I try to assess any side of an argument in order to give myself

People who think you can't be racist towards white people define racism as "power + racial prejudice", which they argue means being prejudiced against whites isn't racist because unlike whites, nonwhites don't have the power to use their prejudiced beliefs to oppress others, I guess. Something like that, I think.
Which clearly isn't true in many contexts and seems more like an attempt to redefine racism so that nonwhites can't be accused of it than anything else, but I don't know, I can't really recall the argument that well.

>>1821876
>making tacos when you're not hispanic.

That's not cultural appropriation. There's two types. the bad ones is when you scrub all signs of the original culture said thing originated form and revisionism to claim as yours solely. Everyone knows Pizzas are Italian but some fashion designer stealing designs from Africa and Asia (and there have been many cases) then not giving credit to the societies in those continent that they got inspired from.

It's imitating authenticity but also denying the authentic source credit and shallow in a way since it often involves a knee deep involvement. Like subcultures deal with it a lot where their subcultures clothing, hairstyle and lingo gets stripped of all meaning and sanitized for mainstream consumption but no additional meaning or depth is given.

>>1822263
Thus people are dealing with cultural skeletons so to say.

>>1822263
Ok, now THAT makes sense.


But the reason I said "making tacos when you're not hispanic" is because that's the kind of shit SJW types complain about a lot.

>>1822268
It also causes the issue that once the adopted thing gets dropped the thing goes out of fashion and you can't wear it anymore because people will assume you are out of date or making a statement.

It's like the whole phenomenon of you can't wear toothbrush staches anymore because Hitler ruined it for everyone and you can't even wear the variations of it.

>>1822291
Or swastikas, to go with your hitler analogy?

hispanic relates to language, specifically that ones first language was spanish, I am Hispanic, but that is not telling of any ethnicity

>>1822291
>It's like the whole phenomenon of you can't wear toothbrush staches anymore because Hitler ruined it for everyone and you can't even wear the variations of it.


The saddest part of this is that because of how crazy WW2 happened it won't ever be socially acceptable to wear for like a very long time.

hispanic = language =/ geography

>>1822306
OP here, I know; trust me. I'm literally quoting a post some SJW type made on tumblr.

>>1822298
See >>1822310

>>1822315 oh sorry should have read your post slower, but it is a common misconception

>>1822322
Yeah don't worry, I totally get it.


This isn't /pol/, I make sure to educate myself on these terms and respect these things.

>>1821876
I can see how it could be rude to wear something sacred to another culture for a party or something.

File: 2014-07-07-taco.jpg (107KB, 614x409px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 614x409px

>>1821876
Hard shell tacos arent even Mexican food anyways.

It's texmex bullshit.

Any food that has tortilla that uses flour instead of maize is not real Mexican food

t. food snob

>>1822330
Right, like I said I get that.

But is making sushi in a college dining hall really bad?

>>1821876
>Furthermore, is there really any argument as to why you can't be racist towards white people besides "whities oppress people?"
Part 1 of 2

The "Racism = Power + Prejudice" meme is a watered down understanding of the original use of racist. The modern media uses "racist" as a synonym for a bigot. But we already had a word for that, it was bigot, and bigotry.

Racism, originally used is a descriptive -ism for a system that exists, the same as capitalism, or feudalism, or mercantilism. A system of reinforcing beliefs, practices and power structures.

In other words, when introduced, and deployed, racism was a damning critique of the American system, top to bottom. To take part in racism or to be a racist didn't require you to be a bigot, any more than to take part in capitalism requires you to be Ebeneezer Scrooge. The system functions all the same. Under such a use of 'racism', I can't be a racist towards white people for the same reason I can't be oppressive of the property owning class: I can be a bigot, but the system doesn't move, because they have the power.

So obviously, this made a lot of people very uncomfortable, so it began to be deployed in a much less useful way, especially by the mainstream media: As the ultimate personal sin. The problem is a small, isolated and peculiar group of 'racists' who aren't like any of us. They're the worst people of all. And they need to be exposed. Of course, since racists are the worst people in the world, anyone who knows they aren't the worst person in the world knows they aren't racist. Cue endless muckracking and arguing over words on 24 hour news channels. And since Racism is a personal sin, anyone is capable of it.

