Group that created list "Pitfalls of working with White People" received government funding.
148 replies, posted
This group is tiny, who cares if they received a bit of government funding then were racist, it's not like they are the kkk where you know ahead of time they are racist. If they continue to get funding now then that is a different matter, but at the moment it just seems like a grant fuckup.
[URL="http://www.faqs.org/tax-exempt/NJ/Beyond-Diversity-Resource-Center-Inc.html#statementOfRevenue"]I mean in 2011 their anual income was about $220,000[/URL] they aren't that significant.
[QUOTE=Pennywise;44883516]You have constructed an argument where Irish racism no longer counts, because it could possibly be used to bolster a viewpoint that you disagree with.
I am actually angry right now. You have broken past the mental calluses I've gained reading your posts over the years and [I]drawn blood[/I].[/QUOTE]
No, because people only really bring up Irish racism as a counter to "black people were slaves." I've literally never seen anyone on this forum bring it up for any other reason.
By all means, if you've got a counter argument that involves Irish people then go ahead and spill it out.
[editline]22nd May 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;44883256]We should stop looking at racial/ethnic collectives if we want to get rid of racism. It isn't about words, its all about how you treat other people. We should be striving to treat people the same without any consideration for race or ethnicity and to do this we have to recognize that all racism is bad.
There is obviously a lot of social and institutional racism against non-whites still leftover from the past but I don't see how pointing out racism against whites in any way negates from the struggles of non-whites in their objectives to eliminate discrimination. Discrimination based on skin color is terrible no matter which race is being negatively affected. Racism against whites is not "reverse racism" and shouldn't be treated as something that is lesser than racism against any other race.
When you discuss African Americans you act as if they can't be racists. Racism involving blacks against whites does [URL="http://youtu.be/7c0a2oy5SoA?t=19m13s"]happen[/URL] and it isn't going [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtHV0fDMyFk"]away[/URL]. Declaring that only racism against minorities matters is counterproductive and racist itself.[/QUOTE]
Did you seriously just use the video where the guy makes fun of random tumblr users as a source? Like, what?
And never did I once say that racism against white people coming from black people [I]doesn't[/I] exist. In my post I mentioned black people being racist, just that I can understand why a black dude or lady would behave that way in most cases. My biggest point is that we should [I]not[/I] prioritize black-on-white racism, or even put it on the same level as racism against black people, because of, well, the systematic oppression and slavery and shit I bring up in every race-related thread.
[QUOTE=jokoman;44877712]I'd really like to point out that calling someone a person of color is pretty fucking stupid, every single person in the world's skin color is somewhere on the color spectrum, I'm a person of color too you know, I'm white.[/QUOTE]
That's like getting upset when told to "Roll down your windows", when you just have buttons. It's not an accurate term but you know what it means.
[QUOTE=jokoman;44877712]I'd really like to point out that calling someone a person of color is pretty fucking stupid, every single person in the world's skin color is somewhere on the color spectrum, I'm a person of color too you know, I'm white.[/QUOTE]
none of the labels we use for race really make sense. "colored" doesn't make sense because white is also a color, yellow doesn't make sense for asian people because it's more of an off-white ish bright beige.
person of color, or POC, generally refers to non-white people in the US.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;44884225][B]none of the labels we use for race really make sense. "colored" doesn't make sense because white is also a color[/B], yellow doesn't make sense for asian people because it's more of an off-white ish bright beige.
[B]person of color, or POC, generally refers to non-white people in the US.[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;44884196]
Did you seriously just use the video where the guy makes fun of random tumblr users as a source? Like, what?[/QUOTE]
I could link violent hate crimes if you want. Nobody is saying that we should prioritize hate crimes against whites. I don't see where you get this from.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;44884228]`[/QUOTE]
what does this post even achieve???
im literally just replying and saying that race-words like white, black, yellow, red, are all inaccurate but how POC just refers to non-caucasian people regardless of that
is this the point in the thread where you've ran out of arguments and are just going to quote random bits of my post where my laziness paired with my dialect create a slightly confusing string of words?
[editline]22nd May 2014[/editline]
oh you edited it, k
[editline]22nd May 2014[/editline]
and this is the kind of attitude i'm talking about. some people come into a thread and go "black on white racism isn't as bad as white on black" then some dudes come in and links to tumblr-bashing youtube videos that cater to 4chan users, articles about white-on-black crimes, and miscellaneous other pieces of anecdotal information. i'm also guilty of that to a degree, but..
what's the point in that, even? i (hope that) i don't have to prove that white-on-black racism has been, and probably will always be objectively worse than black-on-white-racism seeing as anybody who's been in 10th grade history should know this stuff.
but why are you guys linking to hate crimes against whites over and over? do you guys think i [I]don't[/I] think that it exists for some reason? you don't need to prove it to me, i'm well aware that it exists.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;44877234]Well first off let's establish that you're not reading the pamphlet yourself, you're reading a bunch of out-of-context quotes as relayed through a news article structured to induce outrage.
