Is it racist to say "It's ok to be white"?

[Jazzylynn]

Sounds like you're encouraging folks to get a rise out of others by race-baiting and public shaming, which is not a productive use of discourse.

If someone gets offended about something and wants to make a deal of it and look like an idiot, that is on them. If I see a back lives matter campaign and I go in and simply say "who here says you do not matter?" or "white lives matter to" I am almost positive that something "entertaining", but it won't start with me. Anytime I do not agree with a gay person, liberal, black, or have my rebel flag showing someone gets mad, sometimes yells and says a lot of stuff that does not matter because they get upset. People told me not to have republican, trump supporting or rebel flag decal on my truck because I was wanting to get some. Why? Because people on the opposing end of those view go and take it off, scratch the truck or look for a fight. If it happened to me I would want to video it. People should see how people act. It is entertaining in a sense, to me and others, to see how some people will react to things.

I do not know what race-baiting is but it sounds like another newly formed word to define something that shouldn't even have it's own word.

[Darkcide]

If someone gets offended about something and wants to make a deal of it and look like an idiot, that is on them. If I see a back lives matter campaign and I go in and simply say "who here says you do not matter?" or "white lives matter to" I am almost positive that something "entertaining", but it won't start with me. Anytime I do not agree with a gay person, liberal, black, or have my rebel flag showing someone gets mad, sometimes yells and says a lot of stuff that does not matter because they get upset. People told me not to have republican, trump supporting or rebel flag decal on my truck because I was wanting to get some. Why? Because people on the opposing end of those view go and take it off, scratch the truck or look for a fight. If it happened to me I would want to video it. People should see how people act. It is entertaining in a sense, to me and others, to see how some people will react to things.

I do not know what race-baiting is but it sounds like another newly formed word to define something that shouldn't even have it's own word.

Boy howdy I don't know where to start.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Here, Darkcide, maybe this will help.

https://splinternews.com/if-youre-confused-about-what-race-baiting-is-heres-a-b-1793848630


If you go into a room and purposely use a phrase you know is going to rile someone up, then yeah, it does start with you. You are the cause. You're the one causing the trouble. You're the problem.

There's literally no other way to look at it that is logically sound. You picked a fight, that's on you, sweetcheeks. At least your stance makes more sense as to where your beliefs are.

[HannibalBarca]

I think a lot of misunderstanding could have been avoided if the title of the group had been 'Black Lives Matter, Too', but I can understand the subtext.  The group was formed to get attention on the generally poor treatment of African-Americans by law enforcement in the U.S.  Individuals within BLM can be bad, just like individuals in any organization can be bad, but the aim of the group is to draw attention to injustices.

I can also relate the reason for which many people are getting upset with the rebel flag. (Boldface mine)  Source: http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/secession.html

Declaration of Causes of Secession, Mississippi (excerpt):

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Declaration of Causes of Secession, Texas (excerpt):

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

There is more from other states, on that page, and other pages that can be found easily enough through web searches.  The rebellion of the Southern states was over slavery.  It was a rebellion for the purposes of maintaining their state-mandated right to own human beings as property, even if it was not being taken away, but considered.  They had lost their majority control of Congress due to Kansas, and then California, being admitted as free states, and if they could not control Congress, they knew that eventually, some year, abolition was going to be passed as an amendment.  They balked at losing what they considered property, but was human beings, and made the only move they felt was available to them to maintain the status quo: secede from the United States.

The 'rebel flag' as it is called today, which is actually the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia (Robert E. Lee, commander), was only adopted as a symbol of the South in the 20th century, as a response to the Civil Rights Movement.  It is often claimed as a symbol of heritage, or as the history of the South.  History is in books mainly, or museums.  Heritage it may be to some, but not the heritage of everyone in the South. 

That particular flag may be a symbol to some people, but in point of fact it was the battle flag of men who betrayed their Oath to the Constitution as United States soldiers, and therefore it is the flag of traitors.  Robert E. Lee may strike some as honorable for being loyal to his state, but as a member of the United States Army, he took an oath to the Constitution, and that meant his loyalty was supposed to be to his country, not state.

