|
Have we established that privilege theory is correct but harsh language offends smarmy neoliberals yet
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:09 |
|
|
hepatizon posted:That seems more like outright racism than a strategic choice, though. If there were outspoken racists in second-wave feminism, then I condemn them too. It was a strategic choice. It was also the result of institutional racism. Just like trying to keep lesbian women from the women's movements of the 60s and 70s was a strategic choice ("we don't want people to think feminism turns women gay") rooted in institutional homophobia. Also the suffragettes were not second-wave feminists - I'm not sure if you meant to imply that or not. hepatizon posted:Like, it seems obvious that, just as an intersectional problem arises from separate problems, an intersectional solution also arises from separate solutions. You're misunderstanding intersectionalism. The nexus of two burdens (ex: racism and sexism) itself is a third burden (i.e., being a black woman). You don't need to ask people to split their identities to choose one problem only to address. Do you think Sojourner Truth should have nixed the whole "Ain't I a Woman" speech because she was only capable of dealing with one problem at a time, or because it was a distraction? hepatizon posted:It doesn't seem like the Russian Revolution had any lasting success in that regard. Overcoming centuries of oppression can be difficult, yes. While I wouldn't claim Soviet Russia achieved anything like gender equality, many women were instrumental in supporting it for reasons that were directly tied to feminism, like Kollontai, or the women in the bread riots. Of course, even that article you cited showed that women got suffrage, abortion rights, and legally-mandated maternity leave before women in America. Anyways, as far as other intersectional movements, MLK is another good example; he fought against racial and class-based oppression. Space Whale posted:This was their pithy dismissal of "y'all are assholes". I suppose we could expand into things like "even if someone doesn't agree with you 100% they're not wearing hoods and burning crosses" but that's probably for the secret advanced D&D. I honestly have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Space Whale posted:I know white people have it better than black people in the USA. I'm not upset when someone says that to make a point. So yeah, it does seem like you misunderstand the concept of privilege if you reduce it to "white people bad". White people are in no danger of becoming the despised victims of institutional oppression. You want people who bring it up to go gently caress themselves because you think they're being disingenuous or scoring points or what? I'd remind you that for some people this is a real-world problem and not an internet game. And again I have no idea what you're trying to say with your last paragraphs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Lightanchor posted:Have we established that privilege theory is correct but harsh language offends smarmy neoliberals yet Yep, and check out the new Mercury Grand Marquis because it's 1986.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I don't think this is accurate. I'd agree that the whole discourse surrounding 'privilege' has been used as a bludgeon to shut down actual debate but that doesn't mean it isn't addressing a real issue. "Privilege" doesn't do anything except of putting all these divisions in a spotlight and normalizing them. It doesn't offer any way or even hope of dealing with them. It discourages disprivileged groups from working together. This ensures the left will always be weak and susceptible to infighting, instead of posing any significant threat to status quo. You can't hope to organize anyone if you spend a significant amount of time on highlighting which subgroups of people you're trying to organize have it better than the rest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Lightanchor posted:Have we established that privilege theory is correct but harsh language offends smarmy neoliberals yet All it is a a rhetorical tool to explain structural oppression through individual experience. It is not a theory...it goes nowhere and if you want to apply it as a theory on a grand scale you have to necessarily talk about bullshit like attractive people privilege that no one wants to do and makes a mockery of serious analysis. The only use is to get people to understand how people get treated differently because of the power structures in society.. Basically being an empathetic person. If you are involved with left wing causes you should already be doing this poo poo and being patronized by fuckwits doing babies first sociology is annoying to socialists, communists, liberals, conservatives and anyone else who has put more than ten minutes of thought into this poo poo. But thanks for calling everyone who thinks you are an idiot a smarmy neoliberal...almost like you are doing exactly what the article says.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
sausage eyes posted:All it is a a rhetorical tool to explain structural oppression through individual experience. well your just going to drive people away from your cause with rhetoric like that
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Lightanchor posted:Have we established that privilege theory is correct but harsh language offends smarmy neoliberals yet This is ironic because privilege "theory" is the sort of thing neoliberalism loves in that it atomizes society and serves as a barrier to class consciousness
