That’s because we have a history of white supremacy in that country though. Similar to how in Germany you’ll get weird looks if you’re echoing nazi talking points; there’s an existing history and cultural context to that sort of thing in that country that the country now wants to not repeat.

There are effectively no Nazis in Germany but there are still ethnostates and genocide in Africa. I really don't see how White people are special here.

EDIT: As usual with the social justice crowd: no discussion just downvotes. It makes a lot of us feel like there legitimately is no argument for your position.

I think this is whataboutism. I’m merely making it makes sense that white pride is viewed at less positively than black pride in a country that has experienced nationwide, systemic, brutally violent white supremacist behavior within living memory.

I think the original idea is much more whataboutist(?.) It's literally "What about the Nazis in a different country a century ago?"

That's why I said "effectively." Yes you can find small groups or individuals but if we want to trash an entire race based on behavior of small groups then maybe you should have another look at US homicide statistics.

The Nazis in Germany have absolutely no political influence and no real cultural influence. The whole ideology is literally illegal there and people get fired just for talking about it.

This is not correct at all, sorry to inform you. For example, people like Götz Kubitschek[0] for example have close ties to the dominant groups in e.g. the AfD, his rethoric is full of antisemitism and fascist dog whistling. The "entnazification" never really happened. In the 60s, there were more people in the ministry of justice who had an active NSDAP membership during 1933-1945 than there were in the 30s and 40s. It took several decades to repeal fascist laws, influential politicians (federal minister e.g.[1]) stated his admiration of the Waffen-SS and held speeches full of anticommunism and antisemitism - these are the core tenants of german fascism and they get regurgitated ever since the few innocent German citizens were liberated at the end of WW2. One of the the main representatives of the german green party unironically defends the Person giving orders to fascist paramilitaries for the extrajudicial killing of communist and social democratic leaders in the 20s. The influence and long lasting after-effects of fascist thought and leadership in Germany must not be underestimated. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6tz_Kubitschek [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Josef_Strauss

>held speeches full of anticommunism

What's wrong with anticommunism? Maybe his constituents don't want communism either.

It's not about their personal preference of economical system vut about Strauss literally using nazi-rethoric. Anticommunism is a core part of that.

Ya, but a lot of the time you have ostensibly well-meaning people spread around the attitude that it's wrong to be intolerant of others, unless that person is white, or a man, or you're a transphobic woman if you didn't use a particular definition of woman, or you're a creep by default if you're a man. In the last 8 years this sort of rhetoric has been amplified more than ever before, and not just in the states (though arguably that's the dumb dumb epicenter). It also sounds like sort of meme right-wing talking points, and I'm tired of those conversations too (which are also amplified by social media in the same way), but they do come from somewhere.

It shouldn't be controverial to say "This is a space that's welcoming for everyone, unless you start obviously making people feel like they don't belong. It's not ok to harass or attack someone because of their skin colour, or religion, or gender, no matter what that is."

Can you source me how social media has made “this is a welcoming space for everyone unless you start behaving badly” a controversial statement?

Also I am super confused by your rhetoric. Earlier on you mentioned that people have spread intolerance of, say, transphobic women or people who have wrong definitions for women. But in your second paragraph you also say you want a space where it’s not okay to make people feel like they don’t belong— a transphobic person obviously makes a trans person feel like they don’t belong… so… wouldn’t it make sense to be intolerant of transphobes by that logic? Can you explain plainly what you actually mean with concrete examples, maybe with a behavioral rubric, of what you want?

No, I can't provide concrete sourced examples with a rubric. I'm not writing a paper. These are largely impressions I get from speaking to people in the world, and kind of being taken aback when people have what I think are kind of absurd views. Some, I know from speaking to people, are amplified by YouTube recommendations, and Instagram feedback loops. I don't really think it's a controversial take to say that recommendation algorithms paired with bubbles that match a few different tropes are going to amplify those views.

If you're confused by my rhetoric, that's ok. I'm confused from time to time.

I’m merely asking for something more concrete because the logic stated in the post appears self contradictory. I feel I don’t have a great sense what you want in your social media experience.

I guess re-reading it, it seems I could have used 'except' instead of 'unless' and that might have been more clear, but it wasn't very eloquent in retrospect. The idea that everyone is entitled to equality, except some people have a somewhat exclusive definition of everyone and equality. Growing up, I was taught that even if you have good reasons (in the realm of prejudice, probably not good reasons) to not get along with someone, being in a healthy society means you should try and treat people with the respect you'd hope to get from them regardless. I don't expect that I'd change a racist person's mind about ingrained prejudice, but I'd expect them to treat everyone equally anyway, or leave. The examples I used weren't great, but in the real world situation I merely said everyone in this outdoor space should be treated and welcomed as people. The person I was speaking to assumed that I was implying everyone experiences discrimination with the same magnitude, and therefore are equally likely to be targets. Obviously that's not true, but regardless of current inequal distribution of various kinds of discrimination, this is a space of equality and peace. If people want to act on prejudice, this isn't the place for it, and I think that's what we should be aiming for.

I don't think I've ever experienced that. I mean, I've lived my whole life in the US, but never experienced anyone being intolerant of me because I am a man or because I am white, nor have I ever heard of that happening to anyone else. Honestly I just don't think that's a thing that ever happens.

