|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 07:19 |
|
|
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. Quick question to you and anyone else with this line of thinking. "Why should I not stop you?" Also, in general, "why" is a question that most people are unprepared to answer, despite advocating for broad changes to society and civilization and the way people live. I think it's foolish at best to try to tell people that they should change the way they live, and the society they live in, but not have some sort of succinct way to tell someone why they should trust you and do as you say. I do not mean "why?" in the libertarian, "how do I profit/what's in it for me" sense, either, so don't try to run interference with that. I mean what principles guide this, what ends do you want to achieve, and how are your means remotely justified. Something tells me you can't tell me why I should let you "destroy the village." Or even what you want after you 'destroy' the badness you seem to think infects everything. Never mind the practical concerns of trying to face the USA head on with violence - you can't even justify it in terms of principle. Are you a teenager?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:My head is exploding. The LGBT movement succeeded because heterosexuals checked their privilege? Baloney. Teach cops not to shoot black kids.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:It doesn't matter. Privilege is just "original sin" for the tumblr left, at this point 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Really? Why do you think all those straight people are voting for gay marriage now? Moral arguments that exist completely outside of privilege bullshit come to mind.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Privilege is meaningful. White people have certain advantages that are almost entirely unavailable to other races. Heterosexuals are much more acceptable to society that homosexuals or bisexuals. It's just not everything. It's not it's own end, it's something worth pointing out when someone goes "I got here all by myselfs." It's also not something only white men, or men, or whites, or whatever have, and it goes far beyond just race and sexual orientation. Money made a big difference in how privileged I am in my life, but nobody says check your bank account. That's a privilege people aspire to have, oddly enough!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Like "I get to have the family I want, why shouldn't they"? I thought it was "have the kind of family you want, and I have mine." Yanno, a moral argument to leave people alone unless you have a drat good reason to interfere with them? Also, no, I'm not sure how my bank account, skin tone, dick length, dick girth, height, known card tricks, hireability, sexual orientation, shoe size, posting career, skinniness, or education factor into this. Moral arguments are valid regardless of who says or who hears them. If I missed any privileges please let me know so I can keep a list. As a matter of fact, the concept of privilege doesn't really matter, at all, when I think about gay marriage!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Those are just representative examples, duder. You don't need to be condescending. That's more directed at the tumblrs who just go "CYP" at the drop of a triggerword. Sorry I vented at you!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:"Please don't talk about white privilege, it makes me uncomfortable to be reminded that my life is much better than other people's for no rational reason." No, it's because I have money and I'm not seen as suspicious, but rather as trustworthy. Well, that and "ok, I checked them, now what?" usually results in "well that's it we dunno." I should add that I was a poor whitey privilege McGee for a long time and welp, wouldn't you know it, the privileges only kick in when you can buy things. And we all love to paper over class, don't we?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:I'm white, I don't have money, and I'm inherently trustworthy based on my skin color. I probably won't rob or rape you. You can can even relax around me. You can even hand me your debit card and ask me to buy you things and here's the PIN, keep it secret, okay? It's a shame that I'm a Potential Rapist and a Misogynist Pig as well as an Oppressor based on the fact I'm kind of pale and have a dong. Almost everyone would almost certainly not rob or rape me or anyone else. Almost everything we do wrong is because of emotional bullshit. But welp yeah like you say schrodinger's rapist even though RAINN and other actual authoritative agencies have said that most rapes are the result of acquaintances using power, pressure, and access to victims, not dating or "jumping out of the bushes." But my god my politicized, poisoned interactions on the basis of whatever I care about - gender, race, orientation, head mates, fursonas - are totally going to run roughshod over common loving sense and facts as well as we know them, by golly.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
BTW if your car has loud door locks, lock them around old ladies and white teenagers. They glare at you  That'll totally take a stand and raise awareness about the futility of not locking your doors the second you put it in R or D, or worse, re-locking it around some random black guy going for a walk.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I'm going to say that the /pol/ guy is correct about people acting cultish about this, because I've witnessed it happen and it's disturbing to see. What's fascinating is that this is a cult without any central leadership. But anyways, a large part of cults is the use of fear of the outside world to control the membership and the lengthy litany of trusting no-one who isn't ideologically pure and as intersectional as possible is an excellent way to use fear. Trigger warnings as implemented are another nice tactic of control, too. I guess it's more like a penis panic, in that there are shared beliefs, hysteria (phalleria?) and other "AHMAGOD"  bullshit elements present, but it's more about being a dick with a common calling to feel like you're the morally correct, objectively superior person because of your victimhood, but that you're totally gonna win and be on top NO gently caress YOU DAD. Also instead of a hunt for a witch making your dick fall off it's more about a witch hunt for someone with wrongthink and bad opinions, let's go ruin their entire life and plunge their family into poverty and unemployment because they argued on twitter, I'm so triggered, the literally shakes, oh my god, my head mates are trying to kill each other. Or I guess the secret interlopers, like how radfems think transwomen are secret males out to sneak into michfest or whatever? To be less goony and be more serious for a brief moment, this is VERY culty to me. There's no leadership, no, but the ability for people to coalesce around ideas online means we have a different dynamic, where one isn't needed anymore. It's about shared needs. I think it's mostly influence and attention.