Would whites re-institute slavery today if they could?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Would whites re-institute slavery today if they could?

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Lacking some sort of massive catastrophe that regresses society, I can't see de-jure slavery making a comeback. Wage labor has completely substituted it, there's no point. Capitalist exploitation is just as profitable.

It's important to understand that the racialized component of slavery was something that started in the enlightenment period: the romans and etc. did not have that concept, yet slavery obviously still existed. So it's not just matter of more racist -> more slavery or whatever, it's fundamentally an economic system. The racialized component served as kind of buffer against poor whites agitating, because they ultimately benefited from the system. So you have an obvious power heirarchy.

wateroverfire posted:

You should have listened to me, OP.

You've fallen deep into the well of sanctimonious white self-hatred that is D&D and there is no escape now except to drown yourself, or to admit your unworthiness and pray forgiveness from black jesus because if it's white it can't be right.

Good luck goon.

Hmmm, so you're saying that white people who work for racial equality hate themselves? Interesting take there Mr wateroverfire.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Jun 15, 2014

# ¿ Jun 15, 2014 16:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 16:56

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

SedanChair posted:

The crown of Racism Megathread descends upon this thread with the posting of this good op-ed.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

That's actually a garbage op-ed because it's means of solving racism is poo poo and terrible, and reason numero uno that no one listens to the left. Are you seriously agreeing with the idea that 'raising awareness' is going to solve racism one loving iota? Hasn't the slacktivist strategy of 'microaggression tumblrs' actually turned out to be a complete loving joke? If mainstream society doesn't even take you seriously, how the gently caress are you going to change it?

Solving of racism must begin at the material level, and from that will flow on social-cultural enlightenment. It cannot be solved by garbage symbolic rhetoric, because as we've seen, people will just tune out.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2014 06:59

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

It's pretty telling that you automatically equivocate between 'slacktivism solves nothing' and 'uppity blacks', that sounds like a very convenient tool for you.

Raising awareness is garbage and always will be. No one's telling people to not share their experiences, but you're delusion if you think a post-race society is one anecdote or one graph away; it's not, that's not how ideology works, and you're naive if you think otherwise.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 08:23 on Jun 26, 2014

# ¿ Jun 26, 2014 08:13

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Kristov posted:

Well this is a democracy... so what else could they do? You've got your voice and your fists, and the latter usually doesn't work out too well for minorities.

We've had 20+ years of ~awareness raising~ campaign, and they haven't done jack poo poo. They're easy to do, maybe they sell some things or whatever, but the in terms of cultural change they achieve nothing. What people believe determines how they perceive the world, there's no simple way to bypass that.

Like it's not even a matter of being more radical than thou or whatever, it's about how progress and action is conceptualized: merely the existence of action itself is cast as a 'success', there's no well defined failure state. There doesn't even seem to be a willingness or desire to come up with measurable goals , instead the justification is based on about 'symbolism', 'starting a conversation' or some other masturbatory language.

That this is somehow consider 'the best way to solve racism' is indicative of the society we are in right now. political action is reduced to a carnival spectacle; the twist is that the carnival is for the entertainment of the protesters themselves, not the observers.

# ¿ Jun 27, 2014 01:42

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Blue Star posted:

So, seeing that, I have to wonder if some of the more inflammatory SJWs aren't also just white boys trying to make feminists and anti-racists look bad.

Some undoubtedly are. Some aren't. Honestly it doesn't really matter. The real crime isn't the off-shoots that mostly everyone ignores. They take a lot of the undercurrents in social justice thought to absurd conclusions: whether they represent a logical continuation of that thought (and thereby prove a kind of inherent absurdity) depends on your pre-existing opinions.

No, the real crime is that these imitations are the 'horizon' of progressive action, to which the only reasonable conclusion (which most people reach) is to ignore the concept of progress altogether, and instead to create habits that alleviate feelings of guilt or shame: Change your avatar to support the struggle of X, Like and favourite this video, show your support by buying this product, remember to acknowledge X during X week. It's imitation for the sake of self-expression which the user can defend reflexively, based on a legacy to which the actions themselves contribute nothing. Rhetoric as itself a commodity, with specific niches, demographics and brand appeal.

That is what happens when simply sharing experiences is 'the best' kind of social action. Experiences are useless, everyone has them and no one other than you really cares about your experiences. Real progress can only be achieved by a broad challenging and reformation of social truths, which must start from a view of common interest.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Jun 27, 2014

# ¿ Jun 27, 2014 04:41

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

JeffersonClay posted:

Sharing experiences is a necessary precondition to recognizing common interests.

Only if they're framed correctly! You can start from a hypothesis or a Grand Common Theory and use a set of valid experiences to test or whatever, but there is no Grand Theory for progressive action today. This is a result of already existing ideas. The set of subjective experiences are broken up into a million pieces, thanks to intersectionality. In that very article posted, we have the undermining of any subjectivity that could clash with the authors, on the back of moral indignation. Why? In any theory that presupposes that subjectivity is not garbage and worthless when not materially contextualized (modern identity theory), you have to deal with the problem that a diveristy of opinion or diversity of experiences must result in a diversity of truths, which is obviously absurd. This is where 'false conciousness' comes in, not as a consequences of systematic forces as it was originally created, but as a device to dodge cognitive dissonance.

In this space of subjectivity-as-reality, there isn't any room for disagreement or criticism: either of which must always be an attack on character, or the result of the opponents faulty character. SedanChair has demonstrated this with their behaviour in this thread, but they are not unique; this poo poo is everywhere.

Kristov posted:

Also, the reason there is no well defined failure state is because we are failing always right now. We are in a constant failure state, so the only real way to measure progress is with legislative achievements (or setbacks), or by looking back and seeing if we are failing less hard.

But is this failure self-induced or from external forces? The society we are living in is not without problems. Easily noticed problems in fact. Yet they are not taken advantage of, opportunities are missed. I firmly believe that this failure cannot be simply blamed on an 'unwillingness' to listen or whatever from mainstream society. It's a complete failure to recruit and engage from the progressive community, caused by this exact garbage I'm talking about : An elitist view of the common person as a fundamentally broken human being (they can't see the truth!), a conceptual framing of action and goals that refuses to define progress or regress in terms of those actions (The important thing is to ~get people aware~) and a failure to motivate people on the grounds of common interest, rather than moral righteousness or guilt-tripping.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Jun 28, 2014

# ¿ Jun 28, 2014 01:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 16:56

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

SedanChair posted:

Oh is my "behavior" too unruly for you?

You've managed to demonstrate in full my claims: that your rhetoric is a device for your own self-gratification, rather than part of a program to change society. It allows you to a-priori dismiss or deflect anything that you don't find comfortable, because who am I to challenge your experience? This is what subjectivity-as-reality creates: the intellectual justification for moral indignation for any reason, real or imagined. When you couldn't find anything racist, you simply constructed it from thin air, and inserted in yourself. That's because intellectual consistency doesn't matter, because the goal of surpassing subjectivity doesn't matter. Your experience is automatically Good and True. Truth is not something to be searched for, at incredible cost, but something you 'find within yourself'.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Jun 28, 2014

# ¿ Jun 28, 2014 05:14

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Would whites re-institute slavery today if they could?