|
On January 11 2019 01:40 xDaunt wrote:You're asking the wrong people. The question should be directed to the intellectuals on the Left who embraced and then pushed moral and cultural subjectivism, creating the current atmosphere in which male whitey is always considered the bad guy.
I legitimately don't understand this answer.
|
Do you understand what is meant by subjective instead of objective terms? Do you understand if somebody said, “You shouldn’t be asking progressives about this, you should really be asking conservatives!” what they mean by that?
I already said what I think, but his perspective is easy to understand even if you don’t agree with it or think only a lunatic would say things like that.
|
Norway28560 Posts
There's truth to leftist intellectuals embracing moral and cultural subjectivism, there's no truth to the idea that this created an atmosphere where male whitey is always the bad guy. (I mean, I'm not saying groups believing this don't exist, but they certainly have much, much less societal influence than the groups of people thinking white people are a force of good compared to black people or arabs).
|
On January 11 2019 06:11 Danglars wrote:
Do you understand what is meant by subjective instead of objective terms? Do you understand if somebody said, “You shouldn’t be asking progressives about this, you should really be asking conservatives!” what they mean by that?
I already said what I think, but his perspective is easy to understand even if you don’t agree with it or think only a lunatic would say things like that.
Apparently I don't find it so easy to understand given the post I just wrote... Please elaborate.
|
On January 11 2019 06:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:
There's truth to leftist intellectuals embracing moral and cultural subjectivism, there's no truth to the idea that this created an atmosphere where male whitey is always the bad guy. (I mean, I'm not saying groups believing this don't exist, but they certainly have much, much less societal influence than the groups of people thinking white people are a force of good compared to black people or arabs).
I don't know what it's like where you are, but this attitude saturates American pop culture and politics. It is particularly pervasive in the younger leftist crowd.
|
On January 11 2019 06:24 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2019 06:11 Danglars wrote:
Do you understand what is meant by subjective instead of objective terms? Do you understand if somebody said, “You shouldn’t be asking progressives about this, you should really be asking conservatives!” what they mean by that?
I already said what I think, but his perspective is easy to understand even if you don’t agree with it or think only a lunatic would say things like that. Apparently I don't find it so easy to understand given the post I just wrote... Please elaborate.
Well, I gave those two examples hoping to move from the foundation of what’s meant by those words in other contexts. I received no answer. So I’m still stuck if you can or cannot describe the meanings in my first paragraph. Furthermore, I think most “I can’t understand” is really “I don’t understand why a reasonable person would believe this about that” or “I don’t agree with this persons conclusions.”
For example, I think Drone’s perspective on bad whites vs bad Arabs/bad blacks in society and culture is hopelessly biased, or only locally representative, or ridiculously misinformed, but I understand precisely what he means by it.
|
Norway28560 Posts
On January 11 2019 06:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2019 06:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:
There's truth to leftist intellectuals embracing moral and cultural subjectivism, there's no truth to the idea that this created an atmosphere where male whitey is always the bad guy. (I mean, I'm not saying groups believing this don't exist, but they certainly have much, much less societal influence than the groups of people thinking white people are a force of good compared to black people or arabs). I don't know what it's like where you are, but this attitude saturates American pop culture and politics. It is particularly pervasive in the younger leftist crowd.
I think there is a very big difference between the statement 'powerful people of the past have tended to be a force of bad rather than good because they derived their power from the exploitation of others. They also tended to be white males' and 'male whitey is bad'. I'm a white male, and I largely believe in the former (I mean, it's a simplification and I don't have the time to flesh it out more now), but certainly not the latter. It's an opposition to exploitation, which, for the past several hundred years, white males are more guilty of than any other group, not an opposition to white males (a group I most certainly belong to).
It's not like I think medieval kings in Europe or american pre-slavery presidents were worse than persian god-kings (rather to the contrary), but the former is much more significant in shaping current day western society than the latter.
I think my pov is much closer to the actual pov of the younger leftist crowd than what your description of their pov is. If you want to disagree with the notion that white males are more guilty of exploitation than non-white males (for the past 200-500 years, or women since the birth of humanity, which is more relevant in shaping today's society than what happened before that), then you'll have a very hard time convincing me of that, but at least it'd be a logically consistent position to hold on to.
