|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
On July 27 2019 07:53 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2019 07:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2019 07:15 JimmiC wrote:On July 27 2019 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2019 06:37 JimmiC wrote:On July 27 2019 06:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2019 03:51 JimmiC wrote:On July 27 2019 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2019 00:35 ShoCkeyy wrote: I'm assuming you've never been to Cuba, I'm sure you wouldn't want that kind of revolution. The Cuban revolution was only successful depending on your view for a select few the top 1% while everyone else lives in horrible misery. I believe we need a revolution that removes the current government, Cuba accomplished that. I do want that kind of revolution (as opposed to the many that didn't get that far). I don't want violence, which is one reason why I believe revolution is necessary. (So does JimmiC for this exercise btw, but he's not playing his role very convincingly imo) I think it's obvious (whether I agree with your characterization of Cuba or not) that my goal isn't for the 1% to live in luxury and everyone else in "horrible misery". But does it not make you think when someone from there, and with current family tells you that it more authoritarian than Socialist that perhaps that could be true? Whether it's more socialist or authoritarian seems totally irrelevant to my question to you about your alternative to non-violent revolutionaries defending themselves from a terrorist state that is targeting them? But sure I listen to people from other countries about what they believe is happening there and balance it against other available information (like other residents). As a quick pause. I'm really confused to why I was misrepresenting your position. It appears that you are completely convinced that any revolution will end up being violent no matter the intent. Was the issue that I said you were advocating for a violent revolution, when I should have said you are advocating for a revolution that you believe 100% will become violent? Was it a semantics thing? No that's not the issue, though your framing/language/confusion is certainly part of it. Right now the issue is you're supposed to be pro-revolution (for the purpose of this exercise) and tbh you're not very convincing or answering direct questions (like I'm being required to do for you). This doesn't feel dialogical (Freire) to me at all at the moment. Norway has moved closer to socialism through working within the system. My thought is you don't consider that a revolution because it moved to slow? No, that's not my position, as I've articulated. I don't think Norwegians think they (recently) had a revolution, but I could be mistaken? If you're not going to answer direct questions, I think we're done here. EDIT: I took a peek and some do think they had a "violent/non-violent revolution/struggle"(~80+ years ago). How they did it was through non-violent direct action (people died though) and circumstance. The first I've been calling for, the latter I can't really affect. I did, I gave you a couple examples of revolutions that did not take violence? Yes I heard others say what your position was on Israel not yours, and that the post a referenced was tongue and cheek even thought I didn't read it as such. So go ahead what is your position on Israel? Should it be removed from the map? And if yes, what does that mean and how do you see it happening?
Examples of "revolutions" that did not take violence isn't what I asked you for.
Drone told you I've answered both parts of the first question and the second. If you're intention is to get me to answer them again I'm not under the impression my requirement to respond to direct questions from you includes ones that have been ruled answered.
I think we're done.
+ Show Spoiler +On July 24 2019 05:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2019 05:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2019 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote: GH was actually commanded to respond. But I think it was intended to be just two direct questions/clarifications some pages ago. I honestly don't know what "direct questions" are in the opinion of my commander, because JimmiC's been harassing me like this for months with little to no consequence. Practically everyone except the person giving me that instruction seems to recognize how problematic he's being. I understood it to be these two bolded sentences towards the end of one of Jimmy's posts; Do you want a bloody violent revolution to eliminate the "capitalist class"? If so who are in the capitalist class?
Do you think Israel should be removed from the map? Do you think this will require violence and murder. Do you think this is a fair price to pay because of the atrocities that Israel has committed to the Palestinians? Now, I'm going a bit far in making assumptions and sharing my thoughts about communication you've had with another moderator. It's important for me to clarify that I think the intention was a good one, and also a sensible one, in that there was a hope that if these two questions were clarified, the conversation could move on and the thread would clean up. I do now fully agree that you have done a more than satisfactory job fleshing out your thoughts, and I hope we can just.. move on. 
tl.net
|
|
On July 27 2019 08:19 JimmiC wrote: I mean I’ve never thought you had to so from perspective you can be done when ever you want.
lol moderation disagrees with your assessment as documented.
That being said this exchange just confirmed my belief that when you call for revolution you are talking about a violent one because you seem almost insulted that I think a peaceful is possible, when apparently you are also for a peaceful one?
I really don't think your opinion on that holds much value, but you're entitled to it.
If you can explain how that logically makes sense I would appreciate it, or if Ned or Brian or one of the others who were so mad at me for suggesting that you were talking about a violent revolution can explain it that would be great.
Several people have tried to explain it in a way you understand and failed.
And GH remember when I asked you Drones questions and you instantly wanted to talk about this part? And I said I think you should stick to Drones because this would happen. And you assured me it would not. Well here we are, with you mad and me confused.
No I don't know what you're talking about with that.
|
|
On July 27 2019 07:49 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2019 07:25 IgnE wrote: Freire’s idea of revolution is that it is always a work in progress and is based in love So he doesn't believe that it will be violent for sure? Edit: How does Freire define the difference between incremental change and revolution?
The short answer is that he believes violence may be necessary. But you'd have to define violence. Taking things from people and giving them to other people would be considered a form of violence by most people. Coercion is often thought of as violence. But you'd be naive to think that a society could be structured without some kind of discipline. The question, instead, is one of legitimacy. Full emancipation is a limit horizon, not an empirically thinkable one.
You could read his book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, if you want to see what he thinks. It's fairly short and fairly readable. He views revolution as liberation, as a way of maximizing freedom for people to develop "for-themselves" in the Hegelian sense. Revolution involves raising critical consciousness directly among the "oppressed" and getting them to organize themselves to resist domination. Domination not only dehumanizes the oppressed but the oppressor — Freire draws heavily on 20th century accounts of Hegel's master and slave dialectic. Personally I am not really opposed to his methods, in the abstract, but there are a number of issues with his overall conceptual framework.
1) Who are the oppressed? Who are the oppressors? The postmodern condition has shattered modern notions of identity and subject. Individuals are often both oppressed and oppressor, wage laborer and capitalist. Is owning stock oppressive? The increasing importance of intellectual property has required a rethinking of capital accumulation, the M-C-M' cycle, and rent collection. What about internationally? Are the marginalized in the US oppressors of the global South? Is his pedagogy (relying on the Greek root, not simply teaching, but leading) meant to operate within the confines of nation states or does it require some sort of global order?
2) His method of raising critical consciousness, conscientização, relies upon getting people to see the "totality" of their situation. I prefer thinking of conscientização as something like consciousness-of-becoming, of the ability to change the future and reinterpret the past. But crucial for him in this is getting the oppressed to opine on the issues that matter to them and transforming their understanding of those issues as structured within a global totality. Given that Fredric Jameson has argued that postmodernity is defined by the impossibility of cognizing the totality, of understanding all the myriad ways that the late capitalist regime operates to structure our subjectivity, it is unclear how or if Freire's method can ever hope to achieve its aim of unifying the oppressed into a single, action-oriented body that won't be riven by internal disputes over exactly what the totality looks like. The poststructuralist critique of modern Marxist narratives is also a critique of Freire, and it is not easy to see how Freire would answer it if it he were alive (and up to the task).
3) Freire talks about colonization as a sort of cultural invasion, "a form of economic and cultural domination," as opposed to cultural revolution. He draws upon Maoism, but also heavily relies on older Marxist notions of "false consciousness." Again, poststructural critiques have put the very coherence of false consciousness into question, and it is unclear how Freire deals with desire, except rhetorical appeals to "authenticity" in determining whether the people's desire is revolutionary, or whether it has been coopted by cultural invasion.
|
On July 27 2019 08:26 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2019 08:25 JimmiC wrote:On July 26 2019 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 08:14 JimmiC wrote:On July 26 2019 08:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 08:04 JimmiC wrote:I don't think Drone is picking on me, I think he is extremely reasonable. I do believe that Neb is mad at me and starting to attack me. Which he can do, all good, and I will keep responding to him. So on that note I'll use Drones post as jumping off post to new beginnings!! On July 26 2019 02:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:In my opinion the 'how' of the revolution is only really relevant once people accept the 'why' of the revolution. If people reject the why of the revolution then there's no real point in them attacking the lack of a how - they'd be opposed either way. And it is a very common theme that the people most vocally decrying the lack of a how are people who think a revolution is not necessary to fix the problems threatening our societies.  I am not attacking this position, I honestly don't know what I believe in this regard myself. But if you think incremental gradual improvement is sufficient to handle the biggest issues we face then that's where your disagreement with GH lies, not in 'how do we undertake the revolution'. Going further, you might argue that whether you support the revolution hinges on its execution, because you might share the following two sentiments at the same time :that a revolution is probably necessary to achieve the rapid societal change required to handle climate change, and that most revolutions throughout history have caused such immediate societal damage that it is difficult to estimate at what point, if any, they ended up as a net positive (and perhaps even that this point very rarely happened to be 'during my life expectancy'). However, while on the face of things I feel that to be an entirely rational point of view to take, it ends up somewhat missing a crucial element: The socialist revolution is both for and by the people. If you agree with GH that there is a need for a revolution, you should not ask him 'tell me how to go about achieving this', you should go 'I agree with your fight, let us convince more people', because that is the central element: the agreement of a significant majority of the population that the situation is sufficiently dire for more drastic measures. (Historically in violent uprising, ideally through voting for a revolutionary candidate - however then GH feels confident that a revolutionary candidate winning a vote would be unlikely to actually get to rule (which again is an opinion with significant historical foundation.  ) In a way it's not up to GH to explain how to undertake the revolution, once you agree on its necessity, it's up to you to discuss how to do it with GH. (Arguing for incremental improvement rather than revolution is of course an entirely valid course of discussion, but it's a separate one from how do we undertake the revolution.) I am on board with the revolution as long as it is not violent. What do you suggest non-violent revolutionaries do when they are targeted by the state for harassment, abuse, incarceration, and/or assassination like in the cases of MLK jr and Fred Hampton for example? (should respond in the appropriate thread imo). *posted in the appropriate thread by request. Won't that get us to the point that made you upset with me in the first point. Where you are asking me about the next steps and not focusing on the first ones? The revolution itself? I'm fine to go there as long as you are willing to go there with me and I don't think you are, so let's just stick to the first part and we have that all sorted out where everyone agrees or at least knows where everyone stands we move on. Fair? I'm just saying they have to protect/defend themselves if/when targeted and I'm trying to understand what your opposition/alternative to that is? If I go down this path with, are you willing to go down the path of either, is the violence worth it? and too do so we have to decide what is reasonable for the war we are talking about. Or what are the guarantee's that the revolution accomplishes the original goals and how will we make sure that happens? If you are happy to go down either rabbit hole with me, I'm happy to do so with you and anyone else who jumps in. If not, which is cool too lets stick to the original set of questions. This is what I'm talking about. And no Moderation does not disagree with my assessment. They know I never asked you to be forced to answer me. They might have thought that if you clearly answered my questions we might understand each other better, but despite your biases and thoughts, I never requested it. I'm also failing to see how your offended by anything I've said since we tried this? I'm not sure what tone you are attributing to my posts but clearly not the intended one.
You didn't even take the first step of answering the first question.
I think we've comprehensively demonstrated that clearly answering your questions didn't help you understand me (or the others that tried to explain it to you). I don't think I said you requested it (but don't think it matters if I did?), just that it was required by a mod.
I don't think I said I was offended either. I'm done doing this with you unless the mods tell me I'm still required not to be.
|
On July 27 2019 06:57 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2019 06:03 Redfish wrote:On July 27 2019 02:49 IgnE wrote:On July 27 2019 02:15 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 26 2019 08:11 IgnE wrote:On July 26 2019 03:46 ShambhalaWar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 19 2019 07:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 06:29 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 19 2019 05:32 IgnE wrote:On July 19 2019 04:02 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 19 2019 02:35 IgnE wrote:On July 19 2019 01:45 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 19 2019 00:05 IgnE wrote:On July 18 2019 15:29 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 18 2019 13:46 IgnE wrote:On July 18 2019 13:20 ShambhalaWar wrote: [quote]
I would say the first step, and probably the most important is simply acknowledging that I have privilege, and giving up my ignorance about my privilege.
The nature of privilege is ignorance, the privileged people don't have to consider the problems other people do. So in regard to racial privilege, in acknowledging it I would think there comes some degree of commitment in calling it out when I see rather than just letting it slide because, "I'm white and it doesn't affect me."
If I'm playing a game a CSGO and I hear the N word (happens all the time), rather than just be ok with that, I can at the very least confront them on it, and report the account. There are many different versions of that... for example is I see a nazi symbol written on a wall, I can get a pen and mark over it.
Donate to a charity organization that combats racial inequality, march for black lives matter. I haven't done these latter two things, but for a lot of my black friends growing up I apologized for not believe them when we were kids, and tell them I believe them now.
