Brother you’re engaging for over an hour already, you’re just ignoring the argument and building straw men instead of admitting that you were clueless (or provide any factual evidence)
Perhaps you could take this as an opportunity to reflect on your earlier statement and try to understand why people might view it as problematic, instead of lashing out and insisting you did nothing wrong?
If you’re the one seeing racism in any statement, you might want to reflect yourself. Yes, my initial statement wasn’t elaborated in the way it should have, and maybe I didn’t expect the level of american centric education I’ve found here, because as somebody that’s been around in this world it is just blatantly obvious to me that different regions have different food preferences, and that this is not related to race, but culture.
Also, if you can spare that little time, I am really, honestly, interested in how you think that not believing in racism against white people does let me justify apartheid. Because Apartheid is usually a construct white people use to separate themselves from other “races”, as seen in the US, South Africa and Palestine.
I’d also like to add that my replies contained no insults (feel free to point them out to me), so if you felt insulted it’s most likely because you feel exposed.
“Well my insults must have been accurate so they don’t count” what a fascinating way to absolve yourself from responsibility for your actions. Not right, nor novel, but I very rarely see that reasoning coming from a non-conservative-maga-esque source. Which is of course just observation exposing you, not an insult. Really if you’re insulted thats just because of how accurate my statements pointing out you sound like MAGA really were. Mom you don’t understand, I’m not touching him, therefore I am innocent and he’s just a whiner.
Admittedly that wasn’t my most mature explanation, but I do think it gets the point across rather clearly. Anyways, I’ll happily throw you a bone of a real explanation: Not being able to be racist against white people because they are the majority is the issue there. Apartheid, which was oppression of the majority by the minority, was undeniably racist - but by your reasoning would have been impossible to be considered thus.
You, again, put words in my mouth I never said, which is a straw man. I said that I did write a single insult and invited you to point out a single one, which you didn’t. You feeling offended, embarassed or even insulted does not mean that I did insult you by default.
Not saying that your feelings don’t matter, but if they are opposed to the facts they are just that: irrational feelings.
Apartheid is by no means limited to a minority oppressing a majority, if you take a look at apartheid in the USA and even Palestine, you’ll notice that a majority of white people was/is oppressing and segregating a minority. It’s really just about segregation and applying different laws to people depending on the group they are part of.
Looking at Europe, you can even find what I’d call Apartheid in Ireland, where the Irish people have been segregated and oppressed by the British for hundreds of years, before Ireland gained partial independence.
Now, me saying something like “raciam against white people doesn’t exist” is just a fact. But again, I am happy to agree with you that I was wrong if you bring up one single example of systemic racism against white people, really anywhere in the world. I am not aware of any place where white people would have a harder time just because they are white (which is what happens to people of color all around the world by the way)
And that’s a really bad example, because the British did not oppress the Irish people because of their “race”, skin color or other visual differences, by a matter of fact they both are of similar heritage.
As far as I am aware the main reason was their religion, as the Irish were Catholics or believed in Celtic gods, while the British were protestants. We could call it Christian on Christian violence, that was all around Europe after Christianity took over.
The anti-irish sentiment, that did spread around the world was merely based on Nationalism, as well as the British having been the major colonizer around the world, spreading their dislike for Irish people.
Or am I missing your point? It would certainly be easier to argue with you if you didn’t just always reply with one liners, omitting all relevant context and information that led to your conclusion, just like I did in my initial reply.
Also, as a side note, you again only picked one point, I am still happily waiting for you to cite an insult I supposedly threw at you.
Looking at Europe, you can even find what I’d call Apartheid in Ireland
And this is the definition of apartheid:
The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups […]”.
And this is you, now:
And that’s a really bad example, because the British did not oppress the Irish people because of their “race”
Yes, you’re right, I called it Apartheid/segregation, and it really just was segregation, not based on race, which makes it no Apartheid. A critical thinker like you most likely knew in advance that an irish person could pass as a british at any time if they wanted, when you listed Ireland as an example.
You really got a big gotcha here, but I am still waiting for you to make any meaningful point. It’s not hard to make no mistakes when writing if you only write one liners.
