NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, first off, if you respond to this, please remember to snip the article and just add your comments, unless you're responding to another poster, in which case quote away - I'm just looking to stop the enormous posts as a product of failing to snip - think green and don't waste Internet space.

This is causing some reaction among talking heads? Personally, as I read through it, I first thought 'well you have a point but, you know, elections do this.'

Then, as I read through the middle, with paragraphs like this:

The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.

I thought the writer was describing a fairly mythical idea of what your typical white guy is and then, as I got to the end, I just thought this guy isn't writing about other people, he's writing of who he thinks he is.

When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers.

Yet my thoughts count for little in the great wisdom of NSG so the question is, what do you think?

A little tl:dr perhaps and it's not like I can stop you telling me so go ahead ya bastards!

There is a great amount of interest in this year’s presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush. The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking candidates — a woman and an African-American — while the conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their party’s nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain.

Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians.

There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.

His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.

The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.

He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.

The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn’t bother him.

The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.

His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.

He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.

Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”

He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.

He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.

Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.

He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.

There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.

He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.

Link (http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080209/ASPENWEEKLY06/198091324/-1/ASPENWEEKLY)

For 'Angry White Man', read 'Self Delusional Redneck'.

'Hurrrrr, I'm white and I make the country great, make everything the way I want it! Fuck them fags and illegals and liberals! Start pandering to me!'

Angry White Man is so cute. I think I'll make a pet of him.

I'm not sure whether to find that hilarious or depressing.

It would stand as a good argument against giving power to the uneducated masses.

I read that awhile ago on another forum (Posted by someone who was using it with pride and got a bunch of "Hell yeah!" responses. My feeling was that Angry White Man = Scared White Man who suddenly work up one morning and realized that not only had the country moved on without him, but was expecting him to catch up. The final straw was the realization that there is a good chance this year that the next president won't be White, or even a man!

This is causing some reaction among talking heads? Personally, as I read through it, I first thought 'well you have a point but, you know, elections do this.'

Then, as I read through the middle, with paragraphs like this:

I thought the writer was describing a fairly mythical idea of what your typical white guy is and then, as I got to the end, I just thought this guy isn't writing about other people, he's writing of who he thinks he is.

<snip>


I feel your right on the money with your assessment. It's similar to harking back to the "good ol' days" when men were real men, women were real women , the poor and the homeless had the decency to stay out of sight were people could forget about them, blacks and gays of course didn't exist except as stereotypes to become either victims or crazed killers in the final act. It's a myth, it's a very appealing myth to a large cross-section of people, but it's still a myth.

Yes he does have some points, a "poor me" victim culture is counter-productive for all sides (and yet that's what he's currently doing as well, "poor me" for being a white heterosexual male) and there are strong arguments against, as well as for, positive discrimination and affirmative action but any rational, well developed argument he may have, is lost among his descriptions of this idealised white everyman image.

I read that awhile ago on another forum...

Someone beat me to it? Now I'm an angry white man!

*looks to Bottle for free food and lodging*

*looks to Bottle for free food and lodging*
You're going to do WHAT?!

Alas poor Barringtonia, I knew him Horatio. A man of infinite jest, just not a lot of wisdom. ;)

You're going to do WHAT?!

Alas poor Barringtonia, I knew him Horatio. A man of infinite jest, just not a lot of wisdom. ;)

You're right, as a responsible pet owner she'll probably have me neutered.

You're right, as a responsible pet owner she'll probably have me neutered.
Have you? Knowing Bottle, she'd quite possibly do it herself.




You realize of course that if she finds this thread we're both going to be skinned alive right?

Angry white man sucks.

Have you? Knowing Bottle, she'd quite possibly do it herself.

You realize of course that if she finds this thread we're both going to be skinned alive right?

You might be, I'm totally safe - check post 3.

Have you? Knowing Bottle, she'd quite possibly do it herself.




You realize of course that if she finds this thread we're both going to be skinned alive right?

The lucky ones will be skinned alive. I shudder to think about what she'll do to Angry White Man.

It is my opinion that the angry white men need to get over themselves. I'm a white man and I'm just fine with everyone having equal rights. He makes a couple of vague points--there's something in there about a level playing field, which I can agree with in principle(though he probably doesn't mean it the way I mean it)--and of course about the illegal immigrant situation, which IS a problem.

Unfortunately what little of value there is in that article is plagued by emotional drivel and outright sexism and possible racism. In other words, he's letting his anger control him rather than using his anger in the right way. If he wants to change things, he should do something constructive rather than rant in a newspaper.

Wow...for someone who hates "poor me" whining bleeding heart liberals so much the angry white man sure does bitch a lot.

HALP! I'm white an beeing discrmnated agasnt!

Boo fucking hoo. The angry white man is responsible for 80% of what's wrong in society. He can go cry me a river if he wants to.

The large amount of "Angry White Men" you have there is the main reason why I will never, ever move to the United States of America.

I don't want to deal with that kind of people. I prefer largely the standard open up spanish citizen or my own lovely, relaxed, unsuspicious venezuelan fellow citizens.

The large amount of "Angry White Men" you have there is the main reason why I will never, ever move to the United States of America.

I don't want to deal with that kind of people. I prefer largely the standard open up spanish citizen or my own lovely, relaxed, unsuspicious venezuelan fellow citizens.

I forgot that every single part of the United States is exactly the same, with exactly the same kind of people everywhere.

I'm male, angry and white, yet don't quite see what minorities, women, imigrants and homosexuals have to do with the worlds problems..... Certainly I wasn't aware of Lesbian Single Mothers funding death squads in some third world country or other...

Angry White Man doesn't get that America isn't a "level playing field" and never has been

Wow...for someone who hates "poor me" whining bleeding heart liberals so much the angry white man sure does bitch a lot.

QFT :p

I forgot that every single part of the United States is exactly the same, with exactly the same kind of people everywhere.

According to the article, there are "Angry White Men" in each and every part of the United States of America, it says exactly that, doesn't it?

According to my sources, there are plenty from New York to Los Angeles, from Honolulu to Miami, and from Houston to Boston.

I read that awhile ago on another forum (Posted by someone who was using it with pride and got a bunch of "Hell yeah!" responses. My feeling was that Angry White Man = Scared White Man who suddenly work up one morning and realized that not only had the country moved on without him, but was expecting him to catch up. The final straw was the realization that there is a good chance this year that the next president won't be White, or even a man!

Sadly enough, next year, our president will be white, male and republican. There are too many who will vote AGAINST Hillary/Obama due to gender, or race. The dems only hope is that anyone they put up will be perceived as better than Bush, But then again, anyone the Republicans put up will look better to. So, unless the dems find someone else (not happening) or the republicans put up someone really nuts, The republicans will win.

Personally I'm hoping for Obama.

According to the article, there are "Angry White Men" in each and every part of the United States of America, it says exactly that, doesn't it?

According to my sources, there are plenty from New York to Los Angeles, from Honolulu to Miami, and from Houston to Boston.

Arseholes exists everywhere though, not just in the USA. During my stays in the US, I encountered very few of these people, but I'm sure if I was staying in other parts of the US, like around the mississippi area, I would encounter many more. The US is a huge place with a massive population, there are all kinds of people there, I see no reason to assume that there is a disproportionate amount of angry white men in every part of the US.

The individual described in the article is more than welcome to cry himself a river, build a bridge, and get over it in my humble estimation.

All I'm curious to know is, if the Angry White Men are such an important voting bloc, how is it that I've never met a single one of them in seventeen years in the United States?

Sadly enough, next year, our president will be white, male and republican. There are too many who will vote AGAINST Hillary/Obama due to gender, or race. The dems only hope is that anyone they put up will be perceived as better than Bush, But then again, anyone the Republicans put up will look better to. So, unless the dems find someone else (not happening) or the republicans put up someone really nuts, The republicans will win.

Personally I'm hoping for Obama.
What makes you so certain about that? Can you point to sources, proof for this? Because from everything I've seen, people will be just fine with a black man.

What makes you so certain about that? Can you point to sources, proof for this? Because from everything I've seen, people will be just fine with a black man.

I have no proof, it's just my opinion, based on my low opinion of people in general, and the prevalence of stupidity (in the form of racism/sexism) that I am exposed too every day.

Edit: Like I said, I am hoping for Obama.

Arseholes exists everywhere though, not just in the USA. During my stays in the US, I encountered very few of these people, but I'm sure if I was staying in other parts of the US, like around the mississippi area, I would encounter many more. The US is a huge place with a massive population, there are all kinds of people there, I see no reason to assume that there is a disproportionate amount of angry white men in every part of the US.

Indeed arseholes exist everywhere, not just in the USA. I am just unwilling to deal with the exact kind of arsehole represented in the "Angry White Man", who is mostly present in the USA, although you can find them in other countries as well, (I have met "angry White Men" or similar variations in Spain, for example), but not in such numbers. Look, they are so many, or at least they are common, because someone wrote an article about them.

I guess there are zones of the US more heavily populated by "Angry White Men" than others, but that doesn't mean there aren't a good number of "Angry White Men" in every state.

QFT :p

You see, I too am an angry white man. However, I am angry about different things than this man: tax breaks for the rich, a pointless quagmire of a foreign war, religion invading politics and the fact that the likes of Brittany Spears and Lindsay Lohan are still on my TV!

Get off of my flashy screen you no-talent crazy bitches! I want NEWS!

Look, they are so many, or at least they are common, because someone wrote an article about them.

It was a wise man indeed who once said "Don't believe everything you read in the newspaper/see on TV/find on the internet." (ESPECIALLY the latter).

I guess there are zones of the US more heavily populated by "Angry White Men" than others, but that doesn't mean there aren't a good number of "Angry White Men" in every state.

It doesn't necessarily mean that there ARE a good number either. I would say don't judge us 'till you take a look. Swing by New England at some point.

You'll indeed find that we're angry, but mostly because the Patriots lost the Superbowl :p.

HALP! I'm white an beeing discrmnated agasnt!

Boo fucking hoo. The angry white man is responsible for 80% of what's wrong in society. He can go cry me a river if he wants to.

Can you provide examples? The average white male gets a job, pays his taxes, treats women with respect, pays a fair wage to any who work for him regardless of race or gender, and doesn't initiate violence against others for any reason, even if he thinks they're living in sin or just look funny. Meanwhile, any time any of us dares mention that we are ignored and maligned in any way whatsoever, we get responses like the one above. On television, any white guy you see will be fat and stupid and anything un-hip. If we own firearms, we're automatically grouped with white-supremacists and uneducated hillbillies. If we're successful or wealthy, it's assumed that we've cheated somehow. It was mostly WHITE CHRISTIANS who led the abolitionist movement, and whites died in vast numbers during the Civil War, supposedly to end slavery, and yet I'm told that white Christians all want nothing more than the chance to bring back slavery.

I don't deny that there are problems - the vast majority of the 'elites' in the world are white, but that reflects on white people no more than uneducated drug-dealing woman-abusing gangsta thugs reflect on black Americans as a whole. I've worked with LEGAL Mexican immigrants - they're some of the best people I've known. I only object to the ILLEGAL immigrants. I also object to the policy makers here in the US who can't find their collective asses with both hands and can't streamline the immigration process to make legal immigration simpler. Why does this make me a racist elitist oppressive monster in the eyes of so many of you?

Get off of my flashy screen you no-talent crazy bitches! I want NEWS!

Now THAT I'll QFT, although out of the newpapers would be nice too (and take Diana with you, really, it's been 10 YEARS). Really I don't care what the latest celebri-whore is up to, I want to know the things going on in the world.

Angry whiteman sucks.

BUT angry blackman,jewishman, <insert group here>ect... aint no fucking prize either.


Muhahahahah!!!!!!!!

Within the next 3 decades from now, most of the Angry White Men will no longer exist.

Some of their white sons & daughters are too romantically involve with non-white people at this present time.

So I'm not bother. :D

The average white male gets a job, pays his taxes, treats women with respect, pays a fair wage to any who work for him regardless of race or gender, and doesn't initiate violence against others for any reason, even if he thinks they're living in sin or just look funny

Oh? And how are you determining the "average" here? Statistics? I doubt it.

No, you are doing circular reasoning. The "average" white male gets a job etc, because you are DEFINING "average" to mean - gets a job, pays taxes, etc.

On television, any white guy you see will be fat and stupid and anything un-hip.

Um. What television do you watch? I don't even watch TV and I know this to be so ridiculously false that I'm seriously questioning if you actually believe what you just wrote here.

If we own firearms, we're automatically grouped with white-supremacists and uneducated hillbillies.

Only by the anti-gun crowd, but that's got nothing to do with race.

