# 'I can't be racist because I'm an ethnic minority woman', says Goldsmiths university



## ThunderCunt (May 13, 2015)

> A student union officer who banned white people and men from an event promoting equality has claimed she "cannot be racist" because she is an ethnic minority woman.
> 
> Goldsmiths University's student union welfare and diversity officer Bahar Mustafa sparked a backlash when she told white people and men they should not attend an event on "diversifying the curriculum".
> 
> ...


----------



## Golden Circle (May 13, 2015)

She says, while being openly racist about her own race.


----------



## scerpers (May 13, 2015)

and this is a level beyond super retard
you can call it super retard 2


----------



## ThunderCunt (May 13, 2015)

Golden Circle said:


> She says, while being openly racist about her own race.


I think she is middle easterner or Persian(as her name suggests), she is not white as people think.


----------



## olaf (May 13, 2015)

> "I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because *racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender.*


this is exactly what you are doing

it's like she wants to convince people that women/people of colour are mentaly inferior


----------



## babaGAReeb (May 13, 2015)

the SJW is strong in this one


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 13, 2015)

ThunderCunt said:


> I think she is middle easterner or Persian(as her name suggests), she is not white as people think.



I thought someone said she was Jewish. I'm sure that if she is we'll hear about Zionism in some way.


----------



## Zaru (May 13, 2015)

"Diversity officer"

I'm sorry, I'm gonna need some time in the hospital to heal my sides


----------



## 海外ニキ (May 13, 2015)

Can anyone point out where racism is specifically about privilege from these definitions? Because I sure as hell can't.


----------



## Kira Yamato (May 13, 2015)

She can't be racist? how about sexist?


----------



## Zaru (May 13, 2015)

"I may be extremely bigoted, exclusionary, hateful, discriminatory, judgemental, delusional and incendiary, but at least I don't fall into my definition of the label that people like me try to redefine to only apply to those we hate"

Leftists at university, ladies and gentlemen and attack helicopters.


----------



## ThunderCunt (May 13, 2015)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I thought someone said she was Jewish. I'm sure that if she is we'll hear about Zionism in some way.


Very likely, sometimes the names coincide.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (May 13, 2015)

I feel like she's trolling.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (May 13, 2015)

Zaxxon said:


> Can anyone point out where racism is specifically about privilege from these definitions? Because I sure as hell can't.





Zaru said:


> "I may be extremely bigoted, exclusionary, hateful, discriminatory, judgemental, delusional and incendiary, but at least I don't fall into my definition of the label that people like me try to redefine to only apply to those we hate"
> 
> Leftists at university, ladies and gentlemen and attack helicopters.



mandatory


----------



## Deleted member 206107 (May 13, 2015)

it has to be a troll


----------



## ThunderCunt (May 13, 2015)

WAD said:


> I feel like she's trolling.


I wish this was true but sadly,  she is not trolling at all.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (May 13, 2015)

Yeah, because inequality is only a thing when it personally inconveniences you. >_>


----------



## sadated_peon (May 13, 2015)

It's amazing to me the bubble that academia has created around these people.


----------



## Fenrir (May 13, 2015)

>Goldsmiths

Yeah sounds about right


----------



## ThunderCunt (May 13, 2015)

Fenrir said:


> >Goldsmiths
> 
> Yeah sounds about right



At one point I was about to take a room in New Cross, thank god I decided not to.


----------



## Deputy Myself (May 13, 2015)

sadated_peon said:


> It's amazing to me the bubble that academia has created around these people.



It's getting painfully obvious it's a bubble these days

no worries, it'll pop eventually


----------



## The World (May 13, 2015)

The Handsome Klad said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



     .


----------



## Fourangers (May 13, 2015)

Tumblr....

Seriously, this stupid words I read straight from tumblr SJW. Makes me unclean just from reading it.


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (May 13, 2015)

She's right.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 13, 2015)

A disgusting mentality that is unfortunately encouraged in leftist circles on campuses.


----------



## 海外ニキ (May 13, 2015)

I said "from these definitions", smartass.

Read.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 13, 2015)

You ask too much of him.


----------



## Lina Inverse (May 13, 2015)




----------



## Kurokocchi (May 13, 2015)

Before attacking the girl why don't you do a little research:



London University
*White= 62.2%*

Diversity lol
She created a group meant for ethnic minority women, who are already a small percentage of the student body. The majority white students couldn't handle being left out of something for once in their lives and thus white tears commenced.

So basically what happened:


And this lady replied:


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 13, 2015)

Obligatory

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbud8rLejLM[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Zaru (May 13, 2015)

Kurokocchi said:


> Before attacking the girl why don't you do a little research:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If she had left it at an appeal to the non-targeted demographic to leave room for the targeted demographic, I'd be like "Yeah alright I guess"

But this whole "I can't be racist" spiel quickly unravels the underlying mindset of deeply ingrained hatred for the "majority" that people like her have


----------



## Deputy Myself (May 13, 2015)

I know I'm a big silly for replying to this obvious bait but



> London University
> *White= 62.2%*



London Demographics:
*White: 71.15%*

White's are already underrepresented


----------



## Disquiet (May 13, 2015)

Someday, I hope the people who push the "racism is prejudice plus power" rhetoric will realise that it's a semantic argument (accuracy notwithstanding), and that they aren't helping.

If your contention is that white males hold all the power in every context, then excluding them from an event intended for the discussion of diversity is self-defeating: you need the help of people who are in power in order to change the status quo. They are the people with whom you _most_ need to discuss this sort of thing.


----------



## Amanda (May 13, 2015)

Zaru said:


> If she had left it at an appeal to the non-targeted demographic to leave room for the targeted demographic, I'd be like "Yeah alright I guess"
> 
> But this whole "I can't be racist" spiel quickly unravels the underlying mindset of deeply ingrained hatred for the "majority" that people like her have





BrianTheGoldfish said:


> Someday the people who push the "racism is prejudice plus power" rhetoric will realise that it's a semantic argument (accuracy notwithstanding), and that they aren't helping regardless.
> 
> If your contention is that white males hold all the power in every context, then excluding them from an event intended for the discussion of diversity is self-defeating: you need the help of people who are in power in order to change the status quo. They are the people with whom you _most_ need to discuss this sort of thing.




Both of these. If someone claims they want to change their place in the society but then refuse to discuss with the rest of the society, well, I can't help but to wonder if they really want change or if they just want to feel good about feeling angry. That or then they're just stupid.


----------



## Kurokocchi (May 13, 2015)

BrianTheGoldfish said:


> If your contention is that white males hold all the power in every context, then excluding them from an event intended for the discussion of diversity is self-defeating: you need the help of people who are in power in order to change the status quo. They are the people with whom you _most_ need to discuss this sort of thing.



Maybe she wanted opinions from certain people in an environment that they would feel comfortable sharing such opinion?? 
It's just one event, it's not like she banned them from the white house or something lol



Amanda said:


> Both of these. If someone claims they want to change their place in the society but then refuse to discuss with the rest of the society, well, I can't help but to wonder if they really want change or if they just want to feel good about feeling angry. That or then they're just stupid.



It's the freaking school curriculum. You are making it a much bigger problem than it really is.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 13, 2015)

Kurokocchi said:


> Maybe she wanted opinions from certain people in an environment that they would feel comfortable sharing such opinion??
> It's just one event, it's not like she banned them from the white house or something lol



Then she should have requested that civilly, instead there's this whole row now and she only showed she's a racist fuck herself. I don't like the idea of excluding people simply on basis that determine nothing of their personality or views anyway.


----------



## ThunderCunt (May 13, 2015)

Kurokocchi said:


> Maybe she wanted opinions from certain people in an environment that they would feel comfortable sharing such opinion??
> It's just one event, it's not like she banned them from the white house or something lol


The point is that she made a blatant statement while holding a position at a place like university. 
I am sure there are other effective ways to communicate that a particular meeting is meant only for certain group. 
Secondly what are they going to discuss in seclusion that they are so afraid that they want to exclude white males from participating. I am sure there are few who might have some bias but then there are a lot others, who would like to participate in a more neutral and logical manner.


----------



## Kurokocchi (May 13, 2015)

ThunderCunt said:


> The point is that she made a blatant statement while holding a position at a place like university.
> I am sure there are other effective ways to communicate that a particular meeting is meant only for certain group.
> Secondly what are they going to discuss in seclusion that they are so afraid that they want to exclude white males from participating. I am sure there are few who might have some bias but then there are a lot others, who would like to participate in a more neutral and logical manner.



?Invite loads of BME Women and non-binary people!! Also, if you?ve been invited and you?re a man and/or white PLEASE DON?T COME just cos I invited a bunch of people and hope you will be responsible enough to respect this is a BME Women and non-binary event only.?

She said please and asked people to be understanding. How is this uncivil or anything like that?? Maybe this is a cultural thing, but in my university there are groups like this all over the place. Only around 30% of the population is white.

She might have made this blatant because with such a large majority of white students she just wanted to get the point across. XD If anything she was racist towards ethnic minority males, but there are probably not enough of them to say anything in that university. XD


----------



## Deputy Myself (May 13, 2015)

holy shit the bait is still going

I applaud you sir


----------



## ThunderCunt (May 13, 2015)

While the first part may be acceptable but she went on saying I am not racist because.....
that itself is a racist card.
Secondly being racist/sexist towards males of Ethnic minority is still being sexist and racist in your own words, so she is indeed racist and/or sexist.


----------



## Kurokocchi (May 13, 2015)

ThunderCunt said:


> While the first part may be acceptable but she went on saying I am not racist because.....
> that itself is a racist card.
> Secondly being racist/sexist towards males of Ethnic minority is still being sexist and racist in your own words, so she is indeed racist and/or sexist.



She said:

"I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender."

*White men*

She can be racist towards any other minority men, but she didn't say she wasn't.

Oh yeah and I'm sure the one or two black men were dying to attend this event XD LOL The people complaining were most likely white guys.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (May 13, 2015)

Zaxxon said:


> I said "from these definitions", smartass.
> 
> Read.


I just skimmed your post. But still relevant in this case.


Seto Kaiba said:


> You ask too much of him.



Look who it is, ready to ostracize me for a mistake, stop dickriding SK.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 13, 2015)

Some people define racism as hatred of black people, and sexism as hatred of women.  When people define those terms in such stupid ways this woman is the result.


----------



## Zyrax (May 13, 2015)

I am not white so I can't be racist


----------



## Kurokocchi (May 13, 2015)

BTW I would like to apologize if I was snippy with some replies. I just took an exam on cultural psych yesterday, so this is all of the same shit but a different day. Though it feels great when you can apply things you learn at school in real life situations.

Some of the comments on that website are really disgusting, especially the "she looks white, so she can't be a different race/mixed" *sigh* history repeating itself time and time again.


----------



## Blue (May 13, 2015)

Kurokocchi said:


> She said:
> 
> "I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender."



Yes, and that is patently delusional and racist.


----------



## Linkofone (May 13, 2015)

A good read.


----------



## reiatsuflow (May 13, 2015)

Some of this bullshit is all right. An entry level employee of a corporation has different responsibilities than a district manager, and is held to different standards when representing himself and the company. There's some civility and dress codes everybody has to abide by, but the clerk working the floors might be able to get away with something a dm wouldn't be able to. Puzzle that into the racism conversation and it almost makes sense that certain under presented minorities get to behave in ways that the mainstream can't just by the head count.

