|
Please take the knife out of my back, he said. It's been there so very long. Okay, yeah, just pull it out one inch at a time, that's fine, we're making progress.
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:43 |
|
|
The goal of activism is to educate both common people and politicians who don't care about your cause in why they should care about your cause and make political efforts to help your cause. Saying 'the goal of activism isn't to educate white people' is literally just wrong.
lazorexplosion fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Jan 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
The goal of activism is to make it untenable for the powerful to ignore your demands, not to come cap in hand to beseech the condescension and patronage of the bosses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:This isn't a math class. These are actual people with actual emotions. But this all reads to me like we're talking about hypothetical people in hypothetical scenarios (referring specifically to posts like Mixodorian's). Are we talking about engaging in activism specifically or just trying to get through the day without some rear end in a top hat in the elevator asking to touch your hair? If activism specifically -- if you're putting yourself in a position of authority to speak on these issues (ie. adopting the mantle of "activist"), then isn't it incumbent on you to tailor your message for maximal effect (assuming you are actually interested in educating)? Taking D&D threads like this one as an example. Here we have a venue that's entirely voluntary and, until you identify yourself, completely colorblind (for better or worse). Suggesting that a venue like this, or e.g. an anti-oppression workshop or some kind of organizing meeting in the real world, is not a space in which you should (have to) enact the labor of educating the oppressor -- answering the dumb questions, treating them humanely -- seems very disingenuous. If not here (or there), then where? Nobody is forcing you to read the posts or field the questions, much less respond at all. Adopting a stance of "I shouldn't have to, so I won't" sounds like it's therapeutic but a bad outreach strategy. No doubt it gets tedious and tiring and boring but that doesn't mean it becomes any less necessary. Or, do you not actually care about educating? In that case, all bets are off. But if you do then ask any teacher how well adopting a stance of "I shouldn't have to work so hard to educate you" works for them. Using the universal "you" here. e. These aren't contradictory: lazorexplosion posted:The goal of activism is to educate both common people and politicians who don't care about your cause in why they should care about your cause and make political efforts to help your cause. Saying 'the goal of activism isn't to educate white people' is literally just wrong. TomViolence posted:The goal of activism is to make it untenable for the powerful to ignore your demands, not to come cap in hand to beseech the condescension and patronage of the bosses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
Mixodorian posted:Relative to this exchange by you and kingfish, I guess my thinking is tone matter if you're settled on affecting change through peaceful means exclusively. However, if you're really ready to do what needs to be done despite the cost, it becomes totally useless and a waste of time considering it. I think this is a very important point. I think a disconnect we're having here is when tone matters. It matters in the context of trying to talk to people, of trying to convince people to join your side, and in guiding the conversation. It does not mean that everything has to be a conversation, just that if you're going to engage in a conversation you should do it in the most effective way. Like, I am straight up not against riots. I don't promote them if I'm not going to be a part of them because that's chickenhawk levels of bullshit, but I'm not against them. I wouldn't be against armed organisations of black people patrolling neighbourhoods (again) in an implied ultimatum to police if that's what people felt necessary. Etc. I don't think polite protest, let alone polite conversation, is enough to get things done. I believe the implied threat of violence is always, and actual violence is sometimes, important for forcing significant change in society and as great as the peaceful protests during the civil rights era were, they benefited hugely by being compared to the alternative of violence. But as much as I'm okay with violence against the state as needed, I would disagree entirely with injecting violence into a peaceful protest. And I'm completely against (when I remember, I'm human) using personal attacks in the realm of conversation. You need to use the right tactics against the right people at the right time. You can't just rage incoherently at every opportunity and expect to be effective. If you don't think conversation with the other side will work or it's not for you, then don't do it. Do your own thing. But let people who do genuinely believe conversation can work to actually do their thing. Like, I'm not saying you have to go out of your way to talk white people onside, just try not to make it harder for the people who are going out of their way to do it. If you don't want to put the effort into educating someone then don't talk to them at all maybe? This ain't Liar Liar rules, you don't have to blurt out what you're thinking or feeling regardless of how helpful or not it may be. Setting poo poo on fire just to see it burn is for rioting; it doesn't do much of anything in constructive conversation. And if you fail to hold back, so what? If you lose your temper and lash out then that's just being human. If you just own up that it was a brief loss of composure then nobody on your side is going to care. Everybody here knows the bullshit people are facing out there and how it wears you down. It's only when you defend your outburst as a good thing that it becomes a problem people want to talk you away from. Jack Gladney posted:The goal of activism isn't to educate white people. It is to secure and enforce the rights of nonwhite people. White people carry a moral obligation to educate themselves. If you signed up for some kind of lecture series or training about race in America, I'm sure the professor would treat your curiosity with encouragement and generosity, so long as you did the reading first. Outside of that context, it's silly to assume someone else will become your teacher if you make no effort on your own to learn and grow first. If every white person fulfilled their moral obligations the only replies to the op would be like "wtf is a culture war?" Every strategy is going to have to take into account that most won't do this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
