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 September 06 2017 20:05 SoSexy wrote: That person is 'checking my thoughts, actions and language for hidden bias'. What did she discover? That Western society focuses more on western people. What a surprise. Also, as I said before, I do not believe that our society is truly racist. The 'racism' is exasperation and laws not being applied/respected.
Why do I say that? Because a truly racist society has mechanisms in place to completely smash 'the other'. Nazi Germany was a true racist society - do you think a black person could have become president in nazi germany? The mechanism was there to stop it. You can't deny that it is difficult to say that we are 100% racists when the Us elected a black president and people were crying in ecstasy when black musicians like Parker played.
Except police in the US. Police in the US is fucked.
Good on you for bringing up Hitler. Why exactly do you think Jewish life basically vanquished in Europe after WW2 even though some survived and went back to their old homes? Among other factors because even though the Allies were victorious over Nazi Germany, people did not want them back in their communities in a huge part of eastern Europe, even though those people weren't Nazis. I suggest you read Savage Continent by Keith Lowe if you want to find out more about post WW2 violence and expulsions / displacement of ethnic groups in Europe. It's a though read though. short and incomplete wikipedia article focusing on jewish life Do you see why your argument about Obama being POTUS thus society isn't racist is invalid?
Just because it's not a totalitarian and openly violent and oppressive system doesn't redeem society of their systemic discrimination that has been pointed out many a time in this thread.
Claiming discrimination to be totally unrelated to oneself due to never excerting it actively is a rather shaky argument due to the inherit advantage white privilege gives a selected part of society. The argument goes a little like this: you can't profit from discrimination and not be complicit. + Show Spoiler [totally perfect comparison] +
A bank robber loses a bundle of $100 Bills and a bystander pick it up, knowing where it originated. But as he himself did not conduct the robbery and merely found the bundle, he proclaims himself innocent to the crime.
On September 06 2017 18:05 Gorsameth wrote: I disagree that people outside of your political party should be allowed to run on for your party but the rules allow it so yes, he should be allowed to run in the primary. But I don't see any reason why the Democrats should fall in line behind him when he lost the Democrats vote in the last primary.
If he wants their support he has to earn it.
The rules allow them to ignore the votes and pick a nominee too. It's all stagecraft. Whomever Democrats want instead of Bernie (or someone like him) will (with 99.99...% certainty) be less popular, wholly dependent on big money donors, and will not be trusted by a huge section of Democratic leaning voters.
Traditionally, he'll have the one thing the party used to value over "ability to milk the corporate tit", "most likely to win".
If "holding your nose" and "voting for the lesser of two evils" and "we have to beat Trump" were things Democrats actually believed, and weren't just saying to cynically pressure people to support their preferred candidate, the only responsible thing for them to do would be to back Bernie (or his successor). Unless someone shows remarkable promise (more so than Bernie vs Hillary) they would be guilty of the worst things they accused Bernie and his supporters of.
It's clear that the best strategy on the table for Democrats moving forward is to take Bernie's lead and make some serious changes to how they do politics. It's not that they shouldn't' be able to choose other options, it's just that the other options will be unquestionably starting from a worse position than if they backed Bernie.
I have no doubt that we'll be here 2 or so years from now listening to Democrats explain how the best plan really is taking the unpopular centrist (probably minority) candidate and trying to convince the large majority of people that support Bernie and his policies that they should instead support the younger less viable candidate. When we don't, we'll be called every "ist" that can apply and Democrats will go into the election unnecessarily split in every way they pretended to be offended by when Bernie's supporters did it. Because the Democratic party can't remove it's head from the dark crevice it had bent over to kiss.
Yes they could have simply appointed someone, but they didn't.
Is this where I once again remind you that Bernie lost the Primary by every single metric?
Yeah, except it doesn't have anything to do with the post you quoted?
Police are just absolute trash at identifying suspicious behavior, couldn't be that they just think practically anything a PoC does is "suspicious"
What an arbitrary kind of stat is that?
