|
Strudel Man posted:Really, I think a lot of the left has entirely given up on changing anyone's opinions. Current political opponents are misogynistic, racist oppressors who have to die for anything to change. I agree that sentiment is growing among the radical campus and tumblr crowd, but I don't think the majority of the left is nearly that extreme. While I dislike the tumblr crowd, I do think that trying to win over the average right wing citizen with words is useless. My reason is that they are ill informed and programmed to dislike the left instead of them being evil monsters. Obama spent time arguing for health reform with republicans that were never going to be convinced by words. Republicans just do what they want and push things through. What I am trying to say is that arguments alone won't really win over people that think you are bad. The public gets taught to mistrust and hate the left and arguments alone won't fix that. Focus on getting results and people will come along. If left wing policies provide tangible benefits like worker protections and lower healthcare costs, people will support them eventually. On social issues like gay marriage, hardline cons have lost the argument that allowing gay marriage will ruin society. Particularly with young people that were indoctrinated to be anti-gay, they will see that the world didn't end and some will question their stance. Not all, but some will be swayed. Show that change is not bad and win people over. Celebrate your accomplishments and give people a reason to join your side. Don't spend all your time infighting and end up getting nothing done.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:04 |
|
|
^ Yup. But being hidebound when it comes to bad opinions isn't a phenomenon exclusive to the right. Really, good luck convincing any adult anywhere that they're wrong about anything. People have their guns and they're sticking to them, left or right. And there's plenty examples of left-wing ideas that proved to be huge disasters that got retroactively written out or justified post-hoc. "It's not my job to educate you; educate yourself" is one of those statements that almost gets it, but falls just short. Education as a political strategy is always doomed to fail. Because look, homies: politics isn't about education, it's about the distribution and deployment of power: who's got it, and who doesn't. So the strategy should be about building power, and using power. And really changing the material circumstances in which people live. You change the circumstances, and people's opinions change with it. Basically, respect is more important than love, and people respect power. I mean, what would Lenin say? Or Machiavelli? The gay rights movement is often cited, because it's been successful. But I don't think the strategy was ever to convince homophobes to start loving gay people. I think the network-building, fundraising resources (money $$$ counts), deploying those resources toward attainable political objectives, and living one's life fearlessly had more of an effect. Meaning the gay movement built a political power base. They changed the circumstances in which people live. Very few people were convinced through reasoned argument not to hate gay people, it was their friends or family members coming out. The circumstances changed. Families changed. (Talking about families is a very un-left-wing thing to do. But that's how it happened.) That might sound like a bunch of vague buzzwords, but I don't think it's any more vague or buzzwordy than what passes for a lot of left-wing analysis. Strudel Man posted:Really, I think a lot of the left has entirely given up on changing anyone's opinions. Current political opponents are misogynistic, racist oppressors who have to die for anything to change. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
My family was really into gay marriage rights in Massachusetts back in 2000~2006 (i.e. until it passed, and all attempts to overturn it were crushed), so I don't really have much respect for people who endlessly complain about injustice but don't try to do anything. My father worked for 2-3 hours phone-banking every Tuesday night for years, my mother less frequently, and sometimes I mailed some letters (I was 6-12, so sue me). I was basically the mascot for the main Massequality brach, about a 5 minute walk from the state house We all went to every constitutional convention. After every vote, my dad and I would tour the state house and give bags of candy to people who supported the cause. The number of votes pro gay marriage in the MA legislature started at 33, and in just four years went to over 150. I don't know if it had anything to do with privilege, and I know we came in at the tail end of a decades-long campaign, but it still makes me think that anyone saying the only possible solution is violent revolution is just wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:The gay rights movement is often cited, because it's been successful. But I don't think the strategy was ever to convince homophobes to start loving gay people. I think the network-building, fundraising resources (money $$$ counts), deploying those resources toward attainable political objectives, and living one's life fearlessly had more of an effect. Meaning the gay movement built a political power base. They changed the circumstances in which people live. Very few people were convinced through reasoned argument not to hate gay people, it was their friends or family members coming out. The circumstances changed. Families changed. (Talking about families is a very