|
I'm saying the offense is rooted in the message itself and not the way it's delivered. Until a person realizes that, they'll never listen.
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:02 |
|
|
stone cold posted:Right, but I think his choice of caricatures says more about him than it does about the "establishment left." And the decision to ignore the actual content of the metaphor says a lot about the "cultural left". Good night thread, keep on failing to meaningfully analyze your political enemies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
White Rock posted:And the decision to ignore the actual content of the metaphor says a lot about the "cultural left". If you can't make a meaningful metaphor encapsulating elite white 1% capitalist swine exploitation without resorting to xenophobic stereotyping, you might be a national socialist. e: double quote, oops stone cold fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
What I don't like about Progressives: They're quick to label the Deplorables as, well, deplorable. I think its a lot more productive to think of the resurgence of racism as the result of the American working class being made obsolete in a globalized economy. They're anger is misplaced, but I stand beside them in their class struggle. What I don't like about Deplorables: They're ignorant. Yet, I can't really blame them for that either. If the structures that call themselves Education are the very structures that championed the Free Trade mentality that hurt the working class, I wouldn't trust it either. As an econ major I had to spend a lot of my time unlearning the ideology that came prepackaged in econ 101. The Free Market is efficient, sure. But I'm willing to put up with a little inefficiency and inconvenience if it means my brothers and sisters can support themselves. A state should look after its citizens well-being, not focus on enriching the elite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
White Rock posted:I'm having trouble parsing this, what's the connection? Is economic difficulties caused by... what in the case? You're right, I'm not wording myself very well. Here's a hypothetical: A.) A Trump voter opposes immigration because he feels job insecurity - insecurity that's interesting in how it doesn't particularly correlate to the general state of the economy, which is average. The manufacturing industry seems to be declining; globalization, immigration and outsourcing gives opportunities to people unrelated to the voter. The voter feels pessimism for events that are beyond his control, and simply wants to listen to whoever promises to change things to their benefit. There are underlying problems to these positions that can be solved through (primarily economic) policies, avoiding certain language, that raise the self-esteem of voters like this while improving everyone's situation. B.) A Trump voter opposes immigration because centuries of built-up prejudices that have its threads tangled throughout society have automatically predisposed him against Hispanics, Muslims, African-Americans, and other marginalized groups. They are implicitly receptive to rhetoric that favors themselves over minorities, and are even willing to vote for people (like Trump) that don't have their best interests in mind in order to denigrate minorities further. They have been born into a position of privilege and have not critically engaged with it. The underlying problems to these positions are complex and multifaceted, predicated upon bigotry, and may never be fully solved, but require and demand a concerted effort by interested members for society to improve. Those that refuse to participate are displaying both an unconscious and conscious lack of human respect and empathy, and should not be coddled for it. It is possible and preferable to persuade people through direct criticism rather than tolerance of their viewpoints. Here's what I think: Labeling right-wing groups and voters as repugnant is a far cry from unfair discrimination or a mere writing off of people. A person's actions reflect upon them, a group's actions reflect upon it. These actions are tangible, objective, real: Trump voters endorsed hatred. This needs to be battled and confronted. A good way to do this is to reach out to all of the people that didn't vote. The people of varying races and ethnicities and orientations and genders that are the victims of poor education or politically apathetic. The people that are stuck working soul-crushing shifts at fast-food places or supermarkets. The disadvantaged groups having their votes actively suppressed by rightist groups and political legislatures. These people number in the millions, and these people are the ones that need their voices actively listened to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
stone cold posted:If you can't make a meaningful metaphor encapsulating elite white 1% capitalist swine exploitation without resorting to xenophobic stereotyping, you might be a national socialist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Weak cowards use anything they can latch onto to avoid hearing what they know will not serve their interests. There's no way to win that rhetorical game because the tone objections pop up in response to what they don't want to hear rather than structuring the way they hear it. Accede to one objection and a different one pops up because tons of white people have been programmed from birth to defend themselves from reality. The problem is that they simply can't listen without risking toppling the house of cards that bears the full weight of white supremacy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