If we're successful or wealthy, it's assumed that we've cheated somehow.

Assumed by whom? Maybe you're only assuming it's assumed.

I think we must remember that no race will be extinct, unless there's lots of national disasters.

Certainly this person has never truly existed.

Same with the Perfect Marxist.

Or the perfect anything.

Even Kitchener and co had faults.

I know I'll get flamed mercilessly for saying this, but I don't totally disagree with the article's basic premise. The idea that there should be a level playing field, and the understanding that people other than the angry white man are taking advantage of the situation the way it is today (with the understanding that the white man took advantage in the past) isn't something to blame the white man for. It isn't unreasonable for the white man to expect that now, once they have given up their dominance of US politics and through that the economy, that they should be treated with the same degree of respect as everyone else.

I'm not saying that whites haven't done things in the past that are reprehensible, or that the groups which are now benefiting from the current state of affairs don't deserve what they are getting, but it is unreasonable that for the longest time the rallying cry for those groups was the idea of equality and a level playing field, and now it seems that society is unable to provide that for the whites. It's a double standard in the old tradition, and if the goal really was to provide equality, which I believe it was, than there should be no problem fixing the issues.

This article is, indeed, not a scientific definition of "angry white man". However, there ARE people that do have the depicted situation, and they are maybe millions.
I believe, these "angry white men" just are afraid of changes, maybe due to personal bad luck or what ever. You will always have to count masses of them. But will they really DECIDE the elections?? The Republicans had lots of angry white men voting for them the last decades (who else....?) For me, those US citizens that are not angry / threatened / sucked / jobless / red-yellow-black or whatever will decide. Those who in no-way are bound to a special party and a certain "way of getting votes" (like increasing the angst - hating some foreign dictator - or re-confirming a lack of civil rights..) will vote just for "some-one". The last time those vote for ush in majority und bugged the millions of voters-by-opinion. Hope, the next time these fucking masses THINK WHEN VOTE. And dod-damn - if the US then wants McCain.... I still have the hope that there will be sense.

"Lord- let there be some brain for rain..."

http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/Previews/Care-Bears-lg01.jpg
Cute.

*looks to Bottle for free food and lodging*
I've got a package of beer nuts for kibble, and a lovely little box next to the heating vent that you can sleep in.

And yes, I'm afraid that Bob Barker has impressed upon me the importance of having my pets spayed and neutered. I'm not brave enough to cross Bob Barker.

I forgot that every single part of the United States is exactly the same, with exactly the same kind of people everywhere.
I've lived in many different regions of the USA, and one constant feature has always been the presence of Angry White Man in one form or another. (Another constant is the availability of overly-sugared soda.)

Angry white man sounds like a big angry douchebag.
Because as we all know, this elevates the discussion. :rolleyes:

Angry white man sounds like a big angry douchebag.

Has anybody else noticed how the most Manly of Manly Men are always the biggest freaking cry babies?

And how the racists who most obviously despise the "lesser" ethnic groups are, themselves, amazingly weak and whimpering?

Because as we all know, this elevates the discussion. :rolleyes:
You're on an internet forum, darling. Best you look elsewhere if you want "elevated discussion."

Besides which, he is a d-bag. He's racist, sexist, homophobic, cowardly, and generally pathetic, and I think it's quite reasonable to sum all that up with a single handy term.

Angry white man sounds like a big angry douchebag.

I know I'll get flamed mercilessly for saying this, but I don't totally disagree with the article's basic premise. The idea that there should be a level playing field, and the understanding that people other than the angry white man are taking advantage of the situation the way it is today (with the understanding that the white man took advantage in the past) isn't something to blame the white man for. It isn't unreasonable for the white man to expect that now, once they have given up their dominance of US politics and through that the economy, that they should be treated with the same degree of respect as everyone else.


I agree, and I think a few people have said this in the thread already, the underneath it all, there may be a point there. I personally have issues with positive discrimination (because any sort of discrimination, positive or otherwise, is counter to the ideas of equality) and the victimization culture that certain groups (and I'm talking small, specific organisations/campaign groups, not ethnic/sexual/gender groups) promote. There are legitimate arguments on either side of these issues, and they do need to be addressed and debated.

However, this particular gentleman comes across as politically biased, hypocritical, racist, sexist and homophobic (I will break it down exactly which bits lead me to call him these if required). Furthermore, he seems to feel it necessary to call upon some idealised and above-all mythical representation of the 'average' white male to argue his point. Not that it's exactly clear what his point his, since he spends so long painting this picture of the "Angry White Male" that the underlying argument gets lost in the process. This is why we (or at least I) mock him.

Oh my. Poor white man! He sure has a lot to be angry over!

I mean those darn niggers stopped picking cotton for him, and they began to think for themselves! Outrageous.

And those red skinned savages! They are taking up so much of white man's land with their fancy "reservations". Surely they cannot be angry!

Or what about those wet backed spics. They cross that border there, and free load of poor white man. I mean, how about living with 23 other people in the same room? They have it good!

And those women. Don't get me started on women. Thinking they can go out of the house and make a living for themselves! Can you believe they still make 71 cents to every dollar a man makes? They have it fantastic!


White man should be angry! Look how good everyone else has it.

Angry whiteman sucks.

BUT angry blackman,jewishman, <insert group here>ect... aint no fucking prize either.


Muhahahahah!!!!!!!!

Yet another QFT.

People, lets face it: Humans are scum. Nature should just kill us off and start over with seven foot tall Platypi as the next dominant species.

It seems that the vast majority posting in this thread are angrier than the angry White man. Most of them should probably go to stormfront.org and whine about it on the opposing views thread.

I am a big barbaric douchebag with no concept of reality and no moral value and obviously an ignorant bigot for being white and angry... I'm so glad that NationStates threads are so enlightening and not hypocritical in the least...

Can you provide examples? The average white male gets a job, pays his taxes, treats women with respect, pays a fair wage to any who work for him regardless of race or gender, and doesn't initiate violence against others for any reason, even if he thinks they're living in sin or just look funny.The average white male isn't angry, or at least not in the way depicted in the OP, either.

It isn't unreasonable for the white man to expect that now, once they have given up their dominance of US politics and through that the economy, that they should be treated with the same degree of respect as everyone else.White men still dominate U.S. politics and the economy. Simply because they aren't as totally dominant as they once were doesn't mean their dominance is gone.

Angry white man sounds like a big angry douchebag.

I don't know about the "big" part. Guys this insistent that they are manly, manly men often tend to be compensating for something, ya know? ;)

like a tiny...what's the thing...with the words...

vocabulary.

Brain?

This guy sounds like one pissed off individual with a gun, who thinks women should know there place and one kind of person should be respected above all. I'm more scared of him than the 'poor me' people.

I don't know about the "big" part. Guys this insistent that they are manly, manly men often tend to be compensating for something, ya know? ;)

like a tiny...what's the thing...with the words...

vocabulary.

Brain?

whassis now?

Funny. I'm a very angry white man, and I don't fit that stereotype at all...

Maybe I'm a Arabian-Mexican Jew and don't know it! :eek:

Males fall into a few Categories defined by thoughts:

85% Straight/Bi Think mostly about sex.

5% Bi/Gay (see above category for thoughts)

5% Asexual

5% Romantic who care more about their partner than their bedroom life.

(I'm in the last category!:D)

Poor angry heterosexual white man. I feel so bad for him! *sniffles*

This is nothing more than this generation's 'white man's burden'. There are a few good points in the essay, but the anti-"fag" essence kills it. I am glad to see that in the 21st century people are still judged by how they act by themselves or the color of skin, not their thoughts.

Can you provide examples? The average white male gets a job, pays his taxes, treats women with respect, pays a fair wage to any who work for him regardless of race or gender, and doesn't initiate violence against others for any reason, even if he thinks they're living in sin or just look funny.

Luckily, the "average white male" is not the "angry white man" discussed in the article.

Meanwhile, any time any of us dares mention that we are ignored and maligned in any way whatsoever, we get responses like the one above. On television, any white guy you see will be fat and stupid and anything un-hip.

*Wonders what ethnicity men like Brad Pitt, George Cloony, etc. are.*

If we own firearms, we're automatically grouped with white-supremacists and uneducated hillbillies. If we're successful or wealthy, it's assumed that we've cheated somehow. It was mostly WHITE CHRISTIANS who led the abolitionist movement, and whites died in vast numbers during the Civil War, supposedly to end slavery, and yet I'm told that white Christians all want nothing more than the chance to bring back slavery.

I have no idea where this is coming from. I've never seen any of these stereotypes put forth as absolutes.

I have mixed feelings regarding the "plight", or lackthereof, of the white man.

Where the white poor are concerned, I recall an investigation a year or so ago suggesting that white poor children are performing worst at school; if this is the case, I would suggest they do have something to seek redress for.

Equally, where the predominantly white middle class group generally termed "middle England" is concerned, I believe they have every justifiable grievance with New Labour, between tuition fees, tax rises and the sustained ideological attack upon them and their values.

However, the recent set of articles concerning the "coping classes" in the Daily Telegraph truly do irritate me. Primaily because the grievances they catalogue are quite ludicrous; buying clothes from ASDA rather than Boden and the like. The higher echelons of the middle class, and upper classes, really ought not to complain on economic grounds.

I know I'll get flamed mercilessly for saying this, but I don't totally disagree with the article's basic premise. The idea that there should be a level playing field, and the understanding that people other than the angry white man are taking advantage of the situation the way it is today (with the understanding that the white man took advantage in the past) isn't something to blame the white man for. It isn't unreasonable for the white man to expect that now, once they have given up their dominance of US politics and through that the economy, that they should be treated with the same degree of respect as everyone else.

And herein lies the problem. This type of "angry white man" generally doesn't want a level playing field or to be treated with the same degree of respect as everyone else. He feels that he's lost something by losing his privileged status, and he wants that status back. He'll gladly call being privileged "level or "the same". This is why he will whine about groups he does not belong to getting "special rights" when they are, in fact, simply fighting for the same rights and consideration he's always enjoyed.

I'm not saying that whites haven't done things in the past that are reprehensible, or that the groups which are now benefiting from the current state of affairs don't deserve what they are getting, but it is unreasonable that for the longest time the rallying cry for those groups was the idea of equality and a level playing field, and now it seems that society is unable to provide that for the whites. It's a double standard in the old tradition, and if the goal really was to provide equality, which I believe it was, than there should be no problem fixing the issues.

I'm white. I'm not a male, but I am white. I cannot point to any instance in which being white has been a problem for me. Do you have examples of a level playing field being denied to white people?

I am a big barbaric douchebag with no concept of reality and no moral value and obviously an ignorant bigot for being white and angry... I'm so glad that NationStates threads are so enlightening and not hypocritical in the least...

It really depends what you're angry about...

For 'Angry White Man', read 'Self Delusional Redneck'.

'Hurrrrr, I'm white and I make the country great, make everything the way I want it! Fuck them fags and illegals and liberals! Start pandering to me!'

Really, I was going to comment, but this is pretty much exactly what I would say.


Angry White Man is just the PC term for bigot.

Angry White Man is just the PC term for bigot.
I assume you are being serious, but the only negative qualifier in that label is "angry".

I don't know how adding 'angry' to 'white man' produces bigot.

I assume you are being serious, but the only negative qualifier in that label is "angry".

I don't know how adding 'angry' to 'white man' produces bigot.



I meant for the purpose of this article, the label Angry White Man is the PC term for bigot.

I meant for the purpose of this article, the label Angry White Man is the PC term for bigot.

Ah, I see. That makes more sense.

He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.

So hes a Republican Conservative. Oh, and worked an honost day in their life? You realize how much time and money goes into law school? You realize how much fucking time and effort and work you have to put into getting your law degree, and than being a good enough lawyer to become a judge, let alone a judge that high up? My uncle is a judge, and Id say those judges put in more "honost" hours of work than this assclown does. Because they got an education while angry white man was either to fucking dumb or too busy chasing ass and playing football to do well enough to get into a good college doesnt mean they never worked an honost day in their lives. In fact, they started working hard before he did.


He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.


So he's a sexist.

He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.

Code for he doesnt like Mexicans because "DEY TOOK ER JERBS!!!!"

When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers.

Remembers? Remembers what? The good old day when if the "darkies" got uppity and marched in the streets the police would beat the shit out of them?

He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.

No, I disagree. It is probably because she is a woman and a Clinton. Also the Angry White Man is a moron who buys into the conservative myth that all poor people are just lazy.

There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.

He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.




Earlier it said he may be a democract or a republican. This proves that statement BS. He is a Republican. No demoract hopes Hilary is the nominee for president just so she can loose to the loony bootlick McRambo.