un-left-wing thing to do. But that's how it happened.) I think the gay rights movement is a good example of how privilege theory has little to do with affecting real change. It all comes down to building sentiment through association, something that one poster mentioned way back at the beginning of the thread. When I left the military in 2009 I knew the writing was on the wall for DODT, but even in 2010 people were talking about the possibility of repealing DODT like it was a distant dream. Then Biden let the cat out of the bag during an interview and within months DODT was on the way out. This should not have come as a surprise to anyone who was in the military and paying attention. My squadron had several Airmen who's sexuality was widely known and accepted, even if they still couldn't be open about it. No one tried to get them kicked out, and even if they had tried, the Group Commander at the time would have refused to go through with an investigation. He even threatened to reprimand anyone who tried to out a fellow a member of the Group. This was in 2008. Did the Group Commander do this because he had an academic understanding of privilege theory and intersectionality and was therefore aware of his own privilege as a white cishet male? I seriously loving doubt it. Certainly not to the exacting degree demanded by the radical left. What's more likely is that in his years of service he had befriended gay officers who had the courage (and trust) to confide their secret in him. He had probably come to resent the fact that his colleagues/peers/friends/whatever were forced to live in fear of being outed while serving their country. His decision to not investigate any allegation of homosexual behavior by his Airman was his way of lifting up the oppressed. He didn't have to check anything, and he didn't need to give anything up. Maybe privilege is just a lovely, bad word to use for describing things that do not need to be given up for there to be equality? Typical Pubbie fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:I think the gay rights movement is a good example of how privilege theory has little to do with affecting real change. It all comes down to building sentiment through association Checking people's privilege quote:When I left the military in 2009 I knew the writing was on the wall for DODT, but even in 2010 people were talking about the possibility of repealing DODT like it was a distant dream. Then Biden let the cat out of the bag during an interview and within months DODT was on the way out. He checked his privilege quote:Did the Group Commander do this because he had an academic understanding of privilege theory and intersectionality and was therefore aware of his own privilege as a white cishet male? I seriously loving doubt it. Certainly not to the exacting degree demanded by the radical left. What's more likely is that in his years of service he had befriended gay officers who had the courage (and trust) to confide their secret in him. He had probably come to resent the fact that his colleagues/peers/friends/whatever were forced to live in fear of being outed while serving their country. His decision to not investigate any allegation of homosexual behavior by his Airman was his way of lifting up the oppressed. He didn't have to check anything, and he didn't need to give anything up. You don't need an academic understanding of privilege to check it. Is that the problem? There are a bunch of different ways to approach it but they can frequently be seen as some form of checking privilege. That's why I referred to many struggle for social justice throughout history as proto-privilege theory in action.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Checking people's privilege Why are you so attached to that word and that phrase? The point isn't the clustering of letters or the utterance of phonemes, it's something semantic, which exists completely outside of that pithy phrase you love to throw around like a 80s kid with a slap bracelet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:He checked his privilege He was probably aware, at least intuitively, that he enjoyed a freedom that his gay colleagues didn't. I just feel that "privilege" is a strange way to describe this inequality. Exactly what privilege did he check by doing the right thing and not having the gay Airmen in his Group discharged from the service? Describing the act of making a morally right decision as "checking privilege" sounds reductive and even a little absurd to me, but I admit I'm having a hard time explaining why.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:Why are you so attached to that word and that phrase? The point isn't the clustering of letters or the utterance of phonemes, it's something semantic, which exists completely outside of that pithy phrase you love to throw around like a 80s kid with a slap bracelet. Because you keep acting like it isn't valid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Checking people's privilege That's absolutely ridiculous sedanchair.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Because you keep acting like it isn't valid. That is probably the most petulant response you could give. Grats.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
goatse.cx posted:That's absolutely ridiculous sedanchair. It's rapidly descending into moral freight term territory. If something I like happens, that must be because privilege was checked somewhere, whether anyone knew it or not. If something I didn't like happened, oh, if only there had been more privilege theory invoked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
