|
Effectronica posted:Looks like you're a philosophical zombie, and they really are able to be distinguished from human beings after all! Or you're accusing me of being actively racist, which is a cool thing to do in a discussion. When did you stop beating your girlfriend, SedanChair? If you're saying that it's impossible to engage with the concept of privilege, and to do so would usher in white genocide, I'ma call you racist. We can discuss how racist you are...
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 07:10 |
|
SedanChair posted:If you're saying that it's impossible to engage with the concept of privilege, and to do so would usher in white genocide, I'ma call you racist. We can discuss how racist you are... That's not what I said. Are you, perhaps, illiterate? I actually said it again, in slightly leaner language. Go back a page and scroll up and you will find it.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
ryonguy posted:Jesus loving christ. Seriously, are you that sheltered on-line? Twitter, tumbler there's a whole internet out there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Yeah that's hyperbole, try not to feel threatened by it. Effectronica posted:That's not what I said. Are you, perhaps, illiterate? I actually said it again, in slightly leaner language. Go back a page and scroll up and you will find it. So is it important to identify privilege or not? Don't get upset about what angry minorities say and concentrate on doing your job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:50
|
|
Balnakio posted:Seriously, are you that sheltered on-line? Twitter, tumbler there's a whole internet out there. Would you mind answering my question? Effectronica posted:Would you mind giving an example of how you feel people are calling for your extermination? Just for purposes of discussion. SedanChair posted:So is it important to identify privilege or not? Don't get upset about what angry minorities say and concentrate on doing your job. I literally do not see what this has to do with what I wrote, so I'm going to give you another chance to read it, and then I'm just going to treat you as delusional from here on out.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
Balnakio posted:Seriously, are you that sheltered on-line? Twitter, tumbler there's a whole internet out there. They aren't going to own up to anything, dude. They're just going to attack you now like the OP describes because you dared go against the hivemind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:51
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:They aren't going to own up to anything, dude. They're just going to attack you now like the OP describes because you dared go against the hivemind. Hey, would you mind answering my question? Effectronica posted:What are these left-wing ideas you consider attractive?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:So is it important to identify privilege or not?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So are we at the point now where we're unironically quoting /pol/? Depends on the post in question. It's not a pure borg-like hivemind of stormfront edgelords (usually) chomping at the bit to don a hood and lynch some browns, and sifting through the "gas the *ethnic group* race war now" posts takes a bit of time but wholly discounting people's opinion based on their choice of social media is...well, problematic  InsanityIsCrazy posted:While I cringe to see pol quoted unironically, I'll take that as the brokest of broken clocks. Most of /pol/ is poo poo but RadFems and the modern college leftist outrage mentality are seriously messed up. Hey there's poor people everywhere with no political power why not help them out a bit in tangible ways instead of raging against the patriarchy or white oppression on twitter?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:It doesn't matter. I find that people who say that could probably get through their lives without it mattering to them. However, that's a rather selfish way to live.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:56
|
|
Minarchist posted:Most of /pol/ is poo poo but RadFems and the modern college leftist outrage mentality are seriously messed up. Hey there's poor people everywhere with no political power why not help them out a bit in tangible ways instead of raging against the patriarchy or white oppression on twitter? How?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:Most of /pol/ is poo poo but RadFems and the modern college leftist outrage mentality are seriously messed up. Hey there's poor people everywhere with no political power why not help them out a bit in tangible ways instead of raging against the patriarchy or white oppression on twitter? lame internet people pointing out that other lame internet people are lame internet people is so loving boring
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:Most of /pol/ is poo poo but RadFems and the modern college leftist outrage mentality are seriously messed up. Hey there's poor people everywhere with no political power why not help them out a bit in tangible ways instead of raging against the patriarchy or white oppression on twitter? SedanChair posted:I find that people who say that could probably get through their lives without it mattering to them. However, that's a rather selfish way to live. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 06:01 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
ryonguy posted:I did, it's a lot of words for "slippery slope". Also, you're dumb. And smell like poop. It's not a slippery slope to point out the the logically consistent result of the stances you espouse. If you hold stances that argue for outcomes you find acceptable, this is a good sign you should question those stances. This is why the LGBT movement didn't argue that "anybody should be able to get married to anything" as their reason for supporting gay marriage, and if they had and someone pointed out that it meant they were arguing that people could marry their infant, toaster, or dog if they got their way, that would not be a slippery slope argument. That requires the point being that the thing someone is arguing for could lead to another thing both parties agree is unacceptable. "Two consenting adults should be able to marry each other!" countered with the same response would be a slippery slope argument, because the person in question isn't arguing for a solution they find acceptable, merely one that might lead to one (as the counterargument goes). You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing for a situation you find unacceptable. And your response to someone pointing out that the thing you are arguing seems to leads to an outcome you find unacceptable is not to refine (if you are communicating poorly) or modify (if your understanding is actually flawed) your argument, but to insult and