White on white hate crime

Don't be a racist.

Hate everyone.

@KofodDane
Exactly! Hate everyone equally, most importantly. Because hating hispanos a little less than asians is racist!

@KofodDane
Okay.
Uh, fuck you and your family.
I hate you.
Does that feel good?
(hope irony works.... Danish people are good with irony)

@DarkMage7280 Well, irony does work, but you aren't quite there yet
As a dane, I must say that we really appreciate when people outside our borders try themselves with irony... We love it <3 it always gives us something to talk about ^_^

But you fail to see the point with this post... I can refer to Beetle Bailey, when Capt. Yo ask Beetle if he hates Lt. Flap if he hates him because he is black, but the reply is, that Bettle hates him because he is an officer ^_^

We don't hate you because you aren't a dane, we hate you because you are there... We hate everyone!

'@KofodDane' Gunnery Sergeant Hartman approves.

People, in the midst of this "all white people are racist and rich" narrative, printed out simple flyers that said "It's okay to be white", and now colleges are going on f*ckin' manhunts to find the people who did this. Yes, it's 100% possible for whites to hate whites. It's called Oikophobia, and every college liberal has it.

@Theomniadept Pot, meet kettle...

@Theomniadept

If we actually thought you made a valid argument, you'd have proved your own point. As another commenter said, "Pot, meet kettle."

Did you read past the headlines? The stunt originated on an internet site as a Halloween prank - a site shall not be named here since discussions in that chatroom have led to violence on the streets. Some of the signs were stickers and were stuck on institutional or private property without permission.

Intentionally inflammatory stunts by stupid college kids aren't oikophobia, dear. Not even close.

P.S. Did YOU put those signs up?

@duster00 Face it kiddo - the signs just said "It's okay to be white." Full stop. And all the Lefties broke down into autistic screeching and every college dean on every campus involved came out and said it *isn't* okay to be white. Those guys on 4chan told everyone their plan, told everyone it would make them look like the racist assholes they are...

.....and the Left did exactly what they were expected to. Even knowing about the prank beforehand. And every time this happens the average person is driven away from the Left and towards the side of Basic Logic.

Funny how all the 'violence in the streets' seems to be lefties in Antifa attacking women and the elderly. Oh, wait, one time some white guys held tiki torches, therefore all violence against all white people is 100% justified, amirite?

@duster00 Now holdon. Its true that inflammatoey stunts arent oikophobia. I dont even think what he is describing is oikophobia because although the hate seems to revolve around race, its not *directed* at race, and if there is any white hating involved its self-hate. And its true that 4chan has a lot of branking and done by inflammatory reasons.

But i think youre being a bit misleading. Ive also seen the original posts, and it appears at least to me that the posters were honest and do think people have forgotten that its ok to be white, and do think white people are getting flack and hate for being white, and want this to stop. Theyre also very pro free speech there, and not just so they can troll. Although im sure some posted for laughs, i think its believable to think that they also wanted people to question themselves. Ive had to unfollow several friends on facebook cause they wouldnt stop viciously attacking anyone for showimg white pride and i couldnt get them to turn their concern into compassion and questioning. The reactionary treatmemt was intense and i still have people not believe me when i tell them this.

It shouldnt matter if he put the signs up. And he expressed no hate towards other people, so its hardly pot kettle. jUst as it doesnt super matter why the signs were put up. That was the point. To show the world that reporters would frequently make unwarranted assumptions about intent for anything explicitly putting white people in a positive light. News places did assume the posters were racists trying to instigate racial tensions instead of trying to sooth young white people's worries, an equally plausible reason, plus the sign said nothing hateful or violent in the first place. Its really sad, we should be better than this. It should be ok to be any race.

But dont just listen to me. If yall curious about the creation of this event, search "its ok to be white knowyourmeme" and look yourself at the least, and maybe spend some significant time on 4chan to understand thre mindset (the last one may be harder simce half of everything is sarcasm and the posters were one of many subgroups on 4chan).

It has been a thing in America for years, "No Irish" or "Irish need not apply", immigration limitations. Same goes for Italians, Polish people, and the French (although to a lesser extent). America, being the mixing pot that it is (300 million people and counting) and spread out over a landmass around 2 times larger than Europe ( this is including the states of Alaska and Hawaii, France is about the same size as the state of Texas) and we get a wide variety of regional sub cultures which can lead to disputes like how the Swedish and Danes often fight. In America the definition of racism is hotly debated, in the sense that generally it means that you hate someone because of their skin color or nation of origin verses actual systems of power which institutionalize and legitimize those hatreds/prejudices.