What is the role of the listener in these exchanges. Are there boundaries of appropriateness for one that makes an error or asks a question of another? Where do our norms and expectations of the white listener come from?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Dialogues involve two people talking to each other, they do not have a designed 'speaker' and 'listener' - that's called a monologue. If you're expect others to simply listen to your monologue, and then do what you want, you're treating them with an incredible about of disrespect, and they're not going to care what you have to say.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Yet much of this discussion involves a "you" who educates and a "them" who is educated. There are normative claims going around here that make certain demands of the one who educates. I am wondering whether we expect anything of the person receiving this outreach we've been imagining.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:A real classroom does include all that, though. So many teachers burn out and stop caring precisely because doing the job in the way that produces the greatest results is backbreaking and often heartbreaking emotional labor. You're ignoring that a large part of the responsibility for learning falls upon a child. The teacher does not do the work for them nor do they give them the answers. As for this board, there are quite a few people that are on my ignore list because debating with them is a waste of my time and probably theirs. If I wanted to be an activist, online message boards are a poor place to start. I would be much better served in working with an organization towards a common goal for that purpose with like-minded individuals. The educator angle is strained because in college, if I didn't put in the effort to learn by reading the material, my professor wouldn't waste their time on me. There were there to clarify and flesh out, but they weren't there to do all the work. Jack Gladney posted:Yet much of this discussion involves a "you" who educates and a "them" who is educated. There are normative claims going around here that make certain demands of the one who educates. I am wondering whether we expect anything of the person receiving this outreach we've been imagining. I have hinted in my posts that there seems to be no expectation, because the person you are educating can easily waste your time for 30 minutes only to gaslight you at the end. But since you are fighting for equality, your expectation is to just accept it and move on over and over and over again. blackguy32 fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Jan 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Yet much of this discussion involves a "you" who educates and a "them" who is educated. There are normative claims going around here that make certain demands of the one who educates. I am wondering whether we expect anything of the person receiving this outreach we've been imagining.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:What is the role of the listener in these exchanges. Are there boundaries of appropriateness for one that makes an error or asks a question of another? Where do our norms and expectations of the white listener come from? The expectations on the white listener are just as heavy as the speaker. The problem is that it's much harder to get them to fulfil those expectations if you haven't even gotten them to agree to the basic premise of the argument yet. It's hard to impress on them the importance of educating themselves and listening until after they've internalised the education. When someone first becomes "woke" they tend to go in a reading spree because they've only just gained the incentive to do it. A person you're trying to bring onside hasn't hit that point yet so you have to go above and beyond what morally should be expected of you because you have to make up the difference. From a justice perspective it's complete bullshit, I hear you on that for sure, but from a practical perspective that's often how it has to be. Oh and "you"/"them" and "speaker"/"listener" refers to "person on the progress side" and "person not on the progress side". I'm taking the assumption that anyone who could be convinced of my position here is someone who agrees with the cause of social progress, if not currently my ideas for the tactics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I have hinted in my posts that there seems to be no expectation, because the person you are educating can easily waste your time for 30 minutes only to gaslight you at the end. But since you are fighting for equality, your expectation is to just accept it and move on over and over and over again. e. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to exonerate the listener or the person being educated. They have a lot of heavy lifting to do, too. I just don't understand the attitude of "the oppressed should not have to educate the oppressor" as something that is supposed to actually nudge us closer to a better world. unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Jan 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Precisely, yes. IF the oppressor listened to the oppressed in the first place, there would be no needs for these silly little "Hearts and minds" conversation games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
That's a universal problem, not limited to race relations, or even black-white race relations in the US of 2017. It's a part of living in a society with human beings, that you are going to have to accept, because get this: you are flawed in exactly the same way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I have hinted in my posts that there seems to be no expectation, because the person you are educating can easily waste your time for 30 minutes only to gaslight you at the end. But since you are fighting for equality, your expectation is to just accept it and move on over and over and over again. Yep, I've had people in real life agree with me one day and then the next day they've completely changed their mind. One especially memorable incident was over legalisation of marijuana where I got an old lady to agree that marijuana shouldn't be illegal and that our drug policies in generally are hosed up. Then the next week they came back with the idea that even though marijuana shouldn't be illegal on its own merits, it is currently illegal, thus it should remain illegal because anyone who smokes it is a criminal so they shouldn't be given a break by changing the law. Like. What? It's loving infuriating engaging in conversation with these people sometimes but if you wanna do it you gotta learn to get over that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
