Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    05 Jun '16 09:39
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    When I refer to KazetNagorra as having 'white male privilege', it was *not* a claim that he
    was 'privileged' (which seems to be his disingenuous objection) in other ways such as class.
    Indeed, I have no knowledge of whether KazetNagorra comes from a poor, rich, or middle-class family,
    and I made no comment or implication by it. But I can be reasonably ...[text shortened]... agorra's absence of empathy for people who have experienced that kind of adverse discrimination.
    I don't identify as "white" but indeed, to my knowledge I have not experienced discrimination due to not being identified as "white male." I have experienced discrimination due to other factors (such as being a foreigner) and regardless of how much empathy I appear to convey to you I think discrimination is bad and should be fought. I don't think that the way to this is to put huge emphasis on the factors that, in the minds of people doing the discriminating, are important. Quite the opposite - by encouraging a culture wherein these traits are seen as NOT important, it will be much easier to marginalize racists, xenophobes etc. as we ought to do.
  2. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    05 Jun '16 21:50
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I don't identify as "white" but indeed, to my knowledge I have not experienced discrimination due to not being identified as "white male." I have experienced discrimination due to other factors (such as being a foreigner) and regardless of how much empathy I appear to convey to you I think discrimination is bad and should be fought. I don't think ...[text shortened]... NOT important, it will be much easier to marginalize racists, xenophobes etc. as we ought to do.
    In contrast to KazetNagorra, I don't regard simply mentioning that Tu Youyou's the first Chinese
    woman to win a Nobel Prize is "put(ting) *huge emphasis*" on her nationality or gender.
    I don't understand why that seems to bother KazetNagorra so much.

    For decades, I have observed Western (particularly American) journalists making the
    false claim that 'no Chinese scientist ever has won a Nobel Prize' (In fact, Lee and Yang
    won the 1957 Nobel Prize in physics.), often followed by the sneering insinuation that
    no Chinese scientist ever would be capable of winning a Nobel Prize.

    Does KazetNagorra object to having Maurice Ashley (who was born in Jamaica)
    described as the first black grandmaster in chess?
  3. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    06 Jun '16 06:23
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    In contrast to KazetNagorra, I don't regard simply mentioning that Tu Youyou's the first Chinese
    woman to win a Nobel Prize is "put(ting) *huge emphasis*" on her nationality or gender.
    I don't understand why that seems to bother KazetNagorra so much.

    For decades, I have observed Western (particularly American) journalists making the
    false claim that ...[text shortened]... ing Maurice Ashley (who was born in Jamaica)
    described as the first black grandmaster in chess?
    In contrast to KazetNagorra, I don't regard simply mentioning that Tu Youyou's the first Chinese woman to win a Nobel Prize is "put(ting) *huge emphasis*" on her nationality or gender. I don't understand why that seems to bother KazetNagorra so much.

    It doesn't "bother" me that you simply mentioned this a few trillion times. Never said that it did, just that I find it "creepy."

    For decades, I have observed Western (particularly American) journalists making the
    false claim that 'no Chinese scientist ever has won a Nobel Prize' (In fact, Lee and Yang
    won the 1957 Nobel Prize in physics.), often followed by the sneering insinuation that
    no Chinese scientist ever would be capable of winning a Nobel Prize.


    I have seen many journalists be wrong about many things.

    Does KazetNagorra object to having Maurice Ashley (who was born in Jamaica)
    described as the first black grandmaster in chess?


    In case it wasn't obvious yet, I object to any/all racial classification.
  4. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    06 Jun '16 06:535 edits
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    [b]In contrast to KazetNagorra, I don't regard simply mentioning that Tu Youyou's the first Chinese woman to win a Nobel Prize is "put(ting) *huge emphasis*" on her nationality or gender. I don't understand why that seems to bother KazetNagorra so much.

    It doesn't "bother" me that you simply mentioned this a few trillion times. Never said that it ...[text shortened]... aster in chess?[/b]

    In case it wasn't obvious yet, I object to any/all racial classification.[/b]
    "it doesn't 'bother' me that you simply mentioned this a few trillion times."
    --KazetNagorra

    KazetNagorra's 'estimate' is in error by about eleven orders of magnitude.
    So if it does not bother KazetNagorra, why does he comment about it at all?