This article is infuriating. Its basically the point of view of the conservative delusional redneck. Because, as we all know, the conservative straight white male is oppressed in America, and rarely has his voice heard.


Fuck this shit.

And herein lies the problem. This type of "angry white man" generally doesn't want a level playing field or to be treated with the same degree of respect as everyone else. He feels that he's lost something by losing his privileged status, and he wants that status back. He'll gladly call being privileged "level or "the same". This is why he will whine about groups he does not belong to getting "special rights" when they are, in fact, simply fighting for the same rights and consideration he's always enjoyed.



I'm white. I'm not a male, but I am white. I cannot point to any instance in which being white has been a problem for me. Do you have examples of a level playing field being denied to white people?

I'd have to respectfully disagree with that statement. I once was in that school of thought, and even knowing what I know now and knew then, I still couldn't be convinced otherwise. So I'm not here to preach or anything, but for the sake of understanding I will say this. Certain groups do get certain rights that the average White male does not. Granted, programs like Affirmative Action I can see the desire for the same rights in a traditionally white male dominated workforce. However I can walk in the Students' Centre at my university and you could see where I'm coming from. Looking at clubs in universities, they stretch beyond ethnicity and actually into race (ie. Arab clubs, Asian clubs, South Asian clubs, etc.). So if I was an Arab I could join a club specifically geared toward my country of origin (which is fine) BUT I can also join the Arab Club in which my race and culture is celebrated. Is there a problem with that? No, you should be proud of who you are. But what I do have a problem with is the double standard that exists. While it would be perfectly acceptable for those clubs to put on cultural displays, celebrate cultural tradtions and all that, I as a White person can't without being labelled a racist, being threatened or possibly being expelled from university, and plenty of other horrible things. With European heritage I am not allowed to make a European club based on the ancient racial bond that they share, but I am forced to accept that others are allowed to with their respective races. I'm not looking for a patriarchal, backward throwback of the Leave it to Beaver variety, I'm angry about the fact that I do not have the same rights as others to embrace who I am. Sorry for the long story, it's just my example

So he's a sexist.

I disagree. I found this to be the most accurate part of the article - any woman who marries a man with this sort of personality is acting on something other than rationality.

I disagree. I found this to be the most accurate part of the article - any woman who marries a man with this sort of personality is acting on something other than rationality.



Ill give you that, but I wouldnt call it emotion either, because I doubt you could feel love for such a....thing.


We'll call it insanity and leave it at that.

I meant for the purpose of this article, the label Angry White Man is the PC term for bigot.
You have a very limited vocab, don't you?

That's like literally all you say. "BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT!!!!!"

!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVESSSSSSSS!!!

:rolleyes:

I'm caucasian, male and rather frustrated at the way the world is, but I think the article is doing that part of who I am something of a disservice.

Mind you, I'm entirely happy to blame it on him being an Angry White Conservative. Maybe I shouldn't be throwing stones?

You have a very limited vocab, don't you?

That's like literally all you say. "BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT!!!!!"

!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVESSSSSSSS!!!

:rolleyes:

Ok, how about racist assclown?

Or hatemongering fucktard?

Or just racist?

Or Hatemonger?


I mean, really, I was trying to pick one without cursewords, and racist implies then that you only hate races, rather than gays, jews, uppty women...

You have a very limited vocab, don't you?

That's like literally all you say. "BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT!!!!!"

When the shoe fits...

He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.

I know this is far from the most egregious statement in the article, but it sticks in my craw for obvious reasons.

Apparently, the "Angry White Man" (1) knows jack-shit about judges, (2) understands even less about the Constitution and how it was designed, and (3) doesn't believe the following should be rights protected by the Constitution (because they aren't "literally" stated therein):

the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
the right to travel within the United States
the right to marry or not to marry
the right to make one's own choice about having children
the right to have children at all
the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
the right to custody of one's children
the right to choose and follow a profession
right to bodily integrity


In other words, the "Angry White Man" is an enemy of liberty as well as equality.

You have a very limited vocab, don't you?

That's like literally all you say. "BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT!!!!!"



He says it when he sees it. So do I. So do others. Its not that it gets used that often, just where apprpropriate. If you see what you think is too much of the word, well...theres a reason for that.

It was a wise man indeed who once said "Don't believe everything you read in the newspaper/see on TV/find on the internet." (ESPECIALLY the latter).



It doesn't necessarily mean that there ARE a good number either. I would say don't judge us 'till you take a look. Swing by New England at some point.

You'll indeed find that we're angry, but mostly because the Patriots lost the Superbowl :p.

New England Pride!

And, true, I've lived there all my life, and never met an "Angry White Man" of this type.

O I've heard the type in the flesh when they visit the "old country". I find it amusing to hear the 'evil that blacks do' listed out as if it were somehow unique. They don't like having it pointed that their own do the exact same. They also seem to forget that their own were actually a notorious shower of gougers at the bottom of the heap at one stage too.....

*Reads article*

Hey, who decided to write up a bio on my dad without telling me?

I found out that both myself, and my father, could possibly be described as "Angry White Man."

My dad owns his own business, which he started when I entered high school. He's never worked construction or some other job that can be paid under the table since he graduated college. He does, however, think that illegal immigration is a problem, opposes the lowering of wages, but thinks that the borders should be more open for legal immigrants. He supports the so-called "comprehensive" reforms but his support, and his vote, is in favor of adding the immigrant population to the tax base as soon as the reforms take place. He wants to lower his taxes, but supports the graduated income tax.

He refuses to vote for Hillary, instead having supported Rudy for a while, and now waiting to see who will emerge as the nominee. Nationally, he has voted for Reagan, H.W. Bush, Perot twice, Gore, and W. Bush. His opposition to Hillary is based on what he simply calls "crooked talk" and "elusive stances," though he has no opposition to a woman as President.

I have discovered that I have come to identify closely with my father, and his political views, though I'm more liberal about corporate regulation. This is not an Angry White Man, he is simply a Christian white man, and one that calls himself solidly American.

I'd have to respectfully disagree with that statement. I once was in that school of thought, and even knowing what I know now and knew then, I still couldn't be convinced otherwise. So I'm not here to preach or anything, but for the sake of understanding I will say this. Certain groups do get certain rights that the average White male does not. Granted, programs like Affirmative Action I can see the desire for the same rights in a traditionally white male dominated workforce. However I can walk in the Students' Centre at my university and you could see where I'm coming from. Looking at clubs in universities, they stretch beyond ethnicity and actually into race (ie. Arab clubs, Asian clubs, South Asian clubs, etc.). So if I was an Arab I could join a club specifically geared toward my country of origin (which is fine) BUT I can also join the Arab Club in which my race and culture is celebrated. Is there a problem with that? No, you should be proud of who you are. But what I do have a problem with is the double standard that exists. While it would be perfectly acceptable for those clubs to put on cultural displays, celebrate cultural tradtions and all that, I as a White person can't without being labelled a racist, being threatened or possibly being expelled from university, and plenty of other horrible things. With European heritage I am not allowed to make a European club based on the ancient racial bond that they share, but I am forced to accept that others are allowed to with their respective races. I'm not looking for a patriarchal, backward throwback of the Leave it to Beaver variety, I'm angry about the fact that I do not have the same rights as others to embrace who I am. Sorry for the long story, it's just my example

But again, I'm not sure there is any such discrimination. No, you can't form a "White Power" club based on the KKK, but I've seen no evidence that you cannot form a club for your particular heritage. A couple of quick google searches revealed Irish and Scottish clubs, as examples, for that type of thing.

The problem here is that you're associating outrage over organizations formed with racist intent with outrage over organizations truly meant to celebrate one's heritage.

Is this guy still living in the 1950's?

But again, I'm not sure there is any such discrimination. No, you can't form a "White Power" club based on the KKK, but I've seen no evidence that you cannot form a club for your particular heritage. A couple of quick google searches revealed Irish and Scottish clubs, as examples, for that type of thing.

The problem here is that you're associating outrage over organizations formed with racist intent with outrage over organizations truly meant to celebrate one's heritage.

I hear what you're saying. And thanks for replying, I know I kinda made it too long (well in my standards, I'm a lazy reader) But I think you kind of missed the message I was trying to convey. I don't need to search google to see those clubs, I know of many groups of historically white countries of course lol. But I was saying that there are clubs that go beyond nationhood, and extend into race. As I cited that there is a club for the Arab race, in addition to their respective country clubs. I don't believe that I am associating outrage with groups formed with ones meant to celebrate heritage. I did not mention anything about racist intent or affiliations with racist organizations. Again, I think that you're proving my point about double standards by mentioning that. It is automatically assumed that whites celebrating their racial heritage is some hate-filled act, while when Arabs and Asians do it it's "celebrating diversity", last time I checked, whites are part of the multi-cultural fabric as well.

Racist? No. Racialist? Yes. All I'm saying is that everybody should be able to celebrate who they are without being labelled a hatemonger. That's why I used it as an example where Whites were denied a right that others have. If we were all on a level playing field in terms of my example I think that every race should have a heritage group or no race have one.

I hear what you're saying. And thanks for replying, I know I kinda made it too long (well in my standards, I'm a lazy reader) But I think you kind of missed the message I was trying to convey. I don't need to search google to see those clubs, I know of many groups of historically white countries of course lol. But I was saying that there are clubs that go beyond nationhood, and extend into race. As I cited that there is a club for the Arab race, in addition to their respective country clubs.

You're right, I did miss that.

And I think you're missing the point of those groups. It isn't really racial. It's still a matter of celebrating a shared culture. They've gone beyond nationality, but it's the culture that they really share.

I don't believe that I am associating outrage with groups formed with ones meant to celebrate heritage. I did not mention anything about racist intent or affiliations with racist organizations. Again, I think that you're proving my point about double standards by mentioning that. It is automatically assumed that whites celebrating their racial heritage is some hate-filled act, while when Arabs and Asians do it it's "celebrating diversity", last time I checked, whites are part of the multi-cultural fabric as well.

That's just it. I don't think it's assumed. I have yet to see anyone try and start a "white club" or "caucasian club" without either racist intent, or some need to prove that the people starting the club are discriminated against.

This is probably largely because there really is no "white culture" as separate from "Western culture".

Racist? No. Racialist? Yes. All I'm saying is that everybody should be able to celebrate who they are without being labelled a hatemonger. That's why I used it as an example where Whites were denied a right that others have. If we were all on a level playing field in terms of my example I think that every race should have a heritage group or no race have one.

If you want a heritage group, start one. Unless you have tried and been denied, you can't really say that you're being denied anything.

But what heritage will it be? Can you define a distinct "white" culture?

There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.Yeah... sure...
The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.Poor fool. In Europe, the braces get paid for by universal health-care, something that the AWM fights hard against.
He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.Interesting.
The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn’t bother him.Vigilante justice... boy-oh-boy...
The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.Apparently, the AWM owns a car, and a family.
He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.The AWM is West Virginian?
He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.Most likely a Republican, possibly libertarian, occasionally White Nationalist write-in candidate voter.
He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.Yeah, right.

The AWM is an idiot. I hope he is rare. He gives other men like me a bad image.

Hehe. Hillary's voice *does* sound a bit like a shovel scraping a rock. :p Although I did vote for her.

Really, the article isn't much more than a pile of stereotypes the author wants to use to paint anti-Clinton voters as afraid of whatever groups she appeals to. Standard boilerplate.

Poor fool. In Europe, the braces get paid for by universal health-care, something that the AWM fights hard against.

You didn't finish that thought. (Hint: who pays for 'free' health care?)

There you go. ;)

Angry White Man sounds like it would make a great Lynyrd Skynyrd song

as a good contrast to American Idiot I suppose

"I hope Green Day will remember, Angry White Man don't need them 'round anyhow"

not that I am in anyway a fan of Green Day *shudder*

You... You didn't even start to read the article, did you? Most of the people probably didn't, but your entire post is just one big "Hey all, I'm smart enough to read 3 words and know the entirety of a post, so I don't have to think!". You entire post is just a complete failure of intellect.

The post is the same BS that white men always post. I was being sarcastic with my reply. Its all ignorant. How can white men complain? They have been screwing people over for centuries, and the second someone tries to get ahead, they claim they are being discriminated against. Forget that.

Pretty much what that did was water down the language to make the racism, sexism, and out right ignorance seem less visible. But anyone with sense can see it there.

You... You didn't even start to read the article, did you? Most of the people probably didn't, but your entire post is just one big "Hey all, I'm smart enough to read 3 words and know the entirety of a post, so I don't have to think!". You entire post is just a complete failure of intellect.

How?

He's calling the article out. The article is simply Conservative White Men bitching about how much everyone else bitches and how their voices arent heard, which is an absurdity.

