Can you tell the difference between a Breitbart headline and a 1920s KKK Newspaper headline?

Complete!
You scored 10 out of 16!
The average score was 10.
 
12/16 but they changed some of the headlines to make them less clear. Specifically the one about middle eastern immigrants or I would have had 13/16.
 
It's pretty eye opening that the KKK was more moderate than practically any modern liberal newspaper where calling for genocide "in the name of justice" and "violence in the name of peace" ha become the norm. It shows how urgently we need coutnerbalance. Thanks for this joseph.

We also need to make an example out of joseph as a person. Stupidity is punishable.

“Who is Responsible for the Crime Wave?”

Needless to say, a title you could find 5,000 versions of from a hundred different newspapers.

The mere fact that both the KKK and Breitbart (and thousands of other media outlets) have questioned the (unspecified) origins of an (unspecified) crime wave was enough to convince Joseph of their similarity

Joseph if this is the cognitive level you're operating at, do you genuinely believe its beneficial to society for you to be involved in politics at all? Aren't you kind of just in the way?

I'm just asking questions. It seems to me that if you're afraid to hear these questions then these questions should get asked. Pushing these ideas underground will only cause them to grow.
 
No, it's not.

I apologize if you're being ironic. If not, that is an incredibly stupid exercise given the completely antithetical positions, histories, and experiences of black and white citizens

It sounds as though you are defending race-based discrimination when it takes place under specific, but ill-defined circumstances.
Could you clarify?
 
12/16 but they changed some of the headlines to make them less clear. Specifically the one about middle eastern immigrants or I would have had 13/16.
True. Are you just a War Room mod and that's why you have a different color username? Regardless, you were a good choice, congratulations. :)
 
Wasn't the Klan pretty mainstream in the 20's? If you posted Klan pieces post-1960 then I imagine their positions would be pretty outrageous, but 80-90 years ago they were pretty ordinary right wing positions more or less, right?
 
Salon is the very last website that any rational human being should ever look to for moral guidance on any issue. They were already shamed in to deleting pro-pedophilia articles. Their idea of tolerance is to downplay the severity of lusting after children. These lunatic liberals want us to believe that it's just another sexual orientation. The last time I checked, the sexual exploitation of children is a concern that is orders of magnitude greater than that of the KKK today.

The left and it's shocking normalization of pedophilia. They want you to believe that it is on the same level as an eating disorder. I guess we are expected to have sympathy for them? Visiting the Salon website can induce vomiting for some.

http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/salon-deletes-articles-defending-pedophilia-from-site/

“In 2015, Salon published articles by Todd Nickerson, who was at the time defending pedophiles and insisting people shouldn’t treat them like monsters,” Twitchy reported Tuesday..."

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/meet_pedophiles_who_mean_well/
Meet pedophiles who mean well

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/pedophilia-a-disorder-not-a-crime.html?_r=0

Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime
 
If racism isn't applying different standards to different races, then what is it? It's amazing to sit back and look at the relentless racial (and sexual) negativity of popular liberal outlets like the Huffington Post.

It's not an application of different standards: it's realization the relativity of the standards themselves in political discourse. That isn't racist, and your silly desire for white victimhood is annoying.
 
It sounds as though you are defending race-based discrimination when it takes place under specific, but ill-defined circumstances.
Could you clarify?

Yes.

Explaining the shortcomings, or misconceptions thereof, of a dominant cultural majority is different than misrepresenting them as natural defects of a cultural minority. The former is not discrimination, while the latter is.

It's like discussion on "white privilege." White privilege is not a inherent racial burden on, nor virtue/defect of, the white community. Speaking of white privilege, at least by persons who understand it, does not speak to or purport any intrinsically white trait, beyond the natural history of race-based allocation of power and resources. Because of this, it's a term that can be used with fairly wide latitudes without functioning as racist towards white persons.

There has never been any meaningful strain in political discourse suggesting that white persons are "naturally" more evil, nor that rich persons are "naturally" more greedy, etc.--just that there are lingering distributional problems--so there is a certain freedom to describe these in-power actors without suggestion of dehumanization or depriving them politically. Meanwhile, there are long histories of ignoring policy-based plights of the poor and of racial minorities on the basis that they are "naturally" violent, lazy, stupid, etc., so there is naturally a shorter leash on explaining "why" Latinos are poorly educated, black persons have higher crime rates, or Native Americans are exceedingly poor, when descriptions of them demographically are so often used to remove them from economic/historical/political context and describe them racistly.
 