Small steps, but if all privileged people did that, the world would change. I thought there was more to privilege than that. You don't sound like someone who's given much of any thought to the subject. What's the point of your post? Are you actually curious about my experience or just want something to rail against? The post GH made that I quoted, you sound exactly like the type of person that post describes. Equality feels like oppression for you, that true for you or you just never even gave it a thought? No, I'm actually just surprised at how little privilege you actually had to relinquish. It's almost like you didn't have much power in the first place. You really stretched there, too, with the suggestion to donate to BLM. Giving away money counts as giving away power I guess. But maybe the metaphorical language doesn't really work? Why do you think this idea that giving up privilege feels like oppression resonates with you so much when your examples of giving up privilege are so lame? I can think of something else that might better describe the experience of 1) conversion to a cause, 2) spreading the good news to blasphemers, and 3) tithing — but "relinquishing power" isn't it. I'll ask again... What is the point of your post? Does Equality feel like oppression for you? And if you don't think money is power, you are incredibly naive. I am trying to decide why this “relinquish (white) power” articulation seems so off to me. Who are the kind of people you imagine when you imagine indignant whites for whom giving up privilege feels like oppression? Are they people who can actually give up “power”? What kind of power do they have and don’t have, now, in 2019? And what kind of power do you gain as a “woke” white who can preach to others? I feel obliged to point out that 1) I acknowledged that giving money might be some kind of “relinquishing power” although such language feels overwrought — I’m not sure why that would be different in kind from other charitable giving or why it would feel oppressive and 2) you said you haven’t actually given money to BLM so it seems fairly moot. As for my personal opinion, no, equality doesn’t feel like oppression to me, hence my line of questioning. Personally, I am inclined more towards the idea of “recognition.” edit: given that someone posted a Nazi talking about “race-recognition” while I was typing this post, I have to now clarify that I meant “recognition” in the sense of Hegel or Levinas: recognition of the subject. Not some scientistic recognition of race, which we want to deconstruct anyway right? You speak like someone who really doesn't understand the concept of privilege, which is really the nature of it privilege... you don't have to worry about it because it doesn't directly affect you. If you are are white, there are a host of difficulties in life you don't have to worry about... In other words, day to day, you don't have to give these difficulties a second of thought, but minorities do, because they are affected by the difficulties. For example, as a white person, when you are pulled over by the police in America, you don't have to worry about being killed in the same way an African-American does. When you get pulled over you expect to pay a speeding ticket. When an African-American gets pulled over they have to worry they might die. The privileged person doesn't have to give a seconds thought to the latter problem, that is their privilege... To walk through life worrying about other things and thinking about things other than being killed by a cop. Let's use your word... recognition. If you "recognize" your privilege, that is the first step, Yay! After you recognize it, you can do other things to be allies for minority groups, and there are varying degrees of time and effort you can put toward that. But... by virtue of "recognizing" your privilege, you are in a sense giving up some degree of your power, because you can no longer just pretend minority groups aren't being persecuted. And it's also not enough to simply now "recognize" your privilege, you have to speak out against it... or be the person who knows and does nothing. No, I understand all that quite well. What am I trying to get at here is what you meant by “relinquishing power” and the particular resonance of “when you’ve been privileged, equality feels like oppression.” Don’t you find it curious that “privilege” is usually described via its lack? People of color lack certain presumptions of innocence, people of color lack certain presumptions of competence, people of color lack safety in their dealings with police. So what are we really talking about here? Giving up those presumptions? Giving up the privilege of ignoring people? If the “power” you give up is the power to “pretend” or the power not to sympathize it seems like a rather weak form of power. If that’s all it is, it’s not exactly clear how it’s related to some white people’s complaints that they aren’t particularly privileged. You might not even begrudge some redneck in West Virginia his complaints that he also lacks such presumptions (of competence, etc.), that he might even face worse presumptions, in 2019, than an upper class person of color dressed in a well-tailored suit who gets paid a bunch of money. Ah well, fuck the rednecks. If you dress like that, and wear a rat-tail, and drive a truck, and listen to country music you probably are ignorant and incompetent anyway. So you could make the same statement about a "red-neck" and competence (this is your example), technically that would be true... and would be the argument of reverse racism. It's essentially a standpoint of some white people, that they are too the victim in this. I'm not sure if that's the point you are trying to make, but you are dancing on that edge of people interpreting you that way. The problem with that is while in some sense maybe it is true, you are focusing on the most privileged group and the ways in which the might not have privilege... Therefore ignoring essentially 90% (or more) of the issue of privilege. No it’s not reverse racism. I’m not talking about a person’s of color presumptions about rednecks or even about race at all. Their being unprivileged need not be connected to race at all. I have absolutely no idea where you pulled that “90%” number from or why you think including white redneck West Virginians in a group that is “most privileged” is an especially astute or helpful way of grouping people. The whole point of this exercise has been to point out that if you think the children of two doctors of color in 2019 who live in a major city are unambiguously less “privileged” than some white children born in West Virginia to parents who didn’t complete high school and are living in a trailer, your concept of privilege is inadequate. (To heighten the point, consider black sons of NBA players, who are vastly vastly more likely than anyone else on the planet to play in the NBA). You haven’t mentioned “intersectionality” yet, but maybe you should pick it up. Show nested quote +And for the record I still don't think you get it, but I encourage you to try a bit more to consider yourself and how much easier your life is day to day, because when you walk into a grocery store people aren't eyeing you the whole time to see if you are going to steal something. For the record, even if I thought you were a moron I wouldn’t let that opinion distract me from engaging with what you’ve actually said, and I don’t see why you should attempt to let your assumptions about me carry the argument for you either. In any case, let’s say I had never ever considered before how my experience shopping might be different than that of a person of color. Now I’ve had the epiphany: Wow! They get followed by security some times! Ok. Now what power do I have to give up to rectify that situation (even if I’m the security guard?!?)? Show nested quote +By virtue of being born white in the US you have an exponentially disproportionate lower risk of being incarcerated in your life time than and African American person. * That alone is massive privilege. If you get stuck in that system of incarceration it will chew you up and spit you out broken. Imagine if I told you today, as of today you are 5 times more likely to be locked up than prior in your life, and you knew this to be true for a fact. Do you think that would increase your daily stress? How would you feel the next time you get pulled over for speeding? How would your relationship to police officers change (would you still see them has here to help you)? How would your life change if you actually got locked up (maybe you lost your privilege to have your vote counted)? Maybe you got killed in prison... https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2018/02/the-race-gap-in-u-s-prisons-is-glaring-and-poverty-is-making-it-worse/This is just one example of the many you don't have to worry about because you are white, are you going to tell me that is a weak effect? Yeah I know all that. I don’t see what privileges I have to give up in order for this not to happen, or how anything you’ve talked about relating to your awokening bears on this beyond the fact that you are no longer ignorant of it. This also raises issues of boundary-drawing which your own source points out. How do we disentangle blackness from poverty or from even more difficult to capture factors like community cohesion, family structures, attitudes, etc.? Show nested quote +If you were born black back in the days of slavery you had a 100% chance of ending up a slave. How do you think that would have affected your life?
A weak affect? I’ve been very careful to say “in 2019” repeatedly. I wasn’t born in the days of slavery and neither were you. To your first point, privilege is directly tied to race... you cannot separate the two, this is true world wide. Race has been shown throughout human history to carry favor in regard to cultural classes. And historically/generally, people with darker skin are persecuted simply for that fact. I don't think that statement is up for debate. "Bleaching skin" to a lighter color is a cultural phenomenon in India because there simply a skin color bias. People actually attempt to stain their skin to a lighter color so they are less dark skinned. http://theconversation.com/bleached-girls-india-and-its-love-for-light-skin-80655In India, it doesn't matter if you are poor or rich, if you have lighter skin you are likely to be favored by society. The same is true in America... If you are a white redneck in West Virginia, you are going to be favored in society based simply on the fact you have white skin. That doesn't mean you won't be treated poorly based on other characteristics, such as the perception/stereotype of how people might negatively view being a "redneck," but you will for sure carry advantage in American culture for being white. That statement is also not up for debate imo. There is a huge body of research that supports it, studies in police violence, poverty, discrimination in housing, white people getting more favorable sentences in the justice system... this list goes on. In your example of a doctor with 2 black kids, you are looking very myopically at the fact their father was a doctor or an NBA player. Below is a recent example (there are more if you just research it) of an NBA player who was tazered by police for no good reason. If you consider an NBA player part of a privileged class of society (because of money), then it is a striking thing to note that he gets tazered... the conclusion many people draw is that it is because he was black. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/23/613657447/milwaukee-police-disciplined-for-tasing-arrest-of-nba-playerBelow is a black senator who states he was pulled over 6-7 times in one year, I (not a senator, or rich, but white) have been pulled over maybe 1 time in the last 4-5 years (maybe more). https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/13/politics/tim-scott-police-racial-profiling/index.htmlMy point is that despite position in class or society, African Americans face discrimination that white people don't... that occurs despite financial status. You can bet that if you are poor and African American it will happen wayyyyyy more, that if you are rich and African American. But please take your time, and find me any example in the last decade of a white NBA player who was tasered for no good reason by a cop. I just did a google search, "white man harassed by cop." Every example on the page that turned up was of a black man being harassed by police or someone harassing police. You did a great job of saying the word, "intersectionality" but don't describe at all how it contributes to your comments. Intersectionality is important, it means to not have a myopic view in considering discrimination and abuse of power. For example, not just being black in America, but also poor and how the two dynamics interact together. Or being white and poor, there you have a mix of privilege (being white), and lack of privilege (being poor). In your early statements you seem unable to consider both of these things being able to exist in the same space, in your comments about redneck people. It's as if you think, how can they be white poor and privileged... as if being poor negates any form of privilege from being white... That is exactly what intersectionality address imo... That both things can and do occur in the same space... you can be privilege in some ways and not privileged in others. I'm not making my comments as a judgement toward you, I make them because you speak like someone who in my subjective opinion doesn't understand the dynamics of privilege... as a white person I try to make an effort to help other white Americans understand what their privilege is and how it affects others, and how we can consciously work with our privilege to balance the imbalance it creates in society. I am far from the person with the most understanding or expertise in this area (many more know much more than me), but I know something and I'm trying to do something about it, rather than ignore it (even if it is just talking to you in a forum). You weren't born in a time of overt slavery, and you didn't enslave anyone... but you absolutely were born in a culture that at one point it time was ubiquitous with the practice of slavery, and because of being born white you benefitted from the cultural imbalance that was created (and was never fully corrected) from the practice of slavery so many years ago. The only reason you don't know that, is because people know what affects them. If you had dark skin, the bias of our culture would affect you daily, you would feel it... and be unable to ignore how shitty it made you feel. You would be likely feel depressed, tense, and probably have less social motility as a result. As a white person you don't even have to consider it... You don't have to spend your time doing ANYTHING about it... you just get to live your life as normal, that is privilege. African Americans don't get to do that. Their daily list of things to do includes a list of things you don't have to worry about, such as "teach my son how to talk to police in a way that doesn't get him shot." That is a conversation you would never have with your kids because it sounds insane to say to them, but for other races of American citizens it is a very sane and potentially necessary conversation to have. As far as disentangling poverty from color of skin or race, I think that is a phonemically good question. In my opinion, it's the result of decades old damage done by slavery. Look at the Native American culture and African American culture, two cultures extremely harmed by white culture... both were left in poverty, white culture basically hamstrung them by essentially murdering and enslaving them all. Slaves have nothing, you set them free, they now have freedom... but still no money or home. How do you think that affects someone's social mobility? It destroys it. How many generations do you think it takes for a culture of people that were enslaved to get to a place of equal footing with the people that enslaved them? Our racism continued past slavery, we are not too far from 200 years since the end of overt slavery and many of the dynamics are still at play, and the imbalance is certainly there. The concept of "reparations" was born out of this very problem... which is the idea of giving up your privilege/power (in the case of reparations is money) so that underprivileged groups can have equal footing in society. It's as if white people said lets run a race, then as the race starts shot the African American runner in the leg and then pretended that never happened. Then the whole race we are like, "you just aren't trying hard enough man... you got to run faster if you ever want to make it to the finish line." First step in rectifying that situation... is to own that "you" or your culture/ancestors actually shot the other runner, and that the race isn't fair... to make if fair you don't need to shoot yourself per se (which is what I think most white people fear), but you need to do something drastic. At the very least, stop the race, nurture the shot runner, feed them for months until the wounds heal, then help them to get physical therapy and strength training... Then reschedule the race and run again if they feel fit and equal. That's what you give up, the privilege of ignoring the problem... you have to actually exert yourself to correct the fuck up of your ancestors... you have to actually talk about the problem and acknowledge it, so that it somehow gets fixed. It is the responsibility of all white people to attend to the fuck ups of our ancestors. quite simply, you are projecting your last paragraph is totally devoid of content. it amounts to talking about talking about something: “you have to actually exert yourself [...] you have to actually talk about the problem and acknowledge it.” well, mission accomplished then. we’ve done that. If that's all you took from that post, I gave you wayyyyyy more credit than you deserve as someone who I thought wanted to have a discussion about the blind spots of white American culture. "You're projecting" is just a cop out, I've made many valid points, none of which you are addressing. My guess is you don't have any answers, but that it's so much easier to just ignore the whole thing... Which really does reenforce what I'm saying. No, see, I never said I wanted to have “a discussion about the blind spots of white American culture.” I originally asked you what privileges you’ve given up and you just keep hammering us with facts about systemic racism. I grant you all those facts, but they are irrelevant to the much narrower question I asked and the discussion I wanted to have. You are projecting. I already know all the things relating to differences in outcomes between whites and blacks and grant you most of it. I don’t need an education from you about them. I’d wager I can give a better education than you can. But I am not the one here who claimed to have “answers” (to what? what are you talking about?). I had a question for you, which you’ve done your very best to avoid answering, but I think I know what the answer is. For you the answer to white privilege is to spread the Gospel of Privilege. Ok, that’s fine. From the perspective of an outsider to this conversation... 1) Racial privileges aren't something that can be given up for the simple fact that a person cannot give up their race. You say that "I already know all the things relating to differences in outcomes between whites and blacks" but if you think privilege = outcomes then you're using a bad definition of it which might be leading to your confusion. This is the same misstep Bill O'Reilly made a long time ago when asking Jon Stewart if Asian privilege was a thing because median Asian family income was higher than whites. Privilege is more the set of legal, social and systemic advantages that members of a race have towards achieving goals such as education, housing, safety, financial well-being equal treatment under the law, etc., and it's also important to remember that even if certain racially discriminatory things have been outlawed over time, the privileges conferred by those things do not magically disappear when the law changes or when an exception takes place. 2) You might not want to hear this, but the mere fact that you are seriously saying that you don't want to have "a discussion about the blind spots of white American culture" shows how unused you are to being defined by your race. I know it's uncomfortable to be defined that way, but recognize that all nonwhite people in America and many other places don't get to decide whether or not to define themselves by their race or to avoid conversations about their race. It's done for them and to them whether they like it or not. That avoidance of discussion, in and of itself, is a privilege. And guess what? The "blind spots of white American culture" are where a whole lot of hard work needs to be done. So, when the other poster says "you have to actually talk about the problem and acknowledge it, so that it somehow gets fixed" - this is the hard work of thinking about and seriously confronting what it means to be white. It's not easy. You can avoid it if you want, but if you do, remember there's only one reason why you get to do that. 1) if you are going to define an Asian group which is defined by its differences from other groups, and some of those differences are such that they result in better group outcomes along certain axes, then such group differences can reasonably be called privilege. there may be a number of other dimensions in which privilege runs the other way or privilege doesn’t exist in such a group, but privilege is inherently a multidimensional concept. what you are doing here is explicitly saying the term “privilege” is arbitrarily defined to only apply to whites for a host of historical issues. intersectionality taken on its own terms explodes that definition, or at least situates it as merely a politically motivated tactic which puts blinders on itself to achieve a set of narrow ends 2) honestly you can fuck off with this. taking your demand to its logical end, we shouldn’t be talking about anything but white privilege until the end of time. it’s complete nonsense. i already granted all the presuppositions about empirically existing white privilege and you want to keep bringing the discussion back to how i am not repeating ad nauseum all the horrors of racism. but i am allowed, actually, to specify what i want to talk about, and the fact that i want to talk about something more narrowly right now actually says nothing about any of the wild conclusions you are lobbing at me about the lack of “work” i’ve done examining my white privilege and repenting and spreading the good word. i will point out that you’ve rather sneakily shifted the focus of this conversation from “whites need to relinquish their privilege” / “equality feels like oppression” to “whites need to think about their privilege indefinitely” those are starkly different framings, although i admit there’s a certain perverse connection insofar as when i ask “what do you mean by” the first two you can say the second, and even use my question as evidence that i must feel oppressed. and i admit, it is a bit oppressive to have someone like you come in and tyrannically dictate that, in fact, i am not allowed to talk about the phrase “relinquishing privilege” because i need to do the “hard work” of pondering Gospel passages i’ve already committed to memory
1 - "what you are doing here is explicitly saying the term “privilege” is arbitrarily defined to only apply to whites for a host of historical issues."
