Diseased Trump Derangement Syndrome - Read the OP! (ᴛʜɪs ᴛʜʀᴇᴀᴅ ɪs ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴋɪᴡɪ ғᴀʀᴍs ʀᴇᴠɪᴇᴡs ɴᴏᴡ)

Vorhtbame

kiwifarms.net
That definition isn’t helpful when trying to narrow down the motive, which is why I separated the two words. If we apply it to too many things, the original meaning becomes muddled and ceases to be useful.
The definition expressly states that the motive is to compel the government/society to conform to the actor's demands.

Over-applying a term does dilute its meaning, yes, but refusing to apply it where it does apply makes it utterly meaningless.
 

Medicated

Not the fun kind
kiwifarms.net
Didn't the dude say he hated Trump's policies and actions in his manifesto and only liked that he represented white nationalism or some shit?
Yes, after reading the manifesto, it seems like while he thinks Trump is a good role model "A successful guy who sticks to the facts and speaks his mind" he thinks Trump policy wise is too little too late. The UK is done, most of the Europe is done. Australia and NZ are next in line. While the pendulum will swing back, the neighborhoods of Sharia law in Sweden and the like will probably remain, and continue to grow, and result in a majority voting Muslim block in several decades.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Kinkshamer

greengrilledcheese

Free, White, and 21
kiwifarms.net
If there’s no actual threat of white supremacy then we just need to use that term to refer to things like white people breathing.

Reminds me of this article....



No, I Won’t Stop Saying White Supremacy
Naming white supremacy shifts the locus of the problem to white people, where it belongs.

August 12, 2017 by Dr. Robin DiAngelo

I am white. When I give talks on what it means to be white in a society deeply separate and unequal by race, I explain that white people who are born and raised in the U.S. grow up in a white supremacist culture. I include myself in this claim, as I enumerate all of the ways in which I was socialized to be complicit in racism. I am not talking about hate groups, of which I am obviously not a member. And no, I don’t hate white people. I am addressing the majority of the audience to whom I am speaking, white progressives like me. If it surprises and unsettles my audience that I use this term to refer to us and not them, even after I have explained how I am using it, then they have not been listening. That recognition should trigger some sense of urgency that continuing education is needed. Yet invariably, a white person raises the objection: I really don’t like that term! I associate it with the KKK and other white nationalist groups. Why can’t you use a different term?As a classic example of white fragility, rather than stretching into a new framework, I am asked by a white participant to use language that is more comfortable and maintains their current worldview.

Many people, especially older white people, associate the term white supremacy with extreme and explicit hate groups. However, for sociologists, white supremacy is a highly descriptive term for the culture we live in; a culture which positions white people and all that is associated with them (whiteness) as ideal.
White supremacy captures the all-encompassing centrality and assumed superiority of people defined and perceived as white, and the practices based upon that assumption. White supremacy is not simply the idea that whites are superior to people of color (although it certainly is that), but a deeper premise that supports this idea—the definition of whites as the norm or standard for human, and people of color as an inherent deviation from that norm.

Thus, when race scholars use the term white supremacy, we do not use it the same way as mainstream culture does. Nor, do we use it to indicate majority-versus-minority relations. Power is not dependent on numbers but on position. We use the term to refer to a socio-political economic system of domination based on racial categories that benefit those defined and perceived as white. This system rests on the historical and current accumulation of structural power that privileges, centralizes, and elevates white people as a group. If, for example, we look at the racial break-down of the people who control our institutions, we see that in 2016-2017:
  • • Congress: 90% white
  • • Governors: 96% white
  • • Top military advisors: 100% white
  • • President and Vice President: 100% white
  • • Current POTUS cabinet: 91% white
  • • People who decide which TV shows we see: 93% white
  • • People who decide which books we read: 90% white,
  • • People who decide which news is covered: 85% white,
  • • People who decide which music is produced: 95% white
  • • Teachers: 83% white
  • • Full time College Professors: 84% white
  • • Owners of men’s pro-football teams: 97% white
These numbers are not a matter of “good people” versus “bad people.” They are a matter of power, control, and dominance by a racial group with a particular self-image, worldview, and set of interests being in the position to disseminate that image and worldview and protect those interests across the entire society.

