“It’s OK to be white” posters - the reaction

It’s the mess that happens when proper analysis hits a widespread belief of fiction.

OP has a huge persecution complex. Elsewhere he was complaining how men like him are the real victims when they get rejected during the process of sexually harassing women. OP’s unironic use of buzzwords and attributing positions to his opponents exemplifies identify politics.

The year 2500 AD : How can you be proud of your great grandfather for building this house because he hired people in the 2380s who stepped on ants. It’s completely barbaric, we should shun off that part of history, because you see we are on a path to a Nihilistic utopia where we are just pure streams of good thought - and my son make sure you understand what good thought is - equality.

Your subjective perception of the world does not - and will never - reflect fact. That assumption in itself is a fallacy and one which a self-proclaimed 'philosopher' such as yourself should avoid.

I guess the only possible reason that someone might oppose the fiction that is postmodern social theory is that they have a persecution complex.

Your assertion isn’t simply saying, I disagree with you therefore you’re mad, is it? 🙈🙈🙈

I'm talking about being proud of people who did the slave trade. Are you proud of those people?

Word salad. I’d recommend you improve your structure of writing; ideally you should be concise and support your assertions with evidence. Incoherent, irrelevant rants are seldom well received.

I think you are trying too hard to victimise white people- ofc white people may face racist attacks but this is far less commonplace than white attacks on black people or other POC. White people now shouldn't feel personally responsible for the actions against other races but that doesn't mean that you should ignore what happened and is still happening to a still shockingly large number of different races. Just because a poster says that racism against POC is still happening doesn't mean you have to turn it around, ignore the original point and try to claim that there's some blatant, overt form of widespread racism against white people.

N.B. no such thing as anti-white racism; racism itself implies discrimination against any race by any other race

No it’s just using humour by putting some the most revolutionary political analysis of our time in txt speak 😜

Incoherence cannot be blamed on “txt speak”. I have no idea what your “revolutionary political analysis” is, tbh. So far you’re made a few disconnected assertions here and there about random topics; we’ve heard these generic 4chan-esque conspiracy “WOKE” rants before countless times, so where’s the revolutionary part?

Incoherence cannot be blamed on “txt speak”. I have no idea what your “revolutionary political analysis” is, tbh. So far you’re made a few disconnected assertions here and there about random topics; we’ve heard these generic 4chan-esque conspiracy “WOKE” rants before countless times, so where’s the revolutionary part?

I’m talking about being proud of people who walked on ants. How could someone possibly be proud of them, you see all ideas are equally valid under postmodernism except of course for prejudice and oppression. And there is an ever changing relativist definition of prentice and oppression which changes with time, therefore anything before 1960 is prentice and ever year this goes forward. You can’t be proud of anecdotes before this cut off date or you will be supporting prentice and oppression.

And you especially can’t challenge false postmodern social theory, because you will bring the entire political system down.

See the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the OP and the somewhat sarcastic commentary on postmodern social theory.

It turns upside down the thinking of the 60s student radicals, postmodernists and western cultural revolution that followed. It is contrary to the British political establishment, media and education system and is therefore revolutionary. I have posted a short film on the OP to help you understand.

However, your interpretation does not properly account for the fluidity and emotionality of human society. Certain societal and/or historical events have undoubtedly contributed to the development of our society and shaped it to be what it is today. This is how societal development comes to be and it is how we progress as a civilised people. It is crass therefore, to suggest that we should not reflect on or give notice to certain historical or socioeconomic factors when it comes to defining what is socially acceptable in this, our civilised society.

Furthermore, it is a logical fallacy to compare the societal understanding of race and racism/whatever your convoluted point is with the idea of someone historically stepping on an ant. This is a ridiculous oversimplification and it displays a clear lack of engagement or well-versed thought in constructing your argument. If you want to actually challenge this, you must first formulate your arguments without resorting to an ab absurdo argument, which reduces the validity of your interpretation and causes general irritation.

I don't agree with you for a moment, but you're not doing yourself any favours.

I’ve read it all. More buzzwords. More petty generic reactionary rants. Revolutionary, my arse Perhaps you should share your revolutionary political insights (remember, you’re the only one who’s talking about it in the UK as you claimed) on a more appropriate forum: https://www.reddit.com/r/im14andthisisdeep/

this the kinda guy who's really pale and always sits alone in class and doesnt have any friends because he always goes on political rants whenever anyone speaks to them