White privilege IS only applicable to whites (though not arbitrarily). That's exactly it. There are certain privileges that only whites enjoy in America and many other nations. Congratulations, you passed the first test.
As for the rest of that first response, you're using a bunch of words you do not understand, or are (more likely) willfully refusing to understand or use correctly. Intersectionality, for example does not eliminate different individual aspects of identity. You can't just say "well gender privilege exists also, so racial privilege can't be a thing!" and vice versa - that allows you to dodge conversation about ANY aspect of identity. One can also be both privileged in some ways and disadvantaged in others (a white transgender person, for example). And, once again, because it bears repeating, because you're still using your definition of privilege as a set of outcomes, when it's NOT...it's a set of conditions.
2 - "honestly you can fuck off with this"
You know what? That was my first reaction when I got challenged with the concept of white privilege for the first time too. I worked my ass off in life, I earned a lot of what I have, I overcame some serious life-threatening shit, who the fuck are these assholes to tell me that the deck's been stacked in my favor all along?
But, I got over it and realized there was something to it. The evidence was there. It makes sense. And unlike your suggestion, I do plenty with my life other than "talking about anything but white privilege until the end of time."
Nobody's "tyrannically dictating" anything to you, and I'm not "sneakily shifting" anything by pointing out ways you're using terms incorrectly.
I'm one poster you don't know on a gaming forum. Lighten up. No reason to be disrespectful.
|
On July 27 2019 09:11 Redfish wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2019 06:57 IgnE wrote:On July 27 2019 06:03 Redfish wrote:On July 27 2019 02:49 IgnE wrote:On July 27 2019 02:15 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 26 2019 08:11 IgnE wrote:On July 26 2019 03:46 ShambhalaWar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 19 2019 07:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 06:29 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 19 2019 05:32 IgnE wrote:On July 19 2019 04:02 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 19 2019 02:35 IgnE wrote:On July 19 2019 01:45 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 19 2019 00:05 IgnE wrote:On July 18 2019 15:29 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 18 2019 13:46 IgnE wrote:On July 18 2019 13:20 ShambhalaWar wrote: [quote]
I would say the first step, and probably the most important is simply acknowledging that I have privilege, and giving up my ignorance about my privilege.
The nature of privilege is ignorance, the privileged people don't have to consider the problems other people do. So in regard to racial privilege, in acknowledging it I would think there comes some degree of commitment in calling it out when I see rather than just letting it slide because, "I'm white and it doesn't affect me."
If I'm playing a game a CSGO and I hear the N word (happens all the time), rather than just be ok with that, I can at the very least confront them on it, and report the account. There are many different versions of that... for example is I see a nazi symbol written on a wall, I can get a pen and mark over it.
Donate to a charity organization that combats racial inequality, march for black lives matter. I haven't done these latter two things, but for a lot of my black friends growing up I apologized for not believe them when we were kids, and tell them I believe them now.
Small steps, but if all privileged people did that, the world would change. I thought there was more to privilege than that. You don't sound like someone who's given much of any thought to the subject. What's the point of your post? Are you actually curious about my experience or just want something to rail against? The post GH made that I quoted, you sound exactly like the type of person that post describes. Equality feels like oppression for you, that true for you or you just never even gave it a thought? No, I'm actually just surprised at how little privilege you actually had to relinquish. It's almost like you didn't have much power in the first place. You really stretched there, too, with the suggestion to donate to BLM. Giving away money counts as giving away power I guess. But maybe the metaphorical language doesn't really work? Why do you think this idea that giving up privilege feels like oppression resonates with you so much when your examples of giving up privilege are so lame? I can think of something else that might better describe the experience of 1) conversion to a cause, 2) spreading the good news to blasphemers, and 3) tithing — but "relinquishing power" isn't it. I'll ask again... What is the point of your post? Does Equality feel like oppression for you? And if you don't think money is power, you are incredibly naive. I am trying to decide why this “relinquish (white) power” articulation seems so off to me. Who are the kind of people you imagine when you imagine indignant whites for whom giving up privilege feels like oppression? Are they people who can actually give up “power”? What kind of power do they have and don’t have, now, in 2019? And what kind of power do you gain as a “woke” white who can preach to others? I feel obliged to point out that 1) I acknowledged that giving money might be some kind of “relinquishing power” although such language feels overwrought — I’m not sure why that would be different in kind from other charitable giving or why it would feel oppressive and 2) you said you haven’t actually given money to BLM so it seems fairly moot. As for my personal opinion, no, equality doesn’t feel like oppression to me, hence my line of questioning. Personally, I am inclined more towards the idea of “recognition.” edit: given that someone posted a Nazi talking about “race-recognition” while I was typing this post, I have to now clarify that I meant “recognition” in the sense of Hegel or Levinas: recognition of the subject. Not some scientistic recognition of race, which we want to deconstruct anyway right? You speak like someone who really doesn't understand the concept of privilege, which is really the nature of it privilege... you don't have to worry about it because it doesn't directly affect you. If you are are white, there are a host of difficulties in life you don't have to worry about... In other words, day to day, you don't have to give these difficulties a second of thought, but minorities do, because they are affected by the difficulties. For example, as a white person, when you are pulled over by the police in America, you don't have to worry about being killed in the same way an African-American does. When you get pulled over you expect to pay a speeding ticket. When an African-American gets pulled over they have to worry they might die. The privileged person doesn't have to give a seconds thought to the latter problem, that is their privilege... To walk through life worrying about other things and thinking about things other than being killed by a cop. Let's use your word... recognition. If you "recognize" your privilege, that is the first step, Yay! After you recognize it, you can do other things to be allies for minority groups, and there are varying degrees of time and effort you can put toward that. But... by virtue of "recognizing" your privilege, you are in a sense giving up some degree of your power, because you can no longer just pretend minority groups aren't being persecuted. And it's also not enough to simply now "recognize" your privilege, you have to speak out against it... or be the person who knows and does nothing. No, I understand all that quite well. What am I trying to get at here is what you meant by “relinquishing power” and the particular resonance of “when you’ve been privileged, equality feels like oppression.” Don’t you find it curious that “privilege” is usually described via its lack? People of color lack certain presumptions of innocence, people of color lack certain presumptions of competence, people of color lack safety in their dealings with police. So what are we really talking about here? Giving up those presumptions? Giving up the privilege of ignoring people? If the “power” you give up is the power to “pretend” or the power not to sympathize it seems like a rather weak form of power. If that’s all it is, it’s not exactly clear how it’s related to some white people’s complaints that they aren’t particularly privileged. You might not even begrudge some redneck in West Virginia his complaints that he also lacks such presumptions (of competence, etc.), that he might even face worse presumptions, in 2019, than an upper class person of color dressed in a well-tailored suit who gets paid a bunch of money. Ah well, fuck the rednecks. If you dress like that, and wear a rat-tail, and drive a truck, and listen to country music you probably are ignorant and incompetent anyway. So you could make the same statement about a "red-neck" and competence (this is your example), technically that would be true... and would be the argument of reverse racism. It's essentially a standpoint of some white people, that they are too the victim in this. I'm not sure if that's the point you are trying to make, but you are dancing on that edge of people interpreting you that way. The problem with that is while in some sense maybe it is true, you are focusing on the most privileged group and the ways in which the might not have privilege... Therefore ignoring essentially 90% (or more) of the issue of privilege. No it’s not reverse racism. I’m not talking about a person’s of color presumptions about rednecks or even about race at all. Their being unprivileged need not be connected to race at all. I have absolutely no idea where you pulled that “90%” number from or why you think including white redneck West Virginians in a group that is “most privileged” is an especially astute or helpful way of grouping people. The whole point of this exercise has been to point out that if you think the children of two doctors of color in 2019 who live in a major city are unambiguously less “privileged” than some white children born in West Virginia to parents who didn’t complete high school and are living in a trailer, your concept of privilege is inadequate. (To heighten the point, consider black sons of NBA players, who are vastly vastly more likely than anyone else on the planet to play in the NBA). You haven’t mentioned “intersectionality” yet, but maybe you should pick it up. Show nested quote +And for the record I still don't think you get it, but I encourage you to try a bit more to consider yourself and how much easier your life is day to day, because when you walk into a grocery store people aren't eyeing you the whole time to see if you are going to steal something. For the record, even if I thought you were a moron I wouldn’t let that opinion distract me from engaging with what you’ve actually said, and I don’t see why you should attempt to let your assumptions about me carry the argument for you either. In any case, let’s say I had never ever considered before how my experience shopping might be different than that of a person of color. Now I’ve had the epiphany: Wow! They get followed by security some times! Ok. Now what power do I have to give up to rectify that situation (even if I’m the security guard?!?)? Show nested quote +By virtue of being born white in the US you have an exponentially disproportionate lower risk of being incarcerated in your life time than and African American person. * That alone is massive privilege. If you get stuck in that system of incarceration it will chew you up and spit you out broken. Imagine if I told you today, as of today you are 5 times more likely to be locked up than prior in your life, and you knew this to be true for a fact. Do you think that would increase your daily stress? How would you feel the next time you get pulled over for speeding? How would your relationship to police officers change (would you still see them has here to help you)? How would your life change if you actually got locked up (maybe you lost your privilege to have your vote counted)? Maybe you got killed in prison... https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2018/02/the-race-gap-in-u-s-prisons-is-glaring-and-poverty-is-making-it-worse/This is just one example of the many you don't have to worry about because you are white, are you going to tell me that is a weak effect? Yeah I know all that. I don’t see what privileges I have to give up in order for this not to happen, or how anything you’ve talked about relating to your awokening bears on this beyond the fact that you are no longer ignorant of it. This also raises issues of boundary-drawing which your own source points out. How do we disentangle blackness from poverty or from even more difficult to capture factors like community cohesion, family structures, attitudes, etc.? Show nested quote +If you were born black back in the days of slavery you had a 100% chance of ending up a slave. How do you think that would have affected your life?
