of nearly every law being abused in some way that it wasn't really intended for to the benefit of some scum-sucker lawyer (who is usually white) - but the fact is that white people have massively discriminated against minorities in this country and those laws exist because of it.

                I think black men are especially victimized by misandry, which is one of the reasons I'm here as a white guy. I think we should be recruiting this guy even though he's a bit of a black separatist:

                Last edited by Androgen; 03-15-2014, 02:40 PM.
                "Women are like that they dont acquire knowledge of people we are for that they are just born with a practical fertility of suspicion that makes a crop every so often and usually right they have an affinity for evil for supplying whatever the evil lacks in itself for drawing it about them instinctively as you do bed-clothing in slumber fertilising the mind for it until the evil has served its purpose whether it ever existed or no" - William Faulkner

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Androgen View Post
                  but the fact is that white people have massively discriminated against minorities in this country and those laws exist because of it.
                  I'm much more cynical. I've seen too much. I agree with the first part of your point. But as for "those laws exist because of it," my opinion is that politicians are very good at creating an appearance of "trying to do the right thing" even while they work with behind the scenes lobbyists in such a manner so as to deliberately ensure the same laws defeat their "intended purpose" and work to the benefit of campaign contributors instead -- who happen to be anything but disaffected minorities.

                  Also, much discrimination in society has been carried out by unwilling individuals being required to engage in it by higher authorities -- who always avoid accountability, then history is rewritten in such a way so as to absolve them of responsibility even while using the oppression they fostered as an excuse to cast suspicion over the population as a whole. In essence, racism and other "isms" are usually institutional -- individuals are required to go along with them by authorities. Who later wash their hands of the situation and try to rewrite it all so they can just say "people are bad" or "people are racist."

                  Now it is often true that people are bad or people are racist -- but I think it's also much more true that most racial oppression was instigated by the rich or by politicians.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by dmschlom View Post
                    I'm much more cynical. I've seen too much. I agree with the first part of your point. But as for "those laws exist because of it," my opinion is that politicians are very good at creating an appearance of "trying to do the right thing" even while they work with behind the scenes lobbyists in such a manner so as to deliberately ensure the same laws defeat their "intended purpose" and work to the benefit of campaign contributors instead -- who happen to be anything but disaffected minorities.

                    ...

                    Now it is often true that people are bad or people are racist -- but I think it's also much more true that most racial oppression was instigated by the rich or by politicians.
                    When has history been rewritten to absolve those in power for responsibility for it? It's true that because most openly white supremacist groups are very poor white guys that someone without any knowledge of history could come to the conclusion, falsely, that white supremacy was mostly a "lower-class white" thing. Anyone who knows history knows that nothing could be further from the truth. It's the same with how atheists, falsely, believe that Christianity was the primary cause of slavery, when Christianity was a tool rewritten by slaveowners to justify it and also the primary tool which was used to advance the abolitionist movement. One of the first things you'll learn if you study U.S. race relations is that the majority of those who fought for the Confederacy owned no slaves. But racism existed in these classes - the upper class will always throw those they need to support their tactics bones - and one of those bones was "you have it better than the black people, because you're white, and you deserve it because you're white." So, the white people who didn't have slaves, most of them, went along with it because they wanted that bone because they had nothing else to hold onto to say "oh, I'm not regarded as trash by the white aristocracy with hundreds of slaves on their plantations."

                    So, what were those non-slave holding whites willing to do for that white aristocracy? March in lines across open fields under fire from the Union getting shot to death - like sheep to the slaughter.
                    "Women are like that they dont acquire knowledge of people we are for that they are just born with a practical fertility of suspicion that makes a crop every so often and usually right they have an affinity for evil for supplying whatever the evil lacks in itself for drawing it about them instinctively as you do bed-clothing in slumber fertilising the mind for it until the evil has served its purpose whether it ever existed or no" - William Faulkner

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      There's plenty I could say, but I'll keep it simple. It makes me incredibly weary seeing people who manage to see the reality of men's issues still swallowing the political correctness bullshit by the truckful when it comes to race, religion, sexual preference, or other dogma of cultural Marxism. I guess it's too much to hope that a red pill perspective in one area will translate into being able to recognize the same hypocritical and destructive tactics employed in other areas.

                      Maybe it's just that I find the race issue incredibly tiresome because for me it's a non-issue. I don't care about it unless people bring it up, and then I only care because they're usually bitching about it while also being incredibly racist themselves, which irritates me. From my experience the only people who have a problem with race are people who have a problem with race, and I wish they'd just shut up unless they have a legitimate complaint and, more valuable, a solution to that complaint.

