Octopus Overlords

I'm getting a weird vibe from this white discussion.

Are Americans under some illusion that their country is no longer predominantly white? I mean, sure, there are other ethnicities in there, but it's not like any of them are challenging White for majority. It's not even close.

I'm dead serious. The push back for my white comments is a little perplexing. If you want to say that there is a large non-white population too, sure, that's true. You have over 300 million people. It's possible to have over 100 million non-white people and still be a predominantly white country.

Pointing at tiny countries as being more white than you are percentage-wise is a bit disingenuous, as it's fairly easy to keep a homogeneous population when the population size is small.

America is white. Any illusions otherwise are just that, illusions.

We can go over this again in 2 or 3 generations if you want.

GreenGoo wrote:I'm getting a weird vibe from this white discussion.

Are Americans under some illusion that their country is no longer predominantly white? I mean, sure, there are other ethnicities in there, but it's not like any of them are challenging White for majority. It's not even close.

I'm dead serious. The push back for my white comments is a little perplexing. If you want to say that there is a large non-white population too, sure, that's true. You have over 300 million people. It's possible to have over 100 million non-white people and still be a predominantly white country.

Pointing at tiny countries as being more white than you are percentage-wise is a bit disingenuous, as it's fairly easy to keep a homogeneous population when the population size is small.



America is white. Any illusions otherwise are just that, illusions.

We can go over this again in 2 or 3 generations if you want.

I can't speak for America but SE Michigan is a stew of ethnicities. I'd bet "White" is still the largest and probably by no small margin but I imagine if you mix all of the "non-white", ie Latino, Native American, Middle Eastern, Eastern, African ethnicities together they would out number "White"


http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/26163.html

... And I'd be wrong


54.7% of Wayne County identify as White. *shrug.*

GreenGoo wrote:I'm getting a weird vibe from this white discussion.

Are Americans under some illusion that their country is no longer predominantly white? I mean, sure, there are other ethnicities in there, but it's not like any of them are challenging White for majority. It's not even close.

I'm dead serious. The push back for my white comments is a little perplexing. If you want to say that there is a large non-white population too, sure, that's true. You have over 300 million people. It's possible to have over 100 million non-white people and still be a predominantly white country.

Pointing at tiny countries as being more white than you are percentage-wise is a bit disingenuous, as it's fairly easy to keep a homogeneous population when the population size is small.

America is white. Any illusions otherwise are just that, illusions.

We can go over this again in 2 or 3 generations if you want.

I'm not sure that people are arguing that America isn't more white than not. I think the rub came from your characterization that "America is just about as white and straight as it gets". People are pointing out that there are definitely places where it does get whiter and straighter.

LordMortis wrote:I can't speak for America but SE Michigan is a stew of ethnicities. I'd bet "White" is still the largest and probably by no small margin but I imagine if you mix all of the "non-white", ie Latino, Native American, Middle Eastern, Eastern, African ethnicities together they would out number "White"


http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/26163.html

... And I'd be wrong


54.7% of Wayne County identify as White. *shrug.*

If you take out Hispanic/Latino (which is classified as white for census purposes, for some reason I don't fully understand), it does go to 50%. Look at "White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2013".

GreenGoo wrote:

Max Peck wrote: Also, fwiw, Canada does appear to be a paler shade of pasty white than the USA.
(StatCan source)

Nox said it and I agreed with it. I don't think there was any confusion over how white Canada is. It's very.

I know, but I like facts and numbers as well as opinions -- 63% is not a minority and 80%+ is a specific flavour of "very"...

GreenGoo wrote:I'm getting a weird vibe from this white discussion.

Are Americans under some illusion that their country is no longer predominantly white? I mean, sure, there are other ethnicities in there, but it's not like any of them are challenging White for majority. It's not even close.

I'm dead serious. The push back for my white comments is a little perplexing. If you want to say that there is a large non-white population too, sure, that's true. You have over 300 million people. It's possible to have over 100 million non-white people and still be a predominantly white country.

Pointing at tiny countries as being more white than you are percentage-wise is a bit disingenuous, as it's fairly easy to keep a homogeneous population when the population size is small.

America is white. Any illusions otherwise are just that, illusions.

We can go over this again in 2 or 3 generations if you want.