A weak affect? I’ve been very careful to say “in 2019” repeatedly. I wasn’t born in the days of slavery and neither were you. To your first point, privilege is directly tied to race... you cannot separate the two, this is true world wide. Race has been shown throughout human history to carry favor in regard to cultural classes. And historically/generally, people with darker skin are persecuted simply for that fact. I don't think that statement is up for debate. "Bleaching skin" to a lighter color is a cultural phenomenon in India because there simply a skin color bias. People actually attempt to stain their skin to a lighter color so they are less dark skinned. http://theconversation.com/bleached-girls-india-and-its-love-for-light-skin-80655In India, it doesn't matter if you are poor or rich, if you have lighter skin you are likely to be favored by society. The same is true in America... If you are a white redneck in West Virginia, you are going to be favored in society based simply on the fact you have white skin. That doesn't mean you won't be treated poorly based on other characteristics, such as the perception/stereotype of how people might negatively view being a "redneck," but you will for sure carry advantage in American culture for being white. That statement is also not up for debate imo. There is a huge body of research that supports it, studies in police violence, poverty, discrimination in housing, white people getting more favorable sentences in the justice system... this list goes on. In your example of a doctor with 2 black kids, you are looking very myopically at the fact their father was a doctor or an NBA player. Below is a recent example (there are more if you just research it) of an NBA player who was tazered by police for no good reason. If you consider an NBA player part of a privileged class of society (because of money), then it is a striking thing to note that he gets tazered... the conclusion many people draw is that it is because he was black. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/23/613657447/milwaukee-police-disciplined-for-tasing-arrest-of-nba-playerBelow is a black senator who states he was pulled over 6-7 times in one year, I (not a senator, or rich, but white) have been pulled over maybe 1 time in the last 4-5 years (maybe more). https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/13/politics/tim-scott-police-racial-profiling/index.htmlMy point is that despite position in class or society, African Americans face discrimination that white people don't... that occurs despite financial status. You can bet that if you are poor and African American it will happen wayyyyyy more, that if you are rich and African American. But please take your time, and find me any example in the last decade of a white NBA player who was tasered for no good reason by a cop. I just did a google search, "white man harassed by cop." Every example on the page that turned up was of a black man being harassed by police or someone harassing police. You did a great job of saying the word, "intersectionality" but don't describe at all how it contributes to your comments. Intersectionality is important, it means to not have a myopic view in considering discrimination and abuse of power. For example, not just being black in America, but also poor and how the two dynamics interact together. Or being white and poor, there you have a mix of privilege (being white), and lack of privilege (being poor). In your early statements you seem unable to consider both of these things being able to exist in the same space, in your comments about redneck people. It's as if you think, how can they be white poor and privileged... as if being poor negates any form of privilege from being white... That is exactly what intersectionality address imo... That both things can and do occur in the same space... you can be privilege in some ways and not privileged in others. I'm not making my comments as a judgement toward you, I make them because you speak like someone who in my subjective opinion doesn't understand the dynamics of privilege... as a white person I try to make an effort to help other white Americans understand what their privilege is and how it affects others, and how we can consciously work with our privilege to balance the imbalance it creates in society. I am far from the person with the most understanding or expertise in this area (many more know much more than me), but I know something and I'm trying to do something about it, rather than ignore it (even if it is just talking to you in a forum). You weren't born in a time of overt slavery, and you didn't enslave anyone... but you absolutely were born in a culture that at one point it time was ubiquitous with the practice of slavery, and because of being born white you benefitted from the cultural imbalance that was created (and was never fully corrected) from the practice of slavery so many years ago. The only reason you don't know that, is because people know what affects them. If you had dark skin, the bias of our culture would affect you daily, you would feel it... and be unable to ignore how shitty it made you feel. You would be likely feel depressed, tense, and probably have less social motility as a result. As a white person you don't even have to consider it... You don't have to spend your time doing ANYTHING about it... you just get to live your life as normal, that is privilege. African Americans don't get to do that. Their daily list of things to do includes a list of things you don't have to worry about, such as "teach my son how to talk to police in a way that doesn't get him shot." That is a conversation you would never have with your kids because it sounds insane to say to them, but for other races of American citizens it is a very sane and potentially necessary conversation to have. As far as disentangling poverty from color of skin or race, I think that is a phonemically good question. In my opinion, it's the result of decades old damage done by slavery. Look at the Native American culture and African American culture, two cultures extremely harmed by white culture... both were left in poverty, white culture basically hamstrung them by essentially murdering and enslaving them all. Slaves have nothing, you set them free, they now have freedom... but still no money or home. How do you think that affects someone's social mobility? It destroys it. How many generations do you think it takes for a culture of people that were enslaved to get to a place of equal footing with the people that enslaved them? Our racism continued past slavery, we are not too far from 200 years since the end of overt slavery and many of the dynamics are still at play, and the imbalance is certainly there. The concept of "reparations" was born out of this very problem... which is the idea of giving up your privilege/power (in the case of reparations is money) so that underprivileged groups can have equal footing in society. It's as if white people said lets run a race, then as the race starts shot the African American runner in the leg and then pretended that never happened. Then the whole race we are like, "you just aren't trying hard enough man... you got to run faster if you ever want to make it to the finish line." First step in rectifying that situation... is to own that "you" or your culture/ancestors actually shot the other runner, and that the race isn't fair... to make if fair you don't need to shoot yourself per se (which is what I think most white people fear), but you need to do something drastic. At the very least, stop the race, nurture the shot runner, feed them for months until the wounds heal, then help them to get physical therapy and strength training... Then reschedule the race and run again if they feel fit and equal. That's what you give up, the privilege of ignoring the problem... you have to actually exert yourself to correct the fuck up of your ancestors... you have to actually talk about the problem and acknowledge it, so that it somehow gets fixed. It is the responsibility of all white people to attend to the fuck ups of our ancestors. quite simply, you are projecting your last paragraph is totally devoid of content. it amounts to talking about talking about something: “you have to actually exert yourself [...] you have to actually talk about the problem and acknowledge it.” well, mission accomplished then. we’ve done that. If that's all you took from that post, I gave you wayyyyyy more credit than you deserve as someone who I thought wanted to have a discussion about the blind spots of white American culture. "You're projecting" is just a cop out, I've made many valid points, none of which you are addressing. My guess is you don't have any answers, but that it's so much easier to just ignore the whole thing... Which really does reenforce what I'm saying. No, see, I never said I wanted to have “a discussion about the blind spots of white American culture.” I originally asked you what privileges you’ve given up and you just keep hammering us with facts about systemic racism. I grant you all those facts, but they are irrelevant to the much narrower question I asked and the discussion I wanted to have. You are projecting. I already know all the things relating to differences in outcomes between whites and blacks and grant you most of it. I don’t need an education from you about them. I’d wager I can give a better education than you can. But I am not the one here who claimed to have “answers” (to what? what are you talking about?). I had a question for you, which you’ve done your very best to avoid answering, but I think I know what the answer is. For you the answer to white privilege is to spread the Gospel of Privilege. Ok, that’s fine. From the perspective of an outsider to this conversation... 1) Racial privileges aren't something that can be given up for the simple fact that a person cannot give up their race. You say that "I already know all the things relating to differences in outcomes between whites and blacks" but if you think privilege = outcomes then you're using a bad definition of it which might be leading to your confusion. This is the same misstep Bill O'Reilly made a long time ago when asking Jon Stewart if Asian privilege was a thing because median Asian family income was higher than whites. Privilege is more the set of legal, social and systemic advantages that members of a race have towards achieving goals such as education, housing, safety, financial well-being equal treatment under the law, etc., and it's also important to remember that even if certain racially discriminatory things have been outlawed over time, the privileges conferred by those things do not magically disappear when the law changes or when an exception takes place. 2) You might not want to hear this, but the mere fact that you are seriously saying that you don't want to have "a discussion about the blind spots of white American culture" shows how unused you are to being defined by your race. I know it's uncomfortable to be defined that way, but recognize that all nonwhite people in America and many other places don't get to decide whether or not to define themselves by their race or to avoid conversations about their race. It's done for them and to them whether they like it or not. That avoidance of discussion, in and of itself, is a privilege. And guess what? The "blind spots of white American culture" are where a whole lot of hard work needs to be done. So, when the other poster says "you have to actually talk about the problem and acknowledge it, so that it somehow gets fixed" - this is the hard work of thinking about and seriously confronting what it means to be white. It's not easy. You can avoid it if you want, but if you do, remember there's only one reason why you get to do that. 1) if you are going to define an Asian group which is defined by its differences from other groups, and some of those differences are such that they result in better group outcomes along certain axes, then such group differences can reasonably be called privilege. there may be a number of other dimensions in which privilege runs the other way or privilege doesn’t exist in such a group, but privilege is inherently a multidimensional concept. what you are doing here is explicitly saying the term “privilege” is arbitrarily defined to only apply to whites for a host of historical issues. intersectionality taken on its own terms explodes that definition, or at least situates it as merely a politically motivated tactic which puts blinders on itself to achieve a set of narrow ends 2) honestly you can fuck off with this. taking your demand to its logical end, we shouldn’t be talking about anything but white privilege until the end of time. it’s complete nonsense. i already granted all the presuppositions about empirically existing white privilege and you want to keep bringing the discussion back to how i am not repeating ad nauseum all the horrors of racism. but i am allowed, actually, to specify what i want to talk about, and the fact that i want to talk about something more narrowly right now actually says nothing about any of the wild conclusions you are lobbing at me about the lack of “work” i’ve done examining my white privilege and repenting and spreading the good word. i will point out that you’ve rather sneakily shifted the focus of this conversation from “whites need to relinquish their privilege” / “equality feels like oppression” to “whites need to think about their privilege indefinitely” those are starkly different framings, although i admit there’s a certain perverse connection insofar as when i ask “what do you mean by” the first two you can say the second, and even use my question as evidence that i must feel oppressed. and i admit, it is a bit oppressive to have someone like you come in and tyrannically dictate that, in fact, i am not allowed to talk about the phrase “relinquishing privilege” because i need to do the “hard work” of pondering Gospel passages i’ve already committed to memory 1 - "what you are doing here is explicitly saying the term “privilege” is arbitrarily defined to only apply to whites for a host of historical issues." White privilege IS only applicable to whites (though not arbitrarily). That's exactly it. There are certain privileges that only whites enjoy in America and many other nations. Congratulations, you passed the first test. As for the rest of that first response, you're using a bunch of words you do not understand, or are (more likely) willfully refusing to understand or use correctly. Intersectionality, for example does not eliminate different individual aspects of identity. You can't just say "well gender privilege exists also, so racial privilege can't be a thing!" and vice versa - that allows you to dodge conversation about ANY aspect of identity. One can also be both privileged in some ways and disadvantaged in others (a white transgender person, for example). And, once again, because it bears repeating, because you're still using your definition of privilege as a set of outcomes, when it's NOT...it's a set of conditions.2 - "honestly you can fuck off with this" You know what? That was my first reaction when I got challenged with the concept of white privilege for the first time too. I worked my ass off in life, I earned a lot of what I have, I overcame some serious life-threatening shit, who the fuck are these assholes to tell me that the deck's been stacked in my favor all along? But, I got over it and realized there was something to it. The evidence was there. It makes sense. And unlike your suggestion, I do plenty with my life other than "talking about anything but white privilege until the end of time." Nobody's "tyrannically dictating" anything to you, and I'm not "sneakily shifting" anything by pointing out ways you're using terms incorrectly. I'm one poster you don't know on a gaming forum. Lighten up. No reason to be disrespectful.
I know you mean well but I wouldn't be doing what I request of others if I didn't point out that IgnE is familiar with all this and is making a more sophisticated critique. IgnE is absurdly well read (@IgnE did you read Freire or some summary/critique, because he directly addressed some of that stuff I feel and I doubt you would have missed it) and buff so I wouldn't mess with him if I was you lol.
He's basically one of those ANTIFA super soldiers you may have heard about. (t-i-c*)
|
|
Barr (presumably at Trump's direction) has directed the Federal Bureau of Prisons to get back in the cold-blooded homicide business, somewhat euphemistically referred to as "executions".
After 16 years without an execution, Barr has directed the head of the Bureau of Prisons to execute "five death-row inmates convicted of murdering, and in some cases torturing and raping, the most vulnerable in our society — children and the elderly" in December and January, according to a statement from the Department of Justice.
In his statement, Barr said the government was moving to seek justice against the "worst criminals" and bring relief to victims and family members. At the same time, however, the government's move is likely to reignite legal challenges to the specific protocol and reinvigorate a debate concerning the constitutionality of lethal injection.
The move represents a dramatic reversal after more than a decade-long hiatus in the federal use of capital punishment, as President Donald Trump has taken on the issue and called to "bring back the death penalty." The death penalty is legal in 29 states and the federal government, though there have been no federal executions in nearly two decades and the number of people facing state executions has been on the decline.
www.cnn.com
At least with Trump as president and Barr at the head of our trustworthy legal system there's little to worry about for marginalized people in the US+ Show Spoiler +
"It's not as if there are already camps set up away from populated areas housing massive numbers of people in various states of deteriorating conditions seen as outside the protections of not just US law, but the Geneva Conventions.... Wait...
What's that? My producer is telling me we do have those and people, including young children, are already dying in them with no accountability. Carry on. "
Maybe Europe liberating the people in the camps isn't as ridiculous a proposition as even I initially thought when Mohdoo proposed it.
EDIT: Forgot that we recently found out they are also "accidentally" collecting undetermined numbers of US citizens.
|
|
I posted an excerpt before but I feel like people are more ready to really process my point about the loose parallels between what's happening now in the US and the lead up to WWII in Germany regarding the concentration camps in the US. I put in bold some of the parts I thought particularly relevant.
