"White Supremacist" is a racial slur

Author: Mesmer

Posts

Total: 93
Topic's author
#1
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
I find it hypocritical this nasty term is freely available for use in general society. People get bent out of shape with terms like the n word, racial jokes and sometimes mere mention of race, but the general public seems complicit in slurring white people with this derogatory term. It clearly has racial overtones ("white" is literally built into the term) and it clearly is meant as a slur. According to the nonsense usually attributed with the term "racist" Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) , SJWs and progressive should be calling usage of this term "racist". Yet, these SJW and progressive people are usually the ones calling various white people this racial slur. This is a case of systemic racism against white people.

It's also true that this "white supremacist" racial slur is essentially an attack on white groups in general, whereas other racial groups are allowed to form groups without being slurred. If we search the term "white nationalism" on Wikipedia, we see "Analysts describe white nationalism as overlapping with white supremacism", whereas a search of the term "black nationalism" has Wikipedia making the term free from black supremacism: "Black nationalism is sometimes described as a euphemism for, or a subset of, Black supremacism and Black separatism, and these terms have often been used interchangeably by journalists and academics.[2][3][4] They are in fact very different philosophies". So, despite having white and black people attempting to form ethnostates, only white people are slurred -- more systemic racism against white people.

I think SJW and progressive types need to thoroughly reconsider their usage of this racial slur against white people, because not only is it thoroughly hypocritical, it's indicative of racial hatred against white people.
#2
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
They openly say whiteness is bad. I see tweets all the time. I follow a bunch of leftist Twitter users so I can see what the average democrat thinks
#3
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mesmer
No one is claiming that a white supremacist attitude is something all white persons are white supremacists. Indeed there is no taxonomic difference between the various human "races". We are all just human. Any observable differences between social groups is entirely cultural and claiming that white supremacist is a slur sounds like an attempt to make discussing the issues of systemic racism and white supremacist attitudes more difficult. 

People interested in truth rarely make discussing it more difficult. 
Topic's author
#4
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Wylted
They openly say whiteness is bad. I see tweets all the time. I follow a bunch of leftist Twitter users so I can see what the average democrat thinks
Yeah, there's plenty of tweets with anti-white hatred (took me 1 min to find -- there's loads more):




I'm not convinced all these are genuine people, though. Some might be grifters looking to make a quick dollar of racial hatred. Hell, the average Democrat might not even be the vitriolic against white people, but there are certainly people who are.

#5
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,050
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mesmer
Fortunately no one is white....Therefore no one should be offended.

And some people are sensible, and some people are particularly stupid....And we've always known this...So we should be used to it by now.


Topic's author
#6
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
No one is claiming that a white supremacist attitude is something all white persons are white supremacists.
You've strawmanned everything in the OP. The claim the OP makes is that "white supremacist" is a racial slur. Whether or not someone claims all white people have white supremacist views is irrelevant to the term being a racial slur or not.

Indeed there is no taxonomic difference between the various human "races". We are all just human. Any observable differences between social groups is entirely cultural and claiming that white supremacist is a slur sounds like an attempt to make discussing the issues of systemic racism and white supremacist attitudes more difficult. 
Firstly, whether or not human races are real is irrelevant as to whether "white supremacist" is a racial slur. The slur is generated through racial animus (faulty as it may be) and is not dependent on whether human races are valid. For example, saying "go back to the cotton fields, you bootlipped n*gger" remains a racial slur regardless of the validity of human races. If you don't agree, go say that to an African American and see how far you get in explaining human races don't exist.

Secondly, human races are of taxonomic value. There is sufficient fst value for humans that are similar/above other animals' species whom DO have species (read: race). Heterozygosity reflects the same findings of fst value evaluation. SNP/loci grouping distribution, done blind by a computer, distinctly groups 'African', 'European' and 'Asian' racial groups (super broad racial groups) when the SNP/loci number reaches 100 The Existence of Race – The Alternative Hypothesis . On a scientific level, humans are of taxonomic value.

Furthermore, here are different human skulls from varying races (differences noted, too): main-qimg-6f0736c16e8265de9f98f40e7ef7e76a (602×610) (quoracdn.net) . You're essentially arguing that these differences in skull shapes are culturally caused (?!). Forensics actually use skulls to determine human race because it has predictive validity Microsoft Word - 07. (pharmainfo.in) . Again, is the fact that forensic police use this notion of human race, and are able to accurately determine human race, just a series of extremely lucky guesses?

