|
Effectronica posted:Marxism and liberalism and feminism and anti-racism all were formulated academically/intellectually, however. Academically and intellectually aren't really synonymous, and both those words have multiple meanings that themselves are not perfectly synonymous. Could you explain what exactly you mean by this statement? Vermain posted:I more and more suspect that the most significant issue amongst the modern left is really just a lack of effective strategy. There's a clear sort of discontent with what's going on (Piketty's book, I argue, would not have sold like hotcakes pre-2008), but there's no effective channel for people that is perceived as worthwhile. If one takes the Canadian example, we have the federal NDP, who, while certainly not the Conservatives, are not bringing up radical reforms or talking about the sort of deep-seated issues that are bothering people. Beyond that, there simply isn't anyone who looks like they can take and control state political power. Going along with this is an ingrained cynicism towards parliamentary politics, and while some cynicism towards representative democracy might be justified, it's still nevertheless the absolute best institution for controlling the levers of society that's available here and now. In the absence of any real (apparent) hope of controlling the levers of society, phatic or ritual actions tend to suffice instead: Tumblr wars, solidarity rallies, etc. (Not that I mean to disparage those sorts of things, but I feel that we tend to participate in a lot of them mostly to alleviate feelings of helplessness rather than with a long-term strategy of concrete change in mind.) I think this is a really important point. Failure to win concrete victories or even to effectively defend past gains has definitely lead some leftists to refocus their energy, and not always in ways that I would deem positive or effective. That having been said I think its important that we don't slip into this mode of being totally disparaging toward ideas like intersectionality or privilege. While I think that having these be the dominant left wing discourse has proven to be a dead end, they are still important concepts. If you look at, for instance, the history of the feminist movement then there are plenty of examples of middle class white women using their shared status as "women" to essentially erase the experience or needs of racialized or queer women. There really are cases, especially within the left, where privilege can be relevant. The fact that our fixation with privilege has maybe "metastasized" (to use the term the author employed in 'Everything is Problematic') into something unproductive does not mean that we should throw the concept out or stop thinking about its implications. But yeah, I don't think its a coincidence that the post-modern turn in the academy gets its start with the defeats of 1968, and becomes hegemonic in the 1980s right around the time that Reagan-Thatcher were implementing neoliberalism. Postmodernism and post structuralism didn't cause the defeat of the left, they just filled the spaces left by the retreat of the traditional left. They may not be helpful theories for getting out of our current impasse but we need to recognize that they're mostly symptoms rather than causes of defeat.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 17:55 |
|
Helsing posted:Academically and intellectually aren't really synonymous, and both those words have multiple meanings that themselves are not perfectly synonymous. Could you explain what exactly you mean by this statement? Montesquieu, Locke, Rousseau, Paine, Smith, Ricardo, and other liberal thinkers mainly developed liberalism through the academic modes of the time, as did Marx and Engels and Proudhon for socialism/anarchism (scientific socialism). W.E.B. du Bois, Ida B. Wells and many of the early founders of civil rights were trained academics. Even Elizabeth Stanton was trained academically, although suffragism (as opposed to the later feminists) was less academic and more practical. But even then, it was still primarily an intellectual pursuit with argumentation and the like over the rights of women. And of course the second wave of feminism was largely kicked off by The Feminine Mystique and The Second Sex. Most of the really powerful social movements have had academic and intellectual bases to work from- gay rights is about the only one where the academic basis was exogenous to the movement, but even then it still relied initially on the work of people like Hirschfeld and later Kinsey, although in a very different context from feminist writers using Friedan or Steinem.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Sounds like another "political correctness gone mad" opinion piece. I don't buy it. Oppressed people do not have to take the feelings of oppressors into account, nor should they. Most men are misogynist. White people are racist. Sorry if that hurts somebody's feelings. This is stupid. Also, if it's true, it means it's pointless to do anything, since people are the ists with the isms. Effective argument to deal with it, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Kristov posted:Yeah, but that's what I meant by the author not really saying anything. That's a very 'no duh' position to make. We all weren't born yesterday nor are we beep-boop robots. Most people can understand on a societal level that women, darker skinned people, mentally ill people, etc. get readily poo poo on by society. Charles Barkley's and Bill Cosby's skin is black and they insist racism is all the fault of lazy and criminal black people. But Mr.White Privilege here thinks he knows better than actual PoC. Phyllis Schlafly is a chick and she says women's real problem is that they refuse to accept their divinely ordinated role as housewives and mothers. Where do you get off, with your male privilege, pretending that you completely understand what her life is like better than she does? Check. Your. Privilege. :checkyourprivilege: (someone buy this smilie)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Sounds like another "political correctness gone mad" opinion piece. I don't buy it. Oppressed people do not have to take the feelings of oppressors into account, nor should they. Most men are misogynist. White people are racist. Sorry if that hurts somebody's feelings. As a white male it's this kind of poo poo that is driving me away from the left.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Balnakio posted:As a white male it's this kind of poo poo that is driving me away from the left. Reddit might be best for you then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:40
