Talk:Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white

Are Jews White?
The article claims Jews like the anti-White Jewish nutcase Noel Ignatiev are White. However looking at this chart we can see Ashkenazi smear between the White and Armenoid clusters, so Jews are a hybrid race. Why do you say they are White? Is it to belittle those that oppose his hateful statements with lies? 125.61.100.2 (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting use of the verb "smear". Also, what gave you the impression that there even exists a consistent definition of the racial term "white"? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In your mind there is no consistent definition because your mind is full of strawman lies. The genetic cluster posted above is what the White preservationists you oppose define the term by however. 223.63.2.202 (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect
Actually, this article is incorrect. This slogan is not meant to "state that there is a conspiracy theory which involves the specific intent of most users of the word "anti-racist" to purposefully eradicate white people". What it ACTUALLY is referring to is the fact that white people are suffering severe and extreme prejudice from most black people, that there are no "affirmative action" or "white history month" or "white student social club"s for white people, and that blocking white people from social clubs, moving into a neighborhood, riding the bus or walking around in a poor black area, or not making as many or not making any friends who speak in a "black" way is is not considered okay, while a black person doing any of these things and more is considered perfectly okay and no non-white non-Asian person(referring to Americans only, here) doing such things will be spoken to about it all let alone ostracized like white people are if they do the same. This could be worded by saying something like "the frequent mistreatment of white people by black people", "what is seen as the erosion of non-black society, including the fact that black Americans and Mexicans both have children at a much much higher rate then white people", or "referring to the double standard wherein black people and sometimes other groups of people are allowed, both socially and legally, to do innumerous amounts of things that white people are not". To claim that people using this phrase think that there is a "conspiracy campaign" against white people is highly inaccurate. Please note that I am not a racist and am writing because these are facts. It is hardly "rational" to blatantly attack others by either misrepresenting or, such as in this case, falsely stating, what their views, beliefs, or position is.73.45.78.172 (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. I came to this page expecting to see something like this and was surprised to see the entire page positioned as an antithesis to something that's probably on metawiki.  Certainly dismantling such poor thought is laudable but, really, it's child's play.  A much more difficult issue is that of the cultural war on white identity against the backdrop of white privileges.  it's not hard to find an article lambasting white identity while at the same time whites don't even think of themselves as having a racial identity or understand such concepts.  defend white identity and you'll be met with pointed remarks about your privileged white opinion.  every non-white has a pretty strong identity related to their race or ethnicity, but few american whites still relate to an ethnic identity and basically no one thinks of themselves as having a white identity.  It's a very strange situation.  as a result it's easy to float unchallenged accusations SOLEY against whites.  for example this article:


 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/08/31/childhood-friends-called-my-food-chinese-grossness-how-did-it-become-americas-hottest-food-trend/


 * as if no black person ever ate Chinese food, or as if hybridity like this hasn't been happening for centuries at every border and everywhere that people of different identities meet. but this article writes the situation as if it's an essentially white transgression; something that only white people do or that it's only bad when white people do it.


 * Also see this article for a tempered view on anti racism--since a black person wrote it it's OK; otherwise it would be a racist privileged white opinion \sarcasm.


