A thought just occurred to me. Now, follow this logic

A thought just occurred to me. Now, follow this logic.

a. liberals promote the idea that one color human is racist
b. by promoting this idea they promote that certain color people are a different race
c. because they promote this, they also admit that certain color people need other colors to stand up for them due to their inability to do it themselves

Therefore, racism is a construct of white liberals to oppress people of color due to their own sense of superior self worth. If this was not true, they would not assume that they must be the guardian of the other party.

Discuss.

Congrats. You have successfully redpilled yourself.

fpbp

Pretty much this desu

>Discuss.
shitlord.

in all seriousness you can't discuss with these idiots. anything and everything you say—even agreement—will be used against you. logic is beyond them.

liberals are projecting their feels of racism on to other people super hard.

>welfare

Mr Tommy Sotomayer talks about what you just said

Pretty major logical flaws here:
1. You assume that all lefties are the same person / have exactly the same opinions
2. Statement a: "liberals promote the idea that one color human is racist". This is completely false. Almost no one believes that expect for extreme fringe tumblr bloggers that are most likely just parodies.
3. Statement b: "certain color people are a different race". How is this related to the other statements? No one left wing disputes that different characteristics mean different race, expect if you are talking about those transracial snowflakes, but those people represent the left about as much as furry trump supporters represent the right.
4. Statement c: "because they promote this, they also admit that certain color people need other colors to stand up for them due to their inability to do it themselves". The logical step here is not valid. You have no where shown why people of a certain color need specifically people of another color to stand up for them, in fact most lefties promote minorities to stand up for their own race.

0/5 see me after class

Thats what it feels like.

im looking this up now.

im not tracking, please elaborate

in rebuttal

1. I did not, but I did state the party that holds this belief.
2. it is a commonly held belief among liberals that only whites can be racist. They openly state this
3. I'm pretty sure if you go around preaching how the sun is the reason for day, you are classifying times into categories such as day and night. The reality of the situation is that a 24 hour period is a day, not just the sunny 12.
4. Im fairly certain that if I provided a proof for why x needs y to stand up for x, I would be using liberal logic, which, by chance, you seem to be extremely familiar with and flavor your arguments with accordingly.

also
6. liberal detected
7. leaf

therefore opinion discarded.

would you like to play again: Y/N

Using logic to discuss liberals.

fuck.

Yes.

To add on top of that: Liberals never see the "People of Color" as equals. They treat them more like pets - very much like massa did. The minorities are their personal playthings to feel good.

>1. I did not, but I did state the party that holds this belief.
There is no single "left party" so this statement doesn't really make sense. There are several different "left leaning" parties who have many different opinions on pretty much every issue so there is no way to say that "the left party says this is true". While some opinions may be more left or liberal than others, that doesn't mean as a liberal or leftist you are forced to have them.
>2. it is a commonly held belief among liberals that only whites can be racist. They openly state this
Again you are assuming everyone left wing has the exact same opinion. Consider this counterexample: my friends and I are leftist and we do not think only whites can be racist as that is contradictory logic and is racist in itself. In fact I do not know any leftists who think this way and I am part of several leftist clubs at my university. Thus the statement is false.
>3. I'm pretty sure if you go around preaching how the sun is the reason for day, you are classifying times into categories such as day and night. The reality of the situation is that a 24 hour period is a day, not just the sunny 12.
??? I can't really follow what the argument here is or what the metaphor is supposed to be for
>4. Im fairly certain that if I provided a proof for why x needs y to stand up for x, I would be using liberal logic, which, by chance, you seem to be extremely familiar with and flavor your arguments with accordingly.
There is no such thing as liberal logic. The thing about logic is that it is true no matter who says it. Eg 4 equal sides and angles would imply a square no matter if a left wing or right wing person says it.

>6. liberal detected
>7. leaf
Ad hominem so no response really needed here. However in your future arguments I would recommend not using it as attacking the person instead of the argument makes it seem like you are grasping for straws and weakens your argument.