Though we tend to think of Hitler’s Germany as a highly regimented dictatorship, in practice Nazi rule was chaotic and improvisatory. Rival power bases in the Party and the German state competed to carry out what they believed to be Hitler’s wishes. This system of “working towards the Fuhrer,” as it was called by Hitler’s biographer Ian Kershaw, was clearly in evidence when it came to the concentration camps. The K.L. system, during its twelve years of existence, included twenty-seven main camps and more than a thousand subcamps. At its peak, in early 1945, it housed more than seven hundred thousand inmates. In addition to being a major penal and economic institution, it was a central symbol of Hitler’s rule. Yet Hitler plays almost no role in Wachsmann’s book, and Wachsmann writes that Hitler was never seen to visit a camp. It was Heinrich Himmler, the head of the S.S., who was in charge of the camp system, and its growth was due in part to his ambition to make the S.S. the most powerful force in Germany.
Long before the Nazis took power, concentration camps had featured in their imagination. Wachsmann finds Hitler threatening to put Jews in camps as early as 1921. But there were no detailed plans for building such camps when Hitler was named Chancellor of Germany, in January, 1933. A few weeks later, on February 27th, he seized on the burning of the Reichstag—by Communists, he alleged—to launch a full-scale crackdown on his political opponents. The next day, he implemented a decree, “For the Protection of People and State,” that authorized the government to place just about anyone in “protective custody,” a euphemism for indefinite detention. (Euphemism, too, was to be a durable feature of the K.L. universe: the killing of prisoners was referred to as Sonderbehandlung, “special treatment.”)
During the next two months, some fifty thousand people were arrested on this basis, in what turned into a “frenzy” of political purges and score-settling. In the legal murk of the early Nazi regime, it was unclear who had the power to make such arrests, and so it was claimed by everyone: national, state, and local officials, police and civilians, Party leaders. “Everybody is arresting everybody,” a Nazi official complained in the summer of 1933. “Everybody threatens everybody with Dachau.” As this suggests, it was already clear that the most notorious and frightening destination for political detainees was the concentration camp built by Himmler at Dachau, in Bavaria. The prisoners were originally housed in an old munitions factory, but soon Himmler constructed a “model camp,” the architecture and organization of which provided the pattern for most of the later K.L. The camp was guarded not by police but by members of the S.S.—a Nazi Party entity rather than a state force.
These guards were the core of what became, a few years later, the much feared Death’s-Head S.S. The name, along with the skull-and-crossbones insignia, was meant to reinforce the idea that the men who bore it were not mere prison guards but front-line soldiers in the Nazi war against enemies of the people. Himmler declared, “No other service is more devastating and strenuous for the troops than just that of guarding villains and criminals.” The ideology of combat had been part of the DNA of Nazism from its origin, as a movement of First World War veterans, through the years of street battles against Communists, which established the Party’s reputation for violence. Now, in the years before actual war came, the K.L. was imagined as the site of virtual combat—against Communists, criminals, dissidents, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Jews, all forces working to undermine the German nation.
The metaphor of war encouraged the inhumanity of the S.S. officers, which they called toughness; licensed physical violence against prisoners; and accounted for the military discipline that made everyday life in the K.L. unbearable. Particularly hated was the roll call, or Appell, which forced inmates to wake before dawn and stand outside, in all weather, to be counted and recounted. The process could go on for hours, Wachsmann writes, during which the S.S. guards were constantly on the move, punishing “infractions such as poor posture and dirty shoes.”
The K.L. was defined from the beginning by its legal ambiguity. The camps were outside ordinary law, answerable not to judges and courts but to the S.S. and Himmler. At the same time, they were governed by an extensive set of regulations, which covered everything from their layout (including decorative flower beds) to the whipping of prisoners, which in theory had to be approved on a case-by-case basis by Himmler personally. Yet these regulations were often ignored by the camp S.S.—physical violence, for instance, was endemic, and the idea that a guard would have to ask permission before beating or even killing a prisoner was laughable. Strangely, however, it was possible, in the prewar years, at least, for a guard to be prosecuted for such a killing. In 1937, Paul Zeidler was among a group of guards who strangled a prisoner who had been a prominent churchman and judge; when the case attracted publicity, the S.S. allowed Zeidler to be charged and convicted. (He was sentenced to a year in jail.)
I think it's worth the read.
www.newyorker.com
|
Canada11279 Posts
On July 27 2019 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2019 04:40 Falling wrote:On July 26 2019 22:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 22:53 Ryzel wrote:On July 26 2019 22:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 22:40 Ryzel wrote:On July 26 2019 22:29 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 26 2019 22:25 Ryzel wrote: I mean the refugee/immigrant problem is obviously ethically complicated. I personally would be more interested in a deeper discussion on the underlying issues. For example...
1) Should it be a basic human right for anyone to settle wherever they choose, regardless of country?
2) Since a population in a democracy could theoretically vote to have open borders and allow all refugees in and reduce their suffering, does that mean said population has an ethical obligation to do so? Alternative scenario: if a refugee knocked on your door and asked to stay at your place, and you had an extra room that you weren’t using, are you ethically obligated to let him/her stay? 1) I think it should. This is one of those questions where you tend to get brick wall answers and ideological divide that you can't cross though. 2) Ethics are relative to the society you live in, but the answer to these questions is literally no. I think the answer should be yes, but it isn't. A further question I would ask is: If there are laws determining how you have to treat prisoners who were born in your country, is there any reason these laws shouldn't apply to people who were arrested while attempting to illegally enter your country? I’d say that depends on whether the citizenship of the country in question is what entitles you to/justifies those protections, or if it’s being a human. Intuitively it seems to be the latter though; it’s not like Americans specifically have an issue with starving in prison and needing laws guaranteeing sustenance. I guess the most simplified version is... Does a human’s “right to claim ownership” trump a human’s “right to pursue minimization of suffering by any means necessary”? For me personally the answer is a resounding no, in the US, both parties say yes imo. EDIT: It's like the farmers that let their crops rot when they couldn't find workers rather than just turn their farms into free "u-picks" or whatever See, this is what I’m talking about. I haven’t actually given that question much in-depth thought, but intuitively I feel I agree with you (not quite as resoundingly though). Do you think humans have a “right to claim ownership” at all? I see a practical application for personal property, distinct from private property. Basically personal property is your toothbrush, private property is the factory where toothbrushes are made. Capitalism doesn't make this distinction. Where does a house and the physical land the house sits upon fit within that particular divide? (And then, depending on the answer, what about the land surrounding the house?) I wouldn't begrudge you personal sheets, it's kinda like underwear for a bed. Kwark covered a bit more. But you might begrudge me a bed  I'm not looking for a laundry list- but if I understand you correctly, I can have my bed, but in an ideal society for you the building and land where my bed resides would not be personally owned by me.
|
On July 27 2019 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2019 09:11 Redfish wrote:On July 27 2019 06:57 IgnE wrote:On July 27 2019 06:03 Redfish wrote:On July 27 2019 02:49 IgnE wrote:On July 27 2019 02:15 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 26 2019 08:11 IgnE wrote:On July 26 2019 03:46 ShambhalaWar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 19 2019 07:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 06:29 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 19 2019 05:32 IgnE wrote:On July 19 2019 04:02 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 19 2019 02:35 IgnE wrote:On July 19 2019 01:45 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 19 2019 00:05 IgnE wrote:On July 18 2019 15:29 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 18 2019 13:46 IgnE wrote:On July 18 2019 13:20 ShambhalaWar wrote: [quote]
I would say the first step, and probably the most important is simply acknowledging that I have privilege, and giving up my ignorance about my privilege.
The nature of privilege is ignorance, the privileged people don't have to consider the problems other people do. So in regard to racial privilege, in acknowledging it I would think there comes some degree of commitment in calling it out when I see rather than just letting it slide because, "I'm white and it doesn't affect me."
If I'm playing a game a CSGO and I hear the N word (happens all the time), rather than just be ok with that, I can at the very least confront them on it, and report the account. There are many different versions of that... for example is I see a nazi symbol written on a wall, I can get a pen and mark over it.
Donate to a charity organization that combats racial inequality, march for black lives matter. I haven't done these latter two things, but for a lot of my black friends growing up I apologized for not believe them when we were kids, and tell them I believe them now.
Small steps, but if all privileged people did that, the world would change. I thought there was more to privilege than that. You don't sound like someone who's given much of any thought to the subject. What's the point of your post? Are you actually curious about my experience or just want something to rail against? The post GH made that I quoted, you sound exactly like the type of person that post describes. Equality feels like oppression for you, that true for you or you just never even gave it a thought? No, I'm actually just surprised at how little privilege you actually had to relinquish. It's almost like you didn't have much power in the first place. You really stretched there, too, with the suggestion to donate to BLM. Giving away money counts as giving away power I guess. But maybe the metaphorical language doesn't really work? Why do you think this idea that giving up privilege feels like oppression resonates with you so much when your examples of giving up privilege are so lame? I can think of something else that might better describe the experience of 1) conversion to a cause, 2) spreading the good news to blasphemers, and 3) tithing — but "relinquishing power" isn't it. I'll ask again... What is the point of your post? Does Equality feel like oppression for you? And if you don't think money is power, you are incredibly naive. I am trying to decide why this “relinquish (white) power” articulation seems so off to me. Who are the kind of people you imagine when you imagine indignant whites for whom giving up privilege feels like oppression? Are they people who can actually give up “power”? What kind of power do they have and don’t have, now, in 2019? And what kind of power do you gain as a “woke” white who can preach to others? I feel obliged to point out that 1) I acknowledged that giving money might be some kind of “relinquishing power” although such language feels overwrought — I’m not sure why that would be different in kind from other charitable giving or why it would feel oppressive and 2) you said you haven’t actually given money to BLM so it seems fairly moot. As for my personal opinion, no, equality doesn’t feel like oppression to me, hence my line of questioning. Personally, I am inclined more towards the idea of “recognition.” edit: given that someone posted a Nazi talking about “race-recognition” while I was typing this post, I have to now clarify that I meant “recognition” in the sense of Hegel or Levinas: recognition of the subject. Not some scientistic recognition of race, which we want to deconstruct anyway right? You speak like someone who really doesn't understand the concept of privilege, which is really the nature of it privilege... you don't have to worry about it because it doesn't directly affect you. If you are are white, there are a host of difficulties in life you don't have to worry about... In other words, day to day, you don't have to give these difficulties a second of thought, but minorities do, because they are affected by the difficulties. For example, as a white person, when you are pulled over by the police in America, you don't have to worry about being killed in the same way an African-American does. When you get pulled over you expect to pay a speeding ticket. When an African-American gets pulled over they have to worry they might die. The privileged person doesn't have to give a seconds thought to the latter problem, that is their privilege... To walk through life worrying about other things and thinking about things other than being killed by a cop. Let's use your word... recognition. If you "recognize" your privilege, that is the first step, Yay! After you recognize it, you can do other things to be allies for minority groups, and there are varying degrees of time and effort you can put toward that. But... by virtue of "recognizing" your privilege, you are in a sense giving up some degree of your power, because you can no longer just pretend minority groups aren't being persecuted. And it's also not enough to simply now "recognize" your privilege, you have to speak out against it... or be the person who knows and does nothing. No, I understand all that quite well. What am I trying to get at here is what you meant by “relinquishing power” and the particular resonance of “when you’ve been privileged, equality feels like oppression.” Don’t you find it curious that “privilege” is usually described via its lack? People of color lack certain presumptions of innocence, people of color lack certain presumptions of competence, people of color lack safety in their dealings with police. So what are we really talking about here? Giving up those presumptions? Giving up the privilege of ignoring people? If the “power” you give up is the power to “pretend” or the power not to sympathize it seems like a rather weak form of power. If that’s all it is, it’s not exactly clear how it’s related to some white people’s complaints that they aren’t particularly privileged. You might not even begrudge some redneck in West Virginia his complaints that he also lacks such presumptions (of competence, etc.), that he might even face worse presumptions, in 2019, than an upper class person of color dressed in a well-tailored suit who gets paid a bunch of money. Ah well, fuck the rednecks. If you dress like that, and wear a rat-tail, and drive a truck, and listen to country music you probably are ignorant and incompetent anyway. So you could make the same statement about a "red-neck" and competence (this is your example), technically that would be true... and would be the argument of reverse racism. It's essentially a standpoint of some white people, that they are too the victim in this. I'm not sure if that's the point you are trying to make, but you are dancing on that edge of people interpreting you that way. The problem with that is while in some sense maybe it is true, you are focusing on the most privileged group and the ways in which the might not have privilege... Therefore ignoring essentially 90% (or more) of the issue of privilege. No it’s not reverse racism. I’m not talking about a person’s of color presumptions about rednecks or even about race at all. Their being unprivileged need not be connected to race at all. I have absolutely no idea where you pulled that “90%” number from or why you think including white redneck West Virginians in a group that is “most privileged” is an especially astute or helpful way of grouping people. The whole point of this exercise has been to point out that if you think the children of two doctors of color in 2019 who live in a major city are unambiguously less “privileged” than some white children born in West Virginia to parents who didn’t complete high school and are living in a trailer, your concept of privilege is inadequate. (To heighten the point, consider black sons of NBA players, who are vastly vastly more likely than anyone else on the planet to play in the NBA). You haven’t mentioned “intersectionality” yet, but maybe you should pick it up. Show nested quote +And for the record I still don't think you get it, but I encourage you to try a bit more to consider yourself and how much easier your life is day to day, because when you walk into a grocery store people aren't eyeing you the whole time to see if you are going to steal something. For the record, even if I thought you were a moron I wouldn’t let that opinion distract me from engaging with what you’ve actually said, and I don’t see why you should attempt to let your assumptions about me carry the argument for you either. In any case, let’s say I had never ever considered before how my experience shopping might be different than that of a person of color. Now I’ve had the epiphany: Wow! They get followed by security some times! Ok. Now what power do I have to give up to rectify that situation (even if I’m the security guard?!?)? Show nested quote +By virtue of being born white in the US you have an exponentially disproportionate lower risk of being incarcerated in your life time than and African American person. * That alone is massive privilege. If you get stuck in that system of incarceration it will chew you up and spit you out broken. Imagine if I told you today, as of today you are 5 times more likely to be locked up than prior in your life, and you knew this to be true for a fact. Do you think that would increase your daily stress? How would you feel the next time you get pulled over for speeding? How would your relationship to police officers change (would you still see them has here to help you)? How would your life change if you actually got locked up (maybe you lost your privilege to have your vote counted)? Maybe you got killed in prison... https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2018/02/the-race-gap-in-u-s-prisons-is-glaring-and-poverty-is-making-it-worse/This is just one example of the many you don't have to worry about because you are white, are you going to tell me that is a weak effect? Yeah I know all that. I don’t see what privileges I have to give up in order for this not to happen, or how anything you’ve talked about relating to your awokening bears on this beyond the fact that you are no longer ignorant of it. This also raises issues of boundary-drawing which your own source points out. How do we disentangle blackness from poverty or from even more difficult to capture factors like community cohesion, family structures, attitudes, etc.? Show nested quote +If you were born black back in the days of slavery you had a 100% chance of ending up a slave. How do you think that would have affected your life?
