|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 08 2016 09:28 WhiteDog wrote:
The category black is ABSOLUTLY APPROPRIATE because you have ton of ACTUAL DATA to show that it is not just a nominal category : there are experience that all black people, whatever their socio economic background, will live (in regards to incarceration, employment, living condition, etc.). The category white is entirely nominal.
I don't know why I care talking with people who caricature reality ("marxist" crap) and who have very little knowledge on the actual knowledge they talk about.
White people overall are more diverse in the US because they are a majority and geographically spread out. If you look at local communities I'm pretty sure the skin color is sadly still a very goody predictor of certain things, say voting behaviour.
And especially in the context of this election to argue that 'whiteness' is only a nominal thing seems disingenuous, given that appealing to white identity is Trump's whole platform.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On November 08 2016 08:44 TheDwf wrote:
You can give up, French left-wingers with a marxist background are culturally programmed to reject that kind of concept (Xsplaining, privileges). Their motto: “All I see is class!”
Of course, on the off chance that you do manage to get through, there's the Marxist fall-back position: Class causes X, where X is racial, gender, etc. inequality. Yuck.
|
On November 08 2016 09:31 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 09:28 WhiteDog wrote:
The category black is ABSOLUTLY APPROPRIATE because you have ton of ACTUAL DATA to show that it is not just a nominal category : there are experience that all black people, whatever their socio economic background, will live (in regards to incarceration, employment, living condition, etc.). The category white is entirely nominal.
I don't know why I care talking with people who caricature reality ("marxist" crap) and who have very little knowledge on the actual knowledge they talk about. White people overall are more diverse in the US because they are a majority and geographically spread out. If you look at local communities I'm pretty sure the skin color is sadly still a very goody predictor of certain things, say voting behaviour. And especially in the context of this election to argue that 'whiteness' is only a nominal thing seems disingenuous, given that appealing to white identity is Trump's whole platform.
White is still a social status, that people are willing to protect, even if it actually gives no advantage to poor white. What poor white do when they vote like rich white is this : they show that they don't want to be black.
On November 08 2016 09:35 zf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 08:44 TheDwf wrote:
You can give up, French left-wingers with a marxist background are culturally programmed to reject that kind of concept (Xsplaining, privileges). Their motto: “All I see is class!” Of course, on the off chance that you do manage to get through, there's the Marxist fall-back position: Class causes X, where X is racial, gender, etc. inequality. Yuck.
You've read Marx once in your life or you just talk about what you don't know ?
Fucking Marxists, they're the reason the world is like this. Damned. McCarthy where art thou ?
|
On November 08 2016 09:35 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 09:31 Nyxisto wrote:On November 08 2016 09:28 WhiteDog wrote:
The category black is ABSOLUTLY APPROPRIATE because you have ton of ACTUAL DATA to show that it is not just a nominal category : there are experience that all black people, whatever their socio economic background, will live (in regards to incarceration, employment, living condition, etc.). The category white is entirely nominal.
I don't know why I care talking with people who caricature reality ("marxist" crap) and who have very little knowledge on the actual knowledge they talk about. White people overall are more diverse in the US because they are a majority and geographically spread out. If you look at local communities I'm pretty sure the skin color is sadly still a very goody predictor of certain things, say voting behaviour. And especially in the context of this election to argue that 'whiteness' is only a nominal thing seems disingenuous, given that appealing to white identity is Trump's whole platform. White is still a social status, that people are willing to protect, even if it actually gives no advantage to poor white. What poor white do when they vote like rich white is this : they show that they don't want to be black.
Which is why it is much more than a nominal or superficial classification. Just look at the relationship to the state inside the Democratic party. There was a stark difference between minority groups who are very sceptical of centralised "make the system work for us " approaches and strongly backed Clinton because of her liberal and 'self-governance' attitude, and white voters especially in states like Vermont who are much more left-leaning and supported Bernie's message. So even within groups that already are supposed to share similar views there is a strong divide along ethnic lines, which has a lot to do with different historical experiences these people had with authority.
|
United States41995 Posts
After making the mistake of telling H4P my email I'm being bombarded with Hillary ground game emails about how to volunteer with the canvassers and door knockers tomorrow. Could anyone who has made a similar mistake from the other side share whether they're getting the same?
Just as a datapoint for the relative degree of organization behind the ground game.
|
These while privilege debates make me miss the emails debates. At least with the emails we had statutes and some actual facts.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I always keep a few spam emails for that very purpose.
Usually you can unsub if they harass you enough though.
|
Well, this thread has gone places after I objected to the term mansplaining.
In other news the Clinton rally (which gets far less coverage than Trump rallys on account that they're usually not violent) is supposedly 40,000 strong in Philly tonight.
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cwsrnm_XgAQrg2L.jpg)
|
On November 08 2016 09:43 KwarK wrote:
After making the mistake of telling H4P my email I'm being bombarded with Hillary ground game emails about how to volunteer with the canvassers and door knockers tomorrow. Could anyone who has made a similar mistake from the other side share whether they're getting the same?