>No one left wing disputes that different characteristics mean different race,

yes they do. They say race is a social construct all the time. Of course they can't deny different skin colors etc. but they still claim there's no such thing as a race.

>, in fact most lefties promote minorities to stand up for their own race.
No. Most lefties want them to stand up for progressivism and equality. For the common goal. What you describe sounds pretty Sup Forums-like ( like ethnonationalism) and does not represent most liberals at all.

1. >repeating the same thing over and over makes me right and you wrong
2. >6. liberal detected
>7. leaf
>Ad hominem so no response really needed here. >However in your future arguments I would >recommend not using it as attacking the person >instead of the argument makes it seem like you >are grasping for straws and weakens your >argument.

Its funny that you felt that me stating you were canadian and liberal was attacking you. That is a commonly held belief among liberals that facts are personal attacks.

This is a no true leftist argument.
While do i agree that we shouldnt generalise and assume they are all the same. Heres a thing to consider, the most vocal ones have the highest chance of gathering more people to join their ranks. By holding a view and being quiet is a slow way to gather supporters. So when we say liberals, we are referring to the vocal majority. You are using anecdotal evidence to support your claims which is also as bad as generalising and claiming all leftists are the same.
Now lets get to the talking points
Groups like BLM and LGBTQ that are considered to be leftist all have a common enemy, the white male. Two thirds of african americans mostly agree with BLM, and what blm promotes is, in short: FUCK THE WHYTE MAN SHOOT THE WHITEY, WE ARE OPPRESSED, SYSTEMATIC RACISM. This group is so outspoken and aggressive, that about 40% of white men think they incite violence and distract from real issues. Lgbt community has 9 million people, now since there is no q in there i assume they dont include the tumblrkin. But alot of these lgbt people have the same enemy, the white man. White men are sexist misogynistic pigs, patriarchy is oppressing us, white mens fault. Now i do realise that they do not play any use in this discussion other than proving how many leftist hold ridiculous beliefs. Furthermore "feminism for islam" signs and so on, people that hold signs like that and agree with people with those views, will consider you racist if you dont open your butthole to muslims. So yes alot of them promote that the white man is the only reason their lives are shitty

People that belong to groups listed above will go out of their way to mention "race is a social construct, gender is a social construct, biology doesnt exist." Furthermore, i would say that believing we are all equal is close to the very core of liberal beliefs, or am i wrong? To be continued

>They say race is a social construct all the time
Not even close to true. Show me three (3) examples of leftist politicians claiming that race is a social construct and I might believe you.

Either way, you fundamentally misunderstand the whole idea behind the race is a social construct argument. The official statement from the American Anthropological Association is as follows:
>While there is a biological basis for differences in human phenotypes, most notably in skin color,[12] the genetic variability of humans is found not amongst, but rather within racial groups – meaning the perceived level of dissimilarity amongst the species has virtually no biological basis. Genetic diversity has characterized human survival, rendering the idea of a "pure" ancestry as obsolete.[10] Under this interpretation, race is conceptualized through a lens of artificiality, rather than through the skeleton of a scientific discovery.
The argument is that culture plays a far more significant role on racial identity than genetics, and that though different groups of people have different genetics, using race as a comparison factor makes no sense. Thus race doesn't really exist however there are different populations of people so the original argument still stands.

The problem here arises, where if you accept that different races exist, you have to accept that we are not in fact equal, and thats hard to accept for some people.

