|
Kilano posted:Why are you talking about articles? We're talking about your every day Joe who works 40 hours a week and tells dirty jokes to his coworkers. Then I am glad to see all the BLM protests populated by mildly racist people called Joe. "Mildly racist" people are people who don't care what happens to other people, I see a rather marginal distinction between someone who doesn't care whether other people die and someone who suggests that maybe they should die, both are loving lovely people. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Dec 30, 2016 |
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:20 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:You are looking at it from a wrong angle. It's just such a weird link to draw. There is no actual data showing it and it doesn't even match up with common stereotypes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Well, duh, but I don't think most racists want that. But they also have no problem with it happening. So what is the functional difference
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Then I am glad to see all the BLM protests populated by mildly racist people called Joe. No Those are racist people If you dont care about if people die or happens to people because of their ethnicity, your a racist scumbag. Mild Racism is complimenting a black person on their hair without realizing your being insensitive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:But they also have no problem with it happening. So what is the functional difference there's a lot of things the majority of people don't give too much of a poo poo either way about that don't happen, every day. There are issues you, yourself, are not violently opposed to/in favor of that should you ever engage in offline political action on the things you do care about you'll wind up indirectly promoting or suppressing. This is the basic idiocy of the "Trump said racist things and won an election, therefore the Democratic platform needs to be made white nationalist if they are to win" argument. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Dec 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:But they also have no problem with it happening. So what is the functional difference Different people would have different problems with it happening. You'd see a few Oskar Schindlers for sure. Most people are cowards. There are plenty of people who aren't racist at all but wouldn't stick out their necks for minorities if it came to it, because Nazis have no qualms about hurting people and their families if they resist, even if they are their ideal ethnicity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's just such a weird link to draw. There is no actual data showing it and it doesn't even match up with common stereotypes. Stereotypes are BAD, and part of a toxic culture that is causing social ills. People are not born with a flaming desire to hate others. And if they are, well, then hating others is the right thing to do, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Except now we had all of those "midly" racist people go out, vote for and elect a guy who promised mass deportations, prison camps for religious minorities and the mass commitment of war crimes as war policy. "Joe" at the bar who loves to tell sexist jokes just allied and embraced a guy who ran on an openly white supremacist platform. Hell let's talk about my own family members that voted for Trump. They think it's a big joke my own support for things like BLM, they don't care about the State killing minorities in the street and on video right now. I don't really think they'll care if we open up Dachu, but for Muslims
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Stereotypes are BAD, and part of a toxic culture that is causing social ills. What kind of idiotic naturalistic fallacy is this bollocks?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's just such a weird link to draw. There is no actual data showing it and it doesn't even match up with common stereotypes. There is though. One of the current theories regarding radicalization of young western born terrorists is that it's largely due to social isolation. Specifically a sense of purpose and identity and a feeling of self worth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What kind of idiotic naturalistic fallacy is this bollocks? What's the point trying to fight for some idea if everybody is inherently a dirty ape unable to grasp it, except for me, the only immaculately conceived man on Earth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:What's the point trying to fight for some idea if everybody is inherently a dirty ape unable to grasp it, except for me, the only immaculately conceived man on Earth. Because the fact that we are not all cavemen currently is evidence that you can achieve an awful lot by expecting dirty apes to not act like it. Just because something may be natural does not make it desirable. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Dec 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:There is though. One of the current theories regarding radicalization of young western born terrorists is that it's largely due to social isolation. Specifically a sense of purpose and identity and a feeling of self worth. Yeah, its kind of really silly to pretend social isolation doesn't create radicals. I mean, you'd have to think arab people have secret Terror Genes to believe it applicable in one extreme situation to arabs but not applicable in a way less extreme situation to white guys.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Yeah, its kind of really silly to pretend social isolation doesn't create radicals. I mean, you'd have to think arab people have secret Terror Genes to believe it applicable in one extreme situation to arabs but not applicable in a way less extreme situation to white guys. But it's also silly to think social isolation is the only cause of radicalization. Make someone live in a society that is terrible for them and you'll end up with people that want to smash that society. But on the flips side if you make a society cater to one type of person they will also radicalize if they see that as threatened. It's not the 'losers' of society that are becoming alt-right, it's the dominant people (white men) that are. Owlofcreamcheese fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Dec 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:But it's also silly to think social isolation is the only cause of radicalization. Make someone live in a society that is terrible for them and you'll end up with people that want to smash that society. isn't it primarily lower income under educated white men that are radicalizing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Kilano posted:isn't it primarily lower income under educated white men that are radicalizing? Yes. Ones whose way of life is threatened by economic conditions and the appearance of social isolation (thanks to mass propaganda).
