Philosophy Discussion Forums

In other words, it's a way of declaring oneself to be anti-straight or anti-white. Queer and dark coloured people who play these identification games are simply trying to justify their own prejudices and bigotry.

There is no LGB etc group - they are not harmonious and many of the groups relate better to straight society than to LGBT etc.

Same with "people of colour. That's just an excuse to be racist against whites and then pretend they are not being racist because they redefined "racism" to mean any nastiness to any group that is not thoroughly white.

Innate gender is obviously real but the BS grouping of randomised queers is nonsense.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 5th, 2024, 6:03 pm In other words, it's a way of declaring oneself to be anti-straight or anti-white.

I think it's just a couple of terms that seek, purely for the sake of convenience, to describe "not straight" and "not white". For there are many other orientations than 'straight', and many other skin colours than 'white'. A term to describe them saves a lot of typing. Convenience, nothing more.

Consider "conscious" and "unconscious", as applied to the human mind. The first describes one part of the mind; the second gathers all the other parts, and refers to them collectively. To that extent, at least, this is exactly what we're talking about here, isn't it? And again, these terms were created, and are used, for our convenience. There's nothing wrong with convenience, when no harm is intended or done.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 5th, 2024, 6:03 pm In other words, it's a way of declaring oneself to be anti-straight or anti-white. Queer and dark coloured people who play these identification games are simply trying to justify their own prejudices and bigotry.

There is no LGB etc group - they are not harmonious and many of the groups relate better to straight society than to LGBT etc.

Same with "people of colour. That's just an excuse to be racist against whites and then pretend they are not being racist because they redefined "racism" to mean any nastiness to any group that is not thoroughly white.

Innate gender is obviously real but the BS grouping of randomised queers is nonsense.

Two things.

First, everyone is vulnerable to patisanism, but not everyone is in a position, power-wise to use their patisan tendancies to disenfranchised others.

Second, forming coalitions comprising of dissimilar individual minority subgroups to leverage numbers when addressing the majority is not only normal, it's advisable politically.

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 6th, 2024, 4:36 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 5th, 2024, 6:03 pm In other words, it's a way of declaring oneself to be anti-straight or anti-white. Queer and dark coloured people who play these identification games are simply trying to justify their own prejudices and bigotry.

There is no LGB etc group - they are not harmonious and many of the groups relate better to straight society than to LGBT etc.

Same with "people of colour. That's just an excuse to be racist against whites and then pretend they are not being racist because they redefined "racism" to mean any nastiness to any group that is not thoroughly white.

Innate gender is obviously real but the BS grouping of randomised queers is nonsense.

Two things.

First, everyone is vulnerable to patisanism, but not everyone is in a position, power-wise to use their patisan tendancies to disenfranchised others.

Second, forming coalitions comprising of dissimilar individual minority subgroups to leverage numbers when addressing the majority is not only normal, it's advisable politically.

First, if you don't see the decimation of your white males and the constant denigration o white people generally at present, you are not paying attention.

Secondly, I stand by my comments completely, since I have taken my cue from what many queer people are saying. There is no queer community. Most lesbians and trans don't get along. Most gays and asexuals don't mix. Most lesbians and gay usually distrust bisexuals. Most asexuals an successful transsexuals are more into mainstream society that seeking out queer ghettoes.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 6th, 2024, 5:09 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 6th, 2024, 4:36 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 5th, 2024, 6:03 pm In other words, it's a way of declaring oneself to be anti-straight or anti-white. Queer and dark coloured people who play these identification games are simply trying to justify their own prejudices and bigotry.

There is no LGB etc group - they are not harmonious and many of the groups relate better to straight society than to LGBT etc.

Same with "people of colour. That's just an excuse to be racist against whites and then pretend they are not being racist because they redefined "racism" to mean any nastiness to any group that is not thoroughly white.

Innate gender is obviously real but the BS grouping of randomised queers is nonsense.

Two things.

First, everyone is vulnerable to patisanism, but not everyone is in a position, power-wise to use their patisan tendancies to disenfranchised others.

Second, forming coalitions comprising of dissimilar individual minority subgroups to leverage numbers when addressing the majority is not only normal, it's advisable politically.

First, if you don't see the decimation of your white males and the constant denigration o white people generally at present, you are not paying attention.