The assumption that "white" is some kind of fixed definition is an illusion.

The Census Bureau defines White people as follows:

“White” refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East or North Africa. It includes people who indicated their race(s) as “White” or reported entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan or Caucasian.

By that definition Iran is 90% white.

In the contemporary United States, essentially anyone of European descent is considered white. However, many of the ethnic groups classified as white by the U.S. Census, such as Jewish-Americans,[citation needed] Arab-Americans, and Hispanics may not identify as, and may not be perceived to be, white.

The definition of white has changed significantly over the course of American history. Even among Europeans those not considered white at some time in American history include Southern Europeans (Turk,[citation needed] Italian, Spaniard, Greek, Portuguese, etc.), Irish people and Central Europeans (Germans, Poles) and Eastern Europeans (Russians) but mostly notably[citation needed] Polish people due to the Partitions of Poland.

Early on in the United States, white generally referred to those of British ancestry or northern (Nordic) and northwestern (British and French) European descent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_American

So lets look at how many are of British ancestry or northern (Nordic) and northwestern (British and French) European descent and I think you will find it is very close to 50%. Those are the people being referred to when someone gets called a cracker or is said to be born of "white privilege".

GreenGoo wrote:I'm getting a weird vibe from this white discussion.

Are Americans under some illusion that their country is no longer predominantly white? I mean, sure, there are other ethnicities in there, but it's not like any of them are challenging White for majority. It's not even close.

I'm dead serious. The push back for my white comments is a little perplexing. If you want to say that there is a large non-white population too, sure, that's true. You have over 300 million people. It's possible to have over 100 million non-white people and still be a predominantly white country.

Pointing at tiny countries as being more white than you are percentage-wise is a bit disingenuous, as it's fairly easy to keep a homogeneous population when the population size is small.

America is white. Any illusions otherwise are just that, illusions.

We can go over this again in 2 or 3 generations if you want.

I think the Gooey Confusion comes from a sampling error with all those northern states like the Dakotas and Montana that are still overwhelmingly white right on his border. But come to Colorado for an OO get together and lets talk again. At the school district I graduated from whites are now a minority with Latinos now in the majority. If you took a sample of 50-year-olds and up you would still find a white majority, but the change isn't coming in a few generations, it's happening with the young cohort generation right now. America's population is immense and only 60ish percent of that population if white, it's crazy talk to say we are a white population (and probably offensive to some folks). 40% of our population is non-white, that is not some tiny amount. Let's take 40% off your salary and see how significant you think that percentage really is, heh.

Rip wrote:One should note that those figures include many who the classification defies the assumed identity. A Palestinian or Egyptian American would be classified as white for instance. You can be white in the census and still be a minority.

Indeed. And quite a lot of people living in the country don't respond to the census, either, many of them various minorities.

ImLawBoy wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:I'm getting a weird vibe from this white discussion.

Are Americans under some illusion that their country is no longer predominantly white? I mean, sure, there are other ethnicities in there, but it's not like any of them are challenging White for majority. It's not even close.

I'm dead serious. The push back for my white comments is a little perplexing. If you want to say that there is a large non-white population too, sure, that's true. You have over 300 million people. It's possible to have over 100 million non-white people and still be a predominantly white country.

Pointing at tiny countries as being more white than you are percentage-wise is a bit disingenuous, as it's fairly easy to keep a homogeneous population when the population size is small.

America is white. Any illusions otherwise are just that, illusions.

We can go over this again in 2 or 3 generations if you want.

I'm not sure that people are arguing that America isn't more white than not. I think the rub came from your characterization that "America is just about as white and straight as it gets". People are pointing out that there are definitely places where it does get whiter and straighter.

This.

Zurai wrote:

Rip wrote:One should note that those figures include many who the classification defies the assumed identity. A Palestinian or Egyptian American would be classified as white for instance. You can be white in the census and still be a minority.

Indeed. And quite a lot of people living in the country don't respond to the census, either, many of them various minorities.

I'm going by stats on the internet. If those stats are wrong, well, how else are we going to know? By looking at our neighbours? By how many non-white people are on the bus with us?

If you guys know something that the stats do not, ok.