    Before I mentioned that Tu Youyou had led Chinese scientists in developing the world's
    most effective drug against malaria, how many readers here would have known that fact?
    Even *after* I mentioned that fact, a white racial supremacist here attempted to claim (by implication)
    that the drug must have been developed by Western scientists--another example of
    how superior white people always selflessly attempt to help inferior non-white peoples.

    It's absurdly unrealistic to pretend that this world is 'colour-blind' about racial classifications.
    Such extreme naivete could come only from someone (such as KazetNagorra) who presumably
    never has experienced any adverse discrimination based upon his racial appearance.

    Does KazetNagorra believe that late Muhammad Ali's racial appearance was irrelevant to his life?
    Does he believe that Ali would have had the same life if he had been a white man in the USA?
    The eulogies about Muhammad Ali have emphasized that he was a black man because
    that was an essential reality in making him who he became. But KazetNagorra apparently
    would like to act as though 'race' was irrelevant to the life of Muhammad Ali and others.

    And this thread has evidence that some writers' responses to the subject of malaria
    and its treatment are influenced by their racism. I would be hardly surprised to find
    racist websites later claiming that artemisinin was solely a white man's invention.
  5. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45708
    06 Jun '16 07:13
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    MALARIA
    ... Unless it's brought in by foreigners.
    Yeah that's right - those damn foreigners bringing in their malaria and infecting us white folk.
    We should build a wall to keep them out.
    (And perhaps nets as well)
  6. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    06 Jun '16 14:36
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    "it doesn't 'bother' me that you simply mentioned this a few trillion times."
    --KazetNagorra

    KazetNagorra's 'estimate' is in error by about eleven orders of magnitude.
    So if it does not bother KazetNagorra, why does he comment about it at all?

    Before I mentioned that Tu Youyou had led Chinese scientists in developing the world's
    most effective dr ...[text shortened]... sed to find
    racist websites later claiming that artemisinin was solely a white man's invention.
    KazetNagorra's 'estimate' is in error by about eleven orders of magnitude.
    So if it does not bother KazetNagorra, why does he comment about it at all?


    I commented because I find your obsession with Tu Youyou odd and creepy. Like I said. Not because it "bothered" me what an anonymous person writes on the Internet.

    It's absurdly unrealistic to pretend that this world is 'colour-blind' about racial classifications.
    Such extreme naivete could come only from someone (such as KazetNagorra) who presumably
    never has experienced any adverse discrimination based upon his racial appearance.


    I don't "pretend" that there is no racism or discrimination. I'm saying that there shouldn't be, and the way to get there is to stop putting emphasis on race, appearance (when irrelevant), etc. whether it is intended in a positive - "person X is the first one with arbitrary trait Y to do Z!" - or a negative - *insert a FishHead post here* - way.
  7. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    06 Jun '16 21:442 edits
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    [b]KazetNagorra's 'estimate' is in error by about eleven orders of magnitude.
    So if it does not bother KazetNagorra, why does he comment about it at all?


    I commented because I find your obsession with Tu Youyou odd and creepy. Like I said. Not because it "bothered" me what an anonymous person writes on the Internet.

    It's absurdly unrealist ...[text shortened]... irst one with arbitrary trait Y to do Z!" - or a negative - *insert a FishHead post here* - way.
    There was a dispute among KazetNagorra, No1Marauder, and me (perhaps others)
    about what, if anything, should have been done to end apartheid in South Africa.

    If I recall correctly, KazetNagorra condemned Nelson Mandela and the ANC for approving
    of armed struggle, if necessary, to oppose apartheid in South Africa. Would KazetNagorra
    (who personally would have not been harmed by apartheid) also condemn Nelson Mandela
    for daring to mention the fact--oh, using any 'racial' language must be taboo!--that
    apartheid consisted of white people unjustly dominating and exploiting non-white people?

    While KazetNagorra expressed no approval of apartheid (though he seemed to have
    regarded Nelson Mandela as being far from admirable), it seems that KazetNagorra did
    not believe that apartheid was wrong enough to require urgent forceful action to oppose it.
    While KazetNagorra may not be a racist, in some ways he acts like an anti-anti-racist,
    which seems enough to make him useful to some racists.
  8. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    07 Jun '16 06:411 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    There was a dispute among KazetNagorra, No1Marauder, and me (perhaps others)
    about what, if anything, should have been done to end apartheid in South Africa.