|
|
Balnakio posted:As a white male it's this kind of poo poo that is driving me away from the left. To be fair, the center and right are just as inhuman when you get down to it. Effectronica posted:Montesquieu, Locke, Rousseau, Paine, Smith, Ricardo, and other liberal thinkers mainly developed liberalism through the academic modes of the time, as did Marx and Engels and Proudhon for socialism/anarchism (scientific socialism). W.E.B. du Bois, Ida B. Wells and many of the early founders of civil rights were trained academics. Even Elizabeth Stanton was trained academically, although suffragism (as opposed to the later feminists) was less academic and more practical. But even then, it was still primarily an intellectual pursuit with argumentation and the like over the rights of women. And of course the second wave of feminism was largely kicked off by The Feminine Mystique and The Second Sex. Most of the really powerful social movements have had academic and intellectual bases to work from- gay rights is about the only one where the academic basis was exogenous to the movement, but even then it still relied initially on the work of people like Hirschfeld and later Kinsey, although in a very different context from feminist writers using Friedan or Steinem. Oh, hey, I just realized that I left out the definitions. I'm using "intellectual" to refer to thoughts, arguments, and discussions predicated on reasoning, and "academic" to refer to things built around academic formalism. John Brown's arguments in the dock are intellectual but not academic, while Oscar Wilde's poems about the love that dare not speak its name are neither, and, to fill out the fourth little box in this system, someone arguing that whites can never have meaningful things to say about racism because they can never experience racism is academic but not intellectual.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Tumblr leftism is really creepy and seeing the poo poo they do in the name of "justice" is outright disturbing. I'm okay with helping out institutionally disenfranchised people (despite my username im more of a syndicalist/mutualist) but the hashtag crowd and "check your privilege" sorts really irk me since they operate in a super authoritarian fashion and brook no dissent from the established curriculum of "right" thinking. This /pol/ post kind of sums up what I think of the SJW crowd:  I'm really worried about my little cousin, she's 12 and is already into self harm, homestuck, and ponies and is on the internet ALL DAY and its a matter of time before she finds these people and I don't want her growing up with that kind of toxic mindset 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
I wonder if majority groups would have less issues with privilege theory if it was more accurately called 'relatively lower levels of oppression theory'UP AND ADAM posted:Reddit might be best for you then. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:59
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:I wonder if majority groups would have less issues with privilege theory if it was more accurately called 'relatively lower levels of oppression theory' I think that people are largely opposed to structuralist theories like privilege and patriarchy because of the disconnect between them and lived experience/daily culture, so changing words around wouldn't helped that much. Nor do I think that privilege should be treated as the sole kind of oppression, but that's me being pissy.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Yeah, gently caress journalists, researchers, and anyone else who dares to share information without immediately magicking themselves into a high enough political office to singlehandedly enforce their preferred response to that information! Public discourse is meaningless, and anyone who writes an article without including a full academic-grade bibliography is a "pop" writer and a hack who blah blah blah, seriously? Okay, sarcasm time is over (for now), because I'm noticing a disturbing trend. It's not that "public discourse is meaningless," it's that public discourse that has a purely emotional basis can produce bad results. If you are simply relying on your gut and not caring to take into account the results of your action (so you can rethink future actions based on it), you can easily be taken in by plausible-sounding bullshit. See the whole Kony 2012 thing: Social media users campaigned against an african warlord for using child soldiers because of a slickly made propaganda video that went viral. Hilariously enough that whole charity, invisible children, indirectly or directly supported things that the average donator might otherwise advocate against. Donations to Invisible Children helped with funding the Ugandan military, which also uses child soldiers and does war rapes and all that. Since the Ugandan military is part of the Ugandan government, one must remember that the Ugandan government, around that time, was mounting its efforts for the creation of that "kill the gays" bill and efforts for anti-homosexual policing. Donations freeing up military budget for the Ugandan government would allow them to work on other things. So had a section of people that normally support QUILTBAG rights materially supporting a government that was trying to push through legislation mandating a death penalty for