For a clear example of what it means to have institutional control and use it to the advantage of your group, we can look to Women’s suffrage in the U.S. Only white men could grant women suffrage because white men controlled the government (and all of the other institutions that allowed them to disseminate and enforce patriarchy across society). They still do. While women could be prejudiced against men and discriminate against individual men in isolated cases, women as a group could not deny all men their civil rights. Yet men as a group could deny all women their civil rights. Once white men finally granted women the right to vote, only white men could then deny access to that right for women (and men) of color. White people also write the history that tells us that “women” were granted the right to vote, and erases the reality that that access was not granted equally across race. The termwhite supremacy allows us to capture the all-encompassing and multi-dimensional nature of white control.

While the dominant racial/ethnic group in other cultures may not be white (for example, the Chinese rule Tibetans, and the Tibetans may experience racism from the Chinese), there is nonetheless a global dimension of white supremacy. Through mass media, corporate culture, advertising, United States-owned manufacturing, military presence, historical colonialist relations, missionary work, and other means, white supremacy is also circulated globally. One of the most potent ways this is disseminated is through media representations which have a profound impact on how we see the world. Given the role of media in modern life, films shape our ideas about romance, conflict, family, friendship, sexuality, criminality, belonging, and otherness.

Those who write and direct films are our cultural narrators; the stories they tell shape our world views. Given that the majority of white people live in racial isolation from people of color (and Black people in particular) and have very few authentic cross-racial relationships, white people are deeply influenced by the racial messages in films. Of the 100 top grossing filmsworldwide in 2016, 95 were directed by white Americans (99 of them by men). That is an incredibly homogenous group of directors. Because these men are most likely at the top of the social hierarchy (in terms of race, class and gender), they are the least likely to have a wide-variety of authentic egalitarian cross-racial relationships. Yet they are in the position to represent the racial “other.” Their representations of the “other” are thereby extremely narrow and problematic, and reinforced over and over.

Take, for example, the Jackie Robinson story. Robinson is often celebrated as “the first African American to break the color line and play in major-league baseball.” While Robinson was certainly an amazing ball player, this story line depicts Robinson as racially special; a black man who broke that color line himself. The subtext is that Robinson finally had what it took to play with whites, as if no black athlete before him was strong enough to compete at that level. Imagine if instead, the story went something like this: “Jackie Robinson, the first black man whites allowed to play major-league baseball.” This is a critical distinction because no matter how fantastic a player Robinson was, he simply could not play in the major leagues if whites—who control the institution—did not allow it. Were he to walk onto the field prior to being granted permission by white owners and policy makers, the police would have removed him.

Narratives of racial exceptionality obscure the reality of ongoing institutional white control while reinforcing the ideologies of individualism and meritocracy. They also do whites a disservice by obscuring the white allies behind the scenes who worked hard and long to open the field to African American players. These allies could serve as much needed role-models for other whites (although we also need to acknowledge that in the case of the desegregation of baseball, there was an economic incentive for these allies).

White supremacy as a powerful ideology that promotes the idea of whiteness as the ideal for humanity is especially relevant in countries that have a history of colonialism by Western nations. Charles Mills (1997) describes white supremacy as “…the unnamed political system that has made the modern world what it is today” (p.1). He notes that while white supremacy has shaped Western political thought for hundreds of years, it is rarely named. In this way, white supremacy is rendered invisible while other political systems—socialism, capitalism, fascism—are identified and studied. In fact, much of its power is drawn from its invisibility—the taken-for-granted aspects of white superiority that underwrite all other political and social contracts. White resistance to the term white supremacy prevents us from examining this system. If we can’t identify it, we can’t interrupt it.

