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.
no, i'm no tfalling into that trap at all. you defensively and improperly accusing gme of that is you trying to avoid the uncomfortable truth that was presented. I listed those groups because it was an extreme example that clearly showcased the underlying point: some people believe they are being rational, but they are not. a mind sometimes cannot recognize its own problems. That remains entirely true and correct, and the cases I cited helped demonstrate that. I know you are not at their level of extremeness, but that was not the point at all. as to Nawaz being a right-wing thug, I cite the evidence you already presented: the SPLC's classification of him. (admittedly not a thug, just right-wing extremist). The SPLC's classification alone is certainly enough to qualify as a single piece of evidence. you might no tlike it, and may highly disagree with it, but it's certainly a reasonable piece of evidence.
It isn't though, because if you read the article, which i know you have, you wouldn't find any justification in it for classifying him as right wing. You skipped this point though. Can you refer me to the specific justification in that article for calling him right wing? If its the fact that he posted a picture of the prophet on twitter then it absolutely proves my point about the left having a blind spot for conservative Islam. In terms of his political party, it would be like me accusing Bernie Sanders of being right wing because of his views on war. To be a Lib Dem candidate in the UK you have to be center left. That's how it is. The SPLC's error doesn't change that.
hmm, ok, double checking, you're correct; he's not a right-win extremist; lookin at the underlying article, it merely say anti-muslim extremist, with no regard for whether they're right, left, or center. The label is only anti-muslim extremist. so he's just that; also, you've yet to demonstrate that the SPLC was in error.
the article also states: "But major elements of his story have been disputed by former friends, members of his family, fellow jihadists and journalists, and the evidence suggests that Nawaz is far more interested in self-promotion and money than in any particular ideological dispute" which would point more to anything else, as Nawaz being a politician, and joining/supporting any group, regardless of belief, if it offered him a chance for a position.
OK we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I don't take the SPLC's word as infallible. They can't just assert something and have everyone believe it. I've listened to alot of Nawaz on the radio, and he is often defending muslims and Islam against islamophobes. I can provide examples of this if you really want. I can see that no amount of evidence would change your mind when there is an opinion on the SPLC page that you take to be self evidently true. This particular subject is a little bit off topic here though so if you want believe you are correct on this, go for it.
On December 10 2017 05:56 Jockmcplop wrote: OK we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I don't take the SPLC's word as infallible. They can't just assert something and have everyone believe it. I've listened to alot of Nawaz on the radio, and he is often defending muslims and Islam against islamophobes. I can provide examples of this if you really want. I can see that no amount of evidence would change your mind when there is an opinion on the SPLC page that you take to be self evidently true. This particular subject is a little bit off topic here though so if you want believe you are correct on this, go for it.
it's very simple; until now, you HAD NOT PRESENTED ANY REAL EVIDENCE; you merely asserted Nawaz wasn't like that. you weren't providing gcounter sources or anything. your assertion on me are unjustified, rude, and arguing in bad faith. you claim i'm being blind, when the reality is, you simply didn't provide any evidence, and are shocked when people called out your complete lack of evidence.
I didn't know of Nawaz before now, I only had the last 4 pages, with a few pittances of links, to make conclusions off of.
i'm done being nice (which was apparently classified as condescension when I tried to be considerate of what's a delicate issue), sinc eyou've decided to go full on jerk with NO valid reason.
furthermore, you godwin'd by comparing SPLC to hitler; they might be a little wrong, and overzealous at times, and they could be wrong in this instance; but that comparison alone is completely unjustified and shows you're really just cray-cray on this issue. the kind of people who say that about SPLC are not leftists; it's pretty much all bigots who say stuff like that.
everything I've seen supports the same simple conclusion: on social issues, you re not ia leftist. you think you are, but you simply aren't. you're in fact quite right wing, and fairly bigoted. you keep readin the right-win nonsense over and over and believe it. it is who you re, you just refuse to admit to it because it'd break your self-identity to admit that's who you really are. nobody likes to think of themselves as a bigot, but some people are; so instead they twist everythin around to claim that somehow what they're doing isn't racist and is ok. that's basic psychology, and it fits the explanations of what you've said better than any alternative explanation proffered. so you're on the right (on social issues), deal with it, accept it.
i'm done dealin gwith you since you decided to be a complete jerk for no reason.
