|
Fargo Fukes posted:I think it's interesting that whilst celebrating the victories this woman helped achieve, you still can't resist taking a few swipes at her for being successful. Yes the left is capable of improving peoples lives, no it never will whilst everyone is squabbling over identity politics. She helped fight against increasing tuition fees, an actual concrete cause she could effect at the time, but this still reflects her privilege because only rich white people get to complain about tuition fees. Now she has her engineering degree (is this actually true or have goons made this up because she talks about paying attention to systems in the final paragraphs?) she's basically the enemy. She didn't change her political views, her situation changed so now she's not one of you. A competent movement might communicate that someone at a different point in their life that can help in a different way, or contribute to a push more closely connected to them, but the left is so wrapped up in who's more oppressed that there is no way to join without miring yourself in what an awful, rotten, privileged monster you are. You can bet if she still followed the correct denomination of her ideology, she would still count as oppressed enough for her voice to matter. The problem with modern radical left is not that they are too radical or ideologically pure, it's just that they created a set of beliefs that allows them to explain away any criticism and act like a dick towards everyone who doesn't speak the right words.
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 00:26 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The ability to belittle and dismiss someone's point without addressing it: a power unique to leftism and possessed by no human who has not fallen prey to left-wing radicalism. Sorry, I know I'm opening myself up to being dismissed out of hand by a ~tone argument~, but it's hard to restrain the sarcasm in the face of things so obviously wrong. Not inly is dismissiveness not unique to leftism, but explaining away any criticism and acting like a dick toward everyone who doesn't say the right magic words or have the right magic attributes has worked wonders for conservatives, actually. I never claimed this is something that's unique to the left. Plenty of groups, especially the ones isolated from the mainstream, create elaborate hierarchies with infallible, idolized leaders or dogmas that can never be questioned. They are beyond the scope of this thread, though. This discussion is about an essay which describes the state of "radical left" and talks about the problem in context of this particular group. Gantolandon fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:You're presenting it as something isolated, when in reality it's part of the human condition and absolutely a very mainstream thing. It's also an essential power, because not all arguments are equally valid, nor are they all deserving of having equal time spent addressing them. Would you argue that it is wrong for a leftist group to belittle and dismiss the argument of a person who thinks the real target they should be attacking is observatories, which are actually mind-control antennas for relaying the orders of the lizardman rulers who oppress us via telepresence robots like Mitt Romney? You don't need to invoke the tone argument against someone, who simply spouts nonsense - it's not even applicable in this situation. Theoretically, it should only be used against someone that tries to shut down a discussion and dismiss entirely valid arguments by arguing about the tone. Usually it's personal outrage - "I won't discuss with you until you're nicer and more composed", or in the name of a broader group - "Maybe you're right, but no one will want to hear you until you're nicer and more composed." There are many cases where tone argument shouldn't ever be used, but I saw it being applied anyway. For example, when methods of reaching the people are actually the main topic of discussion, then the tone of speaking to the public is a valid concern. Also, the definition assumes that your opponent actually acts in ill faith and tries to find a reason to be indignant. It shouldn't be used as an excuse to ignore someone's complaints after flipping the gently caress out and insulting them into their face. You cannot purposely anger someone and then claim victory when they lose their composition.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Read article, learned nothing new. There's idiots in every activist group, in every social group. The author wrote about the radical left because this is the side of political spectrum she used to support. She described behaviors and ideological quirks that has driven her away from this particular group. Dismissing the article because other people also behave similarly completely misses the point. quote:The people who seem to be most destructively dogmatic are white activists, who attempt to make themselves victims of some sort of oppression because they know they can't truly understand what it's like as they come from the oppressor class. This ends up with them being shitheads to women and PoC. Citation needed. If this forum is representative, this isn't always the case.