Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Alt-Right

Where have you read the word 'all'? :confused:

Does your blindness come and go as it suits ?

Race ...identity.llpolitics in the US are utterly fucking toxic...from both directions. Cancerous and toxic . Neither class nor economic ownership gets the slightest mention..solely identity . If you can't see what's going on there with that article you're taking the piss completely . taking the fucking piss .
 
Last edited:
Let's blame all Muslim mothers for jihadi fuckwits then. That's the logic you're promoting there. Left-Identarians like you and that tweeter have the same way of looking at the world as Right-Identarians. Can't you see that?

They Are no different . They are the same fucking sickness. The same cancer .

It is no coincidence that their modern identity politics prominence ....dominance of discourse..coincides with...for the first time ever in global history ..one percent of the world owning over 50 per cent of the worlds wealth . Thats not a fucking coincidence . Its not an accident It's the result of a fucking cancer on the left . A fucking cancer . Socialism has been slaughtered . This utter shite is the detritus in its wake , a parasite on socialisms back . Its Racism..a cancer posing under " right on " identity . They fucking despise and disparage whites . They can't even hide it . They feed the likes of tommy robinsonsin et al . All the fascists have to do is quote their racist, identitarian shite verbatim to encourage race separation . It's fucking racism.
The means of production and the ownership of them...? A million miles away, and probably the wrong colour to be worried about .

Fuck this shite .
 
Where have you read the word 'all'? :confused:
"White women: your hands may not have held most torches this wknd, but you birth, feed, caress, screw, raise, and love the systems killing us"

If the author didn't mean "all", she should have written "some" or "certain" at the beginning of the sentence.

See the bit before the colon? It isn't qualified. That means she hasn't qualified it.

Try the same tweet with the words "Muslim women", or "black women", or "Jewish women". It wouldn't be on then, and it isn't on now. It really is that simple.
 
"People on a self-professed left wing message board seem unable to understand structural oppression unless it applies to class/themselves" shock. :facepalm:

Middle Class = fine
Upper Class = fine
Don't robustly explain you don't mean all white people, men, etc.? = Not allowed :confused:
 
VA governor defends Charlottesville response: Militia members had 'better' guns than police
"You saw the militia walking down the street, you would have thought they were an army ... I was just talking to the State Police upstairs; [the militia members] had better equipment than our State Police had," McAuliffe said. "And yet not a shot was fired, zero property damage."

McAuliffe's response that law enforcement's handling of the violence was successful because there were no bullets fired and "zero property damage" would appear to ignore that dozens were left injured and a 32-year-old woman, Heather Heyer, was killedwhen an apparent white supremacist plowed his car into a crowd.
Isn't this just giving the green light to white supremacists to organised more armed protests knowing the cops will just leave them be?

Funny how police everywhere manage to be well prepared for other protests with armoured cars, tear gas, water canon and riot gear , when the protests are about police killings of Black people. They're even better prepared for people in wheelchairs protesting to keep their health coverage. :hmm:
 
vp6b701.jpg


Photo by Ryan Kelly, more pics here.
 
If you go to the Daily Stormer website you find this now: good.
The most recent article written for the site was entitled “Heather Heyer: woman killed in road rage incident was a fat, childless 32-year-old slut.”

Screen Shot 2017-08-14 at 09.27.32.png

'Anonymous' hackers take over neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer


EDIT: this might be not true - further info suggests it wasn't as reported and might be stunt by the nazis themselves.
 
Last edited:
"People on a self-professed left wing message board seem unable to understand structural oppression unless it applies to class/themselves" shock. :facepalm:

Middle Class = fine
Upper Class = fine
Don't robustly explain you don't mean all white people, men, etc.? = Not allowed :confused:
First point to make is, the author of the tweet isn’t here “robustly explaining” what s/he means.

We’ve had people saying what they took the author to mean (ie not all white women), but unfortunately the meaning in the tweet can be quite clearly parsed to show that qualification of the term “white women” was not present. (Or else words like “certain”, “some” or other qualifiers would have been used).

So, while I accept that posters here may have taken a particular message from the post (and I accept their word for it if that’s what they say), I think they were mistaken about what the actual meaning was. The meaning is quite plain.

Please do try the thought experiment of substituting the term “Muslim women” for “white women” and see if you still think it’s a sentiment you can agree with.