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:So yeah, it does seem like you misunderstand the concept of privilege if you reduce it to "white people bad". White people are in no danger of becoming the despised victims of institutional oppression. You want people who bring it up to go gently caress themselves because you think they're being disingenuous or scoring points or what? I'd remind you that for some people this is a real-world problem and not an internet game. And again I have no idea what you're trying to say with your last paragraphs. No, I dislike it when other people do exactly that and act like a dick because of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:well your just going to drive people away from your cause with rhetoric like that Privilege theory double agent outed. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:well your just going to drive people away from your cause with rhetoric like that Quick question: There's a situation where people say they're oppressed and are starting to act out. I'm not oppressed myself, but the situation means I have to make a decision on how to respond. Here are some options:
Most people seem to do the first. I'd like to do the second. I had stumbled into the third and got tired of it. Some people will pick that fourth option. That's another issue, though. If the issue is "I want to help," why not go where you're welcomed? I've seen comments where people say "we don't like it when a group we're a part of doesn't represent us enough or doesn't listen to us enough." Isn't a great way for that to happen is for people to split off and do their own thing away from you since they can't stand you? Seriously, why would anyone subject themselves to something they don't need to? If I care about fixing society, be it an issue of morality or fear of reprisal, I could go find other people with that motivation who won't irritate or frustrate me with their bullshit. I realize it's condescending to have a lot of people go "we wanna help but we can't stand you so we'll just do it from over here" but if more than a few people say they can't stand you, the problem might be you, not them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
it is my heartfelt belief that all of this handwringing about extremism, tone, and alienation is simply a red herring for the real issue modern leftists face: once you get through it all, learn the things you need to, and start seeing with both eyes open you come to the crushing realization that the world is already over and the fight was decisively lost long before you ever had a chance to join it
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
Dazzling Addar posted:it is my heartfelt belief that all of this handwringing about extremism, tone, and alienation is simply a red herring for the real issue modern leftists face: once you get through it all, learn the things you need to, and start seeing with both eyes open you come to the crushing realization that the world is already over and the fight was decisively lost long before you ever had a chance to join it Hey, why can't I help piecemeal with better company than SedanChair?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:A very long post i dunno thats an awful long post could ou condensce it down to something more palatable for an average person whos surely just about ot come over to your line of thinking?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:i dunno thats an awful long post could ou condensce it down to something more palatable for an average person whos surely just about ot come over to your line of thinking? "If it's better in every way we take our ball and play on another court why wouldn't we" 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:"If it's better in every way we take our ball and play on another court why wouldn't we" some activist you are if you run off to you echocambernet the moment somene disagrees with you
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:some activist you are if you run off to you echocambernet the moment somene disagrees with you Marry me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:Quick question: You should not subject yourself to a situation where you feel unwelcome. Seek out situations & groups that do make you feel welcome, or at least have some kind of point to their confrontational attitude. You can get involved with the first, and maybe have a conversation with the second if you're willing to take a bit of hazing. Groups that are simply hostile for the sake of being hostile to you, the heinous oppressor of whatever, are probably not actually worth a drat. e. Hostility for its own sake is, to me, the starkest divider between activism and slacktivism. It's easy and it feels good. You don't have to do the hard part of activism - being willing to say the same poo poo over and over to people who maybe don't care or think you're a crank. Just find someone who disagrees with you, or even who is agreeing with you in the wrong way, and Strike a Blow Against Oppression. I'm not unsympathetic to people who do this: outrage is addictive and callouts let you feel like you're doing something without needing to subject yourself to the, frankly, awful no-good soul death that is political involvement. But it simply doesn't help anybody. Even Huey Newton was willing to sit down with white student radicals and say, hey listen our particular aspect of the movement isn't for you but please work with us in your own capacity. paranoid randroid fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Dec 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:No, I dislike it when other people do exactly that and act like a dick because of it. Do exactly "what"? The Insect Court posted:This is ironic because privilege "theory" is the sort of thing neoliberalism loves in that it atomizes society and serves as a barrier to class consciousness So you're saying white privilege doesn't exist or what exactly? Do you seriously believe that black people or gay people or women should set aside the issues that concern exclusively them in order to recognize that really, it's about class, and concerns about racism/homophobia are atomizing? I hope you don't, but that's what this post seems to be suggesting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:That just seems