 * http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/27/antiracism-our-flawed-new-religion.html
 * 05:17, 22 September 2015‎
 * Dear drive-by BoNs. You've either ignored that the slogan is, by far, most frequently used by white nationalists, white supremacists, white separatists and other (white) racists or you're writing in bad faith. It's not like anti-racism is unchallenged here on RW, but that's beside the point when it comes to this particular slogan, the use of which is tantamount to a litmus test for racism.
 * As for celebrating "white identity" (whatever that is) I've yet to see an example that wasn't blatantly white supremacist as well, whereas although Black History Month and similar "black identity" initiatives do walk an exceedingly fine line, they're still easily distinguishable from the black supremacy movement.
 * What we're supposed to take away from the second BoN's links is unclear. The first one describes the tension between wishing to conform and one's (non-conform) cultural background and then veers off into a combination of some form of "ethno-chauvinist cuissine" argument vs. "McDonaldisation", or something (it's actually a pretty awful read - as reflected in the comment section). Sure, it has more than a little overblown whine about it, but so what? It's not like whining isn't a stock in trade of white supremacists as well (come to think of it, whining is arguably at the core of white supremacy). The second article isn't even as much about anti-racism gone overboard as it's about the unreflected hooray and sermon style writing on it without political relevance or prompting actual societal change. Even if it was what BoN2 seems to imply (a criticism of anti-racism per se and not particular messianic strains or styles of it) it would equally beside the point because, as I've already mentioned, it's irrelevant to the question of the vast majority of the uses of the anti-racist is a code word for anti-white slogan, i.e. racists trying to frame their critics as the "real" racists. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see the issue. I am not racist, and I am white, so I don't get personally incised when someone speaks against those that are racists. Racists != white people...so not a problem.  There is nothing about being white that requires racism, nor is it celebrating any culture to be disrespectful or hateful towards other groups.  The only thing getting rabidly incised does is put a big sign above someone's head as being a wack-a-doodle.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * you just said "'white identity' whatever that is" which is basically my point. whites don't see themselves as having an identity, or to have a white identity is intrinsically racist.  all the while non-whites make their racial or ethnic identities core to their lives.  you see the problem here?  I get that white identity has been trashed by non-whites and made guilty-by-association by white supremacists, and that is the problem here.  whites are denied their identity by anti-racism.  more than one scholar of color has linked this phenomenon to the increasing neoliberalization of american politics, where identity is something to be discarded in favor of market forces.  but that's getting beyond my ken.  sorry I was a BoN (whatever that is) last time. Omnirizon (talk)  17:46, 22 September 2015
 * You missed my point: Practically the only people who actually argue for some uniform "white identity" are racists. It's not the anti-racists who makes that connection, it's in the characteristics of "white identity" claims themselves.
 * My guess is it's because most (non-racist) whites don't think of themselves in these "racialised" terms, but instead define their identity according to other criteria (e.g. religion, political affiliation/ideology, nationality, social standing/class etc.). In a U.S. context it's hardly surprising that celebrating a "black identity" is less likely to tip into outright black supremacy than "white identity" celebrations is to turn into white supremacy; the socio-cultural background celebrated in "black identity" is far more uniform (essentially defined by their ancestors arriving in the New World in chains which erased practically all prior distinctions of African tribal culture and customs). By contrast, a U.S. "white identity" movement has little, if anything, to appeal to other than common skin colour and not being black/Asian/native American etc., which is why it's so unlikely to find people celebrating "white identity" without a hefty helping of racism and/or white supremacy.
 * PS. BoN means "Bunch of Numbers", a shorthand for those contributors who are not logged in and appear only as IPs. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Anti-speciesist is a code word for anti-human
ENDOR FOR THE EWOKS, TATOOINE FOR THE JAWAS, HUMAN PLANETS FOR EVERYBODY! Everybody says there is this SPECIES problem. Everybody says this SPECIES problem will be solved when the aliens pour onto EVERY human planet and ONLY into human planets.

Coruscant and Naboo are just as crowded as Bespin or Yavin 4, but nobody says Bespin or Yavin 4 will solve this SPECIES problem by bringing in millions of alienss and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this SPECIES problem is for EVERY human planet and ONLY human planets to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those aliens.

What if I said there was this SPECIES problem and this SPECIES problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-Wookiees were brought onto Kashyyyk and ONLY onto Kashyyyk?

How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a SPECIES problem. I am talking about the Final solution to the WOOKIEE problem?

And how long would it take any sane Wookiee to notice this and what kind of psycho Wookiee wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my species, the human species, Jedi and respectable Trade-Federationists agree that I am a sithlordwhowantstodestroyalderaan.

They say they are anti-speciesist. What they are is anti-human.

Anti-speciesist is a code word for anti-human.

(This message brought to you by Her Reasonableness The High Chancellor Evangeline Monahan, Champion of Rationality. Sing songs of praise to me or simply worship my genius.) 11:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Section removed
I think the mantra-makers would agree -- they think that only "white" countries have open immigration. If anything, they'd see this as furtherance of their argument. 14:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Decreasing percentage versus decreasing number
This section cites that while the percentage of whites decreased since the 1900s, but the absolute number did not. But wouldn't percentage matter more than absolute numbers? It's analogous to saying that 1 L of water with 200 ppm of lead is cleaner than 500 mL of water with 20 ppm, simply because the first sample has more water. 45.18.203.188 (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You're splitting hairs. The point is that whites still vastly outnumber minorities in both percentages and absolute numbers. Also, I shouldn't have to explain this, but human beings aren't water and lead. 24.61.154.51 (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I see someone (with similar ideas to 45.18.203.188 has decided to (poorly) edit the section regarding the percentages. Note the overt capitalisation of "white" in the edited half of the paragraph; this is something I really only see from members of the white-supremacist community (probably in an attempt to cover up their insecurities by making their least impressive feature seem Incredibly Important). Perhaps someone with a better eye for editing than myself should correct this apparent vandalism? 100.11.63.225 (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Prejudice plus power
Worth having a discussion on Prejudice plus power? See sections "Single cause, single solution" fallacy and Undermining anti-racism. This sort of "social justice" goes so far off the deep end, past anti-racist and into anti-white territory. Kauri0.o (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Proponents claim you can't be racist/sexist towards white men. It is common to follow with some racist/sexism comments about white men. Kauri0.o (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)