Oh my. Poor white man! He sure has a lot to be angry over!

I mean those darn niggers stopped picking cotton for him, and they began to think for themselves! Outrageous.

And those red skinned savages! They are taking up so much of white man's land with their fancy "reservations". Surely they cannot be angry!

Or what about those wet backed spics. They cross that border there, and free load of poor white man. I mean, how about living with 23 other people in the same room? They have it good!

And those women. Don't get me started on women. Thinking they can go out of the house and make a living for themselves! Can you believe they still make 71 cents to every dollar a man makes? They have it fantastic!


White man should be angry! Look how good everyone else has it.

You... You didn't even start to read the article, did you? Most of the people probably didn't, but your entire post is just one big "Hey all, I'm smart enough to read 3 words and know the entirety of a post, so I don't have to think!". You entire post is just a complete failure of intellect.

I'm white. I'm not a male, but I am white. I cannot point to any instance in which being white has been a problem for me. Do you have examples of a level playing field being denied to white people?

Affirmative action. It is inherently a "non-level" playing field.

Affirmative action. It is inherently a "non-level" playing field.

The arguement could be made that minorities in this country often do not start on a level playing field, and affirmative action simply levels a playing field more than it was before hand.

Affirmative action. It is inherently a "non-level" playing field.

Now, I'm not going to say whether or not I disagree with you at the moment. What I am going to say is simply a request. Explain, in your own words, how affirmative action works.

Has anybody else noticed how the most Manly of Manly Men are always the biggest freaking cry babies?

And how the racists who most obviously despise the "lesser" ethnic groups are, themselves, amazingly weak and whimpering?

Maybe they're just projecting.

The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim.
...

He’s a man’s man
...
hang on. I thought the writer just said he wasn't gay!

He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.
His rules, His language. But he's not racist. riiiiiighht.

When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers.
Ironically, the person who made the decision to ship his job overseas would have been an Angry White Man, just like himself.

Affirmative action. It is inherently a "non-level" playing field.

The idea from most white people of a level playing ground is what we see now in America; inner cities full of poor minorities(yes some whites in the too, but mostly minorities), who can't get good paying jobs because of the lack of a decent education, or because of a quality of life that is very much so below American standards. So how is it level? Is the playing ground level because they now can vote, and participate in civic society? No, that made it level for that day and age. So, while white America is ever increasing in status and such, black America is being left in the 1960s. And Americans think that the civil rights era was all the blacks needed to be level. But no one can be level when one group is inherently in the ghetto all their life, and the other group is in the suburbs. It just doesn't work. As white America progresses, we need to make sure that black America, along with all the other minority groups, also progresses at an equal pace. Affirmative action is a program which seeks to create a level field for minorities to compete within the society. However, I do believe that it should be changed. A person of colour shouldn't get a job, just because he/she is of colour. Instead, we need to focus on addressing the real issues, which are poverty, education, crime, and so forth. Make the field equal through progression in those areas.

Racist? No. Racialist? Yes. All I'm saying is that everybody should be able to celebrate who they are without being labelled a hatemonger. That's why I used it as an example where Whites were denied a right that others have. If we were all on a level playing field in terms of my example I think that every race should have a heritage group or no race have one.
Big difference though, you are IN the celebration of your race and culture. You live in a Western nation where the majority culture is White and most of the people you meet on a day to day basis are also White.

In Japan, I have yet to run into non-nationalistic Japanese celebration clubs for that reason, it's silly to celebrate what is on 24/7 as opposed to myself who does celebrate my Western culture because I am the odd man out now.

What bugs me about the article - and of all the comments I quite like the one that says Angry [insert racial group] Man is generally not a lot better, which is fair enough - but what bugs me is this idea that the good old White Man built America.

Well, the Chinese built your railroads, the blacks built your cars, the women raised the kids you sent to war and a lot of Native Americans died along the way, really, Angry White Man spent quite a lot of time simply ordering people around.

There's no doubt that plenty of white men are highly decent, upstanding members of the community but the type of guy who wrote this article is not one of them.

What bugs me is that it's defending a way of life that is built on myth, a Little Home on the Prairie idealisation of life from the generation that grew up watching it.

I'm just looking to stop the enormous posts as a product of failing to snip - think green and don't waste Internet space.

Think green on the internet - recycle your electrons.

This is causing some reaction among talking heads? Personally, as I read through it, I first thought 'well you have a point but, you know, elections do this.'

Reminds me of one that made the rounds a few years back. It usually went under the title "I am a BAD American, but the original version is below.

The lucky ones will be skinned alive. I shudder to think about what she'll do to Angry White Man.

Surely our Bottle wouldn't violate the animal cruelty laws by doing nasty things to her pet?

HALP! I'm white an beeing discrmnated agasnt!

:::Insert obligitory Monty Python reference here:::

Angry whiteman sucks.

BUT angry blackman,jewishman, <insert group here>ect... aint no fucking prize either.


Muhahahahah!!!!!!!!

Indeed so.

I think we must remember that no race will be extinct, unless there's lots of national disasters.

At the risk of opening this old discussion again, H. sapiens idaltu, the only other race of humans, is already extinct.

What bugs me is that it's defending a way of life that is built on myth, a Little Home on the Prairie idealisation of life from the generation that grew up watching it.
It's pretty much the same the world over though, lots of people view their history through rose colored glasses just so they can have pride in it.

Now, I'm not going to say whether or not I disagree with you at the moment. What I am going to say is simply a request. Explain, in your own words, how affirmative action works.

Any company (and the gov't itself) that is hiring for a position is required to interview a certain percentage of minorities. Or a certain percentage of the company has to be composed of minorities, I forget which one it is specifically, the point is that the minorities in question are not getting consideration solely based on their merit, but merely because they are minorities.

For 'Angry White Man', read 'Self Delusional Redneck'.

'Hurrrrr, I'm white and I make the country great, make everything the way I want it! Fuck them fags and illegals and liberals! Start pandering to me!'

Heh.. unfortunately there are too many of them. :(

Any company (and the gov't itself) that is hiring for a position is required to interview a certain percentage of minorities. Or a certain percentage of the company has to be composed of minorities, I forget which one it is specifically, the point is that the minorities in question are not getting consideration solely based on their merit, but merely because they are minorities.

Imagine! Government laws force, and I don't use that word lightly, they force white people to use the same public facilities as minorities - the bus, public restrooms, living quarters. Where's the choice in this so-called democracy here?

Imagine! Government laws force, and I don't use that word lightly, they force white people to use the same public facilities as minorities - the bus, public restrooms, living quarters. Where's the choice in this so-called democracy here?
I have no idea what that has to do with my post.

Any company (and the gov't itself) that is hiring for a position is required to interview a certain percentage of minorities. Or a certain percentage of the company has to be composed of minorities, I forget which one it is specifically, the point is that the minorities in question are not getting consideration solely based on their merit, but merely because they are minorities.

That's not how affirmative action works, sorry.

That's not how affirmative action works, sorry.

Well that's interesting, because according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action that is how it works. Maybe that's not the only way that Affirmative action is manifested, but it's one of the more common ways.

Well that's interesting, because according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action that is how it works. Maybe that's not the only way that Affirmative action is manifested, but it's one of the more common ways.

You should know Wikipedia sucks as a source.

People! People! I have a civilized solution to ALL our problems involving hatred. Everyone stop fighting and work cooperatively with each other in researching and developing space technology then after we succeed we can all go back to hating each other and each group can claim their own planet.
:p

I have no idea what that has to do with my post.

Clearly.

The point is that allowing those in power to freely make their own rules leads to segregation - to allow those in power to freely employ people leads to the domination of the White Boys Club that we've seen for centuries.

At some point, we have to force people together, to force the majority to be inclusive of the minority rather than exclusive.

To set quotas for employment means that no longer can people choose according to skin colour - not the other way around - because if you really think that employers give equal consideration on merit alone then you ignore the fact that upper management both in business and politics is not aligned with minority percentage of population, whether that's skin colour or sex, in America*. Either you conclude that those minorities are not worthy or that something is wrong with the system.

I'd say something is wrong with the system, that minorities need every leg-up that can get because, if left to the majority, nothing would change.

*if not many places around the world

You should know Wikipedia sucks as a source.

So? It's a source, if you want a more detailed account of what Affirmative Action is, do it yourself. It's not like it's a big secret dude.

Alright, fine. OED: affirmative action (U.S.), action taken to affirm an established policy; spec. positive action by employers to ensure that minority groups are not discriminated against during recruitment or employment.

An article on affirmative action: http://www.jstor.org/view/0092055x/ap040101/04a00020/0?currentResult=0092055x%2bap040101%2b04a00020%2b0%2cFFFF07&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26gw%3Djtx%26jtxsi%3 D1%26jcpsi%3D1%26artsi%3D1%26Query%3Daffirmative%2Baction%26wc%3Don

Here you go.

You should know Wikipedia sucks as a source.

Absolute rubbish, Wikipedia is perfectly good as a source.

You... You didn't even start to read the article, did you? Most of the people probably didn't, but your entire post is just one big "Hey all, I'm smart enough to read 3 words and know the entirety of a post, so I don't have to think!". You entire post is just a complete failure of intellect.

If anything, I would say Zilam read the article and gave a pretty nice synopsis of what essentially is being said in it. Did you read the article?

To set quotas for employment means that no longer can people choose according to skin colour - not the other way around - because if you really think that employers give equal consideration on merit alone then you ignore the fact that upper management both in business and politics is not aligned with minority percentage of population, whether that's skin colour or sex, in America*. Either you conclude that those minorities are not worthy or that something is wrong with the system.

I'd say something is wrong with the system, that minorities need every leg-up that can get because, if left to the majority, nothing would change.

*if not many places around the world
I do think that there is something wrong with the system, but affirmative action isn't the way to do it. Working to improve the starting position of those minorities who are disadvantaged would provide much more meaningful and lasting changes in the country.

That'd be a positive way to effect change, rather than one which causes friction between people on a touchy issue.

I do think that there is something wrong with the system, but affirmative action isn't the way to do it. Working to improve the starting position of those minorities who are disadvantaged would provide much more meaningful and lasting changes in the country.

That'd be a positive way to effect change, rather than one which causes friction between people on a touchy issue.

The two can go in tandem though - there's no use in providing a great platform if, once they get to the point where they can stand on that platform, they're excluded from jobs because of their skin colour, that they won't 'fit in'.

...and the starting point is not equal, so do we allow the vicious circle of denying access to higher education because of poor schooling in downtrodden neighborhoods, broken families due to a society bereft of equal opportunities, a history of oppression leading to broken pride?

Look, I don't imagine many minorities want affirmative action, they'd rather not be in the position of needing it. There's a debate among minorities as to whether it's disempowering, that it entrenches the idea that they're lesser beings - but they are in that position and so, while we look to create an equal starting position, there needs to be a force that pulls people up alongside a force that pushes people up.

You have a very limited vocab, don't you?

His use of the term bigot is apt. I see no reason why we should use thesauruses simply because you are tired of saying bigoted things and getting called on it.

That's like literally all you say.

"like literally" is a bullshit term. Something is either literal or it's not. Something that is "like" literal is obviously not literal. So what's the point? Just wanted an extra adverb in there? I think you first said "literally" but then realized that that would be too easy and simple to disprove so you added "like" as a weasel word.

"BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT!!!!!"

!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVESSSSSSSS!!!

I'm noticing histrionics, but it seems mostly to come from you. And while the poster you are responding to was responding with relevant comments with regards to the subject, all you are doing is criticizing him for a "limited vocabulary" and because your personal angst over how unfairly bigotry is treated. A pointless attack really, and as I have shown a completely illegitimate and meaningless one.

:rolleyes:

Indeed, quite so.

Wow...for someone who hates "poor me" whining bleeding heart liberals so much the angry white man sure does bitch a lot.

Yeah basically same kind of people aren't they. They're just a slightly different flavor of cookie...

Well that's interesting, because according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action that is how it works. Maybe that's not the only way that Affirmative action is manifested, but it's one of the more common ways.

Then Wikipedia is wrong. And it sure as hell isn't one of the more common ways, because quotas are against the law.

And no this article is not about bigotry. Bigotry is prejudice, he isn't prejudiced at all he just stated the special interests that politicians pander to constantly. If politicians pandered so blantantly to white men they would be called supremists and we all know that. It is about a man who is tired of being ignored. He feels he has no special interests and no one is listening to him. He also has no way to come to his point without someone crying foul about it. This thread is a perfect example of that quandry. It isn't popular to listen to any white man is it? Angry, frustrated, tired etc., numerous posts here act like a white man shouldn't have a complaint in the world. Why not?