There's plenty of research that suggest that police are ever so slightly less likely to apprehend black people under the same circumstances. It's just that they commit more crimes so naturally they get caught more often. Controlled for every other variable, there's no statistically relevant bias.
"Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter" Whites: 3,799 Blacks: 4,379
Holy fucking hell man. If young black males are like fifty times more likely to kill someone than middle aged Asians, doesn't racial profiling make total sense?
What's PoC? I'm assuming you're not calling them piece of crap?
It's difficult to see a different outcome than vanquishing - 6 millions were killed. Also, antisemitism in Europe is a way deeper problem than just Hitler and it traces back to long, long time ago. I do not think this comparison is sound.
On September 06 2017 19:06 Artisreal wrote: Related
My fellow white people: if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem - by Katherine Craig ... We live in a society that is built on the spoils of racism, and that continues to benefit from inequality in all its forms. Or, as Bergdorf put it: “Slavery and colonialism, at the hands of white supremacy, played a huge part in shaping the United Kingdom and much of the west, into the superpower that it is today.”
“Why does that make me a racist?!” I hear you ask. It comes down to this: in western society we are all taught (explicitly or implicitly) that lighter is better. Those racist narratives are particularly prevalent in the US, but you’re kidding yourself if you think we Britons don’t suffer from the same prejudice. Take, for example, the stereotypical portrayals of black people in the media.
The net effect of this conscious and subconscious racism was reflected in a recent study recreating the landmark doll test of the 1940s. It showed that “we are still living in a society where dark things are devalued and white things are valued’.
In other words, if you grow up in a racist society, through no fault of your own, some of that racism is bound to stick subconsciously. It’s an unconscious conspiracy in which we are all complicit, unless we fight it. ... I’m sure most of the people who were upset by Bergdorf’s statements would never be racially abusive or violent. But in a society that is still too often skewed in favour of white people, at the cost of everyone else, that is not enough. As Bergdorf states: “Institutionalised, systemic racism is just as damaging as a violent, racist attack.”
Bergdorf didn’t cause offence because she was wrong. She caused offence because she highlighted an uncomfortable truth: that being un-racist is not the same as being anti-racist.
Any white person who is serious about racial equality has to be anti-racist. This requires us to actively acknowledge our privilege, because that privilege – even though we never asked for it – is the very cause of the inequity suffered by others. Only then can we be part of a meaningful solution to institutional racism. We have a choice: be offended, or be part of the solution. But we can’t be both. I’ve learned not to bristle at the statement “all white people are racist”. Instead, I learned to listen to the pain, injustice and – yes – the accuracy in that statement. Just like I learned to recognise those subtle situations where my race made my life easier, and someone else’s life harder. Every day, I am still unlearning subconscious prejudices, and checking my thoughts, actions and language for hidden bias. Because I would rather acknowledge those faults now than look back in years to come and know that I could have done more to be on the right side of history.
As Martin Luther King said: “The privileged have a responsibility to do what they know is right.” Right now, when a black woman is being attacked for opposing structural racism, that means standing shoulder to shoulder with Munroe Bergdorf. If you’re a white person reading this, I hope you’ll do the same.
This is one of the most delusional things I've ever read. I didn't believe that there were people with such degree of auto-mortification and this 'it's our fault'- complex. Wow. Unreal. Yet the statement “all white people are racist” doesn’t make me angry. It makes me sad, because I believe it’s probably true.
Holy shit. Does she really believe this or is she paid ? It reminds me of that meme of the girl with the burqa who was saying 'In my native country I can't speak, so here I'm speaking/protesting to turn this country into one where I can't speak'.
I mostly agree with the post quoted by Artisreal (and it can be applied not only to PoC / white peoples, but for instance also to men / women): it's definitely not an auto-mortification, but you have to read it a bit deeper than the "you vs me/us" approach... I am part of privileged groups by all metrics (white, man, not poor, good education, etc.) and I think it's quite important to have this type of point of view well represented (as the one quoted in the original post), and to refresh it in my mind often.
