Is the White Male Under Attack?

[OrphanPip]

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.

Speak their mind? Apparently you missed the point that I was being deliberately inflammatory because of Brian's *******ish attempts to demean the opinions of others on the basis of their age.

[Delta40]

I agree in principal - certainly about collectives but how or why should the micro accept the macro when it so contradicts their own truth? At the end of the day, quantitative and qualitative date do not equate to walking a mile in another man's shoes, which is what individuals care about and since we no longer operate under collective feudal systems but rather live an individualistic lifestyle where the onus of responsibility is dumped on each person rather than societal institutions, why would collective research have any real meaning?

[OrphanPip]

I agree in principal - certainly about collectives but how or why should the micro accept the macro when it so contradicts their own truth? At the end of the day, quantitative and qualitative date do not equate to walking a mile in another man's shoes, which is what individuals care about and since we no longer operate under collective feudal systems but rather live an individualistic lifestyle where the onus of responsibility is dumped on each person rather than societal institutions, why would collective research have any real meaning?

Because wishing something were true doesn't make it so. How exactly would you propose we make reliable decisions on anything if all that mattered was the superstitions of individuals. Research should have meaning to anyone rational enough to realize that their personal experience is not necessarily universally valid, nor is human intuition a reliable way to gauge increasingly complex phenomena.

[DanielBenoit]

I agree in principal - certainly about collectives but how or why should the micro accept the macro when it so contradicts their own truth? At the end of the day, quantitative and qualitative date do not equate to walking a mile in another man's shoes, which is what individuals care about and since we no longer operate under collective feudal systems but rather live an individualistic lifestyle where the onus of responsibility is dumped on each person rather than societal institutions, why would collective research have any real meaning?

It has real meaning because we are judging collectives of induviduals (in this case it is black people). The whole is nothing more than the parts co-existing and those parts will indeed contradict each other at times being so vast. This goes all the way to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. The global society is indeed emerging as a single system, and there will be vast varieties of micro-subjectivities contradicting each other. Which is why it is important to understand the macro as a series of statistics constituting the millions, indeed billions of micro-subjectivities. People who consider their own subjectivity to outrule every single other one is indeed, especially in todays world, a feat of extreme arrogance.

The argument of this thread has been whether or not the white male is being more often discriminated and physically attacked. This has been proven to be completely untrue by the statistics I have provided twice. It has also been proven that blacks are still victim to hate crimes more than twice that of whites. Every instance in these percentages are not just a mere number, they are little yet highly significant capsules of personal experience.

[Delta40]

Because wishing something were true doesn't make it so. How exactly would you propose we make reliable decisions on anything if all that mattered was the superstitions of individuals. Research should have meaning to anyone rational enough to realize that their personal experience is not necessarily universally valid, nor is human intuition a reliable way to gauge increasingly complex phenomena.

you can wish all you like if it will make you feel better and if your real life experience is nothing more than individual superstition, so be it. Other people don't feel that way about their personal truth, values and opinions because to do so is to discount the validity of the individual whose experience is in direct contradiction to statistical data. research should have meaning but it should never be definitive, which means that individuals who form conclusive opinions based on their own selective research (that which sits well with their own bias) are in danger of becoming entrenched in heir own dogma

[DanielBenoit]

you can wish all you like if it will make you feel better and if your real life experience is nothing more than individual superstition, so be it. Other people don't feel that way about their personal truth, values and opinions because to do so is to discount the validity of the individual whose experience is in direct contradiction to statistical data. research should have meaning but it should never be definitive, which means that individuals who form conclusive opinions based on their own selective research (that which sits well with their own bias) are in danger of becoming entrenched in heir own dogma

In this case, every significant statistic I have provided (except one concerning interviews at the very begining of this thread) has come from either the FBI or another governmental source. If anyone should have legitamate knowledge on the numbers of these matters, it should be the ones who have the oversight into all of the discrimination cases filed or of all of the yearly hate crimes on record.

