|
Ograbme posted:Why can't these thin-skinned crybaby basementdwelling neckbeard redditor permavirgins realize that I'm not using the term disparagingly? you sure showed those ivory tower Starbucks latte sipping rainbow haired sjw tumblr white guilt trust fund baby millennial losers! BornAPoorBlkChild fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Jan 2, 2017 |
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:22 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:People are aware of social issues, awareness is useless if people do not have the luxury to act upon it or at least refine it through a dialogue - and it is very much a luxury. Additionally the current nagging of people who have their own problems isn't just asking for them to "be aware", they are being actively vilified and dehumanized for not putting their personal concerns second after what somebody else deemed to be more important than their well being. Where is this happening? Can you point to an example?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Nerses IV posted:Where exactly is your "real world," in which you hear terms like "check your privilege" used with absolute seriousness? Where are you hearing it otherwise outside of your made up scenarios you posted ITT?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Where is this happening? Can you point to an example? Seriously? When has "check your privilege" not been used to shut down uppity dissenters? Specifically throughout this election, especially during the Democratic primaries, we even had plenty of this going on here, on SA. Posters like Veskit kept barging into threads and yelling at people to shut up because they were too privileged to be worth listening to, only those who passed the privilege test were to be given franchise. And then people were called racist for making any sort of political analysis because their thoughts were inherently polluted by privilege, and thus unfit for display. The very loving phrase Berniebro was coined to intristically tie Sanders' supporters and privilege, shaming them out of debates for being too regressive for liberal spaces.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Nerses IV posted:Where exactly is your "real world," in which you hear terms like "check your privilege" used with absolute seriousness? Presumably a very liberal college campus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:So, once again, we should ignore the use of actual proper terms and proven, actual concepts because it would hurt people's feelings. It is not without precedent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
It is truly a signifier of a niggardly temperament to hold such opinions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 21:44
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
steinrokkan posted:Seriously? When has "check your privilege" not been used to shut down uppity dissenters? Specifically throughout this election, especially during the Democratic primaries, we even had plenty of this going on here, on SA. Posters like Veskit kept barging into threads and yelling at people to shut up because they were too privileged to be worth listening to, only those who passed the privilege test were to be given franchise. And then people were called racist for making any sort of political analysis because their thoughts were inherently polluted by privilege, and thus unfit for display. The very loving phrase Berniebro was coined to intristically tie Sanders' supporters and privilege, shaming them out of debates for being too regressive for liberal spaces.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:I definitely remember you being way more racist than your rap sheet shows, but I have no idea what gave me that impression. I did know you were also a few other things that got confirmed by that click of mine, but I guess I should apologize to you for thinking "well no poo poo you got called racist". Well, you are racist, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
tbf, niggardly is such an archaic term that anyone who uses it nowadays is either deliberately trying to provoke someone into getting mad by mixing it up with the racial slur or just straight up using it in place of the slur
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Seriously? When has "check your privilege" not been used to shut down uppity dissenters? Specifically throughout this election, especially during the Democratic primaries, we even had plenty of this going on here, on SA. Posters like Veskit kept barging into threads and yelling at people to shut up because they were too privileged to be worth listening to, only those who passed the privilege test were to be given franchise. And then people were called racist for making any sort of political analysis because their thoughts were inherently polluted by privilege, and thus unfit for display. The very loving phrase Berniebro was coined to intristically tie Sanders' supporters and privilege, shaming them out of debates for being too regressive for liberal spaces. What do you suggest as an alternative, then? I think we've established that at least a meaningful percentage of the people offended by the term would be offended by any other term that means the same thing. We can't reasonably keep coming up with new words to avoid the inevitable co-opting and corrupting of progressive language, nor do I think we should abandon the idea of challenging people to consider their perspective when proposing social ideas. There will always be people who use socially liberal terms as a bludgeon, much as there will always be people who shout "cuck" and "libtard" and a host of racial epithets for the same purpose. It creates a unique problem for progressive language, since unlike the regressive equivalents we shouldn't wholesale ignore or remove those words from our discourse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:What do you suggest as an alternative, then? I think we've established that at least a meaningful percentage of the people offended by the term would be offended by any other term that means the same thing. We can't reasonably keep coming up with new words to avoid the inevitable co-opting and corrupting of progressive language, nor do I think we should abandon the idea of challenging people to consider their perspective when proposing social ideas. Actually debating honestly (you know, against the points and not the person, even if you think the person raising them is a raging rear end in a top hat), or straight-up saying you don't want to debate raging assholes because they're not worth debating in the first place. Both are better than saying "check you're privilege conservatailures  ". The first is more civilised and doesn't make you a smug rear end in a top hat who alienates people who are still forming their opinions while the second one is more honest and doesn't make you a smug rear end in a top hat who alienates people who are still forming their opinions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