He is complaining, he is railing while complaining. That is what everyone does is it not? Each one of the groups he mentioned from gays to evangelicals have all railed and complained and garnered the attention of politicians...with great success in fact. Yet how does the average white guy voice his complaints? Or as someone pointed out celebrate his very whiteness without being labeled something with a bad connotation?

Every post here that doesn't like this article is doing the exact same thing. He voiced his opinion. You all voice yours. What makes you think yours are any better than his in reality? :confused:

Damn good post.

His use of the term bigot is apt. I see no reason why we should use thesauruses simply because you are tired of saying bigoted things and getting called on it.



"like literally" is a bullshit term. Something is either literal or it's not. Something that is "like" literal is obviously not literal. So what's the point? Just wanted an extra adverb in there? I think you first said "literally" but then realized that that would be too easy and simple to disprove so you added "like" as a weasel word.



I'm noticing histrionics, but it seems mostly to come from you. And while the poster you are responding to was responding with relevant comments with regards to the subject, all you are doing is criticizing him for a "limited vocabulary" and because your personal angst over how unfairly bigotry is treated. A pointless attack really, and as I have shown a completely illegitimate and meaningless one.



Indeed, quite so.

I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree. In reality the word "bigot" means absolutely nothing coming from him (KoL) in a post. I have not even been here that long and recognize his careless use has rendered it meaningless as far as his method of conveying a point. Everyone he doesn't agree with is labeled a bigot, or at least he has done it enough that it feels like that. I for one ignore his posts for the most part because it is more or less a cut and paste of the last one. Always the same thing...I don't agree so you are a bigot. And no it isn't always true, he just thinks it is.

I chalk it up to his youth and don't take issue with it. But I think I do understand AI's point. It gets old and redundant. Not to mention for my opinion, it really demeans the term. Everything someone says regarding race or culture that someone doesn't agree with is not indicative of bigotry. Sadly it has become the quick comeback for those who would rather be pissed off than carry on a conversation regarding different views. In KoL's case it is nothing more than emotional outburst and has no real meaning. He does overuse the word. And he isn't the only one either.

And no this article is not about bigotry. Bigotry is prejudice, he isn't prejudiced at all he just stated the special interests that politicians pander to constantly. If politicians pandered so blantantly to white men they would be called supremists and we all know that. It is about a man who is tired of being ignored. He feels he has no special interests and no one is listening to him. He also has no way to come to his point without someone crying foul about it. This thread is a perfect example of that quandry. It isn't popular to listen to any white man is it? Angry, frustrated, tired etc., numerous posts here act like a white man shouldn't have a complaint in the world. Why not?

He is complaining, he is railing while complaining. That is what everyone does is it not? Each one of the groups he mentioned from gays to evangelicals have all railed and complained and garnered the attention of politicians...with great success in fact. Yet how does the average white guy voice his complaints? Or as someone pointed out celebrate his very whiteness without being labeled something with a bad connotation?

Every post here that doesn't like this article is doing the exact same thing. He voiced his opinion. You all voice yours. What makes you think yours are any better than his in reality? :confused:

Affirmative action. It is inherently a "non-level" playing field.

Bullshit. Affirmative action seeks to create a level playing field. You mistaken if you think the playing field is level to begin with.

Any company (and the gov't itself) that is hiring for a position is required to interview a certain percentage of minorities. Or a certain percentage of the company has to be composed of minorities, I forget which one it is specifically, the point is that the minorities in question are not getting consideration solely based on their merit, but merely because they are minorities.

I'm tired and can't get into this fully now. BUT THAT SIMPLY ISN'T HOW AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WORKS.

This simply is not how affirmative action programs work:

I'm working from what programs are legally mandated and/or legally allowed.

Here are the U.S. Department of Labor's official definition(s):
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/fs11246.htm

Here are other official programs:
http://www.usd.edu/equalopp/definitions.cfm
Affirmative Action: Proactively hiring and promoting qualified individuals in protected groups such as minorities, disabled veterans, Vietnam-era veterans and women

http://www.unmc.edu/ethics/words.html
Affirmative action*. Positive steps to enhance the diversity of some group, often to remedy the cumulative effect of subtle as well as gross expressions of prejudice. When numerical goals are set, they are set according to the group's representation in the applicant pool rather than the group's representation in the general population. For example, a medical school with an affirmative action program would seek to admit members of an underrepresented group in proportion to their representation in the population of those who had completed pre-medical requirements and wished to attend medical school. Affirmative action should be distinguished from reparations.

http://www.wwnorton.com/stiglitzwalsh/economics/glossary.htm
affirmative action
actions by employers to seek out actively minorities and women for jobs and to provide them with training and other opportunities for promotion

http://www.kumc.edu/eoo/glossary.html
Affirmative Action: Good faith efforts to ensure equal employment opportunity and correct the effects of past discrimination against affected groups. Where appropriate, affirmative action includes goals to correct underutilization and development of results-oriented programs to address problem areas.

http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/GovAA/definitions.shtml
Affirmative Action: procedures by which racial/ethnic minorities, women, persons in the protected age category, persons with disabilities, Vietnam era veterans, and disabled veterans are provided with increased employment opportunities. This will also include programs for monitoring progress and problem identification. It shall not mean any sort of quota system.

http://www.malyconsulting.com/Resources/terms.html#AffirmativeAction
Affirmative Action (AA) top ^
Actions, policies, and procedures to which a contractor commits itself that are designed to achieve equal employment opportunity. The affirmative action obligation entails: (1) thorough, systematic efforts to prevent discrimination from occurring or to detect it and eliminate it as promptly as possible, and (2) recruitment and outreach measures.

Well that's interesting, because according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action that is how it works. Maybe that's not the only way that Affirmative action is manifested, but it's one of the more common ways.

Wikipedia is a tool. On some subjects it can be quite reliable. On others, not so much so.



I do think that there is something wrong with the system, but affirmative action isn't the way to do it. Working to improve the starting position of those minorities who are disadvantaged would provide much more meaningful and lasting changes in the country.

That'd be a positive way to effect change, rather than one which causes friction between people on a touchy issue.



Then Wikipedia is wrong. And it sure as hell isn't one of the more common ways, because quotas are against the law.

Exactly quotas are illegal. They are longer part of any affirmative action program.

Yet how does the average white guy voice his complaints? Or as someone pointed out celebrate his very whiteness without being labeled something with a bad connotation?

Every post here that doesn't like this article is doing the exact same thing. He voiced his opinion. You all voice yours. What makes you think yours are any better than his in reality? :confused:

If he was an average white guy complaining then you'd have a point - but he's not an average white guy:

He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.

That is pointing to a very specific type of White Guy, certainly not the average and certainly not the representative, his views are quite clearly aligned with a very specific type of white man...

....he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.

...who believes himself the hero, as though no one else of any colour nor creed is a police officer etc. The implications are clear...

He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.

...and very much shown right there.

Then Wikipedia is wrong. And it sure as hell isn't one of the more common ways, because quotas are against the law.

Certain agencies have had quotas in terms of aligning minority employees with population percentage, among them police agencies where the drive to recruit minorities has been pushed, both in the US and the UK - I can't speak for all countries.

Certainly not, as you say, the norm.

If he was an average white guy complaining then you'd have a point - but he's not an average white guy:


Actually I think he is more average than you are giving him credit. No one is all of the things he points out but his intent is to pull multiple types into his description. He did that very well in fact. By doing so he is describing a very large voting block in this country. A block that you do not hear complaining because as he points out...no one is listening and there isn't anyone to complain too. He is angry and he intends to show it at the polls. The "he" being any white male that adheres to any one or any combination of the things he describes.

Actually I think he is more average than you are giving him credit. No one is all of the things he points out but his intent is to pull multiple types into his description. He did that very well in fact. By doing so he is describing a very large voting block in this country. A block that you do not hear complaining because as he points out...no one is listening and there isn't anyone to complain too. He is angry and he intends to show it at the polls. The "he" being any white male that adheres to any one or any combination of the things he describes.

Well my point is that many of the views he's expressing are plain wrong and should be given no more pandering to than any other wrong opinion.

This is something I pointed to in my first post - at first I felt he was making a decent point but it quickly becomes apparent that he's writing from a very particular angle - a prejudiced, sexist and racist angle that he himself holds.

He's not talking about the average American guy who holds a myriad of views on a myriad of subjects, he's talking about his Klan.

The fact is that it's a barely concealed attack on Senator Clinton to be honest and although he states it's nothing to do with her being female, he's already shown his opinion on a female's place in society - guided by her man's man of a husband.

Angry white guy
biting the bullet
biting his tongue
biding his time
ringing the bell
stacking the deck
throwing the curve
drawing the line
all things being equal
all things being equal
all things being equal
they're not

Angry white guy
pounding the beat
pounding the man
beating the rap
digging the ditch
digging it deep
releasing the dogs
springing the trap
all things being equal
all things being equal
all things being equal
they're not
After all isn't God
an angry white guy?
angry white guy
angry white guy

After digging the gig at the pig we go hit the shindig
out in the burb-claves where the homes are big
and we're mixing it up and we're dancing it up
and a cocktail a cocktail I'm laughing it up
cause everyone there's just a little bit tight
and everybody's white
and they're leaning to the right
and that's when I hear you talking this shite
about those people in the ghetto
how they ain't living right
how they're LAZY down on the scary side of town
how it's their own damn fault
how they keep THEMSELVES down
and my wide smile became a frown
and I had to slip up your trip and lay it down.
This is a land of opportunity not a land of charity
and those who have immunity
wanna broaden this disparity
do you hear me clearly -
got some question about my clarity
am I too light to be so pious -
too white for this analogy?
well the great reverend so and so I know I'm not
but I recognize
all the breaks that I got
cause my skin gets me in
and my skin gets me by
and my skin helps me win
and I don't have to wonder why
there are some people who have to grow up
so much harder than I do
and If I grew up in the project
things might not be so cool
no matter how hard I worked,
no matter how much I did
to keep my language and color and heritage hid
so you ROLL up your windows
and pretend that you don't see them
then you LECTURE us all on equality and freedom
how I wish a dark skin would grow all over YOU
we'd see who's got the same opportunity as who

All things being equal
all things being equal
all things being equal
they're not
After all isn't God
an angry white guy?

Angry white guy
biting the bullet
biting his tongue
biding his time
ringing the bell
stacking the deck
throwing the curve
drawing the line
all things being equal
all things being equal
all things being equal
they're not

Angry white guy
pounding the beat
pounding the man
beating the rap
digging the ditch
digging it deep
releasing the dogs
springing the trap
all things being equal
all things being equal
all things being equal
they're not
After all isn't God
an angry white guy?
angry white guy
angry white guy

After digging the gig at the pig we go hit the shindig
out in the burb-claves where the homes are big
and we're mixing it up and we're dancing it up
and a cocktail a cocktail I'm laughing it up
cause everyone there's just a little bit tight
and everybody's white
and they're leaning to the right
and that's when I hear you talking this shite
about those people in the ghetto
how they ain't living right
how they're LAZY down on the scary side of town
how it's their own damn fault
how they keep THEMSELVES down
and my wide smile became a frown
and I had to slip up your trip and lay it down.
This is a land of opportunity not a land of charity
and those who have immunity
wanna broaden this disparity
do you hear me clearly -
got some question about my clarity
am I too light to be so pious -
too white for this analogy?
well the great reverend so and so I know I'm not
but I recognize
all the breaks that I got
cause my skin gets me in
and my skin gets me by
and my skin helps me win
and I don't have to wonder why
there are some people who have to grow up
so much harder than I do
and If I grew up in the project
things might not be so cool
no matter how hard I worked,
no matter how much I did
to keep my language and color and heritage hid
so you ROLL up your windows
and pretend that you don't see them
then you LECTURE us all on equality and freedom
how I wish a dark skin would grow all over YOU
we'd see who's got the same opportunity as who

All things being equal
all things being equal
all things being equal
they're not
After all isn't God
an angry white guy?That reminds me ... didn't Weird Al have a polka about this?

That reminds me ... didn't Weird Al have a polka about this?
I have a big ego and my name is Jim. And we're here to help sell beer.

Well my point is that many of the views he's expressing are plain wrong and should be given no more pandering to than any other wrong opinion.

This is something I pointed to in my first post - at first I felt he was making a decent point but it quickly becomes apparent that he's writing from a very particular angle - a prejudiced, sexist and racist angle that he himself holds.

He's not talking about the average American guy who holds a myriad of views on a myriad of subjects, he's talking about his Klan.

The fact is that it's a barely concealed attack on Senator Clinton to be honest and although he states it's nothing to do with her being female, he's already shown his opinion on a female's place in society - guided by her man's man of a husband.