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Awareness is important, but mostly for the oppressed group. Consciousness-raising sessions were aimed at women, and increasing gay visibility at liberating closeted people outside of areas with strong gay communities. Awareness of yourself as part of a larger group and of that group as powerful is something that can be very meaningful. So why creating a sense among whites that they are powerful oppressors is supposed to fix problems I don't know. From what I see, all it does is promulgate self-loathing. Or, uh, swagger. Arrogance is loving nice, I tell you what. I'm so glad the internet spent years telling me how awesome I was.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Again, justice can't happen without awareness. And what do you think privilege is, a magic spell? If people are evil and love to oppress others, awareness isn't going to help. Those people have to be controlled. Awareness of the problem or awareness of I should verbally self flagellate when in the company of browns and vag-havers or queers who lean too far left? Inquiring minds must know. I mean what's more important, the secret lurking subconscious racism in my hand like a little demon on my shoulder wringing his hands, or the issue itself, such as black kids get shot a lot?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Its always funny when someone makes a general statement like "white privilige is bad" and then some butthurt nerd takes it personally and is all "well white privilige never did anything for me, blah blah blah" In my case it taught me I should be an rear end in a top hat since it's expected of me and it turned my life around, though.  Edit: Since reddit makes everyone have stronger opinions and it links to what I'm trying to reference but can't think of a funnier way to do it: http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrAtRest/comments/2mo9qd/npr_article_surprises_me_in_straight_white_men_a/ Space Whale fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Well no they stated that I am essentially racist, which means it's a complete waste of time to continue to talk to them, not that I should actually start being the jackboots and hugo boss wearing oppressor I am in their fever dreams. I like Brooks Bros more anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:"It's a waste of my time to talk to these people" *continues to respond to every post* Yes. Where I mock people sarcastically and talk to people about them. In DnD. Not sure what your point is?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
I do wonder why they attack privilege, when the point was to help the under privileged until they were as privileged as everyone else. Like, what the hell. Do they WANT everyone to be afraid of the cops?  I'm all for the privileges being at the same level, I just want them to go up.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Because without an awareness of privilege it can be very easy for those privileged people to monopolize control over a group. Second wave feminism ended up mostly being about giving white middle class women the opportunity to pursue bourgeois careers while largely side lining or erasing the experiences of queer, impoverish or racialized women. So how do you go "hey we count too" without it just being like it is now, extremely irritating? Because if you do that too much the privilege havers get annoyed and do their own thing for themselves, since they have the privilege to do so, and then the poor, queer, brown and radical people are just left there talking about privilege on tumblr.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The problem is that "giving everyone the same privileges" doesn't work. Many of these privileges are zero-sum. So what do I have to lose to give black kids walk past cops and not get shot 'privileges'? Or is this about jobs? Like if a black guy had my job I'd have to take another? What exactly is to be or should be lost, an abstract sense of dominance? You're incredibly vague.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Any political movement mostly centred on internet bickering is going to be grating and stupid and filled with people arguing in bad faith. That is not a function of any particular theory, its just a function of how people act when they're on the net. Helsing posted:Privilege theory was developed in the context of an actual political movement that was scoring actual victories (i.e. Women's lib). It responded to a problem that was real and serious. If you want to learn more you could check out Bell Hooks' "feminism is for everybody". I'm not sure that she actually uses the term 'privilege' but she does give some personal reflections on how Second Wave Feminism ran into difficulties because of these issues. I guess that it's just completely poisoned to me. The concept of "don't assume everyone lives like you do, has what you have, or knows what you know" is something I sort of "got" because I had "a parent" who taught me "right from wrong." Having a morally conscious mother is in itself a privilege, I suppose. None of this was at all new to me. The radicalized version of it where someone goes "gently caress you, grovel, serve me, and get nothing back" in so many terms is, and made me have to seriously question "identity" as a good reason to do a goddamned thing, and for that matter, what mine was. I still don't know, but I know that this screaming child morality of original ism/ist essentialist poo poo isn't.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:The gently caress? He's using rhetorical questioning to point out a flaw in the reasoning of the post he quoted. Oh fine ruin my fun then. 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. "Read up on it, but come to my conclusions!" Yeah... no.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:At what point does trying to be intersectional consume so much bandwidth that it impedes a movement from accomplishing anything? But then you get the constant screaming of "well we're left out or feel that way so let's blame the most privileged part of our domain" thing, such as white cis gays being hated by the rest of the LGBTQLMNOP.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