On December 10 2017 05:56 Jockmcplop wrote: OK we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I don't take the SPLC's word as infallible. They can't just assert something and have everyone believe it. I've listened to alot of Nawaz on the radio, and he is often defending muslims and Islam against islamophobes. I can provide examples of this if you really want. I can see that no amount of evidence would change your mind when there is an opinion on the SPLC page that you take to be self evidently true. This particular subject is a little bit off topic here though so if you want believe you are correct on this, go for it.
it's very simple; until now, you HAD NOT PRESENTED ANY REAL EVIDENCE; you merely asserted Nawaz wasn't like that. you weren't providing gcounter sources or anything. your assertion on me are unjustified, rude, and arguing in bad faith. you claim i'm being blind, when the reality is, you simply didn't provide any evidence, and are shocked when people called out your complete lack of evidence.
I didn't know of Nawaz before now, I only had the last 4 pages, with a few pittances of links, to make conclusions off of.
i'm done being nice (which was apparently classified as condescension when I tried to be considerate of what's a delicate issue), sinc eyou've decided to go full on jerk with NO valid reason.
furthermore, you godwin'd by comparing SPLC to hitler; they might be a little wrong, and overzealous at times, and they could be wrong in this instance; but that comparison alone is completely unjustified and shows you're really just cray-cray on this issue. the kind of people who say that about SPLC are not leftists; it's pretty much all bigots who say stuff like that.[
everything I've seen supports the same simple conclusion: on social issues, you re not ia leftist. you think you are, but you simply aren't. you're in fact quite right wing, and fairly bigoted. you keep readin the right-win nonsense over and over and believe it. it is who you re, you just refuse to admit to it because it'd break your self-identity to admit that's who you really are. nobody likes to think of themselves as a bigot, but some people are; so instead they twist everythin around to claim that somehow what they're doing isn't racist and is ok. that's basic psychology, and it fits the explanations of what you've said better than any alternative explanation proffered. so you're on the right (on social issues), deal with it, accept it.
i'm done dealin gwith you since you decided to be a complete jerk for no reason.
"It's pretty much all bigots who say stuff like that" "on social issues, you're not a leftist" "you're in fact quite right wing, and fairly bigoted" "you're on the right... deal with it, accept it"
Why are you so intent on chasing people out of the left? He has like two or three sticking issues that you aren't prepared to discuss, period. I swear, religious fundamentalists are more accepting than you are.
On December 10 2017 05:20 Nebuchad wrote: Have you ever noticed how you encounter much more people who are outraged that they can't say what they want to the left and then tell that to you, expecting your agreement, than you meet those famous leftist people actually enforcing that terrible conformity that you keep hearing about?
Actually, no not really. The opposite, in fact.
Three people have talked to me about political correctness in my life. One I worked with 10 years ago, he was psychologically unstable and massively rightwing. One was a random guy in a train deciding to talk to me about welfare recipients and foreigners as if I was going to agree with him when I had a Bernie Sanders teeshirt on. The third time was at work this year, leftwing colleagues explaining to me that they voted against something that concerned muslims in Switzerland but were afraid to say that they had (apparently not afraid enough not to actually say it).
People who bring up the conformity of thought of the left, in my experience, invariably want you to agree that it's bad that other people are enforcing it.
That's definitely not my experience. Of course the term "political correctness" I haven't seen used as though it is a virtue in over a decade because holy shit has it accumulated a (fairly deserved) bad rap since then. The underlying concept though, of "a range of political positions which cannot be given any consideration" is definitely something that in my experience has been very real. A tendency of certain groups of individuals to shut out an unacceptable range of viewpoints on whatever topic - race/gender relations, presidential candidate, abortion, so on and so forth. I'm not really any form of activist in real life so I tend to distance myself from those views, but that kind of view tends to have prominence among the left-leaning folk. Although you could find some leftists like GH who criticize that dogmatism, which is why I later added the "liberal vs left divide" addendum to my post. I've even seen stupid shit like "microaggressions" being official policy which I certainly went through with not a small amount of disgust. What I've seen from the right takes something of a different approach, often more religious/spiritual in nature (not necessarily emotional, I've seen enough stupid "Israel oppressing Palestine" hogwash to know that part at least goes both ways) but rarely being as purist or aggressive in pursuit of conformance. Crazies exist everywhere, of course.