Offices with majorly male employees don't hold 'male meetings', but they can introduce meeting groups with hr and the like specifically for the minority of female employees. It's for a variety of reasons. That's not necessarily stupid. A guy who barges into a meeting arranged specifically for women in the workplace and complains to management that it's sexist is being a dumbass. We sort of allow exclusionary behaviors if the ones doing the excluding are the minority, and if their exclusion is an attempt to balance out their minority.

Yeah, the woman is being a drama queen. She gave a seven minute long statement. But I'm all right with the principle of the thing. It's not hypocritical. It's nuanced. Sometimes it's stupid, but it's a university. Stupid goes with the territory.


----------



## Risyth (May 13, 2015)

> "I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men,


*Even after banning them from an event over their race? That's the definition of institutionalized racism.... *



> because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender.


*That's literally a made-up definition for both words. *



> "Therefore, women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system.”


*Sexism typically involves prejudice or discrimination against women...but it can involve discrimination against men too. Even if a woman isn't in power. And she was in power here. So...she's sexist. And racist too. It's the same concept with a different root word. 

But she sounds like one of those clowns who would just try to scream over you if they felt they were wrong. She'll get what's coming to her...people like her make women look bad in general, and I hate that.*


----------



## Zaru (May 13, 2015)

Risyth said:


> *Even after banning them from an event over their race? That's the definition of institutionalized racism.... *



If I read this right, she didn't "ban" them, she asked them not to come. She didn't actually have the power to ban anyone.

Of course, if she had, she probably would have


----------



## Kurokocchi (May 13, 2015)

The reasoning is pretty simple and based on history.

Being white and male is favorable, at least American society, but probably the UK as well.

So:
White male
White female/ Minority male
Minority female- double threat. Heck tough luck if you were a female minority who is also disabled.

It's okay, guilt, anger, and defensiveness are common reactions to this sort of thing


----------



## Blue (May 13, 2015)

Simple reasoning is not correct reasoning.


----------



## Deputy Myself (May 13, 2015)

thats enough tumblr for you kuro


----------



## olaf (May 13, 2015)

Kurokocchi said:


> It's okay, guilt, anger, and defensiveness are common reactions to this sort of thing


so if I was mugged by a black person then it's okay for me to fear and hate every black person?

damn, this simple reasoning is great


----------



## Hand Banana (May 13, 2015)

[YOUTUBE]nQWIZGgCkw4[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 13, 2015)

Crazy lady be confusing structural racism with racism.

Structural racism is that whole Prejudice + Power thing. And she can't be structurally racist because she's a person not an institution.

Racism is just prejudice based on ethnicity. That's it. And anyone (and probably everyone) are that to some varying degree. And its entirely possible to be that to your own race. Its just judging books by their cover. Something everyone does even if they don't want to.

What's important is the ability to get past that initial first reaction and not let it influence your actions too badly.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 13, 2015)

Kurokocchi said:


> Maybe she wanted opinions from certain people in an environment that they would feel comfortable sharing such opinion??
> It's just one event, it's not like she banned them from the white house or something lol


If she wanted opinions then it serves no purpose to exclude by race or sex. As opinions are not assigned to a person race and sex. 

I bet she would if she could. 



Kurokocchi said:


> The reasoning is pretty simple and based on history.
> 
> Being white and male is favorable, at least American society, but probably the UK as well.


Favorably?
Sure, so has been rich or from a "upper class" background. 

If you wanted to go by HISTORY, then you should fully allow lower class white males, and exclude upper-class white women. 



Kurokocchi said:


> So:
> White male
> White female/ Minority male
> Minority female- double threat. Heck tough luck if you were a female minority who is also disabled.
> ...



Not even close
Wealth and status have always been more of a factor then Gender. 
A wealthy or upper class women all through history in the west has been much more advantage then a lower class male. 

For example, in the past an white upper class women says that a working class man "accosted her" with his eyes. He would be arrested and probably flogged by police. 

Social status trumps everything, and considering that wasn't even a consideration of her criteria it's pretty fucking obvious she a racist sexist.


----------



## Megaharrison (May 13, 2015)

Liberals have tried to rewrite common sense and a bunch of academics literally got together and randomly made up what can and can't be racist. 

Now, you can only be racist if you have "privilege + power". I'm sure next week it'll be privilege + power/pi. Because these elitists think they can just rewrite the definitions of things.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (May 13, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> Crazy lady be confusing structural racism with racism.
> 
> Structural racism is that whole Prejudice + Power thing. And she can't be structurally racist because she's a person not an institution.
> 
> ...



Actually, that's incorrect, though I can't blame you since 'racism' has become something of an umbrella term. 

Prejudice, whether it be based on ethnicity, creed, or the color of your hair, is just...a preconceived notion, everyone has those to some degree like you said. 

Racism is actually _the differential treatment towards individuals, groups, and other entities based off that prejudice._

That's the classical, and more authentic definition.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (May 13, 2015)

WAD said:


> Actually, that's incorrect, though I can't blame you since 'racism' has become something of an umbrella term.
> 
> Prejudice, whether it be based on ethnicity, creed, or the color of your hair, is just...a preconceived notion, everyone has those to some degree like you said.
> 
> ...



To expand on this:

If I run a shop of some sort, and I see a black person coming in with a do-rag and I think "oh, they're probably going to rob me", but I put on my best customer service smile (which I normally do) and exchange goods for legal tender without incident, I wasn't being racist, I was being prejudiced.

Now, if I run a shop of some sort, and I see a black person coming in with a do-rag and I think "oh, they're probably going to rob me", but I then refuse them service, ask them to leave, or service them with a grimace, scowl, or frown whereas I normally smile with my other customers, then I am being racist. 

Racism always requires action, not just thoughts.


----------



## Jagger (May 13, 2015)

Kurokocchi said:


> She said:
> 
> "I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender.".


Which is incorrect and quite narrow-minded.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 13, 2015)

Kurokocchi said:


> The reasoning is pretty simple and based on history.
> 
> Being white and male is favorable, at least American society, but probably the UK as well.
> 
> ...



Even if we're going to assume that she did this because she wanted the participants to feel comfortable talking about the issues and saying what was on their minds, she had to know this would cause problems and that her statement in the end there was stupid. 

I mean, her assuming that every white male is going to be as racist or sexist as the next is the same kind of issue she is trying to stop. 

If she were smart, if she had any kind of sense or cunning about her she would have just issued a press statement saying that she was doing a social experiment and showing white men how it is to be left out of the discussion considering that was exactly how this country and many others worked for so long. 

It wouldn't have diffused the situation completely, but it would have kept some of the media off her back and made her look less incompetent. 

Now she's just come off as stupid and racist.


----------



## Unicornsilovethem (May 13, 2015)

When even CTK has to admit a non-white woman is racist and sexist, you know she's very deep into it.


----------



## Parallax (May 13, 2015)

holy shit that article is dumb as hell and this thread is dumb as hell

y'all some racist fucks


----------



## babaGAReeb (May 13, 2015)

this kurokochi retard


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 13, 2015)

WAD said:


> Actually, that's incorrect, though I can't blame you since 'racism' has become something of an umbrella term.
> 
> Prejudice, whether it be based on ethnicity, creed, or the color of your hair, is just...a preconceived notion, everyone has those to some degree like you said.
> 
> ...


Well that definition has kinda morphed into being basically the same as prejudice (though that term is broader in scope since racism is generally confined to color of skin and ethnicity).

Example:
Sending an email of Obama as a witch doctor eating watermelons.

That'd obviously be racist. But does anyone actually get treated differently in that interaction? Nope.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (May 13, 2015)

Actually, I stand corrected, racism is classically defined as the notion that a certain race is _superior or inferior_ to others as a whole. 

Though, I guess that's kind of complicated. Because I suppose for example with black people you can believe they are superior to white people because of having a stronger resistance to sunburn, but also inferior to them because of having a higher propensity to have sickle-cell anemia.


----------



## Risyth (May 13, 2015)

Zaru said:


> If I read this right, she didn't "ban" them, she asked them not to come. She didn't actually have the power to ban anyone.
> 
> Of course, if she had, she probably would have



*I thought she barred them. 

...oops...well if not, she can still be racist. *


----------



## Shinryu (May 13, 2015)

Why is this allowed? All it does is promote more hatred when college is for education, connection, and drunk parties. This is cancerous to the mood of the student populace. 

Racism is prejudice towards a person based on their racial identity so all you liberals bashing white people are racist.


----------



## Kurokocchi (May 13, 2015)

NaS said:


> [YOUTUBE]nQWIZGgCkw4[/YOUTUBE]



Exactly XD what show is this? I need to check it out.




sadated_peon said:


> If she wanted opinions then it serves no purpose to exclude by race or sex. As opinions are not assigned to a person race and sex.
> 
> I bet she would if she could.
> 
> ...



This goes along with the thinking that "anyone can make it if they work hard enough" aka the American dream.
Social class can be influenced by many things including race and gender, so I wouldn't count that as an identity factor. Concepts like race, gender, and sexual orientation stand on it's own and are not influenced by each other.

Also the fact that you defined social class in terms of white people just shows how prevalent white society is. I don't care about that. XD




Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Even if we're going to assume that she did this because she wanted the participants to feel comfortable talking about the issues and saying what was on their minds, she had to know this would cause problems and that her statement in the end there was stupid.
> 
> I mean, her assuming that every white male is going to be as racist or sexist as the next is the same kind of issue she is trying to stop.
> 
> ...



Some people can feel uncomfortable just by the presence of people. Why should the opinions of white men be taken into account when discussing how to diversify the curriculum?

Also she shouldn't have to explain herself or defer to anyone. XD

[YOUTUBE]VrNV-3wW_mo[/YOUTUBE]

I like this show XD Not surprised it has so many dislikes 
Neither can Latino, Asian, or any other minority group be racist towards white people :tehee



Btw you all are getting the definition of racism wrong.

This website will explain the difference between racism, prejudice, and bigotry, but since it's written by a so called sjw (white lady), you might discard it:



Prejudice is when a person negatively pre-judges another person or group without getting to know the beliefs, thoughts, and feelings behind their words and actions. A person of any racial group can be prejudiced towards a person of any other racial group. There is no power dynamic involved. 

Bigotry is stronger than prejudice, a more severe mindset and often accompanied by discriminatory behavior. It?s arrogant and mean-spirited, but requires neither systems nor power to engage in.

Racism is the system that allows the racial group that?s already in power to retain power. Since arriving on U.S. soil white people have used their power to create preferential access to survival resources (housing, education, jobs, food, health, legal protection, etc.) for white people while simultaneously impeding people of color?s access to these same resources.Though "reverse racism" is a term I sometimes hear, it has never existed in America. White people are the only racial group to have ever established and retained power in the United States. 

- See more at: 



babaGAReeb said:


> this kurokochi retard



I hope you don't use that word in common conversation, as it promotes ableism


----------



## Deputy Myself (May 13, 2015)

this is gold


----------



## Kurokocchi (May 13, 2015)

Deputy Myself said:


> this is gold



You're welcome


----------



## Shinryu (May 13, 2015)

Racism is racial prejudice you dumbfuck, I guess you cant be racist to black people in Detroit AM IT RIGHT? WHAT ABOUT AFRICA THE BLACKS HAVE ALL THE POWER IN AFRICA CANT BE RACIST TO PEOPLE WHO HOLD ALL THE POWER AM I RIGHT 

Cant be racist to Chinese in China
Cant be racist to Indians in India


You liberals are fucking idiots.