If life was fair, tone wouldn't be important. However, if life was fair we wouldn't need to have these discussions in the first place, people just wouldn't be racist assholes. No one should have to put up with this garbage but that's where things are right now. It's perfectly reasonable to be overwhelmed by the effort, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a more efficient way of meeting goals. Tone is important for picking up momentum, the more people on your side the more messengers to take the workload. While some will constantly shift the goalposts of what is "respectable", lots of people can only see so much before it's too glaringly obvious to ignore how rabidly insane the injustices are. If nothing else, the fact that racists effectively use tone as a means of oppression shows what they know works and what they are afraid of. They show rioters instead of peaceful protesters. They interview the local dunce rather than anyone intelligent. Farrakhan will die of old age but MLK was too big a threat to live.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Yep, I've had people in real life agree with me one day and then the next day they've completely changed their mind. One especially memorable incident was over legalisation of marijuana where I got an old lady to agree that marijuana shouldn't be illegal and that our drug policies in generally are hosed up. Then the next week they came back with the idea that even though marijuana shouldn't be illegal on its own merits, it is currently illegal, thus it should remain illegal because anyone who smokes it is a criminal so they shouldn't be given a break by changing the law. Like. What? It's loving infuriating engaging in conversation with these people sometimes but if you wanna do it you gotta learn to get over that poo poo. This ignores that there are other ways to achieve equality than trying to slowly convince people one at a time. Also, there is no getting over that. If you let people waste your time, they will each slowly waste your time and you will be right where you began. Much like blockwalking, there are far more effective ways to work than to go into conversations where one side isn't going to attempt to talk in good faith. I can't help but think that people keep ramming these one on one conversations as is people of color haven't tried that and that this is some sort of thing that people are teaching us, or that we have tried that and realized that other tactics are far more effective than that. deep space nein posted:If life was fair, tone wouldn't be important. However, if life was fair we wouldn't need to have these discussions in the first place, people just wouldn't be racist assholes. No one should have to put up with this garbage but that's where things are right now. It's perfectly reasonable to be overwhelmed by the effort, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a more efficient way of meeting goals. Tone is not important. What is important is the actual argument. What I am beginning to notice from all of these posts is that this is just another way for people to continue to ignore the genuine anger and emotions that people of color feel so that they can throw their two cents in about how people are doing activism wrong. Stop it. blackguy32 fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Jan 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
How are you not right now telling me that I'm doing activism wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
Are you familiar with the term epistemic closure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
Only what I've just looked up in response to your question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 07:23
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Tone is not important. What is important is the actual argument. What I am beginning to notice from all of these posts is that this is just another way for people to continue to ignore the genuine anger and emotions that people of color feel so that they can throw their two cents in about how people are doing activism wrong. Stop it. Your inability to be a 100% perfectly composed robot 24/7 with infinite time and energy is not a failure at activism, it's just reality. I agree that you can often tell when people are just playing dumb so what's the point However an argument is only important if the people you're trying to engage give enough of a poo poo to listen. The way the system is stacked it's not a given that anyone will. Tone is what decides whether you will be ignored (too meek), villianized by the media and possibly murdered by police and then forgotten by an indifferent public (tone deaf), or listened to. This doesn't mean you can't show any traces of anger, passion, aggression, etc, but you'd better do it in a way that makes people want to care. If you ignore the realities of human interaction and perception then the fact that you're right is completely meaningless
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
Mixodorian posted:For sure, a big hope of mine is that with Trump as president the Asians, Indians, Middle Easterners and even some special African immigrants will realize that they're never going to be accepted into whiteness. And do what? Cast their lot in with white liberals? Nearly every Asian American "leader" towed the liberal line for years and what is there to show for the community when it comes to progress? Immigrant groups are better off organizing political power within our own communities as opposed to assimilating into the other, "good" kind of whiteness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 08:50
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Holy poo poo, where to start. Framing white women as "regular women" even with the scare quotes is gross as hell. And telling black women how to combat misogynoir is just unnecessary. Are you a black woman? No? Then shut the gently caress up. 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. You're precisely the target of his argument (but too thick to realise it); the point that's continuing to go over your head is that you aren't actually much better than the deplorables you keep railing against but because you have succeeded at ignoring cognitive dissonance you can take only the positions that appear progressive but don't materially inconvenience you and feel better about yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 11:47
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
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. See, this is a good post where you call people out, in great contrast to your more common one-sentence callouts. My takeaway from this post is "stone cold is a person with a brain who makes reasoned arguments and should be heard and taken seriously, even if we don't agree on a particular issue". My takeaway from your one sentence driveby posts is "stone cold is a dumb rear end in a top hat who really likes insulting people like a /b/tard while failing to engage with any actual issues being discussed, therefore stone cold should shut the gently caress up or be ignored while the adults talk". I don't think I'm reaching when I say many other people will feel the same, and that the utility of the former approach over the latter should be obvious (assuming the goal is not just venting at a convenient target after having a bad day).
