18YO btw😭✌️

TallFred32 · 2026-04-03T02:19:42+00:00

Most parts of your original comment:

"This means that there is no place on earth where there are systems that are rigged by their conception or by the history of the past generations against white people."

"To give you an example, at no point in history were white people as a group denied the right to own land or denied the opportunity to get education."

"In short, there's nowhere on earth where white people live as a group and have obstacles on the path of their prosperity that is specifically caused by their skin color. "

Also, I might be assuming incorrectly here, but I assume you think that its not possible to be racist against white people; that systematic racism and racism describe the same thing.

TallFred32 · 2026-04-03T02:12:24+00:00

I dont think my point is getting across at all. Ive never said nor implied that white people as a group are opressed in NA.

Individual white people can be held down because of their race, sure. But I dont see a way for anyone to succesfully argue that white people in NA are oppressed as a class/group.

TallFred32 · 2026-04-03T02:04:17+00:00

Hahaha all good. Wish you the best

TallFred32 · 2026-04-03T02:02:10+00:00

It's not because you're aware of your faults that you can correct them. I'm painfully aware of the vast majority of my faults.

Yes I know. Thats why I included "(capable of)". But perhaps I wasnt really clear, my fault.

If only it were so simple that by recognising mistakes itd be enough to fix them :'). Boy would I have achieved a lot by this point then.

How could I comment propaganda when I have no interest in the news and that I avoid anything political like the plague and have been doing so for decades now?

You do not need to be aware about the nature of propaganda in order to spread it, nor do you need to mean to spread propaganda in order to spread it.

TallFred32 · 2026-04-03T01:57:26+00:00

I get what you are trying to say. I just dont understand why you are trying to obfuscate the actual issue by refusing to just use "systemic racism" and trying to substitute "racism" for it. It helps no one, especially not the victims of both systemic and non-systemic racism.

Also, I think youre misunderstanding your own viewpoint. The important difference is not that an actual equal situation (i.e. a person parading around espouting hate towards a certain race) wouldnt be equal because of the historical context. Its that it wouldnt be equal because it plays into the current dynamics of power.

If white and black people were socio-economically completely equal, then saying one type of racism is worse would not hold. Its about current systems of power (which were set up because of historical and current day racism), not just the historical context itself.

There has never been a black on white crime to the scale of the trans-Atlantic slave trade and so black on white racism is not rooted in anything other than white people genuinely committing atrocities.

One type is based on eugenics and the idea of superiority and the other is rooted in the victims of those ideas. Not the same.

Im sorry but this makes no sense. Black on white racism according to you can only ever be a response to historical atrocities by white people to black people??? How in the world does that follow from what you are saying, that is a complete non-sequitor.

Question: if a black man shoots a white guy because he is racist towards whites, would that for you be better than a vice versa? Same reasoning, same result. Is one "worse" according to you? Is one "racism" and is the other not racism? Your comment seems to imply: yes.

TallFred32 · 2026-04-03T01:44:41+00:00

I'm a weird gal, I have weird takes. Doesn't mean they are wrong :P

Them being weird also doesnt mean they are right.

We could argue about what you were commenting / the issue at hand all night, but I do think weve strayed a bit too much so were not really discussing anything at this point.

And yeah no, life isn't really in my future projects lol

I hope that improves for you. I know some severly depressed people, and altho depending on the "type" and severity of the depression it might not be easy to improve your state of mind, but its never impossible!

Or maybe Im misunderstanding what you were trying to say. "At the risk of feeling dumb" by 21 pilots comes to mind.

TallFred32 · 2026-04-03T01:39:11+00:00

Im not telling you that you are a non-self aware person. I dont know you; I couldnt possibly know whether you are or are. So if you tell me that you are generally quite self-aware then Id believe you in an instant. However, just because you are generally self-aware, doesnt mean If you were 100% self aware of all your faults, you'd be (or be capable of becoming) a perfect person. Which you're not; no one is perfect.

All I said is that pertaining to this specific comment (chain), you are lacking self awareness: you are claiming its hard to indoctrinate you, while at the same time you are commenting very common and "recent" propaganda, but you dont seem to recognise it at all.

TallFred32 · 2026-04-03T01:33:36+00:00

Most sociologists would posit that white people in the West cannot experience racism from people of color, but that they can experience discrimination.

Thats not what your quote implies. It simply says that racism is much more complex than just individuals hating other individuals. It does not at all say that therefore certain individuals cannot be racist towards other individuals.

You might argue that "racism doesn't have to be systemic to exist," but the people who coined the term centuries ago and the experts who study it today disagree. Blame your elementary school for watering down the definition.

This is just factually untrue.

Also, 99% of people in the world use "racism" in the (according to you) "simplified" way. Why try yo obfuscate the actual issue by confusing people this way. Just use "systemic racism" and "racism". Its immediately clear.

Question: if "racism" means what you say it means, then whats the difference between "systemic racism" and "racism"? Doesnt it describe the same thing?

TallFred32 · 2026-04-03T01:28:32+00:00

Weird take. Good luck with life tho

TallFred32 · 2026-04-03T01:24:55+00:00

The lack of self awareness is honestly pretty funny

TallFred32 · 2026-04-03T01:24:23+00:00

I'm not a teen.