mock them and accuse them of tone arguments. So let's step back. The current argument, as I understand it: One group claims that white people are inherently racist, and that we must fight to eliminate racism. Another group responds that this argument is either separatist or genocidal. As a member of the first group, do you recognize how they would come to this conclusion? How would you refine, clarify, or modify your statement such that the second groups criticism is not valid? This is not a tone argument. This is a content argument. They are not saying you are angry, or whining, or not being nice enough, they are saying you advocating either inaccurate or not-good things. (Specifically, judging by the tone of this thread so far, they are pointing out that this is a flaw in essentialism) Perhaps you are not in fact arguing essentialism. If so, your defense isn't insults, it's to inform them you are not arguing essentialism. Well, that or that your goal isn't to eliminate racism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:58
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:It's not a slippery slope to point out the the logically consistent result of the stances you espouse. If you hold stances that argue for outcomes you find acceptable, this is a good sign you should question those stances. This is why the LGBT movement didn't argue that "anybody should be able to get married to anything" as their reason for supporting gay marriage, and if they had and someone pointed out that it meant they were arguing that people could marry their infant, toaster, or dog if they got their way, that would not be a slippery slope argument. That requires the point being that the thing someone is arguing for could lead to another thing both parties agree is unacceptable. "Two consenting adults should be able to marry each other!" countered with the same response would be a slippery slope argument, because the person in question isn't arguing for a solution they find acceptable, merely one that might lead to one (as the counterargument goes). You're mistaking what I'm saying. I'm not accusing anyone in this thread, or anywhere else, of sincerely believing in essential racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/classism.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:So is it important to identify privilege or not? This is actually a good question. I'm about as leftist as they come (in the eyes of those who aren't adherents of the true leftist strategy), and I honestly don't know if it is. Can you point to victories that it has achieved, and meaningful social change? Has identifying privilege helped? If it's not a useful strategy, we should stop doing it. If it's only a useful strategy in a subset of situations, we should try our best to resort to it only in those situations. You apparently have thought about this quite a bit - do you think it is important? If so, why?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You're mistaking what I'm saying. I'm not accusing anyone in this thread, or anywhere else, of sincerely believing in essential racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/classism. I... didn't say you were. But okay, can you tell me what you were actually trying to argue?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Politics is about the distribution of power. (Call it privilege, if you want.) Who's got it, and who doesn't. That's pretty much it. So let's say that people holding the power are aware of their power. That means what? A politics focused on that alone will do nothing. I would also wonder how people in power use their "awareness" to reinforce their standing in the hierarchy. Like a major corporation using Third World charity to sell a product that helps reinforce a system of global poverty. That's what all this privilege-checking reminds me of. Not to indict people who are really trying to change things. But wearing your privilege-checking on your sleeve is just useless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:06
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I... didn't say you were. But okay, can you tell me what you were actually trying to argue? Well, I'm arguing that for various reasons, people involved in pop-leftism have begun espousing things that look like essentialism or lead to it, due to things like conflating privilege with all oppression, and so on. Then, I would go on to suggest that this is due to much of pop-left stuff being the blind leading the blind, with the main source of references being other pop-left websites and blogs, and that the only real solution is to promulgate rigorous theories that can be guiding lights for people to agree with, disagree with, cite, and build on. The issue then would be doing this. Easier than fixing poverty, but not so much a small task, and one fraught with elitism.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Can you point to victories that it has achieved, and meaningful social change? Has identifying privilege helped? If it's not a useful strategy, we should stop doing it. If it's only a useful strategy in a subset of situations, we should try our best to resort to it only in those situations. Just off the top of my head, abolitionism, ending Jim Crow, women's suffrage, the Chicano movement and LGBT rights.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I am unironically in favor of destroying the village of structural racism in order to save (some) of the people in it. Are there going to be casualties? Sure. There have always been casualties though, it's just that they were out of sight to the privileged. Quick question to you and anyone else with this line of thinking. "Why should I not stop you?" Also, in general, "why" is a question that most people are unprepared to answer, despite advocating for broad changes to society and civilization and the way people live. I think it's foolish at best to try to tell people that they should change the way they live, and the society they live in, but not have some sort of succinct way to tell someone why they should trust you and do as you say. I do not mean "why?" in the libertarian, "how do I profit/what's in it for me" sense, either, so don't try to run interference with that. I mean what principles guide this, what ends do you want to achieve, and how are your means remotely justified. Something tells me you can't tell me why I should let you "destroy the village." Or even what you want after you 'destroy' the badness you seem to think infects everything. Never mind the practical concerns of trying to face the USA head on with violence - you can't even justify it in terms of principle. Are you a teenager?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Just off the top of my head, abolitionism, ending Jim Crow, women's suffrage, the Chicano movement and LGBT rights.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Just off the top of my head, abolitionism, ending Jim Crow, women's suffrage, the Chicano movement and LGBT rights. "This massive national bloodbath is doing an excellent job of raising awareness of privilege." ~ Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:My head is exploding. The LGBT movement succeeded because heterosexuals checked their privilege? Baloney. Teach cops not to shoot black kids.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:It doesn't matter. Privilege is just "original sin" for the tumblr left, at this point
