Debating Christianity and Religion

To the racist, it is not minorities or people of colour who are oppressed, but whites, and sometimes Asians. He lives in a strange mirror universe where he's the one working harder and being denied opportunities. In his mind, the various measures such as Affirmative Action, put in place to remedy injustice, actually go too far, fall off the horse on the other side, and cause injustice.

The question for debate is, besides broad statistics about outcomes, if we actually lived in such a world, one where discrimination and oppression thrive because they mask themselves as things which remedy or make up for discrimination, and the race always accused of discrimination was actually the one being systemically discriminated against, how would you know? If you were transported to this mirror universe, what would be different? What sort of clues would you look for?

Certainly such a universe is not logically impossible. In fact, people do this all the time with politeness: The ones constantly complaining and lambasting others for being rude are the ones trying the hardest to tear others down. It can't be impossible that people would do it with racism, and for the same advantage. So... hypothetical universe. What does it look like?

The question for debate is not to list reasons why this is not that mirror universe. The question for debate is what sorts of things would be, if it was that universe. (And if we don't have those things in our light-side universe, so be it.)

The reason I want to avoid broad strokes and statistics about outcomes is that neither side has problems assuming that the race(s) on the other side have innate or group-learned tendencies that explain any discrepancies. Anti-racists have no problem assuming that there is simply a difference in efficiency and work ethic which explains why whites can't keep their jobs if immigrants compete for them, while racists have no problem assuming that whites are less lazy than POCs, which explains differences in outcomes while conveniently having no need to resort to systemic bias to explain them. Since either side has as much reason to simply dismiss statistical evidence as innate (or learned) superiority, it's unfortunately an impasse unless both sides ignore statistics and look for other evidence. To each side, it is "obvious" that those other people actually perform worse as a group but are boosted by artificial means. Without other evidence, there is not a good reason to trust one side's dismissal of statistics as genuinely the fault of the group while we ignore the other side as they do exactly the same thing.

I'm shocked no one answered this topic.

My personal answer, the clue I would look for first, is that the side actually being oppressed would be laughed off, suppressed, and dismissed without debate. They would be silenced, deplatformed, and anything and everything would be done to avoid the conversation rather than have it. They would be namecalled and jeered away at every turn rather than their case addressed.

I am not alone and it's easy to see why anyone with this answer could be mistaken about the world we're actually living in.

However, no one sees the need to engage with flat earthers either. There is clearly some level of obvious stupidity and nonsense where we ought to draw a line and jeer the other side away instead of debating them. Ironically I usually use the example of racism but conveniently, since this is the topic, there exists also the example of flat earth.

Purple Knight wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 2:39 pm I'm shocked no one answered this topic.

My personal answer, the clue I would look for first, is that the side actually being oppressed would be laughed off, suppressed, and dismissed without debate. They would be silenced, deplatformed, and anything and everything would be done to avoid the conversation rather than have it. They would be namecalled and jeered away at every turn rather than their case addressed.

If denied access to broad statistics, I would consider informal/anecdotal surveys the next obvious step. Ask every person I meet whether they generally feel disadvantaged or discriminated against, and if so what specific incidents have made them feel that way. If half of one group feel discriminated against due to specific incidents against their friends or family and only a quarter or a tenth of another group do, odds are the latter group isn't oppressed... and those who do declare their oppression would often likely face ridicule.

I am not alone and it's easy to see why anyone with this answer could be mistaken about the world we're actually living in.

Why would that be an easy mistake to make? An advocate for white grievances (birtherism, confederate monuments, return to bygone 'greatness,' immigration from "s---hole countries," suggestion that NFL protestors "maybe shouldn't be in the country" etc.) was granted the biggest platform in the world for four years, almost eight... and his supporters still complain that they're being "silenced, deplatformed" and so on. It seems that any disagreement or pushback whatsoever against their views is interpreted as part of the 'oppression' they are suffering. That's a necessary part of their narrative, of course, but why would that be an easy mistake for anyone else to make?



Ironically, often it's those concerned about inequalities affecting historically-oppressed minorities who also advocate potential solutions to many of the 'reverse racism' complaints, arguing that indeed most folk of all ethnicities live within an unjust socio-economic system skewed in favour of an elite few: Saying that it's skewed a little less heavily against folk with a few superficial commonalities with the historical elites (eg. maleness, whiteness) needn't be the same thing as refusing to address those complaints, themselves, however incorrect the reverse racism analysis/attribution may be. On the contrary, I've often seen folk lamenting the way in which their political 'opposites' are persuaded to vote against their own interests.

• President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

Mithrae wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 6:59 amand his supporters still complain that they're being "silenced, deplatformed" and so on. It seems that any disagreement or pushback against their views whatsoever is interpreted as part of the 'oppression' they are suffering. That's a necessary part of their narrative, of course, but why would that be an easy mistake for anyone else to make?

Mithrae wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 6:59 amIf half of one group feel discriminated against due to specific incidents against their friends or family and only a quarter or a tenth of another group do, odds are the latter group isn't oppressed... and those who do declare their oppression would often likely face ridicule.

See your own post; they listen to those that complain, so they make the mistake. Anyone can complain and say they feel oppressed, and increasingly, they do say that, even though they aren't. It's easy to write failure off as somebody else's doing, and that's just what this human trash does. For example, it's hard for them to admit that they didn't get that job because they're lazy garbage, and it's easy to blame Affirmative Action.

Trump is not an example of being given any position. He was unfortunately elected partly because he panders to what a growing number of people wrongly believe. And they are silenced. And they are deplatformed. YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and almost any other platform (with the exception of Gab) simply won't tolerate their nonsense. It's unfortunately given them the idea that they're being silenced because they're right.

They need to reexamine their beliefs. Being deplatformed and silenced at every opportunity doesn't facilitate that. It facilitates nazi nutballs being driven deeper into the conspiracy theory that they were right all along and they're living in that mirror universe where they're the ones being oppressed.

Your answer to the question is straightforward and simple: You would ask people if they feel oppressed. In the mirror universe, more white people would say that they were oppressed. I think the voters of four years ago gave you your answers when they voted for someone peddling that sort of white victim nonsense, which is yet another example of why I say it's easy to make the mistake.

There are examples where we cannot proceed without a default to basic reality, and I think flat earth and white victimisation are the biggest examples. It's very fortunate that there aren't a growing number of people who believe the earth is flat and that even if there were, that such a belief wouldn't victimise others while racism unfortunately does.