----------



## Zaru (May 13, 2015)

Kurokocchi said:


> Racism is the system that allows the racial group that?s already in power to retain power.



That's what some fringe groups try to redefine racism at

Here let me mansplain it to you in case this isn't a trolling attempt (in which case a successful one because I replied, 6/10):

For decades, "racism" was what people called when someone acted based on their racial prejudices (and in most cases, that was the majority demographic aka white people for obvious reasons)

The word was successfully turned into a weapon. If you get called racist, you're put on the defensive. You had to PROVE you were not racist, much like the Communist scare before it, or you were pretty much assassinated professionally and/or socially.

Now that the severity of the label is in the public mind, certain people realized that "wait a second, minorities can be huge fucking assholes based on racial prejudice too", and they didn't like it. They created a monster that was going to lash back at them. They wanted immunity from that weapon. So now they're trying to redefine it to principally apply to white people, preferably men, by pretending like ALL white people have systematic, institutional power over ALL minorities in ALL of the country at ALL times.

It's one of the biggest bullshit ideas of this century and the century isn't even 16 years old.


----------



## olaf (May 13, 2015)

> Some people can feel uncomfortable just by the presence of people. Why should the opinions of white men be taken into account when discussing how to diversify the curriculum?


do you even read what you write?


----------



## Kurokocchi (May 13, 2015)

This will be my last post here, as it's obvious nobody is leaving here with a different mindset XD



olaf said:


> do you even read what you write?



Yes, to put it in a more extreme and exaggerated example, (this might be a trigger for some) a rape victim would not feel comfortable discussing said rape with the rapist present.

Diversifying the curriculum in terms of it generally being favored towards white males. If you haven't noticed this fact you probably benefit from white privilege. 

Here's the gist of diversifying curriculum:
"Students who represent racial, gender, or sexual diversity need to see themselves in the curriculum."


----------



## Deputy Myself (May 13, 2015)

> Diversifying the curriculum in terms of it generally being favored towards white males.


I'm p sure most curriculums these days are biased towards women in general

but you probablyl know more about this stuff than we do


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 13, 2015)

This bitch be trolling.


----------



## Arishem (May 13, 2015)

Are there any safespaces where I won't be triggered by her problematic opinions?


----------



## Shinryu (May 13, 2015)

Kurokocchi said:


> Here's the gist of diversifying curriculum:
> "Students who represent racial, gender, or sexual diversity need to see themselves in the curriculum."



So why cant white people represent diversity, why the hell do you liberals attack your own race so much? I mean this is pure insanity to leave out one race of humans then go on about diversity. Diversity is only diversity when there are many different types of humans but even removing one type of human removes the diversity. Think of earth as a zoo and humans as various breeds. Wouldnt you want to see alot of variation in the human species? Then you would support whites having the right to live in their own countries and not worry about immigrants outbreeding them into extinction.

Consider this the whites are the only pale skinned Caucasoids and the only other pale skin races are the North East Mongoloids(Asians). It could be argued that the humans in Colombia and Venezuela are white since they descend directly from white spaniard though.

Once whites are gone it will be brown and black which is boring. Earth needs human diversity not brownification.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 13, 2015)

Shinryu said:


> Racism is racial prejudice you dumbfuck, I guess you cant be racist to black people in Detroit AM IT RIGHT? WHAT ABOUT AFRICA THE BLACKS HAVE ALL THE POWER IN AFRICA CANT BE RACIST TO PEOPLE WHO HOLD ALL THE POWER AM I RIGHT
> 
> Cant be racist to Chinese in China
> Cant be racist to Indians in India
> ...



Wow, you sound like the evil white character from old Spike Lee movies...


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 13, 2015)

babaGAReeb said:


> this kurokochi retard



Let's put him, Mega, ZerotheDestroyer, and Shinryu in a pit and have them destroy each other.


----------



## Evil (May 13, 2015)

Kurokocchi said:


> Some people can feel uncomfortable just by the presence of people. Why should the opinions of white men be taken into account when discussing how to diversify the curriculum?



Because they've done a bang up job so far.

These white men that you seem to care so little for, they stood by women to get the vote. They stood by black people, and fought in a war to end slavery. They protested and voted for the Civil Rights Act. They voted for the Equal Pay Act. They voted for Affirmative Action.

It seems people like to forget that these "assholes" that are in charge have been supporting the minorities that they hate, and love to oppress so much.

It's possible that they are reasonable people, who when you talk to them, reason with them, debate with them, have a vested interest in helping you out.

But, you know, I'm wrong. Let's start excluding them from the dicussion, I mean what could possibly go wrong from segregating a portion of the population.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 13, 2015)

Evil said:


> Because they've done a bang up job so far.
> 
> These white men that you seem to care so little for, they stood by women to get the vote. They stood by black people, and fought in a war to end slavery. They protested and voted for the Civil Rights Act. They voted for the Equal Pay Act. They voted for Affirmative Action.
> 
> ...



Everything you mentioned was caused by the white man.

White men declared men were only able to vote and have to be land owners.

The civil war was disparities in the South including owning slaves.

Civil rights act never should have taken place if whites would have just treated blacks equal from the start. Nothing you say really validates anything other than whites fixing their mistakes only after people have bitched about it.


----------



## Evil (May 13, 2015)

NaS said:


> Everything you mentioned was caused by the white man.



White men didn't create slavery, nor did white men take away the right of women to vote. In fact in a lot of places men didn't have the vote, and even when they got it, it came with the caveat that you have to serve your country if it goes to war- something women don't have to.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 13, 2015)

Evil said:


> White men didn't create slavery, nor did white men take away the right of women to vote. In fact in a lot of places men didn't have the vote, and even when they got it, it came with the caveat that you have to serve your country if it goes to war- something women don't have to.



Who created the triangular slave trade?


When were women able to finally cast a vote on their own?

Men couldn't vote if they weren't land owners.

And women in the US is now able to join infantry after how many years?

i don't think you know history.


----------



## EJ (May 13, 2015)

White women got the right to vote by using minorities as a stepping stone.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 13, 2015)

Flow said:


> White women got the right to vote by using minorities as a stepping stone.



Women in general...


----------



## Shinryu (May 13, 2015)

NaS said:


> Who created the triangular slave trade?
> 
> 
> When were women able to finally cast a vote on their own?
> ...



African women had no rights at all to begin with, at least white men taught the africans to see women as companions and not mindless fucktoys.


----------



## EJ (May 13, 2015)

I did not know Shinryu was posting in here.

Has he dolled up his face in blackface and started doing the sambo shuffle yet?


----------



## Hand Banana (May 13, 2015)

I have him on super ignore.


----------



## Kurokocchi (May 13, 2015)

Ok, thank you white people the saviours of all oppressed pplz




Ok now i'm officially out 

(Btw I am grateful for your spoilers Evil!)


----------



## Shinryu (May 13, 2015)

Flow said:


> I did not know Shinryu was posting in here.
> 
> Has he dolled up his face in blackface and started doing the sambo shuffle yet?



Thats racist you piece of shit


----------



## EJ (May 13, 2015)

NaS said:


> I have him on super ignore.



Everyone should do this.


----------



## Evil (May 13, 2015)

NaS said:


> Who created the triangular slave trade?



Right, so it was the triangular slave trade that God was talking about when he was mentioning about how badly you're allowed to beat the shit out of your slave.

Oh, and it was all those White Egyptians that Moses was talking about, I mean, cuz clearly their was no such concept as slavery back before the triangular slave trade.



NaS said:


> Men couldn't vote if they weren't land owners.



Rich Land Owners, it wasn't until 1850 that all white men could vote. 1919 for women. 



NaS said:


> And women in the US is now able to join infantry after how many years?



It's not about being able to join infantry, it's about being forced to sign up to get the right to vote.



Kurokocchi said:


> Ok, thank you white people the saviours of all oppressed pplz
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You don't get it, it's not about white saviors. It's about being ignorant. Pushing out white people is not going to help the cause, that's the point. All those things that happened in the past were because everyone worked together, isolating yourself in hug boxes gets nothing done.


----------



## Shinryu (May 13, 2015)

Back ontopic there is no reverse racism, racism is racism and anyone can be racist.

Just saying that all arabs like to lick soup is racist since it generalizes all arabs like to lick soup. Its that simple to be racist so many of you are racist in denial but keep acting all high and mighty you fucking hypocrites.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 13, 2015)

Evil said:


> Right, so it was the triangular slave trade that God was talking about when he was mentioning about how badly you're allowed to beat the shit out of your slave.



Slavery itself has been a construct of man's creation. The earliest we could go back documented still points to Ancient Greece, white men. before then it was what is known as the Middle East first, and then Egypt.



> Oh, and it was all those White Egyptians that Moses was talking about, I mean, cuz clearly their was no such concept as slavery back before the triangular slave trade.



Ancient Greece as I just said... white men.




> Rich Land Owners, it wasn't until 1850 that all white men could vote. 1919 for women.



You just invalidated yourself.





> It's not about being able to join infantry, it's about being forced to sign up to get the right to vote.



That makes no sense in your argument. You didn't have to be apart of the military to vote originally.

And I don't know why you're arguing American history when this didn't happen in America. Are you stupid or just can't comprehend?


----------



## Kurokocchi (May 13, 2015)

Evil said:


> Right, so it was the triangular slave trade that God was talking about when he was mentioning about how badly you're allowed to beat the shit out of your slave.
> 
> Oh, and it was all those White Egyptians that Moses was talking about, I mean, cuz clearly their was no such concept as slavery back before the triangular slave trade.
> 
> ...



If you saw the video where she gave her speech, there were about 2 white guys in the group. This implies that they are helping the cause, it's just one event about the school curriculum, that she politely asked white guys to stay out of. It's not like very many white guys actually cared about changing the curriculum, they just wanted something to complain about which is evident by the comments here and in that website.

This aint about voting rights, slavery, or anything like that. It's about a freaking school curriculum.

But you do have a point in that it might have helped to include white opinions. Might. They sure didn't have to though, and they didn't.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 13, 2015)

I hate typos.


----------



## Lestat Uchiha (May 13, 2015)

And this, Ladies and Gentleman, is modern Social Justice studies for you! It's perfectly ok to be smugly hateful to another human being as long as you are of the correct gender and ethnic background  Hell, it will even give you a position of authority in higher education so that you can fight the big bad white supremacist patriarchy that is supposed to prevent you from obtaining such positions, but it's not doing so right now because...reasons!


Now, in all seriousness, the first thing I thought of when reading this was the following:



The above is supposedly from a book called: "Is Everyone Really Equal?: An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education", which is a required reading in at least a couple of Canadian universities. I have not been able to find a copy of the book so I can't really be sure, but I now wouldn't be surprised if it's an actual quote from the book cause this is the type of shit coming out of SJW's mouths.

Honestly, Social Justice as an area of study needs to reform itself, merge with something else, or just fucking die. How can such a blatant double standard be conceived as "justice"?


----------



## Evil (May 13, 2015)

NaS said:


> Slavery itself has been a construct of man's created. The earliest we could go back still points to Ancient Greece, white men.
> 
> Ancient Greece as I just said... white men.