Secondly, I stand by my comments completely, since I have taken my cue from what many queer people are saying. There is no queer community. Most lesbians and trans don't get along. Most gays and asexuals don't mix. Most lesbians and gay usually distrust bisexuals. Most asexuals an successful transsexuals are more into mainstream society that seeking out queer ghettoes.

"Decimation", really? Overreach much? White males are 31% of the US population and hold 65% of elected offices. 74% of the CEOs of the top 50 corporations in the US are white men. But I do get your point, since in the 1980s they were 100%. So there's your "constant denigration". I'm not saying they're not taking flak, criticism and even some discrimination. Sucks doesn't it? Take a number and get in the back of the line, some folks got here a long time ago...

Subgroups don't have to get along personally to work together politically.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 6th, 2024, 5:09 pm First, if you don't see the decimation of your white males and the constant denigration of white people generally at present, you are not paying attention.

Secondly, I stand by my comments completely, since I have taken my cue from what many queer people are saying. There is no queer community. Most lesbians and trans don't get along. Most gays and asexuals don't mix. Most lesbians and gay usually distrust bisexuals. Most asexuals and successful transsexuals are more into mainstream society than seeking out queer ghettoes.

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 7th, 2024, 1:07 am "Decimation", really? Overreach much? White males are 31% of the US population and hold 65% of elected offices. 74% of the CEOs of the top 50 corporations in the US are white men. But I do get your point, since in the 1980s they were 100%. So there's your "constant denigration". I'm not saying they're not taking flak, criticism and even some discrimination. Sucks doesn't it? Take a number and get in the back of the line, some folks got here a long time ago...

Subgroups don't have to get along personally to work together politically.

I wish I'd written that; well said.

This "white men are being discriminated against", seems to be part of the same movement as incels. Like bullies claiming that identifying them as bullies is, of itself, bullying behaviour. As you say, the figures actually *disprove* it. And yet intelligent people say it as if it is 'obvious', as Sy Borg has done here. I wonder why?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 7th, 2024, 7:34 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 6th, 2024, 5:09 pm First, if you don't see the decimation of your white males and the constant denigration of white people generally at present, you are not paying attention.

Secondly, I stand by my comments completely, since I have taken my cue from what many queer people are saying. There is no queer community. Most lesbians and trans don't get along. Most gays and asexuals don't mix. Most lesbians and gay usually distrust bisexuals. Most asexuals and successful transsexuals are more into mainstream society than seeking out queer ghettoes.

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 7th, 2024, 1:07 am "Decimation", really? Overreach much? White males are 31% of the US population and hold 65% of elected offices. 74% of the CEOs of the top 50 corporations in the US are white men. But I do get your point, since in the 1980s they were 100%. So there's your "constant denigration". I'm not saying they're not taking flak, criticism and even some discrimination. Sucks doesn't it? Take a number and get in the back of the line, some folks got here a long time ago...

Subgroups don't have to get along personally to work together politically.

I wish I'd written that; well said.

This "white men are being discriminated against", seems to be part of the same movement as incels. Like bullies claiming that identifying them as bullies is, of itself, bullying behaviour. As you say, the figures actually *disprove* it. And yet intelligent people say it as if it is 'obvious', as Sy Borg has done here. I wonder why?

Psychologically, no one whines more than those used to undeserved advantage, losing that advantage.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 7th, 2024, 7:34 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 6th, 2024, 5:09 pm First, if you don't see the decimation of your white males and the constant denigration of white people generally at present, you are not paying attention.

Secondly, I stand by my comments completely, since I have taken my cue from what many queer people are saying. There is no queer community. Most lesbians and trans don't get along. Most gays and asexuals don't mix. Most lesbians and gay usually distrust bisexuals. Most asexuals and successful transsexuals are more into mainstream society than seeking out queer ghettoes.

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 7th, 2024, 1:07 am "Decimation", really? Overreach much? White males are 31% of the US population and hold 65% of elected offices. 74% of the CEOs of the top 50 corporations in the US are white men. But I do get your point, since in the 1980s they were 100%. So there's your "constant denigration". I'm not saying they're not taking flak, criticism and even some discrimination. Sucks doesn't it? Take a number and get in the back of the line, some folks got here a long time ago...

