Stansfield123 Wrote:

yudantaiteki Wrote:"Slavery" is not being blamed on whites. It's not about blame, but about cause and effect. The massive inequality that still exists in the US between whites and blacks is due to slavery and its aftermath.

Is it? So why is Barack Obama the President then? Why doesn't this supposed cause and effect apply to him?

I don't see what this response has to do with my post. Even putting aside the fact that Obama's parents weren't African-Americans, It's not the case that 100% of black people have it worse off than 100% of white people. Nobody is arguing that. Poverty is a problem that affects a lot of whites too, and there are plenty of examples of black people who have attained great success.

The point of bringing up slavery is not necessarily to assign moral blame, although some do. I also have never owned a slave and as far as I know, none of my ancestors did either. However, both me personally and my ancestors certainly benefited from being white, particularly my grandfather and others who grew up prior to the 1960s. The point is that the effects of slavery, followed by 100+ years of legal discrimination and then continuing extra-legal discrimination, cannot be erased in 50 years just by telling people to work hard.

Stansfield123 Wrote:

yogert909 Wrote:I would LOVE to hear about the mechanism for this.

I don't believe you...so I'm not gonna bother.

You don't believe yourself...so you're not going to bother. There is no way you could prove that claim.

yogert909 Wrote:Why would it? He is one of the rare african americans that can't trace their ancestry back to slavery.

I'm confused. So the claim here isn't that black people are victims of inequality? It's that the descendants of slaves are victims of inequality?

yogert909 Wrote:But even if he were, the existence of outliers doesn't disprove anything about a general trend that a large majority of people end up in the same economic segment as their parents and grandparents.

So? Black Americans' parents and grandparents were never slaves.

Is it also true that a large majority of people end up in the same economic segment as their great, great, great grandparents? I bet it's not. Ergo, a 21st century American blaming his poverty on his great, great, great grandfather being a slave is retarded beyond belief.

My great, great, great grandfather was as poor as any slave. He was not a slave, but he was a serf, subject to the whims of European aristocrats pretty much in the same way a slave was subject to the whims of his owner. Should I also blame my problems on aristocracy, or should I take some personal responsibility for dropping out of college and having to work at a supermarket for two years, before I finally got my act together and learned programming?

yudantaiteki Wrote:However, both me personally and my ancestors certainly benefited from being white

I never did, and if anyone were to ever offer me any preferential treatment based on skin color, I would turn them down on moral grounds. I'm not claiming to be morally perfect (I've been known to download the occasional J-pop DVD off of torrent sites - in fact I've got one downloading as I'm typing this; and I once stole money out of my mom's purse to buy a pack of cigarettes I didn't even smoke because they made me sick), but I like to think that I would never allow myself to knowingly become the member of a racist, parasitic clique living off of the suffering of poor black people.

How did you benefit from being white, and why did you accept those benefits?

Stansfield123 Wrote:My great, great, great grandfather was as poor as any slave. He was not a slave, but he was a serf, subject to the whims of European aristocrats pretty much in the same way a slave was subject to the whims of his owner. Should I also blame my problems on aristocracy, or should I take some personal responsibility for dropping out of college and having to work at a supermarket for two years, before I finally got my act together and learned programming?

Economic privilege and racial privilege are separate concepts. You can have one without the other. If you're unlucky enough you can even lack both. I've already addressed this:

Ryuudou Wrote:Nobody has ever denied that poor white people exist. However a poor white person will never be poor and black no matter how poor he is, and that matters. It's been shown that poor white people tend to have higher social mobility than black people due to a lot more opportunities. From your interactions with the police to the way employers look at you things are generally very different if you're white.

The inverse of this is that no amount of money a black person has will change a black person has to deal with being black. Even rich and famous black men are often harassed and pulled over by the cops for driving nice cars.

It was also ridiculous that you would compare being a serf to being a slave. Also, slavery for African-Americans also didn't actually end with slavery. They were restricted from realistic prospects for social and economic success until a recent 1964.

These situations just aren't remotely analogous, and it's a comparison that honestly reeks of ignorance.

ryuudou Wrote:It was also ridiculous that you would compare being a serf to being a slave. Also, slavery for African-Americans also didn't actually end with slavery. Your family was not restricted from realistic prospects of economic and social success until a recent 1964 like African-Americans were who could not get a education and could not vote.

You're right about that last part. My family was restricted from realistic prospects of economic and social success until 1989, when Communism ended in Eastern Europe. Christmas of 1989, to be exact, a three day period I remember vividly, because they were shooting people in the street, and a bullet landed in our window frame.

And yet, I would never have the nerve to blame my personal failures, as an adult, on my family's misfortune back when I was five years old. So why would people who weren't even born when Jim Crow was in effect, and who's parents weren't even born when Jim Crow was in effect, blame their failures on that?

ryuudou Wrote:These situations just aren't remotely analogous, and it's a comparison that honestly reeks of ignorance.

This is why I hate talking to dogmatic leftists. They run out of arguments after one or two sentences, and it always comes down to "you just too stuuuupid to understand" when they do.

Anyways, my Girls' Factory '15 torrent just finished downloading. So have a nice day.

I will be back to check on Yudantaiteki's answer to my question though (if it ever comes), some other time. I disagree with him, but he's intelligent. Only thing I like more than talking to intelligent people is talking to intelligent people I disagree with.

So after your "my great great great grandfather was a serf" tactic failed you then decided to shift the goalposts to blaming "communism". That's almost laughable.

Stansfield123 Wrote:So why would people who weren't even born when Jim Crow was in effect, blame their failures on that?

No one is "blaming" things on it. Rather some people refuse to acknowledge the complex social phenomena at play here, and would instead rather blame "black culture".

It's been 50 years since we started kind of trying to put policies in place to help lift this hugely disadvantaged group from where the U.S. government had forced them to be: in a lower social status with way less rights than others. Now, not even a generation later, we suddenly expect inner-city black people to have the same perspective as those who were not negatively impacted by those racist policies, and in many ways benefited from it. Do you think that being born into poverty by parents that were born into poverty by parents that were born into a government-sanctioned low-status caste by parents that were born into government-sanctioned slavery would have the same perspective as you? Do you think that restrictions and limitations caused by years of objectively racist policies that forces a community in poverty would not have an effect on a community's culture? Do you think that being born into an environment where the opportunities of becoming successful are greatly diminished would not impact your perspective and worldview?

