Is the White Male Under Attack?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

There were in fact two instances and they seldom attack singly and, given the vast number of simliar reported cases, anyone might draw the conclusion that it is endemic among blacks

With reference to your second paragraph, I refer to my previous statement above.


I will gladly explain what is going on, although the USA's case is somewhat different from that of the UK in that the US was left with a huge black population after the Civil War whereas the UK needlessly and stupidly imported its own after 1945.
In both cases, however, it became necessary to assimilate them into the majority white population and this was achieved by a massive and extended programme of racial engineering that, as this thread all too vividly shows, continues to this day. It's simply that some of us know what is and has been going on while many seem to think that it just happened that way. However, while enforced racial integration may have been unavoidable in the case of the USA, that was not the case in the UK and it is hardly surprising that many people don't like it

---

You forgot to answer the following questions:

1) Why is it that according to every single poll taken that unemployment for black Americans is higher than that of white folks?

2) Why is it that there are far far more cases of discrimination against blacks in the workplace than against whites?

3) Why is it that there are still more than twice the amount of hate crimes committed against blacks than whites?

How much better would it be if we, the supposedly educated, resolved to stop wasting our time trying to show who is the hardest done by, but resolved instead to accept our differences, to enjoy the differences, and to try our best to live in harmony with each other, regardless of race, colour,creed, religion................. To embrace any cultural variations, rather than fruitlessly argue about them. Idealistic? No, not at all. It can be done, it has been......................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Propter W.

You forgot to answer the following questions:

1) Why is it that according to every single poll taken that unemployment for black Americans is higher than that of white folks?

2) Why is it that there are far far more cases of discrimination against blacks in the workplace than against whites?

3) Why is it that there are still more than twice the amount of hate crimes committed against blacks than whites?

---

I have just read your introduction to this forum and I quote:

"I like to argue, which is something that I want to change."

However, despite this admission, I will answer as follows:

1. Probably because blacks are less employable than others.

2. Is it discrimination or simply the answer to your first question coming into play?

3. Proportionality needs to be applied, in which case I would think it most unlikely.

I also noticed that you have reached the grand old age of 23, similar to those who have taken the same view on this thread. Perhaps a little more experience would not be amiss in assessing this particular subject. You might be interested to know that, at your age, I held similar views until the passage of time taught me otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

I have just read your introduction to this forum and I quote:

"I like to argue, which is something that I want to change."

However, despite this admission, I will answer as follows:

1. Probably because blacks are less employable than others.

2. Is it discrimination or simply the answer to your first question coming into play?

3. Proportionality needs to be applied, in which case I would think it most unlikely.

I also noticed that you have reached the grand old age of 23, similar to those who have taken the same view on this thread. Perhaps a little more experience would not be amiss in assessing this particular subject. You might be interested to know that, at your age, I held similar views until the passage of time taught me otherwise.

---

1. When we look at the history of the US we see that first black people were considered less than human (that's even in the US Constitution) afterwards discrimination against black people and unequal treatment of black people was institutionalised (Jim Crow, segregation)... I think it's more probable that racism is still rampant in the US and elsewhere.

But even if blacks were less employable, one should ask why that's the case. The most probable answer is that all this racism, discrimination and inequality has lead to a poorer black population. Poverty and a lack of education are closely related, especially in the US where tuition fees are extremely high. So in order to get more 'employable' black people, it would only be fair to right the wrongs of the past one way to do this is affirmative action.

No, I'm not interested in what views you held when you were 23. I'm interested in your current views, which seem quite racist.

If being against the passing of discriminatory laws against whites is being racist, then I'm racist.
And as Dr. Johnson was wont to say...."there's an end on it."

Everyone has their own truth, which is and always will be, relative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

Everyone has their own truth, which is and always will be, relative.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

I also noticed that you have reached the grand old age of 23, similar to those who have taken the same view on this thread. Perhaps a little more experience would not be amiss in assessing this particular subject. You might be interested to know that, at your age, I held similar views until the passage of time taught me otherwise.

---

Oh swell, Brian, I suppose I should look forward to being an angry old bigot at your age. I grew up in working class neighbourhoods that were around 70/30 white and black, and the gangs have always been white in my neighbourhood. Biker gangs and Irish mafia were the criminal groups I grew up around, I never had anything to fear from black people. Clearly, since twice in your life black people were mean to you, then there is widespread systemic anti-white racism. Moreover, recourse to hearsay, like that of well known bigot Mike Savage, does little to convince me. I find it astounding, that you can claim anti-white racism is so widespread when I have not encountered it once in near 23 years, and I've been around a lot of black people.

Hell, I've had first hand experience of anti-English sentiment from the French, numerous cases of homophobia, and general assholish behavior, but I have yet to be the victim of a racially motivated hate crime. Moreover, I've only ever been mugged once in my life, and that was by a ginger. I suppose that gives me reason to believe the gingers are out to get us brunets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

Everyone has their own truth, which is and always will be, relative.

---

I call bull****, you either have evidence of claims you make or you don't. When you make a claim of mass anti-white discrimination, this is something that can be empirically examined, it should have an effect on employment, hate crimes, and other markers of racial strife.

to quote Alan How:

facts do not speak for themselves, but it is the network of relations in which facts are embedded that produces explanatory significance and this is something different to statistical or empirical significance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

to quote Alan How:

facts do not speak for themselves, but it is the network of relations in which facts are embedded that produces explanatory significance and this is something different to statistical or empirical significance.

---

Which is different from taking an entirely nihilistic standpoint. Sometimes, empirical data is open to interpretation, but one should be able to reason why said interpretation is valid. Challenging an interpretation of data is different than denying the existence of the data, or contradicting the data outright.