Naming white supremacy changes the conversation because it shifts the locus of the problem to white people, where it belongs. It also points us in the direction of the life-long work that is uniquely ours; challenging our complicity with and investment in racism. Yes, this work includes all white people, even white progressives. None of us have missed being shaped by the white supremacy embedded in our culture. Current research in implicit bias demonstrates that all people have racial bias, that most of it is unconscious, and that it does manifest in our actions. Because white people control the institutions, our racial bias is embedded and infused across society and works to the advantage of all white people, regardless of intentions, awareness, or self-image. Our task is not to exempt ourselves from the impact of these conditioning forces, but rather to continually seek to identify how these forces shape us and manifest in our specific lives, and interrupt those manifestations.
The term white supremacy seems to be especially resisted by those whites who marched in the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s. For those of you that did march, I understand that you may have strong negative associations with the term. So let me acknowledge that your involvement was critical. I, and many others, are grateful for your activism. The racism you marched against was coming from white people (as it always does). In that, it was our problem, as it always has been. We needed to get involved. And precisely because our voices have been granted more legitimacy under white supremacy, we needed to use those voices to challenge the apartheid of the time. I sincerely thank all of the white people who put themselves on the line to protest.

Having said that, we can now move on to the next point: marching in the 60’s did not certify you as racism-free for the rest of your lives, with no re-certification necessary, ever. Nor did it free you of any need for further accountability to people of color. And might there have been some of the more subtle (to whites) forms of racism perpetrated even as you marched? I am not talking about fire-hoses on protesters or beatings at the lunch counter forms of racism. Of course you were, and are, against those explicit forms. I am talking about the white progressive forms of racism which support these more explicit forms; the white savior syndrome you likely brought with you (how could you not – you are a product of your culture), the condescension and patronizing, the marveling at how articulate the Black folks were, even as you took over their movement. I am talking about the reasons that have led folks to do things differently today; why we have Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Showing Up for Racial Justice (SURG). BLM leads, and SURJ is expected to take its direction from BLM.

If we take a closer look at the stories we tell about Jackie Robinson, ourselves, and our activism, we see that these stories mask white supremacy by rendering invisible: whites, white advantage, and the racist policies and practices of the institutions we control. This is what we need to make visible, understand, and interrupt.

So, no, we won’t stop using the term white supremacy.

It’s not on those of us involved in the movement today to change our language for further white comfort. In fact, that is the height of white entitlement. Rather, it is on white people to break out of our comfort zones, realize that things have changed, and initiate our continuing education and skill-building. The internet is over-flowing with excellent guides on how to do this. The inability (or refusal to do so) functions as a form of resistance to change and protection of a very limited and problematic world view. This resistance is not benign; it functions to hold the current racial order in place. There is no neutral stance. We need to move on and move forward, because we are calling it what it is: white supremacy.
 

Fruit6

kiwifarms.net
Reminds me of this article....

No, I Won’t Stop Saying White Supremacy
  • People who decide which TV shows we see: 93% white
  • People who decide which books we read: 90% white,
Wait, so who exactly does control which TV shows we see and which books we read? Does some white man just live in their homes and tell them "Okay, today you're going to watch House Hunters"?
 

Wallace

Cram it in me, baby!
kiwifarms.net
Citation needed please.
View attachment 696658
It's fair to put some onus on what happened in Paris on President Obama, says @Wallace. "Radical Islam, racism against whites, those are core parts of President Obama's political identity. That's what he uses to appeal to his many followers.


That’s the media un-reality in a nutshell. There aren’t enough legitimate white supremacists in America to fill a super Walmart, and there aren’t any in political power. The press needs a villain to get views and the assorted “against hate groups” racketeers need to fluff the numbers to literally scare up funding. If there’s no actual threat of white supremacy then we just need to use that term to refer to things like white people breathing. It’s the definition of antisocial profiteering.
You can't be a hero without a villain.
 
Last edited:
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Kinkshamer

HeyYou

seriousposter
kiwifarms.net
Lots of words
That he was Muslim added to the seeming plausibility: It has become an increasingly common tactic among some Western anti-Islam commentators to insist that Muslim culture and gay rights are incompatible — all that despite polling data showing that American Muslims are more accepting of gay people and gay civil rights than several other large religious groups.
Love that little virtue signalling in there. What about European Muslim's opinions, Intercept?
 