pragmatic, though. Broadening the goals of feminism would have diluted their message and efforts -- accomplishing a narrow goal is hard enough. It's suicide for a movement to try to be all things to all people. So you're saying when the labour movement got its big wins by selling out the black members of the movement that had gotten them that far, that was merely being pregmatic? Throwing an ally under the bus so you can climb their corpse to the thing you were supposedly helping each other achieve may be pragmatic, but its also reprehensible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:So you're saying white privilege doesn't exist or what exactly? Do you seriously believe that black people or gay people or women should set aside the issues that concern exclusively them in order to recognize that really, it's about class, and concerns about racism/homophobia are atomizing? These issues exist but privilege theory go about them in a unproductive, individualistic way; see the obsession with personal identity and individual states of being found in 'SJWs'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
goatse.cx posted:These issues exist but privilege theory go about them in a unproductive, individualistic way; see the obsession with personal identity and individual states of being found in 'SJWs'. Amateurs using rulers to measure their microdicks doesnt prove that math is useless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
Dazzling Addar posted:it is my heartfelt belief that all of this handwringing about extremism, tone, and alienation is simply a red herring for the real issue modern leftists face: once you get through it all, learn the things you need to, and start seeing with both eyes open you come to the crushing realization that the world is already over and the fight was decisively lost long before you ever had a chance to join it well if your goal is a utopian marxist revolution that will eliminate need and want forever yeah, because that's bith impossible and mostly unnecessary
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
katlington posted:Amateurs using rulers to measure their microdicks doesnt prove that math is useless. Under this metaphor, privilege makes for a poor ruler because its framing is individual- in other words, it is scaled at the microdick level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:So you're saying white privilege doesn't exist or what exactly? Do you seriously believe that black people or gay people or women should set aside the issues that concern exclusively them in order to recognize that really, it's about class, and concerns about racism/homophobia are atomizing? I hope you don't, but that's what this post seems to be suggesting. Racism was(and is) used to create a false sense of shared identity between poor whites and white elites so the latter court exert social control. That's hardly a novel or controversial observation. Anti-racism in the form of so-called privilege theory plays a similar role in creating an illusory connection between the black proletariat and the black haute bourgeoisie. It serves to create a form of false consciousness by pretending that Eric Garner and Henry Louis Gates or Barack Obama have meaningful shared interests.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 09:02
|
|
|
katlington posted:Amateurs using rulers to measure their microdicks doesnt prove that math is useless. Good ideas should be able to survive vulgarization, besides, it is hardly coincidence that so many 'sjw's and young activists 'misapply' privilege theory in precisely the same way. At the heart of privilege theory is the idea that privilege could only be revealed to the privileged individuals by listening to the personal experience of the unprivileged individuals - which, being subjective and easily distorted by memory, perspective and socialization, is not a good carrier of truth - and this all works towards a nebulous end, as the best those privileged could do upon realizing their privilege is to be more self-aware and try to check personally oppressive behavior, since them being 'white male' or whatever could never dissociate themselves from their role as oppressors. It's not a good theory and certainly not a good leading light for the left. goatse.cx fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Dec 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Racism was(and is) used to create a false sense of shared identity between poor whites and white elites so the latter court exert social control. That's hardly a novel or controversial observation. You mean the Henry Louis Gates that was arrested by a white cop for trying to get into his own house?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 09:48
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:well if your goal is a utopian marxist revolution that will eliminate need and want forever yeah, because that's bith impossible and mostly unnecessary i am personally more interested in a utopian world wherein society does not eat itself alive as important strategic resources such as "fresh water", "fish for eating", and eventually "dry land" gradually dwindle to nothing unfortunately i don't think i'm going to get my wish so instead, here i sit, laughing bitterly at people who use the word groupthink as more permafrost sloughs off into the sea like so much dead skin
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:You mean the Henry Louis Gates that was arrested by a white cop for trying to get into his own house? Yes the Henry Louis Gates who was arrested and temporarily inconvenienced by cops on the doorstep of his seven-figure Cambridge home. Not the Eric Garner who was choked to death by cops for suspicion of selling cigarettes on a street corner on Staten Island. The outrage over the arrest of Gates was ultimately about the fact that he wasn't given the deference and class privilege he was due. If you think the Garner and Gates cases were even remotely similar then you are part of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 12:02
