|
quote:Important disclaimer: I passionately support anti-oppressive politics in general and have only good things to say about it. My current political worldview falls under the umbrella of leftism, although not radical leftism. I’m basically a social democrat who likes co-ops and believes in universal basic income, the so-called ‘capitalist road to communism.’ I agree with a lot of what the radical left has to say, but I disagree with a lot of what it has to say. I’m deeply against Marxism-Leninism and social anarchism, but I’m sympathetic to market socialism and direct democracy. I don’t have any criticism for radical leftism in general, at least not here, not today. What I feel compelled to criticize is only one very specific political phenomenon, one particular incarnation of radical leftist, anti-oppressive politics. No, that's not important actually. quote:If I said the same thing about another context that isn’t so simple — when the correct opinion isn’t so obvious — I would be roundly condemned. But the example’s simplicity isn’t what makes it valid. People who belong to oppressed groups are just people, with thoughts ultimately as fallible as anyone else’s. They aren’t oracles who dispense eternal wisdom. Ironically, this principle of infallibility, designed to combat oppression, has allowed essentialism to creep in. The trait that defines a person’s group membership is treated as a source of innate ethical knowledge. This is to say nothing about the broader problem of how you’re supposed to decide who’s a source of innate knowledge. Certainly not someone who innately “knows” that homosexuality is disgusting and wrong, but why not, if you’re simply relying on private revelation rather than public criteria? No, I won't.
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 11:20 |
|
|
quote:by Aurora Dagny 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
croc suit posted:Nice whitewashing of the whole piece.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Umm....how are exactly are you 'forcibly labelled'? Hail a cab. Congratulations, you're being labelled!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Privilege theory and intersectionality are amazing, there are no problems. People just can't handle them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
I think that's been the case since the days of the travelling bard.Discendo Vox posted:People not being able to handle them is a pretty big problem. Yes exactly. It is the entirety of the problem, just like people couldn't handle postcolonialism. The problem is not, Mr. Let's Make Friends, that people are talking about things that are real. Nessus posted:What exactly does intersectionality mean, anyway? Like, I have never clearly been able to get a sense of that. A thumbnail sketch is fine. It can be way simpler than people make it out to be. Basically that you have many axes of privilege (wealth, appearance, learned social skills etc.) and any one of those axes can be at any value. Example: "We were poor and white growing up, so I don't know why people always talk about black people like they're the only ones who are poor." Response: "You still benefited from society's response to your being white, while being challenged by poverty. Just as a richer black child, all else being equal, benefited from being more prosperous and was challenged in other ways by society's response to their being black." Morons call this "playing the oppression olympics" because they are desperate to leave these issues unexamined.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That's the opposite of my meaning, because the "can't" is categorical. They can handle it by growing old and dying.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:OK, now I see the miscommunication- I was being unclear, my apologies. The group of people who "can't handle" these theories, especially privilege, are the people who are trying to use them. That's sort of at the core of this discussion. Oh yeah no I would disagree with that. I'm sure we can cherry-pick examples of kids misusing the terminology or trying to apply it to them not liking One Direction or something but it's not worth thinking about. Most recent college grads I've worked with seem to understand it very well.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:This is a funny sentiment, that people will cite as an example of "the absurdity of radical leftism", that a conservative can't help but be puzzled by. It's a "radical leftist" concept to be mindful around women? To recognize that they might be intimidated by the presence of a man? This is common sense conservatism. You seem to have conservatism confused with decency. Conservatives are all about using fear and shame against women, in work, school, home and chance encounters.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I can promise you that academics in rhetoric are aware of the term. The problem with "concern trolling" as a concept or rhetorical position is that it's falsification-resistant (that's how I'd put it, the rhetoricians would have their own term). Basically, it's not really possible to refute a concern trolling accusation, because it's entirely intention-based. It's not supposed to be something you can get out of.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You are not John Brown. However, you are Franklin Pierce.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Probably the part where checking your privilege ends in genocide
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Effectronica posted: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? If you're saying that it's impossible to engage with the concept of privilege, and to do so would usher in white genocide, I'ma call you racist. We can discuss how racist you are...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
Yeah that's hyperbole, try not to feel threatened by it. Effectronica posted:That's not what I said. Are you, perhaps, illiterate? I actually said it again, in slightly leaner language. Go back a page and scroll up and you will find it. So is it important to identify privilege or not? Don't get upset about what angry minorities say and concentrate on doing your job.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:It doesn't matter. I find that people who say that could probably get through their lives without it mattering to them. However, that's a rather selfish way to live.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