So when Sister America asks if white Americans can be the target of racism, some Americans will say yes because some people hate white people (the first definition of the term) and others will say not at the moment because there is a lack of institutionalized racism. This is the pickle, because we have been racist agains white people in the past, and we can see it's effects still in parts of our culture (the way Americans celebrate St Patricks day, the ongoing fights between Yankee/Dixie divisions on the East coast amongst others) but is it a problem now? Some people think so, and they are loud and violent.

@Realta
United states landmass: 9.834.000 km²
Europe landmass: 10,180,000 km2

@Realta I believe that you have the land mass of the European Union mixed up with that of the continent of Europe.

European Union - 4,422,773 km2
Europe - 10,180,000 km2

@Realta
When racism existed against Irish, Italians, and other white ethnicities in the USA, they weren't actually considered white at the time. The murkiness comes in because race is a social construct, and what is considered white or not white changes over time.

I had to read a scholarly paper in college that basically said african-americans could not be considered racist for hating white people because they were justified by their past history. That seems like so much BS to me, since any two groups with a
'history" could justify hatred.

@HoosierBob2 yep just ask the english and the french, the welsh and english, the irish and english, the scottish and english

@HoosierBob2

Are you sure you've read the paper properly? Or understood it? Or remember it, if we are to believe your stated age... Because I would bet that the paper was talking about justified hatred vs unjustified; any group of oppressed people are justified in their hatred of oppressor, therefore their hate may not be seen as an evidence of racism.

Hatred of blacks towards whites in 1950-ies, for example, was completely justified and wasn't evidence of black racism at all. Same with hatred of blacks towards whites in South Africa during apartheid, for example.

However, there is a difference between current oppression and the memory of past oppression. Oppression that happened in the past, so that neither oppressor nor oppressed are alive, can't be a justification for current hatred. However, the consequences of past oppression do not die out with oppressor/oppressed, but continue to linger and are necessary to be fixed. Thus the need for some kinds of affirmative actions and so on.

@Grahor

I would agree with Ninian's comment but also add I disagree with where you say

" Hatred of blacks towards whites in 1950-ies, for example, was completely justified and wasn't evidence of black racism at all. Same with hatred of blacks towards whites in South Africa during apartheid, for example."

There are justifiable reasons for opposing bigots and oppressors but not for painting all people in an ethnic group as being the same. To me that is the definition of racism. After all a lot of whites in the US and some in SA supported the ending of discrimination and especially in the former case, where blacks were a relatively small minority, reform was only possible because a lot of whites supported it. True as events in recent years show the process is far from complete but much progress has been made and while black reformers have played a large role that would be impossible without substantial support from a lot of the white population.

I would also avoid hating anyone. Its one thing to despise or oppose a people or group who act in ways you think repulsive but hatred in itself is empty and self-destructive.

@stevep59

>*There are justifiable reasons for opposing bigots and oppressors but not for painting all people in an ethnic group as being the same.*

It's all very well in theory, when you have the possibility to look at the situation from the big point of view, knowing things you know now. But imagine yourself a rather uneducated black person somewhere in deep south where every white person you've met in your life, even the best of them, don't think yourself equal to them. And the worst of them, well...

It all depends on your situation.

Obviously, there were plenty of people who could see and understand that white people aren't a uniform group, and who were very discerning in their emotions towards different groups of people. But plenty of people just weren't in the situation where they could differentiate.

>*I would also avoid hating anyone. Its one thing to despise or oppose a people or group who act in ways you think repulsive but hatred in itself is empty and self-destructive.*

*smirk* yeah, in the long view, while sitting on your very-very prosperous butt in your very-very prosperous life where you can spend a significant amount of time thinking about the big picture, yeah. But it's a very human emotion and it's really necessary for humanity, in some situations - sometimes it's the only thing that stops you from blowing your own brains out.

@Grahor

I can understand why someone in the sort of position you mention may indulge in race hatred themselves. My point was that its not only morally wrong its pointless and destructive for them. Both because they make the same mistake as their opponents and because they undermined their own cause and alienate potential allies.

There are plenty of human emotions and some of them such as hatred are purely negative. That doesn't mean their worthwhile or useful. Hatred is generally used by the lazy who want simple solutions and don't want to make the effort to think. X is different from me so I've assume their evil/hate them is easy but destructive. Actually bothering to think about let alone getting some understanding of another person's point of view is essential if your ever going to resolve differences, unless you going alone the mass slaughter route.