Subgroups don't have to get along personally to work together politically.

I wish I'd written that; well said.

This "white men are being discriminated against", seems to be part of the same movement as incels. Like bullies claiming that identifying them as bullies is, of itself, bullying behaviour. As you say, the figures actually *disprove* it. And yet intelligent people say it as if it is 'obvious', as Sy Borg has done here. I wonder why?

You really are not paying attention - either of you. Old white males are doing great. It's the young ones who are committing suicide at ever greater rates. They are at the bottom of the list for tertiary education, with all other groups being given preference. They are at the bottom of the job pool, with organisations having specific policies to exclude heterosexual white males. They are under constant attack by the mainstream media.

Further, it's ironic that you call these young victims bullies, and then deride them for not being able to attract a mate by saying they are all "incels" - which really is bullying. In this instance, you are a bully - rich guy, great job, home and family who looks down with contempt on young men who can't get laid. Incels!

Seemingly the statistics don't include young white males' greater increase in suicide and depression as compared with most other groups (look it up). There is a real issue that will result in social unrest (armies of depressed young men locked out of the job market is dangerous) that you lot are in denial about, presumably to get a final kick in on those terrible OPPRESSORS ... white males.

In truth, most young people are struggling because prior generations broke the unwritten social contract (the ones that now sneer at them and call them incels, just to rub it in). We/they were supposed to leave the world a better place for the young, and it didn't happen. Companies took all the wealth and refused to let it trickle down as it did before. Due to cultural hostilities, young white straight males are now doing it worst of all.

You lot should get over this absurd self-flagellation and attacking of your own culture and allies and let yourselves be objective, even if it puts you at odds with friends etc. Throw away the political lens and let yourselves be philosophers, not cheap politicos.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 7th, 2024, 6:11 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 7th, 2024, 7:34 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 6th, 2024, 5:09 pm First, if you don't see the decimation of your white males and the constant denigration of white people generally at present, you are not paying attention.

Secondly, I stand by my comments completely, since I have taken my cue from what many queer people are saying. There is no queer community. Most lesbians and trans don't get along. Most gays and asexuals don't mix. Most lesbians and gay usually distrust bisexuals. Most asexuals and successful transsexuals are more into mainstream society than seeking out queer ghettoes.

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 7th, 2024, 1:07 am "Decimation", really? Overreach much? White males are 31% of the US population and hold 65% of elected offices. 74% of the CEOs of the top 50 corporations in the US are white men. But I do get your point, since in the 1980s they were 100%. So there's your "constant denigration". I'm not saying they're not taking flak, criticism and even some discrimination. Sucks doesn't it? Take a number and get in the back of the line, some folks got here a long time ago...

Subgroups don't have to get along personally to work together politically.

I wish I'd written that; well said.

This "white men are being discriminated against", seems to be part of the same movement as incels. Like bullies claiming that identifying them as bullies is, of itself, bullying behaviour. As you say, the figures actually *disprove* it. And yet intelligent people say it as if it is 'obvious', as Sy Borg has done here. I wonder why?

You really are not paying attention - either of you. Old white males are doing great. It's the young ones who are committing suicide at ever greater rates. They are at the bottom of the list for tertiary education, with all other groups being given preference. They are at the bottom of the job pool, with organisations having specific policies to exclude heterosexual white males. They are under constant attack by the mainstream media.

Further, it's ironic that you call these young victims bullies, and then deride them for not being able to attract a mate by saying they are all "incels" - which really is bullying. In this instance, you are a bully - rich guy, great job, home and family who looks down with contempt on young men who can't get laid. Incels!

Seemingly the statistics don't include young white males' greater increase in suicide and depression as compared with most other groups (look it up). There is a real issue that will result in social unrest (armies of depressed young men locked out of the job market is dangerous) that you lot are in denial about, presumably to get a final kick in on those terrible OPPRESSORS ... white males.

In truth, most young people are struggling because prior generations broke the unwritten social contract (the ones that now sneer at them and call them incels, just to rub it in). We/they were supposed to leave the world a better place for the young, and it didn't happen. Companies took all the wealth and refused to let it trickle down as it did before. Due to cultural hostilities, young white straight males are now doing it worst of all.