So again,are you interested in having an honest discussion, or are you just here to troll?
Brother you’re engaging for over an hour already, you’re just ignoring the argument and building straw men instead of admitting that you were clueless (or provide any factual evidence)
Perhaps you could take this as an opportunity to reflect on your earlier statement and try to understand why people might view it as problematic, instead of lashing out and insisting you did nothing wrong?
If you’re the one seeing racism in any statement, you might want to reflect yourself. Yes, my initial statement wasn’t elaborated in the way it should have, and maybe I didn’t expect the level of american centric education I’ve found here, because as somebody that’s been around in this world it is just blatantly obvious to me that different regions have different food preferences, and that this is not related to race, but culture.
Also, if you can spare that little time, I am really, honestly, interested in how you think that not believing in racism against white people does let me justify apartheid. Because Apartheid is usually a construct white people use to separate themselves from other “races”, as seen in the US, South Africa and Palestine.
I’d also like to add that my replies contained no insults (feel free to point them out to me), so if you felt insulted it’s most likely because you feel exposed.
“Well my insults must have been accurate so they don’t count” what a fascinating way to absolve yourself from responsibility for your actions. Not right, nor novel, but I very rarely see that reasoning coming from a non-conservative-maga-esque source. Which is of course just observation exposing you, not an insult. Really if you’re insulted thats just because of how accurate my statements pointing out you sound like MAGA really were. Mom you don’t understand, I’m not touching him, therefore I am innocent and he’s just a whiner.
Admittedly that wasn’t my most mature explanation, but I do think it gets the point across rather clearly. Anyways, I’ll happily throw you a bone of a real explanation: Not being able to be racist against white people because they are the majority is the issue there. Apartheid, which was oppression of the majority by the minority, was undeniably racist - but by your reasoning would have been impossible to be considered thus.
You, again, put words in my mouth I never said, which is a straw man. I said that I did write a single insult and invited you to point out a single one, which you didn’t. You feeling offended, embarassed or even insulted does not mean that I did insult you by default. Not saying that your feelings don’t matter, but if they are opposed to the facts they are just that: irrational feelings.
Apartheid is by no means limited to a minority oppressing a majority, if you take a look at apartheid in the USA and even Palestine, you’ll notice that a majority of white people was/is oppressing and segregating a minority. It’s really just about segregation and applying different laws to people depending on the group they are part of.
Looking at Europe, you can even find what I’d call Apartheid in Ireland, where the Irish people have been segregated and oppressed by the British for hundreds of years, before Ireland gained partial independence.
Now, me saying something like “raciam against white people doesn’t exist” is just a fact. But again, I am happy to agree with you that I was wrong if you bring up one single example of systemic racism against white people, really anywhere in the world. I am not aware of any place where white people would have a harder time just because they are white (which is what happens to people of color all around the world by the way)
I am going to choose ireland as my example.
And that’s a really bad example, because the British did not oppress the Irish people because of their “race”, skin color or other visual differences, by a matter of fact they both are of similar heritage. As far as I am aware the main reason was their religion, as the Irish were Catholics or believed in Celtic gods, while the British were protestants. We could call it Christian on Christian violence, that was all around Europe after Christianity took over.
The anti-irish sentiment, that did spread around the world was merely based on Nationalism, as well as the British having been the major colonizer around the world, spreading their dislike for Irish people.
Or am I missing your point? It would certainly be easier to argue with you if you didn’t just always reply with one liners, omitting all relevant context and information that led to your conclusion, just like I did in my initial reply.
Also, as a side note, you again only picked one point, I am still happily waiting for you to cite an insult I supposedly threw at you.
So this is you:
And this is the definition of apartheid:
And this is you, now:
Hmm.
Yes, you’re right, I called it Apartheid/segregation, and it really just was segregation, not based on race, which makes it no Apartheid. A critical thinker like you most likely knew in advance that an irish person could pass as a british at any time if they wanted, when you listed Ireland as an example. You really got a big gotcha here, but I am still waiting for you to make any meaningful point. It’s not hard to make no mistakes when writing if you only write one liners.
So again,are you interested in having an honest discussion, or are you just here to troll?