|
|
|
How about Trayvon Martin, are gated townhouse communities acceptably proletarian?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 12:22
|
|
|
Dazzling Addar posted:i am personally more interested in a utopian world wherein society does not eat itself alive as important strategic resources such as "fresh water", "fish for eating", and eventually "dry land" gradually dwindle to nothing I am actually rather curious what your purpose in espousing your nihilistic philosophy is? If it spreads, it doesn't solve any problems. The natural reaction to accepting 'the only war that matters is lost the world is ended' would seem to be apathy or hedonism which either does nothing to help or quite likely makes things actively worse. Is it just to grab a bit of an ego boost by bragging about how you alone see things as they truly are on the way to sticking your head in an improbably still gas-fueled oven?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
Dazzling Addar posted:i am personally more interested in a utopian world wherein society does not eat itself alive as important strategic resources such as "fresh water", "fish for eating", and eventually "dry land" gradually dwindle to nothing You should see a therapist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Do exactly "what"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:gently caress-you-got-mine is truly the most pragmatic point of view. I'd add to this that if you're really, really outnumbered, which is the case among race or gsm minorities in the USA (not class so much, but that's soooo last season), you piss people off enough and you're going to just have to deal with it for a generation or two all over again. There are more whites in the USA than all the other races put together. Straight people outnumber LGBT by a huge margin, and cis vs trans is even greater. At least women are near parity with men by numbers though. Welp. There are probably more "allies" than there are radicalized or even activist browns/women/queers/trans people, in short. The only oppressed majority is the poor. I don't like to be a big wet blanket but come the gently caress on, there are adults who think that there's going to be some race/stonewall riot of the tumblr oppressed for the next october revolution. It's forgivable for an angry teenager to be so stupid but adults need to just deal with it already.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 19:54
|
|
Helsing posted:I think you're being overly dismissive. Intersectionality (which seems to basically be what privielge theory is derived from, at least so far as I can tell) is a real issue. I'm not saying that they're arguing in bad faith, or deluded about their real interests. I'm saying that someone who holds views like the person you described, or along a continuum towards him, that such a person is ignorant. They have minimal-to-limited understanding of leftism both as theory and as a historical perspective, and their politics are solely based upon an existential despair. Consider the fatuousness necessary to insist that things have only gotten worse than slavery with even a basic understanding of how slavery operated. Intersectionality, I think, is basically flawed from its name on down. It emphasizes the meeting points that are always smaller than the things that are meeting, so we can have demands that feminism serve trans lesbians of color and them only, because the very idea of people working together is anathema. The roots of this are partially due to the splintering of leftist movements in the 1970s, but I think that the overall culture bears a lot more responsibility given how little institutional memory left-wing movements have. It is absolutely necessary for movements to accommodate all kinds of people, but emphasizing smaller and smaller groups is fruitless. The Insect Court posted:Racism was(and is) used to create a false sense of shared identity between poor whites and white elites so the latter court exert social control. That's hardly a novel or controversial observation. In other words, you've never read Ralph Ellison or Richard Wright. Granted, Ellison was an existentialist and thus effectively bourgeois in an artistic sense.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:I don't like to be a big wet blanket but come the gently caress on, there are adults who think that there's going to be some race/stonewall riot of the tumblr oppressed for the next october revolution. It's forgivable for an angry teenager to be so stupid but adults need to just deal with it already. Don't be silly, it will be a bunch of separate riots and revolutions. Transgender poor lesbian black women cannot have anything to do with transgender poor straight black women or the whole endeavor will collapse under the weight of accumulated privilege.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Intersectionality, I think, is basically flawed from its name on down. It emphasizes the meeting points that are always smaller than the things that are meeting, so we can have demands that feminism serve trans lesbians of color and them only, because the very idea of people working together is anathema. The roots of this are partially due to the splintering of leftist movements in the 1970s, but I think that the overall culture bears a lot more responsibility given how little institutional memory left-wing movements have. It is absolutely necessary for movements to accommodate all kinds of people, but emphasizing smaller and smaller groups is fruitless. I think Intersectionality functions, but it can function at a softer level and as a weaker corrective. Its relative lack of appeal on an individual level as a cudgel is immediately associated with its relative lack of uptake. That might be a major point here- these theoretical concepts shouldn't be used as cudgels or tests of discursive legitimacy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Intersectionality, I