For the record I think most claims of 'cultural appropriation' are dumb. Not all, but that seems to be one trend you have going in the US which doesn't really exist here. At the same time, I think even stupid and wrong accusations of cultural appropriation pale in comparison with the real racism arabs, latinos and black people continue to face to this very day, so it's not an important fight to me.
|
On January 11 2019 07:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2019 06:24 Nebuchad wrote:On January 11 2019 06:11 Danglars wrote:
Do you understand what is meant by subjective instead of objective terms? Do you understand if somebody said, “You shouldn’t be asking progressives about this, you should really be asking conservatives!” what they mean by that?
I already said what I think, but his perspective is easy to understand even if you don’t agree with it or think only a lunatic would say things like that. Apparently I don't find it so easy to understand given the post I just wrote... Please elaborate. Well, I gave those two examples hoping to move from the foundation of what’s meant by those words in other contexts. I received no answer. So I’m still stuck if you can or cannot describe the meanings in my first paragraph. Furthermore, I think most “I can’t understand” is really “I don’t understand why a reasonable person would believe this about that” or “I don’t agree with this persons conclusions.” For example, I think Drone’s perspective on bad whites vs bad Arabs/bad blacks in society and culture is hopelessly biased, or only locally representative, or ridiculously misinformed, but I understand precisely what he means by it.
In a way you're right. The only way I can read xDaunt's post as an answer to what GH posted is the notion that white supremacy is a reaction to the left's positions on moral subjectivism and similar ideas, and I'm not sure I'm ready to believe that xDaunt believes that, given that it makes no sense. But I don't want to be uncharitable and assume that his position is incoherent when I'm not sure I really understand what he's saying.
|
I understood xDaunt's position to be this:
You'd have to ask "the intellectuals on the left" why terms like "white supremacist, white nationalist, western civilization" are offensive, because they are the ones who created the social situation in which they are offensive in the first place.
(Not really sure what to make of such a position, but that's how I read it at least.)
|
|
|
On January 11 2019 07:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2019 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On January 11 2019 06:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:
There's truth to leftist intellectuals embracing moral and cultural subjectivism, there's no truth to the idea that this created an atmosphere where male whitey is always the bad guy. (I mean, I'm not saying groups believing this don't exist, but they certainly have much, much less societal influence than the groups of people thinking white people are a force of good compared to black people or arabs). I don't know what it's like where you are, but this attitude saturates American pop culture and politics. It is particularly pervasive in the younger leftist crowd. I think there is a very big difference between the statement 'powerful people of the past have tended to be a force of bad rather than good because they derived their power from the exploitation of others. They also tended to be white males' and 'male whitey is bad'. I'm a white male, and I largely believe in the former (I mean, it's a simplification and I don't have the time to flesh it out more now), but certainly not the latter. It's an opposition to exploitation, which, for the past several hundred years, white males are more guilty of than any other group, not an opposition to white males (a group I most certainly belong to). It's not like I think medieval kings in Europe or american pre-slavery presidents were worse than persian god-kings (rather to the contrary), but the former is much more significant in shaping current day western society than the latter. I think my pov is much closer to the actual pov of the younger leftist crowd than what your description of their pov is. If you want to disagree with the notion that white males are more guilty of exploitation than non-white males (for the past 200-500 years, or women since the birth of humanity, which is more relevant in shaping today's society than what happened before that), then you'll have a very hard time convincing me of that, but at least it'd be a logically consistent position to hold on to. For the record I think most claims of 'cultural appropriation' are dumb. Not all, but that seems to be one trend you have going in the US which doesn't really exist here. At the same time, I think even stupid and wrong accusations of cultural appropriation pale in comparison with the real racism arabs, latinos and black people continue to face to this very day, so it's not an important fight to me.
You are hugely underestimating the scope and scale of the pervasiveness of the sentiment that white males are bad. Just Google "white males are bad" and watch what comes up. We don't even have to get into esoteric discussions about "the Patriarchy." Articles like this pop up regularly now:
It is not very fashionable to be a man these days, especially a white one.
After the exposure of Harvey Weinstein’s alleged record of sexual assault and harassment, The New York Times ran a piece entitled “The unexamined brutality of the male libido” by the Canadian writer Stephen Marche.
“The point of Freud was not that boys will be boys,” wrote Marche. “Rather the opposite. . . . If you let boys be boys, they will murder their fathers and sleep with their mothers.”
Right.
“Masculinity, not ideology, drives extremist groups,” was another recent headline that caught my eye, this time in The Washington Post.
Got it.
I have had to listen to a variation on this theme rather too much in recent weeks. Last month I organized a small conference of historians who I knew shared my interest in trying to apply historical knowledge to contemporary policy problems. Five of the people I invited to give papers were women, but none was able to attend. I should have tried harder to find other female speakers, no doubt. But my failure to do so elicited a disproportionately vitriolic response.
Under a headline that included the words “Too white and too male,” The New York Times published photographs of all the speakers, as if to shame them for having participated. Around a dozen academics — male as well as female — took to social media to call the conference a “StanfordSausageFest.”
So outraged were Stanford historians Allyson Hobbs and Priya Satia that they demanded “greater university oversight” of the Hoover Institution, where I work, as it was “an ivory tower in the most literal sense.”
The most literal sense?
Now let’s be clear. I was raised to believe in the equal rights of all people, regardless of sex, race, creed, or any other difference. That the human past was characterized by discrimination of many kinds is not news to me. But does it really constitute progress if the proponents of diversity resort to the behavior that was previously the preserve of sexists and racists?
Publishing the names and mugshots of conference speakers is the kind of thing anti-Semites once did to condemn the “over-representation” of Jewish people in academia. Terms such as “SausageFest” belong not in civil academic discourse but on urinal walls.
Additionally, there are countless policies (both in private business and in governmental/quasi-government settings) that perpetuate this kind of anti-white male bias in societies, including affirmative action, other types of diversity policies, and even educational policies that stack against the deck against boys beginning as early as kindergarten (there's a reason why girls greatly outnumber boys in higher education now). Regardless of the merits of the original intentions of the people who set us on this course, it has clearly spiraled out of control and into insanity.
|
It's interesting how explicitly some of these people, including trump, are tying an emergency declaration to Congress's refusal to authorize the wall. You would think it would undermine their legal position when they say "the reason we are declaring an emergency is because we couldn't get it done with congress." They're not saying "the reason we're declaring an emergency is because there is an emergency that requires immediate construction of a wall." The reason they're not saying that is because if it were true, trump would not have sought authorization from Congress for two years prior to declaring the emergency.
And speaking of national emergencies...
|
Tbh, after considering the possibility of a "liberal" national emergency, it may not be such a bad route to take after all. We do love executive power in America. Since Congress can't get anything done (which is likely an irreversible state of affairs), we might just need to rely on the wisdom of the president.
|
On January 11 2019 09:49 Doodsmack wrote:
Tbh, after considering the possibility of a "liberal" national emergency, it may not be such a bad route to take after all. We do love executive power in America. Since Congress can't get anything done (which is likely an irreversible state of affairs), we might just need to rely on the wisdom of the president.
I would have to imagine that there would be no argument left against using a state of emergency to address climate change as a matter of national security.
|
Looks like Trump may be appointing another Supreme Court justice sooner rather than later. Ginsburg hasn't appeared at Court for oral arguments this term. And now there are reports surfacing that Trump is getting ready for the selection in addition to rumors that Ginsburg may be stepping down.
|
On January 11 2019 14:01 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like Trump may be appointing another Supreme Court justice sooner rather than later. Ginsburg hasn't appeared at Court for oral arguments this term. And now there are reports surfacing that Trump is getting ready for the selection in addition to rumors that Ginsburg may be stepping down.
Upshot is it will help people realize how corrupted the supreme court is like pretty much everything Trump has touched.
|
$50 bil for wall in exchange for RBG replacement.
|
On January 11 2019 14:20 Danglars wrote:
$50 bil for wall in exchange for RBG replacement.
Nah. Trump is going to have his cake and eat it, too.
|
First missed paycheck is tomorrow (or today for some of you east coasters) for federal workers. Now, maybe $5 bil looks a little easier to let go for Dems, or campaign promises were really just suggestions for R’s. I know for damn sure Trump’s re-election chances are in the toilet if he doesn’t get the wall done. Immigration and judges.
|
On January 11 2019 14:32 Danglars wrote:
First missed paycheck is tomorrow (or today for some of you east coasters) for federal workers. Now, maybe $5 bil looks a little easier to let go for Dems, or campaign promises were really just suggestions for R’s. I know for damn sure Trump’s re-election chances are in the toilet if he doesn’t get the wall done. Immigration and judges.
I don't really understand why Trurmp has to nag congress to build the wall; it's purpose is to enforce current laws, not create new ones. I do think democrats will cave though, so the optics of that are a lot better and opening the can of worms of executive order is not a good idea.
That said, The US army 2019 budget is of upwards of 50 billions to "help" other countries and play foreign wars; surely they can be told to use less than 10% of that budget for their actual intended job, protect US sovereignity.
Can't wait for amy barrett in the SC. Trump is really luck if he gets another SC pick before his re-election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