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:But it's also silly to think social isolation is the only cause of radicalization. Make someone live in a society that is terrible for them and you'll end up with people that want to smash that society. Two things come to mind: 1. A lot of rejection that white men are privileged comes from their current class situation. They may not have it as bad as black poors, but white poors certainly dont believe they are privileged (and ot would be difficult to make such a case considering the sorry state of America and the UK at the moment). That's not to say that what you said can't -also- happen, just that it isn't wise to make a blanket assumption. 2. There's no reason what I've said cannot coexist with what you said. There could even be crossover in the form of well-off kids not knowing how to leverage their wealth to hold better odds at dating/socialization.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Kilano posted:isn't it primarily lower income under educated white men that are radicalizing? You don't lose male/white privilege by being poor. You actually tend to lean on it even harder as it helps you get the job over the other guy (other girl). Lots of low paying jobs are the ones the most open about a white guy being the premium model for the job. They are the people that least would want an even playing field.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Kilano posted:Mild Racism is complimenting a black person on their hair without realizing your being insensitive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You don't lose male/white privilege by being poor. You actually tend to lean on it even harder as it helps you get the job over the other guy (other girl). Lots of low paying jobs are the ones the most open about a white guy being the premium model for the job. They are the people that least would want an even playing field. To try and maintain the standard of living you have in the face of things going to poo poo, you either engage in solidarity with working class women and people of color against the wealthy (including those of your own race and gender), or you engage in solidarity with your race or gender (including those who are wealthy) against everyone else. It is in the interests of all of those groups to ensure that your solidarity is in the direction that hurts them least, but one of them has a lot more social power and so can dominate the message.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:You also don't gain class/wealth privilege purely by being white or male. You might have advantages over someone poor and black that you don't see, and someone who is upper class and female may have advantages over you that you see in the wrong way. That's where intersectionality comes in. Also privilege isn't really even supposed to be a dollar value thing. If you are poor the advantages you get outside of terms of money are the big ones. anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"Mildly racist" people are people who don't care what happens to other people, I see a rather marginal distinction between someone who doesn't care whether other people die and someone who suggests that maybe they should die, both are loving lovely people. There are seven billion people in the world and it's unreasonable to expect the human mind to extend equal empathy to each and every one of them individually. On some level it is literally not possible for anyone to not be loving lovely by this absurd standard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Also privilege isn't really even supposed to be a dollar value thing. If you are poor the advantages you get outside of terms of money are the big ones. anyway. Even outside netary value and purchase power, wealth and a lackthereof grant or deprive invaluable social benefits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Also privilege isn't really even supposed to be a dollar value thing. If you are poor the advantages you get outside of terms of money are the big ones. Class and wealth often go hand in hand, but they're slightly different.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
The left avoids conflict which is a good thing, but manifests itself in ways that do them no favours. The passivity means there's no fire. In Trumpspeak, they're all weak beta males. And it's not actually entirely untrue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Zedsdeadbaby posted:The left avoids conflict which is a good thing, but manifests itself in ways that do them no favours. The passivity means there's no fire. I'm currently involved in an argument in another thread about how rightwingers believe Clinton was a frothing warmonger trying to drag us all into WW3 with Russia. So Trump licking Russia's collective cock is a good thing, apparently. Liberals: wrong when conciliatory. Wrong when aggressive. Just. Plain. Wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Zedsdeadbaby posted:The left avoids conflict which is a good thing, but manifests itself in ways that do them no favours. The passivity means there's no fire. Don't conflate the left with liberalism. They're not actually the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Rhukatah posted:There are seven billion people in the world and it's unreasonable to expect the human mind to extend equal empathy to each and every one of them individually. On some level it is literally not possible for anyone to not be loving lovely by this absurd standard. Dunbar's number I think is what addresses this. The problem becomes one of willpower. You have to consciously force yourself to care in any way you can.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