Edit: Which is to say, just because there can be more than one reasonable viewpoint, does not mean all views are equally reasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

There were in fact two instances and they seldom attack singly and, given the vast number of simliar reported cases, anyone might draw the conclusion that it is endemic among blacks

---

An endemic?! Really? It's so weird how every-singe white person I know has never been attacked, harassed or are even lacking of jobs because of blacks.

Quote:

---

I will gladly explain what is going on, although the USA's case is somewhat different from that of the UK in that the US was left with a huge black population after the Civil War whereas the UK needlessly and stupidly imported its own after 1945.
In both cases, however, it became necessary to assimilate them into the majority white population and this was achieved by a massive and extended programme of racial engineering that, as this thread all too vividly shows, continues to this day. It's simply that some of us know what is and has been going on while many seem to think that it just happened that way. However, while enforced racial integration may have been unavoidable in the case of the USA, that was not the case in the UK and it is hardly surprising that many people don't like it

---

Yeah racial integration, black people and white people living together, yeah that really sucks :rollseyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

However, despite this admission, I will answer as follows:

1. Probably because blacks are less employable than others.

---

Yeah, so thinks every racist employer who turns down a perfectly competent black man. Give me evidence that as a whole, induviduals of African descent are lesser-qualified workers. Because historically and statistically, blacks are discriminated against because of the very views you hold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

If being against the passing of discriminatory laws against whites is being racist, then I'm racist.
And as Dr. Johnson was wont to say...."there's an end on it."

---

Thanks for finally admitting it at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Oh swell, Brian, I suppose I should look forward to being an angry old bigot at your age. I grew up in working class neighbourhoods that were around 70/30 white and black, and the gangs have always been white in my neighbourhood. Biker gangs and Irish mafia were the criminal groups I grew up around, I never had anything to fear from black people. Clearly, since twice in your life black people were mean to you, then there is widespread systemic anti-white racism. Moreover, recourse to hearsay, like that of well known bigot Mike Savage, does little to convince me. I find it astounding, that you can claim anti-white racism is so widespread when I have not encountered it once in near 23 years, and I've been around a lot of black people.

Hell, I've had first hand experience of anti-English sentiment from the French, numerous cases of homophobia, and general assholish behavior, but I have yet to be the victim of a racially motivated hate crime. Moreover, I've only ever been mugged once in my life, and that was by a ginger. I suppose that gives me reason to believe the gingers are out to get us brunets.

---

Well said brother! :hurray:

Quote:

---

I call bull****, you either have evidence of claims you make or you don't. When you make a claim of mass anti-white discrimination, this is something that can be empirically examined, it should have an effect on employment, hate crimes, and other markers of racial strife.

---

Exactly. In matter such as this, which can be examined within a closed empirical system on such a collective scale, there is indeed a true and a false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Sometimes, empirical data is open to interpretation, but one should be able to reason why said interpretation is valid. Challenging an interpretation of data is different than denying the existence of the data, or contradicting the data outright.
.

---

you certainly can study why empirical data has the interpretation it does -which only brings us back to relativity - sociologcial contexts, which is the really interesting study here. to apply empirical data as a black and white be all and end all is erroneous since as humans we are subjective and not objective and the subjectivity and contextuality of our social lives cannot be discounted as if we lived in a vacuum. we don't and never will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

you certainly can study why empirical data has the interpretation it does -which only brings us back to relativity - sociologcial contexts, which is the really interesting study here. to apply empirical data as a black and white be all and end all is erroneous since as humans we are subjective and not objective and the subjectivity and contextuality of our social lives cannot be discounted as if we lived in a vacuum. we don't and never will.

---

So, I suppose that's a justification for credulity to any asinine idea?

Not the point, of course data has to be interpreted, but the interpretation must be defended, and to hold hearsay and circumstantial evidence as equivalent to empirical data is not justifiable.

There are numerous valid responses to the empirical data, you could argue that it is not accurate for X or Y reason, your argument may be valid or just conjecture. However, to simply say, "well I've personally experienced otherwise," is not a reliable reason to find the empirical data lacking.

To reiterate, just because there are possibly more than one reasonable way to view something does not make all views automatically reasonable.

Edit: In the typical postmodernist track, one would attempt to deconstruct the validity of any idea simply to present an asinine subjective politically driven view. On this I'm in agreement with most of the political right, postmodernism is bunk and always will be bunk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

you certainly can study why empirical data has the interpretation it does -which only brings us back to relativity - sociologcial contexts, which is the really interesting study here. to apply empirical data as a black and white be all and end all is erroneous since as humans we are subjective and not objective and the subjectivity and contextuality of our social lives cannot be discounted as if we lived in a vacuum. we don't and never will.

---

I agree completely. But as I said, within closed systems of contextuality in which we can rely on by empirical or statistical data. Like Pip said; there may be relative interpretations to the data, but to deny the existence or validity of the data, or to just outright ignore it completely is contradictory to the logical context of the logical system that has been created (i.e. the logic of this thread's exchanging arguments).

And yes, I agree that humans are subjective (as any self-conscious creature is), which is why the validity of 'personal experience' is irrelevant on a large, almost global scale. Just because Brian had some bad experiences with blacks or because I've had some good ones, none of it is enough to account for the numbers which at least are able to form a systematic objectivity (that is, objectivity within the system we are arguing in, not some kind of naturalistic objectivity.) Social matters concern collectives of subjectivities, and these subjectivities can indeed be objectively measured.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Oh swell, Brian, I suppose I should look forward to being an angry old bigot at your age.

---

:confused5:

Brian, I'm sorry that you are being personally attacked. It seems that the original poster was right. If you try to stand up and point out issues of injustice that you personally experience and see around you, you will most definitely be called names. It is a shame that one cannot speak their mind without being chastised.