Note that understanding someone else's point of view doesn't mean agreeing with or even accepting it. However even when you utterly oppose it your in a better position to do so if you have some idea as to what's behind it. For instance with groups like the Nazis your better off having some understanding of what motivates them to:
a) Know that you need to oppose them. This was the problem with the appeasers. They thought the Nazis would respond reasonably to concessions. Hence opportunities to defeat them quickly were lost and many more people died.
b) Know how best to oppose them. How to best motivate your own people and others to stand up to them and how to undermine their own support as well as what ways they would react to circumstances.

The same could be said with the current problem with Islamic Reactionaries. You will never solve the problem by assuming "their Muslims so hate all Muslims". You need to know how to identify the degenerate extremists from the ordinary population, both physically and in terms of support.

As such my argument is both moral and practical.

@Grahor
The Key is during that time period.

@HoosierBob2
History does not justifies harrasment in modern day.

History never justifies harrasment, persecution, and hatred. There are human lives, and there is history - and trying to "right" the wrongsof the past by comitting new wrongs today achieves nothing. It is literal "circle" of hatred, and it goes on, and on, and on, as long as people do no abandon strife for self-satisfaction through humiliation and destruction of others.

And only thing that hatred achieves is anger in return, unless it is stopped. Rationally, permanently, and responsibly.


And while it is not done - economies break, societies get opressed, people suffer.

There is racism against whites in Sweden but the state and politicians says it's okay because whites are a majority

down voting proves me right

@Juhani

*down voting proves me right*

Because it's the state and politicians who are downvoting you...

@Juhani -- I am ready to upvote you and thereby to prove you wrong.

@Wondercat
Nah, that's the trick with them. Upvoting proves them right, because clearly people agree with them. Downvoting proves them right because it "proves" they are really being oppressed and sidelined while foreigners and refugees get preferrential treatment, it's the victim's role they love showcasing themselves in. And saying nothing proves them right because they standpoint is clearly acceptable then.

@Juhani
Aside a few extremists no one says hateful speeches is "okay". There not being a specific law with regards to hate-speech against whites doesn't mean radical anti-white groups won't get thrown in prison (or out of the country if they aren't citizens) if the police determines that the group constitutes a threat to society.

With that said, most immigrants are quite happy to have come to Sweden, and have no love for those of their fellow countrymen who go around kicking over bins and shouting slurs.

If you feel victimised by immigrants calling you slurs, imagine how bad it is for the well-behaved and ambitious immigrants who end up associated with those foul-mouthed nitwits.

@Juhani Well, as a Pole living in Sweden I can tell that you are at least partially right. Don't know about the politicians, because I do not follow Swedish news or politics whatsoever. But so far literally EVERY immigrant in this country I've ever talked to said that there is clear racism in Sweden. Basically If you're not Swedish, you are by default less valuable than someone born here. It doesn't matter what you know, what you can, what kind of person you are. A Swedish employer will always look down on you for not being named "Svensson" or "Andersson" or whatever. The worst thing though is that at the same time Swedes are going to get super offensive if you tell them they're racist. And they are not racist "in your face". Which to me makes it worse. Because an open racism is at least something one can deal with.

I think Europe is far more racist than the United States. They've got F1, and Moto GP, and Rally, and The Isle of Man TT, and you name it.

What do we have in the United States? Nascar. Bloody roundy-round oval track hillbilly redneck Nascar.

@Tarmaque Well, I can‘t say I didn‘t smirk, so touché!

@DerJulian I'm glad someone thought it was funny! I get lonely laughing at my own jokes.

@Tarmaque Don't you know that calling someone a "hillbilly" is racist hate speech?

@Newnetherlander Noted.

@Tarmaque Umm... Actually no I won't start arquing with you. But just one think I will say. KKK.

@Mixu I realize that puns may not translate well to those who are not native English speakers.

@Tarmaque If that was a joke or pun atleast tell me the thing in it.

@Mixu
Race
Definition A: a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
Definition B: a contest of speed, as in running, riding, driving, or sailing.

Racist
Definition A: a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. (Being oriented around human races)
Definition B*: Being oriented around racing (with cars for example)

* Not a real definition of racist, but linguistically it makes sense since the word "Race" is part of racist.

@RedMattis It took me a while after reading this explanation to get the pun, but that was surprisingly funny! XD

@Varkrow It wasn't funny, it was terrible. But I'm glad it amused you.

@Tarmaque

Very good.

@Tarmaque So much racing! Also ELMS, all kinds of other endurance series, GP2 (I think that's its name this year), Formula E... I would like to see European Le Mons tho.

Be like panda, white black and Asian..lol..

@Zuperkrunch I think you just broke the system

@PeriodicallyStressed hahaha.. I mean not just white rasist to white.. We're Asian rasist to Asian too.. Even every ethnicities in my country.. A lot of rasist peoples in this world.. So just be like panda.. All in one..