That's the thing I've noticed, there is absolutely no limit to the credulity which white people and the news media can have when appraising the intent of the words and actions of minority members. Stephen Colbert (or an intern of his, at least) can pretend to say something racist to satirize racists and everybody gives the statement the benefit of a doubt and acknowledges the irony or sarcasm behind what was said but then when people read partial-quotes from a pamphlet from a diversity group relayed second hand they instantly assume that it's all 100 percent serious and intended in complete bad faith to denigrate all white people.[/QUOTE]
The flyer in question: (was huge, posted as thumbnail. Just click it to see it)
[t]http://www.progressivestoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/wpc-flyer-painted.png[/t]
[quote]you're reading a bunch of out-of-context quotes[/quote]
Doesn't look out-of-context to me.
Change that flyer to any other race and the SJW posters of Facepunch would throw a shitfit (along with the majority of the rest of us, because that is retarded). But if its about white people, it's ok? I guess the closer you get to bashing white cis men the more points your argument is worth or something, because I can't see how the hell else you'd rationalize something so blatantly stupid.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;44882892]Before reading any of this please not that I have never said that racism is good in any way at all; it's just that some of it is more understandable. That's my big point right there.
Like, which has more weight behind it, a white dude calling a black guy a nigger, or a black dude calling a white guy a cracker? Should be an obvious answer.
(lots of words here)
[/QUOTE]
Yes, some racial slurs carry heavier insults behind them than others, nobody's arguing that.
What you seem to be arguing is "Racism isn't dead, it's alive!", which [i]nobody is arguing with you about[/i].
Also, just because you understand some racism still doesn't make it okay. Discrimination is still discrimination no matter which way you paint it.
Another point you seem to be carrying is the whole sins of the father bullshit. Did our ancestors do a bunch of awful shit? Yeah, so? Africans enslaved their own people and sold them to slave owners in the US because it was a lucrative business. The Japanese systematically killed Chinese people during World War 2. China has a whole slew of human rights violations going on to this very day. Fuckin [i]slavery in ancient rome[i] maybe? Their slavery wasn't even based on race!
Everyone's ancestors have done some shady shit. The argument most people here have is that discriminating against someone purely because of the color of their skin, regardless of what it is, is stupid and equally bad. This is NOT an argument about which racial slurs are worse than others. At its very core, the issue is basically "Don't treat people like shit for superficial reasons".
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;44884335]The flyer in question: (was huge, posted as thumbnail. Just click it to see it)
[t]http://www.progressivestoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/wpc-flyer-painted.png[/t]
Doesn't look out-of-context to me.[/QUOTE]
Jesus christ every single site that I can find that posted on is sketchy as FUCK.
[QUOTE=sgman91;44883966]You can insult people without being racist.[/QUOTE]
try telling that to the people that harass me
[QUOTE=BLUcody;44884404]try telling that to the people that harass me[/QUOTE]
My point being that just because you are justifiably angry at people doesn't make racism acceptable. You can be angry at them as people instead of white people.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;44884196]No, because people only really bring up Irish racism as a counter to "black people were slaves." I've literally never seen anyone on this forum bring it up for any other reason.
[editline]22nd May 2014[/editline]
By all means, if you've got a counter argument that involves the Irish then go ahead and spill it out.[/QUOTE]Trivializing, omitting, or excluding Irish racism because of whites-were-persecuted-too rebuttals is terrible, because they weren't even [i]considered[/i] "white". The closest they got was the slang "White Negroes".
They had white [i]skin[/i], sure, but they were supposedly as comparable to actual "Whites" as a Neanderthal would be. They were drawn in art as monkeys. They were considered lazy, substance-abusing subhumans which threatened to taint the genepool. They were a scourge of thugs that would mug you in the street if you gave them any leeway. They were nasty barnacles on the bottom of society, and any official who took an Irish-tolerant stance was attacked and lost campaigns due to it. And yes, they were also used as slaves for a time. Because they [i]weren't considered white[/i].
All of this was also happening to other races - African Americans most notable, because they were almost literally going through the same bullshit down to the specific slur names - and it was also horrible, but that's the point: You can't casually dismiss one and keep the other because it doesn't fit your argument. You can't answer "What about the Irish?" with "What [i]about[/i] the Irish?", especially while arguing against racism. [i]Especially[/i] when you could have said "The Irish were a notable case because they weren't accepted as actually White at the time" instead of "The Irish don't count because I'm tired of hearing about it stop bringing them up." This is not a racism dick measuring contest. Hamstringing one history of horrible persecution to get another out in front gets no one anywhere, and just causes more racial hatred.