Just as a datapoint for the relative degree of organization behind the ground game.
the magic words are "i already voted for hillary plskthxbai and i have a recurring donation set up which i will cancel if you dont stop bothering me".
it may not work 100%, they called my bluff on the cancelling the donation thing. Also you're way too much of a cheapass to donate probably, but avoid the DSCC they are relentless.
User was definitely not warned for this post.
|
On November 08 2016 09:35 WhiteDog wrote:
You've read Marx once in your life or you just talk about what you don't know ?
Fucking Marxists, they're the reason the world is like this. Damned. McCarthy where art thou ?
I make a living writing about what I don't know. Somewhere in there, I probably stumble across something I'm not completely clueless about, but it's a struggle.
I'm not completely unsymphathetic to your position - just not interested in discussing it with you, which is why I went out of my way to quote a sentence inside one of your posts without quoting the post itself.
|
On November 08 2016 06:04 KwarK wrote:
Folks in the UK think y'all have lost your minds.
Folks here think the same thing.
+ Show Spoiler +Also, in fairness, I was in the UK during previous elections (and much of the Bush years) and I'm pretty sure they thought we lost our minds a long time ago.
|
On November 08 2016 09:46 Probe1 wrote:
(which gets far less coverage than Trump rallys on account that they're usually not violent)
Probably because the Republicans don't send mentally ill people to stir up trouble, lol.
|
On November 08 2016 09:46 Probe1 wrote:Well, this thread has gone places after I objected to the term mansplaining. In other news the Clinton rally (which gets far less coverage than Trump rallys on account that they're usually not violent) is supposedly 40,000 strong in Philly tonight.
Is it the lighting or is that crowd really white for Philly (especially a Democratic rally)? The city is almost half black.
Hillary needs ~500k votes out of Philly tomorrow. I'm guessing she's banking on the white vote in Philly though based on the concert performers.
EDIT: Live video of the rally
|
Can you please learn to think before posting instead of editing 40 times after you've posted? First it will improve the quality of your posts, which is much needed, and second it will make it possible to actually answer you without checking 5 times if you've not added content. It's my 6th time now and you AGAIN added stuff.
On November 08 2016 09:28 WhiteDog wrote:
The category black is ABSOLUTLY APPROPRIATE because you have ton of ACTUAL DATA to show that it is not just a nominal category : there are experience that all black people, whatever their socio economic background, will live (in regards to incarceration, employment, living condition, etc.). The category white is entirely nominal.
[WhiteDog] But but but... there are billionnaire Blacks who don't experience this! The idea that all Blacks belong to the same statistical category, have the same behavior and the same experience infuriates me considering the number of rich Black people that exist in the US [/WhiteDog]
Well, there are common experiences for white people too: not suffering racism; not being seen as a savage animal or an inferior being; not being seen as a terrorist despite behaving so (see recent stuff in Oregon (?), ask regular posters from this thread); not being told to “go back home/to your country”; not having your legitimacy as a citizen questioned or your rights denied; having more chances to get such job or such position because others are discriminated; etc., etc. Thing is, if it's a disadvantage for people of color, it's relatively an advantage for whites. Don't see what's so hard in conceptualizing this...
The common experience for white people is that society is built for and around them. They are the norm, and it can be shown in every domain (arts, culture, politics, ...). How is that “entirely nominal”?!
I don't know why I care talking with people who caricature reality ("marxist" crap) and who have very little knowledge on the actual knowledge they talk about.
That's quite rich coming from you. No idea why you're mad at marxist, it's not an insult as far as I'm concerned.
No I'm not : I'm openly questionning the idea that all white, whatever their age or socioeconomic background, have easy relations with the police.
Again, no one said that. What was said is: on average it's worse for people of color (so conversely... it's better for white).
User was warned for this post
|
On November 08 2016 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 09:46 Probe1 wrote:Well, this thread has gone places after I objected to the term mansplaining. In other news the Clinton rally (which gets far less coverage than Trump rallys on account that they're usually not violent) is supposedly 40,000 strong in Philly tonight. Is it the lighting or is that crowd really white for Philly (especially a Democratic rally)? The city is almost half black. Hillary needs ~500k votes out of Philly tomorrow. I'm guessing she's banking on the white vote in Philly though based on the concert performers. EDIT: Live video of the rally
I gotta be honest you don't see that many black people at political rallys unless it's Obama at the rally. As well, it's Monday night. Most people don't live the kinda life that they can go out till midnight. So young college age whites are probably more represented than minorities.
|
On November 08 2016 10:03 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2016 09:46 Probe1 wrote:Well, this thread has gone places after I objected to the term mansplaining. In other news the Clinton rally (which gets far less coverage than Trump rallys on account that they're usually not violent) is supposedly 40,000 strong in Philly tonight. Is it the lighting or is that crowd really white for Philly (especially a Democratic rally)? The city is almost half black. Hillary needs ~500k votes out of Philly tomorrow. I'm guessing she's banking on the white vote in Philly though based on the concert performers. EDIT: Live video of the rally I gotta be honest you don't see that many black people at political rallys unless it's Obama at the rally. As well, it's Monday night. Most people don't live the kinda life that they can go out till midnight. So young college age whites are probably more represented than minorities.