I don't know. Telling the dumb assholes at Walmart that their white privilege allows them to work such a terrible job can't go wrong. If they have some sort of baggage (like crippling poverty) that won't allow them to take a simple statement in stride, they probably weren't going to be an ally anyways. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:I don't know. Telling the dumb assholes at Walmart that their white privilege allows them to work such a terrible job can't go wrong. If they have some sort of baggage (like crippling poverty) that won't allow them to take a simple statement in stride, they probably weren't going to be an ally anyways. keep beating up that strawman, buddy, it'll disintegrate eventually!
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:I don't know. Telling the dumb assholes at Walmart that their white privilege allows them to work such a terrible job can't go wrong. If they have some sort of baggage (like crippling poverty) that won't allow them to take a simple statement in stride, they probably weren't going to be an ally anyways. If, after taking the time to properly explain to them what the phrase means and how it applies to them and ensure they actually understand it properly, they still get angry and defensive then yeah, they weren't going to be an ally anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
This insistense to keep disparaging people's opinions based purely on some random personal feature and not by the strength or their arguments is why the far right is so strong on the internet and will probably also be 'in real life' soon enough There is only so much space for dumb idetity politics and the right are surely better at it
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Fados posted:There is only so much space for dumb idetity politics and the right are surely better at it Tell us more about how black men not wanting to get shot to death by the police for literally no reason is "dumb idetity(sic) politics". I'm sure your thoughts will be well-reasoned and insightful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Tell us more about how black men not wanting to get shot to death by the police for literally no reason is "dumb idetity(sic) politics". I'm sure your thoughts will be well-reasoned and insightful. Hey there cowboy, take a deep breath before you hurt yourself. Some identity politics are justified, others are just dumb. 'Check your privilige' falls to latter category
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Not getting shot to death by cops for no reason is one of the privileges that should be checked, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Fados posted:Hey there cowboy, take a deep breath before you hurt yourself. What's the difference, in your mind? Which identity politics are dumb and why?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:What's the difference, in your mind? Which identity politics are dumb and why? The ones that have no practical function other than to censure arguments and gain the moral highground
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Fados posted:The ones that have no practical function other than to censure arguments and gain the moral highground Such as...?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Such as...? http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/check-your-privilege-cards-are-the-best-gift.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Tongue in cheek gift cards make me angry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Pretty sure those fall under the "things only a college student would do" category.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
What's it like, living without a sense of humor?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
I thought privilege was actually a real and serious matter that one calls to be checked so to require a sober analysis of one's own social advantages. Luckily one can now easily do it for 5$ a pop. Maybe not so easily cause apparently they sold out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Not getting shot to death by cops for no reason is one of the privileges that should be checked, though. Correct. Is it productive, in general, to use privilege as a bargaining chip in order to carve out small political fiefdoms where only some people are allowed to really participate, and others only to listen, though? Doesn't it just serve to fragment the politics of a nominally united front, bringing it down into an abyss of impotence and irrelevance? In a world where there are political taboos for some people, there seems to be a huge obstacle to forming a strong political coalition. Privilege is a fine concept on its own, but also a dangerous one if it is used to compartmentalize policy instead of treating it as a holistic whole. I think cop shootings are a bad example in this case, because I believe pretty much everybody nominally on the left is sympathetic to the minority struggle in that area and willing to defer laying out a reform plan to minority activists. So in this case raising awareness of privilege has been an unambiguously positive thing. But then there are other areas where no side can be said to be the sole stakeholder, and that's where rhetorical fencing off of such areas is problematic. So I guess my point is that it makes sense to tell people to gently caress off if they don't hold any substantial, personal interest in an issue. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
Now how to reconcile this with my (and others') instinctive tendency to filter out wealthy liberal due to their privilege. Hm...