rudatron posted:If you cannot engage with the metaphor honestly, then do not bother at all. There is no claim in that metaphor about gender, what the majority of immigrant laborers actually do, or any other prejudice you care to misrepresent it as having. You projected them into the metaphor, because you couldn't deal with our on its own terms, and needed a handy excuse to dismiss it. All the bigotry you are 'seeing' in my posts, is a creation of your own mind, and I challenge you to prove, with evidence, and to a legal standard, any of the numerous character attacks that you have made, against me. okay, just pulling from your rap sheet this is pretty racist quote:They can believe whatever the gently caress they want to believe or speak any language they want. But there are practices that must change, as I understand them. I don't pretend to be informed on the subject, but as I know, sacred sites play a large role in Aboriginal culture, and as such, it stops centralization because some of them must live near these sites. In that case, aboriginal religion is getting in the way of their own standard of living, so their religion must be reformed, so that they can travel freely. They could adopt a stance of 'you must visit this site once in your lifetime' like with Muslim sacred sites, or do something transporting materials from those sacred sites, but something has to change. As I heard, they also have a distrust of science and medicine, which must also be reformed from outside. How that would happen, I'm not so sure. Undermining the witchcraft in native culture would help. also, victim blaming POC's for the election is pretty fuckin racist quote:It's what i think about you, dipshit. Is this enough evidentiary support for you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
I'm so tired of all these culture wars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
A good writeup on why white liberals are trash: The moneyshot: quote:"Fredrik deBoer asks, “Does it matter to Resnikoff that the most acid critiques of identity politics I know of have come from writers of color?” It is a question that keeps many whites awake at night. But for the rest of us the reasons are obvious. Because we have experienced racism from well-behaved and well-educated liberals as often as from the rednecks they despise; because we have never benefitted from the condescending and patronizing attitudes of white multiculturalists; because we recognize in the affluent liberal hatred of the white poor the same depraved social Darwinism that in less public moments is directed against us."
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
A good article.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
I liked that article, and it brought a new perspective to my view about The Weathermen Underground.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
Asad Haider should have stuck with the premise of his previous publication and stayed logged out
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
That's a whole lot of words for #notallwhites
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:If we're going in the direction of useless anecdotes, I was once yelled at for saying something stupid without realizing it, and that event caused me to think critically about myself and my assumptions and I became more thoughtful as a result. This can be true, but I think the problem can arise when if, after being yelled at, the person who was yelled at goes "Could you explain why what I did was wrong?" and then the yeller goes "I think you know what you did wrong you fascist." Like, I have no problem with responding aggressively to people who say things that are bigoted in some way (or things heavily associated with such views), but if that person honestly wishes to understand why they were wrong I think it's okay to answer them instead of permanently writing them off from the instant they said something dumb/bad. I mean, you yourself specifically said how if they thought you were irredeemable they would have been wrong! That being said, I just believe this is a decent thing to do from the perspective of "being a nice person." I don't see any reason to believe that it has any sort of adverse effect on the efficacy of activism, for the aforementioned "a real ally wouldn't abandon your cause just because a random person insulted them" reason. For what it's worth, I don't think that anyone is particularly guilty of doing this on the SA forums. Probably 95% of the time I see someone aggressively attacked, it's because they actually are terrible and have nothing to contribute. And even for the other 5%, while it may be kinda lovely I don't think it's actually having any significant negative impact on discourse in general or driving away people who would otherwise be allies. I've been on the receiving end of such attacks a few times, and while it made me feel kinda upset and confused it's not like it made me abandon my socially liberal views, so I can't really argue that there was any real "tactical" downside to them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 07:30
|
|
|
stone cold posted:okay, just pulling from your rap sheet I'm not really seeing how "these practices are having negative effects and ought to be changed" is the same thing as saying that one race is inferior to another.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
stone cold posted:That's a whole lot of words for #notallwhites You might be more invested in hating people than introducing nuance into your worldview.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
Grognan posted:You might be more invested in hating people than introducing nuance into your worldview. Let's be nuanced over whether racism is bad or not!