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 12:04
|
|
|
Can somebody quickly define "tone policing"? I thought I understood the concept, but this thread has robbed me of that delusion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Can somebody quickly define "tone policing"? I thought I understood the concept, but this thread has robbed me of that delusion. It refers to declaring an argument invalid because you didn't feel it was delivered in a satisfactory manner, regardless of the content of the message.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
It's been somewhat misused from the start but I think we've all been through enough rounds of "no, let me explain to you what neoliberal means" recently that we just collectively went with the spirit of its use.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
As an outsider (ie not a US or Canadian citizen), the furious infighting of those who identify with the 'left' on this thread, combined with the apoplectic fear of losing 'privilege' and material security by some on the 'right', only reinforces my impression that the USA as a unitary state is a dead man walking, destined to go the way of the USSR in the coming century. It is so riven with irreconcilable inter-racial grievance and counter-material interests that the social, economic and political measures required to make the irreconcilable reconcilable would probably hasten its demise faster than doing nothing would. As such, the wise course of action may be to accept the inevitability of the balkanisation of the US by tackling it in a way that minimises violence and forced ethnic cleansing via a process of peaceful negotiation. One would need to consider the four primary demographics in the USA today by population: European Americans, Hispanic-Mestizo Americans, African Americans and Native Americans. Next, one would consider the distribution of the greatest demographic concentrations and where they could be made territorially contiguous (for example, African Americans are a local majority in many cities throughout the USA, but are isolated within a sea of European or Hispanic-Mestizo Americans. However, in Southern Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South-East South Carolina, they are in many areas a strong regional majority- therefore these present day states would constitute the new African American nation state- with Florida thrown in to make the territory contiguous). Then, you would approach the community leaders of each demographic and ask them to produce plans for the transition to full governance in the territory of the new ethno-state. Finally, you would transform the present Federal Government into a transitional authority, working in concert with the aforementioned community leaders to ensure the peaceful and systematic transfer of demographics and their economic assets from places where they constitute a local minority or majority to the territory of their respective nation state where they will constitute a regional absolute majority (For example, African Americans moving from Cleveland or New York to Mobile, Birmingham or Baton Rouge, or European Americans moving from Los Angeles or Laurel to Boston or Indianapolis) To achieve this, of course will require ethnic cleansing, but of a peaceful type managed by the Federal Transitional Authority and community leaders of each demographic, including the full transfer of that demographics' economic assets to ensure that they are not simply walking into destitution. This process cannot be rushed, and would probably require a decade to implement, allowing for those who are to be relocated to settle their affairs in their place of current residence, find a new place of residence in the proposed territory and make physical arrangements for the relocation. The result, hopefully would be the peaceful flowering of national and racial liberation on the North American continent. For the first time since the founding of the USA, each race will be free to develop their social, political and economic attributes as they see fit, completely sovereign- if the African American nation state wants to pass legislation forbidding the foreign ownership of land, or prevent European Americans from owning businesses or even entering their state at all, then so be it, it would be their desire as a sovereign people. By riding the current zeitgeist of separatism and modifying it to serve the interests of Americans of the four primary races, you may avoid the slow descent of the US into a continental Yugoslavia with thermonuclear weapons. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
LOL no the U.S. is not remotely a lost cause, the world is not ending, none of that. I can't speak for Canada but in my personal experience the rest of the first world is way waaaay more racist. It's not as much of an issue because they do more to ensure their country is 'pure' in the first place so you don't get the pains that come with a multicultural melting pot.blackguy32 posted:Tone is not important. What is important is the actual argument. Yeah well as a former college speech-and-debater when I tell people IRL their arguments lack significance or inherency they tend to look at me like I'm growing a second head. Either employ effective tactics or feel free to sit in the corner bitching about how people in the world aren't rational. You do need them and change is achieved through changing the majority's mind unless you've got some sort of overwhelming military or economic force. So unless you've launched an orbital weapons satellite I don't know about...