No of course you don't. You're an "oppressed" middle-class white guy who allegedly had one "indentured" servant grandparent 5 generations ago, who has never had your rights stripped from you over the color of your skin, so you know exactly what hardship is. Just get over it™ you lazy blacks!

Honestly I think African-Americans, who were legally classified as less than human for over 100 years after slavery and only began wealth accumulation this generation and still deal with institutional racism this very day, should pay reparations to you.

Talk about snowflake syndrome.

Stansfield123 Wrote:This is why I hate talking to leftists. They run out of arguments after one or two sentences

You should get a degree in projection. This ad-hominem itself is a sign that you're out of an argument.

Stansfield123 Wrote:Anyways, my Girls' Factory '15 torrent just finished downloading. So have a nice day. I will be back to check on Yudantaiteki's answer to my question though (if it ever comes), some other time. I disagree with him, but he's intelligent. Only thing I like more than talking to intelligent people is talking to intelligent people I disagree with.

Not to spoil your party, buuuut... Ouch. :/

I am glad to take your resignation though. It seems you really were projecting pretty hard with the "out of an argument" part.

ryuudou Wrote:

Dudeist Wrote:The funny thing is that blacks were closing the gap with whites on pretty much every measure. Well until the 60's when attitudes went from "frig them let them pull themselves up" to a combination of "blame whitey for everything" and "shut up and take our money/quotas".

This is completely false. African-Americans were not considered full citizens until 1964, and before that time the discrimination that exists today was even stronger.

Dudeist Wrote:Well until the 60's when attitudes went from.

Yeah it was definitely their darn attitudes, and not because they were disproportionately discriminated against due to the individual and collective racism. See the GI bill, The FHA, Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, being intentionally targeted for sub-prime loans and suffering disproportionately worse during the mortgage crisis.

Dudeist Wrote:"shut up and take our money/quotas"

The funny thing about people who make this argument toward African-Americans is that the American white middle class was essentially created with the Homestead Act and the hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of free land it gave out to white men (any free man was "technically eligible" but we know what that really means in 1890). Not "hard work". Government money and quotas as you like to say.

I have absolutely no problem with this, but racist people and conservatives love to pretend that welfare is some kind of "black thing" in the US while they sit on family land given to them by the federal government. An amount of welfare that even ten thousand years of food stamps used to buy bologna sandwiches and powered juice wouldn't add up to.

Dudeist Wrote:Best way to keep any people down forever is to constantly tell them that they have no responsibly for their fate and it is the role of "the man" to fix their problems.

This is a ridiculously dishonest strawman that I've already addressed. It relies on the racially charged assumption that this is about "helping lazy people, aka black people, when they can do it themselves". Dealing with major problems concerning institutional racism and discrimination in society has nothing to do with things you can "do yourself" on a personal level. These are societal problems that are unfairly affecting a lot of people.

Instead of acknowledging that institutional racism exists, which makes you uncomfortable, you'd instead rather just call black people lazy. Americans know they live in an unequal society where whites benefit and blacks get screwed. They feel guilt about that at some level because they believe in equality and believe that racism is wrong. Since they want to believe they are good people they either fight against that inequality – or make up excuses. Making up excuses is way easier.

If they can blame blacks for their troubles, then they have no reason to feel guilty at all. Then they can still see themselves as good people. Case closed.

Dudeist Wrote:It was hilarious, McMaster did a study on it, found a difference of about 3500 bucks so they upped female wages by that much. 3500 bucks, at a Canadian university. That's a rounding error

A "rounding error" that consistently only applies to one side. Hmm. It might be hard to understand this as a man, but if that "rounding error" was on your side you might care about it a little more.

And that's significant enough. In STEM fields here equally qualified women tend to earn 8-20% even when you control for the amount of hours worked.

Stansfield123 Wrote:

yudantaiteki Wrote:Did I miss something? Is this a parody/satire post?

No, it's a factual post. Slavery was a global phenomenon, not an American one. While it was an accepted practice, there were slaves of all races, and slave owners of all races, all across the world.

Blaming slavery on whites is stupid.

Dudeist Wrote:I also find it interesting that when it comes to payback for slavery it never seems to concern the descendants of the people who actually enslaved those slaves... the blacks of West Africa.

"Africans sold their own people as slaves" is a stock argument racists often use when the subject of slavery comes up. This is a common derail. It's like the excuse you hear in school when kids say, "But they were doing it too! How come I'm getting in trouble?". The immaturity equivalent of throwing your milk on the ground and stomping up and down. First, simply as an argument of fact it fails:

-Africa was not a country. Africans were not selling "their own", they were selling their enemies, just as the Greeks and Romans once did. Africa, then as now, was made up of different countries. They were no more selling "their own" than, say, "Europeans" were killing "their own" during the Holocaust.

-Most African countries did not sell slaves and some even fought against it. But because Europeans back then could control the supply of guns there was little Africans could do to stop it. Europeans turned slavery into a global enterprise and they had the guns to make it happen.

-The Transatlantic slave trade was on a much greater scale than anything the Africans or anyone else ever did in the history of slavery. Countries were destroyed and millions died.

-The Transatlantic slave trade was racist. The African slave trade, for all of its other ills, was not that. Neither was the Greek and Roman slave trade. So slavery in places like Haiti, West Indies, and America was much much more cruel. Slavery in Africa was more of an indentured servitude with a beginning and an end. Many slaves ended up marrying into the families they served. What's important to note here is that slaves maintained their humanity and were not "born into" slavery. The child of a slave was born free.

As a moral argument it fails as well:

-It excuses an evil of one’s own past by finding the same sort of evil done by others. Whites sold slaves, but Africans and Arab traders did too! Which, morally speaking, is at the same level as an eight-year-old saying, "He did it too!" when caught doing something bad. We do not accept this argument from eight-year-olds, nor from bank robbers or wife beaters. This is no better.

It's main purpose is used by white supremacists to draw attention away from what happened by turning the tables, because acknowledging certain things might contradict a lot of white supremacist arguments concerning blacks innately being lazy or innately inferior. That part of their past that makes the white supremacist crowd uncomfortable. But instead of facing up to it they have built up defenses against it:

-Get over it™!
-You did it!
-Blacks are just lazy!
-It was the times.
-Slavery did not make economic sense.
-Slaves were treated better anyway
-That was Ancient History.