>>1822349
Part 2 of 2


Now, out on the internet, there's more diversity of voices out there. So people out there who know what the original (and more useful) meaning of the word is, start trying to educate people. But there was a problem: The internet is full of stupid people. Tumblrites boiled down a systemic critique of how power operates in the western world, and boiled it down into a brute fact: You can't be racist towards white people (as a group).

Which ignores the fact that, even if you do use the systemic critique form of the world, you can still be an idiot, an asshole, a bigot, and a monster in your behavior towards white people.

There OP, I hope you enjoyed my brief history of the word racism.

>>1822344
Ehh, there's a certain philosophy when it comes to making sushi. So I'd understand if a Japanese sushi chef (that's been working his whole life in the art of sushi) would get angry. Not in the cultural appropriation sense of anger, but in a "these people have no idea what their doing" kind of anger.

Too bad only liberal college kids complains about theses things, never the people who are actually an authority of these things.

Today's culture is all about getting angry for other people.

Cultural appropriation is bad because it is possibly bad

American "culture" is basically cultural appropriation off all cultures.

It's literally the Roman Empire.

>>1822349
Thanks anon

>>1821876
In addition to the wonderful explanation of racism by >>1822349, I would add that you can't appropriate white culture because it's everywhere anyway. People in Mexico eating Pan Bimbo (Mexican Wonderbread) aren't appropriating American culture, because that bread is sold in Mexico and is sold cheap, so it's all some people can eat. And, of course, the US has made an effort to expand its corporate culture worldwide, as evidenced by the Pax McDonalds.

File: 1472088591103.jpg (110KB, 685x1023px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 685x1023px

>>1821876
Cultural appropriation is literally the ENTIRE point of multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism without appropriation is just sectarianism. I'm amazed that liberals cannot grasp this simple concept. The amount of doublethink the left has adopted in the last decade is truly remarkable.

>>1822263
How are you even supposed to give credit for such a thing? Who would receive the credit? Do you think Africans give a shit if white people suddenly start wearing vibrantly colored tunics and start playing in drum circles without paying royalties every time they said "Kumbayah?"

Getting upset over cultural appropriation is nonsense. The cultures themselves are not some hivemind which "cares" as a collective about some sort of cultural copyright infringement. This whole notion of property ownership in this way is a highly western phenomenon. And its frankly anti-progress.

Good and interesting elements from cultures around the world combine and synthesize to create something new.

And its not even accurate to say that what "belongs" to one culture is even indigenous to that culture! How far back do you go into cultural history in order to "cite" things? How do you determine who gets the credit? Why does it matter? It doesn't.

File: 1476315483996.jpg (136KB, 800x508px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 800x508px

As someone who's been pretty ambiguous racially, all these groups "White people", "Black people", "Jews", "Hispanics", etc. are just ways of people drawing lines in the sand between "us" and "them".

The idea that "they" can steal "our" culture, is itself a form of racism.
Not only that, but ever major racial grouping is themselves an oppressor. Sure, the jews and spics in the US love to complain, but put them in a latino country (or just look at fucking Israel) and they'd be the majority group oppressing the poor indians or whoever because the idea of having these arbitrary teams (and they are arbitrary) is itself a tool for racism and ethnic domination.

Anytime someone calls themselves a hispanic, or a latino, or anything like that, I just want to call them a dirty taco monkey and spit in their face. Same with the coons, the kikes, the crackers, it's all a way of dividing people for oppressive purposes, and the minority groups complaining about it are just as guilty.

The only people I can respect are those who identify themselves by their nation, because that's 1: a tangible thing, and 2: based on a shared future and generally egalitarian code of ethics, laws, language, etc. than a knee jerk reaction. I can respect various native tribes, for wanting to hang onto their nation (especially when no treaties have been forged to legally bond them to the larger empire around them), and I can respect people for learning about their family history and having pride in it (in fact, I can't stand anyone who acts ashamed of the blood pumping through their veins every second, and the history behind it), but when people start using identity in anything but a fluid and vitalic way, I start to get worried.

