>"White" identity must go before all the other identities because "whites" chose "whiteness" for themselves and then forced "black" and "brown" identity on others against their will.
I don't care. A slave identity is a slave identity. This may have been the case 50-300 years ago, but not anymore. Colonial identities have been so internalized that most "blacks" themselves will do everything they can to hold onto their slave identity, reinforce it onto other people, and even scoff at anybody person honestly suggesting that we should dismantle colonial identity politics.
"Nope. The fact that you do not understand this shows either pretend/willful ignorance, or proves you have not been actually reading the argument I've been having with 90sRF despite you being a loudmouthed yes-man for him."
>I automatically stop taking people seriously when I witness them dodge questions
You accuse me of dodging questions, when you yourself failed to acknowledge my point that you clearly have not actually read my posts if you suppose that I believe that trying to dismantle tribalism will cause my tribalism. My
>Please give me examples of me being a "loud-mouthed yes-man"?
So you haven't already concluded that I am a liar, and "full of shyte"? Progress! You know you really had me there thinking that you didn't like me
Anyhow, I am referring to literally everything you've posted in this thread. This is considering all of your shallow easily-debunked arguments, and how you vigorously support anything 90sRF says as much as you obviously avoid actually reading what I've said.
>You literally said: "So far, you have acknowledged that your politics will increase tribalism..."
I was referring to when 90sRF admitted it would only increase ethnic tensions to treat anti-slavery people as if they actually want slavery back, for merely apolitically refer to themselves as "white". Improve your reading comprehension, or shut up.
>So, if we confront people who "absentmindedly call thems>elves 'white'" with the information that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that "whiteness" is inherently racist, and they then continue to identify as "white" long after the information has been presented to them, should we not identify these people as "white"?
We should, yes absolutely. But the condition is that they need to know that the option to not be "white" exists to begin with. People have internalized identity politics so hard that to most, deciding not to be "white" is the same as denying that a beige skinned person is beige. Its up to us to educate them, telling them that "whiteness" is a tribal social construct, not a word to be used to refer to one's skin color.
>I love how you use ASCII code to get around the forum censoring expletives, as if we lack imagine as you do. Certainly another red-flag in your regard for myself also. Says much more about your personality than you might imagine, pun intended. Why you so mad bro? lol!
Yeah this is exactly what I mean by you idiots dodging questions you cannot refute.
I said: "don't bother bringing up something I already disproved"
You said: "lol you use accent marks to evade forum censorship"
>Which begs the obvious question, if a person is supposedly "anti-slavery", and perhaps even "anti-racist" in their own mind, then why do they outwardly identify with a proven racist identity such as "whiteness"?
Because they don't realize how closely tied the two beliefs are you idiot. Again, to most people "white" means "beige skin", not "Western Chauvinist".
>So, once it is proven to said person in your example that "whiteness" is racist, they should stop using it as a self-descriptor if they wish to be anti-racist, correct?
Absolutely. Literally all I have been saying this entire time is that they should be educated to know that this option exists. That a better cultural ideal should replace the concepts of "whiteness" and "blackness", and that it would be insane to treat people as if they believe in something horrible, when in reality, they don't, as this will only worsen tribalism.
Home
Search
Login
Register