It's a very defensive and childish argument, and it amazes me that anyone even tries it for two reasons:

-That anyone would waste more than two seconds trying to excuse something so clearly evil, like the slave trade, the Japanese American prison camps, racism, etc.
-That they would try to use such a bad argument with a straight face and not see just how bad it is.

But the modern neo-nazi and white supremacist crowd loves to make this argument. Not only does it help push a racist agenda, it also seems to bring comfort to them. However that comfort is completely one-sided. It brings no comfort to those who have to suffer their evil. Like when the Jews were being sent to the death camps, did it bring any comfort to them to know Chinese people were also being massacred in the so-called rape of nanking?

Dudeist Wrote:Women who probably never spent more than a month in their lives without a date slagging "losers" really hard with no concept of empathy for those of us who couldn't get laid in the Orange is the New Black prison with a fist full of pardons... even from crazy eyes or the cancer girl. One would think a forever alone brah would be used to getting looked down upon and marginalized after decades of such treatment but nope.

Translation: "Girls are immoral creatures, and I never get laid. Why don't they have empathy for people who cannot get laid like me?"

So women have no empathy because they won't have sex with people who lack prospects? Do you not realize how realize bitter and ridiculous that argument is? The perceived lack of empathy that you receive from women is probably around the same amount of empathy you have for black people. Are you going to cry about it now all of a sudden? What do you expect? Pity sex from women? Just get over it™. Pull yourself up. Stop asking for handouts.

Dudeist Wrote:"Nobody ever says this" is wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_for_slavery

It's not true. It's a strawman caricature used to discredit people fighting for racial justice, often by people who prefer things as they were in the 18th century, based on the notion that people just want "handouts".

Even in that extremely sparse Wikipedia page there's no direct mention of the USA.

Dudeist Wrote:I am not an American and even I knew reparations was thing...

We can only imagine where you're getting your warped view from.

Dudeist Wrote:It isn't a coincidence that those two things happened at the same time, but it is very interesting how it worked out. At the time when legal impediments were eliminated and social impediments were drastically reduced all progress dating back decades all of a sudden stopped.

No. The black middle-class is larger than it's ever been. A black middle-class wasn't even existent in the 60s.

You really need to stop repeating this because it's objectively wrong. You just want to convince yourself that somehow things "got worse" after the 60s because the "good old days" when you could get away with your thoughts without having to use codeword are now gone.

Stansfield123 Wrote:It's a coincidence. Civil rights isn't the cause of black poverty in America, the welfare state is.

There is no "welfare state". This is another racially charged conservative myth that has been debunked countless times.

Dudeist Wrote:Interesting, I am pretty sure somewhere earlier in this thread someone said the GI bill was not open to blacks. Which is it.

Objectively false. Observe:

-"The G.I. Bill aimed to help returning World War II veterans adjust to civilian life by providing them with a series of benefits, including low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans, and financial support to allow veterans to pursue an education. African Americans did not benefit from the provisions of the G. I. Bill nearly as much as European Americans. Although the G.I. Bill did not specifically advocate discrimination, the law would be interpreted differently for blacks than for whites. Historian Ira Katznelson argues that "the law was deliberately designed to accommodate Jim Crow". Because the programs were directed by local, white officials, many veterans could not reap the benefits of the G.I. Bill. Of the 67,000 mortgages insured by the G.I. Bill, fewer than 100 were taken out by non-whites."

john555 Wrote:Like a typical liberal, you have no sense of humor.

It has to be funny for it to be a joke. Like a typical conservative you aren't... nevermind.

Discrimination was even stronger before 1964 and yet blacks were closing the gaps in pretty much every measure with whites. That progress stopped. Think about it, they were able to close the gap on lets pick income even at the heights of institutional and cultural discrimination. It all came to a screeching halt when the 60's came around and discrimination eased dramatically.
Much like with every other population group on the planet, when they switched from fighting for civil rights to blaming everything on whitey all progress halted, toss in a vast increase in the wealfare state with a chip on the shoulder and you get what we have today. A population where fatherhood is unknown. It was known before the 60's, about the same as in the current white population. Then it tanked. How are you going to blame slavery on that. There is some serious regression going on a century after the civil war and AFTER all direct governmental and much of civil society discrimination was removed.
It is like you desperately and looking for a way to blame slavery and white people for every despite the evidence otherwise.

Billions of dollars of land given away to whites... yet closing the income and health gaps. Go figure.

Also that land that they gave away, it had to be cleared you know. It wasn't exactly manna from heaven. You might want to read up a bit on what homesteaders had to go through to get their "free" land. However that would require some sort of empathy for white people and ehhh.

As for institutional racism. Why to Asians make 101% of what white people make. Nobody ever seems to address this. But yeah, they never were say interned in camps in WWII unlike the Germans and Italians. They were never subjected to a head tax [at least in Canada]. Nope, back 50 60 years ago everyone just loved them, folks be too busy hating on them there blacks and Hispanics to have any hostility towards the Asians.

As for rounding error. At a 5% confidence level the lower bound actually reverses.
Interesting that your STEM data of 8 to 20% covers hours worked.. but you don't mention all the other factors involved.
You can easily find wage gap if you leave out factors and it is impossible to consider all factors. Thus an estimated say 5% difference that Mac found would probably drop to 0 if everything could be considered.
And yes small differences are not something to get excited about in Statistics especially in uncontrolled environments.
It also isn't anywhere near the 25 or 30% that is routinely tossed out as being factual... never mind that those numbers have been shown to be misleading. That these numbers still get tossed about I'd say is an example of reverse discrimination. Of people refusing to hold feminists accountable. You know much like in community after community in England the cops and social workers would stand by while groups of Pakistanis would gang rape and pimp out 12 year old white girls because to do anything would be racist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_sex_gang
and

Rochdale sex trafficking gang
Derby sex gang
Rotherham sex grooming case
Bristol sex gang
Telford sex gang
Peterborough sex abuse case
Banbury sex gang
Aylesbury sex gang

BTW I have pointed this out elsewhere and was labelled a racist. I have no respect for political correctness at all.

You find an African in the Americans and if you look back far enough you will see another African capturing him and putting him into slavery. Not 100% but pretty damn close.
It isn't an argument derail. It is a fact. One of those uncomfortable facts that the PC brigade would rather hide so they toss out "It;s racist" in an attempt to shut down the truth.
Why. Because it is kinda difficult to blame white people for slavery when they were buying people who were already slaves. Sure keeping them as slaves was a genital move but it isn't as if white people were going through villages in African kidnapping blacks in huge numbers for fun and profit which is the image that the politically correct seem to want to remain planted in the heads of people.
However where is the blame being attached to their descendent. There is none.
Funny how you mention the distinction between Africans and how they were capturing their enemies for fun and profit. That distinction does not seem to apply no non blacks in the US. Set up a quota to deny a spot to a non black because slavery... even if the person being discriminated against has no historical linkage to slavery. Some poor fellow comes over from China and works his guts out... screw him.., slavery.
I see how it works. Distinctions must be made when it involves black people but if you are arguing for quotas and reparations and other forms of racism, you needn’t bother.


"-Most African countries did not sell slaves and some even fought against it. But because Europeans back then could control the supply of guns there was little Africans could do to stop it. Europeans turned slavery into a global enterprise and they had the guns to make it happen."

In West Africa is was pretty much endemic and I don't seem to recall reading much fighting against it except to save their own people... unlike the British. So the Africans couldn't do anything to stop it? Why would they, it was so profitable. There was no they had guns to make it happen. More they had guns and other goods to sell to make it happen. Nice try on deflecting blame. With that sort of attitude, there is no need for the Man to keep black people down, they can keep themselves down very nicely.


The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database estimates that the Atlantic slave trade took around 12.8 million people between 1450 and 1900.[5][94] The slave trade across the Sahara and Red Sea from the Sahara, the Horn of Africa, and East Africa, has been estimated at 6.2 million people between 600 and 1600.

-[b]The Transatlantic slave trade was on a much greater scale[/b

Much greater scale? Double is not much greater scale. Odd how that angle of the slave trade is completely ignored, double plus so by those Nation of Islam types. I bet you think the PLO and Hezbollah is good and Israel is bad. How 30 years ago you would join your Warsaw pact comrades in protesting US missiles in Europe completely ignoring Russian missiles in Eastern Europe. Everything west is bad, everything not west is good. 2 legs bad 4 legs good.

I think you are missing the point. It doesn't excuse anything but the question must be asked. Why do the people doing the enslaving get off scot free. That is the racism here. You can try and deflect all you want and make Godwins law your female dog but the point is that by completely giving a people a free pass on historical injustice you are acting like a racist or at least from a very morally questionable position.

"Translation: "Girls are immoral creatures, and I never get laid. Why don't they have empathy for people who cannot get laid like me?"

"So women have no empathy because they won't have sex with people who lack prospects? Do you not realize how realize bitter and ridiculous that argument is? The perceived lack of empathy that you receive from women is probably around the same amount of empathy you have for black people. Are you going to cry about it now all of a sudden? What do you expect? Pity sex from women? Just get over it™. Pull yourself up. Stop asking for handouts."

Wow that is a serious misreading of what I wrote. Like most normals you can't and are completely unwilling to get it.
They lack empathy because they show an utter lack of understanding for how horrible universal rejection is... unless it happens to them. Never said anything about it being about them not having sex with people who lack prospects. Women do tend to jump on the "you feel you are entitled" thing pretty quick which is again another sign that just don't have the empathy or are unwilling to use it to obtain understanding. But hey, thanks for illustrating my point. Hey I don't have a vagina so I don't matter. Go ahead, put on that anti bullying pink t shirt and continue to make fun of me.
As for pulling myself up? Rape is bad mmmkay. Not gonna do it. I refuse to force the issue. I love and respect women by staying as far away from them as I can.
Funny thing, last time I heard the pull yourself argument, some random stranger on the internet was pushing for me to engage in a campaign of street harassment, even though I am a friendly outgoing person who got nowhere. I reject him also. Turned out later he was a pathological liar but that is a story for another time.

Well that was an hour of my life I'll never get back.

ryuudou Wrote:That doesn't change that you were defending the Trans Atlantic Slave trade, and using a very childish tactic to do so.

I am pretty sure nobody here is defending the Trans Atlantic Slave trade, or the Cis Gendered Atlantic Slave trade of any slave trade.

Just putting it out there that the initial slavers get 0 blame and 0 responsibility for their actions.

So really I could use your tactics and say that you are defending the enslavement and selling of black people into the most brutal of slavery while being opposed to owning them and working them often to an early grave for some odd reason probably linked to race.

Except I am pretty sure you are opposed to enslaving and selling people... as I give you some credit that you are utterly unwilling to give to the rest of us.

Why blaming slavery and racism is bullocks

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on...e18913980/

"The second striking thing about the Osoyoos Indian Band is that it’s not poor. In fact, it’s arguably the most prosperous First Nation in Canada, with virtually no unemployment among the band’s 520 members. Job-seekers from elsewhere flock in to work at the band’s businesses, which last year saw $26 million in revenue and $2.5 million in net profits. Meanwhile, the reserve’s impressive school teaches native heritage and the Okanagan language. "
...
"
Critics of Louie’s success often say that he’s merely lucky—the band owns a fabulous piece of real estate. As you drive 20 kilometres down the narrow winding highway from Oliver to Osoyoos, just about everything you see out the driver’s side is Indian land: Of the band’s 32,000 acres, a good third of it is rich valley bottom bristling with vineyards. But not very long ago, the Osoyoos reserve was plagued with the same problems of poverty, crime and family violence common to other First Nations across Canada. "
...
"He grew up in the 1950s, in a community wracked with booze and violence. “There was nothing to do,” he says. “There were no jobs, no band office, no local government, no school. There was an Indian agent up in Vernon who would show up once a month to hand out welfare cheques. That was about it.”

McGinnis was shipped to residential school in a livestock truck at the age of 5 and only saw his parents in the summer. “It was very lonely to be taken away from your family at such a young age,” he says. “It takes many years to get over something like that.” At the age of 15, he ran away from school. “There was lots of work in the orchards of the Okanagan but the people here wouldn’t hire Indians, so I crossed the line into the States and rode the rails and picked fruit across Washington and Oregon.”
"

yogert909 Wrote:

sholum Wrote:Even if you can't fix stupid, you can fix ignorance and mitigate arrogance, but that requires education.

I wonder if you're exaggerating the effect of education. I wasn't a very safe driver when I was younger but I knew the rules backwards and forwards. Neither were any of the people around me at the time and I don't think any class we could take would've made a modicum of difference. It's not like there was anything we didn't know, it's just that we chose to get a little crazy knowing full well the risks.

Perhaps I am. I tend to assume people are like me, valuing knowledge and respecting consequence, even when they're young, but that's clearly not the case most of the time. However, I think that education will at least lessen the number of people doing things out of ignorance for the consequences. I'm not a big fan of shock tactics, but being shown accident reports of what should have been minor incidents where people weren't buckled up versus severe incidences where the occupants were saved from their seatbelts really drives that point home; it's no longer "buckle up because your nagging parents or 'the man' says you should", it's "wearing a seatbelt will keep you from dying in a 35mph collision". They've been trying something similar with phones recently (state sponsored television ads depicting tragic accidents caused by people texting and driving), but it doesn't seem to be doing much.

Traffic fatalities are such a problem in the States (don't know the global numbers), that I think any real education on the matter would help. But you're right, most people that drive recklessly do so knowing that it's wrong (but still thinking they're invincible; that's the real problem, but that mentality can probably only be lost through experience).

Dudeist Wrote:Discrimination was even stronger before 1964 and yet blacks were closing the gaps in pretty much every measure with whites. That progress stopped. Think about it, they were able to close the gap on lets pick income even at the heights of institutional and cultural discrimination. It all came to a screeching halt when the 60's came around and discrimination eased dramatically. Much like with every other population group on the planet, when they switched from fighting for civil rights to blaming everything on whitey all progress halted, toss in a vast increase in the wealfare state with a chip on the shoulder and you get what we have today. A population where fatherhood is unknown. It was known before the 60's, about the same as in the current white population. Then it tanked. How are you going to blame slavery on that. There is some serious regression going on a century after the civil war and AFTER all direct governmental and much of civil society discrimination was removed.
It is like you desperately and looking for a way to blame slavery and white people for every despite the evidence otherwise.

Are you ever going to provide evidence for this assertion that blacks "were" closing the gaps before 1964...?

That switch was never made, it's merely that people who oppose the social progress made by racial minorities are merely being more strident in try to frame it as "looking for hand outs" and "blaming whitey for everything." I'm sure the war on drugs and mass incarceration has nothing to do with why so many black males are missing from their communities...right?

http://reimaginerpe.org/20years/alexander

"
Perhaps greater lies have been told in the past century, but they can be counted on one hand. Racial caste is alive and well in America.
Most people don’t like it when I say this. It makes them angry. In the “era of colorblindness” there’s a nearly fanatical desire to cling to the myth that we as a nation have “moved beyond” race. Here are a few facts that run counter to that triumphant racial narrative:

There are more African Americans under correctional control today—in prison or jail, on probation or parole—than were enslaved in 1850, a decade before the Civil War began.
As of 2004, more African American men were disenfranchised (due to felon disenfranchisement laws) than in 1870, the year the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified, prohibiting laws that explicitly deny the right to vote on the basis of race.
A black child born today is less likely to be raised by both parents than a black child born during slavery. The recent disintegration of the African American family is due in large part to the mass imprisonment of black fathers.
If you take into account prisoners, a large majority of African American men in some urban areas have been labeled felons for life. (In the Chicago area, the figure is nearly 80 percent.) These men are part of a growing undercaste—not class, caste—permanently relegated by law to a second-class status. They can be denied the right to vote, automatically excluded from juries, and legally discriminated against in employment, housing, access to education, and public benefits, much as their grandparents and great-grandparents were during the Jim Crow era.

There is, of course, a colorblind explanation for all this: crime rates. Our prison population has exploded from about 300,000 to more than 2 million in a few short decades, it is said, because of rampant crime. We’re told that the reason so many black and brown men find themselves behind bars and ushered into a permanent, second-class status is because they happen to be the bad guys. [Rufus Hockenhull faces judge Joan Cartwright in Oakland, 1991. © 1991 Scott Braley]

The uncomfortable truth, however, is that crime rates do not explain the sudden and dramatic mass incarceration of African Americans during the past 30 years. Crime rates have fluctuated over the last few decades—they are currently at historical lows—but imprisonment rates have consistently soared. Quintupled, in fact. And the vast majority of that increase is due to the War on Drugs. Drug offenses alone account for about two-thirds of the increase in the federal inmate population and more than half of the increase in the state prison population."

I can't really say that I'm a fan of the concept of cultural appropriation. To me, it sort of comes off as someone feeling entitled to a culture because of the fact that they weren't born into a different culture. It was beyond their control. That's pretty much it.

So just because I'm born different from someone else doesn't mean that I'm going to let someone else tell me how it is if I want to enjoy something from another culture. But at the same time I think people should respect other cultures and not trivialize them.

Dudeist Wrote:Discrimination was even stronger before 1964 and yet blacks were closing the gaps in pretty much every measure with whites. That progress stopped. Think about it, they were able to close the gap on lets pick income even at the heights of institutional and cultural discrimination. It all came to a screeching halt when the 60's came around and discrimination eased dramatically.

This is, again, completely and objectively false. The black middle-class is larger than it's ever been. A black middle-class wasn't even existent in the 60s. This is objective economical historical fact.

You just want to convince yourself that somehow things "got worse" after the 60s and we all know why.

Dudeist Wrote:when they switched from fighting for civil rights to blaming everything on whitey all progress halted

Translation: "I miss the days when black people were good boys who knew their place. Now they're actually demanding their rights and shit. Can you believe that? I feel really threatened by the rising social mobility of minorities and women."

Dudeist Wrote:toss in a vast increase in the wealfare state

There is no "welfare state". This is another racially charged conservative myth that has been debunked countless times.

And lol @ "wealfare". This wasn't a typo because the "a" is not near the "e". This along with the fact that you can't figure out how to quote others in your post properly leads me to believe this article here is pretty darn accurate.

Dudeist Wrote:Also that land that they gave away, it had to be cleared you know. It wasn't exactly manna from heaven. You might want to read up a bit on what homesteaders had to go through to get their "free" land. However that would require some sort of empathy for white people and ehhh.

Not much. Do you know what welfare is? This was trillions of dollars of welfare from the federal government for white men. To the extent that you could say that the white American middle-class was essentially established on welfare.

Again I have absolutely no problem with this, but racist people and conservatives love to pretend that welfare is some kind of "black thing" in the US while they sit on family land given to them by the federal government. An amount of welfare that even ten thousand years of food stamps used to buy bologna sandwiches and powered juice wouldn't add up to. This level of irony seems to escape conservatives.

Dudeist Wrote:Interesting that your STEM data of 8 to 20% covers hours worked.. but you don't mention all the other factors involved.
You can easily find wage gap if you leave out factors and it is impossible to consider all factors.

Exact amount of hours worked, education, and field were all controlled for. There is no factor outside of these that can be attribute to such significant gaps (8-20%) in pay across the board for women in our STEM.

If these were truly random unrelated factors then the men would be affected by some of these "factors" as well. You can do mental gymnastics until you're blue in the face (because you're a sexist who will make excuses until you die to avoid acknowledging women issues), but it doesn't get anymore clear than this.

Dudeist Wrote:Of people refusing to hold feminists accountable.

I think these are the people who need to be held accountable:

Dudeist Wrote:You know much like in community after community in England the cops and social workers would stand by while groups of Pakistanis would gang rape and pimp out 12 year old white girls because to do anything would be racist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_sex_gang

Did you know most English women are raped by English men? Did you know that immigrants commit less crime (at lower ratios as well) than native citizens?

— "There’s essentially no correlation between immigrants and violent crime." (Jörg Spenkuch, Northwestern University, 2014. Published by the university.)

— "Immigrants are underrepresented in California prisons compared to their representation in the overall population. In fact, U.S.-born adult men are incarcerated at a rate over two-and-a-half times greater than that of foreign-born men." (Public Policy Institute of California, 2008.)

— "Data from the census and a wide range of other empirical studies show that for every ethnic group without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated. This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans" (Ruben Rumbaut, University of California, 2008. Published by the Police Foundation.)

Dudeist Wrote:I have no respect for political correctness at all.

Someone who spends his free time complaining about "political correctness" on the internet is almost undoubtedly a terrible person.

Dudeist Wrote:BTW I have pointed this out elsewhere and was labelled a racist.

You're not a racist for pointing one thing out. You're a racist because all of the things you say together. People are smart enough to put the dots together.

Dudeist Wrote:You find an African in the Americans and if you look back far enough you will see another African capturing him and putting him into slavery.

Dudeist Wrote:Funny how you mention the distinction between Africans and how they were capturing their enemies for fun and profit.

Dudeist Wrote:Because it is kinda difficult to blame white people for slavery

Dudeist Wrote:it isn't as if white people were going through villages in African kidnapping blacks

"Africans sold their own people as slaves" is a stock argument racists often use when the subject of slavery comes up. This is a common derail. It's like the excuse you hear in school when kids say, "But they were doing it too! How come I'm getting in trouble?". The immaturity equivalent of throwing your milk on the ground and stomping up and down. First, simply as an argument of fact it fails:

-Africa was not a country. Africans were not selling "their own", they were selling their enemies, just as the Greeks and Romans once did. Africa, then as now, was made up of different countries. They were no more selling "their own" than, say, "Europeans" were killing "their own" during the Holocaust.

-Most African countries did not sell slaves and some even fought against it. But because Europeans back then could control the supply of guns there was little Africans could do to stop it. Europeans turned slavery into a global enterprise and they had the guns to make it happen.

-The Transatlantic slave trade was on a much greater scale than anything the Africans or anyone else ever did in the history of slavery. Countries were destroyed and millions died.

-The Transatlantic slave trade was racist. The African slave trade, for all of its other ills, was not that. Neither was the Greek and Roman slave trade. So slavery in places like Haiti, West Indies, and America was much much more cruel. Slavery in Africa was more of an indentured servitude with a beginning and an end. Many slaves ended up marrying into the families they served. What's important to note here is that slaves maintained their humanity and were not "born into" slavery. The child of a slave was born free.

As a moral argument it fails as well:

-It excuses an evil of one’s own past by finding the same sort of evil done by others. Whites sold slaves, but Africans and Arab traders did too! Which, morally speaking, is at the same level as an eight-year-old saying, "He did it too!" when caught doing something bad. We do not accept this argument from eight-year-olds, nor from bank robbers or wife beaters. This is no better.

It's main purpose is used by white supremacists to draw attention away from what happened by turning the tables, because acknowledging certain things might contradict a lot of white supremacist arguments concerning blacks innately being lazy or innately inferior. That part of their past that makes the white supremacist crowd uncomfortable. But instead of facing up to it they have built up defenses against it:

-Get over it™!
-You did it!
-Blacks are just lazy!
-It was the times.
-Slavery did not make economic sense.
-Slaves were treated better anyway
-That was Ancient History.

It's a very defensive and childish argument, and it amazes me that anyone even tries it for two reasons:

-That anyone would waste more than two seconds trying to excuse something so clearly evil, like the slave trade, the Japanese American prison camps, racism, etc.
-That they would try to use such a bad argument with a straight face and not see just how bad it is.

But the modern neo-nazi and white supremacist crowd loves to make this argument. Not only does it help push a racist agenda, it also seems to bring comfort to them. However that comfort is completely one-sided. It brings no comfort to those who have to suffer their evil. Like when the Jews were being sent to the death camps, did it bring any comfort to them to know Chinese people were also being massacred in the so-called rape of nanking?

Dudeist Wrote:was pretty much endemic and I don't seem to recall reading much fighting against it

http://goo.gl/MMerYt

Dudeist Wrote:With that sort of attitude, there is no need for the Man to keep black people down, they can keep themselves down very nicely.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is his toxicity and racism coming out in full force. He's so hellbent on his completely delusional idea that black people are at fault for their own slavery (because anything else would contradict with his white supremacist narrative) that he's literally just repeating it.

Dudeist Wrote:That is the racism here. You can try and deflect all you want and make Godwins law your female dog but the point is that by completely giving a people a free pass on historical injustice you are acting like a racist or at least from a very morally questionable position.

What? It's like you're trying to do some serious psychological projection here or something but it's in really broken English to the extent that I actually have no idea what you're talking about.

Dudeist Wrote:Like most normals you can't and are completely unwilling to get it.

Lol. He non-ironically calls other people "normals". I'll leave all of you to draw your own conclusions.

Dudeist Wrote:They lack empathy

Dudeist Wrote:they show an utter lack of understanding for how horrible universal rejection is

Dudeist Wrote:that just don't have the empathy

Dudeist Wrote:Women do tend to jump on the "you feel you are entitled" thing

I know you were doing this to justify mail-order brides, but you cannot attack women and suggest that they lack understanding and are simple-minded because they are not interested in having sex with you. You cannot suggest that women lack empathy because they are not interested in having sex with people who lack prospects. This is, again, sexist nonsense and hypocritical considering you love to deride black people for "welfare" and yet cry crocodile tears over the fact that women aren't giving you handouts.

Edited

Also has anyone else noticed that these extremely racist people tend to be extremely sexist as well?

[Zgarbas]

Stansfield123 Wrote:My great, great, great grandfather was as poor as any slave. He was not a slave, but he was a serf, subject to the whims of European aristocrats pretty much in the same way a slave was subject to the whims of his owner. Should I also blame my problems on aristocracy, or should I take some personal responsibility for dropping out of college and having to work at a supermarket for two years, before I finally got my act together and learned programming?

You are aware that slavery existed in Eastern Europe alongside serfdom, and that the slaves had considerable fewer rights than the serfs, right? The difference between (Romanian and Hungarian) serfs and (gipsy, occasionally other ethnicities such as tartars) slaves was that
- serfs were allowed to have property, slaves were not.
- serfs could be witnesses in court and had judicial autonomy, slaves could not.
- a noble would be held responsible for murder for killing serfs, but slaves was a fair deal (hence 'hunting gypsies like crows outside hunting season')
- serfs were allowed to marry without the consent of their nobles, and they owned their children. On the other hand, the slaves were the noble's property and could be sold off or murdered without any consequence. The pre-unification penal code explicitly stated that 'all gypsies are born as slaves and are property of the state'.

Quote:You're right about that last part. My family was restricted from realistic prospects of economic and social success until 1989, when Communism ended in Eastern Europe. Christmas of 1989, to be exact, a three day period I remember vividly, because they were shooting people in the street, and a bullet landed in our window frame.

The post-revolution movement allowed for a lot of spontaneous meritocracy to kick in, as well as hereditary reclaim of property from the pre-war days. The pre-war assets are quite a topic right now, given how many of the city's poor people are kicked out following the reclaiming of their houses by the descendents of interwar nobles. To add to that, you of course have the manner in which victims of the revolution and mineriads and their PTSD-ridden 1990s kept them from joining the meritocratic wave, the way in which gipsies continue to be systematically (and directly) discriminated, the continuous ridiculous spite-war between Romanians and Hungarians which leads to kids from Covasna not learning Romanian and then inevitably failing in the school system, the fact that most people currently living in Romania were displaced from their homes after WW2 and formed communities of homogenous level of education, occupation and ethnicities and thus it is difficult to advance beyond the boundaries set for the set communities (rural areas, the poor parts of town, the gipsy parts of town, etc.). You get sent to your primary school based on your location, and your location is set by your parent's level of education and income; your ancestry openly determines your starting line.

I went to a 'poor area' primary school. My colleagues were just as smart as I was, and we were getting the same rather disappointing level of education (aside from the gipsies in the back and that one dyslexic girl; they didn't get any). At 10, my mom took out a loan to get me a private tutor, and I took a placement exam for a better secondary school. When we took the Capacitate in 8th grade I looked up all my old colleagues, and no one in the school had scored above 80%, which in my city means that they went to occupational schools or just third-rate ones; all of the ones that I've stayed in touch with are hostesses or work in retail. But yeah, we're all totally equal.

sholum Wrote:However, I think that education will at least lessen the number of people doing things out of ignorance for the consequences.

How do you expect that to happen without affirmative action pushing to offer education to the people who for economic or social conditions do not have access to it?

ryuudou Wrote:And bunch of lies and slander

[Edited]

Someone asked about sources. I even bothered to look it up... but why bother posting it, I'd be a fool.

You constantly make claims about me based on your pre conceived notions even when it is explained that they are wrong.
How are you all that different from those MRA and neo nazi's that you complain about so much.

[Katsuo]

Note from Mod to posters on this thread:

Hello. Please refrain from personal attacks and insinuations.

Thank you.

Zgarbas Wrote:

sholum Wrote:However, I think that education will at least lessen the number of people doing things out of ignorance for the consequences.

How do you expect that to happen without affirmative action pushing to offer education to the people who for economic or social conditions do not have access to it?

You are aware that I was referring to all walks of life having little access to proper drivers education, right? (Actually, you get better education by breaking the law, since severe or repeated traffic violations require the offender to take a proper driving course.)

Pretending that it actually has something to do with what I said, though:
How is it supposed to happen with affirmative action? There has been tons and tons of money pumped into the poorest and least mobile communities in this country, and it hasn't done anything to help them. Poor districts have poor education, but just throwing money at the problem will do nothing; if there must be government intervention (and it really should be local government, since these communities are their responsibility), then they need to spend some effort to introduce programs that actually work.

@ryuudou
What the heck is in your water? You act like the Civil Rights movement didn't accomplish anything, and that blacks are still being oppressed by everyone, even though the government affords tons of money specifically to blacks and majority black communities. (EDIT: And the vast majority of people think racism is wrong (it wouldn't be demonized like it is if it were acceptable))

And you think MRAs are just whiny people who are upset about men being shoved from the top of society? What about feminists then? Do you think that they are some great and mighty task force that's goal is a pure and equal society? So... then why do they insist that women should have more benefits than men, be allowed exclusive reproductive rights (many of them have shown their distaste for the male birth control pill quite plainly), not be expected to do anything for the country during severe war time, have unfairly boosted wages based on the fake wage gap data, not be expected to take economic responsibility when buying fancy toiletries, clothing, and accessories (you know, the 'pink tax').
And they talk about the harassment of women one second, and then forcefully shut down men's rights talks (and GamerGate talks), while hurling abuse and threats at the participants, calling in bomb threats, and becoming physically aggressive in attempts to get someone to hit them.

I'll be honest, I think both movements are stupid (because they're gendered, instead of focusing on people as people), but that both occasionally bring up good points. So far though (because it has such a head start and loves identity politics and progressivism), feminist activism is far more toxic than MRM. It's an ideology (pretty much a cult), not a rights group.