Second, on the issue of class, which you bring up, I try to be careful not to blame individuals for structures. (And incidentally, I wouldn’t use the term “upper class” unless I meant the aristocracy, which I hardly ever discuss).

And structures are important here. My problem is with the tweet’s author referring ecumenically to “white women”, without considering those women’s situation; irrespective of whether those women themselves may have been exploited and dominated by ruling classes and hierarchies. I would have that same problem whatever blanket term was being used (“Muslim women”, “Muslim men”, “Muslim men”, “black men”, and so on).

Let’s instead start from a position of solidarity. Racism must be opposed and fought. Just as all domination and oppression must be fought. Start with that instead of, as the tweet’s author does, suggesting someone’s ethnicity, or other perceived identity marker, is suspect to begin with. After all, as J Ed pointed out, Heather Heyer was a white woman.

It's really just not on to look at every racist and say, in effect, "he had a mother, you know; the problem here is mothers". If you can't see that, then I'm not sure what else I can say.
 
Where have you read the word 'all'? :confused:

Come on, this is dishonest. If someone came here and posted e.g. "black women are [x]" you'd be the first to jump on them. And you'd be right to. The word 'all' isn't required for it to be an unqualified generalisation, as I'm sure you know.

I accept that there's a different motive for the tweets posted, and that structural oppression is a legitimate concern. But this confuses structures with identities. And, surely tweets like that are divisive and counter-productive?
 
Last edited:
I read the white women thing differently, to me it just says don't think this has nothing to do with you just because maybe you don't look like the young men holding the torches, this has to do with everyone, pick a side stand up be counted.
 
"White women: your hands may not have held most torches this wknd, but you birth, feed, caress, screw, raise, and love the systems killing us"

If the author didn't mean "all", she should have written "some" or "certain" at the beginning of the sentence.

See the bit before the colon? It isn't qualified. That means she hasn't qualified it.

Try the same tweet with the words "Muslim women", or "black women", or "Jewish women". It wouldn't be on then, and it isn't on now. It really is that simple.

Ordinarily I would agree with you about the simplicity of this if the tweet wasn't in the context of and built upon the situation she found herself in on the train. It wasn't a lone, random tweet in which she decided to focus on White women, nor to blame women for all ills.

IMO she was referring to women like the ones she encountered and their attitudes...in this instance, praising/supporting the proud boys for beating shit out of people on the streets but indignant about someone swearing in front of their children. The double standards are obvious and so are the cognitive gymnastics needed to square that thinking. We have also seen a lot of this from White female Trump supporters recently haven't we? She is clearly calling these women/that thinking out.

I checked some of the reactions to her tweet yesterday, it seemed to me that lots of White Women understood and agreed with her too.

So yes, generally its helpful to be explicit and take the time to use 'some' to avoid misunderstanding. In this instance though I think she was relying on context and that's how I read her.
 
Last edited:
Ordinarily I would agree with you about the simplicity of this if the tweet wasn't in the context of and built upon the situation she found herself in on the train. It wasn't a lone, random tweet in which she decided to focus on White women, nor to blame women for all ills.

IMO she was referring to women like the ones she encountered and their attitudes...in this instance, praising/supporting the proud boys for beating shit out of people on the streets but indignant about someone swearing in front of their children. The double standards are obvious and so are the cognitive gymnastics needed to square that thinking. We have also seen a lot of this from White female Trump supporters recently haven't we? She is clearly calling these women out.

I checked some of the reactions to her tweet yesterday, it seemed to me that lots of White Women understood and agreed with her too.

So yes, generally its helpful to be explicit and take the time to use 'some' to avoid misunderstanding. In this instance though I think she was relying on context and that's how I read her.

I didn't think the ones who objected to the swearing had previously been praising the proud boys?

It seems to me that the author of that tweet had understandably been upset about the failure of some white women to speak up, and extrapolated from that that all white women are to blame for klansmen.

This could easily have been avoided with the use of the word 'some'. I suspect it was deliberately omitted to make a point.
 
It's amazing how many things can turn out to be women's fault.
Amazing also, how many things are white racist socialists fault. This CRI has over hundreds of posts argued that white US socialists (and the ones on here) are misogynist racists (check the Trump thread if anyone doubts this) - now a female white socialist has been murdered protesting at racism she uses that death to suggest once more that white socialists are actually racist. Same sort of logic at work there.
 