Lol, Slavery Predates recorded history, what are you talking about. It's mentioned in the code of Hammurabi, and existed in Ancient Egypt the earliest we could go back is easily 8,000 years before Ancient Greece.



NaS said:


> You just invalidated yourself.



No I didn't, just because men got the vote first doesn't mean they didn't also help women get it.



Kurokocchi said:


> If you saw the video where she gave her speech, there were about 2 white guys in the group. This implies that they are helping the cause, it's just one event about the school curriculum, that she politely asked white guys to stay out of. It's not like very many white guys actually cared about changing the curriculum, they just wanted something to complain about which is evident by the comments here and in that website.



What, so people don't have a right to complain about being excluded? Also how do you know what a lot of these people actually cared about, you're going of an assumption based on what happened after someone literally said "No whites allowed". 



Kurokocchi said:


> This aint about voting rights, slavery, or anything like that. It's about a freaking school curriculum.



You are missing the point. White people care, they want to be involved, they want to help make things better. They cared about slavery, they cared about equal rights, and they cared about voting. As for the ones who didn't care, it was by talking to them and reasoning with them that they started to care.

Even just sitting in that room listening to those people voice their opinions can make a difference.


----------



## Shinryu (May 13, 2015)

Also as I have said before Im black


----------



## EJ (May 13, 2015)

Why are you people arguing with Evil about the history of slavery though? Isn't that kind of irrelevant in this discussion right now? 

Spot on with including all races opinions but a warped view of history.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 13, 2015)

Evil said:


> Lol, Slavery Predates recorded history, what are you talking about. It's mentioned in the code of Hammurabi, and existed in Ancient Egypt the earliest we could go back is easily 8,000 years before Ancient Greece.



Before you made this post I mentioned documented. Also Slavery goes back to the Middle East first, and then Egypt.





> No I didn't, just because men got the vote first doesn't mean they didn't also help women get it.


The point was they should have never invalidated women from voting in the first place.


----------



## Kurokocchi (May 13, 2015)

Evil said:


> Lol, Slavery Predates recorded history, what are you talking about. It's mentioned in the code of Hammurabi, and existed in Ancient Egypt the earliest we could go back is easily 8,000 years before Ancient Greece.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sorry Evil, but maybe these marginalized women didn't want nor need the help of white guys in terms of school curriculum, even if they did care. As evidenced by this thread, race is a touchy subject for people. Maybe these marginalized women wouldn't feel comfortable voicing their opinions? I'm just asking you to take a side of understanding.

Yes, it is morally wrong to exclude people from events, but I can understand why she did so. It's also a good thing in a way since it brought this subject to light. Many of the concepts in her speech were not bullshit.


----------



## Evil (May 13, 2015)

NaS said:


> Before you made this post I mentioned documented. Also Slavery goes back to the Middle East first, and then Egypt.



You were stating that white people invented slavery, and the Code of Hammurabi is documented history. Also the ancient Middle East and ancient Egyptians weren't white and it was besides the point. 



NaS said:


> The point was they should have never invalidated women from voting in the first place.



They didn't invalidate women from voting, barely anyone had the vote including men, it was and always had been in the hands of the elite few. 

Human's are assholes, and this bickering and excluding each other based on skin color and gender gets absolutely nothing fucking done. White people, specifically men, aren't the fucking boogeymen under the bed, they actually can and do care about people just like everyone else does.

But excluding them and acting like assholes because some of them are assholes gets nothing done.



Kurokocchi said:


> I'm sorry Evil, but maybe these marginalized women didn't want nor need the help of white guys in terms of school curriculum, even if they did care. As evidenced by this thread, race is a touchy subject for people. Maybe these marginalized women wouldn't feel comfortable voicing their opinions? I'm just asking you to take a side of understanding.
> 
> Yes, it is morally wrong to exclude people from events, but I can understand why she did so. It's also a good thing in a way since it brought this subject to light. Many of the concepts in her speech were not bullshit.



So the solution is to marginalize others? You understand that if you marginalize only white men, that means you are in fact creating a system where by your group benefits while another doesn't. On top of that, if this is all women, and all PoC, that makes white men a minority in this situation.

This woman literally represents the thing she is supposedly against, and that is a group creating a system where by they oppress a smaller group.


----------



## Lestat Uchiha (May 13, 2015)

NaS said:


> Slavery itself has been a construct of man's creation. The earliest we could go back documented still points to Ancient Greece, white men. before then it was what is known as the Middle East first, and then Egypt.



Are you saying that the earliest records about slavery come from ancient Greece? I honestly hope that your sentence was just worded wrongly because Sir, I will have to call bull fucking shit on the above. Egypt was a slave owning civilization long before Greece was relevant to the ancient world. The code of Hammurabi, conceived by a middle eastern civilization in the second millennium BC, had laws regulating slave ownership (slavery would logically had been an earlier practice for it to need regulation). Slavery has been an omnipresent aspect of humanity in nearly every culture that did not need the white men to emerge. Case in point: Pre-columbine civilizations also knew and practiced slavery before the arrival of Europeans.

Yes, the European brand of slavery was a special kind of evil, but it was still a type of evil that civilizations from every continent indulged in.  





> That makes no sense in your argument. You didn't have to be apart of the military to vote originally.


The right to vote started with wealthy land-owners but was then expanded to military members around world war one (the US was a special case I believe as they got it during the civil war) when males began to be conscripted in mass. This was a turning point in voting rights as voting began to be associated more with service to the country rather than land ownership. This switch not only benefited males in some countries, but also benefited women as women who served the military (in support roles as well as nurses) obtained the right to vote as well. This switch facilitated universal suffrage for both males and females some time later, although unfortunately, voting rights for males are still tied to conscription at least indirectly (if you are conscripted, you need to register or else you won't be allowed to vote).


----------



## Kurokocchi (May 13, 2015)

Evil said:


> You were stating that white people invented slavery, and the Code of Hammurabi is documented history. Also the ancient Middle East and ancient Egyptians weren't white and it was besides the point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Like I posted before, white students represent more than half of the entire student body of that university (66%), so they are hardly marginalized. If anything that group should be composed of mostly white guys XD

The person in question is apparently a queer, disabled, minority women, so I can't even imagine the stuff she had to go through D:


----------



## Lestat Uchiha (May 13, 2015)

Kurokocchi said:


> Like I posted before, white students represent more than half of the entire student body of that university (66%), so they are hardly marginalized. If anything that group should be composed of mostly white guys XD
> 
> The person in question is apparently a queer, disabled, minority women, so I can't even imagine the stuff she had to go through D:



Just because a person is any of those things does not mean that she has personally experienced any of the potential negatives that are associated with those groups. And even if she has, that does not give her a free reign to be an intolerant asshole. She is a grown person, not a child. If she is saying and doing dumb things, people should tell her she is saying and doing dumb things regardless of her skin color, sexual orientation or sex. That IS equality.


----------



## Kurokocchi (May 13, 2015)

'We at UCLU stand in solidarity with Bahar Mustafa and the network and are disappointed in the decision to now allow ‘white allies’ to attend such events.
'Self-defining spaces are so important because the reality is it is not possible to have the discussions that need to be had with your oppressors in the room – even if they are not saying anything.'


Read more:  
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Exactly what I was trying to say! Thanks UCLU, at least some people get it XD


----------



## Evil (May 13, 2015)

Kurokocchi said:


> Like I posted before, white students represent more than half of the entire student body of that university (66%), so they are hardly marginalized. If anything that group should be composed of mostly white guys XD
> 
> The person in question is apparently a queer, disabled, minority women, so I can't even imagine the stuff she had to go through D:



And white men only represent 30% correct? And she has a particular hard on of hate for them, although at least in this incidence she was adamant of banishing the white women this time too.

Clearly not as much as a queer, disabled white women- amirite? Probably a lot more than a trans black man too.



Kurokocchi said:


> 'We at UCLU stand in solidarity with Bahar Mustafa and the network and are disappointed in the decision to now allow ‘white allies’ to attend such events.
> 'Self-defining spaces are so important because the reality is it is not possible to have the discussions that need to be had with your oppressors in the room – even if they are not saying anything.'
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe if you can't face your oppressors, then you shouldn't be leading the discussion. Best to sit down and let someone else talk. Jesus, can you imagine if Malcom X or MLK had been this much of a pussy we'd still have colored only fountains.


----------



## Kurokocchi (May 13, 2015)

Evil said:


> And white men only represent 30% correct? And she has a particular hard on of hate for them, although at least in this incidence she was adamant of banishing the white women this time too.
> 
> Clearly not as much as a queer, disabled white women- amirite? Probably a lot more than a trans black man too.



Okay that's fine. I don't want to argue with you anymore Evil, nobody's gonna change views here. XD


----------



## Hand Banana (May 13, 2015)

Evil said:


> You were stating that white people invented slavery, and the Code of Hammurabi is documented history. Also the ancient Middle East and ancient Egyptians weren't white and it was besides the point.



If they didn't invent it, they damn sure reinvented slavery.

Egyptian slavery:


> Slaves were mainly obtained through prisoners of war. Other ways people could become slaves was by inheriting the status from their parents. One could also become a slave on account of his inability to pay his debts. Slavery was the direct result of poverty. People also sold themselves into slavery because they were poor peasants and needed food and shelter. The lives of slaves were normally better than that of peasants. Slaves only attempted escape when their treatment was unusually harsh. For many, being a slave in Egypt made them better off than a freeman elsewhere.[1] Slaves had rights to protect them. Young slaves could not be put to hard work, and had to be brought up by the mistress of the household. Not all slaves went to houses. Some also sold themselves to temples, or were assigned to temples by the king. Slave trading was not very popular until later in Ancient Egypt. Afterwards, slave trades sprang up all over Egypt. However, there was barely any worldwide trade. Rather, individual dealers seem to have approached their customers personally.[2] Only slaves with special traits were traded worldwide. Prices of slaves changed with time. Slaves with a special skill were more valuable than those without one. Slaves had plenty of jobs that they could be assigned to. Some had domestic jobs, like taking care of children, cooking, brewing, or cleaning. Some were gardeners or field hands in stables. They could be craftsmen or even get a higher status, for example, if they could write, they could become a manager of the master's estate. Captive slaves were mostly assigned to the temples or king, and they had to do manual labor. The worst thing that could happen to a slave was being assigned to the quarries and mines. Private ownership of slaves, captured in war and given by the king to their captor, certainly occurred at the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty (1550–1295 BCE). Sales of slaves occurred in the Twenty-fifth Dynasty (732–656 BCE), and contracts of servitude survive from the Twenty-sixth Dynasty (c. 672 – 525 BCE) and from the reign of Darius: apparently such a contract then required the consent of the slave. Slavery is mentioned in The Torah, when the Hebrews were enslaved in Ancient Egypt.


So bad. When you think of slavery, the first thought that doesn't come to mind is Egyptian Slavery.




> They didn't invalidate women from voting, barely anyone had the vote including men, it was and always had been in the hands of the elite few.



The key word being men, white men at that. You couldn't be a woman and own land unless you were keeping it for a son to eventually take over.


----------



## Lestat Uchiha (May 13, 2015)

Kurokocchi said:


> 'We at UCLU stand in solidarity with Bahar Mustafa and the network and are disappointed in the decision to now allow ?white allies? to attend such events.
> 'Self-defining spaces are so important because the reality is it is not possible to have the discussions that need to be had with your oppressors in the room ? even if they are not saying anything.'
> 
> 
> ...