    If I recall correctly, KazetNagorra condemned Nelson Mandela and the ANC for approving
    of armed struggle, if necessary, to oppose apartheid in South Africa. Would KazetNagorra
    (who personally w ...[text shortened]... e ways he acts like an anti-anti-racist,
    which seems enough to make him useful to some racists.
    In the end it did not appear that Mandela's use of violence decades before the end of apartheid did much to end it. I'm no expert on South African history but I am still not convinced it was "necessary" in any real sense. Likewise (for example), the abolition of most sexist and anti-gay laws in the West after WW2 did not require violence.

    I would posit that if pro-Palestinian fighters had not used violence after 1967 to counter oppression from the Israeli government, an independent Palestinian state would have been founded long ago.
  9. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    07 Jun '16 07:586 edits
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    In the end it did not appear that Mandela's use of violence decades before the end of apartheid did much to end it. I'm no expert on South African history but I am still not convinced it was "necessary" in any real sense. Likewise (for example), the abolition of most sexist and anti-gay laws in the West after WW2 did not require violence.

    I would pos ...[text shortened]... from the Israeli government, an independent Palestinian state would have been founded long ago.
    KazetNagorra shows his abysmal understanding of history as well as his extreme
    'double standards' toward the usage of violence. And KazetNagorra keeps showing
    his total lack of comprehension of the brutal realities of racist oppression.

    Bad as legalized bigotry against LGBT people was (or still is in some places), it was
    less brutal than Western imperialism's routine racist oppression of non-white peoples.
    A gay person could avoid the worst of bigotry by staying in the closet (uncomfortable,
    yes, but often fairly safe), but a black person could not conceal being black and thus
    evade the impact of racism.

    South Africa's apartheid system was maintained only through institutional violence.
    The apartheid regime was responsible for killing many more non-white people than
    the ANC was responsible (in its modest scale of armed struggle) for killing white civilians.
    But KazetNagorra apparently prefers to blame only the anti-apartheid side for violence.

    And it's absurd for KazetNagorra to argue, if he does, that apartheid could have ended
    *only* through the peaceful working for change *within* the apartheid system itself.
    That was initially attempted (including by some liberal whites) and found to be futile.
    Indeed, the pro-apartheid intelligence and security forces targeted the most promising
    non-violent anti-apartheid activists for torture or murder. There was no realistic possibility
    of, say, a South African Martin Luther King being able to lead hundreds of thousands
    of people in marching peacefully against apartheid. The security forces would have
    eliminated him before then, and South Africa's propaganda would have loudly branded
    him as a 'Communist agitator' or 'terrorist', thus drawing support from the USA.
    (Until the early 1990s. the CIA reportedly classified Nelson Mandela as a 'Communist terrorist'.)

    Donald Woods, a liberal white journalist, was shocked when South African security forces
    did something resulting in his young daughters getting badly burned. He had expected
    the apartheid regime to employ such violent measures against only non-white critics
    of apartheid. As a well-connected white man, he expected that he and his family
    would be immune from such violence. So he reluctantly came to the conclusion
    (which his black friends in the ANC had reached much earlier) that the struggle
    against apartheid could not be won solely through non-violent means.

    To be realistic, apartheid was supported by the overwhelming majority of white South Africans
    (though few of them were honest enough to admit it after apartheid came to an end).
    Even a few token cosmetic 'reforms' to apartheid encountered fierce opposition.
    The apartheid regime showed (as at Sharpeville) that it was ready to use overwhelming
    lethal force against unarmed protesters. Apartheid did not come to an end because
    most white South Africans had their moral consciences suddenly awakened. It came
    to an end because enough white South Africans became afraid enough of their long
    term future--of their prosperity and survival--if they kept having to fight an endless war
    against the non-white majority, amidst increasing international isolation. Near the end
    of apartheid, Israel was South Africa's only ally. Even the USA (which long had supported
    the apartheid regime in all but name) had begun agreeing to economic sanctions against
    South Africa. In short, white South Africans reluctantly agreed to abolish apartheid
    because they became afraid enough of what continuing apartheid would do to their futures.
    For most white South Africans, it was a matter of calculated self-interest, nothing more or less.