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Helsing posted:A more accessible example for most folks might be workplace rules on sexual harassment that limit your ability to tell jokes or flirt with coworkers because those actions, while seemingly harmless from one perspective, can actually create a really alienating and hostile work environment for others. The problem with the concept of 'privilege' is not the idea it represents, it's its usefulness. It does tell you that some people got it easier in the society than the others, but offers no insight why this happens or what can be done with it. It presents inequality as some mysterious force that simply exists and cannot be ever defeated. Even if you belong to the privileged group, you can do nothing to level the playing field, because privilege exists outside of you whether you want it or not. If you're a minority, you can do nothing by definition. It's presented as an outside, malicious force that can never be fought except by making everyone aware of its existence and mitigating damage it causes. This makes privilege useless, except when used as a bludgeoning tool against people that already acknowledge its existence. It doesn't mean anything to the people beyond the left, because they either don't acknowledge their privileged position, or their ideology offers them a way to rationalize it. As for the unprivileged, it means only knowledge of the fact that they are hosed over by something they can't influence. It's not too useful for the privileged people that are already sympathetic to the cause, because they already know - that's why they are there. The way I usually saw it used is as a pretext to straight out dismiss the opponent's argument ("You're too privileged, what can you know?"), or just to vent some anger on an acceptable target.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I don't think this is accurate. I'd agree that the whole discourse surrounding 'privilege' has been used as a bludgeon to shut down actual debate but that doesn't mean it isn't addressing a real issue. "Privilege" doesn't do anything except of putting all these divisions in a spotlight and normalizing them. It doesn't offer any way or even hope of dealing with them. It discourages disprivileged groups from working together. This ensures the left will always be weak and susceptible to infighting, instead of posing any significant threat to status quo. You can't hope to organize anyone if you spend a significant amount of time on highlighting which subgroups of people you're trying to organize have it better than the rest.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:I don't like to be a big wet blanket but come the gently caress on, there are adults who think that there's going to be some race/stonewall riot of the tumblr oppressed for the next october revolution. It's forgivable for an angry teenager to be so stupid but adults need to just deal with it already. Don't be silly, it will be a bunch of separate riots and revolutions. Transgender poor lesbian black women cannot have anything to do with transgender poor straight black women or the whole endeavor will collapse under the weight of accumulated privilege.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Mortley posted:This was one of my favorite threads in LF - "explain yourselves, sex havers!" - accusing anyone who had ever had sex of discrimination. After all, if you are at all sexually attractive or good at sex, sleeping with you is a benefit. And if you distribute benefits based on things that people have no control over - the symmetry of their faces, broadness of their hips or shoulders, etc. - you're being discriminatory by definition. It's one of the reasons that I consider egalitarianism a goal always worth striving for but which is absolutely unachievable (and not desirable to achieve). This is a definite IMHO though. "Here's why you really should sleep with me to be a good feminist!" - an LF goon discovering importance of intersectionality.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
OK, to sum the last page up: 1. Privilege is a very important concept and definitely not broken, even if very frequently misused as a cudgel. Nothing is wrong here, move along. 2. People who criticized the concept got it all wrong. We won't deign to tell you why, it's your job to educate yourselves and defend our position for us. 3. Why are you so interested in criticizing our theory if not to hinder our efforts? Who are you to tell us we are wrong? CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE WHITE CIS SCUM!!! I expected this won't be so overt in the topic about an essay that describes and criticizes exactly this behavior, but can't say I'm very surprised.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:Oh, I'm an rear end in a top hat. I've been formed, forged, quenched, tempered, ground, and honed into an rear end in a top hat. The chips on my shoulder have fine edges. I will own up to that. You chose a really lovely place to make it your last stand. Please don't be Monty Python's Black Knight, you did pretty well before that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
