The_Walrus wrote:
Have we reached peak irony-blindness?
First up, quite a few of those headlines are difficult to construe as racist even in the form they are. Black supremacy is toxic! Black pride is a pretty dodgy concept if you ignore the historical context! Black privilege, if it were real, would be a bad thing! And how the f**k is thinking "thank f**k my son looks black" racist, or realising that's not good that you have to think like that?
Most importantly, several of the headlines there are doing the same thing that the genius who compiled this was doing. For example, "reasons white people riot" was criticising people for complaining when black people riot but ignoring it when white people do. "Let's hope the Boston bomber is white" is taking shots at the racial narratives surrounding terrorism. "Are black men waging the real war on cops?" is pointing out that while black people get almost all the criticism for being anti-cop, targeted cop killings seem to largely pass without reference to race when they're done by a white person.
It's hard to tell from the headline alone, but the "white trash" headline seems to be attacking the disenfranchisement of poor white people.
And a lot of them simply aren't cases where you can strip the context. It's like if you switched "poor" and "rich", things like "increase taxes on the rich" or "the rich can look after themselves" would suddenly seem rather mean-spirited. It doesn't mean the original statement was mean-spirited. As an extreme example, "white genocide" is an idea spread by racist white people to justify their racism. That's why jokes about white genocide are funny while jokes about black genocide would usually be poorly thought out; to my knowledge, there's no prominent equivalent movement complaining about a non-existent black genocide.
Some of these are simple matters of fact, like the results of research.
"Angry black men" certainly seems racist, as do a few of the others. In the specific case of "angry black men", I think it's important to remember that most people who say things like "Angry White Men" are distinguishing between angry white men ("there are no parking spaces! incidentally I am a white man") and "Angry White Men (TM)" ("too immigrants taking my jobs and black people shooting my kids!"). I can't say whether that's the sense they're using it, but it's not great PR either way.
So yeah in this case I think the people posting this as proof of how "anti-racist" they are should take a good hard look at themselves. Are you concerned about equality, or have you decided that we must have equality right now regardless of any evidence?
You've totally missed the point. It's a simple one, that if the colors were reversed, the paper would be shut down and the publishers would be arrested pretty much. There's been just as many white slaves throughout history, so why couldn't there be "white pride"?
Also you're missing the point that when it comes to white people saying stuff about non whites, it doesn't matter if it has an ounce of truth in it, it'll just be deemed as racist and there will be a storm against that paper or person etc. I'd imagine the person who compiled it is just making a point about the massive double standards.
You say "black trash" or "Jew trash" and you're in serious trouble. "White trash" is acceptable apparently.
The person admits that 'diversity' is about getting rid of white people, and says that's a good thing. Notice that wholly non white countries aren't forced to "embrace" 'diversity'. That's because the black population is rising.
No, most of the media were pushing the "angry white men" farce about blaming results on that.
'Equality' doesn't mean anything. It's just a propaganda slogan.
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
22 Feb 2017, 5:46 pm