                      Just like I don't appreciate feminists trying to shame me on gender issues, I don't appreciate the world trying to shove white guilt down my throat on race issues.
                      Disillusionment: Another word for reality.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Nateyj11 View Post
                        ....It makes me incredibly weary seeing people who manage to see the reality of men's issues still swallowing the political correctness bullshit by the truckful when it comes to race, religion, sexual preference, or other dogma of cultural Marxism. I guess it's too much to hope that a red pill perspective in one area will translate into being able to recognize the same hypocritical and destructive tactics employed in other areas....

                        Just like I don't appreciate feminists trying to shame me on gender issues, I don't appreciate the world trying to shove white guilt down my throat on race issues.
                        This. Many times this.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by dmschlom View Post
                          Actually do you know that 80 percent of discrimination complaints are wrongful termination complaints? And only 20 percent allege discriminatory intent in hiring? I know for a fact this leads to situations where businesses sometimes fear hiring minorities because the statistical chances of getting into trouble if you hire minorities is way way higher than if you refuse to. In other words, anti-discrimination laws discourage small businesses without legal departments from hiring minorities. Even while, with regard to the mainstream business world, it's a very open secret out there that they are hegemonic enough so that no one can take them to task for discrimination without being permanently blacklisted from employment in that sector.

                          The purpose of anti-discrimination laws, in my opinion, was to greatly tilt the playing field in favor of large corporations and against small businesses.
                          You may have a point there. Though I know a great many at AVfM probably would be mad at me for doing so, I tried to file a suit against the Assemblies of God for the fact that a child molestation ring was run out of my churches and affilitated with Ted Haggard, Pat Robertson, Lou Engle and those types. I had assumed that, like regular businesses, that the overarching church structure was responsible for subsidiary churches - hence that the denomination would have to take responsibility for a youth pastor who ran a molestation ring that molested and raped over a dozen boys multiple times a week over a decade (at some point you have to say "enough is enough" - you molest and rape over a dozen kids and teens for ten years when many of them have asked you to put a stop to it and you didn't put a stop to it - you're getting sued). Apparently that's not true, the AoG corporation leases its name, relinquishes liability to individual churches. In exchange, they are held immune from all liability for conduct of franchise churches, but can seize the assets of those individual churches upon dissolution of that church.

                          Yes, things are the same today as they always were, the upper class will always screw over little people. Of course, the trade-off is that you have to support those people who support that laissez-faire capitlism system that says "isn't anyone responsible for you!" That's what allows 90% of lawyers in the country to only serve the richest 10%. It's what allows systematic misandry to be promulgated on TV like men are the scum of the earth, because you let them be deregulated. It's what allows lawyers to profitably rob men in divorce and child custody hearings.

                          However, I still don't know that there's many cases of that stuff happening - where some tiny business was sued by a false discrimination allegation. I would like to see those cases. I know that men get screwed in alimony, child-support, divorce, universities, etc. - those are well documented. It is the traditional conservative economic system that destroys small business, destroys men, etc..

                          The purpose of capitalism is to tilt the playing field against small businesses - the laws themselves aren't intended to do that. They're just there to say "don't discriminate because of someone's skin color."

                          I'm 1/16th Cherokee - the rest - mostly English/Germanic - and the Evangelical Church still holds the position that my blood makes me prone to demonic possession (http://www.tdsministries.org/content...merican-demons), so I know that racism among whites isn't a lie. It's very real, very stupid, and very nonconstructive.
                          Last edited by Androgen; 03-15-2014, 03:26 PM.
                          "Women are like that they dont acquire knowledge of people we are for that they are just born with a practical fertility of suspicion that makes a crop every so often and usually right they have an affinity for evil for supplying whatever the evil lacks in itself for drawing it about them instinctively as you do bed-clothing in slumber fertilising the mind for it until the evil has served its purpose whether it ever existed or no" - William Faulkner

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by numbCruncher View Post
                            This. Many times this.
                            Feminism will kick your ass over and over and over again until white people stop pretending that the white aristocracy didn't do (and doesn't do) terrible things to black people. Feminists acknowledge it openly and make a scape-goat of all white men. In reality, most white men were not rich landowners with slaves - but were considered disposable like the slaves, but still treated better because, well, the upper class couldn't make everyone hate them and expect to survive.

                            If you want to keep hating on civil rights, non-discrimination laws, and the like - you will doom any attempts at a men's movement because all black men will side with enforcers of feminist dogma. This isn't Stormfront as far as I can tell, and there's no reason to deny that black people have been screwed over extremely by white aristocrats because it's simply not true. There were many white men who risked life and limb during the slavery period to help put an end to it because they saw a wrong and they did the right thing.

                            Feminism makes untrue claims about the level of oppression women have faced - even likening a white woman's traditional place to "slavery" is an insult to what black men, who bore the hardest oppressions of white supremacy, faced.

                            Most black men do not make untrue claims about the level of oppression faced.