It's not an application of different standards: it's realization the relativity of the standards themselves in political discourse. That isn't racist, and your silly desire for white victimhood is annoying.

What I want is not an acknowledgment of white victimhood. Victimhood, especially of the sort associated with identity politics, is of little value to me. What I want is an acknowledgement of leftist bigotry. There's a relentless negativity coming from the left against white people. And yes, much of it is racist.
 
Salon is the very last website that any rational human being should ever look to for moral guidance on any issue. They were already shamed in to deleting pro-pedophilia articles. Their idea of tolerance is to downplay the severity of lusting after children. These lunatic liberals want us to believe that it's just another sexual orientation. The last time I checked, the sexual exploitation of children is a concern that is orders of magnitude greater than that of the KKK today.

The left and it's shocking normalization of pedophilia. They want you to believe that it is on the same level as an eating disorder. I guess we are expected to have sympathy for them? Visiting the Salon website can induce vomiting for some.

http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/salon-deletes-articles-defending-pedophilia-from-site/

“In 2015, Salon published articles by Todd Nickerson, who was at the time defending pedophiles and insisting people shouldn’t treat them like monsters,” Twitchy reported Tuesday..."

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/meet_pedophiles_who_mean_well/
Meet pedophiles who mean well

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/pedophilia-a-disorder-not-a-crime.html?_r=0

Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime
Hmm, never knew they deleted those articles. Funny how this is being used as a political football now.
 
Yes.

Explaining the shortcomings, or misconceptions thereof, of a dominant cultural majority is different than misrepresenting them as natural defects of a cultural minority. The former is not discrimination, while the latter is.

It's like discussion on "white privilege." White privilege is not a inherent racial burden on, nor virtue/defect of, the white community. Speaking of white privilege, at least by persons who understand it, does not speak to or purport any intrinsically white trait, beyond the natural history of race-based allocation of power and resources. Because of this, it's a term that can be used with fairly wide latitudes without functioning as racist towards white persons.

There has never been any meaningful strain in political discourse suggesting that white persons are "naturally" more evil, nor that rich persons are "naturally" more greedy, etc.--just that there are lingering distributional problems--so there is a certain freedom to describe these in-power actors without suggestion of dehumanization or depriving them politically. Meanwhile, there are long histories of ignoring policy-based plights of the poor and of racial minorities on the basis that they are "naturally" violent, lazy, stupid, etc., so there is naturally a shorter leash on explaining "why" Latinos are poorly educated, black persons have higher crime rates, or Native Americans are exceedingly poor, when descriptions of them demographically are so often used to remove them from economic/historical/political context and describe them racistly.

I actually agree with a fair-sized chunk of what you're saying here.
I also detect the scent of bullshit.

I live in a black cultural majority. If i complain about blackness, its lack of readiness to lead or build healthy societies due to a culture that does not value achievement and a history of being twisted by the ravages of colonialism, slavery and casual, everday oppression, are you telling me that because i live in a black cultural majority, you and those on your side of the discussion would not immediately accuse me of racism?
I mean, i wouldn't be saying that black people are inherently incapable due to genetics, i'd be pointing out that their culture and historical worldview is a dangerous one to elevate due to its incompatibility with the modern world.

We see the same thing with "islamaphobia" and the accusation of those who criticise islam as racists. Criticising islam is no different than criticising your definition of whiteness. The former, in fact, should be less easily mistaken for racism, and yet we consistently see those engaging in such criticism being called racists.
Putting it in terms they'd understand, Salon is a europhobic or anglophobic outlet.

The term "white privilege" is a dangerous and disgusting one. Not because there's no truth to it, but because it intentionally uses racial association to twist the truth into a weapon of supression.

Whether or not there is a historic precedent for it, you perpetually polarise the conversation beyond its ability to be constructively engaged in when you justify the use of racial descriptors of guilt that define and assign identities based on factors beyond the individual's control.

I guess the defence to that would be the weasely deflection to "you think it is racist because don't understand what white privilege means."
It's an almost valid defense, but it falls short because it is the speaker's responsibility to make him or herself reasonably understandable.
"Inherited privilege," "generational privilege," "majority privilege" aren't perfect terms, but they'd be more accurate by far and would at least imply that the people using them were motivated by a desire to communicate rather than just scapegoat.
This is pretty well illustrated by the fact that opponents of phrasing like "white privilege" and the beneficiaries of its effects are not the only ones who fail to understand it when they use it.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,816
Messages
55,309,573
Members
174,732
Latest member
herrsackbauer
Back
Top