A weak affect? I’ve been very careful to say “in 2019” repeatedly. I wasn’t born in the days of slavery and neither were you. To your first point, privilege is directly tied to race... you cannot separate the two, this is true world wide. Race has been shown throughout human history to carry favor in regard to cultural classes. And historically/generally, people with darker skin are persecuted simply for that fact. I don't think that statement is up for debate. "Bleaching skin" to a lighter color is a cultural phenomenon in India because there simply a skin color bias. People actually attempt to stain their skin to a lighter color so they are less dark skinned. http://theconversation.com/bleached-girls-india-and-its-love-for-light-skin-80655In India, it doesn't matter if you are poor or rich, if you have lighter skin you are likely to be favored by society. The same is true in America... If you are a white redneck in West Virginia, you are going to be favored in society based simply on the fact you have white skin. That doesn't mean you won't be treated poorly based on other characteristics, such as the perception/stereotype of how people might negatively view being a "redneck," but you will for sure carry advantage in American culture for being white. That statement is also not up for debate imo. There is a huge body of research that supports it, studies in police violence, poverty, discrimination in housing, white people getting more favorable sentences in the justice system... this list goes on. In your example of a doctor with 2 black kids, you are looking very myopically at the fact their father was a doctor or an NBA player. Below is a recent example (there are more if you just research it) of an NBA player who was tazered by police for no good reason. If you consider an NBA player part of a privileged class of society (because of money), then it is a striking thing to note that he gets tazered... the conclusion many people draw is that it is because he was black. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/23/613657447/milwaukee-police-disciplined-for-tasing-arrest-of-nba-playerBelow is a black senator who states he was pulled over 6-7 times in one year, I (not a senator, or rich, but white) have been pulled over maybe 1 time in the last 4-5 years (maybe more). https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/13/politics/tim-scott-police-racial-profiling/index.htmlMy point is that despite position in class or society, African Americans face discrimination that white people don't... that occurs despite financial status. You can bet that if you are poor and African American it will happen wayyyyyy more, that if you are rich and African American. But please take your time, and find me any example in the last decade of a white NBA player who was tasered for no good reason by a cop. I just did a google search, "white man harassed by cop." Every example on the page that turned up was of a black man being harassed by police or someone harassing police. You did a great job of saying the word, "intersectionality" but don't describe at all how it contributes to your comments. Intersectionality is important, it means to not have a myopic view in considering discrimination and abuse of power. For example, not just being black in America, but also poor and how the two dynamics interact together. Or being white and poor, there you have a mix of privilege (being white), and lack of privilege (being poor). In your early statements you seem unable to consider both of these things being able to exist in the same space, in your comments about redneck people. It's as if you think, how can they be white poor and privileged... as if being poor negates any form of privilege from being white... That is exactly what intersectionality address imo... That both things can and do occur in the same space... you can be privilege in some ways and not privileged in others. I'm not making my comments as a judgement toward you, I make them because you speak like someone who in my subjective opinion doesn't understand the dynamics of privilege... as a white person I try to make an effort to help other white Americans understand what their privilege is and how it affects others, and how we can consciously work with our privilege to balance the imbalance it creates in society. I am far from the person with the most understanding or expertise in this area (many more know much more than me), but I know something and I'm trying to do something about it, rather than ignore it (even if it is just talking to you in a forum). You weren't born in a time of overt slavery, and you didn't enslave anyone... but you absolutely were born in a culture that at one point it time was ubiquitous with the practice of slavery, and because of being born white you benefitted from the cultural imbalance that was created (and was never fully corrected) from the practice of slavery so many years ago. The only reason you don't know that, is because people know what affects them. If you had dark skin, the bias of our culture would affect you daily, you would feel it... and be unable to ignore how shitty it made you feel. You would be likely feel depressed, tense, and probably have less social motility as a result. As a white person you don't even have to consider it... You don't have to spend your time doing ANYTHING about it... you just get to live your life as normal, that is privilege. African Americans don't get to do that. Their daily list of things to do includes a list of things you don't have to worry about, such as "teach my son how to talk to police in a way that doesn't get him shot." That is a conversation you would never have with your kids because it sounds insane to say to them, but for other races of American citizens it is a very sane and potentially necessary conversation to have. As far as disentangling poverty from color of skin or race, I think that is a phonemically good question. In my opinion, it's the result of decades old damage done by slavery. Look at the Native American culture and African American culture, two cultures extremely harmed by white culture... both were left in poverty, white culture basically hamstrung them by essentially murdering and enslaving them all. Slaves have nothing, you set them free, they now have freedom... but still no money or home. How do you think that affects someone's social mobility? It destroys it. How many generations do you think it takes for a culture of people that were enslaved to get to a place of equal footing with the people that enslaved them? Our racism continued past slavery, we are not too far from 200 years since the end of overt slavery and many of the dynamics are still at play, and the imbalance is certainly there. The concept of "reparations" was born out of this very problem... which is the idea of giving up your privilege/power (in the case of reparations is money) so that underprivileged groups can have equal footing in society. It's as if white people said lets run a race, then as the race starts shot the African American runner in the leg and then pretended that never happened. Then the whole race we are like, "you just aren't trying hard enough man... you got to run faster if you ever want to make it to the finish line." First step in rectifying that situation... is to own that "you" or your culture/ancestors actually shot the other runner, and that the race isn't fair... to make if fair you don't need to shoot yourself per se (which is what I think most white people fear), but you need to do something drastic. At the very least, stop the race, nurture the shot runner, feed them for months until the wounds heal, then help them to get physical therapy and strength training... Then reschedule the race and run again if they feel fit and equal. That's what you give up, the privilege of ignoring the problem... you have to actually exert yourself to correct the fuck up of your ancestors... you have to actually talk about the problem and acknowledge it, so that it somehow gets fixed. It is the responsibility of all white people to attend to the fuck ups of our ancestors. quite simply, you are projecting your last paragraph is totally devoid of content. it amounts to talking about talking about something: “you have to actually exert yourself [...] you have to actually talk about the problem and acknowledge it.” well, mission accomplished then. we’ve done that. If that's all you took from that post, I gave you wayyyyyy more credit than you deserve as someone who I thought wanted to have a discussion about the blind spots of white American culture. "You're projecting" is just a cop out, I've made many valid points, none of which you are addressing. My guess is you don't have any answers, but that it's so much easier to just ignore the whole thing... Which really does reenforce what I'm saying. No, see, I never said I wanted to have “a discussion about the blind spots of white American culture.” I originally asked you what privileges you’ve given up and you just keep hammering us with facts about systemic racism. I grant you all those facts, but they are irrelevant to the much narrower question I asked and the discussion I wanted to have. You are projecting. I already know all the things relating to differences in outcomes between whites and blacks and grant you most of it. I don’t need an education from you about them. I’d wager I can give a better education than you can. But I am not the one here who claimed to have “answers” (to what? what are you talking about?). I had a question for you, which you’ve done your very best to avoid answering, but I think I know what the answer is. For you the answer to white privilege is to spread the Gospel of Privilege. Ok, that’s fine. From the perspective of an outsider to this conversation... 1) Racial privileges aren't something that can be given up for the simple fact that a person cannot give up their race. You say that "I already know all the things relating to differences in outcomes between whites and blacks" but if you think privilege = outcomes then you're using a bad definition of it which might be leading to your confusion. This is the same misstep Bill O'Reilly made a long time ago when asking Jon Stewart if Asian privilege was a thing because median Asian family income was higher than whites. Privilege is more the set of legal, social and systemic advantages that members of a race have towards achieving goals such as education, housing, safety, financial well-being equal treatment under the law, etc., and it's also important to remember that even if certain racially discriminatory things have been outlawed over time, the privileges conferred by those things do not magically disappear when the law changes or when an exception takes place. 2) You might not want to hear this, but the mere fact that you are seriously saying that you don't want to have "a discussion about the blind spots of white American culture" shows how unused you are to being defined by your race. I know it's uncomfortable to be defined that way, but recognize that all nonwhite people in America and many other places don't get to decide whether or not to define themselves by their race or to avoid conversations about their race. It's done for them and to them whether they like it or not. That avoidance of discussion, in and of itself, is a privilege. And guess what? The "blind spots of white American culture" are where a whole lot of hard work needs to be done. So, when the other poster says "you have to actually talk about the problem and acknowledge it, so that it somehow gets fixed" - this is the hard work of thinking about and seriously confronting what it means to be white. It's not easy. You can avoid it if you want, but if you do, remember there's only one reason why you get to do that. 1) if you are going to define an Asian group which is defined by its differences from other groups, and some of those differences are such that they result in better group outcomes along certain axes, then such group differences can reasonably be called privilege. there may be a number of other dimensions in which privilege runs the other way or privilege doesn’t exist in such a group, but privilege is inherently a multidimensional concept. what you are doing here is explicitly saying the term “privilege” is arbitrarily defined to only apply to whites for a host of historical issues. intersectionality taken on its own terms explodes that definition, or at least situates it as merely a politically motivated tactic which puts blinders on itself to achieve a set of narrow ends 2) honestly you can fuck off with this. taking your demand to its logical end, we shouldn’t be talking about anything but white privilege until the end of time. it’s complete nonsense. i already granted all the presuppositions about empirically existing white privilege and you want to keep bringing the discussion back to how i am not repeating ad nauseum all the horrors of racism. but i am allowed, actually, to specify what i want to talk about, and the fact that i want to talk about something more narrowly right now actually says nothing about any of the wild conclusions you are lobbing at me about the lack of “work” i’ve done examining my white privilege and repenting and spreading the good word. i will point out that you’ve rather sneakily shifted the focus of this conversation from “whites need to relinquish their privilege” / “equality feels like oppression” to “whites need to think about their privilege indefinitely” those are starkly different framings, although i admit there’s a certain perverse connection insofar as when i ask “what do you mean by” the first two you can say the second, and even use my question as evidence that i must feel oppressed. and i admit, it is a bit oppressive to have someone like you come in and tyrannically dictate that, in fact, i am not allowed to talk about the phrase “relinquishing privilege” because i need to do the “hard work” of pondering Gospel passages i’ve already committed to memory 1 - "what you are doing here is explicitly saying the term “privilege” is arbitrarily defined to only apply to whites for a host of historical issues." White privilege IS only applicable to whites (though not arbitrarily). That's exactly it. There are certain privileges that only whites enjoy in America and many other nations. Congratulations, you passed the first test. As for the rest of that first response, you're using a bunch of words you do not understand, or are (more likely) willfully refusing to understand or use correctly. Intersectionality, for example does not eliminate different individual aspects of identity. You can't just say "well gender privilege exists also, so racial privilege can't be a thing!" and vice versa - that allows you to dodge conversation about ANY aspect of identity. One can also be both privileged in some ways and disadvantaged in others (a white transgender person, for example). And, once again, because it bears repeating, because you're still using your definition of privilege as a set of outcomes, when it's NOT...it's a set of conditions.2 - "honestly you can fuck off with this" You know what? That was my first reaction when I got challenged with the concept of white privilege for the first time too. I worked my ass off in life, I earned a lot of what I have, I overcame some serious life-threatening shit, who the fuck are these assholes to tell me that the deck's been stacked in my favor all along? But, I got over it and realized there was something to it. The evidence was there. It makes sense. And unlike your suggestion, I do plenty with my life other than "talking about anything but white privilege until the end of time." Nobody's "tyrannically dictating" anything to you, and I'm not "sneakily shifting" anything by pointing out ways you're using terms incorrectly. I'm one poster you don't know on a gaming forum. Lighten up. No reason to be disrespectful. I know you mean well but I wouldn't be doing what I request of others if I didn't point out that IgnE is familiar with all this and is making a more sophisticated critique. IgnE is absurdly well read (@IgnE did you read Freire or some summary/critique, because he directly addressed some of that stuff I feel and I doubt you would have missed it) and buff so I wouldn't mess with him if I was you lol. He's basically one of those ANTIFA super soldiers you may have heard about. (t-i-c*)
I appreciate your post. How am I misunderstanding his critique?
He says "if you are going to define an Asian group which is defined by its differences from other groups, and some of those differences are such that they result in better group outcomes along certain axes, then such group differences can reasonably be called privilege. there may be a number of other dimensions in which privilege runs the other way or privilege doesn’t exist in such a group, but privilege is inherently a multidimensional concept."