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Seperatism and segregation are disgusting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:And do what? Cast their lot in with white liberals? Nearly every Asian American "leader" towed the liberal line for years and what is there to show for the community when it comes to progress? Immigrant groups are better off organizing political power within our own communities as opposed to assimilating into the other, "good" kind of whiteness. You're helping the right divide what remains of the American left into racial blocs, making it much easier to run roughshod over the lot of us. Those white liberals are casting their lot in with you as well. Spitting in the faces of people who don't oppose your goals is tantamount to political suicide.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:And do what? Cast their lot in with white liberals? Nearly every Asian American "leader" towed the liberal line for years and what is there to show for the community when it comes to progress? Immigrant groups are better off organizing political power within our own communities as opposed to assimilating into the other, "good" kind of whiteness. Could you direct me to more resources on the problems affecting Asian American communities?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
If tone no longer matters because changing one persons mind is meaningless and a waste of time, then what exactly is the plan? And if it is pointless, then what is the point of calling individuals out on their bigotry and micro aggression? Even if they change their behavior despite the tone, it's just one person and thus, pointless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Indigofreak posted:If tone no longer matters because changing one persons mind is meaningless and a waste of time, then what exactly is the plan? And if it is pointless, then what is the point of calling individuals out on their bigotry and micro aggression? Even if they change their behavior despite the tone, it's just one person and thus, pointless. Basically that you don't effect change by reasoning with single people, you do it via societal and political pressure. Telling someone to go gently caress themselves doesn't have much of an effect on that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Those white liberals are casting their lot in with you as well. Spitting in the faces of people who don't oppose your goals is tantamount to political suicide. Bullshit, no white liberals have ever stood up for asian people, who are the "model minority" and therefore ok to attack. For example, liberal hollywood constantly forces asian american actors into coon roles that are degrading and humiliating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWCaCpEKwSA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bs0D1SQUPU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtDU_1hbqWI Arch-liberal Lena Dunham can't stop talking poo poo about Asian people on Twitter: https://twitter.com/lenadunham/status/90660103879016448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Lena Dunham's terrible orientalist article on Japan
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Arch-liberal Lena Dunham can't stop talking poo poo about Asian people on Twitter:  I mean, is she saying that's a bad thing to think in general? Did she admit that she'd genuinely thought that and was trying to say "look how woke I am spotting my own prejudice"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Basically that you don't effect change by reasoning with single people, you do it via societal and political pressure. Telling someone to go gently caress themselves doesn't have much of an effect on that. People who think that are ignoring local politics. Real changes that affect people's lives get made through arguing with individuals all the time. The big societal changes might be sexier, but a lot gets done at a smaller scale. But Democrats don't even turn out in force for mid-terms so yeah, not surprising that an even smaller scale is overlooked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Higsian posted:People who think that are ignoring local politics. Real changes that affect people's lives get made through arguing with individuals all the time. The big societal changes might be sexier, but a lot gets done at a smaller scale. But Democrats don't even turn out in force for mid-terms so yeah, not surprising that an even smaller scale is overlooked. Local politics creates political pressure as well though?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Pevan Stan knows what's up. And I honestly can't believe we had a poster come in here in tyool 2017 and say we need seperate "ethno-states". And then he thought it was such a good idea he had to share it with the world. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:43 |
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I think this plays into people's minority status. How many times do you have to have that same conversation with different people? At this point, I am tired. A lot of times I just don't say anything because I don't want to get into a drawn out time-consuming debate that usually will end right where it started. Nowhere. This goes into researching your own stuff if you legitimately want to be a better person. In this case, can't you just ignore the person? I mean, in an internet forum like this it's not like they're addressing you specifically, so if you don't feel like explaining something you could just not respond and let someone else respond if they want to. I mean, obviously it's a different matter if this happens in person, but currently the topic seems to involve online discussions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 17:46
|
|