One of the actual flags of the Confederacy was the battle flag centered on a field of white.  This quote describes why the designers chose it:

On April 23, 1863, the Savannah Morning News editor William Tappan Thompson, with assistance from William Ross Postell, a Confederate blockade runner, published an editorial championing a design featuring the battle flag on a white background he referred to later as "The White Man's Flag." In explaining the white background, Thompson wrote, "As a people we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause.

'Our cause'.  You can be proud to be from a region, or a particular ethnic group, or a religion, or as a fan of a team, of a fandom, or what have you.  But the evidence stands clear and firm that the rebel flag was created as a symbol for white supremacy, and flown by an army of traitors to our Constitution, in order to fight to keep African-Americans enslaved.  It might mean something different to you, and you're entitled to believe that.  But beliefs aren't facts.  I'll go with the facts, and I only display one flag, the flag of the United States of America. 

My grandfathers were World War 2 veterans, and white men, and one of them was an open racist who admitted to hating African-Americans, among others.  But both of them despised the rebel flag, because it was the flag of traitors who turned their backs on their oaths and their country.  A lot of people have other reasons for disliking or hating the rebel flag, but knowing it was the symbol for a group of people who betrayed their honor and sought to keep other humans enslaved...that's enough for me to hate it.

[Oniya]

I do not know what race-baiting is but it sounds like another newly formed word to define something that shouldn't even have it's own word.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race-baiting

Here you go.  Coined in 1961.  Fifty-six years old.

[Skynet]

Torontoist reveals that white supremacists in there city were helping distribute the "it's okay to be white" flyers.

Also an article with video footage of them hanging up the flyers.

Granted this is for one city, but I think it shows what kind of crowd the slogan is attracting.

[Markus]

4chan recently encouraged people to put up signs saying "It's OK to white" in colleges and universities. The reaction was predictable with people calling it racist and problematic. None of these signs said it wasn't ok to be any other race or ethnicity. I'll go out on a limb and say it is ok to be white, just as it's ok be anything other than white. Bit then again this is 4chan trying to press the buttons of the easily offended.

I'd just like to see other peoples takes on this as I don't like to keep myself stuck in an echo chamber.

I'm not white myself, however in my opinion..

Its ok being white,
Its ok being black,
Its ok being yellow,
Its ok being brown,
Its ok being magenta,
Its ok being purple,

Its not ok putting down / trashing someone else or some other group while being proud of what you are.
If none of these signs said you weren't ok to be any other race or ethnicity and if the demonstrators or what have you were just handing out fliers, leaflets, minding their own business, not being too aggressive or in your face, I at least wouldn't be having a problem.

[Jazzylynn]

If you go into a room and purposely use a phrase you know is going to rile someone up, then yeah, it does start with you. You are the cause. You're the one causing the trouble. You're the problem.

Okay so if "It's ok to be white" riles up a black person and they have the right to have that rile them up then is it okay if the group black lives matter bothers me because I think it is dramatic, farfetched or whatever then I have that right. Is it racist of me to have that opinion?

If someone calling black person black is racist, or if a white person walking into a campain for black lives matter says "Hey, ya know... it's okay to be white. it's okay to be anything. Don't you think all lives matter?" ... that is race baiting? If I started a campaign called white lives matter would that be racist or race baiting?

[HannibalBarca]

Okay so if "It's ok to be white" riles up a black person and they have the right to have that rile them up then is it okay if the group black lives matter bothers me because I think it is dramatic, farfetched or whatever then I have that right. Is it racist of me to have that opinion?

It would depend on why Black Lives Matter bothers you, first of all.  The reason would make a difference.  Why does it bother you?

If someone calling black person black is racist, or if a white person walking into a campain for black lives matter says "Hey, ya know... it's okay to be white. it's okay to be anything. Don't you think all lives matter?" ... that is race baiting? If I started a campaign called white lives matter would that be racist or race baiting?

