|
Anecdotal but I like talking politics more with Conservatives because they will calmly and rationally try to make their point, and if I disagree they will make a counterpoint or respectfully agree to disagree. The other guys speak academic gibberish and if I disagree with even a fraction of what they want to say, start to lose their composure. It's unpleasant to talk to them. They're never content to agree to disagree because if you disagree you're a Bad Person and need to be corrected or ostracized.
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Congrats on only knowing shitheaded 'other guys' I guess. I've not found a problem finding any side of the political aisles (give or take nazis) to discuss things with calmly. That's the thing. I want to dismiss them as shitheaded or bad examples but these are the guys organizing events, running Student's Unions, and presenting at conferences. They're the top people in the local community and the fact that they act like rude assholes turned me off the whole thing. They get national coverage, write articles for major publications but are incapable of having a civil conversation with someone who is 99% in agreement. e: as a well-known example some of these people are responsible for shutting down the yoga class for disabled students as "cultural appropriation".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Hint: the pointy hood is a turn-off for liberals!!! I'm Black. Guess which side is the only one that has given me poo poo about my "blackness" or is open about expecting me to say or think certain things because of my race. I have had better conversations about the merits of communism with conservatives than the other guys, and about race relations too.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:This is a valuable anecdote and we should do what with it exactly? Whatever you like. "Listen and Believe". This is a thread about culture wars and I'm sharing the reasons why I, a person who has every political reason to be on board has been turned off because of personal experience. One man one vote begins with anecdotes but ends up winning and losing elections.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:In other words, do nothing about racism and remain silent. You're being very revealing. I know someone who was shunned for wearing her engagement ring. Her fellow activists thought it was heteronormative and so a symbol of straight privilege, unfeminist because it was the equivalent of a dowry "like her father being offered a cow in exchange for her", and that she was reinforcing the patriarchal institution of marriage. Personally, I would have been happy for her and focussed on her work as an activist. How did turning away a good activist help fight the patriarchy exactly?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:So you literally live in a world that is exactly like how all the right-wing blowhards imagine everywhere else is like. Huh.  Ottawa Brainiac Five posted:Then they all started beating her up while chanting "Kill All Men", I assume. No then she stopped participating even though she was a good researcher in Womens Studies and had made great presentations at conferences. She stopped helping with organizing and had to get a whole new friend group because her book club, knitting circle and all were these people who had jumped all over her. Frosted Flake fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Jan 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Yikes. Please tell me this is just on campus? It's not. These people graduate someday right? And go on to be professional activists who hang out with other activists and their endless drama bleeds into the real world when it effects Pride, or Slut Walk or anything else. Maybe my city is just an example of a few bad apples but they're all dedicated social climbers and managed to be running important things. I agree that their behaviour doesn't take legitimacy away from Feminism, but their work is definitely effected, let alone any kind of outreach to the public without a Humanities degree or PhD in Womens Studies.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
If "call-out" culture enables assholes to become expert social climbers, who is it serving? If you can bully your way to organizing events, I don't think it means you're a good organizer or even that you have the most correct beliefs. It's bizarre and I've never seen anything like it. How can you get this behaviour to stop and prevent assholes from reaching the top, without letting go of the idea of call-outs?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:In the real world, people laugh, cry, and rant. Acting like a robot is actually the freakish thing to do, not expressing emotion. How long do you listen to someone who is crying and ranting? How long does it take to adequately explain some of these concepts well enough to change someone's voting behaviour?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
You can cry and rant to elicit sympathy from someone who already knows you personally or already supports your cause, but the nature of politics means that often you'll have neither.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Those uppity activists need to stop making a fuss and inconveniencing people with their appeals to empathy and shared humanity. Is that what I said? How persuasive do you think this behaviour is? Do you think it's winning over voters? Helsing posted:While activist call out culture does seem to drive away potential allies in some cases I think its real liability isn't that it hurts people's feelings but rather the attitudes and worldviews it tends to cultivate. I think Frosted Flake was onto something when he suggested there's a lot of social climbing happening here. I might go a step further and say in many cases the activist left slips into a pseudo-religious moral tone where discussions of concrete strategic or organizational goals become secondary to establishing and policing political purity. Exactly. In and of itself, being abrasive or aggressive isn't always a bad thing and with the right direction can be really useful. When you direct it towards not only your own side but your own organization so that you reach the top, or build a clique around you, or look good is not good policy. I suppose that calling people out probably feels good, but just like the workplace is full of people that have read How To Win Friends and Influence People or The 48 Laws of Power, activism is full of people that have turned call outs into a strategy to gain and keep power and influence. Frosted Flake fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Jan 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Having a culture where ambitious people climb socially based on their ability to fracture organizations they are members of is not conducive to ever accomplishing anything. What are the benefits of call-outs?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Intersectionality doesn't even seem to be the "Left" in practice because unlike Syndicalism or Socialism it is completely unable to unite people in coalition either practically or even in theory. A mass movement based on every category of person, or every individual pushing their own tiny agenda is not going to work. 5 years ago you couldn't get TERFs and Pro-Trans Feminists in the same room. Now you can't even get a Trans coalition with the conflict over Truscum. The endless subdivision caused by intersectionality (in practice!) is directly counterproductive to bringing about any real change.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Of course the Left is still calling for legal enforcement of tumblr pronouns instead of worker's rights. The fight may have began before they were born but they have an opportunity to join it, and they are focussing on issues that only stroke their individual egos or match some identity they assign themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Getting suckered into fights about trans bathrooms when the vast majority of people have never seen a transperson is missing the commonality of nearly everyone being hosed over on other issues. If you form a coalition, have "regular" people supporting you because you support them in their struggles then you can say "oh by the way we need you to help out on this". The Women's march is a great example. Help these "regular" women understand Black issues once they are there marching with you instead of shunning them so you have lost their support entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Holy poo poo, where to start. Framing white women as "regular women" even with the scare quotes is gross as hell. And telling black women how to combat misogynoir is just unnecessary. Are you a black woman? No? Then shut the gently caress up. Thank you for demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about. Telling people to shut up unless they're X, is a good way to make them feel that they aren't wanted in any kind of movement, and they'll stop participating. How many trans women and black women do you think there are? The Million Woman march will have a hard time reaching that number if women who aren't X (let alone supportive men) feel like at best their participation will be begrudgingly tolerated.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:I did read it. But apparently in your race-addled mind, regular means "white," but I and the poster see it as meaning non-activist women. I did mean it as non-activist women. In the example of the Women's March on Washington it is the women who are being told "Oh you're scared now? I've been scared my whole life. You can come maybe if you shut up and listen and check your privilege constantly". It's not a race thing or a cis thing. For the first time masses of women without the class or educational ties to activism are willing to participate in the movement and instead of seeing this as a uniquely wonderful opportunity, some are seeing them as fresh targets for call-outs.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
I guess I feel like the women I'm describing where I see the problem and want to help work on a solution, but I have a background, education and profession that means that I don't know all about critical theory. They (and I) can see that they do not like Trump, and they see an opportunity to protest him, to start participating in politics beyond (maybe) voting. Why should they know about normatively, or privilege theory or anything else before they go? Why not have a million women come, based on a really, really simple and easy to understand goal, and educate them once they are there participating? E: How could I know it was a microaggression? I used it correctly in the context and was clear about what I meant. In the future, how do you prefer "People who do not regularly participate in activism." (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 22:26
|
|