Safe spaces are utter bullshit. They are nothing more than eco-chambers for people to reinforce their already existing biases and segregate themselves from society at large, and an easy way for unscrupulous people to manipulate the naive for their own political agenda. The law already guarantees their free speech and their safety, and their ideas MUST be challenged in order to be better developed and survive scrutiny. 

Also, oppressors? Really?REALLY? Let's say I'm a middle aged white janitor who makes minimal wage, have a minority wife, children and I'm in huge debt in order to cover my uni expenses. For all intents and purposes, I'm at the bottom of the totem pole economically but have experience dealing with people with different backgrounds and I have some ideas regarding how to create better ethnic harmony. Under the rules of this 'safe spaces', I'm not allowed to voice my opinions because somehow I'm more privileged than all the minority members and women in the audience, many of whom have enough money and connections to piss away in useless degrees. Yes, that's bloody brilliant.


----------



## Lestat Uchiha (May 13, 2015)

NaS said:


> The key word being men, white men at that. You couldn't be a woman and own land unless you were keeping it for a son to eventually take over.


Or a widow without sons. Now ask yourself, what did men do with the land they had? Answer: They had to work it for the benefit of their wives and children. You didn't just have land for the sake of having land, you had it to support your family because men were obligated by law and costume in most cases to support their wives and all the children with their labor at the best of their capabilities. Such obligation was not extended to women, who even when they received economic independence were not obligated to share their income with the family unit. Men who did not work were not rarely branded as brigands (sometimes literally). 

Now, was this system a good one in hindsight? Not by a long shot as we now have much better ideas. Was this system deliberately evil? Not necessarily as there is logic behind it, just a more ruthless type of logic that has no place in the modern world and that is consistent with gender dimorphism.

Ok, that was a little of topic but the point that I was trying to make is that gender relations(and racial relations) are generally not as black as white as everybody makes them to be (with a few exceptions) so we shouldn't really use superficial looks at the past to make arguments about what's going on right now.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 13, 2015)

Lestat Uchiha said:


> Or a widow without sons. Now ask yourself, what did men do with the land they had? Answer: They had to work it for the benefit of their wives and children. You didn't just have land for the sake of having land, you had it to support your family because men were obligated by law and costume in most cases to support their wives and all the children with their labor at the best of their capabilities. Such obligation was not extended to women, who even when they received economic independence were not obligated to share their income with the family unit. Men who did not work were not rarely branded as brigands (sometimes literally).



I'll double check but without a son wasn't the wife's father to take over the land, she would need to remarry to keep it, or it was to be sold? Those still doesn't seem fair.



> Now, was this system a good one in hindsight? Not by a long shot as we now have much better ideas. Was this system deliberately evil? Not necessarily as there is logic behind it, just a more ruthless type of logic that has no place in the modern world and that is consistent with gender dimorphism.


I don't disagree.


----------



## Enclave (May 13, 2015)

NaS said:


> If they didn't invent it, they damn sure reinvented slavery.
> 
> Egyptian slavery:
> 
> ...



Actually the first thing that comes to mind when I think of slavery is indeed ancient Egypt.  You I suspect are failing to think globally.  I can totally get why an American would first think of white oppression when slavery is brought up but globally?  Most likely first jump to ancient Egypt.

Fact is though?  Slavery is all over the fucking place and always has been.  Just because we didn't have history recorded much before the ancient Egyptians doesn't mean they are the ones who first had slaves.  In fact it's probable that there was slavery back at the dawn of homosapiens in Africa, so if you want to figure out who invented slavery then it's probably Africans as that's where humans come from and we likely had slavery in some form even back then.

Humans invented slavery, don't just try to pin it to a specific race because no specific race invented it.  Hell, even when the Americans were getting slaves from Africa?  It was often Africans themselves who were kidnapping people and sending them off to America for the money.  Fancy that, every race is fucked up and has partaken in slavery, who'd have thought?


----------



## Hand Banana (May 13, 2015)

Enclave said:


> Actually the first thing that comes to mind when I think of slavery is indeed ancient Egypt.  You I suspect are failing to think globally.  I can totally get why an American would first think of white oppression when slavery is brought up but globally?  Most likely first jump to ancient Egypt.



I'm second American only being French first. So you don't know how I think.



> Fact is though?  Slavery is all over the fucking place and always has been.  Just because we didn't have history recorded much before the ancient Egyptians doesn't mean they are the ones who first had slaves.  In fact it's probable that there was slavery back at the dawn of homosapiens in Africa, so if you want to figure out who invented slavery then it's probably Africans as that's where humans come from and we likely had slavery in some form even back then.



never said it wasn't.  also credited slavery to being a creation to mankind first. But again when you think of slaves, the most likely reasonable thought that comes to mind is American slavery as they were the last civilized or first world country to rid it.

My point can be proven if you just google search slavery and the first result that comes up is American slavery.


----------



## Evil (May 13, 2015)

NaS said:


> If they didn't invent it, they damn sure reinvented slavery.



They just mass produced it and did it in the modern age, the bible talks of chattel slavery in Leviticus where slaves you buy are property that can be passed on as inheritance and treated as property. 



NaS said:


> So bad. When you think of slavery, the first thought that doesn't come to mind is Egyptian Slavery.



That's because Egyptian Slavery is 4,000 years removed from the modern age.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 13, 2015)

Evil said:


> They just mass produced it and did it in the modern age, the bible talks of chattel slavery in Leviticus where slaves you buy are property that can be passed on as inheritance and treated as property.



That was my point. Slavery in Egyptian days were no where as harsh as what the Romans did.





> That's because Egyptian Slavery is 4,000 years removed from the modern age.



It's also less thought of because of how non-harsh it was. i'm not going to justify their slavery was not wrong, but comparing it to European slavery I would rather the lessor of the two evils.


----------



## Lestat Uchiha (May 13, 2015)

NaS said:


> I'll double check but without a son wasn't the wife's father to take over the land, she would need to remarry to keep it, or it was to be sold? Those still doesn't seem fair..


To be honest, it depends entirely on the people, region and time. There was not a universal treatment of women, or men for that matter. For example, I found this paper a couple of hours ago:

The introduction outright states that women not being allowed to have property is a misconception and the paper itself seems to gives scenarios on which they could do so. I'll have to read the full paper to get all the details though.

Yes, this pertains only to England and a specific period of time, but that just proves my point: things are not as black as white as pop culture says they are. Even the code of Hammurabi, written four thousand years ago as I mentioned before, has circumstances written on which a woman may own land and property: widows (a running theme it appears to be) were entitled to a a share of her husband's estate equal to that of a son and I believe it even mentions she has the right to pick her next husband if she chooses to remarry. 

Yes, it's not fair under our 21rst century standards, but every period of history has it's own definition of fairness and equality. Take Ancient Sparta, for example, they considered themselves equal and both males and females were greatly revered in association to their circles of influence(their women are considered among the most powerful and free in the ancient world) yet according to our standards, they would just be another genocidal master race with a deeply segregated and brutal society. 

Our current ideas regarding morality and fairness are concepts that have evolved along with humanity, not that have existed since our origins. The morality we currently have is one that has been born thanks to an age of plenty and relative peace. The morality of the past was one that had survival and never-ending labor at its core. They were not pretty times at all and both men and women endured a lot of shit on their daily lives.




> I don't disagree.


I'm glad we can find some common ground.


----------



## Kurokocchi (May 13, 2015)

Okay my last post for real this time XD
Here's a list of white privileges that people often overlook written by a white dude. He listed around 50, but I'll only include a few:

I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

*I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.*

I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.

I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.

*I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.*

I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race.

I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and find someone who can cut my hair.

I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.

I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.

My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races.

I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking.

*I can think over many options, social, political, imaginative or professional, without asking whether a person of my race would be accepted or allowed to do what I want to do.*

If I have low credibility as a leader I can be sure that my race is not the problem.

*I can easily find academic courses and institutions which give attention only to people of my race.*

I can chose blemish cover or bandages in "flesh" color and have them more or less match my skin.- (LOL XD)

Lady named Peggy Macintosh:
"I was taught to see racism only in individual acts of meanness, not in invisible systems conferring dominance on my group," she wrote. As a white person, she "had been taught about racism as something that puts others at a disadvantage, but had been taught not to see one of its corollary aspects, white privilege, which puts me at an advantage.... I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was 'meant' to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools , and blank checks. Describing white privilege makes one newly accountable."


----------



## Hand Banana (May 13, 2015)

Lestat Uchiha said:


> To be honest, it depends entirely on the people, region and time. There was not a universal treatment of women, or men for that matter. For example, I found this paper a couple of hours ago:
> 
> The introduction outright states that women not being allowed to have property is a misconception and the paper itself seems to gives scenarios on which they could do so. I'll have to read the full paper to get all the details though.



Do indeed follow up, because the Common Law of England is what I was stating and was stated in the actual paper itself, especially land ownership and rights of women. there are examples of woman able to defy the law, the the weight of that does not outweigh what was common.



> Yes, this pertains only to England and a specific period of time, but that just proves my point: things are not as black as white as pop culture says they are. Even the code of Hammurabi, written four thousand years ago as I mentioned before, has circumstances written on which a woman may own land and property: widows (a running theme it appears to be) were entitled to a a share of her husband's estate equal to that of a son and I believe it even mentions she has the right to pick her next husband if she chooses to remarry.
> 
> Yes, it's not fair under our 21rst century standards, but every period of history has it's own definition of fairness and equality. Take Ancient Sparta, for example, they considered themselves equal and both males and females were greatly revered in association to their circles of influence(their women are considered among the most powerful and free in the ancient world) yet according to our standards, they would just be another genocidal master race with a deeply segregated and brutal society.
> 
> Our current ideas regarding morality and fairness are concepts that have evolved along with humanity, not that have existed since our origins. The morality we currently have is one that has been born thanks to an age of plenty and relative peace. The morality of the past was one that had survival and never-ending labor at its core.



This was common in France too as I learned in history. 





> I'm glad we can find some common ground.



me too because I don't want to get off on the wrong foot here. Especially about an argument I didn't start.


----------



## Enclave (May 13, 2015)

NaS said:


> It's also less thought of because of how non-harsh it was. i'm not going to justify their slavery was not wrong, but comparing it to European slavery I would rather the lessor of the two evils.



How was it non-harsh?  Whipping slaves, killing them if you wanted.  Lifetime of hard labour.  When you die you seal your slaves up with you so you can take them to the underworld with you.  I'm not seeing how it's non-harsh.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 13, 2015)

Enclave said:


> How was it non-harsh?  Whipping slaves, killing them if you wanted.  Lifetime of hard labour.  When you die you seal your slaves up with you so you can take them to the underworld with you.  I'm not seeing how it's non-harsh.



Egpytions didn't go around and beat their slaves like it was common in European slavery. Again, I'm not saying their slavery was not without it's faults, but it lessors to the evil of what Europeans did. And as I pointed out all slavery in Egypt wasn't about hard labor.


----------



## Evil (May 13, 2015)

NaS said:


> That was my point. Slavery in Egyptian days were no where as harsh as what the Romans did.



