ASD and extreme political beliefs

Post Reply New Topic

On most internet platforms, you're not allowed to say anything negative about minorities (even if true). That's why I have a different online platform where I generally prefer to discuss racial politics (one of the rare internet platforms that allows both sides to speak our mind).

On a platform where only one side is allowed to speak their mind on racial politics, it's impossible to hold a genuine discussion.

See, your attempt to use this as a rebuttal only carries weight when people choose to ignore all the arguments made about why white privilege exists.

But, once we agree to just ignore those arguments because they're inconvenient for you, you're right that simply repeating the idea that white privilege exists isn't the same as making a valid case. Unfortunately for you many valid arguments in support of the idea of privilege existing have been made.



This is just a lie, but it's the typical sort of lies white supremacists present in order to pretend like they're being persecuted for speaking their emotional truth rather than facing the consequences of spreading hate.

I admit white household incomes are higher. I admit whites get incarcerated and shot by cops at a lower rate.

What good does that do when we aren't even allowed to rally around our political interests? And what good does that do when we get victimized by minorities at a much higher rate than vice versa?

Incidentally, the fact we're far more likely to get victimized by a black man than a black man is to get victimized by a white assailant is an example of a negative (but truthful) fact that gets censored on most internet platforms.

Inequities extend well beyond that according to the evidence I cited in this thread although there's much more I could provide.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I will say that systemic racism leads to poverty and poverty leads to higher crime rates, so even if you can somehow prove that a higher percentage of people of a certain race commit a certain type of crime, the root problem is still related to ongoing oppression and white privilege.

Here's where your argument falls apart: Black Americans were way more oppressed during Jim Crow, yet committed violent crimes against us at a much lower rate.

Here's where your argument falls apart: Black Americans were way more oppressed during Jim Crow, yet committed violent crimes against us at a much lower rate.

What do you mean by "us?" I don't see things in terms of "us vs. them." We're all human. Starting from that premise is prudent. It makes it much easier to recognize and understand societal problems and to understand behavior.

You keep on making assertions without backing them up with a damn bit of evidence which makes it a bit of a challenge to address them.

So clearly blacks need to be oppressed more, like with random vigilante lynchings like you've already advocated for.

And you wonder why your views might get your posts deleted or result in you being viewed in unsavoury ways.

The scientific consensus about “race” today is that it is a fundamentally social rather than biological construct. The differences in superficial secondary characteristics such as skin color and hair texture across different “racial” groups do not correlate with underlying fundamental biological differences. Given human migrations over tens of thousands of years, each group defined by geographic ancestry reflects extensive genetic admixture across and within continents/regions. For example, Baharian et al. estimated that African Americans today have approximately 16.7% European ancestry; Solovieff et al. concluded that African Americans have “from 20 to 30% admixture with Europeans.”

Despite this knowledge, in official U.S. public health classifications, “Hispanic” or “Latino” is regarded as an ethnic group, whose members can be of any “race,” while African American/Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and European American/White are classified as “races.” There is no scientific basis for considering African Americans, Indigenous peoples, Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders, and European Americans to be “races,” not ethnic groups, while viewing Hispanics/Latinos as an ethnic group but not a “race.” All of these groupings reflect geographic ancestry. The continued distinction between “race” and “ethnicity” only serves to underscore the implication that “race” reflects biological differences.

The continued use of the term “race” is by no means the only or even the principal obstacle to addressing racism. It is, however, a significant obstacle because it is irremediably imbued with scientifically unfounded but nevertheless tenacious notions of biological differences and hierarchy which have long served to justify exploitation and oppression.

Is there just one race—the human race? Or are there intrinsically different groups of humans who are biologically distinct from each other? Despite extensive scientific evidence to the contrary, there has been a long-standing, widely held, deeply rooted, and unfounded belief that “race,” as reflected by skin color, hair texture, facial features and other superficial secondary physical characteristics, reflects fundamental biological differences. That is a convenient idea to hold if one wants to justify treating some people as undeserving of equal rights, autonomy, and respect.

I've seen firsthand what happens when other ethnic groups are encouraged to develop a healthy racial identity, while we're encouraged to be colorblind.