Again, the question at stake is whether or not whites are more discriminated against than blacks, and if cases of discrimination agaisnt whites have increased and it is definitive that from the data taken between the years 1995 and 2008 by the FBI, that that is false.

Btw, people should be able to regard the microcality of their personal experience (i.g. I was attacked by a black man and I understand that that man is one in millions.) to the macroality (i.g. there are more cases of black men being attacked because of their race, than white men)

[OrphanPip]

you can wish all you like if it will make you feel better and if your real life experience is nothing more than individual superstition, so be it. Other people don't feel that way about their personal truth, values and opinions because to do so is to discount the validity of the individual whose experience is in direct contradiction to statistical data. research should have meaning but it should never be definitive, which means that individuals who form conclusive opinions based on their own selective research (that which sits well with their own bias) are in danger of becoming entrenched in heir own dogma

Nonsense, when it comes to making decisions that effect other people's lives, it is irresponsible to just flip our hands up in the air and leave things up to personal delusion.

Also, I have not made conclusive opinions off the basis of selective research, I'm quite open to people providing research that says otherwise, I do not however accept hearsay as worthwhile evidence. All I'm seeing here is a whole load of sophistry, nothing significant at all. You're attempting to redirect the argument away from the fact that personal subjective experiences are virtually meaningless for defending opinions about larger issues that can be empirically investigated, to attempting to discredit research as being absolute truth. No one has claimed research is absolute truth, all I have claimed is that arguments based on large empirical studies are more reliable than hearsay, and that reasoned arguments with evidential support are more reliable than outright conjecture.

[Emil Miller]

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.

Haha, thanks Bienvenu but that is part of the charm of being on LitNet. It's not often I find myself quoting the bible, but in this case the most appropriate words would appear to be, given the obvious youth of the interlocutors, ...'Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings...'

[The Atheist]

...given the obvious youth of the interlocutors, ...

Gosh, I haven't been called youthful for decades!

[Emil Miller]

Gosh, I haven't been called youthful for decades!

Ok, I'll make an exception in your case.

[DanielBenoit]

Haha, thanks Bienvenu but that is part of the charm of being on LitNet. It's not often I find myself quoting the bible, but in this case the most appropriate words would appear to be, given the obvious youth of the interlocutors, ...'Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings...'

It's this kind of ageism that just discredits you even more. How about instead of resorting to personal pokes at our ages, why not make a rational argument, which I have not seen at all coming from you throughout this whole thread. Just conspiratorial and racist rantings and a Michael Savage youtube video.

[BienvenuJDC]

It's this kind of ageism that just discredits you even more. How about instead of resorting to personal pokes at our ages, why not make a rational argument, which I have not seen at all coming from you throughout this whole thread. Just conspiratorial and racist rantings and a Michael Savage youtube video.

There is a very real consideration in looking at one's age and experiences. It is not to put down one's age. There is no doubt in my mind that I have much more understanding about real life, now that I have experienced so many things. I used to know so much about parenting and marriage before I was married and a parent. Now I realize how much I DIDN'T know. If you think that maturity and understanding doesn't come with age, then that further proves the point.

[DanielBenoit]

There is a very real consideration in looking at one's age and experiences. It is not to put down one's age. There is no doubt in my mind that I have much more understanding about real life, now that I have experienced so many things. I used to know so much about parenting and marriage before I was married and a parent. Now I realize how much I DIDN'T know. If you think that maturity and understanding doesn't come with age, then that further proves the point.

Of course and I'm not saying that experience and maturity is useless. That said, it is pure dirty politics (rhetoric in this context) when one demeans and discredits peoples opinions on the basis of their age. Why not regarding our arguments head-on without throwing in weak personal jabs like age. Funny, how long this thread is, and yet not a single person has regarded the hard statistics Hurricane and I have provided. 90% of this thread has been pure empty rhetoric.