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Every race in america is victim of police brutality tho, everyone should be able to get on board with that, so even in that case they are doing themselves a disservice by framing it as a race problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Fados posted:Every race in america is victim of police brutality tho, everyone should be able to get on board with that, so even in that case they are doing themselves a disservice by framing it as a race problem. Really? Would you like to post those stats that show police brutality is visited equally upon all races?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Fados posted:Every race in america is victim of police brutality tho, everyone should be able to get on board with that, so even in that case they are doing themselves a disservice by framing it as a race problem. I mean, technically you are right, but at the same time it is pretty natural to see your situation in a context, and observe the huge gap in how much it affects you vs. other groups.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Really? Would you like to post those stats that show police brutality is visited equally upon all races? I admit my sources amount to the first 5 hits of "black lives matter statistics" on google but i'd be happy to get your input on this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Not getting shot to death by cops for no reason is one of the privileges that should be checked, though. I don't know, I'd really prefer to keep that "privilege" and extend it to more people, such as, say, everyone. Not getting shot to death by cops for no reason is not a privilege; it's a right; a right that is violated for many groups in America.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Fados posted:I thought privilege was actually a real and serious matter that one calls to be checked so to require a sober analysis of one's own social advantages. People often use humor as a way to draw attention to troublesome truths. It is interesting to me though that in this case SJWs aren't taking an issue seriously enough rather than vice versa, for once.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
21 Muns posted:I don't know, I'd really prefer to keep that "privilege" and extend it to more people, such as, say, everyone. Do you think the aim of people who talk about the privilege in the system that results in Black people being massively more likely to get shot to death by the police is to bring up cop shootings of other races to the same levels?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1DUoPS_1Rw&t=115s
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:People often use humor as a way to draw attention to troublesome truths. It is interesting to me though that in this case SJWs aren't taking an issue seriously enough rather than vice versa, for once. You do have a point here, if the meme functioned mostly in this way it might have a positive function instead of the sanctimonious narcisistic tool it actually amounts to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Fados posted:I admit my sources amount to the first 5 hits of "black lives matter statistics" on google but i'd be happy to get your input on this. Sorry, do you genuinely believe that black people are not more statistically likely to be murdered by police? How are you getting these numbers? Are you adjusting for the actual makeup of the population?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:22 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Not getting shot to death by cops for no reason is one of the privileges that should be checked, though. This isn't triage. You don't have to marginalize the problems of the working poor so we can focus on fixing bad police behavior. Dismissing everything they're struggling with as 'petty problems' isn't a way to gain allies to your cause. Notice how most of the liberals complaining about identity politics aren't taking the rear end in a top hat position of 'get rid of them completely because they're petty issues compared to my economic concerns'. I think most of us realize that we're in this together. Making sure people can earn a living wage is good thing for everybody. Making sure the police have better training (so they don't randomly shoot a black guy in the back or choke a homeless man to death or kill a retarded person who's stayed in a movie theater past the movie he paid for) is good for everybody. Fados posted:Every race in america is victim of police brutality tho, everyone should be able to get on board with that, so even in that case they are doing themselves a disservice by framing it as a race problem. Oh boy, do I have a post for you... Dr. Fishopolis posted:Why argue anything at all to white voters? Why do we have to spin anything or give a single poo poo what white men think? Every piece of data available shows that Trump did not expand the republican base one iota. The right didn't win, the left lost because it didn't vote. Trying to reach fragile little souls who can't cope with their looming demographic irrelevance is a losing strategy, and this election proved it. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 02:02
|
|