I think it is already apparent to anyone with concern for their fellow human beings that 'all lives matter'.  However, events have shown that in many instances, black lives are valued less than white lives.  Some people wanted to change that, and make it apparent to those who didn't realize it, that black lives should be valued as much as white lives.  Seriously, I'm white and I've seen instances of racism here in supposedly liberal California, far too many times.  I have a hard time believing that this is the worst state for racism in the United States. 

And, again, starting a campaign called 'white lives matter' may or may not be racist, depending on the purpose of the campaign.  Considering the overall power white people have in proportion to people of other ethnicities, I think it's blatantly obvious that the overall culture of our nation already thinks white lives matter a great deal.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Also, you're begging the question, which is another logical fallacy. I'll be as clear about this as I can:

1. If you approach someone and say something you KNOW will rile them up and do it BECAUSE it will rile them up, you're race baiting. If you say it DESPITE the fact it will rile them up, then probably not. You can try to paint it a million shades of grey in between, but the reality is that this is, as far as I'm concerned, the only real criteria that's necessary to determine the truth.

2. You completely (possibly intentionally) misinterpret the point of BLM. Whatever else individuals have made it, the conversation was meant to be as follows.

"I am an unarmed black person. Don't shoot me."
"Why not?"
"Because black lives matter."
"You mean, they're just as important as white lives?"
"Yah."

Instead of people making it about white lives, listen to the conversation. They're not comparing themselves to anyone else. They're saying that on an inherent basis, they have value. Not compared to anyone, nor comparing anyone to them. But on the merit of their own existence, they matter and need to be treated with respect. If you're still arguing in terms of comparisons, then yes. You are exactly the sort of mindset they're protesting. So, either you are the reason they're dying or being incarcerated in such unbalanced numbers, thus sparking a need for the movement in the first place, or you're intentionally trying to bait them into acting out in order to be discredited, disrespected or mocked.

If you have another explanation, I would be interested in hearing what exactly that could be. I always like to be able to hear them so I can learn how to communicate with them and hopefully put this "hey, if they matter then by definition I have to matter less" nonsense to rest. Only those who have thought that of someone else can truly think others mean to imply the same. It reminds me of the argument that white people are somehow being attacked because other heritage exist. Those who make that argument seem to think that because other races were enslaved and abused for hundreds or thousands of years, that's what every other heritage wants to do to them. They are incapable of understanding the concept of equality separate from the concept of evening the score, because those are the only terms in which they think.

[NebulousCass]

At the very least it's co-opting many of the concepts used by dis-empowered groups and creating the sense that there's an issue where there really isn't one - there's really no empirical support for the notion that this country has *ever* been a place where it's "Not OK to be white".

Basically, if I put a bunch of signs around campus saying:

"There Is No Cure For Copper Lily Syndrome" that is *technically* correct - but the purpose of it is to suggest that there *is* a Copper Lily Syndrome. "It's OK to Be White" suggests this is a position in need of defense.

I have met a few people that feel that there is a need to defend themselves for being white. They genuinely felt, or at least said so, that they felt like being white was suddenly inherently wrong, or that because they were white they felt as though they were unwelcome or excluded from events that supported groups like "Black Lives Matter" or any other such group that promotes/supports minority groups.

Now the whole "It's OK to be white" thing from 4chan is quite obviously a ploy to cause controversy and it appears to have been successful in that regard at least but you brought up a point that I would like to hear people's opinions on.

Is being white, a position in need of defense?

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Is it PERCEIVED as a reality needing defense, or is it so in nature, which would your question be?

I would argue that for the former, yes, at least to some individuals with relatively justified thought process (please remember with me that justified doesn't mean correct, just defensible).  The latter however needs to be further dissected. There are certainly those that attack on the basis of white, though I would argue that they are no less fringe than extremist feminists, conservatives, liberals or any other sort of group. Extremists cannot be allowed to define a whole movement. Unfortunately, they're also both loud and dangerous because of how loud they are.