We're also able to observe albinism in differing races and easily determine their race, based on their phenotypic traits: main-qimg-54acc098bd279b12f95dd678b2395091 (602×566) (quoracdn.net) . Empirically, we can observe what we typically call human races (Asian, African etc.) through something as blanketing (e.g. changes skin colour) as albinism. Why are all African noses broader, generally speaking, if race has no taxonomic significance? 

Conclusively, in either the first case where we conceded your argument, or the second case where we prove human races exist, "white supremacist" is a racial slur.

People interested in truth rarely make discussing it more difficult. 
Agreed.

Topic's author
#7
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Fortunately no one is white....Therefore no one should be offended.
You've made the same argument to secularmerlin. I've addressed it under the second quote being this: "Indeed there is no taxonomic difference between the various human "races". We are all just human. Any observable differences between social groups is entirely cultural and claiming that white supremacist is a slur sounds like an attempt to make discussing the issues of systemic racism and white supremacist attitudes more difficult."

Here is a direct link to the post wherein I address merlin's point: "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) .

And some people are sensible, and some people are particularly stupid....And we've always known this...So we should be used to it by now.
Whether or not some people are "particularly stupid" doesn't impact whether "white supremacist" is a racial slur. We could have 145 I.Q. people and 70 I.Q. people calling African Americans the n word, and in both instances the n word is a racial slur.
#8
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,050
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mesmer
Well taxonomically one can discriminate in all sorts of ways.

And just like everything cultural, taxonomic discrimination is no more or less a data management exercise.

What we do is the inevitability because of what we are.

And currently "White supremacist" doesn't have the same social significance as "n*gger".

Such is the ongoing development of data.

Just replacing that awful "i" with an asterisk.....Makes all the difference in terms of en vogue data management.

So call me wh*tey.....And all will be good.
Topic's author
#9
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Well taxonomically one can discriminate in all sorts of ways.

And just like everything cultural, taxonomic discrimination is no more or less a data management exercise.
Could you please explain to me how differences in ability to sweat is "cultural?"

Could you please explain to me how differences in cranial shape are "cultural?"

Could you please explain to me how differences in lactose tolerance are "cultural?"

Could you please explain to me how differences in skin color are "cultural?"

And currently "White supremacist" doesn't have the same social significance as "n*gger".
So how did you get from this statement to "white supremacist" *not* being a racial slur?

So call me wh*tey.....And all will be good.
The thread is about "white supremacist", not "wh*tey".
#10
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,050
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mesmer
1. Culture is such that all becomes cultural.

Discrimination is cultural.


2. I got there

Because it currently isn't


3. And you are discriminating on the basis of thread identity.
Topic's author
#11
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
(1)
You originally said: "Fortunately no one is white....Therefore no one should be offended." "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) .

I responded to this by directing you to my other post wherein I show that human races are real (and thus "white" is real): "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) .

You've now attempted (whether intentionally or not) to shift the topic involving "taxonomic" human racial distinctions to "discrimination": "1. Culture is such that all becomes cultural. Discrimination is cultural..."  "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) .

If you want to argue that "no one is white", you need to demonstrate that human races are purely "cultural". I provided you a truckload of arguments which demonstrate why race IS a real concept for humans, that there is a genetic component to it: "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) . You haven't addressed this argument at all. Have you conceded it?

(2) 
I don't agree that "white supremacist" isn't currently discriminatory -- that's why I made the thread. You haven't demonstrated that it isn't currently discriminatory, either, so that's a bare assertion on your behalf.

Again, I posited that (a)  It clearly has racial overtones ("white" is literally built into the term) and (b) it clearly is meant as a slur. (a) is asserted because there is literally mention of race in the term "white". (b) is asserted because no one wants to be called a "white supremacist". You haven't addressed this framework at all, hence you've currently conceded all of it.

#12
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,050
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mesmer
1. Race is a word variously defined....As is white....Such is data management.

One race as dictated by it's unrestricted propensity to procreate, and consequently produce skin tone variation.

Or a hundred metres dash...Though currently darker competitors reign supreme.... Such can we taxonomically differentiate.


2. And I find "white supremacist" just as inoffensive as I find nigger.

Because offence is a deliberate data processing exercise, that I do not subscribe to, as I see no value in it.

Others choose to process differently

"White supremacist" is simply the counter -offence promoted by those such as yourself that see value in promoting a counter-offence.


Most people wouldn't give such things a second thought  if left unbothered.


