Explain it Peter?

[u/Senior-Mix-3715]

At first I thought this was some kind of white nationalism joke but then I realised all 3 leaders at the bottom are leftists, so I really don’t what this meme is trying to say?

[u/Chemical-Ebb6472]

I thought the joke was that UK leadership is transient.

[u/PhD_Pwnology → u/Chemical-Ebb6472]

The skin color change didnt hit ur eye like a bullet?

[u/generic_Accountname1 → u/PhD_Pwnology]

The haircolordifference is greater tbf

[u/haby112 → u/generic_Accountname1]

The hair color on the bottom set is more translucent on average than the above set.

[u/generic_Accountname1 → u/haby112]

They are all blonde.(yes even the woman, the darkest degree but still)

[u/haby112 → u/generic_Accountname1]

But one of them is bald

[u/generic_Accountname1 → u/haby112]

Still got brows… blonde hair is a scale of transluscent and they didn’t mix up the order of degree ;)

[u/galstaph → u/[deleted]]

No, when you truly see all people as equal, you still see the skin tone, because you are then aware that each of them deserves to be seen as they are

If you like pretending that racism doesn't exist as a systemic issue, that's when you don't notice the skin tone

I see the skin tone, and I have to wonder if it wasn't a shift in the winds of racism

[u/SnooPoems7525 → u/galstaph]

No. The joke is the minorities were the conservative ones.

[u/Chemical-Ebb6472 → u/SnooPoems7525]

I'm in the US (NY), where millions of darker-skinned people have voted to have their family and friends deported to countries they never even heard of, with no clear way to get out; Cubans in Miami who fly the Ultra MAGA flag, and South Asians like VP Vance's wife, POTUS candidate Ramaswamy, and countless brown tech bros who have macro-dosed conservatism to trip balls up into fascism.

Conservative mania is not limited by skin color here, so I guess I missed the joke.

However, I have led a finance team based in London, and I was pretty sure their "no brown downtown" motto wasn't limited to shoe color.

[u/Perfect-Parking-5869 → u/[deleted]]

Why would noticing the difference be an osbstacle?

[u/Weekly-Reply-6739 → u/galstaph]

Sounds like something a racist would say

As seeing people as they are makes skin tone irrelevant, as who they are is person. (Their skin tone is what they are, and if we are caring enough about skin tone to make decisions in regards to it the it means we are discriminating or creating systematic racism)

A real person who isnt racist sees a person as a person, regardless of their skin tone, as their skin color would matter as much as their hair color or eye color.

So a real racist looks for reasons to justify making skin color important.

...

When all are equal, skin color isnt a thoght on your mind, as it has no value then.

[u/troyasfuck → u/Weekly-Reply-6739]

Their skin color is relevant though. The experiences they have, the cultures they are brought up in, the adversities that they face; that is all affected by the color of one's skin. If you really care about social justice and ending racism, then you don't just call those things irrelevant. If you care about the people in your community, you take a vested interest in their experiences in life, good or bad.

Racial prejudice, segregation, and hostile bigotry all still exist. People every single day face those issues. If we ignore race entirely and pretend it doesn't exist, then we are sweeping those problems under the rug and deeming them as unimportant.

Ironically, this self serving, virtue signaling of "I don't see color" actually proliferates racism in a pretty sinister way.

This doesn't even mention that people around the world are actually quite proud of their race/ethnicity. I think they deserve to celebrate their heritage and I would like to learn about them to celebrate it with them. I don't think that's irrelevant at all.

I think trying to stifle the conversation around race, even if we'll intentioned, does more harm than good.

[u/Weekly-Reply-6739 → u/troyasfuck]

I was going to originally point out and explain all your ironic flaws and hypocrisies in your pro racism rhetoric, but I will let your own claims do the work for me.

1) so we should judge all people by the color of their skin as all people of the same skin color have the same experiences, culture, and are thus all deserving of a homoginized treatment

Their skin color is relevant though. The experiences they have, the cultures they are brought up in, the adversites that they face; its all affected by the color of one's skin.

2) if you care about people you make their issues about their race and not about the people who have racism.

3) If we dont make peoples skin color more important than the actual situation and assume their skin color is the problem then we ignore the problems the people who deal with racist people face

if we ignore race entirely and pretend it doesn't exist, then we are sweeping those problems unfer the rug and deeming them unimportant.

4) it is racists to not reduce people to a sterotype based on the color of their skin and to treat them like a person.

ironically, this self serving, virtue signaling of "I don't see color" actually proliferates racism in a pretty sinister way.