Last edited:
"White women: your hands may not have held most torches this wknd, but you birth, feed, caress, screw, raise, and love the systems killing us"

If the author didn't mean "all", she should have written "some" or "certain" at the beginning of the sentence.

See the bit before the colon? It isn't qualified. That means she hasn't qualified it.

Try the same tweet with the words "Muslim women", or "black women", or "Jewish women". It wouldn't be on then, and it isn't on now. It really is that simple.
Here's the thing - even if she had qualified this, it seems like an awfully misogynistic concept to blame women for giving birth to racist/white supremacist systems.
The same as the subheading of that article "White women have always played a role in propping up white supremacy and toxic masculinity" I mean yes of course racist/white supremacist movements have female participants/supporters, and white women benefit from racist structures in society. But since when are white women to blame for "toxic masculinity"? - Its victim blaming, basically.

And i get what Rutita1 and Bimble are saying - that the intent of at least some of this is saying "which side are you on" to those women who are racist or have complicity in racism, and those women that are dismissing the nazis as a male problem. But there's some very women-blaming, misogynistic tropes being used (and yes i know the tweets and the article are both written by women).
 
Let's blame all Muslim mothers for jihadi fuckwits then. That's the logic you're promoting there. Left-Identarians like you and that tweeter have the same way of looking at the world as Right-Identarians. Can't you see that?
There is no specifically left-content in this persons politics - it's simply the sort of anti-prejudice stuff that any conservative or right wing politician or CEO or entrepreneur comes out with. And they all likely believe in it equally genuinely.
 
"People on a self-professed left wing message board seem unable to understand structural oppression unless it applies to class/themselves" shock. :facepalm:

Middle Class = fine
Upper Class = fine
Don't robustly explain you don't mean all white people, men, etc.? = Not allowed :confused:

What that tweeter did was the equivalent of standing on the road with a megaphone, yelling "White women are Nazi-lovers".

:mad:

:eek:

:confused:

:(

:oops:

That is my visual representation of how it would play out.

Let's blame all Muslim mothers for jihadi fuckwits then. That's the logic you're promoting there. Left-Identarians like you and that tweeter have the same way of looking at the world as Right-Identarians. Can't you see that?
"Game, set, match ItWillNeverWork".
 
Ordinarily I would agree with you about the simplicity of this if the tweet wasn't in the context of and built upon the situation she found herself in on the train. It wasn't a lone, random tweet in which she decided to focus on White women, nor to blame women for all ills.

IMO she was referring to women like the ones she encountered and their attitudes...in this instance, praising/supporting the proud boys for beating shit out of people on the streets but indignant about someone swearing in front of their children. The double standards are obvious and so are the cognitive gymnastics needed to square that thinking. We have also seen a lot of this from White female Trump supporters recently haven't we? She is clearly calling these women/that thinking out.

I checked some of the reactions to her tweet yesterday, it seemed to me that lots of White Women understood and agreed with her too.

So yes, generally its helpful to be explicit and take the time to use 'some' to avoid misunderstanding. In this instance though I think she was relying on context and that's how I read her.
It's important to clarify first that I'm not seeing you as the opposition here. I'm interrogating that tweet, not you. I'm going to take it for granted that we're both anti-racist. So, like bimble as rightly suggested, let's start from the assumption of solidarity: we've picked a side here, and we're not the bad guys.

However, I have a serious issue with the tweeter's stance, and I've outlined why. I don't intend to go on repeating myself. What I do want to pick up on is that "lots of white women agreed with her". Those white women may have misunderstood her. They may be taking something different from her tweet. Or, and this is an important point, they may be just as wrong as she is.
 
Amazing also how many things are white racist socialists fault. This CRI has over hundreds of posts argued that white US socialists (and the ones on here) are misogynist racists (check the Trump thread if anyone doubts this) - now a female white socialist has been murdered protesting at racism she uses that death to suggest once more that white socialists are actually racist. Same sort of logic at work there.
Oh really? How interesting. Thanks for the context.
 
"People on a self-professed left wing message board seem unable to understand structural oppression unless it applies to class/themselves" shock. :facepalm:

Middle Class = fine
Upper Class = fine
Don't robustly explain you don't mean all white people, men, etc.? = Not allowed :confused:
This post - and the one you're defending - has no structural analysis whatsoever. It's entirely moralistic finger wagging at individuals on the basis of skin colour and biology.
 
Back
Top Bottom