LordMortis wrote: I can't speak for America but SE Michigan is a stew of ethnicities. I'd bet "White" is still the largest and probably by no small margin but I imagine if you mix all of the "non-white", ie Latino, Native American, Middle Eastern, Eastern, African ethnicities together they would out number "White"


http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/26163.html

... And I'd be wrong


54.7% of Wayne County identify as White. *shrug.*

There are over 100 million non-white people in the US. That's a lot of not white people. My argument is not that there isn't other ethnicities on America. There are. A lot. Both in number of different ethnicities as well as number of people in those ethnicities, so I get that it can feel like white people are in short supply. As pointed out, my country is whitey mcwhitewhite and I see tons of different ethnicities every day.

ImLawBoy wrote: If you take out Hispanic/Latino (which is classified as white for census purposes, for some reason I don't fully understand), it does go to 50%. Look at "White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2013".

Some percentage of Hispanics are caucasian. I'm not a geneticist nor one who studies populations, so I don't understand the distinction either. That said, the people who want America to be "whiter and straighter" aren't going to understand the distinction either.

GreenGoo wrote:

LordMortis wrote: I can't speak for America but SE Michigan is a stew of ethnicities. I'd bet "White" is still the largest and probably by no small margin but I imagine if you mix all of the "non-white", ie Latino, Native American, Middle Eastern, Eastern, African ethnicities together they would out number "White"


http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/26163.html

... And I'd be wrong


54.7% of Wayne County identify as White. *shrug.*

There are over 100 million non-white people in the US. That's a lot of not white people. My argument is not that there isn't other ethnicities on America. There are. A lot. Both in number of different ethnicities as well as number of people in those ethnicities, so I get that it can feel like white people are in short supply. As pointed out, my country is whitey mcwhitewhite and I see tons of different ethnicities every day.

The point being if you stat throwing in other who really aren't "white" the numbers change. 8 Million Jews, 2 million arabs, and so on next thing you know that 100 Million is much closer to 150 million. The tipping point which is where we are or are at least very close to.

That's right, the ancient Egyptians weren't black. They weren't white either, mind you, but to presume that a culture has to be one or the other is to accept a racial dichotomy that white colonialists themselves invented for the purpose of sorting the world into "civilized" (white) and "savage" (colored) peoples. Most cultures in the world don't really fit neatly into either category: are Latinos white or colored? The answer depends partially on who's asking the question: most Latinos identify as white (both in the U.S. and Latin America) but most non-Latino Americans usually sort them as non-white.

The truth is that "white" is essentially a byword for "European" (sometimes northern European specifically) while "colored" basically just means everyone else. And these categories aren't static or unchanging either. In 19th century Europe, various ethnic groups were sometimes sorted into "more" or "less" white groups. According to many British anthropologists, the Irish were "less white" than the English. According to the Nazis, Slavic-speaking peoples like Poles or Russians were "subhuman" non-Aryans. Today, virtually all of these groups are considered "equally" white (and Jews, who weren't considered white at all, now often are).

Interesting article on the issue as it relates to movie portrayals.

http://observationdeck.kinja.com/no-egy ... 1665322870

It's also, when you get right down it, kind of imperialistic. Remember, separating people into groups like "white" and "black" or "colored" were ways for European colonialists to determine what rights certain people were entitled to (and more importantly, which people to deny rights to). Whether intentionally or not, the continuance of these categories, even by non-racists, continues to embody this. By separating people around the world into either white Europeans or dark-skinned people we're implicitly saying that the differences within the latter group are equivalent to the differences within the former group. And that's incredibly reductive.

Enough wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote: I'm not sure that people are arguing that America isn't more white than not. I think the rub came from your characterization that "America is just about as white and straight as it gets". People are pointing out that there are definitely places where it does get whiter and straighter.

This.

And that's fine. To a certain degree, I've been playing devil's advocate (well, not when I said I was being serious, but otherwise) but only partially. Lawbeef pointed at countries with like 5 million people in them. In my opinion that's apples and oranges, as your country is quite large both geographically and population. Certainly there are larger, but there are a lot more smaller. As the population shrinks, it becomes easier to find homogeneous groups. If we allow comparisons between different sizes of populations, how small are we allowed to go? Canada is 10% of the US, population-wise, and the countries Lawbeef mentioned at 1/6th the size of Canada. When the country being compared can fit inside NY and is outnumbered by that state too, the disparity makes the comparison useless. That's why I compared my household to the US. Eventually you get down to such a small population that the comparison is not only useless, it's absurd.

And for the record, I intentionally left some wiggle room in my original statement when I said "just about". That should have allowed for the nordic countries (and Canada) while still maintaining my point, but that was ignored or thought irrelevant I guess.

As for straighter, I'm with Nox. Chances are all population samples have similar homosexual stats. So good luck with "straighter" especially. That said, I realize that if everyone just went back in the closet those who want a "straighter" America would be happy. but fuck those people.

Rip wrote:
The point being if you stat throwing in other who really aren't "white" the numbers change. 8 Million Jews, 2 million arabs, and so on next thing you know that 100 Million is much closer to 150 million. The tipping point which is where we are or are at least very close to.

I'm not following. Are we supposed to be using some colloquial meaning of the word "white"? What white people are you talking about?

You want a bigger country for an example? Has anyone mentioned Japan with it's 98%+ Japanese population of over 125 million?

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote:
The point being if you stat throwing in other who really aren't "white" the numbers change. 8 Million Jews, 2 million arabs, and so on next thing you know that 100 Million is much closer to 150 million. The tipping point which is where we are or are at least very close to.

I'm not following. Are we supposed to be using some colloquial meaning of the word "white"? What white people are you talking about?

I guess it depends on context. That is the problem and why I don't really care for the term "white people" It is about as useful as the term "yellow people".

GreenGoo wrote:

Enough wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote: I'm not sure that people are arguing that America isn't more white than not. I think the rub came from your characterization that "America is just about as white and straight as it gets". People are pointing out that there are definitely places where it does get whiter and straighter.

This.

And that's fine. To a certain degree, I've been playing devil's advocate (well, not when I said I was being serious, but otherwise) but only partially. Lawbeef pointed at countries with like 5 million people in them. In my opinion that's apples and oranges, as your country is quite large both geographically and population. Certainly there are larger, but there are a lot more smaller. As the population shrinks, it becomes easier to find homogeneous groups. If we allow comparisons between different sizes of populations, how small are we allowed to go? Canada is 10% of the US, population-wise, and the countries Lawbeef mentioned at 1/6th the size of Canada. When the country being compared can fit inside NY and is outnumbered by that state too, the disparity makes the comparison useless. That's why I compared my household to the US. Eventually you get down to such a small population that the comparison is not only useless, it's absurd.

Per capita and percentage are the only way to compare countries with different populations. By your method, the only country that could compare to the US is the US since no other nation has the exact same population. This is absurd. Yes, America is the whitest of the American sized countries. WTF does that matter?

By your metrics, the state of Mississippi, which is around 40% black, is whiter than Iceland, which is 99% white. You would also say that the state of Georgia is "more predominatly black" than the nation of nation of Equatorial Guinea.

That's just being obtuse for the sake of it and brings zero to the discussion.

ImLawBoy wrote:

LordMortis wrote:I can't speak for America but SE Michigan is a stew of ethnicities. I'd bet "White" is still the largest and probably by no small margin but I imagine if you mix all of the "non-white", ie Latino, Native American, Middle Eastern, Eastern, African ethnicities together they would out number "White"


http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/26163.html

... And I'd be wrong


54.7% of Wayne County identify as White. *shrug.*

If you take out Hispanic/Latino (which is classified as white for census purposes, for some reason I don't fully understand), it does go to 50%. Look at "White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2013".

Not really, if I understand you correctly. The census documentation provides this definition: "Definition of Hispanic or Latino Origin Used in the 2010 Census “Hispanic or Latino” refers to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race." The category is then broken down into racial groups, with 53% of "Hispanic or Latino" identifying as "white".

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote:
The point being if you stat throwing in other who really aren't "white" the numbers change. 8 Million Jews, 2 million arabs, and so on next thing you know that 100 Million is much closer to 150 million. The tipping point which is where we are or are at least very close to.

I'm not following. Are we supposed to be using some colloquial meaning of the word "white"? What white people are you talking about?

I guess it depends on context. That is the problem and why I don't really care for the term "white people" It is about as useful as the term "yellow people".

Fair enough. The context in this conversation was making America "whiter and straighter again" I think. I would assume that means anyone who looks not non-white.

In any case this conversation can die as I think it's run out of steam.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Enough wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote: I'm not sure that people are arguing that America isn't more white than not. I think the rub came from your characterization that "America is just about as white and straight as it gets". People are pointing out that there are definitely places where it does get whiter and straighter.

This.

And that's fine. To a certain degree, I've been playing devil's advocate (well, not when I said I was being serious, but otherwise) but only partially. Lawbeef pointed at countries with like 5 million people in them. In my opinion that's apples and oranges, as your country is quite large both geographically and population. Certainly there are larger, but there are a lot more smaller. As the population shrinks, it becomes easier to find homogeneous groups. If we allow comparisons between different sizes of populations, how small are we allowed to go? Canada is 10% of the US, population-wise, and the countries Lawbeef mentioned at 1/6th the size of Canada. When the country being compared can fit inside NY and is outnumbered by that state too, the disparity makes the comparison useless. That's why I compared my household to the US. Eventually you get down to such a small population that the comparison is not only useless, it's absurd.

Per capita and percentage are the only way to compare countries with different populations. By your method, the only country that could compare to the US is the US since no other nation has the exact same population. This is absurd. Yes, America is the whitest of the American sized countries. WTF does that matter?

By your metrics, the state of Mississippi, which is around 40% black, is whiter than Iceland, which is 99% white. You would also say that the state of Georgia is "more predominatly black" than the nation of nation of Equatorial Guinea.

That's just being obtuse for the sake of it and brings zero to the discussion.

First, there is no discussion. We're addressing either a facetious comment or a racist comment (I don't remember which and I'm not going to check because it doesn't matter) about making America whiter and straighter. My comment was that it already is both of those things.

Then piles of back and forth. Bringing nothing to the discussion is pretty much exactly the plan from the outset. It was your pushing back that turned it into a discussion.

That said, I understand your point about countries being different sizes, but you don't seem to understand mine. While it is absurd to only compare countries of equal populations, it is equally absurd to compare countries with populations that differ by several orders of magnitude. Sure, you can use percentages, but percentages (just like any stat) are only useful with context.

I was forced into a devil's advocate position (which I don't regret) because of the absurd idea that America is not a white country. You suggested there were whiter countries, and, well, no shit. Some of those countries' entire populations can practically be found on a single family tree.

"just about as white and straight as you can get" I believe were my words. That Canada is whiter and straighter doesn't suddenly make America not "very white."

Methinks someone misses the halcyon days of their high school debate team youth...

GreenGoo wrote: First, there is no discussion. We're addressing either a facetious comment or a racist comment (I don't remember which and I'm not going to check because it doesn't matter) about making America whiter and straighter. My comment was that it already is both of those things.

Then piles of back and forth. Bringing nothing to the discussion is pretty much exactly the plan from the outset. It was your pushing back that turned it into a discussion.

That said, I understand your point about countries being different sizes, but you don't seem to understand mine. While it is absurd to only compare countries of equal populations, it is equally absurd to compare countries with populations that differ by several orders of magnitude. Sure, you can use percentages, but percentages (just like any stat) are only useful with context.

I was forced into a devil's advocate position (which I don't regret) because of the absurd idea that America is not a white country. You suggested there were whiter countries, and, well, no shit. Some of those countries' entire populations can practically be found on a single family tree.

"just about as white and straight as you can get" I believe were my words. That Canada is whiter and straighter doesn't suddenly make America not "very white."

It wasn't back and forth or piling on. It was just you making the ridiculous "devil's advocate" argument that America is as white as it gets so any notion that someone might want it to be whiter, say by deporting all Latinos, is crazy since such a person would find it impossible to do so. Since it cannot get any whiter. Supposedly.

But it can get whiter and other countries, regardless of their size, are examples of a less diversified population.


If I have a 64 ounce cup of half coffee and half cream and a 20 ounce cup of all black coffee, which is the blacker coffee? You'd say the 64 ounce cup since it has 32 ounces of black coffee. Someone who actually drinks coffee would say the smaller cup since it is blacker coffee. But you know that, surely.

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote:
The point being if you stat throwing in other who really aren't "white" the numbers change. 8 Million Jews, 2 million arabs, and so on next thing you know that 100 Million is much closer to 150 million. The tipping point which is where we are or are at least very close to.

I'm not following. Are we supposed to be using some colloquial meaning of the word "white"? What white people are you talking about?

I guess it depends on context. That is the problem and why I don't really care for the term "white people" It is about as useful as the term "yellow people".

Fair enough. The context in this conversation was making America "whiter and straighter again" I think. I would assume that means anyone who looks not non-white.

In any case this conversation can die as I think it's run out of steam.

Which is why I brought up the census issue. Iranians don't "look white" nor do Egyptians. If anything I think much of the USA is mixed race although many don't identify that way if they even know they are multi-racial.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

GreenGoo wrote: First, there is no discussion. We're addressing either a facetious comment or a racist comment (I don't remember which and I'm not going to check because it doesn't matter) about making America whiter and straighter. My comment was that it already is both of those things.

Then piles of back and forth. Bringing nothing to the discussion is pretty much exactly the plan from the outset. It was your pushing back that turned it into a discussion.

That said, I understand your point about countries being different sizes, but you don't seem to understand mine. While it is absurd to only compare countries of equal populations, it is equally absurd to compare countries with populations that differ by several orders of magnitude. Sure, you can use percentages, but percentages (just like any stat) are only useful with context.

I was forced into a devil's advocate position (which I don't regret) because of the absurd idea that America is not a white country. You suggested there were whiter countries, and, well, no shit. Some of those countries' entire populations can practically be found on a single family tree.

"just about as white and straight as you can get" I believe were my words. That Canada is whiter and straighter doesn't suddenly make America not "very white."

It wasn't back and forth or piling on. It was just you making the ridiculous "devil's advocate" argument that America is as white as it gets so any notion that someone might want it to be whiter, say by deporting all Latinos, is crazy since such a person would find it impossible to do so. Since it cannot get any whiter. Supposedly.

But it can get whiter and other countries, regardless of their size, are examples of a less diversified population.


If I have a 64 ounce cup of half coffee and half cream and a 20 ounce cup of all black coffee, which is the blacker coffee? You'd say the 64 ounce cup since it has 32 ounces of black coffee. Someone who actually drinks coffee would say the smaller cup since it is blacker coffee. But you know that, surely.

Particularly since half of the Latinos are whiteys in the census, so if anything deporting them makes us "less white"

Carpet_pissr wrote:Methinks someone misses the halcyon days of their high school debate team youth...

It's true, I do.

GreenGoo, I realise you're adamant that you made a pertinent observation, but your aberrant metrics are naught but twaddle, for reasons LawBeef clearly explicated above.

Just let it lie, mate. Your bumfuzzle isn't nearly as entertaining as Trump's.

LawBeefaroni wrote: It wasn't back and forth or piling on. It was just you making the ridiculous "devil's advocate" argument that America is as white as it gets so any notion that someone might want it to be whiter, say by deporting all Latinos, is crazy since such a person would find it impossible to do so. Since it cannot get any whiter. Supposedly.

But it can get whiter and other countries, regardless of their size, are examples of a less diversified population.


If I have a 64 ounce cup of half coffee and half cream and a 20 ounce cup of all black coffee, which is the blacker coffee? You'd say the 64 ounce cup since it has 32 ounces of black coffee. Someone who actually drinks coffee would say the smaller cup since it is blacker coffee. But you know that, surely.

You're being intransigent for no good reason.

If I pour you an irish coffee, with say whisky, baileys, some water because what the hell, it arrived on a boat and got past border patrol, and a big dollop of whipped cream on top, does it suddenly stop being coffee? Are there blacker coffees? Sure. So what. That doesn't make it not coffee. Is it "just about" as black a coffee as it gets? Perhaps not. that depends on how much whisky, baileys, water, and whipped cream I put in. Are you you going to spend 30 minutes arguing with your buddy that because you can order a coffee black that the irish coffee is somehow not basically coffee with some extra stuff thrown in?

If he said irish coffee and black coffee are the same, of course you'd argue. If he said irish coffee is "mostly coffee" or "basically coffee" would you brawl until he agreed that black coffee and irish coffee are nothing alike?

If you gave an irish coffee to someone who likes coffee and hates whiskey and they complained, demanding you make the coffee taste more like coffee, and you taste it and you can't taste the whiskey, aren't you going to laugh and say it *IS* coffee and you can't even taste the booze?

If you can't look at my comments in the context of "make America whiter" and understand what the qualifier "just about" means, and you insist on arguing with me over whether America could be whiter, well I don't know what to tell you, besides lighten up. Is there room for America to be whiter? Sure. Is America "pretty damn white already"? My answer is still yes.

Many of the whiteys in the USA are Irish Coffee Whiteys, so it appears you are ready to admit they aren't really whiteys.

Enough wrote:

Carpet_pissr wrote:Methinks someone misses the halcyon days of their high school debate team youth...

It's true, I do.

"What" is true, exactly?! And you "do" what now? What does "do" even really MEAN?!

GreenGoo wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote: It wasn't back and forth or piling on. It was just you making the ridiculous "devil's advocate" argument that America is as white as it gets so any notion that someone might want it to be whiter, say by deporting all Latinos, is crazy since such a person would find it impossible to do so. Since it cannot get any whiter. Supposedly.

But it can get whiter and other countries, regardless of their size, are examples of a less diversified population.


If I have a 64 ounce cup of half coffee and half cream and a 20 ounce cup of all black coffee, which is the blacker coffee? You'd say the 64 ounce cup since it has 32 ounces of black coffee. Someone who actually drinks coffee would say the smaller cup since it is blacker coffee. But you know that, surely.

You're being intransigent for no good reason.

If I pour you an irish coffee, with say whisky, baileys, some water because what the hell, it arrived on a boat and got past border patrol, and a big dollop of whipped cream on top, does it suddenly stop being coffee? Are there blacker coffees? Sure. So what. That doesn't make it not coffee. Is it "just about" as black a coffee as it gets? Perhaps not. that depends on how much whisky, baileys, water, and whipped cream I put in. Are you you going to spend 30 minutes arguing with your buddy that because you can order a coffee black that the irish coffee is somehow not basically coffee with some extra stuff thrown in?

If he said irish coffee and black coffee are the same, of course you'd argue. If he said irish coffee is "mostly coffee" or "basically coffee" would you brawl until he agreed that black coffee and irish coffee are nothing alike?

If you gave an irish coffee to someone who likes coffee and hates whiskey and they complained, demanding you make the coffee taste more like coffee, and you taste it and you can't taste the whiskey, aren't you going to laugh and say it *IS* coffee and you can't even taste the booze?

If you can't look at my comments in the context of "make America whiter" and understand what the qualifier "just about" means, and you insist on arguing with me over whether America could be whiter, well I don't know what to tell you, besides lighten up. Is there room for America to be whiter? Sure. Is America "pretty damn white already"? My answer is still yes.

Janey fucking mack.

Rip wrote:Many of the whiteys in the USA are Irish Coffee Whiteys, so it appears you are ready to admit they aren't really whiteys.

Possibly, but if we're going to exclude caucasians that "don't look like us" then we're going to have to include members of other ethnicities and races that "do look like us".

Given that the statement was racist in origin, I think as long as people looked white it would pass muster.

I'm curious what would happen if everyone behaved as a homogeneous culture but were different colours. That's a theme that pops up in sci fi sometimes I think. The future Utopia is not a Utopia because everyone is understanding of each other's cultures and differences (maybe star trek next gen?), but because everyone behaves the same. Sure people are different colours, but they think like I do and act like I do so it's all ok.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Janey fucking mack.

Go hIfreann leat

Let's shorten this up for you.

"just about". Ignore all my other responses and read those two words.

Your response was needlessly pedantic and overly precise about a colloquial comment about "making America more white", whatever that means.

Worse you've refused to bend even a little bit, insisting that there is no room for generalization or imprecise language on this very important topic of the whititude of America.

A little flexibility in communication would probably lower your blood pressure.

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote:Many of the whiteys in the USA are Irish Coffee Whiteys, so it appears you are ready to admit they aren't really whiteys.

Possibly, but if we're going to exclude caucasians that "don't look like us" then we're going to have to include members of other ethnicities and races that "do look like us".

Given that the statement was racist in origin, I think as long as people looked white it would pass muster.

I'm curious what would happen if everyone behaved as a homogeneous culture but were different colours. That's a theme that pops up in sci fi sometimes I think. The future Utopia is not a Utopia because everyone is understanding of each other's cultures and differences (maybe star trek next gen?), but because everyone behaves the same. Sure people are different colours, but they think like I do and act like I do so it's all ok.

Using your logic Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King were born white but now they are black and should be counted on the census as such. Hopefully you realize how ludicrous that is.

So I guess Michael Jackson died a rich white man?

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote:Many of the whiteys in the USA are Irish Coffee Whiteys, so it appears you are ready to admit they aren't really whiteys.

Possibly, but if we're going to exclude caucasians that "don't look like us" then we're going to have to include members of other ethnicities and races that "do look like us".

Given that the statement was racist in origin, I think as long as people looked white it would pass muster.

I'm curious what would happen if everyone behaved as a homogeneous culture but were different colours. That's a theme that pops up in sci fi sometimes I think. The future Utopia is not a Utopia because everyone is understanding of each other's cultures and differences (maybe star trek next gen?), but because everyone behaves the same. Sure people are different colours, but they think like I do and act like I do so it's all ok.

Using your logic Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King were born white but now they are black and should be counted on the census as such. Hopefully you realize how ludicrous that is.

So I guess Michael Jackson died a rich white man?

I have no definition other than what is used by the census. I literally thought I was applying your usage in the context of a "more white america". I asked you to define it but you didn't, so I guessed. It's not my definition. Do the people looking for a "whiter, straighter america" know what they mean by that?

I'm perfectly willing to use some other definition, but you seemed adverse to using the census definition so....? I realize now I can't magically read your mind so...what definition are you using, I ask again.

If your answer is "there is no definition" then that doesn't help much.

Rip wrote:Using your logic Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King were born white but now they are black and should be counted on the census as such.

You do know how they were counted on the census, right?

Carpet_pissr wrote:

Enough wrote:

Carpet_pissr wrote:Methinks someone misses the halcyon days of their high school debate team youth...

It's true, I do.

"What" is true, exactly?! And you "do" what now? What does "do" even really MEAN?!

Q: What's a debater's best pick-up line?
A: You spread, I'll extend, and we'll flow together, or if you are female: "Drop your briefs and watch me spread."

Q: Do you know why debaters are so good in bed?
A: Because they are cunning linguists!

I tried to join the local debate team but they talked me out of it.

This discussion at least has the virtue of not sounding like other Trump-inspired "Is America white enough??" threads no doubt multiplying across the internet.

Yeah, it's unique alright.

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote:Many of the whiteys in the USA are Irish Coffee Whiteys, so it appears you are ready to admit they aren't really whiteys.

Possibly, but if we're going to exclude caucasians that "don't look like us" then we're going to have to include members of other ethnicities and races that "do look like us".

Given that the statement was racist in origin, I think as long as people looked white it would pass muster.

I'm curious what would happen if everyone behaved as a homogeneous culture but were different colours. That's a theme that pops up in sci fi sometimes I think. The future Utopia is not a Utopia because everyone is understanding of each other's cultures and differences (maybe star trek next gen?), but because everyone behaves the same. Sure people are different colours, but they think like I do and act like I do so it's all ok.

Using your logic Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King were born white but now they are black and should be counted on the census as such. Hopefully you realize how ludicrous that is.

So I guess Michael Jackson died a rich white man?

I have no definition other than what is used by the census. I literally thought I was applying your usage in the context of a "more white america". I asked you to define it but you didn't, so I guessed. It's not my definition. Do the people looking for a "whiter, straighter america" know what they mean by that?

I'm perfectly willing to use some other definition, but you seemed adverse to using the census definition so....? I realize now I can't magically read your mind so...what definition are you using, I ask again.

If your answer is "there is no definition" then that doesn't help much.

My definition would be people descended of Nordic or European descent.

But what I really think is an expanded use of this.

Racial categories remain widely used in medical research, but this can create important problems. For example, researchers Raj Bhopal and Liam Donaldson opine that since white people are a heterogeneous group, the term white should therefore be abandoned as a classification for the purposes of epidemiology and health research, and identifications based on geographic origin and migration history be used instead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people