|
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. Um, that post kind of clearly distinguishes regular women as women who don't "understand black issues" which implies that they aren't black (since I'd imagine that black people understand black issues, what with being black and all).
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 22:40 |
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:That would depend entirely on what you mean by "understand black issues". Are we talking about embodying a lived experience of blackness, and to some extent being able to articulate what it means to be black in society versus white, or are we talking about possessing a nuanced understanding of "black issues", the causes and effects, and having a coherent understanding of the best way forward? Because the former is completely unremarkable but I don't believe any amount of melanin (or lack thereof) imbues any individual with an inborn grasp of the latter. Nor do I believe any amount of lived experience necessarily imbues someone with a sophisticated understanding of social issues. The idea that anyone intrinsically knows what's in their best interests is simply not borne out in reality. Then why even use "regular" with quotes like that? Why not just say "people who aren't involved with activism." The quotes clearly seem to indicate that the poster is trying to avoid the obvious negative implications of calling non-minorities "regular", or else they make no sense.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:If we're going in the direction of useless anecdotes, I was once yelled at for saying something stupid without realizing it, and that event caused me to think critically about myself and my assumptions and I became more thoughtful as a result. This can be true, but I think the problem can arise when if, after being yelled at, the person who was yelled at goes "Could you explain why what I did was wrong?" and then the yeller goes "I think you know what you did wrong you fascist." Like, I have no problem with responding aggressively to people who say things that are bigoted in some way (or things heavily associated with such views), but if that person honestly wishes to understand why they were wrong I think it's okay to answer them instead of permanently writing them off from the instant they said something dumb/bad. I mean, you yourself specifically said how if they thought you were irredeemable they would have been wrong! That being said, I just believe this is a decent thing to do from the perspective of "being a nice person." I don't see any reason to believe that it has any sort of adverse effect on the efficacy of activism, for the aforementioned "a real ally wouldn't abandon your cause just because a random person insulted them" reason. For what it's worth, I don't think that anyone is particularly guilty of doing this on the SA forums. Probably 95% of the time I see someone aggressively attacked, it's because they actually are terrible and have nothing to contribute. And even for the other 5%, while it may be kinda lovely I don't think it's actually having any significant negative impact on discourse in general or driving away people who would otherwise be allies. I've been on the receiving end of such attacks a few times, and while it made me feel kinda upset and confused it's not like it made me abandon my socially liberal views, so I can't really argue that there was any real "tactical" downside to them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 07:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm not really seeing how "these practices are having negative effects and ought to be changed" is the same thing as saying that one race is inferior to another. "Thinking one race is inferior to another" is not the only form racism can take. Stuff like stereotypes (including positive ones), holding opinions that have racist results in practice (for example people who want to gut welfare) or even just being apathetic towards racial discrimination would also fall under the banner.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 08:03
|
|
|
stone cold posted:America doesn't have 100% voting turnout, as was pointed out up thread. Team hitler was around 26% of eligible voters, hope this helps~! Yeah, but I'm pretty sure most Americans fall to the right of your average SA poster when it comes to both social and economic issues and that a large majority hold various racist views*. There's also some level of bigotry (or apathy towards bigotry) present in the act of choosing not to vote in this recent election (ignoring people who had their votes suppressed directly or indirectly) since it implies people didn't consider preventing Donald Trump worth the effort, and most of the people arguing here in D&D voted Clinton even if they spend a lot of time criticizing her/liberals. So I guess what I'm getting at is that the number of people who would fall on the "more correct" side of social issues like this is almost certainly a minority of Americans, so one way or another you'll probably be forced to get a bunch of votes from outside of that group. This doesn't mean you specifically have to get those votes from the sort of people who often concern troll threads like these and I'm also certainly not arguing that "the nature of left-wing social activism" is somehow to blame, but using the standards you seem to have put forth there definitely isn't some Silent Majority of socially conscious voters. Most Americans would probably end up being on "Team Hitler" if you tried to engage them in a discussion about social issues like this (in the sense that they would end up expressing some sort of prejudice/bigotry). *Just as an anecdotal example, my parents are considerably more liberal than the average American and have always voted Democratic, yet have various racist views along the lines of complaining about sagging pants, AAVE, etc. In particular, I find that this form of racism (that tends to involve negative views about some stereotype associated with a race) is super common among Baby Boomers, and unfortunately Boomers make up a huge portion of the voting population.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
White Rock posted:Agreeing with this 100%. Fundamentally, i believe in that candidate that can promise reach people affected by A while taking a firm stance against B. Even if some voters overlap in their believes, i think people who contain any mix of A and B can be reached through a mutual interest of A, since B is actually not in their interest. I also believe the A group is larger then B. Eh, I don't believe A is larger than B here. Most Trump voters aren't poor, economically insecure people and actually do have a bunch of terrible beliefs (because they basically overlap with "regular" Republican voters). But you only need to consider reaching out to the tiny minority who are motivated by something other than bigotry or typical dumb right-wing ideology, since flipping a small percent of people is enough to win elections. edit: Solkanar512 posted:I can't help but wonder if this book might shed some light on the issues we're discussing here. The point about in-person discussion being better in many ways is pretty valid. I'm 100% confident that if I were discussing these issues in person there's no way the vast majority of people would react negatively, because it would be clear in my tone of voice/mannerisms that I'm taking them seriously and that I'm not supremely confident in my own position. But online I think there's this assumption that any time someone is making an argument, they're making it from the perspective of "I'm definitely right, you're definitely wrong, gently caress you." In person you can tell if someone is being a "concern troll" from their tone of voice, versus actually asking a genuine question. So you end up with the hyper-vigilance Talmonis mentioned where people become so afraid of letting in bad actors (and this is unfortunately a pretty reasonable fear) that they assume the worst about everyone they encounter. So I think the net take-away here is that the internet is not an ideal place for engaging people who don't already agree with you politically. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:People need to learn to not get defensive when called out on stuff they are doing. I agree with this, but what I occasionally see happen* is someone get called out and permanently dismissed even if they genuinely don't understand why they were called out (or their posts will be constructed in the worst imaginable way). This is where the internet can be kind of a bad way to have these discussions; when the person called out says "I don't understand why you got mad" the person who called them out perceives that as "I think you were wrong to get mad" rather than a genuine attempt to understand why. And this is understandable, since probably a majority of the time they would be correct in this assumption. In person, it would be really obvious from tone and body language whether the person asking was honest in their intentions, but this often isn't conveyed well in text alone. *I don't think this has much of an impact on activism as a whole; I'm just talking from the basis of "being a decent person"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I think this plays into people's minority status. How many times do you have to have that same conversation with different people? At this point, I am tired. A lot of times I just don't say anything because I don't want to get into a drawn out time-consuming debate that usually will end right where it started. Nowhere. This goes into researching your own stuff if you legitimately want to be a better person. In this case, can't you just ignore the person? I mean, in an internet forum like this it's not like they're addressing you specifically, so if you don't feel like explaining something you could just not respond and let someone else respond if they want to. I mean, obviously it's a different matter if this happens in person, but currently the topic seems to involve online discussions.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:even condemn those within our community who march for "justice for peter liang" Back when this was a big issue my Chinese coworker (who immigrated here about 8 years ago) mentioned that he was going to some sort of protest related to it. After reading about the issue I was kind of mixed; on one hand the guy obviously deserves to be punished, but there's also a valid point there about the fact that he was punished while white cops who did the same thing weren't punished. So it sort of depends whether you're protesting because you think he shouldn't have been punished, or whether you're protesting the hypocrisy of him being punished while white cops go free for similar (or worse) crimes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Just read up a bit on data disaggregation, and holy poo poo is that needed. What's going on that so many kids from southeast asia are having that drastic of a graduation disparity? I imagine it's at least partly due to the conditions leading various Asian sub-groups to immigrate to the US being different. Like, immigration seems to frequently be an upper class thing when East Asians (Chinese/South Koreans/Japanese) do it, possibly because their own countries are developed enough that it becomes more of an "unnecessary" thing (that is, people aren't driven to immigrate due to the desperation from not being able to find good economic opportunities as often). Maybe some Southeast Asian countries have different things pressuring immigration; for example maybe some people immigrate due to a lack of economic opportunity in their own countries, which might result in a significant socioeconomic divide between these groups in the US. edit: Also, isn't at least some portion of the Southeast Asian population in the US made up of refugees from the Vietnam War? edit2: By the way, Koalas March, how are you able to always find relevant gifs so fast like that? This isn't some sort of sarcastic question, I'm legitimately curious. Do you store them in some directory by topic, or do you just have a really good memory and can remember if you have a gif representing a particular thing. Or is there maybe some sort of web tool for finding them? Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Jan 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:(((being underemployed and underinsured))) is the fault of (((globalists))) and not my own lack of ability I want to quickly address this, because it's the sort of idea that is wrong in a "1+1=3" way rather than an ideological one. Consider a situation where literally everyone in the world is intelligent and hard-working and makes good decisions. Everyone in this world has been following all the most pragmatic advice available. Roughly the same number of people would need to do low-paying jobs and the number of available high-paying jobs wouldn't magically significantly increase. We'd still need roughly the same number of janitors, lawyers, etc. Basically, while it might make sense to say that a specific individual could benefit from working harder and making better decisions (though even that is subject to a ton of luck), this sort of viewpoint makes zero sense when applied to large populations and society as a whole and is a good example of a political opinion that is actually objectively wrong independent of ideology. No amount of personal responsibility or good decision making will have a significant impact on things like unemployment or underemployment. Period.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I think that older black voters likely had more reasons than just racial issues to choose Hillary over Benie, or perhaps just didn't see anything compelling enough from Bernie to switch over from a candidate that they were very familiar with. The familiarity is a big thing and was Clinton's biggest advantage (and why it's surprising Sanders managed to even have a close race with her). Clinton's name recognition and association with her husband would make her the automatic choice for most Democratic voters who aren't exceptionally involved politically, since someone who isn't closely following politics wouldn't necessary know who Sanders is, but they'd definitely know who Clinton is. It makes zero sense to think of the primary in terms of Sanders losing due to some mistake he made; if anything it implies some problem with Clinton's campaign that he even came close in the first place. In most past elections Sanders would have just been the fringe left candidate without the slightest chance of winning. Regarding the younger/millennial black voters supporting Sanders, it's definitely important, but it doesn't really discount the point that the vast majority of black voters still supported Clinton (since the millennials only made up a small portion of total black voters). That being said, the reason it is still relevant is that it implies that there isn't some sort of generalized "black support for Clinton" that applies across all notable black sub-demographics. If the percent of black voters who didn't support Clinton in the primaries were evenly distributed across all age groups (and other sub-demographics), then you could still say "black Americans firmly support Clinton." But the fact that there's a relationship between (in this case) youth and supporting Sanders implies that the support for her among black voters isn't some monolithic thing can varies depending upon various factors (in this case age).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 22:40 |
|
|
rudatron posted:Also laffo, turns out the OP was a alt account from a permabanned user, according to lowtax. Judging from their previous username, I wonder what made them switch from (presumably) being really racist, or at least "ironic" racist, to being almost like some sort of stereotype of a liberal.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 10:35
|
|