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Let's be nuanced over whether racism is bad or not! I know this ain't a good look for you but are you calling out Asad Haider as being racist for writing that article, or are we the posters that liked that article racist for liking it? Like you might want to elucidate your views beyond one liner dismissals. Edit: I know you might have generalized feelings of hate and disdain for something that is being said but I would like to understand it better. Grognan fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
climboutonalimb posted:Asad Haider should have stuck with the premise of his previous publication and stayed logged out Actually that article is pretty good as well. Thanks for pointing that out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm not really seeing how "these practices are having negative effects and ought to be changed" is the same thing as saying that one race is inferior to another. "Thinking one race is inferior to another" is not the only form racism can take. Stuff like stereotypes (including positive ones), holding opinions that have racist results in practice (for example people who want to gut welfare) or even just being apathetic towards racial discrimination would also fall under the banner.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 08:03
|
|
|
Grognan posted:I know this ain't a good look for you but are you calling out Asad Haider as being racist for writing that article, or are we the posters that liked that article racist for liking it? Like you might want to elucidate your views beyond one liner dismissals. Okay, I think the notion that Haider posits that white guilt is more insidious that white supremacy is specious. His willfully dense approach to analyzing white privilege is as misguided as it is patronizing. I think his notion of equating the class struggle with racist issues is wrong, and he offers no solutions to the working class beyond "ally against white supremacy and private property," which I agree with, but to pretend that the white working class doesn't have race issues is not just naive, but it silences any meaningful objections that the POC working class may have. Not only that, but to pretend white liberal elites only eschew socialism and not social justice as well is to give them far too much credit. e: typo
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Okay, I think the notion that Haider posits that white guilt is more insidious that white supremacy is specious. His willfully dense approach to analyzing white privilege is as misguided as it is patronizing. White liberal elites can suck the genitals of their choice for sure, but p+p=r still does not help when you are trying to reach across a gulf where you are trying to explain white privilege to (white)people that have been too poor to even live around anyone else. Man, I even met a bunch of black dudes that hated Obama because their lives got worse from 08-16. We were all poor as poo poo working temp jobs in lovely conditions. I am not saying that we need to abandon racial and social justice rhetoric, but we need to understand when simply saying "racism" or "sexism" is not going to reach a significant amount of people because it simply changes who the boss is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Okay, I think the notion that Haider posits that white guilt is more insidious that white supremacy is specious. His willfully dense approach to analyzing white privilege is as misguided as it is patronizing. White guilt is automatically more insidious than white supremacy if you posit that it's a serious problem because it's the more subtle and overlooked of the two. How is his approach to analysing white privilege misguided and patronising? Multiple people have already indicated they thought the article was good (and I agree) so they obviously didn't see what you saw, so you're going to have to give more details. He never stated that the white working class don't have race issues as far as I can see. Point it out if I'm wrong cause I missed it. As far as I can tell he didn't say racism amongst working class people was an illusion or some poo poo black people made up, he just talks about its origins. He said it was created by and for the bourgeoisie and that it serves only them, but he didn't say it was only perpetrated by them or that the white working class were free of all guilt. I don't see how this silences objections of the POC working class. I'm don't doubt they'll have objections to working with their artificially created enemies but no less do I doubt that white working class people will have objections to working with their artificially created enemies. And of course he offers no solutions to the working class beyond "ally against white supremacy and private property," he's pushing socialism so his answer was always going to be for workers to ally against their true oppressors. Part of his point is that social justice as practised by white liberal elites is a total loving sham used to deflect from their oppressive role so I think you and he totally agree on that point. I think what his main thesis hints towards is that white privilege is the other side of the oppression coin. White supremacy was used as justification for elites to oppress poor POC, and now white privilege is being used as justification for elites to oppress poor whites. White privilege is only really an important weapon* when used against poor white people as that's the only advantage they get. Actual elites who gain the most benefit from that privilege have much more visible and powerful advantages that could already be used against them before the concept of white privilege, and they can combat it by simply uplifting "good" minorities into the oppressor class. If you view the language of privilege as having supplanted the language of socialism then I'd say it's a net negative in terms of empowering the disadvantaged against their oppressors since it divides the oppressed classes where socialism does not (though socialism evidently doesn't contain enough to prevent division by itself). *The concept of privilege can also be used as encouragement for POC and I believe studies have shown it's more effective at helping POC students than the language of disadvantage. So it has good uses there. But I'm talking specifically about when it is used as a weapon against white people, rather than as a framing to help non-white people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 10:38