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:My head is exploding. The LGBT movement succeeded because heterosexuals checked their privilege? Baloney. Really? Why do you think all those straight people are voting for gay marriage now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Really? Why do you think all those straight people are voting for gay marriage now? Moral arguments that exist completely outside of privilege bullshit come to mind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Privilege is meaningful. White people have certain advantages that are almost entirely unavailable to other races. Heterosexuals are much more acceptable to society that homosexuals or bisexuals. It's just not everything.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:Moral arguments that exist completely outside of privilege bullshit come to mind. Like "I get to have the family I want, why shouldn't they"? That's called checking your privilege.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Privilege is meaningful. White people have certain advantages that are almost entirely unavailable to other races. Heterosexuals are much more acceptable to society that homosexuals or bisexuals. It's just not everything. It's not it's own end, it's something worth pointing out when someone goes "I got here all by myselfs." It's also not something only white men, or men, or whites, or whatever have, and it goes far beyond just race and sexual orientation. Money made a big difference in how privileged I am in my life, but nobody says check your bank account. That's a privilege people aspire to have, oddly enough!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Really? Why do you think all those straight people are voting for gay marriage now? This had the effect of changing straight people's feelings, but that was the natural consequence of a shift in material circumstances. We didn't tell straight people not to get married, or anything. Like "turn in your privilege."
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:16
|
|
Space Whale posted:It's not it's own end, it's something worth pointing out when someone goes "I got here all by myselfs." Those are just representative examples, duder. You don't need to be condescending.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Like "I get to have the family I want, why shouldn't they"? I thought it was "have the kind of family you want, and I have mine." Yanno, a moral argument to leave people alone unless you have a drat good reason to interfere with them? Also, no, I'm not sure how my bank account, skin tone, dick length, dick girth, height, known card tricks, hireability, sexual orientation, shoe size, posting career, skinniness, or education factor into this. Moral arguments are valid regardless of who says or who hears them. If I missed any privileges please let me know so I can keep a list. As a matter of fact, the concept of privilege doesn't really matter, at all, when I think about gay marriage!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Those are just representative examples, duder. You don't need to be condescending. That's more directed at the tumblrs who just go "CYP" at the drop of a triggerword. Sorry I vented at you!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
"Please don't talk about white privilege, it makes me uncomfortable to be reminded that my life is much better than other people's for no rational reason."
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Because gay people built their own communities, stood up for themselves, came out of the closet, and built a political power base. Because we learned to respect ourselves. So LGBT folks talked about their experiences and engaged in activism and built communities, and straight people educated themselves and became allies. That's really all checking your privilege is. I get this idea that you all have been really soured on the word "privilege" because you've heard it from so many people you consider laughable. But there's really no other way to do it. It has to be a process of collaboration between people who are dealing with oppression and people who have benefited from it or haven't had to think about it, but are trying to learn and grow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:"Please don't talk about white privilege, it makes me uncomfortable to be reminded that my life is much better than other people's for no rational reason."
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Privilege is meaningful. White people have certain advantages that are almost entirely unavailable to other races. Heterosexuals are much more acceptable to society that homosexuals or bisexuals. It's just not everything. Straight, white, AND male? Feels good, man.  Feels great being a social default. Doesn't mean its right, or okay, or sustainable (although I'm not complaining that it is). I still get nervous around cops, I try to obey the law and I don't make much money and I have to room up with people in low end housing. I don't feel all that privileged, and no one will care if I ask for help. It could be worse but it could be a lot better...for all of us.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:21
|
|
Space Whale posted:That's more directed at the tumblrs who just go "CYP" at the drop of a triggerword. Sorry I vented at you! NBD. SedanChair posted:So LGBT folks talked about their experiences and engaged in activism and built communities, and straight people educated themselves and became allies. That's really all checking your privilege is. You're turning privilege into something meaningless by making it cover virtually everything.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 07:10 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:"Please don't talk about white privilege, it makes me uncomfortable to be reminded that my life is much better than other people's for no rational reason." No, it's because I have money and I'm not seen as suspicious, but rather as trustworthy. Well, that and "ok, I checked them, now what?" usually results in "well that's it we dunno." I should add that I was a poor whitey privilege McGee for a long time and welp, wouldn't you know it, the privileges only kick in when you can buy things. And we all love to paper over class, don't we?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:22
|
|