#13
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mesmer
You've strawmanned everything in the OP. The claim the OP makes is that "white supremacist" is a racial slur. Whether or not someone claims all white people have white supremacist views is irrelevant to the term being a racial slur or not.
If no one is claiming that white supremist attitudes are an inherent property of whiteness then it is not a racial slur. Case dismissed. 
Secondly, human races are of taxonomic value.
Not genetically. A European descended person may have more dna in common with any given African descended person than any of his eurocentric contemporaries. There is not enough difference between us behaviorally or physically to make any taxonomic distinction. 
#14
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@zedvictor4
Fortunately no one is white....Therefore no one should be offended
When people say kill all whites, they are talking about caucasions.
#15
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Mesmer
"white supremacist" is a racial slur
What race is that term slurring?
#16
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
The level of nonsense is beyond belief.
#17
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Mesmer
"White supremacist" is descriptive. The n word is not.
#18
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
lol white supremacist means thinking white people are above all minorities this doesn't mean only white people are white supremacist there's plenty of black white supremacists. looking at mesmers other forum posts hes a white supremacist and just wants to make it so no one can call him anything.
#19
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,531
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
On April 14, 1865, John Wilkes Booth became the first person to assassinate an American president when he shot and killed Abraham Lincoln in his box at Ford's Theater in Washington. ... A supporter of slavery, Booth believed that Lincoln was determined to overthrow the Constitution and to destroy his beloved South.
Now that is a White Supremacist.
#20
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wylted
When people say kill all whites, they are talking about caucasions.
Odd caucasians are almost never the target of ethnic cleansing so I don't know who is saying this.
Topic's author
#21
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
1. Race is a word variously defined....As is white....Such is data management.

One race as dictated by it's unrestricted propensity to procreate, and consequently produce skin tone variation.

Or a hundred metres dash...Though currently darker competitors reign supreme.... Such can we taxonomically differentiate.
You haven't addressed my arguments that demonstrate race is a real concept. I haven't come close to arguing that races exist because skin tones are different. This is functionally a concession.

2. And I find "white supremacist" just as inoffensive as I find nigger.

Because offence is a deliberate data processing exercise, that I do not subscribe to, as I see no value in it.

Others choose to process differently

"White supremacist" is simply the counter -offence promoted by those such as yourself that see value in promoting a counter-offence.
I've got no idea why you've decided to argue that because you personally don't think it's a racial slur, therefore it's not. You've downgraded your argument from intersubjectivity to personal feelings. You've even acknowledged that "others" choose to process differently", and then totally ignored the implications of that -- truly baffling.

In any case, you haven't addressed my arguments at all in these several back-and-forths we've had. You're no longer worth responding to, on this topic.



#22
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
BLACK POWER

GIRL POWER

LGBTQ POWER

LATIN POWER

ASIAN POWER

MALE POWER

WHITE POWER

BLACK PRIDE

GIRL PRIDE

LGBTQ PRIDE

LATIN PRIDE

ASIAN PRIDE

MALE PRIDE

WHITE PRIDE

ITSOKTOBE BLACK

ITSOKTOBE GIRL

ITSOKTOBE LGBTQ

ITSOKTOBE LATIN

ITSOKTOBE ASIAN

ITSOKTOBE MALE

ITSOKTOBE WHITE
#23
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@secularmerlin
Odd caucasians are almost never the target of ethnic cleansing so I don't know who is saying this.
Their really isn't a typical type of victim, but usually these genocides start with things like

"Kill all whites"
"Kill all jews"
"Kill everyone in the hutu tribe"
"Eat the rich"
Etc.

The people saying these things are on twitter. Just log on and friend the first ten random accounts you see and scroll through their feeds. These are your typical democrats you are seeing. 
#24
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@FLRW
On April 14, 1865, John Wilkes Booth became the first person to assassinate an American president when he shot and killed Abraham Lincoln in his box at Ford's Theater in Washington. ... A supporter of slavery, Booth believed that Lincoln was determined to overthrow the Constitution and to destroy his beloved South.
Now that is a White Supremacist.

Why would supporting slavery make you a racist? Do you not understand the economic benefits of having slaves?
Topic's author
#25
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
If no one is claiming that white supremist attitudes are an inherent property of whiteness then it is not a racial slur. Case dismissed. 
Intentionally or not, you've changed your argument from your original claim. You originally claimed:

"No one is claiming that a white supremacist attitude is something all white persons are white supremacists."

This is not equivalent to your new claim of:

"If no one is claiming that white supremist attitudes are an inherent property of whiteness then it is not a racial slur."

These are not equivalent because with the first quote, you effectively say 'white supremacist =/= all white people bad'.  In the second quote, you now effectively say that 'if white supremacist charges are not based on being white, then it doesn't matter'.