My response is that I don't define "Asian" or any other racial group by "its differences from other groups." This is a reactionary method of defining race and assumes that personal characteristics are conferred by race. That comment of mine was in reference to an interview Jon Stewart did of Bill O'Reilly (Stewart is progressive and O'Reilly is conservative, if you're not familiar with them) and where O'Reilly misunderstands what white privilege is. You can see it here, go to the 1:31 mark to see the start.
I see IgnE making the exact same mistake as O'Reilly in both focusing on outcomes instead of conditions and using exceptions as rules.
|
On July 27 2019 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2019 09:11 Redfish wrote:On July 27 2019 06:57 IgnE wrote:On July 27 2019 06:03 Redfish wrote:On July 27 2019 02:49 IgnE wrote:On July 27 2019 02:15 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 26 2019 08:11 IgnE wrote:On July 26 2019 03:46 ShambhalaWar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 19 2019 07:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 06:29 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 19 2019 05:32 IgnE wrote:On July 19 2019 04:02 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 19 2019 02:35 IgnE wrote:On July 19 2019 01:45 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 19 2019 00:05 IgnE wrote:On July 18 2019 15:29 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 18 2019 13:46 IgnE wrote:On July 18 2019 13:20 ShambhalaWar wrote: [quote]
I would say the first step, and probably the most important is simply acknowledging that I have privilege, and giving up my ignorance about my privilege.
The nature of privilege is ignorance, the privileged people don't have to consider the problems other people do. So in regard to racial privilege, in acknowledging it I would think there comes some degree of commitment in calling it out when I see rather than just letting it slide because, "I'm white and it doesn't affect me."
If I'm playing a game a CSGO and I hear the N word (happens all the time), rather than just be ok with that, I can at the very least confront them on it, and report the account. There are many different versions of that... for example is I see a nazi symbol written on a wall, I can get a pen and mark over it.
Donate to a charity organization that combats racial inequality, march for black lives matter. I haven't done these latter two things, but for a lot of my black friends growing up I apologized for not believe them when we were kids, and tell them I believe them now.
Small steps, but if all privileged people did that, the world would change. I thought there was more to privilege than that. You don't sound like someone who's given much of any thought to the subject. What's the point of your post? Are you actually curious about my experience or just want something to rail against? The post GH made that I quoted, you sound exactly like the type of person that post describes. Equality feels like oppression for you, that true for you or you just never even gave it a thought? No, I'm actually just surprised at how little privilege you actually had to relinquish. It's almost like you didn't have much power in the first place. You really stretched there, too, with the suggestion to donate to BLM. Giving away money counts as giving away power I guess. But maybe the metaphorical language doesn't really work? Why do you think this idea that giving up privilege feels like oppression resonates with you so much when your examples of giving up privilege are so lame? I can think of something else that might better describe the experience of 1) conversion to a cause, 2) spreading the good news to blasphemers, and 3) tithing — but "relinquishing power" isn't it. I'll ask again... What is the point of your post? Does Equality feel like oppression for you? And if you don't think money is power, you are incredibly naive. I am trying to decide why this “relinquish (white) power” articulation seems so off to me. Who are the kind of people you imagine when you imagine indignant whites for whom giving up privilege feels like oppression? Are they people who can actually give up “power”? What kind of power do they have and don’t have, now, in 2019? And what kind of power do you gain as a “woke” white who can preach to others? I feel obliged to point out that 1) I acknowledged that giving money might be some kind of “relinquishing power” although such language feels overwrought — I’m not sure why that would be different in kind from other charitable giving or why it would feel oppressive and 2) you said you haven’t actually given money to BLM so it seems fairly moot. As for my personal opinion, no, equality doesn’t feel like oppression to me, hence my line of questioning. Personally, I am inclined more towards the idea of “recognition.” edit: given that someone posted a Nazi talking about “race-recognition” while I was typing this post, I have to now clarify that I meant “recognition” in the sense of Hegel or Levinas: recognition of the subject. Not some scientistic recognition of race, which we want to deconstruct anyway right? You speak like someone who really doesn't understand the concept of privilege, which is really the nature of it privilege... you don't have to worry about it because it doesn't directly affect you. If you are are white, there are a host of difficulties in life you don't have to worry about... In other words, day to day, you don't have to give these difficulties a second of thought, but minorities do, because they are affected by the difficulties. For example, as a white person, when you are pulled over by the police in America, you don't have to worry about being killed in the same way an African-American does. When you get pulled over you expect to pay a speeding ticket. When an African-American gets pulled over they have to worry they might die. The privileged person doesn't have to give a seconds thought to the latter problem, that is their privilege... To walk through life worrying about other things and thinking about things other than being killed by a cop. Let's use your word... recognition. If you "recognize" your privilege, that is the first step, Yay! After you recognize it, you can do other things to be allies for minority groups, and there are varying degrees of time and effort you can put toward that. But... by virtue of "recognizing" your privilege, you are in a sense giving up some degree of your power, because you can no longer just pretend minority groups aren't being persecuted. And it's also not enough to simply now "recognize" your privilege, you have to speak out against it... or be the person who knows and does nothing. No, I understand all that quite well. What am I trying to get at here is what you meant by “relinquishing power” and the particular resonance of “when you’ve been privileged, equality feels like oppression.” Don’t you find it curious that “privilege” is usually described via its lack? People of color lack certain presumptions of innocence, people of color lack certain presumptions of competence, people of color lack safety in their dealings with police. So what are we really talking about here? Giving up those presumptions? Giving up the privilege of ignoring people? If the “power” you give up is the power to “pretend” or the power not to sympathize it seems like a rather weak form of power. If that’s all it is, it’s not exactly clear how it’s related to some white people’s complaints that they aren’t particularly privileged. You might not even begrudge some redneck in West Virginia his complaints that he also lacks such presumptions (of competence, etc.), that he might even face worse presumptions, in 2019, than an upper class person of color dressed in a well-tailored suit who gets paid a bunch of money. Ah well, fuck the rednecks. If you dress like that, and wear a rat-tail, and drive a truck, and listen to country music you probably are ignorant and incompetent anyway. So you could make the same statement about a "red-neck" and competence (this is your example), technically that would be true... and would be the argument of reverse racism. It's essentially a standpoint of some white people, that they are too the victim in this. I'm not sure if that's the point you are trying to make, but you are dancing on that edge of people interpreting you that way. The problem with that is while in some sense maybe it is true, you are focusing on the most privileged group and the ways in which the might not have privilege... Therefore ignoring essentially 90% (or more) of the issue of privilege. No it’s not reverse racism. I’m not talking about a person’s of color presumptions about rednecks or even about race at all. Their being unprivileged need not be connected to race at all. I have absolutely no idea where you pulled that “90%” number from or why you think including white redneck West Virginians in a group that is “most privileged” is an especially astute or helpful way of grouping people. The whole point of this exercise has been to point out that if you think the children of two doctors of color in 2019 who live in a major city are unambiguously less “privileged” than some white children born in West Virginia to parents who didn’t complete high school and are living in a trailer, your concept of privilege is inadequate. (To heighten the point, consider black sons of NBA players, who are vastly vastly more likely than anyone else on the planet to play in the NBA). You haven’t mentioned “intersectionality” yet, but maybe you should pick it up. Show nested quote +And for the record I still don't think you get it, but I encourage you to try a bit more to consider yourself and how much easier your life is day to day, because when you walk into a grocery store people aren't eyeing you the whole time to see if you are going to steal something. For the record, even if I thought you were a moron I wouldn’t let that opinion distract me from engaging with what you’ve actually said, and I don’t see why you should attempt to let your assumptions about me carry the argument for you either. In any case, let’s say I had never ever considered before how my experience shopping might be different than that of a person of color. Now I’ve had the epiphany: Wow! They get followed by security some times! Ok. Now what power do I have to give up to rectify that situation (even if I’m the security guard?!?)? Show nested quote +By virtue of being born white in the US you have an exponentially disproportionate lower risk of being incarcerated in your life time than and African American person. * That alone is massive privilege. If you get stuck in that system of incarceration it will chew you up and spit you out broken. Imagine if I told you today, as of today you are 5 times more likely to be locked up than prior in your life, and you knew this to be true for a fact. Do you think that would increase your daily stress? How would you feel the next time you get pulled over for speeding? How would your relationship to police officers change (would you still see them has here to help you)? How would your life change if you actually got locked up (maybe you lost your privilege to have your vote counted)? Maybe you got killed in prison... https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2018/02/the-race-gap-in-u-s-prisons-is-glaring-and-poverty-is-making-it-worse/This is just one example of the many you don't have to worry about because you are white, are you going to tell me that is a weak effect? Yeah I know all that. I don’t see what privileges I have to give up in order for this not to happen, or how anything you’ve talked about relating to your awokening bears on this beyond the fact that you are no longer ignorant of it. This also raises issues of boundary-drawing which your own source points out. How do we disentangle blackness from poverty or from even more difficult to capture factors like community cohesion, family structures, attitudes, etc.? Show nested quote +If you were born black back in the days of slavery you had a 100% chance of ending up a slave. How do you think that would have affected your life?
A weak affect? I’ve been very careful to say “in 2019” repeatedly. I wasn’t born in the days of slavery and neither were you. To your first point, privilege is directly tied to race... you cannot separate the two, this is true world wide. Race has been shown throughout human history to carry favor in regard to cultural classes. And historically/generally, people with darker skin are persecuted simply for that fact. I don't think that statement is up for debate. "Bleaching skin" to a lighter color is a cultural phenomenon in India because there simply a skin color bias. People actually attempt to stain their skin to a lighter color so they are less dark skinned. http://theconversation.com/bleached-girls-india-and-its-love-for-light-skin-80655In India, it doesn't matter if you are poor or rich, if you have lighter skin you are likely to be favored by society. The same is true in America... If you are a white redneck in West Virginia, you are going to be favored in society based simply on the fact you have white skin. That doesn't mean you won't be treated poorly based on other characteristics, such as the perception/stereotype of how people might negatively view being a "redneck," but you will for sure carry advantage in American culture for being white. That statement is also not up for debate imo. There is a huge body of research that supports it, studies in police violence, poverty, discrimination in housing, white people getting more favorable sentences in the justice system... this list goes on. In your example of a doctor with 2 black kids, you are looking very myopically at the fact their father was a doctor or an NBA player. Below is a recent example (there are more if you just research it) of an NBA player who was tazered by police for no good reason. If you consider an NBA player part of a privileged class of society (because of money), then it is a striking thing to note that he gets tazered... the conclusion many people draw is that it is because he was black. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/23/613657447/milwaukee-police-disciplined-for-tasing-arrest-of-nba-playerBelow is a black senator who states he was pulled over 6-7 times in one year, I (not a senator, or rich, but white) have been pulled over maybe 1 time in the last 4-5 years (maybe more). https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/13/politics/tim-scott-police-racial-profiling/index.htmlMy point is that despite position in class or society, African Americans face discrimination that white people don't... that occurs despite financial status. You can bet that if you are poor and African American it will happen wayyyyyy more, that if you are rich and African American. But please take your time, and find me any example in the last decade of a white NBA player who was tasered for no good reason by a cop. I just did a google search, "white man harassed by cop." Every example on the page that turned up was of a black man being harassed by police or someone harassing police. You did a great job of saying the word, "intersectionality" but don't describe at all how it contributes to your comments. Intersectionality is important, it means to not have a myopic view in considering discrimination and abuse of power. For example, not just being black in America, but also poor and how the two dynamics interact together. Or being white and poor, there you have a mix of privilege (being white), and lack of privilege (being poor). In your early statements you seem unable to consider both of these things being able to exist in the same space, in your comments about redneck people. It's as if you think, how can they be white poor and privileged... as if being poor negates any form of privilege from being white... That is exactly what intersectionality address imo... That both things can and do occur in the same space... you can be privilege in some ways and not privileged in others. I'm not making my comments as a judgement toward you, I make them because you speak like someone who in my subjective opinion doesn't understand the dynamics of privilege... as a white person I try to make an effort to help other white Americans understand what their privilege is and how it affects others, and how we can consciously work with our privilege to balance the imbalance it creates in society. I am far from the person with the most understanding or expertise in this area (many more know much more than me), but I know something and I'm trying to do something about it, rather than ignore it (even if it is just talking to you in a forum). You weren't born in a time of overt slavery, and you didn't enslave anyone... but you absolutely were born in a culture that at one point it time was ubiquitous with the practice of slavery, and because of being born white you benefitted from the cultural imbalance that was created (and was never fully corrected) from the practice of slavery so many years ago. The only reason you don't know that, is because people know what affects them. If you had dark skin, the bias of our culture would affect you daily, you would feel it... and be unable to ignore how shitty it made you feel. You would be likely feel depressed, tense, and probably have less social motility as a result. As a white person you don't even have to consider it... You don't have to spend your time doing ANYTHING about it... you just get to live your life as normal, that is privilege. African Americans don't get to do that. Their daily list of things to do includes a list of things you don't have to worry about, such as "teach my son how to talk to police in a way that doesn't get him shot." That is a conversation you would never have with your kids because it sounds insane to say to them, but for other races of American citizens it is a very sane and potentially necessary conversation to have. As far as disentangling poverty from color of skin or race, I think that is a phonemically good question. In my opinion, it's the result of decades old damage done by slavery. Look at the Native American culture and African American culture, two cultures extremely