You lot should get over this absurd self-flagellation and attacking of your own culture and allies and let yourselves be objective, even if it puts you at odds with friends etc. Throw away the political lens and let yourselves be philosophers, not cheap politicos.

First of all, old white males are doing much, much better than great. That's the original problem.


But let's look at young white males. Young white males make up 26% of medical school admissions, which is a slight underrepresentation, since they're 31% of the population. But their admission rate, contrary to your red declaration, is similar to asians, hispanics and native americans and superior to blacks. Thus their representation in the class correlates to their representation in applications (not their representation in the population). In other words white males aren't being kept out of med school, they're not applying to med school. Therefore the "problem" isn't external, it's internal. Much has been made recently about the differences in the economic circumstances experienced by and thus the opportunities of the Boomers, vs Gen Xers, vs Millenials, vs Gen Z. Those differences exist. BUT they are dwarfed by the differences WITHIN each generation in personal drive and thus opportunities.

Just white males?

Not Chinese, Indian, Russian, Taiwanese, Japanese, South Korean, Indonesian, Turkish, Thai, Mexican, Malaysian etc billionaires?

Since the US is not the whole world, the wealth disparity is, in fact, much more generational than it is racial.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 7th, 2024, 7:34 am This "white men are being discriminated against", seems to be part of the same movement as incels. Like bullies claiming that identifying them as bullies is, of itself, bullying behaviour. As you say, the figures actually *disprove* it. And yet intelligent people say it as if it is 'obvious', as Sy Borg has done here. I wonder why?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 7th, 2024, 6:11 pm Further, it's ironic that you call these young victims bullies, and then deride them for not being able to attract a mate by saying they are all "incels" - which really is bullying. In this instance, you are a bully - rich guy, great job, home and family who looks down with contempt on young men who can't get laid. Incels!

Please have another look at my words.

I didn't "call these young victims bullies".
I didn't call them "incels" either.
In fact, I didn't even *address* these young males.

I referred to a sort of "movement", as you can see, above. And I wondered, and still wonder, why people say and believe such stuff?

I also wonder if the character assassination in your words, above, contributes anything to this discussion, apart from anger, perhaps?



P.S. I'm not "rich"; my pension is barely enough to pay for food and energy. I don't have a job either, I'm retired. I do have a home, admittedly. Which is just as well, as I'm close to housebound these days. I don't really match the picture you paint. Not even a little bit.

Yeah, you were referring to them as incels and bullies, but doing it in a roundabout way. The associations you were making are too clear for you to weasel out of it.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 8th, 2024, 2:15 am Just white males?

Not Chinese, Indian, Russian, Taiwanese, Japanese, South Korean, Indonesian, Turkish, Thai, Mexican, Malaysian etc billionaires?

Since the US is not the whole world, the wealth disparity is, in fact, much more generational than it is racial.

No doubt older people have accumulated more wealth than younger people. Should it be some other way?

Do you disagree with the observation that the differences between generations is smaller than within generations?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 8th, 2024, 5:01 pm Yeah, you were referring to them as incels and bullies, but doing it in a roundabout way. The associations you were making are too clear for you to weasel out of it.

I said what I said, and meant what I meant, regardless of the NT-like () implications you superimpose onto what I said. Implications I did not make, and certainly did not intend.

Incels are just going to have to deal with it the way fags, trans and other minorities have had to deal with the sh*t that life throws up. The world is not here to find incels a bed buddy or to give them a job. The incels need to take it on the chin and do something constructive about it. If those chinks and n*ggers are taking all the jobs then the incels need to up-skill and so they can get a job earn enough to show a lady a good time.

And there's no point whinging about how all the old white males (OWMs) control all the wealth. Those OWMs made the world we currently live in. Good luck to the OWMs. What the whinging white incels need to do is to make themselves wealth-controlling OWMs. Otherwise, go whinge to god.

And those in the US who want to whinge about China and India taking all the jobs need to ask themselves how this has come about. Maybe they then need to start voting for different sorts of governments. If they think Trump is going to save them by reinstating the rust belt they've got rocks in their heads. Trump doesn't give a sh*t about losers. A slight shuffle to the left, with some protection for US manufacturing industries, like China does, may help some.

No one cares about poor-white-trashy incels who understand nothing. And we're sick of their whining. They need to git offer their asses.