However, with the exception of those extremists, is there another reason these people feel excluded vy events that include BLM? In Toronto this year, there was huge contraversy because the head of BLM Toronto happens to be a transgender woman (i think it was, will check and leave an update if requested) who called for a ban on police officers in uniform from marching in the parade. It is somewhat traditional and yet, the local head of BLM took it upon herself to speak for a different community to disinvite the police to march in solidarity.

These sorts of actions, exclusionary in what seems to be a retaliatiry fashion, are the sorts of actions that are pushing that divide open again. It simply isn't necessary, and yet...... It is little wonder that people are feeling as though they might end up singled out by those who appear to be retaliating. The vast majority of Americans and Canadians both are not only against slavery as a concept and, psst.... Don't own slaves. They're not keen on paying for the anger of something they're far too young to have been a part of.

This can be found, at least anecdotally, to be true regardless of which side of some arbitrary struggle we find ourselves: Liberal or Conservative; religious or humanist; Canadian or American; black or white. If this is the impression that the group is leaving, a re-branding or possibly disbanding may need to be considered.

This all goes to say that those people who feel excluded and attacked for being white are still also in the minority, even if not by as much as those who might try to lash out about it or those who truly are racist. But the majority do not face much if any persecution for being white, so what little they do probably stings more, but it's the equivalent of my son telling me his scraped knee is the worst pain anyone's ever felt, ever! It's simultaneously entertaining and exasperating, less one and more the other the more often I hear it.

As people who are or pass for Caucasian, we don't really get persecuted to a point where I feel we need to defend ourselves. In North America, we're defending ourselves from meanies while our neighbours are trying to defend ghemselves by being gunned down in the street. If you feel the need to lut up signs reaffirming that you have nothing to complain about, do it in your own room.

[Suiko]

I'm going to stick my neck out here.

I've been following this discussion for a while and have zero desire to put my opinion forward because of the ripping response received should you disagree with the majority opinion here on the site. It doesn't do well to encourage discussion when people's views are piled on, ridiculed, hared, and whenever I see people use words like sweetie to put someone else down, it shuts down any desire I have to talk about an issue.

Here's where I'm sticking my neck out: it's wrong for Jazzylynn to have been put on probation for what's gone on here, because she can no longer defend herself. Whatever I think about what's been said, I've seen both sides of the argument becoming very heated - as they might, it's a very charged issue - and some people might be offended by a few points raised.

But no one has a right to be offended. Saying "I'm offended" is a sure fire way of stopping any alternative opinion from coming forward. I would encourage anyone to look at Steven Fry's famous thoughts on the topic. If I'm wrong and things other than this thread have conspired to result in a probation, then fair enough. But to me looking in, it looks very... unpleasant, and I'm sure anyone can see the association that makes between voicing a 'wrong' opinion and consequences.

There we go. It left a bitter taste in my mouth so... I wanted to speak about it.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

This is something I see a lot of, and I'm not going to try to categorize it but I do want to make sure it's addressed clearly. The heart of the issue, in any case, so we can get past it.

People are not attacked for having a different opinion. Or at least, Jazzylynn was not attacked for having it. Even in this thread, aside from the fact she's said some comments that were clearly meant to raise ire, there has not been a mass attack of any sort for simply having another opinion. A few people have raised points to counter hers, I don't specifically recall anyone attacking her, personally. Dissecting her points, sure, offering measured responses as far as I have seen. Hannibal Barca specifically seems to have done a good job of maintaining composure and explaining his point of view.

Now, there was also another thread here in which Jazzylynn has posted - the only two in which she has posted at all anywhere on the site since July when she joined. If you are curious enough, there is quite a bit to read there. But the long and short of it is that she made some comments that were inflammatory there as well, and when told she was being hurtful, directly and openly hostile to those in our community, specifically, who wear the Leige tag, she shifted the blame and doubled down.