On the left, the poorly conceived movements include "no platform for (what we deem to be) fascism" antifa and "we can't support a guy who opposes abortion rights for women" DNCs whereas the right-wing establishment doesn't enforce anywhere near that form of ideological purity. I am definitely far more left-wing by actual viewpoints than the average individual, with of course a few key differences on certain topics but damn does the "ideological purity" crowd seem to be heavily center-left leaning. Even if "the right" tends to overblow the issue in a lot of cases (for example I don't particularly care for their tendency for "case study of free speech violation" strategies) I can definitely sympathize with the larger issue.
Since the concept is used just as well in the US and in Europe, even in countries like mine where liberals are rightwingers, I don't know how fair it is to distinguish between liberal and leftist when you describe it. Apparently the presence of a liberal leftwing viewpoint isn't quite necessary for people to feel oppressed by the weight of a moral judgement coming from their left.
That being said the concept would probably make more sense if applied to liberalism rather than leftism, I could see you being right about that.
On December 10 2017 04:08 Nebuchad wrote: Isn't it also the Quilliam fundation that had this ridiculous stunt with Tommy Robinson?
Only if you buy the propaganda. What actually happened is this: Quilliam effectively ended the right wing group of hooligans known as the EDL (basically a group of thugs who went around the country targeting muslims and attacking them with weapons etc.) by convincing their leader to leave. They then fell out with Robinson because they weren't anti-islamic enough for him so he claimed it was all just a weird ploy.
If you believe that I suppose there's no hope haha.
well, the SPLC (who is quite outside Britain, and has less in the game to be biased over), notes that: "One of Nawaz’s biggest purported coups was getting anti-Muslim extremist Tommy Robinson to quit as head of the violence-prone English Defence League, trumpeting his departure at a press conference. But Robinson later said Quilliam had paid him some 8,000 British pounds to allow Nawaz to take credit for what he already planned to do. "
it sounds like you're believing what ou want to believe, rather than going where the evidence leads you. I, having looked into none of this before, see some back and forth, and a relatively outside credible organization (the SPLC) making a note on it. I conclude that I don' thave enough information, but that Nawaz does seem shady. the british gov't did drop their contract after all, which is not the sign of a highly productive intelligence asset.
the way you respond to someone questioning it makes it seem like you bought into a conspiracy theory, and then are mockin gpeople who doubt it. it's a fairly common phenomenon, but that's really what it feels like to me. you're tenaciously holding onto that belief, and the belief in Nawaz being correct, and twisting everything around to maintain that belief, rather than seriously consider that Nawaz is wrong, and is just a poser trying to make a name for himself. If another source says something bad about Nawaz, do you reflexively then dislike/distrust the source?
I can see what you're doing here. I don't honestly feel like I'm being irrational, and I do think this point fits in well with the previous discussion. Having just won a lawsuit against one media organization for labelling him a terrorist, Nawaz is currently involved in a suit against the SPLC for categorizing him as a right wing extremist. Could it be that because he is critical of Islam, people are willing to believe the word of this guy http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/revealed-full-tape-tommy-robinson-10686928 if it discredits him?
The same people taking the word of right wing thug over that of a muslim reformer claim to be the ones on the left! The world is upside down to me right now.
if you want to understand what people who say whiteness is a social construct mean, and why they say it, why dont you read some of the dozens and dozens of essays written on whiteness? there are plenty of essays written by people of color on the topic, including some of the greats like james baldwin.
or if you want to read a white male academic's take on it from a couple decades ago, just read this short essay: www.faculty.umb.edu
On December 10 2017 04:08 Nebuchad wrote: Isn't it also the Quilliam fundation that had this ridiculous stunt with Tommy Robinson?
Only if you buy the propaganda. What actually happened is this: Quilliam effectively ended the right wing group of hooligans known as the EDL (basically a group of thugs who went around the country targeting muslims and attacking them with weapons etc.) by convincing their leader to leave. They then fell out with Robinson because they weren't anti-islamic enough for him so he claimed it was all just a weird ploy.