Malodorous Merkin

Musky
kiwifarms.net
Pulse was mostly a lone wolf; apparently the dude had a case of teh gay, and was told by an ISIS-sympathetic Imam that dying in holy war was the only way he'd get into heaven. He called some ISIS dude right before the attack to swear alleigence, but otherwise ISIS was uninvolved. The guy was a faggot, had been to the night club before, and basically shot the place up because it was full of too much sweaty fag cock for him to resist the temptation.
This is a myth that's dug in like a tick.

Like the "Columbine shooters were bullied kids who snapped", it's a "common knowledge" that's supported by zero evidence.
 

Vorhtbame

kiwifarms.net
Wait, so who exactly does control which TV shows we see and which books we read? Does some white man just live in their homes and tell them "Okay, today you're going to watch House Hunters"?
Yes, and he's called "Dad". And though his interference in their lives ended a solid twenty years ago, they still haven't forgiven him for grounding them over that one time they said they were going to meet friends to study but really they went to a party and got busted for underage drinking. Dad gets irritated with them for referring to "being responsible" as "adulting", and has at least once expressed regret that he paid for them to get a degree in Transgender Fingerpainting.

Just remember that, when some palefaced SJW starts banging on about "white men", they really mean "my dad". And that they're probably typing this in his basement.
 

rocknrollmartian

kiwifarms.net
Love that little virtue signalling in there. What about European Muslim's opinions, Intercept?
Ha, that's some bullshit. It looked like a decent breakdown otherwise.

And "[non-devout] Muslims [allegedly] love gays" more than which other "large religious groups," I wonder? Because plenty of hugbox liberal Christians are bizarrely effusive about gay people, and as we know, even TRUMP is OK with gays.
 

HeyYou

seriousposter
kiwifarms.net
Ha, that's some bullshit. It looked like a decent breakdown otherwise.

And "[non-devout] Muslims [allegedly] love gays" more than which other "large religious groups," I wonder? Because plenty of hugbox liberal Christians are bizarrely effusive about gay people, and as we know, even TRUMP is OK with gays.
I don't know if it's true with the study he quoted, but many of them weasel their way into making Christians look bad by breaking Christianity down and then asking if they like gays, so if you get most Baptists to say gay marriage is wrong, you can then vaguely point to Christians being intolerant. Otherwise, that article is pretty weirdly defensive of not just his wife, which is reasonable, but him too. There's one sentence that says "what he did was evil" and the rest is attempting to make his outrage look justified or something by focusing on the couple comments he made about US bombings and not the myriad extremist statements he made.
 

thismanlies

The Funnest Part of Gaming is Looting Corpses.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net


Dude were you even fucking here for the Obama Administration? That shit was like a bi-monthly fucking occurence.

Pulse Night Club
San Bernadino
Fort Hood
Benghazi
Charlie Hebdo
Nice France

"Religion of Peace. Religion of Peace. Religion of Peace. Lone Wolf attack." Seriously every single time this happened we were just told it's some small, fringe element that doesn't even matter, or it's just a "lone wolf" so who cares. God I hate people who think they can just pull this memory-hole shit as if people can't even remember what happened past last week.
Speaking of the Pulse Night Club, wasn't the response to that pretty much "Hmm, yeah. Just sprinkle some gun control on that and see what happens."

And if I remember correctly, that shooter's father was featured front and center at a Hillary Clinton rally. I don't remember the majority of the media laying the blame for that at her kankles.
 

Wallace

Cram it in me, baby!
kiwifarms.net
I don't know if it's true with the study he quoted, but many of them weasel their way into making Christians look bad by breaking Christianity down and then asking if they like gays, so if you get most Baptists to say gay marriage is wrong, you can then vaguely point to Christians being intolerant. Otherwise, that article is pretty weirdly defensive of not just his wife, which is reasonable, but him too. There's one sentence that says "what he did was evil" and the rest is attempting to make his outrage look justified or something by focusing on the couple comments he made about US bombings and not the myriad extremist statements he made.
It's a relative of the Straw Man argument called a Weak Man. You point to someone having extremist views and then extrapolate those views as applying to the entire group. For example, asserting that the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of all Christians. The inverse is called a Steel Man. A pro-gay American Muslim is indicative of all Muslims being okay with homosexuality.
 