In that thread, it might, yes, have very much looked like she was under attack. But not because she disagreed. In fact, there have been several people who have voiced a variety of opinions, some specifically that I would point out except I don't feel like dragging them into this mess. If she was attacked, it was largely because of the hateful things that were said, and her Eunuch status is, at least in part, for the hateful comments that staff felt the need to fully remove from those messages. I will not repeat them, of course, but on a vague note, they included singling out a particular subset of Elliquiy's community, making allegations as to the nature of their existence and calling into question the quality of their characters and status as human beings based on the reasons they wear the tag that they do.

I'm not sure if you're referring to something I said as using the term "sweetie", but it's a habit I use when I'm particularly upset so I'm going to go ahead and claim responsibility for it in any case. It's what I often use to remind myself to calm down and remain lighthearted where at all possible. I often consider it an alternative to actually launching a full-out attack on another person, since that is not fair. I believe I used the word "honey" specifically in response to Jazzylynn, so I do use it. I can see how it would put someone off. I will not, however, prostrate myself for the habit. There are many things that put people off about talking to me, that will simply have to join those ranks. I have done nothing wrong by doing so and I have avoided doing something worse.

Something that frustrates me is that those of a different thought process - often those with a conservative lean - will walk into largely-liberal communities and begin immediately with "Well, I know what happens to people around here who express a different opinion, so I fully expect to be attacked...." This is... ludicrous and unfair. And if people didn't want to attack them before, they certainly want to do it now. There is a fallacy wrapped up in that, but as stated before I want to get to the heart of the matter so I won't be explaining it in detail, but it's called "poisoning the well". Aside from that, however, it's an extremely hostile way of riling people up for a fight before delivering the battleground.

What's worse is that generally speaking, most of the people who start out like that deliver a few thoughts that are well organized and mildly delivered, to which the community responds with reasonable vigour. To the idea, not the person. Even so, some of those who started out with poisoning the well will still claim that they, personally are being attacked. This is far more a blockage of communication than anything said in response to this individual could have ever been. People get very touchy when their ideas are dismantled, and it is not a trait that is reserved to Elliquiy, Liberal-leaning communities or other organizations. Individuals are just as guilty of doing this and often will go out of their (very loud) way to see it happen. They will specifically inject an opinion that, in and of itself, is afforded no particular surge of respect. When it is disagreed with, they construe it as a personal rejection and attack the big, mean, evil hive-mind liberals for having dared to offer arguments against the idea. This is absurd.

And then there are those who will poison the well and proceed to deliver their opinion in the worst possible way. They often claim they were perfectly calm until someone else said something mean to hurt their feelings as though that were justification for their words or even remotely the point (or even not their intent to begin with). Or they point out that they fully predicted that they would be attacked and lo, it has come to pass as though they delivered some weighty ancient prophecy rather than the self-fulfilling one that had last passed their lips (Or in this case fingertips).

"Hello, Bunnylovers.com. I know you all love rabbits of all sorts and you're probably going to attack me for saying this, but you always claim opinions are respected, so let's test that.
Dwarf rabbits are stupid, anyone who likes them must be stupid and I hope you all go to hell."

This is OBVIOUSLY going to draw ire and if someone then points to it as a group trying to shut down conversation, they are being at the very least criminally dishonest. It's a juvenile tactic used to try to divert from the topic at hand and embroil one's opponents in defending themselves, defending each other and all around lack of focus on the discussing initially being had. And sometimes it's just flat-out trolling.

It is into this last cross-section that I believe Jazzylynn to exist. Those who will claim (paraphrased) "Transgender people aren't legitimate, but they're extreme examples of people that want to be gay and we shoulnd't allow it. I don't do any research on the topic, it's just an opinion and by its very nature is just as legitimate as any of you saying they deserve respect". It was, I think, for these comments (based elsewhere on PROC)that she was put on probation. Because she violated the terms of Elliquiy's membership. Without taking into account personal feelings on the subject of opposing viewpoints, it was this violation that led to her disciplinary status.