>>1821956
>People who think you can't be racist towards white people define racism as "power + racial prejudice"
Always funny, the person who originally came up with that definition only meant it in an immediate, locals zed context, eg a white guy in an all black neighborhood is the victim of racism, since he has little real power to act on his prejudices.

>>1823168
The way you say "nation" is also quite ambiguous and intangible. "State" would've been a better fit for that purpose.

>>1823201
Good point, I meant state in this context.
Personally, and I say this from a completely progressive point of view, the greatest book you can read about identity politics is "The Doctrine of Fascism". It really cuts through the bullshit, and affirms my beliefs of the State being a superior alternative to race.

>>1822281
>But the reason I said "making tacos when you're not hispanic" is because that's the kind of shit SJW types complain about a lot.
>everyone to the left of me is a SJW
>when I say SJWs I mean the fat shit crazy ones
You can't use the term SJW in a serious conversation because it's so meaningless. No, your average SJW-type doesn't think white people making tacos is racist. You might find an extreme example of someone saying making tacos is racist, just like you might find an alt-right saying white people making tacos is white cultural genocide.

>>1822334
t. brown mexican

>>1823092
You're expected to appropriate "white" culture, it's called assimilation.

And to the (OP) you could have at least been bothered to read the wikipedia page on cultural appropriation before saying
>muh sjws say making tacos is cultural appropriation look how dumb tey r

>>1823168
>(and they are arbitrary)

Citation needed. Different groups have different cultures, some aspects of which are mutually exclusive. Generally this leads to violence or separation, and eventually homogeneity and equilibrium. But that's assuming the two groups are similar in Genetic potential.

But some groups have significantly different genetic potential and cannot operate effectively under the same cultural system. Abos can't function in a capitalist society because they're essentially the missing link. What happens then? What is the superior group supposed to do? Give them free resources out of some misguided and slavish dedication to an outdated morality? Thats the road we're going down, but that will inflate their numbers, make them a bigger drain, an unsustainable drain. Then the wealth dries up and superiors begin to hate the inferiors group because they aren't functioning properly in society- which then leads to killing, or separation. Probably sterilization sooner or later. "Moral Eugenics" to save the future generations from being born inferior creatures, or from having to live with inferior creatures. That's my bet. What the fuck are we going to do when Africa becomes 3 billion people? What are our descendants going to do? Probably genocide or mass sterilization. Our short sightedness has doomed them to monstrous actions

>>1822371
But anon, there really isn't. Maybe good sushi, but in japan everyone rolls handrolls and stuff at home, it's just throwing a bunch of rice and fish and veg into a bit of seaweed and wrapping it up in a cone, no philosophy required.

>>1823264
About a hundred years ago, my great great grandfather and his brother immigrated to the new world from Italy. My grandfather went to the united states (where he was never treated "white", but my father has learned to identify as "American"), while his brother went to brazil.
Now I've been to South America several times, but despite being racially identical to most South Americans (and having the same family history except for two generations growing up in culturally and economically similar areas) I'm considered a gringo there.
I've also got (probably) some Jewish heritage, but Jews don't consider me a part of their "in group" because I don't play along with their bullshit religion, and I've never met an Israeli who doesn't leave a bad taste in my mouth. The only extent that my "jewish blood" (or whatever excuse they used to genocide my ancestors in Europe) has affected my life is that my Jewish name lets me get away with saying things that would get anyone else labeled an anti-Semite (which, funnily enough, is now a term thrown around mainly by the now oppressive Israeli Jews so they can justify murdering Palestinians).
Culture lasts a generation. Its a choice. It has to do entirely with self presentation (I can speak several languages and often I'll pretend to be French, Hispanic, etc. for laughs and to gauge reactions).
If you want to really be part of something bigger to yourself, stop jerking off over what you think your "racial history" is, and devote yourself to the State, or the society around you, no matter what color it is.