And finally why do they need whites to help them, simply put because they are not capable themselves. Muslims cannot forcefully enter a country, whites have to let them in, once they get in they are a minority, often a very small minority, in general having more numbers in your ranks would help you be more influential, so some help from whites is a great way to get this.
As far as blacks go, which is the point of this argument. Why they need whites to help them. Because they are not capable of doing it themselves, their poor attempt BLM is doing nothing but being off putting to others.
They also fail to educate themselves with free schools that the whites give to them, on top of that they need affirmative action to get anywhere in their life. And just how strong the affirmative action is, is a different discussion, but it is pretty out there.
Getting employed, most of blacks hispanics( legal ) muslims women, have poor qualifications compared to white men, in general. Some jobs may be better to be left for women, but even then you might find men there. So what needs to happen? We need to have some "diversity in our workforce" which means employ unfit employees over better functioning ones, to fill in an imaginary quota so youre not considered sexist or misogynistic.

alright so if it isn't ad homs then what was the point of point of putting it into the post? like why would I just put >american at the end of my post without any context otherwise??
>Its funny that you felt that me stating you were canadian and liberal was attacking you
on the contrary, I did not feel offended or attacked by the statement. That's why I said attempting to use ad hominem makes your argument look weaker instead of getting butthurt and resorting to petty insults myself.

>and that though different groups of people have different genetics, using race as a comparison factor makes no sense.
Exactly. They don't believe in race.

>>No one left wing disputes that different characteristics mean different race
>Race doesn't really exist

Also forgot to respond to the second part of this post.
>No. Most lefties want them to stand up for progressivism and equality.
Promoting people to stand up for progressivism and equality is not mutually exclusive with promoting people to stand up against oppression to their race and in fact is almost the same thing. Fighting racial oppression is not equivalent to ethnonationalism in any way.

Its not a true leftist argument if you think of leftists as a some crazy feminist tumblr blogger caricature. In which case congratulations! you are correct those people make no sense. However if you actual use the normal definition of left wing than it is a pretty standard viewpoint. If you want to feel smug about disproving crazy feminists than go ahead but actual leftists are pretty different.
>Groups like BLM and LGBTQ that are considered to be leftist all have a common enemy, the white male.
False. The common enemy is the system that is oppressing them. However some uninformed "leftists" think that means the white man since that makes thing easier. However these people represent the left wing as much as the KKK represents the right wing. If you want to argue against those people instead of actual leftists go ahead but don't claim that the left wing is mentally challenged if you beat them since its pretty easy.

yeah you're right the first part is accurate. Fighting racial oppression is what the liberals support. Standing up for your people, as much as it is against oppression of your people. They don't really like that line of thinking though. "Your people" could also be "minimum wage workers" and to leftists there should be no difference here as long as you are oppressed as a group.
Standing up for your people does in fact have similarities with ethnonationalism because you fight for the interests of your people. Whether you only fight injustices or generally is on the same train of thought. As soon as it's not for equlaity the liberals will not help though.

As ive said, seeing as they are the most vocal and outspoken group with a good following, id say that their opinions do matter. Same as with muslim terrorists, yeah not all of them are terrorists and extremists, but a decent amount are, big enough of amount to be addressed.
The problem with equating a system to white men, is that it changes the situation completely, and ways to deal with it just as much. You could find articles with titles that go something along the lines of "White people should stop breeding" "White people are going extinct and thats a good thing." And to equate BLM and LGBTQ to KKK today, is beyond silly. Currently the KKK are as irrelevant as an organisation can be with less than 10k members. While BLM is much more influential and infact equally as racist as the KKK.

Yes, liberals are racist. That said, they do not feel like other races need the white peoples help because they are inferior, but rather because white people oppress them and thus put them in a disadvantageous / inferior position. They have "invented" privilege and oppression to give an explanation as to why other races are inferior to ours without blaming it on race itself.

No not at all. The argument is as follows:
>though different people have different genetics, there is no particular gene associated with a particular race (even the skin color isn't genetically linked to race)
>even if such a gene existed, the majority of the population would not have it because of interbreeding between different gene carriers
>other than a few isolated tribes in East Asia everyone would be considered mixed race
>the reason that we consider people to be a certain race is the amount of certain genes they have present, however the definition of this amount is arbitrary and thus depends on society
>thus though different populations have on average slightly different genetics, you cannot really narrow it down to a specific genetic definition of race
>thus the definition of race comes from society and is a social construct
Note that just because race is a social construct that doesn't mean race doesn't exist.