If you believe that I suppose there's no hope haha.
well, the SPLC (who is quite outside Britain, and has less in the game to be biased over), notes that: "One of Nawaz’s biggest purported coups was getting anti-Muslim extremist Tommy Robinson to quit as head of the violence-prone English Defence League, trumpeting his departure at a press conference. But Robinson later said Quilliam had paid him some 8,000 British pounds to allow Nawaz to take credit for what he already planned to do. "
it sounds like you're believing what ou want to believe, rather than going where the evidence leads you. I, having looked into none of this before, see some back and forth, and a relatively outside credible organization (the SPLC) making a note on it. I conclude that I don' thave enough information, but that Nawaz does seem shady. the british gov't did drop their contract after all, which is not the sign of a highly productive intelligence asset.
the way you respond to someone questioning it makes it seem like you bought into a conspiracy theory, and then are mockin gpeople who doubt it. it's a fairly common phenomenon, but that's really what it feels like to me. you're tenaciously holding onto that belief, and the belief in Nawaz being correct, and twisting everything around to maintain that belief, rather than seriously consider that Nawaz is wrong, and is just a poser trying to make a name for himself. If another source says something bad about Nawaz, do you reflexively then dislike/distrust the source?
I can see what you're doing here. I don't honestly feel like I'm being irrational, and I do think this point fits in well with the previous discussion. Having just won a lawsuit against one media organization for labelling him a terrorist, Nawaz is currently involved in a suit against the SPLC for categorizing him as a right wing extremist. Could it be that because he is critical of Islam, people are willing to believe the word of this guy http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/revealed-full-tape-tommy-robinson-10686928 if it discredits him?
The same people taking the word of right wing thug over that of a muslim reformer claim to be the ones on the left! The world is upside down to me right now.
if you want to understand what people who say whiteness is a social construct mean and why they say it why dont you read some of the dozens and dozens of essays written on whiteness? there are plenty of essays written by people of color on the topic, including some of the greats like james baldwin.
or if you want to read a white male academic's take on it from a couple decades ago, just read this short essay: www.faculty.umb.edu
I think you quoted the wrong post here. I understand what social constructivism means, I've been saying its a faulty and incorrect view of reality that doesn't fit with how most people see the world.
On December 10 2017 04:08 Nebuchad wrote: Isn't it also the Quilliam fundation that had this ridiculous stunt with Tommy Robinson?
Only if you buy the propaganda. What actually happened is this: Quilliam effectively ended the right wing group of hooligans known as the EDL (basically a group of thugs who went around the country targeting muslims and attacking them with weapons etc.) by convincing their leader to leave. They then fell out with Robinson because they weren't anti-islamic enough for him so he claimed it was all just a weird ploy.
If you believe that I suppose there's no hope haha.
well, the SPLC (who is quite outside Britain, and has less in the game to be biased over), notes that: "One of Nawaz’s biggest purported coups was getting anti-Muslim extremist Tommy Robinson to quit as head of the violence-prone English Defence League, trumpeting his departure at a press conference. But Robinson later said Quilliam had paid him some 8,000 British pounds to allow Nawaz to take credit for what he already planned to do. "
it sounds like you're believing what ou want to believe, rather than going where the evidence leads you. I, having looked into none of this before, see some back and forth, and a relatively outside credible organization (the SPLC) making a note on it. I conclude that I don' thave enough information, but that Nawaz does seem shady. the british gov't did drop their contract after all, which is not the sign of a highly productive intelligence asset.
the way you respond to someone questioning it makes it seem like you bought into a conspiracy theory, and then are mockin gpeople who doubt it. it's a fairly common phenomenon, but that's really what it feels like to me. you're tenaciously holding onto that belief, and the belief in Nawaz being correct, and twisting everything around to maintain that belief, rather than seriously consider that Nawaz is wrong, and is just a poser trying to make a name for himself. If another source says something bad about Nawaz, do you reflexively then dislike/distrust the source?
I can see what you're doing here. I don't honestly feel like I'm being irrational, and I do think this point fits in well with the previous discussion. Having just won a lawsuit against one media organization for labelling him a terrorist, Nawaz is currently involved in a suit against the SPLC for categorizing him as a right wing extremist. Could it be that because he is critical of Islam, people are willing to believe the word of this guy http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/revealed-full-tape-tommy-robinson-10686928 if it discredits him?
