In the '20s, people considered Irish immigrants not to be white. It’s a meaningless label that people subjectively change the definition of just to other those they don’t like
Irish people are like physically some of the whitest people in existence. All the Celts, Germanics are up there, very fair skin, starved of vitamin d for ages presumably they developed that skin to produce more when they did get sun.
It’s not about white or brown. It’s easier for them to get support to abuse the brown people, it doesn’t mean white people are safe, or they won’t be working to hurt them. In fact everything they are doing is getting license to hurt white people en masse in the united states proper, while they steal elections, and throw protesters in camps, with courts unable to issue nationwide injunctions now.
That said, the Iranians are basically white, without the head gear they would fit right in, Iran means Aryan by the way. From being settled by horse tribes from the steppes of Asia around 1,500 bc,
The caucasian thing to describe white people is basically all made up though, like they don’t know, that was a theory that took off and got repeated so often it’s accepted as fact.
I love that disclaimer. I feel like I need to put it on everything. People seem quite incapable of separating descriptive and normative statements on here.
Sometimes I feel like people have misinterpreted all my social critiques as advocacy for the things I was critiquing.
Like I’ll point something out, say “Society tends to do such-and-such,” implying, “and that’s wrong,” but what people hear instead is “as it should.”
Like, I could explicitly state “and that’s wrong” all the time, but sometimes that would get a “no shit” reaction, or possibly come off as performative.
Small minds, they are not used to braining. They think making a statement means promoting that thing. They think criticizing an argument automatically means you disagree with it.
Social justice topics are particularly sticky to navigate, especially as someone who isn’t visibly a minority. Like if I say “[such-and-such] minorities aren’t oppressed,” they’ll say “how dare you say that, yes they are!” But if I say “[such-and-such] minorities are oppressed,” they’ll say “how dare you say that, that’s so patronizing!” And if I don’t say anything, they’ll say “how dare you remain silent about the plight of so many people!” Again, there’s no winning.
They think criticizing an argument automatically means you disagree with it.
Yeah, I’m far more likely to criticize an argument that I agree with in essence but disagree in substance or method. Like, if someone is completely wrong about something and has no inclination of being convinced otherwise, usually I won’t waste my time. I don’t argue with right-wingers online anymore because there’s no fucking point, I don’t have the time and energy for that, and I don’t even visit the same spaces of the internet as them. The most I’ll do when I see them in the wild is ridicule them and move on.
If I see a leftist arguing poorly, however, I’ll usually chip in my ten cents as to how they could improve their argument. Whether the focus should be slightly different, or there’s a better way to argue the same thing, or the premises could be more factual, or the logic more structurally valid. If I disagree about the nuances of their argument, I’ll present a nuanced argument of my own.
But some people seem to think that if I’m arguing with leftists, then I must be a right-winger. That’s incorrect. If I was a right-winger, I would be spending more time in right-wing spaces and less in leftist spaces. I wouldn’t bother arguing with people who’s perspectives and worldviews are so categorically different from my own. If I wasn’t a leftist, I wouldn’t care if leftists online could be making better arguments.
Also, more and more these days I find myself treating tankies like I treat right-wingers. They’re equally as deluded, irrational, heavyhanded, and authoritarian. They don’t listen to reason or facts and evidence. It’s all ideology, propaganda, DARVO, gaslighting, insults, and accusations with them.
But I do still argue with them, because they’re so pervasive in left-wing spaces, and I don’t want them dominating the narrative. I want other leftists, less extreme leftists, rational and empathetic leftists, to have spaces where they feel comfortable having intelligent discussions without it turning into a tankie circlejerk.
Example:
When I was still on reddit, a few years ago the democratic socialists sub was overrun with tankies. Like, they already had all the other leftist subs, couldn’t they just leave this one that’s supposed to be the least extreme and most inclusive of diverse opinions? So I started arguing with them about why authoritarian behavior shouldn’t be tolerated there, that it’s a democratic socialist sub and should be treated as such. It caught on, and other peoplw picked up the argument. Eventually the mods had a vote on whether to ban ML harassment. It passed, and now MLs are still allowed there, but if they attack people for disagreement then they get banned.
But tankies don’t actually engage with my arguments in good faith, they just call me a fascist because I refuse to kowtow to their moral pedestal-standing and ideological purism. And in effect, they water down the meaning of the word ‘fascist’ and make it harder to be taken seriously when I point to actual examples of fascism.
Iranians are white.
In the '20s, people considered Irish immigrants not to be white. It’s a meaningless label that people subjectively change the definition of just to other those they don’t like
Irish people are like physically some of the whitest people in existence. All the Celts, Germanics are up there, very fair skin, starved of vitamin d for ages presumably they developed that skin to produce more when they did get sun.