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:"Thinking one race is inferior to another" is not the only form racism can take. Stuff like stereotypes (including positive ones), holding opinions that have racist results in practice (for example people who want to gut welfare) or even just being apathetic towards racial discrimination would also fall under the banner.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 10:55
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Like, here's a thought. The framing of this bullshit culture war is SJW's vs deplorables, right? Maybe, when one side is a bunch of racist, white nationalist, bigoted cowards, who want to wipe out the other side, maybe that opinion isn't valid. You and I may disagree on 99% of what we truly care about, but if we find the one issue we disagree on, I'm suddenly in Team Hitler. So now you've made Team Hitler really big, congrats. Also you've made Team Not-Hitler lovely. That sounds like a hard job, but you managed it. So in consequence ... Ytlaya posted:"Thinking one race is inferior to another" is not the only form racism can take. Stuff like stereotypes (including positive ones), holding opinions that have racist results in practice (for example people who want to gut welfare) or even just being apathetic towards racial discrimination would also fall under the banner. "So what? It's racism either way." Yes, of course, congrats, you have correctly spotted the racism, also you've just made Team Hitler 46%+ of the voting population of your country.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 11:02
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Part of his point is that social justice as practised by white liberal elites is a total loving sham used to deflect from their oppressive role so I think you and he totally agree on that point. Bad news, omae.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 11:13
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What you've done here is present a dichotomous choice - I can either pick A or not-A. And you've salted A with something utterly despicable, e.g. racism and white nationalism. But because you've constructed it as a dichotomy - so that you pick either A or not-A - every point of disagreement with not-A automatically turns into support of white nationalism and racism. America doesn't have 100% voting turnout, as was pointed out up thread. Team hitler was around 26% of eligible voters, hope this helps~!
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 11:26
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What you've done here is present a dichotomous choice - I can either pick A or not-A. And you've salted A with something utterly despicable, e.g. racism and white nationalism. But because you've constructed it as a dichotomy - so that you pick either A or not-A - every point of disagreement with not-A automatically turns into support of white nationalism and racism. America doesn't have 100% voting turnout, as was pointed out up thread. Team hitler was around 26% of eligible voters, hope this helps~!
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 11:26
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Part of his point is that social justice as practised by white liberal elites is a total loving sham used to deflect from their oppressive role so I think you and he totally agree on that point. This reminds me of the author (e: I should mention, author of a different piece) pointing out that rather than address the inequality of access to higher education between rich and poor, the Good Thing of Affirmative Action is used as the line in the sand to fight on by the right-wing because it keeps people from addressing the other structural difficulties in getting poor people and minorities from attending higher education, because they're on the defensive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 11:31
|
|
|
Electric Owl posted:What I don't like about Deplorables: YES. YOU. CAN. Why the gently caress are you people so goddamn quick to defend the actions of these cretins. You aren't going to convince them otherwise, you aren't going to reach them. You just aren't. The world isn't the loving West Wing. That's not how this works. And why the hell can't I call these people deplorable. They want to make life for me and people like me hell while making the rest of the world a horrible wasteland? I can absolutely blame brainwashed people for being brainwashed. It's the only way to smash through the cognitive dissonance barriers. They aren't broken by soft words and sweet coddling. Often its only broken by a goddamn brick to the face.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 11:32
|
|
|
