|
The left lost a lot when it lost it's major organizational structures and leaders, and it hasn't managed to rebuild since then. This seems to be a symptom of that. The government has not shied away from breaking the law and using violence to discredit and destroy effective liberal groups. This isn't exactly a secret. They have outright murdered people to disrupt radical liberal organizations. That's something that's difficult to fully recover from in the best of situations. And it's pretty obvious that even if they haven't been that extreme, there are still many attempts to undercut any sort of cohesive, effective, functional liberal movement. There's no evidence they stopped infiltrating and undermining leftist groups, although at least it seems like the government has stopped outright killing people. It may just be a lack of anyone threatening enough to need to be killed. Hoover's legacy is still with us, regardless, just like the legacy of racism is. Conservatives and the powerful have made it clear they see this as a war they plan to win, and they've dedicated a large amount of time to insuring there is no cohesive resistance even now. Look at how they destroy organizations like ACORN, that are barely leftist. They have money on their side, the power structure on their side, and organization on their side since their organizations persist, on account of how they are not targeted for disruption and destruction (in general). Meanwhile, the absolutely defend their own, even when their own are crooks and fraudsters, like with the whole IRS non-scandal. So you get much of the radical left adopting a form that is minimally effective but maximally survivable - a group think cult-like format. When you're part of a movement that's been historically targeted for infiltration and disruption by the FBI, this sort of purging and circular firing squad behaviour is kind of expected to a certain extent. Although obviously it's been taken to insane levels, and is never a particularly good idea. Basically, these sort of attitudes will likely always exist, which is why it's important to have people who've grown beyond it and the institutional knowledge to keep the movement effective and focused on real solutions to real problems, while still using the anger as a tool to keep people impassioned. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Dec 4, 2014 |
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
Xibanya posted:Acting in bad faith is a concept that is discussed in court. Concern trolling is just one form of being a bad faith actor. I agree it's difficult to refute such an accusation online, but in a real-world context (especially politics) a person's (politician or pundit's) background can usually give you a very good idea as to whether or not the person truly cares about (topic du jour). Concern trolling is almost never actually a relevant point (see: Why do you guys care so much about police murdering people but you don't riot over black on black crime?) so you often don't even need to care about intention. Keeping discussions on-topic would both help keep away the concern trolls and also serve to get rid of many of the worse vices of left radical "discussions" that are really just indignation matches and emotional conflicts without any grounding.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
ryonguy posted:I did, it's a lot of words for "slippery slope". Also, you're dumb. And smell like poop. It's not a slippery slope to point out the the logically consistent result of the stances you espouse. If you hold stances that argue for outcomes you find acceptable, this is a good sign you should question those stances. This is why the LGBT movement didn't argue that "anybody should be able to get married to anything" as their reason for supporting gay marriage, and if they had and someone pointed out that it meant they were arguing that people could marry their infant, toaster, or dog if they got their way, that would not be a slippery slope argument. That requires the point being that the thing someone is arguing for could lead to another thing both parties agree is unacceptable. "Two consenting adults should be able to marry each other!" countered with the same response would be a slippery slope argument, because the person in question isn't arguing for a solution they find acceptable, merely one that might lead to one (as the counterargument goes). You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing for a situation you find unacceptable. And your response to someone pointing out that the thing you are arguing seems to leads to an outcome you find unacceptable is not to refine (if you are communicating poorly) or modify (if your understanding is actually flawed) your argument, but to insult and mock them and accuse them of tone arguments. So let's step back. The current argument, as I understand it: One group claims that white people are inherently racist, and that we must fight to eliminate racism. Another group responds that this argument is either separatist or genocidal. As a member of the first group, do you recognize how they would come to this conclusion? How would you refine, clarify, or modify your statement such that the second groups criticism is not valid? This is not a tone argument. This is a content argument. They are not saying you are angry, or whining, or not being nice enough, they are saying you advocating either inaccurate or not-good things. (Specifically, judging by the tone of this thread so far, they are pointing out that this is a flaw in essentialism) Perhaps you are not in fact arguing essentialism. If so, your defense isn't insults, it's to inform them you are not arguing essentialism. Well, that or that your goal isn't to eliminate racism.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:So is it important to identify privilege or not? This is actually a good question. I'm about as leftist as they come (in the eyes of those who aren't adherents of the true leftist strategy), and I honestly don't know if it is. Can you point to victories that it has achieved, and meaningful social change? Has identifying privilege helped? If it's not a useful strategy, we should stop doing it. If it's only a useful strategy in a subset of situations, we should try our best to resort to it only in those situations. You apparently have thought about this quite a bit - do you think it is important? If so, why?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You're mistaking what I'm saying. I'm not accusing anyone in this thread, or anywhere else, of sincerely believing in essential racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/classism. I... didn't say you were. But okay, can you tell me what you were actually trying to argue?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Can you point to victories that it has achieved, and meaningful social change? Has identifying privilege helped? If it's not a useful strategy, we should stop doing it. If it's only a useful strategy in a subset of situations, we should try our best to resort to it only in those situations. SedanChair posted:Just off the top of my head, abolitionism, ending Jim Crow, women's suffrage, the Chicano movement and LGBT rights. Are you just... trolling? You can't be serious. Abolition was a victory achieved by recognizing privilege? Really? Can you explain this? Defend it? What was the mechanism? Because this claim seems literally insane on the face of it, and I haven't gotten past the first item in the list.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