                            White feminists try to tell me this is slavery: http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pu...belle_1472.jpg

                            It's pretty sad that any black women fall for that...

                            http://imageshack.com/a/img853/2231/3far.jpg

                            White Supremacists are the first inventors of sexual harassment laws - and those white women loved having their tough white guys kill any black who dared offend them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till
                            Last edited by Androgen; 03-15-2014, 03:58 PM.
                            "Women are like that they dont acquire knowledge of people we are for that they are just born with a practical fertility of suspicion that makes a crop every so often and usually right they have an affinity for evil for supplying whatever the evil lacks in itself for drawing it about them instinctively as you do bed-clothing in slumber fertilising the mind for it until the evil has served its purpose whether it ever existed or no" - William Faulkner

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Androgen View Post
                              Feminism will kick your ass over and over and over again until white people stop pretending that the white aristocracy didn't do (and doesn't do) terrible things to black people. Feminists acknowledge it openly and make a scape-goat of all white men. In reality, most white men were not rich landowners with slaves - but were considered disposable like the slaves, but still treated better because, well, the upper class couldn't make everyone hate them and expect to survive.

                              If you want to keep hating on civil rights, non-discrimination laws, and the like - you will doom any attempts at a men's movement because all black men will side with enforcers of feminist dogma. This isn't Stormfront as far as I can tell, and there's no reason to deny that black people have been screwed over extremely by white aristocrats because it's simply not true. There were many white men who risked life and limb during the slavery period to help put an end to it because they saw a wrong and they did the right thing.

                              Feminism makes untrue claims about the level of oppression women have faced - even likening a white woman's traditional place to "slavery" is an insult to what black men, who bore the hardest oppressions of white supremacy, faced.

                              Most black men do not make untrue claims about the level of oppression faced.

                              White feminists try to tell me this is slavery: http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pu...belle_1472.jpg

                              It's pretty sad that any black women fall for that...

                              http://imageshack.com/a/img853/2231/3far.jpg

                              White Supremacists are the first inventors of sexual harassment laws - and those white women loved having their tough white guys kill any black who dared offend them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till
                              Totally agreed. Furthermore, misandry is often code for racism, among feminists today. When I say "racism" I refer strictly to that part of racism which involved financial or economic motives for oppressing blacks. If you listen to one of Susan Brownmiller's speeches, she goes and says rape used to be used against blacks -- after the civil rights movement it became politically incorrect to do so, so the theory around rape because that, instead of it being something black men do which they should be killed over, it is instead an issue revolving around "masculinity."

                              That's where issues of selective race disparate enforcement come in and allow feminist theory to work to produce results identical to Jim Crow south, even while feminists can now espouse a new "color blind" doctrine to enable it. However, it turns out if you look at studies showing racial disparity in sentencing, it turns out the worst racial disparities all congregate in the liberal politically correct blue states, with the allegedly racist deep south showing the least amount of racial disparity in sentencing, which is where the worst racial injustice in our society is today. That shows, political correctness and modern notions racial justice are a problem. Somehow, the more we guarantee blacks equality under the law in a technical sense, the more racial oppression we end up with, in an actual sense that matters to a black person growing up in a poor neighborhood. And put yourself in the shoes of a black man -- do you care one iota how "sensitive" or "politically correct" society is to you? Or do you care about living a decent life?

                              And that's another issue with feminism. They are like Sherlock Holmnes The Scarlet Letter -- where the lesson learned was the best place to hide something is in plain sight. THEY are the ones mostly responsible or at least heavily involved in racial oppression today -- and they are doing it in plain sight. They have infiltrated that part of society which blacks most heavily blame for their problems -- the police force and related law enforcement apparatus -- at a time when the war on drugs and mass incarceration greatly increased racial oppression and racial problems. And feminists are not the ones responsible for this? It's all a coincidence and not tied together? Black men just started committing way many more crimes and just started doing it to themselves just as feminists took over the police force, so that, despite all feminist compassion and effort to promote racial justice, it just couldn't happen. Black men just started being so bad all of a sudden -- and feminists are beyond reproach. Trust feminists. We need more feminism.

                              The one reason they turn to misandry is, it supplies perfect "code words." Furthermore, they can claim an exemption or inoculation from charges of racism because it really is highly true that their motives for racial oppression are greed first and foremost, so that they are equal opportunity victimizers or would be, except blacks are much EASIER targets for them so they pick on blacks more not out of racism but out of greed and convenience.

                              But it is also true that, with feminism, there is much more hiding in plain sight regarding their racial problems than anyone would realize. It's just that the media has decided it is "impolite" to cover it and a certain sense of chivalry makes it a social faux paux to suggest ladies could be involved in unsavoriness. And the media acts like super chivalrous white knights who think it would be just atrocious to dare to besmirch the honor of ladies who are so pure and so above the common meanness of ordinary men. Oh no of course if women are involved they are only up to good -- and let's keep on locking up more black men.