>>1823305
I don't identify with race I identify with genetics. A smart, industrious black man is my family, a nigger isn't. Neither is white trash, or Asian trash, whatever. I believe, personally, that many racial issues arise out of differences of genetic potential. The inferior fail, not because of moral failure, but because they were built to fail. Maybe by evolution, maybe by God. Fuck if I know.

My issue lies in what I perceive to be an oversimplification on your part: that culture is the cause. I believe culture is an effect, the cause is genetic, and the problems won't be solved until we start widespread eugenics and anti-dysgenics programs. And I also believe we will avoid facing this looming issue until it becomes so threatening that we must address it, hence my fatalistic belief that the future will be a time of genocide and forced sterilization. We'll see

>>1823322
>My issue lies in what I perceive to be an oversimplification on your part

You mean the part where I pointed out where, despite the nearly identical racial makeup of much of North and South America, they have vastly different cultures?

What about the fact that I speak English despite racially being closer to Iranians than any Anglo-Saxon?

I think you're the one oversimplifying here.

>Maybe by evolution, maybe by God. Fuck if I know.
Maybe because niggers are descended from literal slaves. Being unable to open a history book isn't a reason to wave your hands and blame it on "muh genetics".

>>1823328
Never said culture is nothing, I said it was a small and superficial part of a larger, deeper issue.

Africans in Africa have an average IQ of 70; Africans in America have an average IQ of 85. There are benefits to whites raping slaves. That is to say, american blacks are MORE capable than african blacks, despite their cultural history.

Another point: if slavery and a lack of books is the issue, how could we explain Frederick Douglas? Booker T Washington? Great black men, born in and raised out of slavery. The cultural theory can't answer that question. The genetic theory, and genetic outliers, can.

Also, How did Japan go from Feudal culture in 1850 to world power in 1940? My answer is genetics. East asians are smart.

Why didn't Africa, after trading with Europe for 400 years, industrialize? They got state of the art weaponry of the time, muskets, as well as cultural knowledge that comes with trade. Genetics, again, answers the question. Blacks are stupid.

This isn't a moral judgment; blacks are not at fault for inheriting this genetic legacy, and asians are not to be praised for theirs. Its just the explanation that makes most sense to me.

>>1822349
>>1822359
Thanks, lad. That was a good explanation.

>>1823349
>Another point: if slavery and a lack of books is the issue, how could we explain Frederick Douglas? Booker T Washington? Great black men, born in and raised out of slavery. The cultural theory can't answer that question. The genetic theory, and genetic outliers, can.
Yes it can. Is says it's less likely, not impossible.

>Another point: if slavery and a lack of books is the issue, how could we explain Frederick Douglas? Booker T Washington? Great black men, born in and raised out of slavery. The cultural theory can't answer that question. The genetic theory, and genetic outliers, can.
They had valuable luxury goods like silk to trade for machinery, and a relatively centralized government that saw the need for industrialization after seeing what happened to China, which failed to industrialize early.

>>1823349
>There are benefits to whites raping slaves
And to 250 years of stable democracy.

>Why didn't Africa, after trading with Europe for 400 years, industrialize?
>trade

>blacks
>whites
>distinct groups with shared genes, history, culture, etc.

How about, why do WASPs, despite being the niggers of Europe for almost all of human history, now walk around acting like they're some sort of master-race? Any Mediterranean country has had several thousand years of evolution under civilization, whereas many European countries have a few hundred at most.

> My answer is genetics. East asians are smart.
That's one theory, but it's a very stupid one, and depends on a lack of understanding of history, politics, economics, etc.

File: armored-train-in-action-1915.jpg (181KB, 1210x1603px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1210x1603px

>>1823168
>>1823208
My kind of guy.

>>1823369
Africa did trade with Europe, it was Africans selling us the slaves. Tribal warfare's a bitch. They got state of the art tech, and they never reverse engineered it on any notable scale.

I don't get your second batch of greentext

I don't care about WASPS; according to my worldview, some Asian groups are superior to whites. Mediterraneans did accomplish great things, this is true, but we that was 2,000 years ago. We don't know how their genetics have changed; evolution is not some linear process, they could have lost IQ.

Please, then, tell me your not-very-stupid theory that has been built on your wealth of historical, political, and economic knowledge. Snark is fun, but empty.

>>1823365
Africa got state of the art tech of the time, this is undeniable. Japan did have a more advanced gov't, but then we have to ask why. Again, I would say genetics has something to do with the level of civilization a people can create. So that doesn't answer the question, it just puts forward another question. Seeing China get fucked certainly helped spur them to action, but that isn't the entire answer. Japan also had a centralized governing body in a relatively small and isolated landmass. China's gov't was limited by its massive size.

File: nobels.png (47KB, 1284x802px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1284x802px

>>1823369
>How about, why do WASPs, despite being the niggers of Europe for almost all of human history, now walk around acting like they're some sort of master-race?
Because they are.

>>1823394
It was NORTH AFRICANS selling slaves. Those same countries that got colonized by France. Morocco, Algeria, etc. These countries themselves have great civilizations behind them, but are got dealt the upper hand during European expansion and are still recovering.
Thinking Africa is just one big country is moronic at best.

>Please, then, tell me your not-very-stupid theory that has been built on your wealth of historical, political, and economic knowledge. Snark is fun, but empty.
Because it actually stands up against history? The idea that history is made by different ideological actors and state (or state-like) institutions or organs wielding varying degrees of power shouldn't have to defend itself against "what if genes caused everything?".

>>1823394
>devolution
>in 2000 years
Have you no concept of biology? Do you know how much time it takes for any significant change to occur in populations of fast-breeding, fast-dying organisms? Let alone humans, who are neither.

>>1823414
Evolution can occur quite rapidly under certain circumstances. Nobody knows the subtle genetic changes that have occurred in humans these last 2,000 years, don't pretend you do. I threw out a possibility, not an absolute truth. You, too, are only throwing out possibilities. Hopefully you'll realize that some day.

>>1823410
Africa was colonized in the 1870's. They traded with Europeans in the 1600's. 270 years is enough time to create a centralized state. European Imperialism is not the explanation for all of Africa's problems; in many ways, its a solution to all of Africa's problems. Shame we thought that it was more moral to let animals live like animals than to impose order and civilization on them. The White Man's Burden was, non-ironically, the most moral undertaking Europe has ever attempted. Shame we lost backbone and let the kids sit at the big boy table before they were ready.

Tell me your theory, don't grandstand. Give me examples, reasoned arguments, not "duh, come on, this is so totally correct and more nuanced than genetics."

>>1823426
>enough time
>history is linear

>>1823428
Earlier said that history wasn't linear; the point is it could be, and has been done many times. You're so intellectually dishonest its hilarious. I doubt you even realize. This is why Eugenics needs to occur; its a tragedy that you never had to exist. But its hopeful to think that someday you won't.

>>1823436
>You're so intellectually dishonest its hilarious

>>1823158
I think you're missing the point and have a wrong idea of "giving credit". It's not about giving anything to the culture you're getting something from, it's about accurately placing that culture in a healthy worldview. When a white sorority girl wears a headdress, it isn't bad because of "some sort of cultural copyright infringement", it's bad because it's indicative of a worldview in which aesthetics of things and actions are valued over people.

>>1823421
If you admit ignorance, why do you presume genetics? I could do the same by blaming this on socio-economic reasons, history, culture or invisible aliens, and respond to any question you have by "you cannot know it, I'm just throwing out possibilities hopefully you'll realize that someday."

>>1823443
>greentexting until he goes away means I win

gg wp my friend

>>1823454
>>greentexting until he goes away means I win

>>1823426
>270 years is enough time to create a centralized state
Good thing they've had one for the last 2,000+ years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco
Fucking moron. At least graduate from highschool before you post here.

>>1823453
It means I throw out an idea and evidence without presumption of absolute truth, and want the same in return. People who reply with greentext and unexplained rejections add absolutely nothing to the conversation.

>>1823467
>People who reply with greentext and unexplained rejections
It would help if you weren't so self oblivious like most people from /pol/ are.

>>1823447
This
The biggest problem isn't appropriation, it's blatant stupidity. If someone puts on blackface they aren't appropriating african-american culture they're just being a racist tool.
If a SJW gets pissed off about a white guy playing jazz, they're the one being a racist tool.

My grand theory behind it all is that stupid people are being given too much a soapbox to say stupid things and it's dragging our culture into the dirt.

>>1823474
It was better when only smart people knew how to use the internet.

>>1823421
Everyone realizes you're throwing out possibilities. Put your possibilities in a sack and try reading a book for a change.

>>1823474
>does something stupid
>lacks the cultural awareness and context to realize its stupid
>lol i didnt know any better
>just stop doing that shit and dont do anything relating to our culture then
That's basically what the fuss about cultural appropriation is

>>1823470
>>1823463
>>1823462

You got me guys, I'm sure that Africa and the American black community are gonna turn around any day now

>>1823482
Piercing insight my man, keep readin' those books of yours

File: Burn-Survivor-Kyle-Little-550x550.jpg (60KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 550x550px

>>1823487

>>1821876
Social justice warriors are a major problem for academia because of their tendency to get a legitimate academic term and warp it until it only vaguely resembles what it's supposed to mean. This flawed definition is then spread through their social circles and exposed to the outside world, which causes normal sane human beings to associate the term with the idiotic concept it's come to represent and makes actually teaching them about the issue much more difficult.

For example, the assertion that "white people can't be racist because racism = power + privilege" is based on the academic concept of "systemic" or "structural" racism, which is the idea that an institution can be racist even if none of its members are racist, because the institution was set up in such a way as to disadvantage or exclude people based on their ethnicity or geographical origin regardless of the behavior of the people in it. It also takes a few cues from the idea of "implicit bias", which states that people are capable of being subconsciously racist even if they don't profess to be racist because they've been subconsciously trained to view PoC (I fucking hate this term but it's a convenient abbreviation sometimes) in a certain way by certain institutions, which can themselves exhibit structural racism.

SJWs take these two concepts and remove every possible shred of nuance from them, creating the absolutely ridiculous notion that all white people are "racist" and that western society as a whole is "racist". They then combine the two by saying that only white people can be racist because they live in a society that benefits them at the expense of minorities, which conveniently prevents their members from being called "racist" after they openly call for the mass murder of white people "as a joke."

>>1823501
>their tendency to get a legitimate academic term and warp it until it only vaguely resembles what it's supposed to mean. This flawed definition is then spread through their social circles and exposed to the outside world, which causes normal sane human beings to associate the term with the idiotic concept it's come to represent and makes actually teaching them about the issue much more difficult.

this isn't unique at all to "social justice warriors". this is just a human phenomenon.

>>1823485
Well, they're certainly getting smarter faster than whites are; the Flynn Effect is closing the gap. Not the mention certain African immigrants like Nigerians are smarter than the native whites.

>>1823135
>multiculturalism is integration

Its the opposite - its many different distinct entities alongside each other expressing themselves individually.

>>1823240
The term SJW is entirely subjective, but the common consensus is it means someone who goes too far in attempting to defend "oppressed" groups.

So SJW's don't have radicals among their groups, because they ARE the radicals.

And second, Wikipedia is a biased shithole at this point, and I did read their article before starting this thread. It's full of major [citation needed]s and biased sources.

It has been going on for millenia and if some neolithic dude decides to a copy type of pottery that his foreign neighbour is making that's cool in my books

>be trump supporter
>hate mexicans
>culturally appropriate pepe created by a bernie supporter

>>1824804
The common consensus on 4chan is when someone says SJW, it's usually /pol/ and /pol/ means anyone to the left of the alt-right.