MLK was so good he checked his own privileges and he ain't even had none!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Qwazes posted:My family was really into gay marriage rights in Massachusetts back in 2000~2006 (i.e. until it passed, and all attempts to overturn it were crushed), so I don't really have much respect for people who endlessly complain about injustice but don't try to do anything. My father worked for 2-3 hours phone-banking every Tuesday night for years, my mother less frequently, and sometimes I mailed some letters (I was 6-12, so sue me). I was basically the mascot for the main Massequality brach, about a 5 minute walk from the state house We all went to every constitutional convention. After every vote, my dad and I would tour the state house and give bags of candy to people who supported the cause. The number of votes pro gay marriage in the MA legislature started at 33, and in just four years went to over 150. I don't know if it had anything to do with privilege, and I know we came in at the tail end of a decades-long campaign, but it still makes me think that anyone saying the only possible solution is violent revolution is just wrong. I had a recent discussion with a good friend about whether gay marriage legalization was a good thing for the country. She posited it was morally neutral at best because the movement didn't do enough for trans rights, and several Occupy-affiliated people agreed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:I had a recent discussion with a good friend about whether gay marriage legalization was a good thing for the country. She posited it was morally neutral at best because the movement didn't do enough for trans rights, and several Occupy-affiliated people agreed. This is loving stupid and exactly why the one guy was saying we need to stop bringing one issue into discussion of other issues.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:This is loving stupid and exactly why the one guy was saying we need to stop bringing one issue into discussion of other issues. Of course, to really destroy the gender binary for good, you have to overthrow capitalism 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:This is loving stupid and exactly why the one guy was saying we need to stop bringing one issue into discussion of other issues. "Don't tell us to wait our turn!" - thoughts on this? Seriously though, what is the practical considerations and meta-ethics of the praxis of "don't mix things together" or "do mix them together" ? Space Whale fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:MLK was so good he checked his own privileges and he ain't even had none!!!  "Check your privilege" "no" "Check your privilege" "no" "Check your privilege" "n-no" "Check your privilege" "no" "Check your privilege" "I don't want to check it"    
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
That was actually sorta funny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
You're still the best poster. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:I had a recent discussion with a good friend about whether gay marriage legalization was a good thing for the country. She posited it was morally neutral at best because the movement didn't do enough for trans rights, and several Occupy-affiliated people agreed. That's a bit silly. If that's the standard, we shouldn't do anything for anyone. Trans-issues are admittedly harder to address, because so much of it social instead of political, and there's nowhere near the number of transgender people as there are gays and lesbians.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Checking people's privilege
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
Eh, that actually was kinda funny, I'll admit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
If a white man trapped on a deserted island checks his privelige, does it count?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:
Would've been funnier if I wasn't fairly sure at this point Sedan Chair actually believes it boiled down to this. Wouldn't be the first to seriously compare their tactics favorably to MLK's. They wouldn't, in fact, even be the fifth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
Qwazes posted:That's a bit silly. If that's the standard, we shouldn't do anything for anyone. There's a theory that time and effort is best spent on raising those worst off, and that less marginalized groups will benefit from the process along the way. This argument is pretty essential to intersectional third-wave feminism and is why it's considered acceptable to ignore/deprioritize white feminists and their main issues if it benefits black feminist etc. So, the number of trans people versus the number of gay people becomes irrelevant. Of course, not all feminists agrees with this approach.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
The Snark posted:Would've been funnier if I wasn't fairly sure at this point Sedan Chair actually believes it boiled down to this. Wouldn't be the first to seriously compare their tactics favorably to MLK's. They wouldn't, in fact, even be the fifth. Sedan Chair is an insufferable douchebag but that was still funny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:
100% accurate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Biomute posted:There's a theory that time and effort is best spent on raising those worst off, and that less marginalized groups will benefit from the process along the way. This argument is pretty essential to intersectional third-wave feminism and is why it's considered acceptable to ignore/deprioritize white feminists and their main issues if it benefits black feminist etc. So, the number of trans people versus the number of gay people becomes irrelevant. Of course, not all feminists agrees with this approach. Deprioritizing white feminists is one of those stated goals in activist circles that never seems to amount to much. My experience has been that no matter how much time is devoted to black or latina women it's never good enough. I attended the first gathering of the Florida SDS a year ago. The students packed as many POC presentations into the meeting as they could muster, to the point where they were bumping off presentations by white students to make room for minority students who decided at the last minute that they wanted to give presentations too. This, of course, in addition to a privilege walk, privilege stacking questions from the audience, as well as actively denying additional input from white students beyond an arbitrary point (whatever the facilitator felt like). The conclusion at the end of the meeting was that they hadn't done enough to facilitate minority speakers and that white people were talking too much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:Deprioritizing white feminists is one of those stated goals in activist circles that never seems to amount to much. My experience has been that no matter how much time is devoted to black or latina women it's never good enough. I attended the first gathering of the Florida SDS a year ago. The students packed as many POC presentations into the meeting as they could muster, to the point where they were bumping off presentations by white students to make room for minority students who decided at the last minute that they wanted to give presentations too. This, of course, in addition to a privilege walk, privilege stacking questions from the audience, as well as actively denying additional input from white students beyond an arbitrary point (whatever the facilitator felt like). It's a theory well liked by POC feminists and white feminists privileged enough to afford that kind of idealism (which, granted, is a great many of them). I can see why white feminists who are actively being marginalized, victimized and oppressed might be less than enthused. I can also see why white feminists academics who are used to having their voices heard might dislike it. I'm sure the former group dislikes being lumped in with the latter. Somebody who's a real believer in intersectionality would probably agree that there never can be enough minority voices. I mean, the theory can be simplified and summarized as seeing marginalization happening on multiple intersecting axes. Focusing on those disadvantaged on multiples axes (gay women of color for instance) and addressing their issues will then logically raise those who are only disadvantaged on one axis as well. However, focusing only one one axis at a time (even if they happen to be one where a lot of injustice is being done) would result in some people falling by the wayside. It makes a certain amount of sense as a theory, although I have no idea how effective it is in practice as I'm just a dudebro spectator with a passing interest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Quick question: What even qualifies as oppression anymore? "Jews in holocaust" is incredibly straightforward, and "Black kid between 18 and grey hair in the USA who isn't so preppy Carlton looks like Malcolm X" is also a pretty easy argument. "Feminist white girl in college" isn't such an easy case though. Typical Pubbie posted:...The conclusion at the end of the meeting was that they hadn't done enough to facilitate minority speakers and that white people were talking too much. Biomute posted:Somebody who's a real believer in intersectionality would probably agree that there never can be enough minority voices. Which is why no matter how hard you try you're still going to think "that wasn't enough." If you don't have a loving goal you're just going to keep demanding more and more until people get sick of your demands and push back, since you'll keep demanding no matter what, effectively making it up to them to determine how far they're willing to go. Which raises the question of why not just push back immediately, besides their own moral calculus?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Biomute posted:Focusing on those disadvantaged on multiples axes (gay women of color for instance) and addressing their issues will then logically raise those who are only disadvantaged on one axis as well. However, focusing only one one axis at a time (even if they happen to be one where a lot of injustice is being done) would result in some people falling by the wayside. I don't get this. If the issues are unique to gay women of color, nobody else benefits. If they're not unique and are instead shared with women, gay people, and people of color, then addressing even one of those axes will still benefit gay women of color.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