>It shouldn't be controversial to say "This is a space that's welcoming for everyone, unless you start obviously making people feel like they don't belong. It's not ok to harass or attack someone because of their skin colour, or religion, or gender, no matter what that is."

But where is that controversial though? That's what we have now.

This was from a recent conversation I had in the world. In Canada, by someone I later discovered was regularly posting rants and shaming people and businesses on Instagram. They essentially accused me of drawing from hypothetical strawmen to paint myself as a victim, but all I said was (it's important that I said this after saying this is outdoor public space is basically a safe space from discrimination) "If a white straight man harassed or attacked someone because they're X, that's not ok, and they won't be welcome to stay. Do you think it would be ok if someone did the same, but they happened to be Y attacking someone because they're white or a man?" and they dodged the question, which to me justifies the question in the first place. I don't feel unsafe as whatever I am, and nobody should be made to. Seems like a pretty liberal viewpoint.

I'm sick of people getting sucked into right wing YouTube and then trying to rope me into the most boring imaginable anti-cancel-culture shit on one side, and I'm also sick of the surprising reality of what they're pissed about actually sometimes happening, possibly as a result of both groups' own polarization. Not a lot, but enough to vibe me out from being around them, not remotely enough to be prejudiced against any particular identity. It just happens sometimes, it's a form of social grandstanding, and it's very tiresome.

When someone expresses black pride my interpretation is that they are reclaiming, trying to manifest and celebrate that they no longer live in times where being born black meant that you were a second hand citizen and that you should/could feel no pride.

When someone express white pride I can't interpret it the same way because there hasn't been a time where the structures were so that being born white made you inferior to someone born black purely based on skin color.

So the difference is the history and the context.

I'm from east Europe. In my country there have never been black slaves. There have been white slaves. The rich would sell the poor as salves to other rich people.

However if I wanna be proud of being middle class white person today, that would raise a lot of eyebrows and not a few people would assume I'm a "white supremacist". You cannot be proud of being white. Doesn't matter what your country history is, or what your personal context is.

My hypothesis is that American history has been conflated with "white" history so now all white people are privileged and oppressed black people and have no reason to be proud.

If someone is a descendent of white slaves and they want to be proud of how that group overcame their predicament, they wouldn't say they're proud to be white (not only because it would raise eyebrows, but because it's not nearly precise enough), they'd say they're proud to be Slavic or whatever the case may be, right? And hopefully that doesn't raise eyebrows.

> And hopefully that doesn't raise eyebrows.

I fully expect it to raise many eyebrows. Anything dependent on context on the internet will be used against you.

But yes, I don't even expect an European to describe race in terms of "white" or "black". Those are contextual to the American continent.

Are you suggesting that Europe hasn't had any significant problems with white supremacists? because uhh... that's a little inaccurate.

I don't think I ever said anything about Europe not having problems with white supremacists. Can you point to the part of my comment that made you think that I said that?

> I'm from east Europe. In my country there have never been black slaves. There have been white slaves. The rich would sell the poor as salves to other rich people.

> However if I wanna be proud of being middle class white person today, that would raise a lot of eyebrows and not a few people would assume I'm a "white supremacist".

Maybe I misunderstood, but this comes across to me as "Even though there have been no black slaves here, I still can't say I'm proud of being white"

And my point is that Europe, despite not having black slaves, still has a very good reason for that (the time a European white supremacist tried to conquer the continent).

You did not misunderstand, that was indeed the core of my argument. The parent argument seems to say being proud of being black is good because you went through slavery (well, your ancestors did, not you). But white people should not be proud cause they were responsible for slavery.

I'm not from Germany, I'm for a poor east European country that never was part of any empire and never conquered another country. Why can't I be proud of my heritage? Why do I have to hide the fact that I'm proud of my heritage because English and Americans enslaved African people? Also wasn't it white people that then fought to abolish slavery? Wasn't Wilberforce white? Wasn't Lincoln white? Didn't British ships then police the international waters to stop the slave trade? Why do you decide that being white means "the ones that started the slave trade" and not "the ones that stopped the slave trade" and assign a negative connotation to it?

But I fail to understand your argument in this last phrase. Your argument is because someone in Europe was a white supremacist, then nobody in Europe can be proud of being white (aka proud of their heritage)? Because the mustache man took advantage of the German people living in really poor conditions and being miserable after the first WW and brain washed them into committing hideous acts, being born a German now is forever a curse? You can never be proud of your heritable before and after mustache man? What exactly is the algorithm based on which you decide if someone can be proud of their heritage or not?

It comes down to interpretation. Droping the word pride, the idea is that you can love yourself and be comfortable in the skin you are born with, and see value in your family culture and history.

We should teach this to all children and encourage them to feel this way. We should not teach some children that they are inferior or carry the the guilt for crimes committed by others just because they share the same skin color.

How does that apply to 13 years old kids?

Is it doublespeak? It seems to me that we have Black pride but not White pride for the same reason we have Black history month but not White history month.

We don't have White history month because every month in the US is White history month. Same for Gay pride month but no Straight pride month. Or National American Indian Heritage Month, National Deaf History Month, and many others.