There have been some who have voiced dissenting opinions without being castrated. Almost universally, these are people who have presented their opinions in a much more civil manner than has been my experience with Jazzylynn. I would argue that anyone has a "right" to be offended. What's more important to me by far is how you choose to address that offense. And more to the point, in terms of these events, is that if one is being offensive, they do their best to take responsibility for it. being offended only stops the conversation if you cannot address it moving forward. For instance, if our Bunnylovers.com crasher got a message saying "That's offensive, that needs to stop. Say you don't like them if you wish, but don't attack others for liking them." That's a reasonable response that does not shut down conversation. The individual is then free to clarify "I don't like Dwarf rabbits. I think they look strange and I'm not a fan." Conversation resumes as per usual. Offense is not the end of a discussion. Not inherently and claiming that it is so is ludicrous. What will stop conversation is refusing to permit... further discussion. If you feel your dissenting opinion being challenged is an end to conversation, it was never going to be a conversation in the first place. Expecting others to accept your viewpoint without discussion is an equal level of unacceptable as it is to be shouted down and attacked because someone is offended. They are both extremes.

Unfortunately, Elliquiy cannot be responsible for the way that all conversations look. They can do nothing if one of their permanently banned members were in the middle of a story and a reader, knowing only that of them, automatically assumes it is the material of a story that has resulted in that expulsion. Elliquiy is not responsible for people's impressions of their disciplinary measures and trying to claim that they are instead of the person rushing to judgement with little to no evidence is an unfair pressure to put on staff. In the event that someone is permanently banned, there is generally some explanation left in the appropriate thread. The reasons for someone not being exposed when only castrated or some similar measure is usually because they must then face the rest of the community on return. The probation is intended to give them a chance to turn around their behaviour and in going forward in good faith, it is unethical to force them to face the community after detailing their crimes and expect them to be able to better fit into the community than they did before.

I can understand absolutely where you are coming from in your distaste on the issue. From the points you have presented, it is entirely reasonable that it would be an unpleasant parallel to draw. I would like to take the opportunity to direct attention to a function of member profiles that allows us to see the extent of a person's posts on Elliquiy from their introduction through to most recent posts. This might help to give an overview of the sort of conversation that any particular individual is involved with.

I do not blame you for your impressions. I would like to encourage more research prior to taking offense, but it follows logically from your impressions that you would be concerned about the atmosphere here, and I appreciate you coming forward to say something to try to address the issue. Thank you for your vigilance.

[ElvenKitten]

Oh no! What have I created... *Hides away*

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Oh, sweetheart. Don't take responsibility for what others have done with your conversation seed. Nothing you haven't directly said is on you.

I, myself, am glad that you started the conversation. There have been some very good points brought up here, as well, and I would not have missed out on those.

[Suiko]

Oh, sweetheart. Don't take responsibility for what others have done with your conversation seed. Nothing you haven't directly said is on you.

I, myself, am glad that you started the conversation. There have been some very good points brought up here, as well, and I would not have missed out on those.

Just wanted to +1 this in terms of starting the the. Things are good to talk about *nods*

Also glad that what I said was taken on board well. Honestly I was worried about posting so I'm happy ^^;

[Arvus23]

I remember this, this was fun to do.

Gave everyone a good laugh really.

The very idea of "It's ok to be white" was to see if 4chan, more specifically /pol/, could raise the ire of colleges for the simple message that was provided. No context was given, therefore it was left to people to determine context and that would lead to many a fun chuckles.

However for those saying that white people and white men in particular aren't being discriminated against. I'd like you to look at affirmative action and all the college scholarships that are offered to people of color or females, that aren't for males or white people.

I could go into a rant, but I won't.

[MiraMirror]

That might have a little something to do with the fact that white males don't have to deal with systemic oppression from the day they're born.  Just tossing that out there.  The whole idea that something is given to a minority or a female and one of the standard reactions is "But how come I, a white male, didn't get that, toooooo?" is kind of telling.  (I'm not talking about you, specifically, but a general view.)