@Zuperkrunch damn, I love that joke

@Topazgirl9 lol..

Is it just me but dose Poland look like Eminem

@Midummer234324 he does lowkey

@Midummer234324 i was thinking that tbh

@Midummer234324 yeah

"It's OK to be white"
Seeing all the outrage from other white people just by a statement like this, i would say yes to americas question.

@Seithoris
I think that statement is retarded too, but because race, like place of birth, sex or parents, are nobody's choice. It simply cannot be ok or not ok, it's just how it is. If somebody thinks being black, white, brown or green has any influence on that person's personality or rights, that person needs a good slapping.

@Narf
I completely agree
Funny how those people (the actual racists) who thinks being, black, white, etc has any influence on that persons personality and rights are the same people claiming to be fighting for these peoples rights.

@Seithoris The problem with that statement is it was started as a dogwhistle. Of course it's "okay to be white", but the /pol/ fuckers that started using it recently were doing so to push their own shitty agenda.

@Schiffy Actually.... it was a deliberate social experiment. AND it was the third of three sets of posters in the same location. The first two had said "Its ok to be black" and "It's ok to be brown" respectively. Only the "Its ok to be white" posters were ripped up.

@Kin

Actually I can find no credible proof of your claim on any reputable source online - but please provide such a source if you want to stand by your claim. Otherwise that claim of yours seem to be patently false.

This is what Wikipedia has to say about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_OK_to_be_white

And Know Your Meme:

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/its-okay-to-be-white

Of course 4chan is a well known cesspool where racists, mymisogynists, neo-Nazi's and the likes congregate online and far from being a "harmless message" like the racists promoting it claim it to be, this message is a racist dog whistle when displayed in this way.

Because while the general statement that it's OK to be anything is obviously OK, the singular statement that it's OK to be white plays into the racist stereotype promoted in the entire western world for centuries.

It's like putting up signs saying "It's OK to be rich" or "It's OK to be slim" - no one need to be reminded that it's OK to be the things that are socially desirable in our culture. Doing so is thus only sending the dog whistle message that it's actually NOT OK to be poor or overweight - or in this case anything but white.

It's thus not sending a positive and empowering message to a group subjected to discrimination - but promoting a sense of victimhood popular in the white supremacy movement these days.

In their views, questioning the racist stereotype (and in their view completely true statement) that people of white skin is simple better then people of darker skin, is threatening.

When in fact it's of course not threatening at all to accept the simple fact that skin color says nothing about a persons abilities or qualities.

Only racist have a problem accepting that simple fact and only they feel threatened by the recent decades development towards a more inclusive and equal society in the west.
That's also why the far-right movement (which is predominantly made up of men) are also so misogynistic.
They likewise feel threatened by the gains in equality being made by women in the last centuries and react in the only way they know how - with hatred and vitriol.

And I say this as a white European male.

'@Seithoris'
Almost as if it's a dogwhistle *WINK WINK* coming largely from racists.

I belong to the Sapmi minority of Norway and we are just as white as Norwegians and you can often not tell us apart from them, unless we tell you we are Sapmi. I grew up in this tiny place that is a Sapmi area and has been for generations. A little while back we got signs in Sapmi and Norwegian. We speak mostly Norwegian, but the Sapmi signs gave a feeling of belonging. Then, some people came and shoot at the Sapmi signs and left the Norwegian signs in peace. This happened everywhere in this area and now we only got Norwegian signs. If this isn't racisms then I don't know what is.

@Emmez I feel bad for that. Sami People have gone trought many bad things. That just angers me that someone could do that to my brother nation. Sami people deserve better.

@Mixu Thanks. Its ridiculous the things people do when angry. ^^"

@Emmez I would have removed the norwegian signs

@Juhani Remove the Norwegian signs? Do you think that would’ve helped?

@ScanianDreng Not destroying them just take them down

@Juhani But that still wouldn't help, the Sami people would probably get the blame and become more disliked.

And besides, more people would get lost if you removed the Norwegian signs.

@ScanianDreng
^ This

You can't battle intolerance with intolerance.

@Juhani Oh, great idea. Return evil for evil. No, they should have publicized it a lot. I would guess most Norwegians would strongly disapprove of such racially-motivated vandalism. They would take up a collection to replace the signs, perhaps. They would make it clear that such actions do not reflect Norwegian values.

@Juhani Hahah, I think that would have just made them more angry. x")

Right-wingers seem rare in Norway, judging from the political parties there and their electoral success. But they do exist. Look at Breivik. And it only takes one disgruntled extremist with a gun to shoot up a bunch of signs. I imagine liquor was probably involved, too.