GWoC just can't deal with SWoC privilege, you see.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:Which raises the question of why not just push back immediately, besides their own moral calculus? I think the most capable and self-respecting people peace out to go be happy and successful doing useful things. It's just a hypothesis but "they run off anyone capable of actually doing anything" does explain the state of the modern left. Helsing posted:Is English not your native language? To embody something means to give it tangible or visible form. Isn't the implication of your post that because D&D manifests all the bad tendencies of leftism it will therefore scare away rational people? If not then your post would seemingly be a complete non sequitur. I know what it means but my post is pretty simple and you don't need to read any implications into it to get the point. D&D leftists are terrible, and exposing people to them is a great way to turn them off to the movement. The article quoted in the OP got it exactly right and D&D leftists are perfect examples of the poo poo she was calling out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
So how do black women rank on the oppression scale next to MtF transgendered people?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Radbot posted:So how do black women rank on the oppression scale next to MtF transgendered people? Literal oppression olympics ITT. Also wateroverfire lecturing folks on how to turn on leftists is pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:Which is why no matter how hard you try you're still going to think "that wasn't enough." Well, they do have goals. The agenda is not all that different from what we're used to after all, the focus is just broader and less immediately relevant to white straight middle class feminist women. Intersectional feminists are still going to demand more time and power, and in theory that's a good thing if intersectionality works the way it should. At this time it basically incorporates all of "social justice" anyway so if you've got trouble seeing how feminist white women in college could be considered oppressed intersectionality might be just the ticket (increased focus on disabilities, trans issues, sexual minorities, racism etc). As for a pushback, I'm afraid I don't see quite where you're going. Are you talking about a pushback from white feminists? I mean, the logical end-point of intersectionality is that the movement ends up being run completely by people who's disadvantaged on multiple axes so white people will have a greatly diminished role. There seems to be a little bit of it, mostly from people who were not that tolerant to begin with, or from people who have something to lose, but academia seems pretty on board. As for a pushback from the rest of society there's really no need. I'm talking out of my rear end now, but I am guessing that Feminism will probably continue in pretty much the same path no matter who's at the wheel. People who are anti-Feminism are generally nutjobs, and the nutjobs that exist within Feminism itself and want an armed anarchist revolution or whatever can't ever rally enough support to get it off the ground.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Also wateroverfire lecturing folks on how to turn on leftists is pretty funny. It's all about natty light and not taking no for an answer. poo poo's simple really. Good luck out there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:I don't get this. If the issues are unique to gay women of color, nobody else benefits. If they're not unique and are instead shared with women, gay people, and people of color, then addressing even one of those axes will still benefit gay women of color. Basically, if you focus on the issues facing "poor gay black trans women" you'll address the the issues of gay people, black people, trans people, poor people and women, as well as those special issues that can arise in the intersection between these axes. If the main focus is "women" the special issues facing those who exist in the intersection will never be addressed and the focus is more likely to be on the majority (white women). thotsky fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Biomute posted:Well, they do have goals. The agenda is not all that different from what we're used to after all, the focus is just broader and less immediately relevant to white straight middle class feminist women. Intersectional feminists are still going to demand more time and power, and in theory that's a good thing if intersectionality works the way it should. At this time it basically incorporates all of "social justice" anyway so if you've got trouble seeing how feminist white women in college could be considered oppressed intersectionality might be just the ticket (increased focus on disabilities, trans issues, sexual minorities, racism etc). Maybe pushback was the wrong term. How about "we're tired of you complaining and demanding things go away why are't you happy yet." If the point is "Demand more, forever" eventually it's going to end up in an eternal tug-of-war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:04 |
|
|
Biomute posted:Basically, if you focus on the issues facing "poor gay black trans women" you'll address the the issues of gay people, black people, trans people, poor people and women, as well as those special issues that can arise in the intersection between these axes. What does it look like, policy-wise, to focus on issues faced by poor gay black trans women? I don't understand how that can be solved without breaking it down into single-axis problems. Biomute posted:If the main focus is "women" the special issues facing those who exist in the intersection will never be addressed and the focus is more likely to be on the majority (white women). "Never" seems a little strong -- would "not immediately" suffice? As long as it doesn't rule out later efforts, it seems like simple utilitarianism to prioritize the smallest changes that help the most people, e.g. gay marriage. hepatizon fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:57
|
|