You realize this is an argument not to identifiying privilege, which is assumes to be something the viewer is already aware of, but of building associations. Much like the lgbt movement didn't make it's progress by arguing "You should do something because you've got it better than me in some way" but by arguing "you and I are actually much alike". Building empathy by in-grouping has jack loving all to do with "identifying privilege" as far as I can see, so why don't you try again and use a real argument this time? What does this have to do with privilege, come on, give it a try, use words this time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
What evidence do you have that identifying their privilege is what made those northerners allies? Because the slaveowners were definitely aware of their privilege, and they weren't allies.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Again, justice can't happen without awareness. First off: Awareness is not the same thing as privilege. If the neighbour was keeping his daughter locked in the basement, I might fail to act against him because of a lack of awareness. But "identifying my privilege" is not the thing that would be happening if someone let me know that was happening. So give me an actual example of "identifying privilege" that actually managed a victory during the abolition movement. Informing people of what slave's lives were actually like is not identifying privilege, since it says nothing about the lives of the privileged at all. Trying to build empathic association by in-grouping, as in the example image you gave, is pretty much the exact opposite of identifying privilege. (The focus is on what they have in common, not what is different0 Or are you going to claim these for "identifying privilege" somehow? If so, defend that claim, because you haven't yet. SedanChair posted:If people are evil and love to oppress others, awareness isn't going to help. Those people have to be controlled.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Funky See Funky Do posted:I've always wanted to know. Is D&D a parody debate forum or a legitimate debate forum? If it's the latter then there's a whole bunch of folks here that aren't even close as smart as they think they are. I make bad analogies as a joke and you guys seem to see it as an art form. The reasons and motives of D&D posters vary wildly, and in fact vary wildly from post to post. Very few posters have as their motive making this a legitimate debate forum (as if thats even possible), and even those who do get that urge, like myself, probably only manage to post in that direction, oh... half the time at most. The only thing people here have in common is that the like to argue, which is why trolls are so successful here - even when the other side recognizes them as a troll, they can still argue with them and get what they want! So I would say it depends on the thread, poster, and post. In the minds of D&D posters it is both and more. vvvv Thug Drink puts it better than me vvvv GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
The problem is that "giving everyone the same privileges" doesn't work. Many of these privileges are zero-sum. The privilege to legally own slaves, for example, is one that both white and black folk lost as a result of the abolition movement. What many leftists don't want to admit publicly is that what they want is, actually, to take things away from those who have them. And this inescapable reality, that granting certain privileges to minorities does in fact lose something for the majority who benefited is why much of the benefit comes from gaining allies who don't lose something and might even gain something as a result. Less "support our social revolution to take away your right to do blah" and more "if you help us take away the right for people like you to do blah, you'll get the ability to do foo in exchange". What I want, in regards to cops and leftists, is a strong leftist movement to get employed as cops.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:So what do I have to lose to give black kids walk past cops and not get shot 'privileges'? The privilege not to care because they aren't the target is a pretty big one, and the satisfaction of seeing "thugs getting what they deserve" is another popular one. the solution here could be awareness, but not of privilege - convince they they can be and are targets as well, and then they have something to gain by supporting your cause that's probably worth more than the admittedly small privileges they've given up. This probably isn't worth thinking about in terms of privilege though - it's an ineffective framing, but building support and gaining allies, especially powerful ones, in the general public can lead to pressure. The harder problem is that the truly privileged individuals here are the cops and prosecutors, not white folk in general (black cops probably get off for killing black people too). And nothing is going to change unless you can get at least some portion of them on your side. I think the privileges the cops have (to kill people and get away with it) are obvious. So you need to offer them a benefit for losing that privilege. If you can get powerful people and members of the public to exert pressure on the departments, the benefit might be removing that pressure! Cops may value higher social standing more than they do the privilege (which they may not even use themselves) of killing black people and getting away with it. So the problem becomes convincing them that you can provide this benefit (no disruptive protests in cities with strongly accountable police forces, getting positive marks from some independent body, people throwing appreciation events instead of protesting if they're in a good city where something like this happens, if you get powerful politicians on your side maybe funding will be tied into some trackable manner of accountable departments, if you get media pundits on your side you get ignored or lauded as 'one of the good ones' while others are attacked). This might not be palatable to the left radicals who are really just seeking an opportunity to get mad in public, but it's one possible effective strategy. Abolition couldn't have been won without the support of many powerful people who had something to gain. The key is convincing them whatever privilege they are losing is worth less than being on the right side of history. But this is strategic theorizing. The privilege that will be lost is the ability to murder black kids and not face consequences others would face for doing the same. It's a privilege that police should rightfully lose. Helsing posted:You know it is fair to ask questions but if you have literally no knowledge of this at all then you should go educate yourself. It`s not the obligation of any poster on these forums to spoon feed information to you. And after a point it starts to look like you don`t really care about the answers and are just using this endless line of banal questioning as a way to shut down a more interesting or substantive discussion. I don't have a problem with his questions, even if he thinks they are rhetorical. Grounding an argument in real situations is useful, I think, and asking for real world examples is not a dumb question, especially if it clarifies what is being communicated. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:I wonder how different poor vs affluent, college vs blue collar, etc, persons break down wrt their perceptions of this subject. So do you actually care about my response to your questions about which privileges would be lost and why we should care in response to your request for specific details?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:So when I ask "OK, so what am I going to actually 'lose'?" and the answer is "the privilege to not care, or the privilege a cop has to not kill someone," I wonder if they're just having clumsiness from being really far up their rear end with their vocabulary. quote:I'm trying to figure out if it's vague so that it's what they want it to be to use it as a bludgeon, or if it's just because it's kids on the internet. What the gently caress is vague about "cops are able to murder people and get away with it, and I don't think they should be able to but they know they have that special right and they're not going to just give it up for nothing"? The fact that I'm calling it a privilege? It's something they have that others don't, with victims of that benefit on the other side, that no one should be able to do. quote:Every loving act a human with agency can take is apparently a privilege to these people, such as the privilege to take a walk, or pee standing up, or breathe through my nose. My whole loving point to begin with was that "identifying privilege" was almost worthless, because people are already aware. Slaveholders knew exactly what privileges they had and were not going to just give them up. So what the hell are you talking about? Are you just talking at me while pretending that I'm making some other argument? GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Oh is Jezebel on the enemies list now? You're defending Gawker gossip blogs now?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:Let's reorient this: You usually do have to do the second at some point, though. The key is to do the first part long enough you can do the second successfully. See: Every meaningful instance of progress ever. Also, to clarify our earlier conversation, when I say privilege I'm using the dictionary definition: a right or immunity not enjoyed by others or by all; special enjoyment of a good, or exemption from an evil or burden; a prerogative; preferential treatment. A privilege is: Something that is given to you by an authority or system, not something that simply occurs. It's intentional or at least artificial and social in nature, and it is enforced. Otherwise its just an advantage. Something that applies to an individual or group and does not apply to others. Something that benefits them, usually by granting a right or tangible benefit, especially in regards to immunity to a rule or consequence others must follow or face. Peeing standing up or a basketball player being tall is not a privilege. Being allowed a special exemption to a town-wide curfew or being safe from the risk of being sold into slavery is a privilege, whereas a black person in old-timey USA might end up being kidnapped by slave hunters and shipped south even if they were never ever a slave to begin with. Privilege always implies the existence of another that is not granted the same immunities. The classic example of a "privilege", in books going back to the 1800s and earlier, is specifically immunity from arrest. Diplomatic Immunity is the very definition of privilege. Privilege isn't even inherently a bad thing, it's just a descriptive word (when not being abused for ideological purposes) that describes the concept that took me all those words to say. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:
Ernie Muppari posted:smiley indicating i think this opinion goes too far Do you disagree? There's always going to be holdouts - you can't please everyone, as they say. Should the LGBT movement have waited until everybody got on board before pushing for legal homosexual marriage? Of course not! Saying the second doesn't even prevent you from continuing to say the first, it's just recognizing the other party's not going to listen and you don't really need them to.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Gender dysphoria is definitionally a mental disorder, though. That's why we treat it - it's just that the most effective treatments are hormone therapies and surgeries and by modifying how we interaction with them. The condition causes them real and serious distress, though, and it isn't, like when homosexuals were classified as ill, merely a byproduct of society persecuting them (although obviously, like with most conditions, society actively supporting them makes it a lot less bad!). This actually reminds me of a thread I wanted to start... Casimir Radon posted:I never said they didn't. Transsexuals don't deserve to be killed, beat up, or lose their jobs just because they're trans. Doesn't mean everyone should buy into their delusions though. The fact that "buying into their delusions" (helpful hint: It's not a delusion disorder) is the most effective cure for the negative symptoms is the reason we should "buy into their delusions".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:I'm not saying that anyone other than physicians ought to treat them any differently. Irreversible genital mutilation just doesn't seem like the best way to "help" people. But there are people who get the irreversible genital mutilation and seem pretty happy with it? What would you argue is the better way to help those people?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
hepatizon posted:That just seems pragmatic, though. Broadening the goals of feminism would have diluted their message and efforts -- accomplishing a narrow goal is hard enough. It's suicide for a movement to try to be all things to all people. So you're saying when the labour movement got its big wins by selling out the black members of the movement that had gotten them that far, that was merely being pregmatic? Throwing an ally under the bus so you can climb their corpse to the thing you were supposedly helping each other achieve may be pragmatic, but its also reprehensible.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 07:33
|
|