Interesting I don't read it that way at all. Nor do I think just because I don't agree with someone's point of view that their view is automatically wrong. It is an opinion, how is an opinion wrong? Because someone declares it to be politically incorrect? Nah, that just gives people no outlet to be honest about their feelings nothing more. We all know the addage about opinions and what they are like. ;)

I don't think he is talking about any Klan of any kind. He describes a million different guys and different views. That is the point. It isn't one guy or one view. It isn't even two views in one guy. It is very easily most average white guys. Working hard, leading their families, lending a hand, doing the right thing, yet not being heard.

Not to mention you seem to believe that most women don't see their husbands as the head of the family? Women are more emotional as a rule. What did he say that was so wrong? That he considers himself more rational? LOL All hubby's think they are more rational than their wives. I know I have had three of the darn things. :p

I am surprised that you see it as a barely concealed attack on Sen. Clinton. I don't see any effort at all to conceal his disdain for her and what she stands for at all. I don't read it that it is because she is a woman, but because she has absolutely nothing to offer him.

Anyway just my thoughts. Thanks for posting this, it was interesting. I see what you are seeing I think, I just didn't get that on my reading of it. Laters.

I have a big ego and my name is Jim. And we're here to help sell beer.
o.9

Interesting I don't read it that way at all. Nor do I think just because I don't agree with someone's point of view that their view is automatically wrong. It is an opinion, how is an opinion wrong? Because someone declares it to be politically incorrect? Nah, that just gives people no outlet to be honest about their feelings nothing more. We all know the addage about opinions and what they are like. ;)

I don't think he is talking about any Klan of any kind. He describes a million different guys and different views. That is the point. It isn't one guy or one view. It isn't even two views in one guy. It is very easily most average white guys. Working hard, leading their families, lending a hand, doing the right thing, yet not being heard.

Not to mention you seem to believe that most women don't see their husbands as the head of the family? Women are more emotional as a rule. What did he say that was so wrong? That he considers himself more rational? LOL All hubby's think they are more rational than their wives. I know I have had three of the darn things. :p

I am surprised that you see it as a barely concealed attack on Sen. Clinton. I don't see any effort at all to conceal his disdain for her and what she stands for at all. I don't read it that it is because she is a woman, but because she has absolutely nothing to offer him.

Anyway just my thoughts. Thanks for posting this, it was interesting. I see what you are seeing I think, I just didn't get that on my reading of it. Laters.

Thanks for the considerate reply in return.

I certainly do believe that many, many women see their husband as the leader of the family, I believe many abused women feel they deserve it in some way, doesn't make it right.

I disagree with this article in the same way I would disagree with an article stating that the views of those who bomb abortion clinics are not being represented - this is an extreme example admittedly and, in terms of this article, we're on the fine line but it's a fine line that I think he crosses.

He could have made a considered article on the dangers of spending too much time pandering to special interests over the majority but:

a: if you listen to what both Senator Obama and Clinton are saying, they're mostly pandering to the middle classes in general, mostly stating that, for the last 8 years, the presidency has pandered to the rich and this needs to be changed.
b: he's then asking for them to pander to a special interest group in themselves, a particularly narrow-minded view of what America is and what it stands for.
c. I think that he's actually looking to confirm entrenched beliefs in a voter segment, a tactic used by all sides, beliefs that aren't necessarily true but conform to a deeply-held stereotype, implied in the idea of 'lazy, liberal judges' [abridged], which he attacks.

It may just be my opinion that this view is wrong, but I am fairly certain of what he's implying and I don't think every opinion is equal to be honest, a vast grey area to be sure but there are also opinions that we simply need to move past in this day and age.

Laters.

In a while crocodile :)

It is an opinion, how is an opinion wrong? Because someone declares it to be politically incorrect?
Try again, like using FACTS as a basis instead of "politics" ... see, it's more reasonable that way. If your opinion doesn't match facts, it's not a matter of being "politically correct" or any of those other helpful scapegoats - it's a matter of being wrong in everything other than your own inaccurate perception of things.

It is my opinion that the angry white men need to get over themselves. I'm a white man and I'm just fine with everyone having equal rights. He makes a couple of vague points--there's something in there about a level playing field, which I can agree with in principle(though he probably doesn't mean it the way I mean it)--and of course about the illegal immigrant situation, which IS a problem.

Unfortunately what little of value there is in that article is plagued by emotional drivel and outright sexism and possible racism. In other words, he's letting his anger control him rather than using his anger in the right way. If he wants to change things, he should do something constructive rather than rant in a newspaper.

I could not have put it better my self

Actually I think he is more average than you are giving him credit. No one is all of the things he points out but his intent is to pull multiple types into his description. He did that very well in fact. By doing so he is describing a very large voting block in this country. A block that you do not hear complaining because as he points out...no one is listening and there isn't anyone to complain too. He is angry and he intends to show it at the polls. The "he" being any white male that adheres to any one or any combination of the things he describes.I sincerely hope he isn't all that common, because he happens to be a misogynist, racist, narcissistic asshole. But, as you point out, it could be a group of people that share one or more of those traits. However, the idea that this means they all hate Hillary is rather silly. But the article writer already points out that all Angry White Men are more conservative than McCain. Claiming that the only reason you don't hear about them is essentially an exercise in cryptoanthropology.

I don't think he is talking about any Klan of any kind. Never heard of "Angry White Female" and her white nationalist website then, have you?

Big difference though, you are IN the celebration of your race and culture. You live in a Western nation where the majority culture is White and most of the people you meet on a day to day basis are also White.There's no such thing as "white" culture. North American Anglophone, European, or the individual European cultures, such as German, Welsh, Irish, English, Bavarian, or Spanish, but no "white" culture in the sense that there is a black culture (primarily because all cultural roots descendants of slaves had were severed, and thus their culture has developed independently and without real input from their original cultures).

America generally is a stronghold of the 'angry white man', the whole country practically is controlled by far-right-wing white men, all intensely nationalistic, extremely antagonistic to welfare and any 'infringements' upon the property which they gain by exploiting people, all are self-aggrandizing nuts who think their 'libertarian' views are the sum of all human knowledge.

You have a very limited vocab, don't you?

That's like literally all you say. "BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT!!!!!"

!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVESSSSSSSS!!!

:rolleyes:

Expect little else from the likes of him. They learn from the GT school of debating and argument, and therefore liberally and inaccurately spray their posts with "Nazi/Racist/Bigot" to countermand their logical shortcomings and ineloquence.

Affirmative action. It is inherently a "non-level" playing field.

It is because of a non-level playing field, yes.

Societal structure and institutional bigotry have both ensured that women and minorities have been largely been kept out of certain fields and away from certain opportunities. Focusing a little more on these groups in pushing those fields/opportunities is an attempt to make the playing field level.

Any company (and the gov't itself) that is hiring for a position is required to interview a certain percentage of minorities. Or a certain percentage of the company has to be composed of minorities, I forget which one it is specifically, the point is that the minorities in question are not getting consideration solely based on their merit, but merely because they are minorities.

Really? I'm sure you can point to the law that mandates this, then?

I do think that there is something wrong with the system, but affirmative action isn't the way to do it. Working to improve the starting position of those minorities who are disadvantaged would provide much more meaningful and lasting changes in the country.

And that is affirmative action.

For instance, members of the chemistry honor society at my alma mater used to go do science experiments for students in traditionally disadvantaged areas to keep them interested in science. That was affirmative action.

Members of the Society for Women Engineers (SWE) would go help students at an after-school science program with their projects. That was also affirmative action, as it was geared towards showing the students that women can succeed in a traditionally male arena.

And so on...

And no this article is not about bigotry. Bigotry is prejudice, he isn't prejudiced at all he just stated the special interests that politicians pander to constantly.

Exactly. He's whining that politicians are finally getting around to actually dealing with institutionalized bigotry, because it means he loses his privileged status.

People who whine about "special interests" and "special rights" make it clear from the beginning that they don't have the first clue what they're talking about. Equality is not a "special interest", nor is it a "special right" for anyone.

If politicians pandered so blantantly to white men they would be called supremists and we all know that.

Yes, well, if they were constantly reaffirming institutionalized bigotry to help white men, it would, that label would most likely be right.

It is about a man who is tired of being ignored. He feels he has no special interests and no one is listening to him. He also has no way to come to his point without someone crying foul about it. This thread is a perfect example of that quandry. It isn't popular to listen to any white man is it? Angry, frustrated, tired etc., numerous posts here act like a white man shouldn't have a complaint in the world. Why not?

He certainly shouldn't be complaining about other people finally getting the consideration he's always had.

Every post here that doesn't like this article is doing the exact same thing. He voiced his opinion. You all voice yours. What makes you think yours are any better than his in reality? :confused:

Because mine is actually based in reality. While I certainly have endured some level of institutionalized bigotry in my society because I am a woman - as a woman in a traditionally "man's" field, I have never had any troubles because I am white. I have never personally seen anyone held back or down because they were white or male. I'm sure it happens occasionally in very distinct subsets of society, but it is hardly a pervasive problem.

Actually I think he is more average than you are giving him credit. No one is all of the things he points out but his intent is to pull multiple types into his description. He did that very well in fact. By doing so he is describing a very large voting block in this country. A block that you do not hear complaining because as he points out...no one is listening and there isn't anyone to complain too. He is angry and he intends to show it at the polls. The "he" being any white male that adheres to any one or any combination of the things he describes.

What complaints do this voting block have that are distinct from the rest of the country?

Not to mention you seem to believe that most women don't see their husbands as the head of the family?

Indeed. These days, now that we're actually approaching equality, most women don't - at least not automatically.

The family has become much more of an equal partnership in most of our society, instead of a man ruling over the woman.

Women are more emotional as a rule. What did he say that was so wrong? That he considers himself more rational? LOL All hubby's think they are more rational than their wives. I know I have had three of the darn things.

Wow. All hubbys think that, eh? I'll have to tell my husband that, since no one has apparently told him.

Assuming that all men are sexist is rather insulting to men, don't you think?

Only if they've just been denied something they need I find.

Wow. All hubbys think that, eh? I'll have to tell my husband that, since no one has apparently told him.

Assuming that all men are sexist is rather insulting to men, don't you think?

Yeah, a lot of guys I know are going to be pretty shocked to hear that they secretly think their wives are inherently irrational... :rolleyes:

I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree. In reality the word "bigot" means absolutely nothing coming from him (KoL) in a post. I have not even been here that long and recognize his careless use has rendered it meaningless as far as his method of conveying a point. Everyone he doesn't agree with is labeled a bigot, or at least he has done it enough that it feels like that. I for one ignore his posts for the most part because it is more or less a cut and paste of the last one. Always the same thing...I don't agree so you are a bigot. And no it isn't always true, he just thinks it is.



You know why I use that term so much? Because I call out racism and prejudice when I see it, and there is a ton of that on this forum. And interestingly enough its all coming from the same people, a small but vocal group...who ironically are the ones bitching about me using the term "too much". If you hear or see the word directed at you or people who think like you a lot, then, well, thats something to think about.

Oh, and Im crushed that you ignore my posts:rolleyes:

Expect little else from the likes of him. They learn from the GT school of debating and argument, and therefore liberally and inaccurately spray their posts with "Nazi/Racist/Bigot" to countermand their logical shortcomings and ineloquence.

So, did you read my post a few spaces down where I critiqued the article and offered a more in depth opinion? Or did you just see me say bigot, and then see your compatriot TAI cry that the term hurt his feelings when used and like a good little lap dog rushed to his defense?

So, did you read my post a few spaces down where I critiqued the article and offered a more in depth opinion? Or did you just see me say bigot, and then see your compatriot TAI cry that the term hurt his feelings when used and like a good little lap dog rushed to his defense?

The problem is you are not even as credibly vitriolic as Greater Trostia. Inveterate arse that he is, at least he injects enough vehemency and polemic in a post to entertain me. You, however, seem to embrace an admixture of the vernacular and the immature, using any perjorative term you read today in school until it loses all meaning.

Your style and patronising tone is redolent of Harriet Harman or Baronness Warsi; you ought to be commended, I truly though they were uniquely vile.

The problem is you are not even as credibly vitriolic as Greater Trostia. Inveterate arse that he is, at least he injects enough vehemency and polemic in a post to entertain me. You, however, seem to embrace an admixture of the vernacular and the immature, using any perjorative term you read today in school until it loses all meaning.

Your style and patronising tone is redolent of Harriet Harman or Baronness Warsi; you ought to be commended, I truly though they were uniquely vile.

Im not here to entertain you. In fact, Ill take it as a compliment that I dont.