The same people taking the word of right wing thug over that of a muslim reformer claim to be the ones on the left! The world is upside down to me right now.
if you want to understand what people who say whiteness is a social construct mean and why they say it why dont you read some of the dozens and dozens of essays written on whiteness? there are plenty of essays written by people of color on the topic, including some of the greats like james baldwin.
or if you want to read a white male academic's take on it from a couple decades ago, just read this short essay: www.faculty.umb.edu
I think you quoted the wrong post here. I understand what social constructivism means, I've been saying its a faulty and incorrect view of reality that doesn't fit with how most people see the world.
i dont think you really do. which part of that essay do you disagree with?
Well it starts with the assumption that racial imagery is the single most important factor in all decisions where race is a factor. That's pretty wrong. It also says that racial imagery is never not a factor. Wrong again. It sounds like the sort of assumption that would be made by an academic who's trying to justify their area of study.
This warped view of reality basically draws arbitrary lines between various groups and claims that all members of one group have a shared identity which they use to wage some kind of power war against all other groups, whether unconsciously or not. Its so wrong I don't even know where to start. I could start measuring nose size and claim that 62% of people in powerful positions have big noses. This is because they have created an unconscious system of symbols whereby people with big noses are more likely to succeed. It completely denies the idea changing demographics. Its a system of thought stuck in a single instance of time, unaware of the actual nature of the human world.
The worst thing, though, about these ideas, is that they basically apply to a tiny group of people, and are used to generalize ideas about the whole population. Sure, there might be cultural differences that are tied to race, but not social constructs that are identical to race, nor a particular imagery that is identical to race. This simply doesn't exist, its just a illusion to justify a continued race war. Identity politics people love it though. The identity politics people who rule the world love it because it lets them justify their continued power, and the identity politics people who feel oppressed love it because it gives them the entire world to blame for their oppression, instead of just the people responsible.
Honestly if this is the philosophy of the social justice crew I wonder if anyone has told them that they share the same ideas as Charles Murray. Just as reprehensible too.
During a July news conference in Warsaw with Polish President Andrzej Duda, Trump complained about “fake news” CNN, before turning to Duda and asking if he dealt with the same problems. Duda, who has cracked down aggressively on the press, smiled and nodded. That same day, after a mini-controversy over whether Duda’s wife snubbed Trump for a handshake, the Polish president declared on Twitter, “Contrary to some surprising reports my wife did shake hands with Mrs. and Mr. Trump @POTUS after a great visit. Let's FIGHT FAKE NEWS.”
Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut let's talk more about how SJWs are real threat to freedom of speech and press amirite?
On December 10 2017 08:50 Jockmcplop wrote: Well it starts with the assumption that racial imagery is the single most important factor in all decisions where race is a factor. That's pretty wrong. It also says that racial imagery is never not a factor. Wrong again. It sounds like the sort of assumption that would be made by an academic who's trying to justify their area of study.
This warped view of reality basically draws arbitrary lines between various groups and claims that all members of one group have a shared identity which they use to wage some kind of power war against all other groups, whether unconsciously or not. Its so wrong I don't even know where to start. I could start measuring nose size and claim that 62% of people in powerful positions have big noses. This is because they have created an unconscious system of symbols whereby people with big noses are more likely to succeed. It completely denies the idea changing demographics. Its a system of thought stuck in a single instance of time, unaware of the actual nature of the human world.
The worst thing, though, about these ideas, is that they basically apply to a tiny group of people, and are used to generalize ideas about the whole population. Sure, there might be cultural differences that are tied to race, but not social constructs that are identical to race, nor a particular imagery that is identical to race. This simply doesn't exist, its just a illusion to justify a continued race war. Identity politics people love it though. The identity politics people who rule the world love it because it lets them justify their continued power, and the identity politics people who feel oppressed love it because it gives them the entire world to blame for their oppression, instead of just the people responsible.
Honestly if this is the philosophy of the social justice crew I wonder if anyone has told them that they share the same ideas as Charles Murray. Just as reprehensible too.
so you think racial imagery is "arbitrary" and that there are frequently sociopolitical interactions between people which have no relation whatsoever to racial imagery?