Also, in socially scientific issues such as this, one must but ones own personal subjectivity and indeed experience at side when regards to the facts as I have explained elaborately earlier. In arguing evolution, one does not say "well most of the scientists I've encountered seem to be utterly irrational people." What we are arguing here is social science and things like experience cannot be regarded because there are so many vast numbers of different perceptives and experiences. Yes, it would be rational to say that anti-white sentiments do indeed exist within the country, but to say that anti-white sentiment is widespread, especially amongst the government and black people, is ridiculous without regards to hard data.

Saying that the arguments presented on this thread have been 'out of the mouths of babes and sucklings' is totally pretentious, demeaning and just a plain irrational avoidance of the matter-at-hand.

[BienvenuJDC]

Also, in socially scientific issues such as this, one must but ones own personal subjectivity and indeed experience at side when regards to the facts as I have explained elaborately earlier. In arguing evolution, one does not say "well most of the scientists I've encountered seem to be utterly irrational people." What we are arguing here is social science and things like experience cannot be regarded because there are so many vast numbers of different perceptives and experiences. Yes, it would be rational to say that anti-white sentiments do indeed exist within the country, but to say that anti-white sentiment is widespread, especially amongst the government and black people, is ridiculous without regards to hard data.

Do you think that there were loads of "Studies" to reflect upon in the 1940's-1960's, to show that blacks were being discriminated against? I doubt that our societal establishments had put very much effort into researching the reality of the prejudices against blacks (AT THAT TIME). If it wasn't for pioneers speaking out like MLK and Roda Parks to wake people up, we would never had made the strides that we have. Well, you may be right that we don't have the studies right now, but just because the research has not been funded doesn't mean that the "personal experiences" are not widespread. There IS a liberal media that is NOT covering societal issues equally...that is not just a conspiracy theory. Until a few speak up about their "personal superstitions" and "personal delusions" nothing will get heard. If find it rather despicable that there are so quickly to issue personal attacks, especially those who want others to be "open-minded".

[DanielBenoit]

Do you think that there were loads of "Studies" to reflect upon in the 1940's-1960's, to show that blacks were being discriminated against? I doubt that our societal establishments had put very much effort into researching the reality of the prejudices against blacks (AT THAT TIME). If it wasn't for pioneers speaking out like MLK and Roda Parks to wake people up, we would never had made the strides that we have. Well, you may be right that we don't have the studies right now, but just because the research has not been funded doesn't mean that the "personal experiences" are not widespread. There IS a liberal media that is NOT covering societal issues equally...that is not just a conspiracy theory. Until a few speak up about their "personal superstitions" and "personal delusions" nothing will get heard. If find it rather despicable that there are so quickly to issue personal attacks, especially those who want others to be "open-minded".

Yes and it is unfortunate that there were no governmental studies being made about prejudice against blacks (though, ironically, there were plenty of liberal ones). But this prejudice was hardly disputed really. When there's "Whites Only" signs at every public area and the n-word is used most often to describe black Americans and plenty of them were being strung up and lynched to death because of their skin, the existence of prejudice was hardly disputable. The only question was whether or not if it was right. I don't think anybody back then believed in some kind of conspiracy that was happening against blacks, it was right there out in the open and acknowledged by both sides; one side just happened to think it was right, while the other thought it was wrong.

And pleeease, liberal media conspiracy? Weird how the owners of all of the major news outlets (MSNBC, CNN, Fox) are all owned by white males. Funny that if they were indeed in on all of this anti-white news broadcasting, they must certainly have some psychological issues in regards to their race.

Btw, must I say it again? The statistics provided come straight from the FBI and other government organizations, not media news outlets. But if you indeed think that the FBI and the judicial system that keeps these records are in fact in on it too, then it is impossible to argue with you in terms of reality, especially in considering that a majority of people working in the government are. . . . old white males.