Ok, I understand. You have nothing to add to this conversation, just your typical attempt to flaunt your vocabulary (which does not impress me. Im intellectually secure enough that I dont need to constantly let people know I can use big words, its cute that youre not though) and personal attacks.

And here I thought maybe Id get you to voice an opinion of your own. Damn.

Im not here to entertain you. In fact, Ill take it as a compliment that I dont.

Ok, I understand. You have nothing to add to this conversation, just your typical attempt and flaunting your vocabulary (which does not impress me. Im intellectually secure enough that I dont need to constantly let people know I can use big words, its cute that youre not though) and personal attacks.

And here I thought maybe Id get you to voice an opinion of your own. Damn.

I did, some pages ago. That the likes of you chose not to consider a post that did not correspond to your stereotype of white men who support the proposition is not my concern.

I did, some pages ago. That the likes of you chose not to consider a post that did not correspond to your stereotype of white men who support the proposition is not my concern.



I see the white men this article talks about as egotistical hatemongers...and Id say that from what Ive seen from you, you in fact do conform to my stereotype of this Angry White Man.

I see the white men this article talks about as egotistical hatemongers...and Id say that from what Ive seen from you, you in fact do conform to my stereotype of this Angry White Man.

What actually is a "hatemonger", beyond an identikit leftwing perjorative term?

It is about a man who is tired of being ignored. He feels he has no special interests and no one is listening to him. He also has no way to come to his point without someone crying foul about it. This thread is a perfect example of that quandry. It isn't popular to listen to any white man is it?

Oh yeah, poor conservative white man. No one listens to him. His agenda is never made into law, and he is ignored in America.:rolleyes:

Angry, frustrated, tired etc., numerous posts here act like a white man shouldn't have a complaint in the world. Why not?

Are you serious? Tell me, what is a legitament complaint a white man can have about how he is treated in America, without asking for a privalged status?

I did, some pages ago. That the likes of you chose not to consider a post that did not correspond to your stereotype of white men who support the proposition is not my concern.


Well, white men who support the proposition (I think you're refering to the OP) tend to do fit a very specific description........as outlined in the OP

Expect little else from the likes of him. They learn from the GT school of debating and argument, and therefore liberally and inaccurately spray their posts with "Nazi/Racist/Bigot" to countermand their logical shortcomings and ineloquence.

Or could it be that somehow, despite your verbose and vexing post, your truly impeccable intellect, as evidenced by you usage of superior vocabulary, is incapable of ingesting and dissecting the sum of knowledge in his posts due to your lamentable inablility to think of persons, in laymans terms, "besides yourself." It is therefore a foregone conclusion that you are, in reality, in the depressing form of a bigot. My heart weeps at your saddened state of ignorance.

Me talk pretty too.

What actually is a "hatemonger", beyond an identikit leftwing perjorative term?


Urban Dictionary defines hatemonger as...


1.)A person who uses political beliefs or passions of any kind as a platform to express their hatred for another individual.

2.)A media personality who spreads hate under the guise of a political affiliation or a religous belief.

Or could it be that somehow, despite your verbose and vexing post, your truly impeccable intellect, as evidenced by you usage of superior vocabulary, is incapable of ingesting and dissecting the sum of knowledge in his posts due to your lamentable inablility to think of persons, in laymans terms, "besides yourself." It is therefore a foregone conclusion that you are, in reality, in the depressing form of a bigot. My heart weeps at your saddened state of ignorance.

Me talk pretty too.


There needs to be an applause smiley.

My nerdyness will have to sufice...


HEADSHOT:sniper:

Urban Dictionary defines hatemonger as...


1.)A person who uses political beliefs or passions of any kind as a platform to express their hatred for another individual.

2.)A media personality who spreads hate under the guise of a political affiliation or a religous belief.

Also known as.......*cue ominous music*

http://static.flickr.com/8/9826309_5fb9cd0eed.jpg

Urban Dictionary defines hatemonger as...


1.)A person who uses political beliefs or passions of any kind as a platform to express their hatred for another individual.

2.)A media personality who spreads hate under the guise of a political affiliation or a religous belief.

I stopped reading after "Urban Dictionary". Find a credible source and I'll take some notice.

Also known as.......*cue ominous music*

http://static.flickr.com/8/9826309_5fb9cd0eed.jpg


Thats funny, because when I first typed in hatemonger on Urban Dictionary, Ann Coulter was the first one that appeared:p

I stopped reading after "Urban Dictionary". Find a credible source and I'll take some notice.

*sigh*


Oxford Dictionary defines hatemonger as...

hate·mon·ger

One who incites others to hatred or prejudice

*sigh*


Oxford Dictionary defines hatemonger as...

hate·mon·ger

One who incites others to hatred or prejudice

Thankyou.

I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree. In reality the word "bigot" means absolutely nothing coming from him (KoL) in a post.

Your opinion is noted, but if you want to go on some attack tirade against Knights of Liberty, that's your own problem. Me, I'm saying that KoL is dead-on with his use of the term in this case. And that is sorta why you, TAI, and TBC can't even argue against it.

I have not even been here that long and recognize his careless use has rendered it meaningless as far as his method of conveying a point. Everyone he doesn't agree with is labeled a bigot, or at least he has done it enough that it feels like that.

Your feelings =/= reality.

I've disagreed with him and never been labeled a bigot. So of what relevance is your (mistaken) feeling and (incorrect) assumption?

I for one ignore his posts

Except when you feel the need to go on a tirade against him, apparently:

for the most part because it is more or less a cut and paste of the last one. Always the same thing...I don't agree so you are a bigot. And no it isn't always true, he just thinks it is.

I chalk it up to his youth and don't take issue with it. But I think I do understand AI's point. It gets old and redundant.

Bigotry, also, gets old and redundant. Perhaps what you are really tired of is the cause, not the symptom. TAI is a bigot and his disgusting trash is far more tiresome than one guy saying "bigot" enough so that you "feel" like he says it to everyone.

Everything someone says regarding race or culture that someone doesn't agree with is not indicative of bigotry.

Enjoying burning that strawman, are you?

Sadly it has become the quick comeback for those who would rather be pissed off than carry on a conversation regarding different views.

My my, an appropriate use of a single word seems to offend you very much.

In KoL's case it is nothing more than emotional outburst and has no real meaning.

I declare that your entire post is nothing more than emotional outburst and carries no real meaning.

And no this article is not about bigotry. Bigotry is prejudice, he isn't prejudiced at all he just stated the special interests that politicians pander to constantly.

Special interests like racist misconceptions, xenophobia and bigotry. It's relevant.

If politicians pandered so blantantly to white men they would be called supremists and we all know that.

Yes, that is why they try to be somewhat subtle about it. Apparently this kind of chickenshit bigotry fools some people into thinking "Gosh, this is not about bigotry at all." People like you who then pop out to harass Knights of Liberty for calling a bigot a bigot.

It is about a man who is tired of being ignored. He feels he has no special interests and no one is listening to him. He also has no way to come to his point without someone crying foul about it.

It's about a racist white man who hates dark-skinned immigrants who "take" "his" job. Maybe people cry foul about it because it's racist bigotry based on nothing but ignorance and - why, emotional outbursts.

This thread is a perfect example of that quandry. It isn't popular to listen to any white man is it?

It's not? Tell me something, what percentage of all actors and interviewees and guests and correspondants and people you see on TV and shows and media are white? How about on the radio? You're going to tell me no one listens to white people?

Bullshit. No one listens or takes seriously stupid bigots.

As it should be.

Angry, frustrated, tired etc., numerous posts here act like a white man shouldn't have a complaint in the world. Why not?

I'm not going to defend your vague conception of "numerous posts" when it has no bearing on my point.

He is complaining, he is railing while complaining. That is what everyone does is it not?

Your point? It's somehow not bigoted complaining, just because everyone complains?

Each one of the groups he mentioned from gays to evangelicals have all railed and complained and garnered the attention of politicians...with great success in fact. Yet how does the average white guy voice his complaints?

I do it by several methods, none of which include whining because I feel like I "deserve" a job while immigrants just "steal" a job; none of which include some long grocery-list of supposed traits that I'm to have simply because I'm white.

Or as someone pointed out celebrate his very whiteness without being labeled something with a bad connotation?

What kind of loser needs to "celebrate his very whiteness?" Maybe you could tell me what's good about racist pride. Tell me what I'm missing by not "celebrating" the color of my skin. I'm curious as to what great misfortunes I'll encounter by not being able to do so.

Of course, I can do so. You just want people not to label a bad connotation on it. This whole "rant" is because Angry White Man can't express his Angry Racist Feelings without being called an Angry White Racist Man. Well, boo-fucking hoo. "Wah, people call me a bigot." Yeah that's definitely on par with the civil rights movement. Freedom (from unkind thoughts!) for bigots NOW!

Every post here that doesn't like this article is doing the exact same thing. He voiced his opinion. You all voice yours. What makes you think yours are any better than his in reality? :confused:

My opinion is better because it is grounded in reason, logic, and a healthy worldview and because I can support what I say and because I'm not threadjacking with irrelevant whinings about vocabulary choices of other posters.

I guess I must be a race traitor or whatever.

I've disagreed with him and never been labeled a bigot. So of what relevance is your (mistaken) feeling and (incorrect) assumption?


Indeed, many disagree with me, often. Very few of them are bigots. There are a plethora of people here who disagree with me and I respect their opinions enough to actually consider them, and maybe *gasp* change my own based on their arguement.

Sadly, none of said people are racists or prejudice. Want to join the many and the proud, the intellectually respected? STOP BEING A GOD DAMNED BIGOT.

Expect little else from the likes of him. They learn from the GT school of debating and argument, and therefore liberally and inaccurately spray their posts with "Nazi/Racist/Bigot" to countermand their logical shortcomings and ineloquence.

I notice that it's mostly you and TAI who whine about being called bigots/nazis.

Coincidentally, you and TAI more than anyone else in this thread constantly post bigoted trash, and get called on it.

Pure coincidence though.

I'm sure that every non-racist on this thread will be agreeing with you. They just won't say it, because ... of, uh, another coincidence.

I notice that it's mostly you and TAI who whine about being called bigots/nazis.

Coincidentally, you and TAI more than anyone else in this thread constantly post bigoted trash, and get called on it.

Pure coincidence though.

I'm sure that every non-racist on this thread will be agreeing with you. They just won't say it, because ... of, uh, another coincidence.Actually, I'll admit that TAI and TBC get called bigots more often than they deserve. It does wear the meaning of the word down.

Is there a limit to how many times you can say that the sky is blue before it somehow becomes unfair or untrue or illegitimate to say? How many times is that exactly?Not how many times, but when. Sky's red at dusk and dawn.

Actually, I'll admit that TAI and TBC get called bigots more often than they deserve. It does wear the meaning of the word down.

Is there a limit to how many times you can say that the sky is blue before it somehow becomes unfair or untrue or illegitimate to say? How many times is that exactly?

Is there a limit to how many times you can say that the sky is blue before it somehow becomes unfair or untrue or illegitimate to say? How many times is that exactly?

42

2.)A media personality who spreads hate under the guise of a political affiliation or a religous belief.

Mike "Savage" Weiner, Bill O'Reilly, Fred Phelps, Jimmy Swaggart, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh ...

There is a great amount of interest in this year’s presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush.
....

There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.
Wait, let's get this straight: We should listen to a group of people who voted for GWB and now are telling us who to vote based on the ideal that said next president has to be a lot better than GWB?

They admit they got it horribly wrong last time but still feel it's their position to tell the rest of us who, and who not to, vote for this time round?

Why the hell should we listen to a group of arrogant morons?
Especially a group who don't even realise they're arrogant morons?

Wait, let's get this straight: We should listen to a group of people who voted for GWB and now are telling us who to vote based on the ideal that said next president has to be a lot better than GWB?

They admit they got it horribly wrong last time but still feel it's their position to tell the rest of us who, and who not to, vote for this time round?

Why the hell should we listen to a group of arrogant morons?
Especially a group who don't even realise they're arrogant morons?
FTW. Thank you. *bows*

Wait, let's get this straight: We should listen to a group of people who voted for GWB and now are telling us who to vote based on the ideal that said next president has to be a lot better than GWB?

They admit they got it horribly wrong last time but still feel it's their position to tell the rest of us who, and who not to, vote for this time round?

Why the hell should we listen to a group of arrogant morons?
Especially a group who don't even realise they're arrogant morons?They're not convinced they're wrong, they're trying to create common ground with everyone else first ("we all agree Bush sucked", "could be Rep, Dem, Green, or Lib", "AWM is not racist", etc.) before pulling of the real arguments. First create sympathy and have the person identify with the AWM before pointing out the AWM's actual agenda.