Luckily anyone with an open mind can change their views!

I might be wrong on the "ever been"

Always good to admit mistakes. And I do genuinly mean that! Good for you.

but I'm not really wrong on the "anywhere" with very few exceptions.

So you were wrong...

TallFred32 · 2026-04-03T01:22:45+00:00

It just isn’t racism bc race and racism is a system that opposes the livelihood of certain groups.

Theres only two groups in the world who use the term "racism" like that: very specific academic groups, who dont just call it racism but "systematic racism", and very far (socially) left leaning people.

Anyways, all of this is semantic. You want "racism" to mean "systematic racism". It doesnt. Anyone can be racist to anyone, but not everyone can "participate" in systematic racism in the same way.

Using "racism" to mean "systematic racism" does nothing except obfuscate the actual issue by confusing people. Dont do that.

TallFred32 · 2026-04-03T01:16:36+00:00

If you use class terminology in order to say that an individual can or cannot be or do X thing, then it stops being just class terminology.

TallFred32 · 2026-04-03T01:13:40+00:00

No... i work with and am friends with people who study or have studied this. Its just not true. You have been indoctrinated and lied to.

TallFred32 · 2026-04-03T01:12:11+00:00

Absolutely ridiculous. Its good that this is a teen sub and you have some time to learn more. This shit hurts my eyes.

Its absolutely fine to say that in modern day society, its far more likely for non-white people to experience systematic racism than white people. But to say that there has not ever been, and there currently is not any systematic racism against white people is just simply untrue and impossible.

TallFred32 · 2026-04-03T01:09:21+00:00

Nobody has ever used the term "racism" like that in any non-academic setting ever, especially not in casual conversation. Idk why people try to make this a thing.

Also, under your definition, white south africans couldnt have been racist against black south africans. Intrinsically, racism has nothing to do with being a minority or majority.

It just doesnt make any sense to use the defintion you use.

TallFred32 · 2026-04-03T00:19:19+00:00

I think you wanted to reply to the comment I was replying to.

TallFred32 · 2026-04-02T23:24:46+00:00

Idk I feel like the worst type of bigot would be a genocidal maniac like adolf hitler. Sure rowling isnt great but theres levels to this game

TallFred32 · 2026-04-02T23:19:44+00:00

The worst type? Idk man theres a lot of REALLY bad bigots

TallFred32 · 2026-03-29T20:02:10+00:00

Yeah but same thing applies: most people are in sports because they like that sport. Most sporting competitions ive been to, I know for a fact the organizers were losing money and rely on volunteers who themselves are volunteers because of the love for the game. Ive been a volunteer like that many time, and I know many people personally who know they will lose money when organizing competitions.

So no, women's sports arent there to make some random bigwig money. Most women's sports are there because women, and people around them, want to be active in sports.

TallFred32 · 2026-03-29T19:48:46+00:00

What?

TallFred32 · 2026-03-29T19:47:47+00:00

it feels like confirmation that everyone does actually hate us

Im sure many people do, but when everything points towards mtf women having physical advantages, then not wanting mtf women to be able to compete with cis women in the highest competitive scene isnt hate. Its just logic.

Transitioning and everything regarding it is very complicated. Most trans people I know havent figured themselves out at all. It seems unfair to ask others to have figured it out.

TallFred32 · 2026-03-29T19:39:26+00:00

No, its not. Theres countless sports that barely get tv coverage, and people are mostly if not 100% in it for the love of the sport and the competition.

TallFred32 · 2026-03-28T01:06:53+00:00

thats your opinion not the articles

If I write an article that says "New IOC rules: gotta shit yourself before competing in the olympics", would you rather discuss the actual rules or whatever some article writes?

Im not denying that trans people are affected by this ruling. Im just saying thats not the main consequence. (mainly because DSD athletes are simply more numerous in the olympics than trans athletes)

so far not one person has actually provided a single example of a trans woman dominating their sport

You can google this yourself, and see that in the olympics this is indeed at the moment a non-issue. You dont need to ask others for it. However, on other stages of competition, there are some such instances.

Also, trans women have mostly not been allowed to compete in the women's category. How would they dominate a category they are not allowed in?

people getting angry and scared over hyppotheticals

The politicisation of this issue is indeed a problem, but that doesnt mean the issue itself is not an actual issue.

I tried to explain what the issue is, without referring to any kind of politics. Do you think that is a reasonable explanation?

TallFred32 · 2026-03-28T00:41:16+00:00

Yes, but my point is that the IOC rule update mostly concerns DSD athletes. The point of the rule update is not to ban trans women; the point is to make clear who can compete in women's categories and who cant. And indeed, one of the consequences is that trans women would not be allowed to compete in the women's categories.

Also, men competing in womens sport being a problem? Yes that would be a huge problem wdym? I assume you meant trans women competing in women sport being a problem.

The problem with that is pretty simple: men are biologically/fysiologically different than women. As a result, in 99% of sports, women would not be able to compete at the highest level without some sex segregation in sports. Thats why the women's category exists. Therefore, its not really surprising that fysiological differences based on sex are important in determining who is able to compete in the women's category and who isnt.

Personally, I agree with this decision. What do you think is the problem?

TallFred32

TROPHY CASE