Making it Better: The future of WP
One doesn't need to be a card-carrying member of a white supremacist organization to be a white supremacist, if one consistently argues in favour of placing the interests of whites ahead of others that's adequate enough for the term to be applicable. Raising the bar to avoid offending those who might otherwise meet the definition seems like backing away to avoid having to call a spade a spade.
evidence , please
Did you have a rebuttal or just that meme?
i would just like to see evidence of white supremacy on this forum as i have not seen any
_________________
It is far better for people to hate you for doing the right thing than for people to love you for doing the wrong thing. Never ever forget that.
And there is nothing in there about "white supremecy" including disagreeing with the violence and rioting that is happening under the "BLM" banner (often by non "black" people). Similarly, stating that ALL lives should matter, as a way of indicating that the cause behind the latest series of protests (Mr Floyd) affects people of all races is not indicating a particular race is more "important" than others, but rather that all races are equally important, as are the lives of people of all races, yet I have seen responces here to those making these statements where they are called "white supremecists".
I seem to sometimes be a target for hidden bullying. It is just a way of life I guess.
Gaslighting is what certain posters are doing when they act like expressing disagreement with their preferences and opinions is inherently bullying.
But dissagreeing with someone is not bullying? If it is we all do it. We have to or we will be liars to pretend to agree with everything.
Calling people names and slures isn’t disagreeing with people
Or is is it ok ever time I disagree with woman here to call them a slut or b***h, or c**t?
People here are actively constantly violating the rules. Sorry calling people you disagree with nazi, white supremist, dog with fleas, etc isn’t “just disagreeing.
It’s exactly what the rules forbid.
Anyone who is in here covering for and making excuses for such behavior is just as bad as those who do it.
If someone consistently puts the interests and concerns of white people ahead of those of other people is it unfair to refer to that person as a white supremacist when they meet the definition? Acting insulted to be described by a label that one meets the definition of is dishonest and an example of gaslighting.
What you describe is not an example of gaslighting but more an example of hypocrisy, defined as follows:
Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character traits or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence, in a general sense, hypocrisy may involve dissimulation, pretense, or a sham.
Gaslighting is described though as follows:
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment, often evoking in them cognitive dissonance and other changes including low self-esteem.
_________________
I reserve the right or is it left to at very least be wrong
Last edited by Deepthought 7 on 03 Aug 2020, 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder
One doesn't need to be a card-carrying member of a white supremacist organization to be a white supremacist, if one consistently argues in favour of placing the interests of whites ahead of others that's adequate enough for the term to be applicable. Raising the bar to avoid offending those who might otherwise meet the definition seems like backing away to avoid having to call a spade a spade.
evidence , please
Did you have a rebuttal or just that meme?
i would just like to see evidence of white supremacy on this forum as i have not seen any
You've never seen people express the idea that these issues shouldn't be taken seriously and are the fault of the communities dealing with them because (insert negative stereotype here)? You must not spend much time in PPR.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder
I think they missed "evidence please"?
I'm not sure Sisko was being a bully or gaslighting me, he may be genuinely unfamiliar with the board.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
And there is nothing in there about "white supremecy" including disagreeing with the violence and rioting that is happening under the "BLM" banner (often by non "black" people). Similarly, stating that ALL lives should matter, as a way of indicating that the cause behind the latest series of protests (Mr Floyd) affects people of all races is not indicating a particular race is more "important" than others, but rather that all races are equally important, as are the lives of people of all races, yet I have seen responces here to those making these statements where they are called "white supremecists".
i have seen racist people use the slogan 'all lives matter' so that may be why
i would suggest not using that slogan so there is no confusion
_________________
It is far better for people to hate you for doing the right thing than for people to love you for doing the wrong thing. Never ever forget that.
And there is nothing in there about "white supremecy" including disagreeing with the violence and rioting that is happening under the "BLM" banner (often by non "black" people). Similarly, stating that ALL lives should matter, as a way of indicating that the cause behind the latest series of protests (Mr Floyd) affects people of all races is not indicating a particular race is more "important" than others, but rather that all races are equally important, as are the lives of people of all races, yet I have seen responces here to those making these statements where they are called "white supremecists".
As stated before - on this website, if you don't see a particular point being made that you feel is important -
you are welcome to post it yourself. It isn't facebook, where likes and emojis reflect on your own statement either, it's easy to say yourself anf know you said it so that way there is never a need to say XYZ thing wasn't said since it was (by you)
_________________
Take defeat as an urge to greater effort.
-Napoleon Hill
i am neither a bully or a gaslighter
after reading this thread PPR its not for me
i have not seen the poster sly279 anywhere on the forum so requested evidence for that reason
_________________
It is far better for people to hate you for doing the right thing than for people to love you for doing the wrong thing. Never ever forget that.
And there is nothing in there about "white supremecy" including disagreeing with the violence and rioting that is happening under the "BLM" banner (often by non "black" people). Similarly, stating that ALL lives should matter, as a way of indicating that the cause behind the latest series of protests (Mr Floyd) affects people of all races is not indicating a particular race is more "important" than others, but rather that all races are equally important, as are the lives of people of all races, yet I have seen responces here to those making these statements where they are called "white supremecists".
i have seen racist people use the slogan 'all lives matter' so that may be why
i would suggest not using that slogan so there is no confusion
But, with there also being racists using the "Black Lives Matter" in a way to indicate that ONLY Black lives matter, and other races are of no value, similarly should that phrase be avoided?
Is it better to give in to the racists (of any race) and let them have what they "take", or to instead reclaim it?
i cannot post with quotes but i think you are referring to prejudice not racism
but yes i would speak out on it
but i would not fight prejudice with something that could be mistaken for racism
_________________
It is far better for people to hate you for doing the right thing than for people to love you for doing the wrong thing. Never ever forget that.
Last edited by B.Sisko on 03 Aug 2020, 7:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
2. Prejudice ("Pre-Judgement") is an expression of racism and other forms of bigotry.
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
2. Prejudice ("Pre-Judgement") is an expression of racism and other forms of bigotry.
thanks
i was taught that by definition people of colour cannot be racist
_________________
It is far better for people to hate you for doing the right thing than for people to love you for doing the wrong thing. Never ever forget that.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder
Is it better to give in to the racists (of any race) and let them have what they "take", or to instead reclaim it?
Can you cite an example of this?
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
I think they missed "evidence please"?
I'm not sure Sisko was being a bully or gaslighting me, he may be genuinely unfamiliar with the board.
That wasn't aimed at Sisko...Just an unfortunate coincidence of timing.
It was more of a case where "evidence please" is commonly used by member(s) which could equally be seen to fit within the "gaslighting" description because it can be substituted with "I never said that", "What are you talking about", "You're remembering things wrong" or several others in the image.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder
There's a bunch of snarky memes that posters will use as responses rather than contributing something more meaningful. That's just one of them but we should all strive to be better than resorting to those sorts of thought-terminating responses.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