I've already responded to your first quote: "You've strawmanned everything in the OP. The claim the OP makes is that "white supremacist" is a racial slur. Whether or not someone claims all white people have white supremacist views is irrelevant to the term being a racial slur or not" "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) . You haven't responded to my response, so feel free to try again.

As for your new quote, "white supremacist" is a racial slur by referencing white people in a derogatory manner. This is made clear by the fact that you don't say "supremacist", but instead "white supremacist". In other words, you have taken the notion of "white" and turned it into a slur.

Not genetically. A European descended person may have more dna in common with any given African descended person than any of his eurocentric contemporaries. There is not enough difference between us behaviorally or physically to make any taxonomic distinction. 
You've totally ignored the arguments I provided to make the case for human races, so I'll repost it all here. Basically, at 100+ loci or SNP, you're dead wrong:

"Secondly, human races are of taxonomic value. There is sufficient fst value for humans that are similar/above other animals' species whom DO have species (read: race). Heterozygosity reflects the same findings of fst value evaluation. SNP/loci grouping distribution, done blind by a computer, distinctly groups 'African', 'European' and 'Asian' racial groups (super broad racial groups) when the SNP/loci number reaches 100 The Existence of Race – The Alternative Hypothesis . On a scientific level, humans are of taxonomic value.

Furthermore, here are different human skulls from varying races (differences noted, too): main-qimg-6f0736c16e8265de9f98f40e7ef7e76a (602×610) (quoracdn.net) . You're essentially arguing that these differences in skull shapes are culturally caused (?!). Forensics actually use skulls to determine human race because it has predictive validity Microsoft Word - 07. (pharmainfo.in) . Again, is the fact that forensic police use this notion of human race, and are able to accurately determine human race, just a series of extremely lucky guesses?

We're also able to observe albinism in differing races and easily determine their race, based on their phenotypic traits: main-qimg-54acc098bd279b12f95dd678b2395091 (602×566) (quoracdn.net) . Empirically, we can observe what we typically call human races (Asian, African etc.) through something as blanketing (e.g. changes skin colour) as albinism. Why are all African noses broader, generally speaking, if race has no taxonomic significance? "

You've also now decided to make the claim that there is 'more difference within than between'. This argument has been debunked to death, but nonetheless here is an argument walking you through why that claim doesn't prove what you think it does (tl;dr: there are greater instances on individual genetic markers within races than between, but the total weighted effect of these genetic markers (despite between fewer in quantity between than within), produces greater genetic variance between than within): Variation Within and Between Races – The Alternative Hypothesis .
Topic's author
#26
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
What race is that term slurring?
Wow, what a great question! Hmm, I wonder what race "white supremacist" refers to? Wow, thoroughly interesting question that makes everything think super hard.

If only the race "***WHITE*** supremacist" refers to was built into the term itself, then we could open our eyes, move our eyeballs onto the term, and know what race is being slurred.

If only...

Topic's author
#27
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@SkepticalOne
"White supremacist" is descriptive. The n word is not.
In no case is "white supremacist" purely descriptive. That is why when people use it, it is regarded as an insult -- no one wants to be called a white supremacist. Wikipedia probably agrees with this notion because it doesn't want 'black nationalism' to be ascribed as 'black supremacy', most likely because 'black supremacy' would be a slur referencing race (racial slur).

But even if you could prove that "white supremacist" is descriptive, then the n word should be considered that, too. That's why we have terms like 'white n*gger', because n*gger describes certain behaviors usually attributed to n*ggers What Is a "White Nigger" Anyway? | History News Network . If n*gger wasn't descriptive, how can we have have a different race of people described with the term?

So, even if we agree with your argument (we shouldn't), you're still wrong because the n word would become descriptive.
#28
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mesmer
There is only one human race and you cannot derive differences in ethnicities such that any single group is actually superior to any other. 

If a white supremacist is called a white supremacist it is in no way comparable to the emotional and sociological baggage involved in using a slur against a group. White supremacy is a social agenda not an ethnic group. 

In no way ever will having your racism pointed out to you ever going to represent the same harm that practicing your racism on others does. This is not an argument it is an observation of observable reality. 

If your argument has any validity it is only in the pedantic sense that anything could be used as a racial slur.
#29
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Mesmer
You did say the following:

Whether or not someone claims all white people have white supremacist views is irrelevant to the term being a racial slur or not.
Which means that even if the term is not applied to all whities you still say it is a racial slur.

So the question remains... if it is not a racial slur against whities then what race is it a slur against?
#30
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,063
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Which means that even if the term is not applied to all whities you still say it is a racial slur.
Is the N word applicable to all blacks?