                              Furthermore, feminists are like the "lady who doth protest too much" when they give lip service to racial equality.

                              You have to understand, if you, for reasons of greed, want to be THE GROUP which has a monopoly on the type of racial oppression that is FINANCIALLY LUCRATIVE, you will defensively go out of your way to give lip service to just how horrified you are that racial oppression ever occurs in the world. All because, you know how it works, they know no one would suspect that anyone who is so horrified at injustice would actually be the most deeply involved in perpetration of injustice themselves.

                              Furthermore, it is also true that many women subscribe to feminism, then get employed by bureaucracies doing bad things, and once they see what is going on, they are stuck paying off college loans, getting ready to start a family, and are really no longer in a position to "whistle blow" anyway. So, there is some truth to the assertion that some feminists might be horrified at racial oppression. There just also is truth in a simultaneous assertion that they are the ones most heavily involved in it, sometimes through no fault of their own.

                              At the same time, this helps them to convince themselves of their rightness. Even while they refuse to consider any solutions that might compromise their own salaries and interests. Their position ends up becoming that, if any injustice occurs, it is the fault of others, not themselves. And it is the responsibility of others to correct it. Yet, they will always support and bolster those who are behind the injustice, and fight tooth and nail against anyone who is trying to correct it. Even while they claim to be against it themselves.

                              Patriarchy theory helps. It provides feminists with this disembodied "embodiment of all evil" that is very non-specific. So if they don't want to blame themselves for something, they blame the patriarchy instead.
                              Last edited by dmschlom; 03-15-2014, 04:35 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by dmschlom View Post
                                That's where issues of selective race disparate enforcement come in and allow feminist theory to work to produce results identical to Jim Crow south, even while feminists can now espouse a new "color blind" doctrine to enable it. However, it turns out if you look at studies showing racial disparity in sentencing, it turns out the worst racial disparities all congregate in the liberal politically correct blue states, with the allegedly racist deep south showing the least amount of racial disparity in sentencing, which is where the worst racial injustice in our society is today. That shows, political correctness and modern notions racial justice are a problem. Somehow, the more we guarantee blacks equality under the law in a technical sense, the more racial oppression we end up with, in an actual sense that matters to a black person growing up in a poor neighborhood. And put yourself in the shoes of a black man -- do you care one iota how "sensitive" or "politically correct" society is to you? Or do you care about living a decent life?
                                I'm not here because I'm fully opposed to being "politically correct." There's no reason to be a jerk just to be a jerk. However, I am opposed to people who try to censor literature because it contains offensive words. Some of my realization of white women's complicity in black oppression comes from Southern literature. People make the mistake that because such literature contains the n-word that it is, inherently, racist. So I will oppose attempts to censor this kind of literature.

                                To suggest that we're all here because we don't like feminists/liberals "censoring our speech" "whitewashes" the real problems of misandry in society by suggesting that we're just an immature reaction to being told to be polite. On the contrary, men are a minority in society, they are the most heavily discriminated against by the justice system, they are heavily discriminated against by the media, they are heavily discriminated against by workplace law, they are heavily discriminated against by University policies, they are heavily discriminated against by family courts, they die younger, they commit suicide more, they are the targets of divorce more, they are murdered nearly as often as women by intimate partners. These are not "problems of linguistics." The fact that feminism has retreated into a "language police" mode shows that they don't really have many problems to face and, instead, have just turned to complaining about sexist jokes and politically incorrect speech. I told someone else on here who was insisting that he/she was a "man woman" that we'd know our work was mostly done when the most pressing issue facing us is the lack of a third person singular gender-neutral word that is not regarded as dehumanizing (i.e. 'it') in the English language.

                                Cleaning up all instances of the word "nigger" in society (including the ones that use it to exemplify how disgusting the South had been to blacks, like Faulkner and Twain) doesn't make racism go away. Cleaning up all instances of the word "bitch" doesn't make actual hatred of women go away (not the reverence and insane glorification of women which usually comes with the harm of other men for women's sake that feminists have decided is "hatred of women"). These are whitewashing tactics that ignore real problems and historical realities.

                                Feminisms biggest atrocities can easily be found in the families of the black population - or lack thereof: http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry...-the-deadbeat/
                                Last edited by Androgen; 03-15-2014, 06:53 PM.
                                "Women are like that they dont acquire knowledge of people we are for that they are just born with a practical fertility of suspicion that makes a crop every so often and usually right they have an affinity for evil for supplying whatever the evil lacks in itself for drawing it about them instinctively as you do bed-clothing in slumber fertilising the mind for it until the evil has served its purpose whether it ever existed or no" - William Faulkner

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X