homosexuality - and that legislation had been lobbied by an organization that Chic Fil A donated to. Turns out defenders of chic fil a and internet activists have more in common than you'd think! And all of this support was for the Ugandan Army, when Kony wasn't even in Uganda anymore. Plus, anyone who donated or passed the video along helped to support international military interventionism, which would prove that people who nominally call themselves anti-imperialist to be, in truth, unreliable in that they are okay with imperialist force when they feel like it. These are the kind of people who will turn you in. Or any time the US wants to bomb or invade a country; there's usually a media campaign leading up to it for popular support by billing it some kind of unique humanitarian crisis. I loved reading the "isis is at it again" threads because it was filled with people saying "well, I didn't support Iraq, but now that I am grown up and older I think the us has a duty to bomb a bunch of poo poo killing mostly civilians". The call isn't for a Works Cited page, it's to have sources that you can point to when you talk about something that deals with multiple people. Social issues are emotionally driven. People base them on emotions, and invest a lot of emotions in them, so you changing someone else's mind on a topic like that is not something that you can do by crashing your superior emotions into them (because your emotions are not superior). This is why you have to agree to discuss things like that on more objective terms, using unemotional appeal so as to get to the logic behind any stance. To do this, you cannot take a stance of superiority or have any tone of superiority in your voice; you must insist on your equal footing and equal treatment. This takes a lot of learned patience. quote:Activism leaving the halls of political philosophy and being taken up by the common people is a good thing, though. You shouldn't need to know who Foucault was or what queer theory is in order to push for equality for gay people, and I'd argue that elitism like that is far more appropriate for the "circular firing squad" than popular sentiments traveling across widely-used social communication platforms without philosophical essays attached. Space Whale posted:This is stupid. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
How is it an argument for separatism? I was just criticizing the essay. The whole essay is a tone argument. "Stop being so angry" Look at how Balnakio responded to me. "As a white male this is what drives me away from the left." Really, dude? So, what drives you away from the Right, then? Do we need to be nicer to you to keep you from going to the Right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
You said:quote:Oppressed people do not have to take the feelings of oppressors into account, nor should they. Also your post brings to mind the "oppression binary," where there are "the oppressed" and "the non-oppressed." like it doesn't come in any degrees or anything. it's pretty useless because, like I said, people tend to see themselves as "the oppressed" due to the fundamental attribution error Rodatose fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:41
|
|
Blue Star posted:How is it an argument for separatism? I was just criticizing the essay. The whole essay is a tone argument. "Stop being so angry" If everybody white is racist, inherently so, and the goal is to eliminate racism, how far is that away from slaughtering all white people with grenade launchers and bazookas? Not that that's what you want, but it's something that's not very far away from that sort of rhetoric, because of the essentialist nature of this confusion between privilege and oppression.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:This is right up there with "the operation was a success but the patient died from it" or "we had to destroy the village to save it". I am unironically in favor of destroying the village of structural racism in order to save (some) of the people in it. Are there going to be casualties? Sure. There have always been casualties though, it's just that they were out of sight to the privileged.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:45
|
|
SedanChair posted:I am unironically in favor of destroying the village of structural racism in order to save (some) of the people in it. Are there going to be casualties? Sure. There have always been casualties though, it's just that they were out of sight to the privileged. You are not John Brown.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You are not John Brown. However, you are Franklin Pierce.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Do we need to be nicer to you to keep you from going to the Right? Actually, yeah. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:57
|
|
SedanChair posted:However, you are Franklin Pierce. That's a really nasty thing to say to someone. I don't think you're willing to consider what other people are saying, given how rude you are. Kyrie eleison posted:Actually, yeah. What are these left-wing ideas you consider attractive? Effectronica fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:That's a really nasty thing to say to someone. I don't think you're willing to consider what other people are saying, given how rude you are. I thought we were comparing one another to historical figures? If you don't want to play don't give me the ball 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
UP AND ADAM posted:Reddit might be best for you then. My point exactly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:If everybody white is racist, inherently so, and the goal is to eliminate racism, how far is that away from slaughtering all white people with grenade launchers and bazookas? Not that that's what you want, but it's something that's not very far away from that sort of rhetoric, because of the essentialist nature of this confusion between privilege and oppression. Careful man, you might slip on that slope; it's pretty heavily greased. Balnakio posted:My point exactly. Don't hurt Balnakio's feelings or he might not be a leftist anymore, everybody.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:09