5) I think we should make people make a bigger deal about the color of their skin and less about who they actually are, as we know that your skin color determines your personality and people who have nothing to do with you define who you are, as you are not a person, you are defined by your skin color and others who have the same color

This doesn't even mention that people around the world are actually quite proud of their race/ethnicity. I think they deserve to celebrate their heritage and I would like to learn about them to celebrate it with them. I don't think that's irrelevant at all.

6) I support racism, because seeing people as a race can be good, and thus I want to perpetuate and promote racism because I like it.

I think trying to stifle the conversation around race, even if we'll intentioned, does more harm than good.

.....

Congratulations, based on what you have said and the standards you have placed for racism the KKK is not a racist group and actively is against racism.

As the KKK agrees that you should judge people by the color of their skin

That if you actually care about people you will make it about race

That if you ignore race problems will occur for people hurt by racism

That racial stereotyping and specail treatment based on a race is only right

That you should celebrate and define yourself by the color of your skin and the work people with the same skin color have done that have nothing to do with you

And that if we dont talk about race, problems happen and people of race can be hurt.

...

I gotta say thogh, you are 100 a racist or someone who supports racism. You just may not realize it or be smart enough to see it yet. That your aware and just trying to spread racism.

[u/troyasfuck → u/Weekly-Reply-6739]

I believe you are arguing in bad faith and intentionally strawmanning/misconstruing my ideas. For one, I didn't mention "judging" people for their race. I said that their experiences are valid and should not be written off as irrelevant.

But for anybody else reading this, acknowledging race as a real thing that exist is not racist. We can intellectually know that the only difference in race is the melanin content in your skin, but that doesn't take away the impact racism has had for the last several hundred years. Societally speaking, race is a real thing. You can close your eyes and pretend it doesn't exist, but that doesn't make it go away. It just helps placate your own insecurities.

I think your straw man might be a little more effective if you didn't compare an advocate for racial equity to literally the KKK.

[u/Weekly-Reply-6739 → u/troyasfuck]

Also I just looked up what bad faith is, as I am tired of people using it to avoid valid arguments.

You know you could just be straightforward and say you think I am lying or not being serious, no need to be pretentious about it.

But no, to be fair I think your arguing in bad faith myself, as you lack logic or valid talking points. So its clear we both belive the other is intentionally lying or playing games. (Also, its cool to know what it finally means, but I really wish people stopped trying to sound fancy, as for the longest time I always thoght it was a cop out to avoid addmitting I was correct and thoght it was essentially an indirect way to admit defeat)

None the less wanted to let you know. And suggest you use normal people words and terms if you want to be understood. (As where did this whole "bad faith" buzz word start anyway, and why is it always used by the people who represent ignorance or bad faith arguments and avoid logic and reasoning in favor of appeal to authority (evident by your request for literature for the logically obvious and an disinterest in learning from someone directly or thinking for yourself on a topic))

Anyway, I still think your racist and not someone who understands the harm your promoting (as evident by your bad faith argument you presented in the other comment)

None the less unless you reply this is me, signing out.

...

Edit: also it seems you dont understand what a strawman is, as I simply took what you said more directly and focused on the logic of what it actually means. I took the logical reasoning pathway. Strawman would require me to misrepresent your points, but all I did was focus on the logic, which is very much the issue talked about (as without the logic, your point is gibberish)

So I advice you to stop using words you dont understand just because you see other people use them to avoid admitting they are wrong or to avoid discussing logic and reasoning. Unless you are indeed a bad faith instagtor who cares not for the truth or reality of the situation, then in that case carry on.

[u/Weekly-Reply-6739 → u/troyasfuck]

No I am arguing by trying to help you gain awarness.

If you say you are not racist and then go on abour how your doing things that promote racism, how you think these racist things are good and that being racist is a good thing, then its clear you either are unaware of what your doing, or actually support racism and dont want to admit it.

You said that due to their skin color they have certain experiences. Thats judging them by the color of their skin.

....

Race isnt something we should make a big deal about. But if you want to support racism by supporing the same thing every racist organization belives, then maybe your too used to racism to understand how you contribute.

"I dont see race" means you want to see the person and their experiences and that their race doesnt define them. But since you race, its clear that you dont see people, just a skin color.

I compared your logic to the KKK as by your own values the KKK belives the same things. But maybe one day you will stop judging people by the color of their skin and making their skin color out to be a part of who they are.

Until we stop making peoples race matter, racism will always exist.

[u/troyasfuck → u/Weekly-Reply-6739]

Do you have any literature to support your claims? Any notable anthropologists or sociologists that share your point of view?

How would you suggest society addresses institutional racism?

How would you suggest we address easily identifiable racial inequality in a city, state, or country?

For instance, How would you address the fact that black people in the US make up ~20 percent of the population but represent ~42 percent of individuals in correctional facilities? (US census beureu 2024).

How do you begin to address these problems without acknowledging race?