You had a possible counterpoint - an honest-to-god, rock solid one - and you turned it into casual dismissal of the trials of an entire race. [i]In an argument about racism[/i].
I just want to know what the point of all this is. It seems to me like it would only promote racism and sow resentment. What is the goal of these people? What good could possibly come from an organisation that paints a specific group as bad? How does that even remotely come close to the idea of promoting diversity?
[QUOTE=sgman91;44884446]My point being that just because you are justifiably angry at people doesn't make racism acceptable. You can be angry at them as people instead of white people.[/QUOTE]
hmm gee but the majority of them are white people
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;44877767]what kind of complaint is this
it's a specific term about specific people (everyone who isn't white) that's been around for a very long time[/QUOTE]
Yeah all the time since the good old 1940's when signs said "no coloured people" and "coloured people in the back of the bus" I mean it definitely DOESN'T perpetuate the idea that only white is the normal skin and everything else is a coloration? Right?? Nah definitely not racist I mean it isn't like the word coloured was considered racist during 60's-00's, and for some insane reason came back as an ok word in the form of "person of colour".
Let´s exchange white for black and look how it reads
[QUOTE]
An organization that published a list of 29 “Pitfalls of Working With Black People” that was circulated at a diversity conference earlier this year received hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants from the U.S. Department of Justice, the Daily Caller has learned.
Beyond Diversity Resource Center, based in New Jersey, is listed as a partner organization for the Black Privilege Conference which was held in Madison, Wisc. in March.
One of the “pitfalls” listed on the Center’s pamphlet, published by the website Progressives Today, is that black people “ask stupid questions”.
The diversity group, which claims that it “works to build a society that honors individuals because of their cultural differences”, wrote on the pamphlet that whites “benefit financially off the backs of white people.”
Black people “are arrogant”, they “say something stupid” and “get too friendly too fast,” the diversity center’s pamphlet claims.
The organization has published several books on diversity and racism including “The Anti-Racist Cookbook” and “The Great Black Elephant”.
[/QUOTE]
See how racist it is now?
Is that logo on the flyer meant to look like Goatse...
In don't think white people being more privileged makes stereotyping any better, because making generalizations about how one group of people act indirect makes a statement about how everybody else does.
[QUOTE=BLUcody;44884758]hmm gee but the majority of them are white people[/QUOTE]
Having bad experiences with a certain race justifies your racism against the entire race? Sorry, but that wouldn't fly if somebody applied that to any other race.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;44884335]The flyer in question: (was huge, posted as thumbnail. Just click it to see it)
Doesn't look out-of-context to me.
Change that flyer to any other race and the SJW posters of Facepunch would throw a shitfit (along with the majority of the rest of us, because that is retarded). But if its about white people, it's ok?[/QUOTE]
Eh, I'm not offended. Every word that anyone has ever said has existed in a larger socio-cultural context. This pamphlet exists in a society where white people still [I]have all the money and power[/I] and so I don't see the dissemination of this pamphlet playing any role in some kind of larger social order of discrimination which [I]impacts peoples' liberties or quality of life[/I]. That's what actually matters. If I were writing a pamphlet I would have worded it a different way but the mere fact that the content of the pamphlet is mildly distressing to a white person means fuck all in the grand scheme of things and is infinitesimal compared to the large sweeps of systemic racism levied against people of color that exists rigidly codified into modern American society.
Statistically, people of color still have harder times getting jobs, still suffer from housing discrimination and discrimination when pursuing higher education (despite whatever warped understanding of 'affirmative action' people around here might have), and are still treated far, far worse by the American justice system; so when somebody points to a single pamphlet distributed at a conference with slightly prejudiced wording and says "SEE? RACISM CAN GO BOTH WAYS" I'm inclined to think whoever said that is a hysterical goddamn baby. C'mon y'all.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;44877710]the entire reason people are upset about the funding is because they joked about white people
e.g.
also the comments in the sources are all complaining about racism[/QUOTE]
The point is, if any organisation joked liked this about minority groups in their public material, they would not get funding, would be labelled as racist and there would be public outcry.
This isn't the talk of an individual inside of said organisation off the record. This is part of their publicly available stuff. It would be bad even if it was just a private in organisation memo.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;44886749]The point is, if any organisation joked liked this about minority groups in their public material, they would not get funding, would be labelled as racist and there would be public outcry.[/QUOTE]
That's because white people being prejudiced has [I]different, far more severe[/I] social, cultural, and legal implications.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;44886749]This isn't the talk of an individual inside of said organisation off the record. This is part of their publicly available stuff. It would be bad even if it was just a private in organisation memo.[/QUOTE]
No, it was a pamphlet distributed by just one of the many organizations at a conference. The conference is what received federal funding. The pamphlet was distributed by a separate, seemingly independent organization at the conference.
