And People Thought Blatant Racism Didn't Exist Anymore

Kung Fu

Star
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,106
Well, most Ghassanid Arabs / Semites remained Christian and sided with their "colonizers" against the "good" Arabs "taking their country back". A lot of it in quotes because they can hardly be described as historical facts.
According to who, you? Not a chance. I don't believe that for a second.
 






Damien50

Star
Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
1,793
Individual debts are the result of the individual's decisions. The term "debt slave" refers to people who are enslaved to the debt created by the money supply through fractional reserve banking or central banking as a whole, that means you too.
Lol thanks for clarifying that for her.
 






mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,128
You're basically saying that these people would die if the exploitative employment wasn't there, ergo the exploitative employment is necessary for their survival. (Not my words, yours.)
Exactly, which is why it's immoral...The system of government requires people to rely on their job for survival. If they did not have a job, they would die... therefore their jobs are involuntary. They are forced into an exploitative relationship where they have no other choice.
Low pay compared to what?
Low pay meaning they have to live in poverty for the rest of their life.
You were alluding that profit is what made capitalism evil and I gave an example to show how profit in itself isn't immoral and thus neither is the economic system who's incentive largely relies on it.
I said exploitation is what is evil. If someone is profiting off the backs of poor people and keeping a lower class in poverty to gain wealth for themselves then that's immoral.
Explain to me how a mutual profitable agreement between two parties is more exploitative than for instance, a federal income tax?
The agreement between a company and it's workers isn't fully voluntary or mutual because the workers are forced to get a job to live. Profiting off of someone else's labor is exploitative and a federal income tax does that as well, But I don't see what a federal income tax has to do with anything I said.
 






Last edited:
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
1,395
According to who, you? Not a chance. I don't believe that for a second.
I think the crux of the matter is explained by your preceding post. You rebut my source on the issue with "the Islamic view" on the issue.

Also, I don't only blame European or whites for slavery but the reason I single them out is because their slave trade is the most notorious and had the largest impact in the world we live in today.
According to who, you?
 






Kung Fu

Star
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,106
Now back to the H&M hoodies.
The only black kid in the ad and he gets to be "the coolest MONKEY in the jungle". I don't tend to get involved in these kind of things but the moment I saw the ad I knew it just wasn't right. I guess this is how we can make racism look cool now.
 






Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
1,395
Exactly, which is why it's immoral...The system of government requires people to rely on their job for survival. If they did not have a job, they would die... therefore their jobs are involuntary. They are forced into an exploitative relationship where they have no other choice.
People don't really have to rely on jobs, but on income. People in the West without jobs generally still have an income and are able to survive. If you mean people have to rely on income, then that's really a global thing, not specifically an outsourcing corporations kind of thing.

The agreement between a company and it's workers isn't fully voluntary or mutual because the workers are forced to get a job to live.
I'll tie this in with the first part. People aren't forced to be employed. They can start their own company if they have the means. If they don't have the means, they'll have to work and save up money until they have the means. If they don't want to be employed or start a business themselves, they are still covered by the welfare state so they wouldn't die. Either way you look at it, there's is absolutely no coercion when a person is applying for a job other than the coercion of one's self-esteem or parents or the necessity to look after one's family. If one doesn't want to work or isn't able to, okay, he still gets money. Ergo, no coercion, opposed to the coercion that does exist through federal income tax, which is why I mentioned it, and which is definitely going to be required in the transition to a communist society.

Low pay meaning they have to live in poverty for the rest of their life.
No, the question was: "low pay compared to what?" Meaning, their income is low, but low compared to what? Compared to the median income in the US?

I said exploitation is what is evil. If someone is profiting off the backs of poor people and keeping a lower class in poverty to gain wealth for themselves then that's immoral.
If an entrepreneur is enjoying insane amounts of profit from his company without his employees being able to climb out of poverty and into the middle class, than I agree that's immoral and selfish. But most businesses have helped people get out of poverty. Poverty usually occurs when people do not have jobs or when the produce of independent workers (such as farmers) is price-capped by governments (often in coalition with big business). But that's an exploitation not inherent to capitalism.

Profiting off of someone else's labor is exploitative and a federal income tax does that as well, But I don't see what a federal income tax has to do with anything I said.
You make it sound as if an entrepreneur is by definition making profit on the back of the workers, but that's not right (and Marx wasn't right either). When an entrepreneur desires his company to grow, the growth of that company will require additional labour. If that labour is not profitable for whomever is agreeing to get the job, than that person wouldn't have agreed to it and looked somewhere else. People apply for jobs, right? They aren't dictated by anyone else to take any given job, right (unless maybe a strict father)? So the contract is mutually agreed upon without any coercion, right? You argue that that kind of employment is exploitative, but the entrepreneur might as well not create the job and where does that leave the unemployed?
 






Last edited:
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
1,395
{tongue-in-cheek mode on}

I found a teapot which arguably -I emphasize arguably- resembles Adolf Hitler, and which some of those organizations might want to add to their teapot collection =>{click here}

{mode off}
They're probably Thai. They have a somewhat big almost cult-like adoration for Hitler for some reason.
 






Damien50

Star
Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
1,793
But I thought they were racist??!
They very well could be like individuals here who don't see these things as offensive and simultaneously disregard that others find it offensive or somehow live in alternate dimensions where calling a black person a monkey or any other derogatory terms just don't occur. I'm in agreement with @Serveto that for whatever reason it may have been they felt the need to take action and now we can go back to hating the real enemy... Christians and Muslims and anyone that doesn't agree with them or sympathizers or anyone with an IQ over 90 that can freely think.