No, it's clearly and explicitly WTF do people need to give up? Give an example.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Helsing posted:But those rhetorical questions would only make sense to somebody who has spent little or no effort first trying to understand the other side of the argument. Helsing posted:So your argument basically boils down to "I have the right to be stupid" mixed with "wink wink, nudge nudge, I'm totally just trolling right now and it's not that I actually feel kinda threatened by these ideas." You protest too much about trolling, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
I wonder how different poor vs affluent, college vs blue collar, etc, persons break down wrt their perceptions of this subject.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Patriarchy is also seemingly not nearly as often thrown at individual people, except by the CYP crew, for that matter.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:i think youre mising the fact that people have sex i dont like I tried to make a thread about that but it wasn't wordy enough for Helsing to give a proper nod before talking about the actual topic, that is, politicization of other people's sex lives. Wanna post there?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:So do you actually care about my response to your questions about which privileges would be lost and why we should care? Well, yes, since then "privileges are just gonna be lost it's zero sum you're gonna lose" is more than just rhetoric, it's actually a thing worth discussing and thinking about. Edit: It's so loving vague and so apparently smugfuel for the people who throw it around and call everyone who isn't kowtowing or brown/vaghaving/queer/whatever "scared" of it that I really question what the point is besides a verbal bludgeon. 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. 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. 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. Space Whale fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No, don't worry about it *marks other doors with lamb's blood, leaves your door unmarked* What's the color of the sky in your fantasy world?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted: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. No. What acts or ability to perform an act with agency is and is not a privilege? Is the "privilege" that one group can do one that another cannot? That makes privileged acts basically everything! Peeing standing up is a privilege. Nose breathing is a privilege. These are, however, pointless privileges. So which ones actually count? And why do we need to play lingo-generator to say "it's wrong that cops can kill and get away with it" with "privilege" instead of "yo, stop them from shooting people. Also, from getting away with it if they did." GlyphGryph posted: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.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No, don't worry about it *marks other doors with lamb's blood, leaves your door unmarked* Quoting this on the new page because SedanChair literally wants Hashem to take my first born 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
The Snark posted:You're assumption is incorrect, but if I'd needed that sort of help I'd have liked to think it would have. I have noticed a lot of the tumblr types are very much into anger as it's own end, much like "JUST RECOGNIZE YOUR PRIVILEGE! (and shut up when I talk/never question if I am correct)" is. Why the gently caress should you be miserable or not deal with reality as it is? That has nothing to do with trying to change things, so much as not being a miserable, insufferable poo poo while trying to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted: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. Bring up their education or money privilege and see how fast they talk about the ordinality of race, orientation, and sexual identity versus class in the order of oppression operations sometime. So anyway can we "matrix it out" yet?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
What's wrong with Huey Freeman? I love Boondocks.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:No, like, I don't loving care about the vast numbers of people alienated away from leftism because of this, even if they're in the double digits. Many of those people have no real sympathy for leftism like Kyrie, have broken brains like you, or can be brought back in with alternatives. What's more important for me are the people being led down into a sucking void of despair and learned helplessness. "I want to change society. gently caress parts of it that aren't with the program." You realize that's going to make a lot of people not just ignore but perhaps even actively resist you and your goals because of that sentiment, right?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I don't know if you know this, but the Pareto principle is junk used to enforce the status quo. You can't actually change things without hurting people in some way. So in order to do anything at all, you need to be willing to gently caress over parts of society. I guess not, because if your framework is "we're gonna hurt others to benefit ourselves" I'm either highly confused or you're never going to get off the ground.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Why do you act as though this hasn't been a thing in virtually every successful movement in America good & bad, from Independence, to Prohibition, to Civil Rights, and currently gay marriage? People get ignored and sidelined all the time and it isn't necessarily always the radical getting ignored, it can be moderates, or the opposing end extremists. I guess my ideas of sidelining or hurting is different from yours. Let's take slavery: "You can't own people anymore. They're free. (But you can still make them a wage slave, tee hee, sharecropping!)" I suppose the slave owners were the ones who were "hurt" in a sense? I don't see it as harm at all if someone loses the ability to do a wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Can you provide an example of a positive change to society that benefits people without hurting anyone? Doesn't have to be in-depth. When gay marriage was made legal who got hurt? When pot was made legal, who got hurt?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 07:19 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Christians who genuinely believe that gay marriage is against the will of God and invites his wrath were hurt. People who believe gays are subhuman were hurt. People who prefer to keep their gay relatives closeted are hurt. These are all bad people, but they're still getting hurt. Their feelings were hurt. How was their place in society altered negatively, or material harm done to them? "Dealers were hurt." The loss of the ability to commit a crime is a harm, now, too? I very seriously cannot understand how you think. Is "we're gonna fight, hurt them, and win" just part of how you psych yourself up?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 01:34
|
|