[Silk]

That might have a little something to do with the fact that white males don't have to deal with systemic oppression from the day they're born.  Just tossing that out there.  The whole idea that something is given to a minority or a female and one of the standard reactions is "But how come I, a white male, didn't get that, toooooo?" is kind of telling.  (I'm not talking about you, specifically, but a general view.)

My question there would be where does "It's ok to be White" come across as gender centric? That's something you're chosing to attribute.

Although I could bring up the irony that "Ahh it's just those straight white cisnormative men complaining again" and disregarding their concerns and context behind it instead of considering them like an individual instead of some kind of well your race/sex is better off as a whole so your personal opinions, feelings and curcumstances don't matter, is exactly why things like It's ok to be white is starting to gain the traction that it is.

[MiraMirror]

For clarification,  my last post was directly replying to the second -to-last paragraph in Arvus's post, not the overarching topic of the thread.   I apologize for any confusion regarding that.

[TheHighwayHitman]

Hey. I'm white. And its awesome to be me. So I guess it means it's awesome to be white, not just okay. :D



But really, is it any wonder the aliens won't reveal themselves to us and let us see the galaxy? We're so worried about trivial stuff like skin color... something not a one of us had a say in anyway, we as a species all have our individual preferences. That's why we are all different! Race shouldn't be that important. I tend to ignore things like it's okay to be x signs. :)

[Arvus23]

That might have a little something to do with the fact that white males don't have to deal with systemic oppression from the day they're born.  Just tossing that out there.  The whole idea that something is given to a minority or a female and one of the standard reactions is "But how come I, a white male, didn't get that, toooooo?" is kind of telling.  (I'm not talking about you, specifically, but a general view.)

Give an example of systematic oppression please.

Before you say slavery or the lack for women to vote, let me go ahead and cut that off.

Slavery has been over with for nearly two centuries, the civil rights movement would be more viable, but there are no rights afforded to white people that aren't afford to any other race.

Lack of women voting is just a lie. Rather it was people who owned land were only able to vote and yes, women did vote if they owned land. It was rare but it was there. Looking past that, there are no rights given to men that aren't given to women. If you want to debate the gender wage gap, I will because that lie is based on one chart from the BLS. If you look at the hours worked by women and men, along with how men generally negotiate their pay more often then women. It's really easy to see that the wage gap is due to the different ways men and women think.

[Lustful Bride]

Give an example of systematic oppression please.

Before you say slavery or the lack for women to vote, let me go ahead and cut that off.

Slavery has been over with for nearly two centuries, the civil rights movement would be more viable, but there are no rights afforded to white people that aren't afford to any other race.

Lack of women voting is just a lie. Rather it was people who owned land were only able to vote and yes, women did vote if they owned land. It was rare but it was there. Looking past that, there are no rights given to men that aren't given to women. If you want to debate the gender wage gap, I will because that lie is based on one chart from the BLS. If you look at the hours worked by women and men, along with how men generally negotiate their pay more often then women. It's really easy to see that the wage gap is due to the different ways men and women think.

Off topic, but you might be able to have a better conversation without the tone and hostility coming through your writing. I do find the conversations going on very interesting, and I am curious to hear both sides of the debate, but after a while some of the jabs and obvious anger get kind of grating and ruin what might be an informative and fascinating discussion.

[Darkcide]

Give an example of systematic oppression please.

Before you say slavery or the lack for women to vote, let me go ahead and cut that off.

Slavery has been over with for nearly two centuries, the civil rights movement would be more viable, but there are no rights afforded to white people that aren't afford to any other race.

Lack of women voting is just a lie. Rather it was people who owned land were only able to vote and yes, women did vote if they owned land. It was rare but it was there. Looking past that, there are no rights given to men that aren't given to women. If you want to debate the gender wage gap, I will because that lie is based on one chart from the BLS. If you look at the hours worked by women and men, along with how men generally negotiate their pay more often then women. It's really easy to see that the wage gap is due to the different ways men and women think.

Lol.