I know! That’s why it’s so amusing. Racism is so irrational.
They don’t think so, or they don’t care.
It’s not about white or brown. It’s easier for them to get support to abuse the brown people, it doesn’t mean white people are safe, or they won’t be working to hurt them. In fact everything they are doing is getting license to hurt white people en masse in the united states proper, while they steal elections, and throw protesters in camps, with courts unable to issue nationwide injunctions now.
That said, the Iranians are basically white, without the head gear they would fit right in, Iran means Aryan by the way. From being settled by horse tribes from the steppes of Asia around 1,500 bc,
My family is literally Caucasian from the Caucus mountains in Iran lol
The caucasian thing to describe white people is basically all made up though, like they don’t know, that was a theory that took off and got repeated so often it’s accepted as fact.
Americans don’t think so. They think they’re all Arabs.
That is true they do.
It was never about skin colour though, was it?
disclaimer for people who don't like to interpret internet comments charitably
(even if it was, that wouldn’t make racism acceptable ofc)
I love that disclaimer. I feel like I need to put it on everything. People seem quite incapable of separating descriptive and normative statements on here.
Sometimes I feel like people have misinterpreted all my social critiques as advocacy for the things I was critiquing.
Like I’ll point something out, say “Society tends to do such-and-such,” implying, “and that’s wrong,” but what people hear instead is “as it should.”
Like, I could explicitly state “and that’s wrong” all the time, but sometimes that would get a “no shit” reaction, or possibly come off as performative.
Sometimes there’s just no winning…
Small minds, they are not used to braining. They think making a statement means promoting that thing. They think criticizing an argument automatically means you disagree with it.
Both true statements.
Social justice topics are particularly sticky to navigate, especially as someone who isn’t visibly a minority. Like if I say “[such-and-such] minorities aren’t oppressed,” they’ll say “how dare you say that, yes they are!” But if I say “[such-and-such] minorities are oppressed,” they’ll say “how dare you say that, that’s so patronizing!” And if I don’t say anything, they’ll say “how dare you remain silent about the plight of so many people!” Again, there’s no winning.
Yeah, I’m far more likely to criticize an argument that I agree with in essence but disagree in substance or method. Like, if someone is completely wrong about something and has no inclination of being convinced otherwise, usually I won’t waste my time. I don’t argue with right-wingers online anymore because there’s no fucking point, I don’t have the time and energy for that, and I don’t even visit the same spaces of the internet as them. The most I’ll do when I see them in the wild is ridicule them and move on.
If I see a leftist arguing poorly, however, I’ll usually chip in my ten cents as to how they could improve their argument. Whether the focus should be slightly different, or there’s a better way to argue the same thing, or the premises could be more factual, or the logic more structurally valid. If I disagree about the nuances of their argument, I’ll present a nuanced argument of my own.
But some people seem to think that if I’m arguing with leftists, then I must be a right-winger. That’s incorrect. If I was a right-winger, I would be spending more time in right-wing spaces and less in leftist spaces. I wouldn’t bother arguing with people who’s perspectives and worldviews are so categorically different from my own. If I wasn’t a leftist, I wouldn’t care if leftists online could be making better arguments.
Also, more and more these days I find myself treating tankies like I treat right-wingers. They’re equally as deluded, irrational, heavyhanded, and authoritarian. They don’t listen to reason or facts and evidence. It’s all ideology, propaganda, DARVO, gaslighting, insults, and accusations with them.
But I do still argue with them, because they’re so pervasive in left-wing spaces, and I don’t want them dominating the narrative. I want other leftists, less extreme leftists, rational and empathetic leftists, to have spaces where they feel comfortable having intelligent discussions without it turning into a tankie circlejerk.
Example:
When I was still on reddit, a few years ago the democratic socialists sub was overrun with tankies. Like, they already had all the other leftist subs, couldn’t they just leave this one that’s supposed to be the least extreme and most inclusive of diverse opinions? So I started arguing with them about why authoritarian behavior shouldn’t be tolerated there, that it’s a democratic socialist sub and should be treated as such. It caught on, and other peoplw picked up the argument. Eventually the mods had a vote on whether to ban ML harassment. It passed, and now MLs are still allowed there, but if they attack people for disagreement then they get banned.
But tankies don’t actually engage with my arguments in good faith, they just call me a fascist because I refuse to kowtow to their moral pedestal-standing and ideological purism. And in effect, they water down the meaning of the word ‘fascist’ and make it harder to be taken seriously when I point to actual examples of fascism.