fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3591 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3591 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 29 secrets from Secret Submission Post #513.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

About *other* people benefiting from their marginalization. That is how it always works, surrounding every marginalized people there are a bunch of scam artists and hucksters from that group who get rich by helping whitey make media about their group. Take the JK Rowling thing, the loudest voices criticizing her were from the Native Americans involved in the industry which profits most from native media appearances, and which was pissed she hadn't paid them to help her exploit the Indian.

Do you think there's ever a case where there are legitimate complaints, or people who are legitimately complaining? Or is it - to your mind - all race hustlers?

I take things on a case-by-case basis, but usually even in the occasions where something genuinely is offensive the people who are entitled to be offended get drowned out by the hustlers who bring it all back to the money they feel should be coming their way. I've seen too many causes get hijacked by those out to make a fast buck, and just because they are BAME doesn't mean that they won't try and make that buck off their fellow BAME person.

So do you think there's any case where behaviors should be changed, or where there are problems that should be addressed? Or are the race hustlers so pervasive that any attempt to change things is necessarily counterproductive?

I think any attempt to change which does not shut down the hustlers and the mob the hustlers whip up first is doomed to change. A lot of progress in the civil rights movement, for example, was made only after the black people shutdown the people that they themselves considered niggers in order that the movement was taken seriously and could not be dismissed as a bunch of hustlers on the make. The Native American movement needs to do the same with the knowledge for hire brokers and the casino owners who are more into generating cash than passing it on to the tribal members.

A lot of progress in the civil rights movement, for example, was made only after the black people shutdown the people that they themselves considered niggers in order that the movement was taken seriously and could not be dismissed as a bunch of hustlers on the make.

Do you have any sources for this interpretation of civil rights history? Who do you have in mind as some examples of "people that they themselves considered niggers"?

Also, why do you think that it's impossible for there to be some change that's positive, even if it also benefits a hustler, or satisfies a mob?

Virtually any serious textbook on the history of the civil rights group will give you that information. It is something that is so pervasive that it is something that even forms the basis for many black comedians' stand up bits. So if you don't want to go to a library, then go to a black nightclub's stand up night. Not a black for whites, but a blacks for other blacks.

And no. Progress cannot be made until the hustlers are shut down, by the community themselves, otherwise all they do is detract from the cause.

Again, can you give me some specific examples of people from the civil rights period who had to be excluded to give the movement legitimacy?

Also, I think that Chris Rock bit is more a humorous exploration of black culture, not a factual account of the history of the civil rights movement. But I'm not a comedy expert.

And no. Progress cannot be made until the hustlers are shut down, by the community themselves, otherwise all they do is detract from the cause.

I'm just not sure how that follows. Like, hustlers might detract from the cause, sure. I'm not saying they're a good thing. But that doesn't mean you can't make progress in spite of them.

And I also don't understand why the fact that hustlers detract from the cause becomes a reason not to support the cause at all? Like, if hustlers detract from the cause, doesn't arguing against the cause also detract from the cause?

Okay, you got a bit too obvious about trying to draw things out so I guess we are done here. You know where to go for the information, you know the context for it, and you know where things stand regarding in-group profiteering. We're done here.

Well, I mean. I'm not trying to troll you or anything. I do think that your understanding of civil rights history is fakakta, but I am genuinely curious about what you have in mind, and I really don't know where to find whatever information you're thinking of.

And I really genuinely don't understand why the existence of race hustlers is, in and of itself, a movement to oppose movements for change, if you think there are real problems and concerns underneath.

[ SECRET POST #3591 ]

Re: Schadenfreude

Re: Schadenfreude

Re: Schadenfreude

Re: Schadenfreude

Re: Schadenfreude: CW: the "n" word.

Re: Schadenfreude: CW: the "n" word.

Re: Schadenfreude: CW: the "n" word.

Re: Schadenfreude: CW: the "n" word.

Re: Schadenfreude: CW: the "n" word.

Re: Schadenfreude: CW: the "n" word.