Chelb posted:You're right, I'm not wording myself very well. Here's a hypothetical: Agreeing with this 100%. Fundamentally, i believe in that candidate that can promise reach people affected by A while taking a firm stance against B. Even if some voters overlap in their believes, i think people who contain any mix of A and B can be reached through a mutual interest of A, since B is actually not in their interest. I also believe the A group is larger then B. Conflating the two groups and thus thinking that all Trump voters are the same is the mistake i'm seeing again and again in this thread and in general debate among the left. Chelb posted:Here's what I think: Labeling right-wing groups and voters as repugnant is a far cry from unfair discrimination or a mere writing off of people. A person's actions reflect upon them, a group's actions reflect upon it. These actions are tangible, objective, real: Trump voters endorsed hatred. This needs to be battled and confronted. A good way to do this is to reach out to all of the people that didn't vote. The people of varying races and ethnicities and orientations and genders that are the victims of poor education or politically apathetic. The people that are stuck working soul-crushing shifts at fast-food places or supermarkets. The disadvantaged groups having their votes actively suppressed by rightist groups and political legislatures. These people number in the millions, and these people are the ones that need their voices actively listened to. I hope you the best of luck with this, it's a solid enough plan. I still believe reaching across is not harmful. To continue policies like calling all Trump voters racist without offering any chance of redemption will further alienate a large part of the voter base. Large parts of the democratic party seems content to sit on their laurels and not change any of their strategies or policies. They will try to kneecap any progressive with ideas of economic reforms, and might be successful just like they were with Bernie. There is also the possibility of Trump actually gaining part of the 50% who did not vote. I still believe that if you create a candidate with A without B, you will by default gain some of the people who voted Trump if you explain that their concerns were economic in nature. It's a unique solution to America because of your two party system. In my country we the national populists have to compete with 7 different parties with different ideologies, and voter turnout is high. They've been steadily growing during the last three elections and are looking to be the largest party next election. The left has not made a dent in their numbers because of their inability to address economic anxiety. (might do an effort post if anyone interested) Trump's success is not a singular American phenomenon., he is part of a larger movement sweeping the globe, and looking at the patterns globally when it comes to national populists is beneficial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 11:32
|
|
|
stone cold posted:America doesn't have 100% voting turnout, as was pointed out up thread. Team hitler was around 26% of eligible voters, hope this helps~! Rexicon1 posted:YES. YOU. CAN.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 11:36
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:YES. YOU. CAN. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NW3RLnXmTY Reverend Wade Watts went above and beyond what I'd expect of like 99.9999999999% of the population to be able to do, but he showed it was possible to turn even members of the KKK. Again, I don't expect any of us could turn KKK but surely we should at least try the softer targets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 11:46
|
|
|
Higsian posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NW3RLnXmTY But the question is how this opportunity arises... it's hardly likely someone will walk around with a T-shirt saying "open minded but slightly racist" on it. How do you find soft targets in an environment where they'll be receptive?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 11:51
|
|
|
Higsian posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NW3RLnXmTY It would be such a monumental effort to placate these simpletons when a better option is to put efforts into making the democrats an actual party that gets people excited about anything and abandons neoliberal poison running through it. It's about turnout, not conversion. It always will be. It's a Culture WAR, there's going to be a winner, and there's going to be a loser. Right now many liberals are refusing to fight it because they are scared of optics and tone. I'm tired of being represented by these weak spined softboys. Rexicon1 fucked around with this message at 11:55 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 11:52
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Actually, no, that doesn't help at all, Trump's still president and Team Hitler is still really big. It's a matter of power structures, you don't upset them with out taking a few licks. That's just human beings. When one side throws all logic and decorum out the window, and you don't push back against it, or you enable it like we have for so long, you have to eventually come to terms with your own weakness as well as the strength you gave them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 11:59
|
|
|
Thread is certainly living up to half it's name, at least. Jenner, is this thread representitive of the caring and sensitive world you've said you want to bring about? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:"open minded but slightly racist" Rexicon1 posted:It would be such a monumental effort to placate these simpletons when a better option is to put efforts into making the democrats an actual party that gets people excited about anything and abandons neoliberal poison running through it. It's about turnout, not conversion. It always will be. See: Bernie and "Bernie Bros". And what better way to describe the Clinton campaign then as "vote us, we're not the racist"? That this message didn't reverberate with a lot of people is in hindsight unsurprising.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 12:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:02 |
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:It's a matter of power structures, you don't upset them with out taking a few licks. That's just human beings. When one side throws all logic and decorum out the window, and you don't push back against it, or you enable it like we have for so long, you have to eventually come to terms with your own weakness as well as the strength you gave them. I for one am skeptical of your chances of doing that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 12:06
|
|