murphyslaw posted:Dear loving god is this still going on? It's actually better than McGill's essay, as it describes the problem more clearly. A chosen excerpt: quote:The first configuration is what I came to call the Vampires’ Castle. The Vampires’ Castle specialises in propagating guilt. It is driven by a priest’s desire to excommunicate and condemn, an academic-pedant’s desire to be the first to be seen to spot a mistake, and a hipster’s desire to be one of the in-crowd. The danger in attacking the Vampires’ Castle is that it can look as if – and it will do everything it can to reinforce this thought – that one is also attacking the struggles against racism, sexism, heterosexism. But, far from being the only legitimate expression of such struggles, the Vampires’ Castle is best understood as a bourgeois-liberal perversion and appropriation of the energy of these movements. The Vampires’ Castle was born the moment when the struggle not to be defined by identitarian categories became the quest to have ‘identities’ recognised by a bourgeois big Other. Edit: quote:The fourth law of the Vampires’ Castle is: essentialize. While fluidity of identity, pluarity and multiplicity are always claimed on behalf of the VC members – partly to cover up their own invariably wealthy, privileged or bourgeois-assimilationist background – the enemy is always to be essentialized. Since the desires animating the VC are in large part priests’ desires to excommunicate and condemn, there has to be a strong distinction between Good and Evil, with the latter essentialized. Notice the tactics. X has made a remark/ has behaved in a particular way – these remarks/ this behaviour might be construed as transphobic/ sexist etc. So far, OK. But it’s the next move which is the kicker. X then becomes defined as a transphobe/ sexist etc. Their whole identity becomes defined by one ill-judged remark or behavioural slip. Once the VC has mustered its witch-hunt, the victim (often from a working class background, and not schooled in the passive aggressive etiquette of the bourgeoisie) can reliably be goaded into losing their temper, further securing their position as pariah/ latest to be consumed in feeding frenzy. Gantolandon fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I was wondering how long it would take him to puppetmaster. The best was when he kept insisting about it for 5 more posts. He's posted like 3x the Dude, this flame died down about two-three pages ago. I'm not sure why you're bringing it up right now if you're so tired with it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 00:52
|
|
of anyone else here, but he's totes puppetmastering. You all lost your minds at his bad word. Really, you did. Now stop quoting him so I don't have to read his posts.
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 00:26 |
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:One example is that well-meaning policymakers will sometimes create womens-only homeless shelters, because in mixed shelters women will be harassed and abused. But Women-idenitified transfolk also face the threat of discrimination and physical violence from homeless men, so if those people are excluded from the womens-only shelter then they could be left even worse off then before. And there's also the issue of violence against queer homeless youth, who may not be women but who still might need special treatment... This assuming your society even wants to have homeless shelters built, instead of seeing it as a waste of taxpayers money and preferring all the poor to lift themselves up by the bootstraps or die. I understand this is only an example, but it looks like this way of thinking is what makes the left powerless. Homeless shelters are already overcrowded and lovely places, full of desperate people, some of whom struggle with addiction and mental illness. Violence will naturally emerge in such conditions. People who are perpetually stressed frequently vent it on someone who looks weaker and more vulnerable - this is why minorities get the short end of the stick. Separating the homeless from each other ensures less violence of majorities against the minorities, that's sure. It's unlikely, however, to reduce the amount of violence in shelters overall. Lacking their usual victims, the men in shelters will find another way to discriminate and abuse others. Some other people will become pariahs, either because of other vulnerability than gender or sexual orientation, or just by virtue of being more submissive and meek. The same thing will happen in minority-only institution, because experiencing abuse doesn't usually make anyone more adjusted and empathetic. It may reduce stress as a sort of placebo effect - by not having your usual oppressor around, you don't have to expect to be abused that much. A better effect, however, could be probably achieved by making shelters less overcrowded and hopeless and actually addressing the causes of homelessness. Segregation does nothing against the violence, it merely redirects it to be less predictable. It looks like it solves the problem, because it's becomes harder to find a clear pattern between individual events. At least, until someone finds another way of connecting the dots and another source of privilege, which feeds the confirmation bias of privilege theory enthusiasts. The most weird thing in all this debacle is that the left considers most of these divisions artificial. Race, gender and sexual orientation are considered social constructs, frequently used as a convenient excuse to profit from another group of people. Why then use rhetorics that normalizes those divisions instead of deconstructing them? What exactly is the point of treating them as something natural and unavoidable, instead of as an unacceptable thing that decent people should strive to eliminate?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 22:47
|
|