On September 06 2017 20:05 SoSexy wrote: That person is 'checking my thoughts, actions and language for hidden bias'. What did she discover? That Western society focuses more on western people. What a surprise. Also, as I said before, I do not believe that our society is truly racist. The 'racism' is exasperation and laws not being applied/respected.
Why do I say that? Because a truly racist society has mechanisms in place to completely smash 'the other'. Nazi Germany was a true racist society - do you think a black person could have become president in nazi germany? The mechanism was there to stop it. You can't deny that it is difficult to say that we are 100% racists when the Us elected a black president and people were crying in ecstasy when black musicians like Parker played.
Except police in the US. Police in the US is fucked.
Okay, so Nazis were racist. What about the American South during slavery? What about during "separate but equal"? What about during Jim Crow and the reign of terror of the KKK? What about when blatantly unfair literacy tests and grandfather clauses were used to prevent blacks from voting? What about when intimidation and systemic abuses were used to minimize their vote as much as possible? What if we're still in the midst of that last one?
On September 06 2017 20:11 PM_ME_NICE_PUPPERS wrote: Maybe because he's from Europe, where whites always have been both oppressors and oppressed, the slaves and the slavers.
And even in the US it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Most people never owned slaves and half the country went to war to end slavery.
Most of all, this sick collectivism is the most pathetic thing about SJW culture and identity politics. What happened to the individua? Why am I responsible for what someone wholy unrelated to me does half the world away just because they have the same skin tone?
We used to agree that statements like "all X are y" are retarded, and now it's completely acceptable in the US mainstream media to say "all white people are responsible for...".
Are you under the impression that blacks had equal rights with whites in the North and were treated fairly?
Are you under the impression that blacks had equal rights with whites in the North and were treated fairly?
What? No, of course not. But I reject the notion that people bear any responsibility for crimes and injustices that have happened decades before they were born, and simply looking at skin colour (which is the level of sophistication of which SJWs are capable) doesn't tell you anything about anyone.
Because attributing collective guilt on an entire class of people with regard to their skin color (not their decision) is simply retarded. There are countless "privileges" you can have in relation to other people. You can be white, you can be tall, you can be affluent, you can be well spoken, you can be good looking, you can be extremely intelligent, and so on and so forth. All those are "privileges", some of them (for example IQ) critically more influential than race.
So, it's extremely easy to decuce that a tall, good looking smart black person is orders of magnitude more privileged than an average white person. Who needs to check their privilege, and how?
What comes next, how do we check tall privilege? How about smart privilege? Do smart people need to watch the Kardashians two hours a day to get dumber? That is the moronic slippery slope of post-modern class guilt.
Also, the supposition we build our civilization on "slavery and theft" is just insanely one-sided. Sure, some of it is true, but we also invented the internet, vaccines, the internal combustion engine... We built an incredible society that works for all races and ethnicyties, and that's why everyone is moving to the West and not the other way around.
It's the same with "cultural appropriation" - I can't believe how stupid that concept is in its very core. Is a black person using a smartphone cultural appropriation? Why not? Their culture had nothing to do in the invention of the technology behind it. How about an Asian person wearing jeans? A native American using the wheel?
Are you under the impression that blacks had equal rights with whites in the North and were treated fairly?
What? No, of course not. But I reject the notion that people bear any responsibility for crimes and injustices that have happened decades before they were born, and simply looking at skin colour (which is the level of sophistication of which SJWs are capable) doesn't tell you anything about anyone.
Then why is it proof of a non-racist society that half the country went to war to end slavery?
How does he still manage to tweet out complete lies like USA being the highest taxed country in the world? Like it's just not even close to being true.
That's an important point, of all the predictors of success in life, race and sex are at around place eight and nine.
The state in which you were born, your health, your IQ, your height, the marital status of your parents, the highest completed education of your parents and most critically their affluence are much better predictors. Yet I've never heard of "California privilege" or "intact home privilege". Probably because SJWs and Tumblr-feminists can't wrap their heads around concepts that aren't immediately visible to the naked eye.