Obama is there, but points taken. I suspect pretty rough results out of Philly though still. Shouldn't be enough to lose unless white male turnout is being underestimated though.
|
On November 08 2016 10:01 TheDwf wrote:Can you please learn to think before posting instead of editing 40 times after you've posted? First it will improve the quality of your posts, which is much needed, and second it will make it possible to actually answer you without checking 5 times if you've not added content. It's my 6th time now and you AGAIN added stuff. Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 09:28 WhiteDog wrote:
The category black is ABSOLUTLY APPROPRIATE because you have ton of ACTUAL DATA to show that it is not just a nominal category : there are experience that all black people, whatever their socio economic background, will live (in regards to incarceration, employment, living condition, etc.). The category white is entirely nominal. [WhiteDog] But but but... there are billionnaire Blacks who don't experience this! The idea that all Blacks belong to the same statistical category, have the same behavior and the same experience infuriates me considering the number of rich Black people that exist in the US [/WhiteDog] Well, there are common experiences for white people too: not suffering racism; not being seen as a savage animal or an inferior being; not being seen as a terrorist despite behaving so (see recent stuff in Oregon (?), ask regular posters from this thread); not being told to “go back home/to your country”; not having your legitimacy as a citizen questioned or your rights denied; having more chances to get such job or such position because others are discriminated; etc., etc. Thing is, if it's a disadvantage for people of color, it's relatively an advantage for whites. Don't see what's so hard in conceptualizing this... The common experience for white people is that society is built for and around them. They are the norm, and it can be shown in every domain (arts, culture, politics, ...). How is that “entirely nominal”?! Show nested quote +I don't know why I care talking with people who caricature reality ("marxist" crap) and who have very little knowledge on the actual knowledge they talk about. That's quite rich coming from you. No idea why you're mad at marxist, it's not an insult as far as I'm concerned. Show nested quote +No I'm not : I'm openly questionning the idea that all white, whatever their age or socioeconomic background, have easy relations with the police. Again, no one said that. What was said is: on average it's worse for people of color (so conversely... it's better for white). User was warned for this post
You don't seem to understand that black people, of all socio economic background, suffer specific discrimination or are more prone to suffer specific discrimination than others at the same socio economic background. I took the time to show you that white do not have less chance to suffer specific discrimination than latinos or asian for all socio economic background. What it mean is that the caracteristic "black" has a definite social specificity, objectified in statistic. The category "white" has not.
If you disagree, show me statistics that prove me that poor white have more / less chance to benefit / suffer anything than latinos / asian / non white and non black. If the society is "built around them" it should be a pretty easy thing to do.
|
Canada11279 Posts
I think where 'mansplaining' might have some bearing is those irritating cases where no listening is happening. A guy jumps in with his set arguments, ignoring the actual experiences being presented, and telling women what they actually experienced. So "I no longer use the sea walk because of cat calls,' or 'I wanted to quit sports when I was verbally sexually harassed by some male bystanders' is met by 'you should feel flattered' or some generic complaint about how women generally are dressing provocatively and then turn around complain if a guy looks, or some launch into the woes of men in divorce settlements. Believe me, I've seen all of the above deflections many times in different corners of the internet I frequent. So in those instances, I can see 'mansplaining' as being a useful term- first hand evidence is dismissed by the favourite generic argument or man-whinging.
On the otherhand, where I think the term fails, is when it is wielded to shut down discussion entirely if a male enters discussion- while experience is important, perception is not reality, however times Probst from Survivor may say it is. People can have very warped perspectives and gloomy dispositions, remembering every negative thing done towards them and forgetting, or denying any positive overture sent their way. While listening is important to understand people's experience, their experience does not trump reality. And I have met some people with very, very distorted perspectives and ho man are they draining to be around- every friendly conversation cycles into and through their checklist of woes of how they have been hard done by. So we do need to have the freedom to do both: to explain our perspectives and experiences, but also to be able to challenge said perspectives and experiences.
For myself, 'mansplaining' is bit to loaded a term and I'll bother to use ten words over that particular word (also I am not a woman), but I can see why it could have its uses.
|
On November 08 2016 09:51 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 09:46 Probe1 wrote:
(which gets far less coverage than Trump rallys on account that they're usually not violent) Probably because the Republicans don't send mentally ill people to stir up trouble, lol.
Yep, they just shout gun when someone raises a "Republicans against Trump" sign and then claim it was an assassination attempt the next day.
|
United States41995 Posts
I added a bunch of polls for people if they wanna predict the outcomes, where the firewall breaks etc. Ignore my inconsistent use of < to mean less than and + to mean greater than or equal to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