The Book of Leviticus predates the Roman Empire by a few centuries, and takes place in the middle east.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 13, 2015)

Evil said:


> The Book of Leviticus predates the Roman Empire by a few centuries, and takes place in the middle east.





NaS said:


> Slavery itself has been a construct of man's creation. The earliest we could go back documented still points to Ancient Greece, white men. *before then it was what is known as the Middle East* first, and then Egypt.



 You don't say?


----------



## Enclave (May 13, 2015)

NaS said:


> Egpytions didn't go around and beat their slaves like it was common in European slavery. Again, I'm not saying their slavery was not without it's faults, but it lessors to the evil of what Europeans did. And as I pointed out all slavery in Egypt wasn't about hard labor.



Not all the slavery in Europe was that harsh either but you seem to want to focus on just the worst of it (which is fine, slavery is fucking disgusting) but if you're going to focus on the worst of European slavery then you should do the same for Egyptian slavery at which point it's pretty much just as harsh as European slavery and in some ways?  Even worse.  I don't know if I ever heard of a slave owner when they died having their slaves buried alive with them.  Rather ownership would just transfer.


----------



## The World (May 13, 2015)

NaS you give Nas a bad name

if he met you I hope he breaks you out of Attica and sends your ass to Africa

specifically somalia or nigeria


----------



## Deputy Myself (May 13, 2015)

NaS said:


> Who created the triangular slave trade?
> 
> 
> When were women able to finally cast a vote on their own?
> ...



you're right

all of this was literally caused by me
the proof is in the pigmentation of my skin
you've figured me out


----------



## Hand Banana (May 13, 2015)

Enclave said:


> Not all the slavery in Europe was that harsh either but you seem to want to focus on just the worst of it (which is fine, slavery is fucking disgusting) but if you're going to focus on the worst of European slavery then you should do the same for Egyptian slavery at which point it's pretty much just as harsh as European slavery and in some ways?  Even worse.  I don't know if I ever heard of a slave owner when they died having their slaves buried alive with them.  Rather ownership would just transfer.



Jumping to conclusion. back then being buried with a pharaoh wasn't a bad thing. I mean yea buried alive and all. But for those slaves they were PoW. Again i'm not justifying, I'm just picking the lessor of the two evils.



The World said:


> NaS you give Nas a bad name
> 
> if he met you I hope he breaks you out of Attica and sends your ass to Africa
> 
> specifically somalia or uganda



Thank you for your opinion and may Zeus bless your house with something you favor?


----------



## Lestat Uchiha (May 13, 2015)

NaS said:


> Do indeed follow up, because the Common Law of England is what I was stating and was stated in the actual paper itself, especially land ownership and rights of women. there are examples of woman able to defy the law, the the weight of that does not outweigh what was common.


I posted that in reference to your comment about women not being allowed to own land unless it would end up in the hands of a male eventually, and I go back to the argument of why the land was given to men by default: because they were obligated to provide for their wife and children and women were not obligated to do so until the husband was deceased.  Land wasn't given just for the sake of giving it, but it had to be used for supporting a family, and all that responsibility fell officially under the man. I say officially because history also shows that women routinely went outside of their official realm of influence, but that's beside the point. 

Now, the million dollar question is:  why men had the official role? The easy answer is off course "because one day men decided they would do everything and oppress women (Patriarchy)" but history resists simplicity and I for one don't think women are so incapable that they would let themselves be totally subjugated by men. One only has to look at how other sexually dimorphic species(specially other primates) behave to find a more logical answer based on nature: males typically leave the shelter and females look after it; males are typically the first line of defense for children, the females are the second. Most of the activities that were considered male- warfare, politics, trade, voting, ect- are all the ones one can only do when leaving the safety of the home and it makes sense that when the male is impaired or deceased, the female(the second line) would take over when she absolutely has to(Fun fact, wives of guild members such as smiths were allowed to practice the trade if their husbands passed away and they had children to mantain).  We have, by instinct or cultural continuation, been performing the same roles in a way for the past tens of thousands of years and they have only recently become completely obsolete as mechanization has replaced hard labor as the basis of civilization. 

To be honest, I don't think (or at least have serious doubts) that the average woman of the past would have thought of herself as oppressed, or at least no more oppressed that her husband (who had a legal obligation to support the whole family and who could also pay for crimes committed by his wife). She was just fulfilling her role in society as taught by her own mother and doing the best she could do with the tools she had. Same with men, who overwhelmingly just worried about surviving along with their families to the next winter while praying that famine, pestilence or war would not touch their village.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 14, 2015)

Lestat Uchiha said:


> I posted that in reference to your comment about women not being allowed to own land unless it would end up in the hands of a male eventually, and I go back to the argument of why the land was given to men by default: because they were obligated to provide for their wife and children and women were not obligated to do so until the husband was deceased.  Land wasn't given just for the sake of giving it, but it had to be used for supporting a family, and all that responsibility fell officially under the man. I say officially because history also shows that women routinely went outside of their official realm of influence, but that's beside the point.



Right. I understand that, and with land the man was responsible for his property which women was considered property. but if you really look at it, I know it wasn't purely to objectify women, but it did show they were property nonetheless. Clearly different than what we (outside of religion) consider what marriage is today. We both clearly understand each other on that.



> Now, the million dollar question is:  why men had the official role? The easy answer is off course "because one day men decided they would do everything and oppress women (Patriarchy)" but history resists simplicity and I for one don't think women are so incapable that they would let themselves be totally subjugated by men. One only has to look at how other sexually dimorphic species(specially other primates) behave to find a more logical answer based on nature: males typically leave the shelter and females look after it; males are typically the first line of defense for children, the females are the second. Most of the activities that were considered male- warfare, politics, trade, voting, ect- are all the ones one can only do when leaving the safety of the home and it makes sense that when the male is impaired or deceased, the female(the second line) would take over when she absolutely has to(Fun fact, wives of guild members such as smiths were allowed to practice the trade if their husbands passed away and they had children to mantain).  We have, by instinct or cultural continuation, been performing the same roles in a way for the past tens of thousands of years and they have only recently become completely obsolete as mechanization has replaced hard labor as the basis of civilization.



You're absolutely right. I do believe it's instinct. When my wife got pregnant, I instinctively wanted her to sell her job (My wife owned a big strip club in this area) and become a caretaker. i think the difference from today as opposed to former times is it was merely a choice of decision as opposed to enforcing her to do so; but even as a caretaker her rights to vote, participate in meetings and so forth should have still remained; but again that was justifiable in those times and it's something we slowly moved past. So another point where we can agree.



> To be honest, I don't think (or at least have serious doubts) that the average woman of the past would have thought of herself as oppressed, or at least no more oppressed that her husband (who had a legal obligation to support the whole family and who could also pay for crimes committed by his wife). She was just fulfilling her role in society as taught by her own mother and doing the best she could do with the tools she had. Same with men, who overwhelmingly just worried about surviving along with their families to the next winter while praying that famine, pestilence or war would not touch their village.



Honestly I don't think so either, the problem with my thinking is the time we live in now as opposed to what was before. A lot of those women albeit caretakers and whatnot still lived a good and healthy lifestyle, but it's definitely something I wouldn't want our women of today to live in.


----------



## 海外ニキ (May 14, 2015)

The Handsome Klad said:


> I just skimmed your post. But still relevant in this case.



You completely skimmed over.....a couple dictionary links?

No wonder there are concerns over general literacy nowadays.


----------



## Lestat Uchiha (May 14, 2015)

NaS said:


> Right. I understand that, and with land the man was responsible for his property which women was considered property. but if you really look at it, I know it wasn't purely to objectify women, but it did show they were property nonetheless. Clearly different than what we (outside of religion) consider what marriage is today. We both clearly understand each other on that..


Yeah, women in some codes of law (can't say all though as I'm not well versed in all) were akin to property. We have to consider thought that so were children, including the males ones, as well as any male slaves the household would have. Everybody was objectified in one way or another at some point in time, either based on station or utility. Good we can understand each other though.


.





> You're absolutely right. I do believe it's instinct. When my wife got pregnant, I instinctively wanted her to sell her job (My wife owned a big strip club in this area) and become a caretaker. i think the difference from today as opposed to former times is it was merely a choice of decision as opposed to enforcing her to do so; but even as a caretaker her rights to vote, participate in meetings and so forth should have still remained; but again that was justifiable in those times and it's something we slowly moved past. So another point where we can agree..


Glad we can agree on this as well.




> Honestly I don't think so either, the problem with my thinking is the time we live in now as opposed to what was before. A lot of those women albeit caretakers and whatnot still lived a good and healthy lifestyle, but it's definitely something I wouldn't want our women of today to live in.


That's also exactly how I think as well. Gender roles of the past were there because of survival and because we just didn't know anything better. Think of our modern view of gender relations as something akin to the concept of the wheel. Would you say the caveman was stupid because he didn't come up with something as useful and (in hindsight) as obvious as the wheel to move baggage more easily?  No, off course not. We now know better ways.

Gender equality, and in the same vain universal human rights in general, came at the time when both men and women were ready to take that leap and abandon a way of thought that had kept humanity alive and well since our beginning, all for the sake of finding a better way of doing things. That is why I'm so against the type of people described in the article in the OP. The type of people who want to reduce the sum of all human interactions into a simple oppressor and oppressed model that ignores the magnificent achievements and evolution of human societies into something more genuinely equal and prosperous. The type of people who believe that the solution to the segregation and inequalities of the past is segregation and double standards(the "there's no reverse racism" bullshit). And the type of people who love to use a past that they don't fully comprehend to make bold claims about our current interactions.  The only way I see for us to actually start working together is to actually acknowledge that we all suffer and stop treating somebody's pain or experiences as lesser than one's own. That's why everybody should have a voice no matter what, because in the end we are all human beings, and preventing somebody to have that voice is denying them that humanity. To think that you are allowed to speak anywhere while demanding for others not to raise their point of views is not justice, it's entitlement.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 14, 2015)

Kurokocchi said:


> This goes along with the thinking that "anyone can make it if they work hard enough" aka the American dream.


No it doesn't



Kurokocchi said:


> Social class can be influenced by many things including race and gender, so I wouldn't count that as an identity factor. Concepts like race, gender, and sexual orientation stand on it's own and are not influenced by each other.


I wouldn't count anything as an identity factor, because identity politics is an idiotic concept. 
Race, gender and sexual orientation are much less influence in determining privilege than social economic factors. Being wealth/upper class now, and in the past has always, and I mean ALWAYS, outweighed gender or race. 



Kurokocchi said:


> Also the fact that you defined social class in terms of white people just shows how prevalent white society is. I don't care about that. XD


Once again I have no clue where you derived this from my post, as I specifically mentioned that race or gender was subservient to your social class. 

Where you reading some other reply that wasn't mind and quoted me by accident?


----------



## ThunderCunt (May 14, 2015)

Kurokocchi said:


> She said:
> 
> "I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender."
> 
> ...



This is just so misinformed. I give up.


----------



## Saishin (May 14, 2015)

> "Therefore, women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system.”[/quote[
> Bullshits,the issue to be a minority,or men/women of colour is relative.It's not a matter to have a different ethnicity or have a different skin color.Everyone of us regardless of these things can be racist.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 14, 2015)

Someone needs to learn how to use BB codes.