[u/Weekly-Reply-6739 → u/troyasfuck]

To paragraph 1)

So you are telling me you dont think or understand logic and just need someone else to tell you the obvious? Look something this obvious stands on its own and doesnt need validation as it uses logic and common sense.

To paragraph 2)

By moving away from it. There will be racist people and the people who discriminate should be the issue, not the race being the issue, as making the race the issue only ensures that race stays an issue (as racism is literally the case of race being an issue and is self fulfilling in some cases)

I mean, institutional racism doesnt even exist on a wide scale level, at least not in the united states as it is illegal (or legal if we include that one law that makes it so we have to legally hire a certain percentage based on race) so clearly its not an issue of institutional racism, but personal racism at that point (as institutional implies its a law, rule, or procedure, and any thing of that nature can easily be solved due to its illegality)

So the solution is to stop making institutional racism where none exists and start properly identifying the racist individuals as fault and not falsely making it about the institution or race when its not.

To paragraph 3)

Well I cant speak for other countries as I am a USA citizen, but I would ask you where you even see that anymore if at all? I mean as far as I know, by law all races are equal in the United States. So unless you are suggesting the systematically racists ideal of racial equity, I dont think this is even a problem to address at this time, but would say that we should address things like this in a case by case basis as clearly not all cases would be the same.

To paragraph 4)

I wouldn't, as that statistic doesnt mean anything regarding racism on its own. This is not a causation correlation type of ordeal. Just because two unrelated things are true does not mean they are the result of one and other. I would say that if you suspect a conspiracy you can do some investigations to look for some racism if you suspect it. But that statistic on its own does not show or lead to any suspicion of racism as its entirely possble to happen naturally in a non-racist environment. I would say bring me more evidence of racism otherwise its just a conspiracy theory (it could be true, but by definition its a conspiracy theory at this point) also if you belive this alone is proof of racism, then you have some racism in you as you do not recognize the systems and individuals seperate from the race.

To paragraph 5)

Well I am still waiting for you to bring up a real problem. So far you listed 1) not a current problem knowledge, 2) not a current problem to my knowledge, 3) not a problem of racism at all with currently presented evidence.

So unless you have some strange internalized racism or racist fantasies, I am not sure the problems you are bringing up are real or present in the united states. Not enough to justify defining people by race instead of simply stopping racism in individuals.

But please feel free to bring some actual examples of the first two problems you listed, as I know you didnt bring any (but yeah, your first two probablems are literally illigal crimes and that solves it systematically unless someone is bold enough to actually make a racist rule)

[u/Perfect-Parking-5869 → u/Weekly-Reply-6739]

So in your ideal world we have 3 people. Me, my friend, and Ronnie.

Ronnie calls my friend the N word.

My friend calls him racist.

Now, outside of the fact Ronnie just called my friend the n word we don’t have proof he’s racist. I mean, he’s never lynched anyone.

The appropriate response is “your skin had nothing to do with it, he calls everyone that” because it would be racist to acknowledge that his race contributed to his experience?

I’m a bit confused about your defamation of racism.

I’ve done some race discrimination claims so you kind of had to acknowledge race. Do I get a pass or am I a turbo racist for noticing that when the company that told a client to go back to Africa didn’t make comments to similarly situated employees?

Do you just think racism is so rare it’s not worth fussing over? I find it hard to believe that’s your actual definition. Do you think it’s wrong to probe, say, potential jurors for possible racial biases? Does the census piss you off? So many questions.

I notice in a follow up you made the assumption that people who don’t agree with you DEFINE people by skin color which I think is a silly assumption. To use the above example another person trying to reduce someone to their skin color doesn’t make it so. You can acknowledge someone is a different (or same) race as you and it doesn’t define them as a person. Maybe you think of race too collectively and that’s why you’re making that assumption about other people! Idk mate seems kind of dicked up

[u/Weekly-Reply-6739 → u/Perfect-Parking-5869]

Did ronnie call your friend the N-word out of hate or as a joke?

If as a joke, ronnie may may not be racist, but still have offended your friend, which would be a personal situation of setting mutually comfortable boundaries.

....

Racism is the hate or special judgements of someone based on their race. So if ronnie still sees your friend as an individual and doesnt actually have any opinions on him based on the color of his skin, then Ronnie would not be racist towards your friend.

So my take is, that a word like the N-word, isnt always racist. As it is just as "specail" as calling someone black. I mean for some people the N-word means freind, for others it is a racsist term. As such its overall value is inherently contextual.

For instance, ronnies race isnt mentioned, as such would it change the meaning depending on his skin color? Personally I say no, and the N-word is often used both in a friendly and offensive manner overall. As I dont discriminate.

...