They have their big bad patriarchy, which they find a way to work into everything (air condition is too cold? Patriarchy. Can't get a job with a gender studies degree? Patriarchy. Have to pay lots of money to own excessive amounts of clothing and accessories? Patriarchy. Just had a bad day? Patriarchy.), and feminism is your key to happiness; but to achieve the happiness and position you deserve, you have to call out all the sexism (and now you have to call out everything else too), and since "Everything is sexist. Everything is racist", you have a life's worth of preaching (read: whining) to do if you want to be a truly good person. Oh, you got a prominent scientist fired and branded a misogynist for making a joke? Great! That's just the kind of thing you need to do to be a good person! In fact, you should always harass the employers potential misogynists (read: men who don't sit down and shut up) in order to keep them from working, because that totally won't destroy their lives and make them hate feminists, women on the whole, or the world in general, but will instead make them see the error in their ways and turn them into allies.

Those are the kind of feminists that are most prominent; there are still decent human beings that work towards the actual definition of feminism, though.
A good video by a good feminist on dangerous myths about women's issues (includes the wage gap):

(EDIT2: And here's a video about women in STEM

since I remember it being mentioned earlier as a good reason for female biased hiring.)

Just like every other channel I watch that touches on social movements and issues, I don't agree with Dr. Sommers on everything, but I respect her and her opinions because she cares about the facts and is critical of everything. Unfortunately, as she often brings up in her videos, extreme numbers are far more enticing to journalists and activists.

More regarding 'SJWs don't exist':

Call them whatever you want, but they exist, both online and in real life. Frankly, it's the 'real life' part that bothers me the most.

Dudeist Wrote:

ryuudou Wrote:And bunch of lies and slander

[Edited]

Someone asked about sources. I even bothered to look it up... but why bother posting it, I'd be a fool.

You have no sources. This has been obvious to multiple people for a while now. You can stop trying.

sholum Wrote:What the heck is in your water? You act like the Civil Rights movement didn't accomplish anything, and that blacks are still being oppressed by everyone

The Civil Right's movement was a great in that it gave minorities basic rights, but things are very far from equal in this country and there are still major problems with institutional racism.

sholum Wrote:even though the government affords tons of money specifically to blacks and majority black communities.

sholum Wrote:And you think MRAs are just whiny people who are upset about men being shoved from the top of society?

Yes. This is EXACTLY what MRAs are. Men who feel threatened by the rising social mobility of women and who are mad that they might have to compete with them now. They are reactionaries and oppose progressive movements like feminism not because "it's oppressing men" (a strawman), but rather because they want to preserve their social standing above others. They are generally conservative, far-right, and hold heavily traditionalist values as well as white supremacist overlap.

sholum Wrote:So... then why do they insist that women should have more benefits than men, be allowed exclusive reproductive rights (many of them have shown their distaste for the male birth control pill quite plainly), not be expected to do anything for the country during severe war time, have unfairly boosted wages based on the fake wage gap data, not be expected to take economic responsibility when buying fancy toiletries, clothing, and accessories (you know, the 'pink tax').

I'm very acquainted with feminism and it involves none of these things. These are all, quite frankly, very childish strawmen that you will only find on neckybeardy corners of the internet like 4chan and theredpill.

sholum Wrote:fake wage gap data

Incorrect. There's nothing fake about it. Even when you control for hours worked, education, and field significant wage gaps still exists.

sholum Wrote:and then forcefully shut down men's rights talks

MRAs are a part of the larger "reactionary right" which includes neo-nazis, redpill, pickup artists, and so on. No one forcefully shuts them down, but I'm not surprised as to why they regularly get protested when they do actually go outside (which isn't very often).

sholum Wrote:I'll be honest, I think both movements are stupid (because they're gendered, instead of focusing on people as people), but that both occasionally bring up good points.

Feminism is not comparable to MRAs. Feminism is about women's issues, and MRAs are about feminism. They do nothing for the rights of men (feminism does more for the rights of men than they do) and literally spend their time complaining about feminism on forums and Youtube comment sections.

sholum Wrote:So far though (because it has such a head start and loves identity politics and progressivism), feminist activism is far more toxic than MRM.

Not in the slightest.

sholum Wrote:and progressivism

Progressivism is not toxic. These opposed to be progressivism tend to be very toxic for obvious reasons though. Anything they perceive against the white supremacist narrative they classify as the "decline of western civilization".

sholum Wrote:It's an ideology (pretty much a cult), not a rights group.

It's obvious that you get your information from completely biased neo-reactionary anti-feminist sources, because a lot of the things you say put you well past the point of being taken seriously.

sholum Wrote:They have their big bad patriarchy, which they find a way to work into everything (air condition is too cold? Patriarchy. Can't get a job with a gender studies degree? Patriarchy. Have to pay lots of money to own excessive amounts of clothing and accessories? Patriarchy. Just had a bad day? Patriarchy.), and feminism is your key to happiness; but to achieve the happiness and position you deserve, you have to call out all the sexism

It's quite clear to me you haven't ever read a book on feminism in your life, and just repeat things you hear on 4chan. The above is so childish that it sounds like you sourced it straight out of this.

sholum Wrote:and make them hate feminists, women on the whole, or the world in general

And now the truth thoughts finally slip out. You know I'm really wondering how you anti-feminist types end up so bitter, hateful, and jaded.

sholum Wrote:Those are the kind of feminists that are most prominent

Not true in the slightest. Pretty much every woman I've known as an adult identifies as a feminist (including all the ones I've dated), some of them are prominent feminist scholars and others are very outspoken activists (as in, I have friends who lead pro-choice counter-protests outside abortion clinics every weekend) and I'm going to say, with whatever authority that gives me, that young introverted men on the internet that have watched an anti-feminist video or two know about as much about feminism as fish do about riding bicycles.

People sobbering into their neckbeards about how oppressed men are and ranting about the evil feminist agenda to destroy the world is pretty much something that only exists in the crevasses of the ass of the internet.

sholum Wrote:A good video by a good feminist on dangerous myths about women's issues

Christina Summers is a paid mouthpiece for an active conservative right-wing thinktank called AEI. Not an original word comes out of her mouth. That video itself was uploaded to the AEI Youtube channel, and has the AEI logo in the corner of the video.

sholum Wrote:More regarding 'SJWs don't exist'

It doesn't. "sjw" is a meaningless buzzword used by immature people who have no desire to be taken seriously or to contribute to productive discourse. It's also the common "slur" used by racists/sexists/MRAs and so on. It basically refers to anyone who doesn't think like it's 1860.