|
|
SedanChair posted:I thought we were comparing one another to historical figures? If you don't want to play don't give me the ball I think you misunderstand what I was attempting to say. You are not John Brown. Killing a few people, or martyring yourself, is not something that is going to have a meaningful effect on structural racism as things stand due to the nature of it, unless you somehow did it in such a way as to expose the basic evils of the prison complex, etc. in much greater detail than before.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Really, dude? So, what drives you away from the Right, then? Do we need to be nicer to you to keep you from going to the Right? Probably not calling for my extermination would be a good start.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Balnakio posted:Probably not calling for my extermination would be a good start. Jesus loving christ. Who is calling for your extermination? Post the exact quote so we can laugh at you for seriously responding to hyperbole like a jackass.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I think you misunderstand what I was attempting to say. You are not John Brown. Killing a few people, or martyring yourself, is not something that is going to have a meaningful effect on structural racism as things stand due to the nature of it, unless you somehow did it in such a way as to expose the basic evils of the prison complex, etc. in much greater detail than before. No I got it, and I'm calling you Franklin Pierce because you would rather the country tear itself apart if it means you don't have to face any tough problems. e: I was going with ALL-PRO SEXMAN's metaphor. I'm not talking about killing people, jfc
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:11
|
|
ryonguy posted:Careful man, you might slip on that slope; it's pretty heavily greased. Another individual poor in brains. When you treat racism as something essential to the white existence in the USA, and talk about eliminating racism, the final conclusions are either separatism or genocide. Racism is not essential to anyone's existence in leftist theory, but privilege (which is inherent) is something that is increasingly conflated with racism and oppression and the ability to change the structure is something that is either glossed over or implicitly denied in the language of an increasing number of people, which leads to the conclusion that whites are inherently racist and will always be so, and this in turn leads again to separatism or genocide. No one carries these out to their logical conclusions, but the intermediate conclusion of "boy this person really hates me" does happen, and of course you will insist that this is unimportant, that leftism can survive and thrive, let alone triumph, when it is falsely believed to be about hatred and condemnation. Balnakio posted:Probably not calling for my extermination would be a good start. Would you mind giving an example of how you feel people are calling for your extermination? Just for purposes of discussion.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Another individual poor in brains. When you treat racism as something essential to the white existence in the USA, and talk about eliminating racism, the final conclusions farrtttt Yeah, when people are talking about "all whites are racist" it means "whites are privileged and need to be made aware of that fact because most don't realize it". Unless you got some sort of PC education camp in mind for that, that's not really separatism or genocide. Racists can change.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:19
|
|
ryonguy posted:Yeah, when people are talking about "all whites are racist" it means "whites are privileged and need to be made aware of that fact". Unless you got some sort of PC education camp in mind for that, that's not really separatism or genocide. Racists can change. Ah, yes, you didn't read my post. Maybe I should have rewritten it in words of one syllable. Then you would have seen that what I actually wrote still responds to what you said. I know reading is counter-revolutionary, but do try.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:Tumblr leftism is really creepy and seeing the poo poo they do in the name of "justice" is outright disturbing. I'm okay with helping out institutionally disenfranchised people (despite my username im more of a syndicalist/mutualist) but the hashtag crowd and "check your privilege" sorts really irk me since they operate in a super authoritarian fashion and brook no dissent from the established curriculum of "right" thinking. So are we at the point now where we're unironically quoting /pol/?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Ah, yes, you didn't read my post. Maybe I should have rewritten it in words of one syllable. Then you would have seen that what I actually wrote still responds to what you said. I know reading is counter-revolutionary, but do try. I did, it's a lot of words for "slippery slope". Also, you're dumb. And smell like poop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Another individual poor in brains. When you treat racism as something essential to the white existence in the USA, and talk about eliminating racism, the final conclusions are either separatism or genocide. Racism is not essential to anyone's existence in leftist theory, but privilege (which is inherent) is something that is increasingly conflated with racism and oppression and the ability to change the structure is something that is either glossed over or implicitly denied in the language of an increasing number of people, which leads to the conclusion that whites are inherently racist and will always be so, and this in turn leads again to separatism or genocide. No one carries these out to their logical conclusions, but the intermediate conclusion of "boy this person really hates me" does happen, and of course you will insist that this is unimportant, that leftism can survive and thrive, let alone triumph, when it is falsely believed to be about hatred and condemnation. Or you could, you know, quit being so racist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:23