Because attributing collective guilt on an entire class of people with regard to their skin color (not their decision) is simply retarded. There are countless "privileges" you can have in relation to other people. You can be white, you can be tall, you can be affluent, you can be well spoken, you can be good looking, you can be extremely intelligent, and so on and so forth. All those are "privileges", some of them (for example IQ) critically more influential than race.
So, it's extremely easy to decuce that a tall, good looking smart black person is orders of magnitude more privileged than an average white person. Who needs to check their privilege, and how?
What comes next, how do we check tall privilege? How about smart privilege? Do smart people need to watch the Kardashians two hours a day to get dumber? That is the moronic slippery slope of post-modern class guilt.
Also, the supposition we build our civilization on "slavery and theft" is just insanely one-sided. Sure, some of it is true, but we also invented the internet, vaccines, the internal combustion engine... We built an incredible society that works for all races and ethnicyties, and that's why everyone is moving to the West and not the other way around.
It's the same with "cultural appropriation" - I can't believe how stupid that concept is in its very core. Is a black person using a smartphone cultural appropriation? Why not? Their culture had nothing to do in the invention of the technology behind it. How about an Asian person wearing jeans? A native American using the wheel? [/QUOTE]
Of course "guilt" is not the point, the point is to be aware and act on the awareness that belonging to a certain group gives you advantages over other groups. Since this seems unfair, acting on it with the proposition of changing / mitigating it, should be seen as positive - I don't see this as particularly controversial.
I disagree with some of your points:
- IQ / intelligence is not something you are just "born with". If you receive a good education and live in a stimulating environment, you keep practicing your intellect and have a comfortable life (i.e. you can worry about learning literature / science / ..., instead of worrying about getting food) your "intelligence" (which is hard to define) will be higher than if you didn't. Same person, different paths. Having the "privilege" of building yourself as an intelligent / acculturate person is, indeed, a privilege.
- tall / good looking hardly seem at the same level of man/women or white / non-white - come on... this looks like an exaggeration on your side. The western society never actively discriminated against short / ugly people, however both black people and women were not able to vote some times ago, and it's difficult to say that they have an equal standing compare to a white man in our current society. It's a controversial topic of course, but you cannot dismiss it by saint "all is good, all is equal" for these groups
Btw I do not feel guilty AT ALL for being born man or with white skin: that's how it is, and I would not want to change who I am - and I do not feel any sentiment of guilt towards other groups. However, I am very aware that being who I am gives me some advantages over an equally qualified colleague who just happened to be born a woman (or has a different skin color). Since this bothers me very much (as I want my own accomplishments to be due only to my effort, not to some pre-existing factor, and also I don't really like unfair systems) I try to act against this status of things.
p.s. I have NO IDEA what SJW or "cultural appropriation" mean (l guess SJW stands for something, I'll google it..), so I don't really know how to answer there..
That's an important point, of all the predictors of success in life, race and sex are at around place eight and nine.
The state in which you were born, your health, your IQ, your height, the marital status of your parents, the highest completed education of your parents and most critically their affluence are much better predictors. Yet I've never heard of "California privilege" or "intact home privilege". Probably because SJWs and Tumblr-feminists can't wrap their heads around concepts that aren't immediately visible to the naked eye.
Not high ranked enough is not a good argument. If a systematic difference exists, it should be fixed. You're making a silly argument by pretending we need to only deal with 1 problem at a time or only address the most significant factors. For having so much fun spiking your posts with little condescending twists, you aren't very good at this.
You're factually wrong on IQ. Latest research shows it is largely inherited. Unless you're information-deprived or malnourished (these will lower your IQ), the genetic component is overwhelming. There is no program that will make people smarter.
As far as looks vs. race, are you serious? Being good looking is an INCREDIBLY powerful asset in all walks of life. It's so much more important than skin color I can't even believe anyone could disagree.
Also, ask any short guy about his discrimination experiences. Some of them can't even order drinks in a crowded bar.
EPT