SunAndSpring posted:In the recent years, I've noticed that the right-wing has a clearly dominant position when it comes to the use of the internet to sway opinions. Right-wing people are able to form effective brigades to do things like manipulate online polls, negatively review media that disagrees with their views, game systems like Reddit and Google to get right-wing opinions front-page coverage, and more. They also seem to be better at using computers in general, what with the prevalence of bots and DDOSing as tactics used by internet right-wingers. Yet, I haven't noticed any sort of counter-response from the left; nothing is done when, say, alt-right trolls review-bomb a video because it implies that black people are human and not some variety of orc. It shocks you that young white men are the most computer/internet-savvy demographic?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Zedsdeadbaby posted:The left avoids conflict Uh. They fight all the loving time. There's a reason there's like 40 different Socialist/Communist parties in most democracies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
The far-right's underlying message is that everybody secretly believes all their stuff anyway but only the enlightened few are brave enough to talk openly about how Jews are parasites (but when they do most people actually agree with them even if they pretend not to). The left's underlying message these days seems to be that they are a tiny, ineffectual minority betrayed at every turn by untrustworthy liberals and scheming conservatives. Funnily enough this narrative does not resonate with people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
I think "liberals and conservatives are both bad and both on the same team of loving the worker" has more room to resonate with people than "this Semitic ethno-religious group is the secret cause of all ills but the Electric Jew stops us talking about it" if presented right. e: Even if not presented right, really, because wtf. But the latter seems to be gaining ground in some circles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:You also don't gain class/wealth privilege purely by being white or male. You might have advantages over someone poor and black that you don't see, and someone who is upper class and female may have advantages over you that you see in the wrong way. That's where intersectionality comes in. It seems to me that if everyone became the enemy of the rich then no one would want to become rich so then everyone would be poor forever. Maybe just everyone be kind to each other then also help each other. That feels to me to be the best solution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
The vast majority of people outside of the upper echelons will never become rich, in the sense that most of their wealth is stored and most of their income is from capital, no matter how hard they try unless they already have a large heaping of privileges and luck anyway, so it doesn't matter either way whether they want to become rich or not. The politics of temporarily embarrassed millionaires is part of what gets people voting against their interests in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You don't lose male/white privilege by being poor. You actually tend to lean on it even harder as it helps you get the job over the other guy (other girl). Lots of low paying jobs are the ones the most open about a white guy being the premium model for the job. They are the people that least would want an even playing field. I dont think the poor are privileged regardless of their race. I grew up poor and i'd take virtually anything else over being poor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
To be honest the thought of college educated liberals telling the poor that they should be more open minded actually is infuriating.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
The reason intellectuals are destroyed by regimes throughout history is that they're annoying full stop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Rhukatah posted:There are seven billion people in the world and it's unreasonable to expect the human mind to extend equal empathy to each and every one of them individually. On some level it is literally not possible for anyone to not be loving lovely by this absurd standard. See, the problem with this is when people with poo poo mindsets manage to worm their way into positions of power, where they have an actual influence Theres a reason Silicone Valley has a diversity problem BornAPoorBlkChild fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Dec 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:The vast majority of people outside of the upper echelons will never become rich, in the sense that most of their wealth is stored and most of their income is from capital, no matter how hard they try unless they already have a large heaping of privileges and luck anyway, so it doesn't matter either way whether they want to become rich or not. I don't understand this particular definition. How is, say, a programmer that makes $125,000 year not just as bad as an a trust fund kid who makes the same? What's important is that they both make a disproportionate amount of money than needed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:20 |
|
|
Kilano posted:To be honest the thought of college educated liberals telling the poor that they should be more open minded actually is infuriating. Being fair, any who do that clearly didn't get a decent education.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 00:43
|
|