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. Just off the top of my head, abolitionism, ending Jim Crow, women's suffrage, the Chicano movement and LGBT rights.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:My head is exploding. The LGBT movement succeeded because heterosexuals checked their privilege? Baloney. Really? Why do you think all those straight people are voting for gay marriage now?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:Moral arguments that exist completely outside of privilege bullshit come to mind. Like "I get to have the family I want, why shouldn't they"? That's called checking your privilege.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Because gay people built their own communities, stood up for themselves, came out of the closet, and built a political power base. Because we learned to respect ourselves. So LGBT folks talked about their experiences and engaged in activism and built communities, and straight people educated themselves and became allies. That's really all checking your privilege is. I get this idea that you all have been really soured on the word "privilege" because you've heard it from so many people you consider laughable. But there's really no other way to do it. It has to be a process of collaboration between people who are dealing with oppression and people who have benefited from it or haven't had to think about it, but are trying to learn and grow.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You're turning privilege into something meaningless by making it cover virtually everything. No, you're failing to understand how comprehensive of a concept it is.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
Slobjob Zizek posted:Prove that it's comprehensive. What kind of proof would satisfy you?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:middle and upper class coastal folks saying this to poor southern or appalachian folks or goddamned okie sons of bitches are What's The Matter With Kansas, and why the places where socialism was once popular in america won't be again Yeah, they really need to check their privilege. Animal-Mother posted:It's a goddamn joke, before anybody wastes their time being mad. He sure drank it up though, didn't he.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
I would love for you to elaborate on that.Omi-Polari posted:And then, magically across the land, there was no more racism. You know what isn't magical? Simpletons bitching about poo poo being hard.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
e: ^^^ see belowRodatose posted:There's a difference between checking your privilege (passive awareness) and restorative justice or a truth and reconciliation council (active collaboration/reconstruction) There's no way to get to restorative justice without first having that awareness. And some people are going to be stuck at relative uselessness, at slacktivism or tumblr (or D&D) slapfights or what have you. But that doesn't indict the theory's usefulness at all. And if you have any ideas for turning dilettante college grad Americans into real activists with a fire in their belly, I'm literally all attention. If all people have to contribute is their own raised awareness, I'll take it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 08:59
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Are you just... trolling? You can't be serious. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Do you really think that southern whites weren't aware that they were superior to blacks under Jim Crow? The issue had to be concentrated and put in really stark terms. Allies were created, mostly northern.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:OK. Northerners were not involved in Jim Crow. They used a separate system of segregation, one which is still largely with us. Jim Crow was a deliberate system that involved a constant reinforcement of white superiority and black inferiority. Your depiction of it as something that was solved by white people navel-gazing (not to mention that the mostly Jewish early allies of the civil rights movement were barely white) is insanely dumb. It's possibly even dumber than saying abolition happened because white people realized that slavery meant that black people were being treated as inferior, but probably not. poo poo moron, I guess I got confused by you talking about Jim Crow. I was talking about slavery. But in the case of Jim Crow northern allies helped to end it as well. Freedom Riders?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:What evidence do you have that identifying their privilege is what made those northerners allies? 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.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Space Whale posted: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? No, don't worry about it *marks other doors with lamb's blood, leaves your door unmarked*
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Oh is Jezebel on the enemies list now?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You're defending Gawker gossip blogs now? They've had some good pieces.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Incidentally, these reddit warriors against the underdog are responsible for many of the ridiculous tumblr posts about otherkin. Maybe they're the only ones who actually feel like otherkin, and are closeted and acting out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:And as the war ground on, yankee soldiers came to resent blacks. Also refugees and contrabands were persecuted in northern towns increasingly as the war ground on. Mainly because yankees were losing friends and family members to this war for those people they didn't even know. The result was a bunch of segregation through things like sundown towns. The feelings of white superiority were still there, just it was held as more morally superior to the way the rebels were doing things because instead of actively mistreating blacks, they simply alienated them and made it so they would not have to deal with them or ever come into contact with them. What on earth? I was talking about abolitionism, there's no need for you to get into the particulars of the Civil War. Jesus, internet.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:It's a good example of how going at activism purely theoretically and without taking note of your environment can lead to backlash that makes things worse for everybody. It doesn't make things worse, it gives people like you an excuse to talk forever about your serious concerns. Not that you need an excuse.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 11:20 |
|
|
Rodatose posted:You used the example of abolitionism to try to say "checking your privilege is useful. this is a movement that happened because whites checked their privilege" so I decided to take that to its conclusion to show how useful it was. It was super useful, tons of slavery defenders were killed by musket and cannon fire.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 08:49
|
|