|
|
ryonguy posted:I did, it's a lot of words for "slippery slope". Also, you're dumb. And smell like poop. Would you care to explain where the slippery slope comes in? I thought I was writing about things that exist right now, in the present, and not in the future, which is usually what is meant by the slippery slope, but perhaps I was wrong in my use of tenses! SedanChair posted:Or you could, you know, quit being so racist. Privilege isn't something that you can stop benefiting from except by withdrawing from society. This is like solving poverty by giving individual people financial advice. Scratch a theory-deficient red or pinko, and you find a reactionary coiled beneath, it seems.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Probably the part where checking your privilege ends in genocide
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So are we at the point now where we're unironically quoting /pol/? quote:Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a political philosophy and a form of libertarianism. Are you really surprised? Effectronica posted:Would you care to explain where the slippery slope comes in? I thought I was writing about things that exist right now, in the present, and not in the future, which is usually what is meant by the slippery slope, but perhaps I was wrong in my use of tenses! quote:which leads to the conclusion that whites are inherently racist and will always be so, and this in turn leads again to separatism or genocide.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:25
|
|
ryonguy posted:Are you really surprised? I am talking about a process of thought. You have not said anything at all about how this is false. I don't see how you can, really, and your little gibes are just reinforcing my perception of you as a congenital dipshit. I said that, if racism is inherent to white people, and you want to get rid of racism, you must eliminate white people, either by segregating them, or killing them. I then pointed out that leftist theory does not say this, and then advanced the claim that people are starting to believe it and/or miscommunicating it, for various reasons. You have failed to engage with this.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Privilege isn't something that you can stop benefiting from except by withdrawing from society. This is like solving poverty by giving individual people financial advice. Scratch a theory-deficient red or pinko, and you find a reactionary coiled beneath, it seems. Wow if you think that's what people want no wonder you have gotten on a strange track. Nobody wants you to stop benefitting from your privilege, only to be aware of it, talk about it, and do your part to extend it to people who don't have it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:Tumblr leftism is really creepy and seeing the poo poo they do in the name of "justice" is outright disturbing. I'm okay with helping out institutionally disenfranchised people (despite my username im more of a syndicalist/mutualist) but the hashtag crowd and "check your privilege" sorts really irk me since they operate in a super authoritarian fashion and brook no dissent from the established curriculum of "right" thinking. ryonguy posted:Yeah, when people are talking about "all whites are racist" it means "whites are privileged and need to be made aware of that fact because most don't realize it". Unless you got some sort of PC education camp in mind for that, that's not really separatism or genocide. Racists can change. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:32
|
|
SedanChair posted:Wow if you think that's what people want no wonder you have gotten on a strange track. Nobody wants you to stop benefitting from your privilege, only to be aware of it, talk about it, and do your part to extend it to people who don't have it. SedanChair posted:Or you could, you know, quit being so racist. Looks like you're a philosophical zombie, and they really are able to be distinguished from human beings after all! Or you're accusing me of being actively racist, which is a cool thing to do in a discussion. When did you stop beating your girlfriend, SedanChair?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
Minarchist posted:Tumblr leftism is really creepy and seeing the poo poo they do in the name of "justice" is outright disturbing. I'm okay with helping out institutionally disenfranchised people (despite my username im more of a syndicalist/mutualist) but the hashtag crowd and "check your privilege" sorts really irk me since they operate in a super authoritarian fashion and brook no dissent from the established curriculum of "right" thinking. While I cringe to see pol quoted unironically, I'll take that as the brokest of broken clocks and add that it makes me further realize how much I hate the bar room brawl that is modern social media. Theres an article that I've favorited on that subject, Twitter is Broken. quote:On Twitter, the line between discussion and harassment is slippery. As soon as people overhear something they don’t like, they can drop in. If a lot of people hear something they don’t like, you will get swamped, and since you are always alone on Twitter—dependent on your friends happening to see replies addressed to you before they can jump to your defense—it can be discomfiting if even one of those people is less than friendly. Moreover, even if your critics have the most impeccable manners, it’s easy to become defensive and even scared if a dozen people simultaneously and independently disagree with you. I think its overlying points could also apply to the Tumblr architecture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:43
|
|