think, is basically flawed from its name on down. It emphasizes the meeting points that are always smaller than the things that are meeting, so we can have demands that feminism serve trans lesbians of color and them only, because the very idea of people working together is anathema. I get that there's a visible trend to portray the problems of people who suffer under multiple axes of oppression as necessarily more urgent, but I'm not aware that intersectionalism as such insists that activists defer to a hierarchy of identity. The theory is more about highlighting the practical context and hitherto intractability of oppression rising from the points of intersection. For example, does increasing police resources for domestic violence effectively help women of color, who are disproportionately likely to also be victimized by the police? Disabled women can find themselves trapped in cycles of lessened autonomy and vulnerability, and existing strategies for combating abuse are frequently insufficient for their long-term wellbeing, so what should be done? I feel these are pretty valid inquiries made in the framework of intersectionality that don't demand attention or energy be drawn from one cause to another, but for us recognize that there are significant differences to be accounted for if we are to be honest in our calls for solidarity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 21:19
|
|
Ormi posted:I get that there's a visible trend to portray the problems of people who suffer under multiple axes of oppression as necessarily more urgent, but I'm not aware that intersectionalism as such insists that activists defer to a hierarchy of identity. The theory is more about highlighting the practical context and hitherto intractability of oppression rising from the points of intersection. For example, does increasing police resources for domestic violence effectively help women of color, who are disproportionately likely to also be victimized by the police? Disabled women can find themselves trapped in cycles of lessened autonomy and vulnerability, and existing strategies for combating abuse are frequently insufficient for their long-term wellbeing, so what should be done? I feel these are pretty valid inquiries made in the framework of intersectionality that don't demand attention or energy be drawn from one cause to another, but for us recognize that there are significant differences to be accounted for if we are to be honest in our calls for solidarity. I'm not saying that intersectionality demands such things, but that the way in which the need for considering issues from multilateral perspectives is usually framed opens the door for hierarchies of oppression, because intersectionality is designed around the idea that whatever thing you apply it to (feminism, anti-racism, LGB liberation, T liberation, class struggle) is incomplete and must be fixed, and is also etymologically, psychologically, built around shrinking things instead of expanding them. This allows it to be misapplied. Those are valid issues, but those would exist outside of intersectionality- intersectionality is a framework for recognizing and dealing with issues like those. There are other potential frames, and while most of them would be built around the same basic concepts, it's entirely possible, in my view, to enable these multilateral issues to be addressed without legitimizing pissing contests or separatism.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Ormi posted:I get that there's a visible trend to portray the problems of people who suffer under multiple axes of oppression as necessarily more urgent, but I'm not aware that intersectionalism as such insists that activists defer to a hierarchy of identity. The theory is more about highlighting the practical context and hitherto intractability of oppression rising from the points of intersection. For example, does increasing police resources for domestic violence effectively help women of color, who are disproportionately likely to also be victimized by the police? Disabled women can find themselves trapped in cycles of lessened autonomy and vulnerability, and existing strategies for combating abuse are frequently insufficient for their long-term wellbeing, so what should be done? I feel these are pretty valid inquiries made in the framework of intersectionality that don't demand attention or energy be drawn from one cause to another, but for us recognize that there are significant differences to be accounted for if we are to be honest in our calls for solidarity. all these problems with intersectionality and privilege-checking and whatnow are just symptoms of the fact that leftism has been horribly infected with identity politics. You can point to historical precedent of labor movements selling out the minority groups of the membership but all that means is to try again and be vigilant about that possibility, not abandon all pretext of collective action and exalt the individual uber alles. though at this point all this blather really is examining the corpse of leftism and trying to figure out what killed it. the modern incarnation of leftist politics has been completely and utterly defeated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:09 |
|
A big flaming stink posted:all these problems with intersectionality and privilege-checking and whatnow are just symptoms of the fact that leftism has been horribly infected with identity politics. You can point to historical precedent of labor movements selling out the minority groups of the membership but all that means is to try again and be vigilant about that possibility, not abandon all pretext of collective action and exalt the individual uber alles. What the hell is "identity politics"? What does it mean, besides a buzzword for conservatives and vulgar communists to express their hatred for anything that happened after 1968?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 22:15
|
|