----------



## Alwaysmind (May 14, 2015)

Well the alternative in this case word be gender classrooms or gender schools such as High School for Boys and High School for Girls, just like 100 years ago. 
If she wants more diversity, she has to include a small portion of the majority.

And racism is not only one way, the reason for that racism will have different aims ("benefits").


----------



## Buskuv (May 14, 2015)

NaS said:


> Someone needs to learn how to use BB codes.



How about you check your VB privilege instead?


----------



## Jagger (May 14, 2015)

This thread should be nuked, to be honest.


----------



## olaf (May 14, 2015)

Jagger said:


> This thread should be nuked, to be honest.


nuke? another tool of white priviledge


----------



## Pilaf (May 14, 2015)

scerpers said:


> and this is a level beyond super retard
> you can call it super retard 2



"AND THIS..IS TO GO...EVEN FARTHER BEYOND...ARGGGHHHHH"


----------



## Krory (May 15, 2015)

>People pretending this hasn't been taught in American universities for nearly a decade


----------



## Hand Banana (May 15, 2015)

Dr. Boskov Krevorkian said:


> How about you check your VB privilege instead?



Naw im straight. Never waste my fucking time again tho.


----------



## Garfield (May 15, 2015)

I troll like she's feeling.


----------



## Romanticide (May 15, 2015)

That lady is a moron.


----------



## Jeff (May 15, 2015)

I studied race/ethnicity for 4 years and graduated with a degree in Ethnic Studies with six others in my class.  SIX.  And there aren't many universities focusing on race/ethnicity either.  They've tried killing my program 2 - 3 times since I graduated.  There was never talk about hate in my courses that covered racism over 300 years of American history.  There was discourse about solutions that got a little drastic at times, but given the information and explanations behind racism, one can make a fair stance on equality and what it really means.

But now we have thousands upon millions of people using "racism" to  justify or explain things when they cannot even properly define it or know the solutions.  Pundits only know their facts about race from what is found on the media and in black & white.  And these opinions are being shared by everyone.

Social media perpetuates the word so much there's no consensus as to what causes racism and ethnic prejudice; just people shooting their defensive, self-entitled mouths off at others who are not their race because their way of combating it is to accuse and point fingers.


----------



## Shakar (May 15, 2015)

> She wrote on Facebook: ?Invite loads of BME Women and non-binary people!! Also, if you?ve been invited and you?re a man and/or white PLEASE DON?T COME just cos I invited a bunch of people and hope you will be responsible enough to respect this is a BME Women and non-binary event only.?


----------



## Zaru (May 24, 2015)

If anyone wondered how this turned out:


----------



## Lucaniel (May 24, 2015)

she looks pretty white to me


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (May 24, 2015)

she's probably a reverse Fang


----------



## Lucaniel (May 24, 2015)

holy shit, she *IS *a reverse fang!!!!!! holy shit mind fucking blown


----------



## Blue (May 24, 2015)

Fucking justice.

And yeah, she's pretty white. Jordanian, I'm guessing, with that name and that face.


----------



## Zaru (May 24, 2015)

Lucaniel said:


> she looks pretty white to me



"White" women are to bigoted leftists what young male converts in Europe are to Islam.
Trying extra hard with the hatred because they feel like they need to prove themselves.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 24, 2015)

What is a reverse fang? Never heard of this.


----------



## Blue (May 24, 2015)

NaS said:


> What is a reverse fang? Never heard of this.



Fang is an Iranian (Persian) who is kind of a white supremacist. 

Contrast to this bitch who is probably in roughly the same ethnic group.


----------



## olaf (May 24, 2015)

I've just read article defending her as "ironic misndrist" which tried to fight oppresion with irony

over 9000 wats


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (May 24, 2015)

Lucaniel said:


> she looks pretty white to me



she's afghan (or a persian from that interstate proximity), judging by her name 

so take that as you will


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (May 24, 2015)

Things like this story are ridiculous. Of course, this woman is batshit insane and hopefully no black people allied themselves with this troll. That being said, if this is as bad as reverse racism gets, sign me up. If given the choice between being a white guy who isn't allowed into some fringe retarded feminist group or being a black guy facing an all white jury for some minor possession charge or on a false rape claim, I'd choose the former every day of the week..


----------



## Lucaniel (May 24, 2015)

yeah i know the name implies non-white

just sayin' she basically just look like a standard white person


----------



## Punk Zebra (May 24, 2015)

Racism does not mean you do not like someone based off their skin color or certain qualities. Racism is institutionalized.  

The definition of institutional racism is the *collective* failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin which can be seen or detected in processes; attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantages minority ethnic people

Therefore the women is right because she is not in the *position of power* to affect white men or white peoples lives. This women falls in the line of prejudice or biased.


----------



## Blue (May 24, 2015)

Punk Zebra said:


> Racism does not mean you do not like someone based off their skin color or certain qualities.



Yes it does.


----------



## Lucaniel (May 24, 2015)

Punk Zebra said:


> Racism does not mean you do not like someone based off their skin color or certain qualities. Racism is institutionalized.
> 
> The definition of institutional racism is the *collective* failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin which can be seen or detected in processes; attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantages minority ethnic people
> 
> Therefore the women is right because she is not in the *position of power* to affect white men or white peoples lives. This women falls in the line of prejudice or biased.



"racism does not mean..."
"the definition of _institutional_ racism..."


----------



## Evil (May 24, 2015)

Punk Zebra said:


> Racism does not mean you do not like someone based off their skin color or certain qualities. Racism is institutionalized.
> 
> The definition of institutional racism is the *collective* failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin which can be seen or detected in processes; attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantages minority ethnic people
> 
> Therefore the women is right because she is not in the *position of power* to affect white men or white peoples lives. This women falls in the line of prejudice or biased.



No.

racism (countable and uncountable, plural racisms)

    The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
    The belief that one race or group of races is superior or inferior to another race or group of races.
    Prejudice or discrimination based upon race.  [quotations ▼]

        Malcolm X and Martin Luther King both spoke out against racism.


----------



## CrazyAries (May 24, 2015)

Punk Zebra said:


> *Racism does not mean you do not like someone based off their skin color or certain qualities. Racism is institutionalized. *
> 
> The definition of institutional racism is the *collective* failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin which can be seen or detected in processes; attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantages minority ethnic people
> 
> Therefore the women is right because she is not in the *position of power* to affect white men or white peoples lives. This women falls in the line of prejudice or biased.



This has got to stop. Racism, from what most of us understand, is defined as a form of prejudice based on race. Where did this institutional component come into play? People are trying to redefine the word. By the way, institutional racism is a form of *discrimination*, when one acts on his prejudices.

So yeah, this student union officer was being racist (and sexist) by banning all whites and men from attending her event. It was ironic, too since it was diversity.


----------



## Krory (May 24, 2015)

Can't tell if Punk Zebra is a tumblrina or not.


----------



## Pliskin (May 24, 2015)

I don't see what that discussion should even accomplish. Instituionalized racism stems from prejudice, remove it and no sane society would act to discriminate. Otoh, giving  that definition makes the fight against racism divisive, an us against them thing. It also gives actual white racists an easily avoidable rallying cry.


----------



## Kurokocchi (May 24, 2015)

Zaru said:


> If anyone wondered how this turned out:



Lol can you really blame her after what's happened? XD
Doesn't change the fact that she was right about the other stuff 
Investigated over a hashtag XD



Punk Zebra said:


> Racism does not mean you do not like someone based off their skin color or certain qualities. Racism is institutionalized.
> 
> The definition of institutional racism is the *collective* failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin which can be seen or detected in processes; attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantages minority ethnic people
> 
> Therefore the women is right because she is not in the *position of power* to affect white men or white peoples lives. This women falls in the line of prejudice or biased.



Don't bother trying to explain.

*Sigh*


> Still, the vitriol against Mustafa has been extraordinary to witness. Graphic rape threats have been made against her, and a petition on 4Chan calling for her resignation garnered more than 19,000 signatures. While people will debate her response to accusations of racism and her refusal to change her stance, Mustafa?s outspoken effort to empower women and ?non-binary? individuals is undoubtedly bringing up pressing questions of expression in today?s social media sphere, a place that in theory is safe but where women and minorities continue to face similar threats.
> 
> Slate?s Amanda Hess put it best: ?This is the time we live in: Thousands of people have signed a petition to unseat a woman they?ve never heard of from a position they don?t understand at a school they?ve never visited over a tweet they?ve never seen.?





Oh yeah this reminds me of XD


----------



## Evil (May 24, 2015)

Kurokocchi said:


> Lol can you really blame her after what's happened? XD
> Doesn't change the fact that she was right about the other stuff
> Investigated over a hashtag XD



When you play a Game of Identity Politics, there are going to be sacrifices. 




Kurokocchi said:


> Don't bother trying to explain.



Exactly, because the explanation being put forward is a ridiculous attempt to shape language. Racism is racism, it's time to stop pretending that it requires anything other than contempt for another race.



Kurokocchi said:


> *Sigh*
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah this reminds me of XD



Sure does suck when people turn your own tactics on you.


----------



## Krory (May 24, 2015)

> Graphic rape threats have been made against her, and a petition on 4Chan calling for her resignation garnered more than 19,000 signatures.



Yes, because those two are exactly on the same league.


----------



## Kurokocchi (May 24, 2015)

Evil said:


> When you play a Game of Identity Politics, there are going to be sacrifices.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah okay XD
Too bad she doesn't have any dragons like good ol' Dany  I guess you could say she doesn't have any _power_ in society /flies off


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (May 24, 2015)

Let's keep things in prospective; within historical context and modern times White Men have never really been discriminated against or oppressed, so what would they really bring to the event?

How can you discriminate against the people who hold all the privilege in society?


----------



## Hand Banana (May 24, 2015)

MbS said:


> Let's keep things in prospective; within historical context and modern times White Men have never really been discriminated against or oppressed, so what would they really bring to the event?
> 
> How can you discriminate against the people who hold all the privilege in society?



Don't believe this is MbS. Account got hacked. Reporting.


----------



## Pliskin (May 24, 2015)

MbS said:


> Let's keep things in prospective; within historical context and modern times White Men have never really been discriminated against or oppressed, so what would they really bring to the event?
> 
> How can you discriminate against the people who hold all the privilege in society?



Don't disagree, however that is not the same as saying ethnic minorities cannot be racist.


----------



## Evil (May 24, 2015)

Kurokocchi said:


> Yeah okay XD
> Too bad she doesn't have any dragons like good ol' Dany  I guess you could say she doesn't have any _power_ in society /flies off



Yep, no power at all. That poor *Student Union Officer* in one of the Top 35 Research Universities in the UK, Top 10 in Art and Design, who received a vote of no confidence by her peers.

Maybe she should have taken to heart the fact that discrimination is shitty, regardless of who it's aimed at.



MbS said:


> Let's keep things in prospective; within historical context and modern times White Men have never really been discriminated against or oppressed, so what would they really bring to the event?
> 
> How can you discriminate against the people who hold all the privilege in society?



Keep it to modern times, in North America and the UK. As for what they could bring to the event, their own perspective, it's also hard to hate white people when you realize they are people like yourself. All these "safe" and inclusive places do, is to circle jerk white hate, it's the reason we tossed out segregation in the first place.

We've seen what these safe spaces amount to, see: Tumblr. It's nothing good or worthwhile.