Apoth42

Hehe xd
kiwifarms.net


Dude were you even fucking here for the Obama Administration? That shit was like a bi-monthly fucking occurence.

Pulse Night Club
San Bernadino
Fort Hood
Benghazi
Charlie Hebdo
Nice France

"Religion of Peace. Religion of Peace. Religion of Peace. Lone Wolf attack." Seriously every single time this happened we were just told it's some small, fringe element that doesn't even matter, or it's just a "lone wolf" so who cares. God I hate people who think they can just pull this memory-hole shit as if people can't even remember what happened past last week.
Bush literally said "Not all Muslims" after 9-11....

Anyway, amazing how hundreds of millions of people or in some cases 87 million fans of a certain entertainer can be branded as the worst based on one person.
 

HeyYou

seriousposter
kiwifarms.net
It's a relative of the Straw Man argument called a Weak Man. You point to someone having extremist views and then extrapolate those views as applying to the entire group. For example, asserting that the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of all Christians. The inverse is called a Steel Man. A pro-gay American Muslim is indicative of all Muslims being okay with homosexuality.
I thought Steel Man was arguing against the best version of your opponent's argument when they're arguing terribly? I think you're thinking of hasty generalization or some such.
 

Ghostse

Waffle SS Untermenchenfurher
kiwifarms.net
I thought that, too, but so much of the info about that seems unreliable and contradictory, e.g. some claim Mateen was a regular at Pulse while others say he had never set foot in the place before the shooting and didn't even know it was a gay club. Also, 'On June 25, The New York Times reported that after exhaustive investigation with help from the FBI, the gay dating network Adam4Adam concluded that Mateen had never used its app. With regard to reports of Mateen using its and other dating sites and apps for gay men, an Adam4Adam spokesman said, "I think it was a hoax." Furthermore, the article stated that after 500 interviews, the FBI has not found any evidence of homosexuality "through (Mateen's) web searches, emails or other electronic data." The FBI, however, "has found evidence that Mateen was cheating on his wife with other women."'

'ABC News and Fox News reported that early in the morning of June 12, the day of the attack, Mateen posted on one of his Facebook accounts: "The real muslims will never accept the filthy ways of the west ... You kill innocent women and children by doing us airstrikes...now taste the Islamic state [sic] vengeance" as well as "America and Russia stop bombing the Islamic state." His final post to Facebook was "In the next few days you will see attacks from the Islamic State in the usa." These posts, since deleted, were uncovered by the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.'

As the Trial of Omar Mateen’s Wife Begins, New Evidence Undermines Beliefs About the Pulse Massacre, Including Motive

So at this point, a media slant to take away some of the focus from radical Islam and to garner sympathy and outrage for the gay community wouldn't be surprising whatsoever. Regardless, his actions were spurred on by belief in the death cult. But I suppose it's debatable as to when and how someone is truly part of a terrorist group, what that means, how much involvement is necessary, etc.

Islamic and ISIS references were minimized by investigation, and instead the convenient narrative that he was closet gay became the focus. Maybe true, but I do have major doubts. This guy was not hysterical, he was a calm killer. They wanted to negate an ISIS win, I think.
This is a myth that's dug in like a tick.

Like the "Columbine shooters were bullied kids who snapped", it's a "common knowledge" that's supported by zero evidence.
That's what I get for not following up; I see most of the clear cut cases of guy being a regular were members of the gay community trying to smear his name posthumously. And naturally the media never reported any of this shit like threatening to sic Al Queda on the family of a deputy. At court house.

Record corrected.
 

The Pink Panther

Think Like Pink
kiwifarms.net
What's going to happen once people stop saying irreverent shit on Twitter and CNN starts trying to be non-biases? Would people become a bit more smarter and try to get all of the facts of whatever happened? Or would someone somewhere create a new social media platform to spew garbage at?
It's not gonna stop until they get their way.
 

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino