Please help me understand. We are all against racism. May we use the word "anti-racist" to describe that without it being redefined as "anti-white"? Anti-whites are racist by definition. If you prefer "color-blind", that's fine, but I don't know that people like that word either.
What is the best word for being against racism that does not get one's position being confused with a racist position? You see the quandary.
Okay, thanks, I am happy to proceed on the truth of Yahweh, in love.
Yes, my statement is a quick overgeneralization meant to assist in unity. More accurately, the forum policy is "follow the law"; "they want you labeled by race" with "they" meaning "the true target"; and "no racism", a reporting rule. To be pedantic (again, meaning to assist), that means the forum is against racism and members that are not are subject to penalty.
So am I wrong to object to the idea that "anti-racist" should be redefined as "anti-white", or that "anti-white" is in fact a racist description? The fact that allegations of racism are typically not themselves made color-blindly is so glaringly obvious that it doesn't need these additional distortions to get people to see it. If I'm missing something obvious, I'd like to know!
Don't be so quick to prioritize unity. Discernment first.
2 Corinthians 6:14
Do not be unequally bound together with unbelievers [do not make mismatched alliances with them, inconsistent with your faith]. For what partnership can righteousness have with lawlessness? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?
So am I wrong to object to the idea that "anti-racist" should be redefined as "anti-white", or that "anti-white" is in fact a racist description?...If I'm missing something obvious
I found your initial comment sufficiently objectionable that I resist reading it in full now to confirm that you made an argument about the question you raise directly above. What you may be missing is that from the start you swept aside the subject of white genocide, thus demonstrating a lack of identification or sympathy with it, thus causing people to suspect you were in league with the people perpetrating it.
Oh, I see. Without sarcasm, it honestly never occurred to me that all the satanic child sacrifice we are fighting also qualifies as genocide; that's partly because I don't see God's plan permitting significant destruction of any major God-fearing race at this time in history.
However, being new to Q, what I've seen is that the child sacrifice is not excessively racially based; kids of all races are being trafficked. So there's another reason I didn't equate it with "white genocide". Further, we don't want to overcorrect and get called "white supremacists" either.
Genocide bad. Racism bad. Racism disguised as anti-racism bad.
So then, what I can affirm is that I do see accusations of racism and demands for reparations being unduly weighted in favor of and against certain races (and I am not myself charging racism simply by observing this fact about racial disparity). Then I can affirm that underneath this cover of "anti-racism" there is real death and destruction going on and it too may well be racially imbalanced. However, the absolutism in the OP is not backed by facts and we must be very cautious in this minefield to discern what the facts are before making up the memes.
I'd ask for statistics, but there's the overcorrection risk again because I don't think the Q forum should be redirected to overanalyzing the demographics of the destruction, rather than fighting it regardless of demographics. I chose to walk into this post, so I can see it through, but I hope what you have to say does include the idea that discriminating negatively against groups due to inborn traits is wrong (that is, we are all to be "anti" racism).
Please help me understand. We are all against racism. May we use the word "anti-racist" to describe that without it being redefined as "anti-white"? Anti-whites are racist by definition. If you prefer "color-blind", that's fine, but I don't know that people like that word either.
What is the best word for being against racism that does not get one's position being confused with a racist position? You see the quandary.
I didn't go further. If you love Yahweh, you love truth. Let's start by speaking the truth. Not everyone is against racism
Okay, thanks, I am happy to proceed on the truth of Yahweh, in love.
Yes, my statement is a quick overgeneralization meant to assist in unity. More accurately, the forum policy is "follow the law"; "they want you labeled by race" with "they" meaning "the true target"; and "no racism", a reporting rule. To be pedantic (again, meaning to assist), that means the forum is against racism and members that are not are subject to penalty.
So am I wrong to object to the idea that "anti-racist" should be redefined as "anti-white", or that "anti-white" is in fact a racist description? The fact that allegations of racism are typically not themselves made color-blindly is so glaringly obvious that it doesn't need these additional distortions to get people to see it. If I'm missing something obvious, I'd like to know!
Don't be so quick to prioritize unity. Discernment first.
2 Corinthians 6:14
Do not be unequally bound together with unbelievers [do not make mismatched alliances with them, inconsistent with your faith]. For what partnership can righteousness have with lawlessness? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?
I found your initial comment sufficiently objectionable that I resist reading it in full now to confirm that you made an argument about the question you raise directly above. What you may be missing is that from the start you swept aside the subject of white genocide, thus demonstrating a lack of identification or sympathy with it, thus causing people to suspect you were in league with the people perpetrating it.
Oh, I see. Without sarcasm, it honestly never occurred to me that all the satanic child sacrifice we are fighting also qualifies as genocide; that's partly because I don't see God's plan permitting significant destruction of any major God-fearing race at this time in history.
However, being new to Q, what I've seen is that the child sacrifice is not excessively racially based; kids of all races are being trafficked. So there's another reason I didn't equate it with "white genocide". Further, we don't want to overcorrect and get called "white supremacists" either.
Genocide bad. Racism bad. Racism disguised as anti-racism bad.
So then, what I can affirm is that I do see accusations of racism and demands for reparations being unduly weighted in favor of and against certain races (and I am not myself charging racism simply by observing this fact about racial disparity). Then I can affirm that underneath this cover of "anti-racism" there is real death and destruction going on and it too may well be racially imbalanced. However, the absolutism in the OP is not backed by facts and we must be very cautious in this minefield to discern what the facts are before making up the memes.
I'd ask for statistics, but there's the overcorrection risk again because I don't think the Q forum should be redirected to overanalyzing the demographics of the destruction, rather than fighting it regardless of demographics. I chose to walk into this post, so I can see it through, but I hope what you have to say does include the idea that discriminating negatively against groups due to inborn traits is wrong (that is, we are all to be "anti" racism).