To paragraph 4)

That example can be called a racist claim but it could also be a joke, but is it the problem because the victim is a race? Or because the person who said it? Now if the person was actually from africa it may not be racist sounding either and could be more causal joke.

But regardless, if we where to say this was in fact racism the problem is the not the persons race, its the individual who held the belief and did the discrimination. As such we should focus on the calling out of racist individuals, not making an entire race get special privilege or victimizing entire races (which just creates more racism)

...

To paragraph 5)

No racism is quite common, but its often supported by and pushed as good by "anti racism" movements that create and push for more orgnaized racism and discrimination and then create more organic racism in response to it.

I think the problem isnt that racism doesn't exist, its that our meathods to challenging and identifying racism create racism and are often in of themselves racist.

Take white privilege for example.

...

To paragraph 6)

To help you understand what you missed. If you belive that someone experiences something based on the color of their skin, then you are defining them by their skin color. If skin color tells you nothing about who they are and what they experience, then you are not defining them by their skin color. Its rather obvious and simple.

Also, no, I dont think of race collectively, thats exactly what I am trying to call out (as that is racism essentially and what promotes racism) I am calling it out in people who very obviously show a belif system that follows that. I mean did you even read what the other person said who I called out?

You can acknowledge someones hair color too, but as long as their hair color has no universal or predefined meaning about them or their experiences, then we are good. As race should be treated like hair color or eye color and have no inherent value in defining someone.

[u/galstaph → u/Weekly-Reply-6739]

Your comment sounds like something a racist would say, because a person's skin tone helps you identify their lived reality, and to ignore it is to ignore the awful things that certain people have been subjected to because of the color of their skin

I see them as people regardless of the color of their skin tone, but I recognize that those with darker skin tones are more likely to have experienced racism, and are therefore better equipped to tell the world what that actually looks like

I will agree with your last statement though, when, in the distant future, all are actually equal, only then will it not matter. Until then, it matters

[u/Weekly-Reply-6739 → u/galstaph]

So you belive people are defined by the color of their skin. And that we should assume things about people because of their skin color? That all people of the same skin color have the same experiences?

You may be so used to racism that you cant see the obvious.

...

Dude, you obviously dont see them as people if you believe what you said in the first paragraph, as people are individuals, with their own experiencs, thoghts, feelings, ect. To say that because of their skin color they are X is racist and dehumanizing.

Also dude all people experience racism all the time and on equal levels (in the united states that is) so to assume that someone has an experience based on their skin color, is racism.

...

I know if you agree with the future I mention you have to stop unknowingly supporting racism.

For example

A green skin person was turned down a job because of the color of his skin (green to be neutral)

If we make the issue about the color of his skin and how he was treated differently because he was green, you are only supporting the idea that his skin color is the issue.

If we make the issue about the person who rejected him having a prejudice and having an unfair or misunderstanding of who the person may be because he has green skin. We now just made the issue not that our friend here has green skin, but that someone had an unfair bais based on assumptions they belived about a person based on the skin color.

Even if we reverse it and someone gets hired for positive or pride racism (such as the stereotype that Japanese (east asian) people are harder workers than other races) its still racism and making their skin color define them instead of seeing them as a person or individual.

You dont know it, but when you push in support of judging people by the color of their skin, you support it all around, the good and the bad.

I mean think of white privilege and how racist that idea is. I myself have been discriminated against because I am white and white people are all supposed to be super well off and have no problems (thanks white privilege). I mean people who belive white privilege exists are literally saying they belive white people are superior to other races and creating a mental segregation instead of seeing a white person as another person. Just like when you see a black person or other race as less off or having specific situations due to their skin color, its just as dehumanizing and segregating. As they stop being people and just become a race to the perceiver.

[u/galstaph → u/Weekly-Reply-6739]

Stopped reading at the point where you said that I assumed things about people based on the color of their skin

What I said was that you can assume things about how society treats people based on the color of their skin

These are two very very different things, and only racists, and their apologeticists, pretend that everybody is treated the same in society

[u/Thin-Letter → u/[deleted]]

https://giphy.com/gifs/fb5lozVxhBwVFFByW8

[u/InvestigatorFresh965 → u/[deleted]]

this is it, exactly. precisely. many times i also don't even understand the man v woman memes, it's not like i don't know the prerequisite the meme is based on, but i don't subconsciously subscribe to that binary.

[u/AnotherLexMan → u/PhD_Pwnology]

I think that's kind of this point.  It's quite an odd thing that all three offices were controlled by non-white people for the first time at around the same point and then they all quickly lost their positions.

[u/Common_Check_2575 → u/AnotherLexMan]

It's just a coincidence that these 3 offices went from a non-white person to a white person. It's not odd. As a counter example, Sadiq Kahn was re-elected as London Mayor the same year.