Still waiting on those examples btw

But thats out right delusional. I have schizophrenia, and before taking medication, i used to hear voices and i could "see" my thoughts. But i knew that those things arent real and are inside my head, i wasnt deluded into thinking that.
The delusion of those people is at a higher level than a mild form of one of most serious mental illnesses humans can have.

Yes their opinions do matter, whoever they do not represent the left as a whole. If you show that their opinions are incorrect you do not show that all leftists are incorrect. Just because the Westebro Church is retarded that doesn't mean that the right wing ideologue is retarded as well

Also accidentally missed the second part of your post.
>You could find articles with titles that go something along the lines of "White people should stop breeding" "White people are going extinct and thats a good thing." And to equate BLM and LGBTQ to KKK today, is beyond silly
You can find just as many articles about why all jews should be gassed or why all black people should be hanged. Online articles are so easy to make that it really doesn't mean anything.
>Currently the KKK are as irrelevant as an organisation can be with less than 10k members. While BLM is much more influential and infact equally as racist as the KKK.
And? if the KKK doesn't represent the right why should BLM? In fact one could even argue that BLM isn't even particularly left wing

>the definition of this amount is arbitrary and thus depends on society

No the amount is not arbitrary because the different amounts are seen in different populations in different regions. When a certain group of people has a certain makeup then it is grouped together.

>and that though different groups of people have different genetics, using race as a comparison factor makes no sense.

It totally makes sense though. The clustering of different genetic properties is distributed in such a way that you can assign the correct race almost without error.

Thats something we can both agree on. But the reason alot of people put such big importance on this particular group of people, is purely because they are so vocal and out there trying to get more people into their cause.
Kinda same with KKK, nobody really gives a shit about KKK now their numbers are so small and they dont make appearances, but when their numbers were in millions and they were running around towns in their robes, burning crosses, being really loud about lynching black people and probably exercising that, it was of a really big importance to deal with them and dismantle their views first.
You could find more, and better reasons to gas jews and hang blacks than to remove white people from the planet, that being said i dont support either.

The KKK supports a really outdated version of what right meant, but some of their views are in line with what modern right believes in. However as ive said, they are absolutely irrelevant due to lack of numbers. If we were to go back in time, i would easily agree with the fact that the KKK reflected an even larger amount of views the right has, because back then right was racist.
However BLM is now, and the BLM people vote left wing. And right now as ive said, BLM is alot more influential.

And i actually wanted to ask you that, as a left wing person, what do you think about BLM and how they fit with the left wing, and also what do you think about affirmative action and the diversity in the workforce being enforced?

That's only around highly mixed communities, it's a city folks disease, they need to think things differently because they can't make the separation between isn't other person as different and abusing them.

But this it's due to the sheltered upbringing, because people in abusive relantionships don't give a fuck, "no one treated me well".

This hate accumulates and always respond to real life circumstances, but there's to much confirmation bias.

Alright I challenge you to give me a genetic definition of the black race then. But before you use any of these:
>melanin
Higher concentrations of melanin are not exclusive to black people in the slightest. Australian natives are considered a separate race by all definitions however they possess similar concentrations (also Italians in some cases even though Italian isn't a race).
>wider nose, dark hair
This is also seen in many Asians
>wide lips
Certain "white" and Mediterranean groups also possess this feature.
>inteligence
There is no fixed intelligence for each race. As a result there can be a black person that is smarter or just as smarter than a white person. Thus intelligence can't determine race.

You can do the same thing with pretty much any factor. Thus the definition of race cannot depend on these factors and is a construct of society

I think that the idea behind BLM is correct but many of the people in the protests don't really understand it and are really looking for a reason to be angry rather than correct

You said you could argue that they are not particularly left wing, how so? What are the key differences?

There is much more to left wing than just race. However many people at the protest are not there because of a political ideology but to stand up for their race. As someone else in this thread already said, standing up for one's own race is not exclusively leftist in the slightest.