Really, I was going to comment, but this is pretty much exactly what I would say.
Woot!

Women are more emotional as a rule.

Well, except for all the manly emotions (like lust or rage) which men are completely and totally at the mercy of, which is why men are "naturally" more aggressive and sexual, right?


What did he say that was so wrong? That he considers himself more rational? LOL All hubby's think they are more rational than their wives. I know I have had three of the darn things. :p

What's the one constant in all your failed relationships?

You.

They're not convinced they're wrong, they're trying to create common ground with everyone else first ("we all agree Bush sucked", "could be Rep, Dem, Green, or Lib", "AWM is not racist", etc.) before pulling of the real arguments. First create sympathy and have the person identify with the AWM before pointing out the AWM's actual agenda.

Unfortunatly it took he took so long making people identify with the AWM that his actual point got almost completely lost. He also didn't do a very good job of getting me to sympathise/identify with him, but then I'm female, and gay so probably not the target audience

As a person who has anger issues and who is 'white', I object to this idiot speaking for 'Angry White Men'.

Because someone declares it to be politically incorrect?

"Politically incorrect" is a label used by people who know they're about to say something racist, homophobic, sexist, or otherwise stupid, and who don't want anybody to get to call them racist, homophobic, sexist, or stupid for saying it.

In other words, it's a cowardly shield used by losers.


He describes a million different guys and different views.

No, he doesn't. He takes his personal hangups and attributes them to an entire gender and ethnic group. He tries to blame his personal problems on his penis and his skin color.

Actually I think he is more average than you are giving him credit. No one is all of the things he points out but his intent is to pull multiple types into his description. He did that very well in fact. By doing so he is describing a very large voting block in this country. A block that you do not hear complaining because as he points out...no one is listening and there isn't anyone to complain too.

Wait, did you actually just claim that nobody is listening to white males complaining?

Seriously?

So the predominantly white, predominantly male pundit class is not paying attention to white males?

The mainstream media, owned and operated overwhelmingly by white males, is not listening to white males?

The government, which has been overwhelmingly dominated by white males for the entire history of this country, is not listening to white males?

The major industries, corporations, and financial interests in this country, which have always been and continue to be overwhelmingly owned and operated by white males, are not listening to white males?

Well, if you're right then we know exactly where to lay the blame: at the feet of white males, who heartlessly ignore the complaints of white males. The solution is obviously that white males should be removed from power and replaced with non-white non-males, so that white males can finally find a sympathetic ear for their grievances.

Unfortunatly it took he took so long making people identify with the AWM that his actual point got almost completely lost. He also didn't do a very good job of getting me to sympathise/identify with him, but then I'm female, and gay so probably not the target audienceThat's actually the point of it. You're not supposed to notice the original point that men are more rational than women, blacks are all criminals and incompetent, and a vote for Hillary is a vote for the devil. It's a viral means of pushing racist, misogynist, and victim-complex propaganda. It's aimed at independents that are willing to hear "all sides of the story" before making up their mind.

Wait, did you actually just claim that nobody is listening to white males complaining?

Seriously?

So the predominantly white, predominantly male pundit class is not paying attention to white males?

The mainstream media, owned and operated overwhelmingly by white males, is not listening to white males?

The government, which has been overwhelmingly dominated by white males for the entire history of this country, is not listening to white males?

The major industries, corporations, and financial interests in this country, which have always been and continue to be overwhelmingly owned and operated by white males, are not listening to white males?

Well, if you're right then we know exactly where to lay the blame: at the feet of white males, who heartlessly ignore the complaints of white males. The solution is obviously that white males should be removed from power and replaced with non-white non-males, so that white males can finally find a sympathetic ear for their grievances.
The reason that no one is listening to this class is because of the shame that many white people have for their history, and as a result an inability to think in terms which would make it seem like they are regressing, or that they haven't changed at all.

I'm not saying that the white population doesn't have a lot to be sorry for in this country or around the world, but just because minority groups have the ability to make a whole lot of noise when their needs aren't met doesn't mean that the white people who rush to meet those needs don't have their own to consider. There is just no way for a group of white people to get together and talk about racial issues without it being accused of being racist (and if there is, please tell me).

Now you could argue that all the things which this rant brings up aren't the "needs" of the white person, but merely what they would want in a perfect world. That may be true, but below most of these issues and requests is a desire for the basic respect that should be given to those people who have for the most part built up the country. I know that they have not done all the work by a long shot, but they were the leaders of it almost exclusively up until the civil rights movement (I'm not condoning this, but merely pointing out what the situation was).

That's actually the point of it. You're not supposed to notice the original point that men are more rational than women, blacks are all criminals and incompetent, and a vote for Hillary is a vote for the devil. It's a viral means of pushing racist, misogynist, and victim-complex propaganda. It's aimed at independents that are willing to hear "all sides of the story" before making up their mind.

I have to say I do think his point (when I finally managed to find it) is that a vote for Hillary is a vote for the devil because she supports affirmative action and affirmative action teh ebil!TM, the other points you mentioned more seemed to be a given and were more there to point his audience at east in a 'yes I too think like this but look it's OK and acceptable cos we're all victimised too' kind of way.

AWM needs to:

STFU and get some job skills

Calm down about Islam

Calm down about Hillary

Unknot his panties when he hears Spanish

Resolve his jealousty complex about lawyers (AWM likely cannont get an A average across 4 years of university, score 80th percentile on his LSAT, and have a wide range of other activities, in addition to passing bar exams and articles, and then practice for at least 10 years nefore being INVITED to apply for being a judge

I'm not saying that the white population doesn't have a lot to be sorry for in this country or around the world, but just because minority groups have the ability to make a whole lot of noise when their needs aren't met doesn't mean that the white people who rush to meet those needs don't have their own to consider. There is just no way for a group of white people to get together and talk about racial issues without it being accused of being racist (and if there is, please tell me).

Most of my friends are white. We get together and sometimes we talk about racial issues. No one has accused us of being racist.

Now you could argue that all the things which this rant brings up aren't the "needs" of the white person, but merely what they would want in a perfect world.

A perfect world is one which caters to the angry white man while ignoring other groups of people?

That may be true, but below most of these issues and requests is a desire for the basic respect that should be given to those people who have for the most part built up the country. I know that they have not done all the work by a long shot, but they were the leaders of it almost exclusively up until the civil rights movement (I'm not condoning this, but merely pointing out what the situation was).

And they should get respect for....enslaving and oppressing other people so that they could have all the credit for leading the country?

And what does this have to do with AWM whining about others fighting to get the respect he gets simply by existing as a WM?

The reason that no one is listening to this class is...

Thanks for not bothering to read the post you quoted.

"No one is listening" to white males? Who the hell is "no one"? The media, which is run by white males? The government, also run by white males? Commerce and industry, still dominated by white male owners?

White males have a disproportionate amount of control over what is seen and heard in public places and in major media. For the entire history of the USA, there has never been a time at which it was POSSIBLE to avoid listening to what white males have to say.


There is just no way for a group of white people to get together and talk about racial issues without it being accused of being racist (and if there is, please tell me).

I do it all the time. If you honestly can't think of a way for a group of white people to discuss important issues without being racist, then you've got problems far beyond the scope of what this thread can address.


Now you could argue that all the things which this rant brings up aren't the "needs" of the white person, but merely what they would want in a perfect world.

Or you could be accurate and point out that

1) The Angry White Male's desires are not needs at all
2) Nor are they even the desires of all white males
3) Nor would it be a perfect world if these desires were met


That may be true, but below most of these issues and requests is a desire for the basic respect that should be given to those people who have for the most part built up the country.

Laughable.

White males have not "for the most part built up the country." White males have not contributed any more, per capita, than any other demographic group in this country. Indeed, white males have reaped disproportionate rewards compared to every single other demographic group throughout the history of the country.

The Angry White Male is not asking for "basic respect," he's asking for a continuation of the unearned privileges enjoyed by white males throughout the history of this nation. He's not asking to be treated equally, he's demanding that everybody else get to the back of the bus and shut the fuck up about it lest they hurt his poor tender feelings.

Again, he's just a wimp and a coward who can't handle the fact that his penis and skin melanin content don't get him free cuts in line any more.

What's sad is that most white males don't buy any of this bullshit. Most of my friends happen to be white and male, and not a single one of them would be able to read Angry White Male's rant without busting out laughing. Angry White Male should really just be called Cranky Baby Boy. He's just a pissy little kid, and it's got nothing to do with his race or gender.


I know that they have not done all the work by a long shot, but they were the leaders of it almost exclusively up until the civil rights movement (I'm not condoning this, but merely pointing out what the situation was).
Forgive me for not being impressed. Yes, if you legally bar anybody who isn't white or male from leading, then the leaders will all be white males. Sorry, Angry White Male, but that's not a point in your favor.

If, after generations of white male rule, the Angry White Male is still feeling oppressed, then I guess that proves white males aren't fit to govern or lead any more. They can't even run a country without oppressing themselves! Best we protect the poor darlings from themselves, and let competent individuals run the show.

, but they were the leaders of it almost exclusively up until the civil rights movement (I'm not condoning this, but merely pointing out what the situation was).

So because you had to be white anglo-saxon and protestant to be in a leadership position, you get a medal because you were in a leadership position and were a white anglo-saxon protestant. Wunderbar.

What's sad is that most white males don't buy any of this bullshit. How exactly is that sad? I think that's great.

How exactly is that sad? I think that's great.

Sad for AWM. Not that any of us are hugely concerned with his feelings, but a little pity never hurt anyone.

Aaah, what a nice load of dribble that rant was :)

*Pets ranter*

The reason that no one is listening to this class is because of the shame that many white people have for their history


Really? White people are ashamed of theit history and cant take pride in it? With all due respect (and there is not much do in regards to this post) thats a load of steaming crap. Im taking a class next semester exclusivly on Irish History. I have taken classes on Russian History, many on German history, and almost all english classes that are not specifically "African American Literature" or something like that are on British, French or White American cultural history. American history classes are mandatory up till college, and even in then it hard to not take one. In closing, youre full of shit with comments like that.

Oh, and white men did not build this country. In almost all of the United States with the exception of the North East, the economy was built on slave labor or on immagrants from other areas like China working for what might have well been slave labor. In World War II, women kept the country going. Angry White Man has only given the illusion of being the maker of America because he managed to keep everyone else that didnt have a dick and wasnt white from doing anything but serving him. Sorry sir, not a point in your favor.

What's sad is that most white males don't buy any of this bullshit.

Sweetheart, Id hardly say thats sad;) I know what you mean, I kid.




EDIT: Hey, you know when Angry White Man said no candidate payed any attention to him? Thats actually wrong, not only because the only votes Republicans bank on are Angry White Man, Woman Who Submits to Angry White Man, and Devout Catholic Latino, there was one candidate that ran basically as the Angry White Man. His name was Ron Paul :p

Speaking of Angry White Men not receiving any attention, CNN International just devoted some time to the author of some book on them while talking about how all the minority votes are settled by now, White Men are the only demographic left up for grabs, and should now be courted...

Aaah, what a nice load of dribble that rant was :)

*Pets ranter*

Don't you mean "what a nice load of drivel that rant was"?
I reckon i could make a story about NSG adding in different messages from different issues, creating a picture of what each poster looks like by the way they post (i e compare them so some random animal or plant life or something like that).
I could make many fortunes.
hmmmm money, rymes with honey but one is sweeter than the other.
money money money, it's a rich persons world.

Well, except for all the manly emotions (like lust or rage) which men are completely and totally at the mercy of, which is why men are "naturally" more aggressive and sexual, right?


What's the one constant in all your failed relationships?

You.

Sorry to spam, but: you've got yourself a TG.

Really? White people are ashamed of their history and can't take pride in it?

To concept of shame or pride for your race or gender is absurd. That goes for whites, blacks, men, women or any other group.

Don't you mean "what a nice load of drivel that rant was"?
Dribble, drivel, either one will do :)

To concept of shame or pride for your race or gender is absurd. That goes for whites, blacks, men, women or any other group.

The same with receiving benefits as well.

Speaking of Angry White Men not receiving any attention, CNN International just devoted some time to the author of some book on them while talking about how all the minority votes are settled by now, White Men are the only demographic left up for grabs, and should now be courted...

Wouldn't it be hillarious if angry white man votes Democrat and all the inner-city Blacks, who are furious at Democrats for not doing anything effective about inner city schools despite promising to do so for the past 30 years, vote Republican! :D


NOTE: THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY GOING TO HAPPEN.





BTW: Knights of Liberty, hillarious edit making fun of Ron Paul! Thank you for that.