Though it was a marketing error it was an error nonetheless despite whatever intent was behind it. I'll just call it what it was: A fuck up.
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
3,218
So there is more evidence at the present time to suggest that this is a modern problem created by globalization.

Interesting, considering how many people seemed convinced that this was intentionally racist.

Thanks for the update @Serveto
 






Kung Fu

Star
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,106
"Marketing error" leave it to racists to try to spin it in a way that doesn't sound as bad lol.

Next time I go up to a black person and tell them they're the coolest monkey in Canada, I'll just say it was a brain error and not racist at all.
 






Damien50

Star
Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
1,793
So there is more evidence at the present time to suggest that this is a modern problem created by globalization.

Interesting, considering how many people seemed convinced that this was intentionally racist.

Thanks for the update @Serveto
Globalization (or globalisation; see spelling differences) is the increasing interaction of people, states, or countries through the growth of the international flow of money, ideas, and culture. Globalization is primarily an economic process of integration that has social and cultural aspects. It involves goods and services, and the economic resources of capital, technology, and data.[1][2] The steam locomotive, steamship, jet engine, and container ships are some of the advances in the means of transport while the rise of the telegraph and its modern offspring, the Internet and mobile phones show development in telecommunicationsinfrastructure. All of these improvements we enjoy in the modern era have been major factors in globalization and have generated further interdependence of economic and cultural activities.[3][4][5]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization

It highlights a problem of ignorance and blatant disregard that if it had never been noticed the company never would have hired a diversity leader. The intent even important but it was offensive and many found it offensive enough that HM took action whether for money or whatever.

Idk why we're trying to frame it as anything but it was as if it will assuage the situation because individuals don't want to have the ugliness.
 






Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
1,395
Because H&M took action it has to have been racist or because H&M took action the anti-racist pc hysteria has become too powerful and intimidating.

This "I"m offended so you"re offensive" mentality is creating a huge blur on the reality of what genuinely is offensive and it has people in a frenzy and others in some kind of anxiety disorder over nothing.

H&M's defence:

"H&M is fully committed to playing its part in addressing society’s issues and problems, whether it’s diversity, working conditions or environmental protection – and many others.

"Our standards are high and we feel that we have made real progress over the years in playing our part in promoting diversity and inclusion. But we clearly haven’t come far enough.

"We agree with all the criticism that this has generated – we have got this wrong and we agree that, even if unintentional, passive or casual racism needs to be eradicated wherever it exists.

"We appreciate the support of those who have seen that our product and promotion were not intended to cause offence but, as a global brand, we have a responsibility to be aware of and attuned to all racial and cultural sensitivities – and we have not lived up to this responsibility this time.

"This incident is accidental in nature, but this doesn’t mean we don’t take it extremely seriously or understand the upset and discomfort it has caused.

"We have taken down the image and we have removed the garment in question from sale. It will be recycled.

"We will now be doing everything we possibly can to prevent this from happening again in future.

"Racism and bias in any shape or form, conscious or unconscious, deliberate or accidental, are simply unacceptable and need to be eradicated from society. In this instance we have not been sensitive enough to this agenda.

"Please accept our humble apologies."

Pleading on their knees for forgiveness because of the feelings of easily offended and resentful people, encouraged by a liberal dominated media, who will do anything to reinforce the myth and stigma that white people and only white people are inherently racist. That's the actual racism that now roams the West. Shame cultures exploiting the guilt culture of white people just because they're the only ones who participate in auto-criticism, not just of their current societies, but of their ancestors too.
 






Damien50

Star
Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
1,793
Because H&M took action it has to have been racist or because H&M took action the anti-racist pc hysteria has become too powerful and intimidating.

This "I"m offended so you"re offensive" mentality is creating a huge blur on the reality of what genuinely is offensive and it has people in a frenzy and others in some kind of anxiety disorder over nothing.

H&M's defence:

"H&M is fully committed to playing its part in addressing society’s issues and problems, whether it’s diversity, working conditions or environmental protection – and many others.

"Our standards are high and we feel that we have made real progress over the years in playing our part in promoting diversity and inclusion. But we clearly haven’t come far enough.

"We agree with all the criticism that this has generated – we have got this wrong and we agree that, even if unintentional, passive or casual racism needs to be eradicated wherever it exists.

"We appreciate the support of those who have seen that our product and promotion were not intended to cause offence but, as a global brand, we have a responsibility to be aware of and attuned to all racial and cultural sensitivities – and we have not lived up to this responsibility this time.

"This incident is accidental in nature, but this doesn’t mean we don’t take it extremely seriously or understand the upset and discomfort it has caused.

"We have taken down the image and we have removed the garment in question from sale. It will be recycled.

"We will now be doing everything we possibly can to prevent this from happening again in future.

"Racism and bias in any shape or form, conscious or unconscious, deliberate or accidental, are simply unacceptable and need to be eradicated from society. In this instance we have not been sensitive enough to this agenda.

"Please accept our humble apologies."

Pleading on their knees for forgiveness because of the feelings of easily offended and resentful people, encouraged by a liberal dominated media, who will do anything to reinforce the myth and stigma that white people and only white people are inherently racist. That's the actual racism that now roams the West. Shame cultures exploiting the guilt culture of white people just because they're the only ones who participate in auto-criticism, not just of their current societies, but of their ancestors too.
From my POV I don't believe it was intentionally racist but a mistake that turned into more than it needed to be but they acknowledged it and worked to correct the problem. If I liked the clothes I would still buy from there but the ad was offensive to many, not me personally, and H&M fixed it. Kudos to them.
 






Top