Very easily, by hating them simply because they are a different skin color than you or devaluing their experiences or contribution because of your notions of "privilege".

I think it's also important to note she blocked White People, and Men, not just White Men. That means African American Men, Asian Men, White Women, Native American Men.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (May 24, 2015)

Punk Zebra said:


> Racism does not mean you do not like someone based off their skin color or certain qualities. Racism is institutionalized.



Sexism does not mean prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex. Sexism is institutionalized.

Classism does not mean prejudice against or in favor of people belonging to a particular social class. Classism is institutionalized.


Hard-leftist idiocy does not mean cherrypicking sub-definitions of words to dodge hypocrisy.  Hard-leftist idiocy is institutionalized.


----------



## Lestat Uchiha (May 24, 2015)

MbS said:


> *Let's keep things in prospective; within historical context and modern times White Men have never really been discriminated against or oppressed*, so what would they really bring to the event?


The Irish and Ukrainians (from the top of my head) send their regards.


Seriously, this argument needs to fucking die. White people have been oppressing and discriminating each other for pretty much their entire history. And so have Black people, Indians, First nations, East Asians, etc. They all did that because humans are dicks and because of tribal mentality. The only reason why it's more prevalent in white history is because they were the first to take it global, which shaped a more extreme version of this (not justifying it in any way, shape or form btw, ).  Should we bring the Muslim, Mongol and Turkish Conquests?  No, because that's irrelevant. Racism is racism just like hate is hate. We are never going to be an equal society in dignity until we give up this 'retribution' view of race relations.




> How can you discriminate against the people who hold all the privilege in society?


The ultimate privilege in this world is money, which nullifies pretty much any "privilege" based on skin. Considering how the racist in question from this article lives on a half a million pound house with her parents and had enough money to spend in a degree with low return prospects, I think chances are pretty safe that she has more economic privilege that most working class people. That is without counting the fact that she has a decision making position in an institution of higher education that gives her power to exclude whoever she wants.


----------



## Blue (May 24, 2015)

Kurokocchi said:


> Yeah okay XD
> Too bad she doesn't have any dragons like good ol' Dany  I guess you could say she doesn't have any _power_ in society /flies off



So let me get this straight: If she did have dragons and could have her enemies incinerated and eaten at will, THEN she would be a racist? Because of her dragon privilege?


----------



## Gino (May 24, 2015)

The vast..........vast majority of you are ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".).


----------



## Blue (May 24, 2015)

Gino said:


> The vast..........vast majority of you are ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".).



You too, bae. Bend over.


----------



## Gino (May 24, 2015)

Don't roll that way.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (May 24, 2015)

We need a culling.


----------



## Evil (May 24, 2015)

Gino said:


> The vast..........vast majority of you are ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".).




_BRUB BBRUUUBBB BRRUBB!_


----------



## Gino (May 24, 2015)

Haven't watched a south park episode since the 90's is it still good?


----------



## Monna (May 24, 2015)

Gino said:


> Haven't watched a south park episode since the 90's is it still good?


Actually... it is.


----------



## EJ (May 24, 2015)

In response to the other post in this thread:

Think people are more in touch with hating a country like the US's history and Europeans back then who either

1. Turned a blind eye to oppression/racism

2. Supported it

It causes more fuel to the fire when minorities see white people act as if they don't have certain privileges, have better exposure through the media, etc. Regardless, what a lot of people fail to realize is that you can't get rid of a scar that was placed right on someone's face and it does not help when you don't work to 'heal the wound' so to speak. Other people don't realize that you have to learn to come to grips with the past and move forward because expecting the world to give a shit about you and your negative past is funny but depressing at the same time.


----------



## babaGAReeb (May 24, 2015)

this hoe is just an attention whore


----------



## Hand Banana (May 25, 2015)

Evil said:


> _BRUB BBRUUUBBB BRRUBB!_


----------



## Unicornsilovethem (May 25, 2015)

afgpride said:


> Sexism does not mean prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex. Sexism is institutionalized.
> 
> Classism does not mean prejudice against or in favor of people belonging to a particular social class. Classism is institutionalized.



You are wrong. Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination on the basis of sex is *exactly* what sexism means. We can all see that you are trying to redefine the terms. And we can all see that the reason you're trying to redefine them, is to hide and legitimize your own sexism.


----------



## Deer Lord (May 25, 2015)

> Came beacuse title was amusing
> read the article, had a laugh
> saw this thread has 10 pages
nope nope nope


----------



## Seraphiel (May 25, 2015)

Deer Lord said:


> > Came beacuse title was amusing
> > read the article, had a laugh
> > saw this thread has 10 pages
> nope nope nope



I read it all just now. The memes are out of control.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 25, 2015)

Unicornsilovethem said:


> You are wrong. Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination on the basis of sex is *exactly* what sexism means. We can all see that you are trying to redefine the terms. And we can all see that the reason you're trying to redefine them, is to hide and legitimize your own sexism.



He's being sarcastic.


----------



## olaf (May 25, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> He's being sarcastic.


I thought that Unicornsilovethem was as well . Poe's Law at work

EDIT: I was wrong


----------



## Unicornsilovethem (May 25, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> He's being sarcastic.



Okay. My comment stands, towards people who really believe what he wrote.


----------



## IchLiebe (May 25, 2015)

Whats funny is that everyone sees it as a white/everyone else issue. People cling on to slavery and social injustices like its their momma's tit. Well news to everyone slavery is worldwide and enacted by almost every civilization throughout history. Diversity causes what some(not me) would consider racism or oppression.



But what pisses me off is that minorities believe that white people are privileged when that is not the case 90% of the time. Hell a black man can clean up put a suit on, then do it with a white guy. White guy is just some other white dude in a suit. Black guy,??? whats going on here?  One could say that the so called 'privilege' is diluted to an extent where it doesn't benefit white people as a whole. 5 white guys and 1 black guy puts in for a job, well I am of course going to skim over the application, would probably hire the black guy for a minority hire and get benefits from the government for doing so. So tell me how are we privileged when the government incentivizes businesses to hire minorities over white males.

Affirmative Action is by all standards discriminatory, except from liberals and minorities. Yet I couldn't go to a better school despite me living 5 ft from the district line(and 10 miles from the school), yet the school i did go to bused minorities from 40 miles.

All black, or all female colleges. And granted they do allow students due to a quota type system, yet no more. And the reason they can be an all 'black' colleges is because they were historically...ok I understand that, but then we have Ole Miss, who everyone knows was historically white by all means through and through as well as other colleges. 

Name me one school/government/community/etc, organization/club/team/etc, that is All White Male and is accepted by the masses.


Im so tired of hearing about this shit. You fail in this life because of your own actions, albeit in some people's case they are fucked from the get go and have no choice in the matters. But if you make it to be 16-17, then you should do something with it. If someone lies around and does drugs, don't get an education, and don't give a darn and throws pity parties every other day is going to get no where in this world no matter where you live, or what your skin color is, your religious beliefs, your heritage, sexuality, sexual identity, size of your titties, weight, height, dick size, looks, or whatever.




Racism and Oppression, since before recorded history.


----------



## The Void (May 25, 2015)

Black people can't be racist because they have no power. They can be prejudice though...like everyone else. Racism and Prejudice are not the same thing. Racism is using POWER AND PREJUDICE to influence the lives of other people in a negative way...or something like that. Im white btw


----------



## Zaru (May 25, 2015)

The Void said:


> Black people can't be racist because they have no power.


So

What you're saying is that no black person in the history of humanity and the present has ever held a position of any form of power compared to any white person

No black person ever held a position with decisive power
No black person ever had a higher ranking job, worked for the police, or committed a crime against someone weaker



Seriously how do people like this even breathe


----------



## ЯƎWO⅃ᖷ (May 25, 2015)

Kira Yamato said:


> She can't be racist? how about sexist?



"Therefore, *women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist*, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system.”

it's like you didn't read the article at all 

she is saying they are physically incapable. that is, even if they wanted to, they couldn't....


----------



## EJ (May 25, 2015)

> Seriously how do people like this even breathe



He's a troll that stole the quote off a movie. 




IchLiebe said:


> But what pisses me off is that minorities believe that white people are privileged when that is not the case 90% of the time.



Because job discrimination, being poorly represented by the media, low-funding in certain neighborhoods, etc still isn't a thing for a lot of minorities. '


btw, stop saying "minorities" when we all know you're speaking about a specific group.


----------



## $Kakashi$ (May 25, 2015)

Never understood this logic. 

"I'm not racist because I don't meet this requirement I made up"

It's literally just moving the goal post so you don't seem has bad (which it fails at).

And saying Reverse Racism/Sexism doesn't make sense, either. It's just Racism/Sexism.


----------



## $Kakashi$ (May 25, 2015)

The Void said:


> Black people can't be racist because they have no power.



Can black people in countries that white is the minority be racist? The whites there obviously aren't going to be the one's in power given they're a minority there. 

Just curious how someone who thinks this feels about countries other than the west.


----------



## The Void (May 25, 2015)

$Kakashi$ said:


> Can black people in countries that white is the minority be racist? The whites there obviously aren't going to be the one's in power given they're a minority there.
> 
> Just curious how someone who thinks this feels about countries other than the west.



Yeah. Zimbabwe is a pretty racist country....kicking out all the white people and shit.


----------



## Enclave (May 25, 2015)

The Void said:


> Black people can't be racist because they have no power. They can be prejudice though...like everyone else. Racism and Prejudice are not the same thing. Racism is using POWER AND PREJUDICE to influence the lives of other people in a negative way...or something like that. Im white btw



I have a friend.  He's black, his dad is black and his mom is black.  His dad?  A professor, his mom?  A judge.

Yup, no power there.

By the way, my friend?  Went to good schools, went to university and got a good paying coder job shortly after university.  He's also just an all around awesome guy.  Point is, his life is pretty sweet.  Thank you having money.

edit:

Also, your definition of racism?  It's bullshit.  It doesn't even agree with the dictionary definition:



> racism
> [rey-siz-uh m]
> Spell Syllables
> Examples Word Origin
> ...


----------



## Hand Banana (May 25, 2015)

The Void said:


> Black people can't be racist because they have no power. They can be prejudice though...like everyone else. Racism and Prejudice are not the same thing. Racism is using POWER AND PREJUDICE to influence the lives of other people in a negative way...or something like that. Im white btw



Wrong on so many occasions


----------



## Pliskin (May 25, 2015)

The statement 'X people have power compared to Y people' becomes really problematic when you break it down to the individual level. What you are then saying is 'a person of group Y can inherently have no power' which is either outright racist or at least contrary to empiricism.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (May 25, 2015)

Its a sad fucking day when people think it is more progressive to stand up for an idea which is shit, an idea which needs to be dead and buried, and idea which is an anathema to all modern thinking because they feel that those who espouse that idea are being oppressed and in the minority.

People who think they have the moral high ground for defending people who are being attacked, when they are being attacked for having fundamentally horrendous ideas, values, and approaches to other human beings are the very pinnacle of profound stupidity, of the absolute vanguard in feckless, gormless stupidity.

Read a fucking book. Learn to think and stop thinking that standing up for the ideas and values of oppressive hate filled ideologies is somehow noble, moral and just. Its fucking not - its insidiously disgusting and stupid.


----------



## Lucaniel (May 25, 2015)

>leaving out the best part of the copypasta


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (May 25, 2015)




----------