I mean, the [I]very point[/I] of a conference is to bring together as many different groups as you can; that's what a conference is. It's such a sign of this manufactured outrage that people don't even have the straight story of who recieved what money for what.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;44886778]That's because white people being prejudiced has [I]different, far more severe[/I] social, cultural, and legal implications.
No, it was a pamphlet distributed by just one of the many organizations at a conference. The conference is what received federal funding. The pamphlet was distributed by a separate, seemingly independent organization at the conference.
I mean, the [I]very point[/I] of a conference is to bring together as many different groups as you can; that's what a conference is. It's such a sign of this manufactured outrage that people don't even have the straight story of who recieved what money for what.[/QUOTE]
Because whites are the majority? Of course it has more severe implications, purely from the standpoint of being more numerous.
Then there's also the point that a large group of the majority is also more affluent than the minority, tends to have a higher education and as a result does end up being higher on the policy worker chain.
That in itself doesn't make white on black racism any worse than black on white. The difference is, that white on black racism can trascend personal racism and evolve into a systematic one. The truth is though, that the two itself can't be really compared and any organisation that receives public grants should do it's outmost to combat any forms of racism and not actually promoting it, as this organisation has done.
As to the funding point itself - I agree with you on that. if I was didn't read it correctly, but went more by the thread, I apologise. A conference can't always vet people that are present on it.
But I think we can both agree, that any organisation promoting prejudice of any kind is bad.
If this is a joke I'm not offended. If it's meant to be serious I'm just kinda weirded out that it's funded by the government.
Don't know whether the daily caller is any kind of reputable, though.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;44886908]
But I think we can both agree, that any organisation promoting prejudice of any kind is bad.[/QUOTE]
But that's the rub here is that this thread is full of people who are offended and up in arms over something said by, for all we know, an intern who slacked off and had to write a pamphlet in 5 minutes because it's something that offends their personal sensibilities. It's so obviously and totally nothing but because it's directed at them people find cause to get all riled up.
It sort of shows that most of the people who claim they care about all forms of discrimination equally ("all racism is bad", etc) [I][I]don't actually think that[/I] [/I]because, if they did, they would be filling up threads about Donald Sterling or that police chief who called Obama the n-word, tearing their hair out in livid rage (that being the proportional response, based on people's responses to this thread)
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;44886962]But that's the rub here is that this thread is full of people who are offended and up in arms over something said by, for all we know, an intern who slacked off and had to write a pamphlet in 5 minutes because it's something that offends their personal sensibilities. It's so obviously and totally nothing but because it's directed at them people find cause to get all riled up.
It sort of shows that most of the people who claim they care about all forms of discrimination equally ("all racism is bad", etc) [I][i]don't actually think that[/i] [/I]because, if they did, they would be filling up threads about Donald Sterling or that police chief who called Obama the n-word, tearing their hair out in livid rage.[/QUOTE]
i feel those are just idiot racists saying racist things so its funny to laugh at their stupidity, but this is government funded towards a "diversity" project so its more serious
[QUOTE=goldenbuttocks;44886994]i feel those are just idiot racists saying racist things so its funny to laugh at their stupidity, but this is government funded towards a "diversity" project so its more serious[/QUOTE]
yo dogg a police chief receives government funding too. it's called his "paycheck". Never mind the fact that the group in question [i]did not[/i] receive federal funding, as was explained on this very page.
That little sheet looks like a piece of shit. It looks like someone shat it out in 5 minutes when they had to prepare something for the conference.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;44886490]Having bad experiences with a certain race justifies your racism against the entire race? Sorry, but that wouldn't fly if somebody applied that to any other race.[/QUOTE]
i heard the argument that "oh its just bad people" but how can i believe that where its literally just white people doing this to me i dont think you get my argument
do i even say "lynch all white people?" i don't. nowhere near the racism minorities get. and the "racism" i put out is trivial at best. when i say "white athlete boys are such tools" really compared to "all asian woman are subservient?"
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;44884196]No, because people only really bring up Irish racism as a counter to "black people were slaves." I've literally never seen anyone on this forum bring it up for any other reason. [/QUOTE]
"I don't know what racism towards Irish people was, nor have I ever experienced it, so it can't have been that big a thing!"
do you EVEN READ THE POSTS THAT YOU ARE MAKING
also not even true, irish racism has been brought up before, but the main guy for the discussions was permabanned
[quote]You can pull your "My ancestors and/or I weren't slave owners" bullshit all you want, but it's not going to help. Hell, some of these atrocities are so recent that your parents probably grew up during some of it.[/quote]
judging people based on the actions or inactions of people in their family before them
wouldn't fly in any argument on this fucking planet
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.