    I could write a book about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so what follows must be
    extremely abridged and very oversimplified. But I have noticed that almost none
    of the writers in this forum knows much at all about the history. I suppose that I
    should begin by emphasizing the fact that there's been much more Israeli violence
    against Palestinian civilians than Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians, but
    many Westerners typically make one-sided condemnations of the Palestinians.

    KazetNagorra shows his extreme ignorance of the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
    There was not "a snowball's chance in Hell" that a triumphalist Israel--backed by practically
    unconditional US support--would even have considered seriously negotiating with the
    Palestinians about anything, let alone an independent Palestinian state, shortly after
    the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Golda Meir had explicitly denied that the Palestinian people
    even existed, so Israel had no one that it needed to talk to. The Palestinians were
    supposedly no more than some shiftless refugees with no political rights, no sense
    of national identity, and no legal or moral claims against Israel and Zionism.
    For decades, the US government's official policy was to deny there was a separate
    Palestinian people. The US government long refused to meet with or recognize
    anyone (such as the PLO) claiming to represent the Palestinian people who did not
    belong to an Arab government recognized by the USA. When one examines the record
    of the 1970s-1980s, the USA spent much time attempting to find *a non-Palestinian*
    (such as Jordan's King Hussein or Egypt's Sadat) who would *represent the Palestinians*
    and be acceptable to Israel (which held a de facto veto over the 'peace process' ).
    Whether most Palestinians would feel genuinely 'represented' by a US-appointed
    foreign (non-Palestinian) politician was not something that gave much concern to
    the US government. It seems that the US government expected that enough Arab client
    state arm-twisting could compel the Palestinians to accept an appointed figurehead.

    In reality, shortly after the 1967 war, the Palestinian people were faced with their
    impending political extinction. None of the major players then took the Palestinians
    seriously at all. So when they took up arms, *at first* the Palestinians were fighting,
    not yet for the dream of an independent state, but simply *to show the world that a
    Palestinian people did exist*. Golda Meir was wrong. The Palestinians did exist,
    and they were determined to keep fighting and dying until the rest of the world began
    to pay attention to them. Their enemies (Israel and even some Arab regimes)
    would not succeed in the *silent* elimination of the Palestinian people from history.
    If that was to be their fate-succumbing to overwhelming ruthless superior force--at
    least the Palestinians would go out with a bang, so to speak, and give their enemies
    a reason to remember them. Indeed, until about the time of the ill-fated Oslo Accords
    (which Edward Said eloquently denounced as a 'Palestinian Versailles' ), the PLO's
    main objective was simply to gain international recognition, to convince the world that
    the 'Palestinian people' was not going to go away quietly. It's said that Arafat once,
    thinking of the fate of 'Indians' herded onto reservations in the USA, said that it would
    be better for the Palestinians to resist to the death rather than suffer a similar tragic fate.

    When I joined RHP, there was no Palestinian flag for members to use. I created the
    initiative that, with the help of other members, was responsible for changing that here.
    I also know that for a long time, the US media (or major parts of it) censored the display
    of the Palestinian flag because they regarded it as a 'terrorist symbol'. Yes, the PLO
    and Hamas have not yet succeeded--against overwhelming odds--in creating a truly
    independent viable Palestinian state. But Palestinian resistance has succeeded in
    keeping the Palestinian cause not only alive, but gaining increasing international support
    almost everywhere outside the USA, which remains extremely biased in favor of Israel.
    Most people now apparently recognize some of the moral force on the Palestinian side.
    And that's quite an achievement in the face of the well-financed, well-oiled Israeli propaganda machine.

    KazetNagorra should stick to his field of physics; he shows abysmal comprehension of history.
  10. Joined
    29 Mar '09
    Moves
    767
    10 Jun '16 22:08
    The pathological liars called liberals are using science now to end a predudice against pedophiles saying that it is a sexual orientation they are born with just as homosexuality is and are pushing to make pedophilia legal. The white house has already taken steps to ensure their success. Didn't take long for this to start happening. Canada has made it legal for having oral sex with animals.
  11. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    11 Jun '16 08:00
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    The pathological liars called liberals are using science now to end a predudice against pedophiles saying that it is a sexual orientation they are born with just as homosexuality is and are pushing to make pedophilia legal. The white house has already taken steps to ensure their success. Didn't take long for this to start happening. Canada has made it legal for having oral sex with animals.
    You really should follow your doctor's advice.
Back to Top