On December 10 2017 08:50 Jockmcplop wrote: Well it starts with the assumption that racial imagery is the single most important factor in all decisions where race is a factor. That's pretty wrong. It also says that racial imagery is never not a factor. Wrong again. It sounds like the sort of assumption that would be made by an academic who's trying to justify their area of study.
This warped view of reality basically draws arbitrary lines between various groups and claims that all members of one group have a shared identity which they use to wage some kind of power war against all other groups, whether unconsciously or not. Its so wrong I don't even know where to start. I could start measuring nose size and claim that 62% of people in powerful positions have big noses. This is because they have created an unconscious system of symbols whereby people with big noses are more likely to succeed. It completely denies the idea changing demographics. Its a system of thought stuck in a single instance of time, unaware of the actual nature of the human world.
The worst thing, though, about these ideas, is that they basically apply to a tiny group of people, and are used to generalize ideas about the whole population. Sure, there might be cultural differences that are tied to race, but not social constructs that are identical to race, nor a particular imagery that is identical to race. This simply doesn't exist, its just a illusion to justify a continued race war. Identity politics people love it though. The identity politics people who rule the world love it because it lets them justify their continued power, and the identity politics people who feel oppressed love it because it gives them the entire world to blame for their oppression, instead of just the people responsible.
Honestly if this is the philosophy of the social justice crew I wonder if anyone has told them that they share the same ideas as Charles Murray. Just as reprehensible too.
so you think racial imagery is "arbitrary" and that there are frequently sociopolitical interactions between people which have no relation whatsoever to racial imagery?
Actually yes, as far as race is tied to skin colour (which this article asserts), I do think racial imagery is arbitrary. If you disagree, I wonder if you could tell me what racial imagery is identical between the people of Siberia and the people of Northern Ireland. You won't find it, because the imagery is cultural. The point the author here was making about whiteness being invisible to white people because they are dominant in white culture is just an obvious statement. The same is true of the dominant group in any culture. The problem I have with this view is that you can use it on race, gender, finger size, eye colour, shit you could pick any attribute of humans that some have in common and build a social constructivist view of the world from it, and they would all be equally wrong. The world doesn't run on race differences. The USA might. There is a particular racial problem in the US I'll admit that. The issue here is that this is generalized to a view about the nature of humans, and the nature of reality, that is just false.
Race is only important in so far as it often denotes the likelihood of belonging to a certain culture. There are cultural differences in imagery that are real, they are really real and come from the existence of that culture, with the differences of imagery being dependent upon the nature of the culture. The same cannot be said of skin colour, which is why this article is wrong.
On December 10 2017 05:20 Nebuchad wrote: Have you ever noticed how you encounter much more people who are outraged that they can't say what they want to the left and then tell that to you, expecting your agreement, than you meet those famous leftist people actually enforcing that terrible conformity that you keep hearing about?
I've never really met either type (I don't hang out in the right circles) personally, but online I think there's plenty of problematically overzealous people on the left too...
Social media and places like reddit kind of has that pile-on effect where things seem to become very black or white, without much nuance... I'm definitely careful with what I say in such places because I don't want to get dragged into some viral quagmire (or be misconstrued as supporting some vile shit).
I've got a nice memory of being downvoted to oblivion for suggesting that a girl 1/3 the size of her boyfriend, ignoring him saying 'no' is less bad than if you reversed the roles (no risk of violence vs clear risk of violence). Apparently that made me a rape apologist.
In general I feel very hesitant to say things in these places because of reactions such as that (TL mostly excepted but I've still edited this post like 5 times). This is maybe more so a problem with the platform than the movement, however.
During a July news conference in Warsaw with Polish President Andrzej Duda, Trump complained about “fake news” CNN, before turning to Duda and asking if he dealt with the same problems. Duda, who has cracked down aggressively on the press, smiled and nodded. That same day, after a mini-controversy over whether Duda’s wife snubbed Trump for a handshake, the Polish president declared on Twitter, “Contrary to some surprising reports my wife did shake hands with Mrs. and Mr. Trump @POTUS after a great visit. Let's FIGHT FAKE NEWS.”
Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut let's talk more about how SJWs are real threat to freedom of speech and press amirite?
That is probably the scariest thing I've read since Trump won in 2016. It doesn't have an immediate effect on people living in the US, but that looks like a massive setback for democracy and human rights around the world.
On December 10 2017 08:50 Jockmcplop wrote: Well it starts with the assumption that racial imagery is the single most important factor in all decisions where race is a factor. That's pretty wrong. It also says that racial imagery is never not a factor. Wrong again. It sounds like the sort of assumption that would be made by an academic who's trying to justify their area of study.
This warped view of reality basically draws arbitrary lines between various groups and claims that all members of one group have a shared identity which they use to wage some kind of power war against all other groups, whether unconsciously or not. Its so wrong I don't even know where to start. I could start measuring nose size and claim that 62% of people in powerful positions have big noses. This is because they have created an unconscious system of symbols whereby people with big noses are more likely to succeed. It completely denies the idea changing demographics. Its a system of thought stuck in a single instance of time, unaware of the actual nature of the human world.
The worst thing, though, about these ideas, is that they basically apply to a tiny group of people, and are used to generalize ideas about the whole population. Sure, there might be cultural differences that are tied to race, but not social constructs that are identical to race, nor a particular imagery that is identical to race. This simply doesn't exist, its just a illusion to justify a continued race war. Identity politics people love it though. The identity politics people who rule the world love it because it lets them justify their continued power, and the identity politics people who feel oppressed love it because it gives them the entire world to blame for their oppression, instead of just the people responsible.
Honestly if this is the philosophy of the social justice crew I wonder if anyone has told them that they share the same ideas as Charles Murray. Just as reprehensible too.
so you think racial imagery is "arbitrary" and that there are frequently sociopolitical interactions between people which have no relation whatsoever to racial imagery?
Actually yes, as far as race is tied to skin colour (which this article asserts), I do think racial imagery is arbitrary. If you disagree, I wonder if you could tell me what racial imagery is identical between the people of Siberia and the people of Northern Ireland. You won't find it, because the imagery is cultural. The point the author here was making about whiteness being invisible to white people because they are dominant in white culture is just an obvious statement. The same is true of the dominant group in any culture. The problem I have with this view is that you can use it on race, gender, finger size, eye colour, shit you could pick any attribute of humans that some have in common and build a social constructivist view of the world from it, and they would all be equally wrong. The world doesn't run on race differences. The USA might. There is a particular racial problem in the US I'll admit that. The issue here is that this is generalized to a view about the nature of humans, and the nature of reality, that is just false.
Race is only important in so far as it often denotes the likelihood of belonging to a certain culture. There are cultural differences in imagery that are real, they are really real and come from the existence of that culture, with the differences of imagery being dependent upon the nature of the culture. The same cannot be said of skin colour, which is why this article is wrong.
I was skeptical, but this helps understand where you're coming from. Whiteness as a social construct acts somewhat differently outside of the US. But finding people in Europe referring to themselves as "white people" before the 17th century is extremely rare. Which suggests the very concept of "whiteness" emerged pretty recently in human history.
The most base and practical reason "white people" were created was to distinguish people who could be chattel slaves and those that had (some) rights. Which was essentially a strategy to turn poor white people against poor blacks (and other minorities) by ensuring so long as they supported the exploitation of black slaves (or later workers) they would never be on the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder.
As such that has always been a condition for becoming white, whether it was the Irish, Italians, or any other group that became "white" over time.
How that plays out globally is a bit different and likely helps people develop a very different perspective than people born and raised in the US.
It was a critical piece of evidence: an inmate’s shirt, bloodied from a jailhouse brawl.
When it went missing, Deputy Jose Ovalle had an idea.
He picked out a similar shirt, doused it with taco sauce and snapped a photograph, which was booked into evidence with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, law enforcement records show.
When confronted later, the deputy admitted to faking the blood.
Ovalle kept his job, but his name was placed on a secret Sheriff’s Department list that now includes about 300 deputies with histories of dishonesty and similar misconduct, a Los Angeles Times investigation has found. The list is so tightly controlled that it can be seen by only a handful of high-ranking sheriff’s officials. Not even prosecutors can access it.