harmed by white culture... both were left in poverty, white culture basically hamstrung them by essentially murdering and enslaving them all. Slaves have nothing, you set them free, they now have freedom... but still no money or home. How do you think that affects someone's social mobility? It destroys it. How many generations do you think it takes for a culture of people that were enslaved to get to a place of equal footing with the people that enslaved them? Our racism continued past slavery, we are not too far from 200 years since the end of overt slavery and many of the dynamics are still at play, and the imbalance is certainly there. The concept of "reparations" was born out of this very problem... which is the idea of giving up your privilege/power (in the case of reparations is money) so that underprivileged groups can have equal footing in society. It's as if white people said lets run a race, then as the race starts shot the African American runner in the leg and then pretended that never happened. Then the whole race we are like, "you just aren't trying hard enough man... you got to run faster if you ever want to make it to the finish line." First step in rectifying that situation... is to own that "you" or your culture/ancestors actually shot the other runner, and that the race isn't fair... to make if fair you don't need to shoot yourself per se (which is what I think most white people fear), but you need to do something drastic. At the very least, stop the race, nurture the shot runner, feed them for months until the wounds heal, then help them to get physical therapy and strength training... Then reschedule the race and run again if they feel fit and equal. That's what you give up, the privilege of ignoring the problem... you have to actually exert yourself to correct the fuck up of your ancestors... you have to actually talk about the problem and acknowledge it, so that it somehow gets fixed. It is the responsibility of all white people to attend to the fuck ups of our ancestors. quite simply, you are projecting your last paragraph is totally devoid of content. it amounts to talking about talking about something: “you have to actually exert yourself [...] you have to actually talk about the problem and acknowledge it.” well, mission accomplished then. we’ve done that. If that's all you took from that post, I gave you wayyyyyy more credit than you deserve as someone who I thought wanted to have a discussion about the blind spots of white American culture. "You're projecting" is just a cop out, I've made many valid points, none of which you are addressing. My guess is you don't have any answers, but that it's so much easier to just ignore the whole thing... Which really does reenforce what I'm saying. No, see, I never said I wanted to have “a discussion about the blind spots of white American culture.” I originally asked you what privileges you’ve given up and you just keep hammering us with facts about systemic racism. I grant you all those facts, but they are irrelevant to the much narrower question I asked and the discussion I wanted to have. You are projecting. I already know all the things relating to differences in outcomes between whites and blacks and grant you most of it. I don’t need an education from you about them. I’d wager I can give a better education than you can. But I am not the one here who claimed to have “answers” (to what? what are you talking about?). I had a question for you, which you’ve done your very best to avoid answering, but I think I know what the answer is. For you the answer to white privilege is to spread the Gospel of Privilege. Ok, that’s fine. From the perspective of an outsider to this conversation... 1) Racial privileges aren't something that can be given up for the simple fact that a person cannot give up their race. You say that "I already know all the things relating to differences in outcomes between whites and blacks" but if you think privilege = outcomes then you're using a bad definition of it which might be leading to your confusion. This is the same misstep Bill O'Reilly made a long time ago when asking Jon Stewart if Asian privilege was a thing because median Asian family income was higher than whites. Privilege is more the set of legal, social and systemic advantages that members of a race have towards achieving goals such as education, housing, safety, financial well-being equal treatment under the law, etc., and it's also important to remember that even if certain racially discriminatory things have been outlawed over time, the privileges conferred by those things do not magically disappear when the law changes or when an exception takes place. 2) You might not want to hear this, but the mere fact that you are seriously saying that you don't want to have "a discussion about the blind spots of white American culture" shows how unused you are to being defined by your race. I know it's uncomfortable to be defined that way, but recognize that all nonwhite people in America and many other places don't get to decide whether or not to define themselves by their race or to avoid conversations about their race. It's done for them and to them whether they like it or not. That avoidance of discussion, in and of itself, is a privilege. And guess what? The "blind spots of white American culture" are where a whole lot of hard work needs to be done. So, when the other poster says "you have to actually talk about the problem and acknowledge it, so that it somehow gets fixed" - this is the hard work of thinking about and seriously confronting what it means to be white. It's not easy. You can avoid it if you want, but if you do, remember there's only one reason why you get to do that. 1) if you are going to define an Asian group which is defined by its differences from other groups, and some of those differences are such that they result in better group outcomes along certain axes, then such group differences can reasonably be called privilege. there may be a number of other dimensions in which privilege runs the other way or privilege doesn’t exist in such a group, but privilege is inherently a multidimensional concept. what you are doing here is explicitly saying the term “privilege” is arbitrarily defined to only apply to whites for a host of historical issues. intersectionality taken on its own terms explodes that definition, or at least situates it as merely a politically motivated tactic which puts blinders on itself to achieve a set of narrow ends 2) honestly you can fuck off with this. taking your demand to its logical end, we shouldn’t be talking about anything but white privilege until the end of time. it’s complete nonsense. i already granted all the presuppositions about empirically existing white privilege and you want to keep bringing the discussion back to how i am not repeating ad nauseum all the horrors of racism. but i am allowed, actually, to specify what i want to talk about, and the fact that i want to talk about something more narrowly right now actually says nothing about any of the wild conclusions you are lobbing at me about the lack of “work” i’ve done examining my white privilege and repenting and spreading the good word. i will point out that you’ve rather sneakily shifted the focus of this conversation from “whites need to relinquish their privilege” / “equality feels like oppression” to “whites need to think about their privilege indefinitely” those are starkly different framings, although i admit there’s a certain perverse connection insofar as when i ask “what do you mean by” the first two you can say the second, and even use my question as evidence that i must feel oppressed. and i admit, it is a bit oppressive to have someone like you come in and tyrannically dictate that, in fact, i am not allowed to talk about the phrase “relinquishing privilege” because i need to do the “hard work” of pondering Gospel passages i’ve already committed to memory 1 - "what you are doing here is explicitly saying the term “privilege” is arbitrarily defined to only apply to whites for a host of historical issues." White privilege IS only applicable to whites (though not arbitrarily). That's exactly it. There are certain privileges that only whites enjoy in America and many other nations. Congratulations, you passed the first test. As for the rest of that first response, you're using a bunch of words you do not understand, or are (more likely) willfully refusing to understand or use correctly. Intersectionality, for example does not eliminate different individual aspects of identity. You can't just say "well gender privilege exists also, so racial privilege can't be a thing!" and vice versa - that allows you to dodge conversation about ANY aspect of identity. One can also be both privileged in some ways and disadvantaged in others (a white transgender person, for example). And, once again, because it bears repeating, because you're still using your definition of privilege as a set of outcomes, when it's NOT...it's a set of conditions.2 - "honestly you can fuck off with this" You know what? That was my first reaction when I got challenged with the concept of white privilege for the first time too. I worked my ass off in life, I earned a lot of what I have, I overcame some serious life-threatening shit, who the fuck are these assholes to tell me that the deck's been stacked in my favor all along? But, I got over it and realized there was something to it. The evidence was there. It makes sense. And unlike your suggestion, I do plenty with my life other than "talking about anything but white privilege until the end of time." Nobody's "tyrannically dictating" anything to you, and I'm not "sneakily shifting" anything by pointing out ways you're using terms incorrectly. I'm one poster you don't know on a gaming forum. Lighten up. No reason to be disrespectful. I know you mean well but I wouldn't be doing what I request of others if I didn't point out that IgnE is familiar with all this and is making a more sophisticated critique. IgnE is absurdly well read (@IgnE did you read Freire or some summary/critique, because he directly addressed some of that stuff I feel and I doubt you would have missed it) and buff so I wouldn't mess with him if I was you lol. He's basically one of those ANTIFA super soldiers you may have heard about. (t-i-c*)
I'm curious what you're trying to communicate with this. Are you trying to get Redfish to not critically engage IgnE at all? Are you cautioning them against engaging from the angle of IgnE not understanding the words IgnE is using?
It reads as though you are saying "I know IgnE, and he is smarter/better educated than you, so you shouldn't even bother.". I trust that is not what you are trying to say, but exactly what you are cautioning against is unclear.
|
|
On July 27 2019 11:35 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2019 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2019 09:11 Redfish wrote:On July 27 2019 06:57 IgnE wrote:On July 27 2019 06:03 Redfish wrote:On July 27 2019 02:49 IgnE wrote:On July 27 2019 02:15 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 26 2019 08:11 IgnE wrote:On July 26 2019 03:46 ShambhalaWar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 19 2019 07:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 06:29 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 19 2019 05:32 IgnE wrote:On July 19 2019 04:02 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 19 2019 02:35 IgnE wrote:On July 19 2019 01:45 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 19 2019 00:05 IgnE wrote:On July 18 2019 15:29 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 18 2019 13:46 IgnE wrote:On July 18 2019 13:20 ShambhalaWar wrote: [quote]
I would say the first step, and probably the most important is simply acknowledging that I have privilege, and giving up my ignorance about my privilege.
The nature of privilege is ignorance, the privileged people don't have to consider the problems other people do. So in regard to racial privilege, in acknowledging it I would think there comes some degree of commitment in calling it out when I see rather than just letting it slide because, "I'm white and it doesn't affect me."
If I'm playing a game a CSGO and I hear the N word (happens all the time), rather than just be ok with that, I can at the very least confront them on it, and report the account. There are many different versions of that... for example is I see a nazi symbol written on a wall, I can get a pen and mark over it.
Donate to a charity organization that combats racial inequality, march for black lives matter. I haven't done these latter two things, but for a lot of my black friends growing up I apologized for not believe them when we were kids, and tell them I believe them now.
Small steps, but if all privileged people did that, the world would change. I thought there was more to privilege than that. You don't sound like someone who's given much of any thought to the subject. What's the point of your post? Are you actually curious about my experience or just want something to rail against? The post GH made that I quoted, you sound exactly like the type of person that post describes. Equality feels like oppression for you, that true for you or you just never even gave it a thought? No, I'm actually just surprised at how little privilege you actually had to relinquish. It's almost like you didn't have much power in the first place. You really stretched there, too, with the suggestion to donate to BLM. Giving away money counts as giving away power I guess. But maybe the metaphorical language doesn't really work? Why do you think this idea that giving up privilege feels like oppression resonates with you so much when your examples of giving up privilege are so lame? I can think of something else that might better describe the experience of 1) conversion to a cause, 2) spreading the good news to blasphemers, and 3) tithing — but "relinquishing power" isn't it. I'll ask again... What is the point of your post? Does Equality feel like oppression for you? And if you don't think money is power, you are incredibly naive. I am trying to decide why this “relinquish (white) power” articulation seems so off to me. Who are the kind of people you imagine when you imagine indignant whites for whom giving up privilege feels like oppression? Are they people who can actually give up “power”? What kind of power do they have and don’t have, now, in 2019? And what kind of power do you gain as a “woke” white who can preach to others? I feel obliged to point out that 1) I acknowledged that giving money might be some kind of “relinquishing power” although such language feels overwrought — I’m not sure why that would be different in kind from other charitable giving or why it would feel oppressive and 2) you said you haven’t actually given money to BLM so it seems fairly moot. As for my personal opinion, no, equality doesn’t feel like oppression to me, hence my line of questioning. Personally, I am inclined more towards the idea of “recognition.” edit: given that someone posted a Nazi talking about “race-recognition” while I was typing this post, I have to now clarify that I meant “recognition” in the sense of Hegel or Levinas: recognition of the subject. Not some scientistic recognition of race, which we want to deconstruct anyway right? You speak like someone who really doesn't understand the concept of privilege, which is really the nature of it privilege... you don't have to worry about it because it doesn't directly affect you. If you are are white, there are a host of difficulties in life you don't have to worry about... In other words, day to day, you don't have to give these difficulties a second of thought, but minorities do, because they are affected by the difficulties. For example, as a white person, when you are pulled over by the police in America, you don't have to worry about being killed in the same way an African-American does. When you get pulled over you expect to pay a speeding ticket. When an African-American gets pulled over they have to worry they might die. The privileged person doesn't have to give a seconds thought to the latter problem, that is their privilege... To walk through life worrying about other things and thinking about things other than being killed by a cop. Let's use your word... recognition. If you "recognize" your privilege, that is the first step, Yay! After you recognize it, you can do other things to be allies for minority groups, and there are varying degrees of time and effort you can put toward that. But... by virtue of "recognizing" your privilege, you are in a sense giving up some degree of your power, because you can no longer just pretend minority groups aren't being persecuted. And it's also not enough to simply now "recognize" your privilege, you have to speak out against it... or be the person who knows and does nothing. No, I understand all that quite well. What am I trying to get at here is what you meant by “relinquishing power” and the particular resonance of “when you’ve been privileged, equality feels like oppression.” Don’t you find it curious that “privilege” is usually described via its lack? People of color lack certain presumptions of innocence, people of color lack certain presumptions of competence, people of color lack safety in their dealings with police. So what are we really talking about here? Giving up those presumptions? Giving up the privilege of ignoring people? If the “power” you give up is the power to “pretend” or the power not to sympathize it seems like a rather weak form of power. If that’s all it is, it’s not exactly clear how it’s related to some white people’s complaints that they aren’t particularly privileged. You might not even begrudge some redneck in West Virginia his complaints that he also lacks such presumptions (of competence, etc.), that he might even face worse presumptions, in 2019, than an upper class person of color dressed in a well-tailored suit who gets paid a bunch of money. Ah well, fuck the rednecks. If you dress like that, and wear a rat-tail, and drive a truck, and listen to country music you probably are ignorant and incompetent anyway. So you could make the same statement about a "red-neck" and competence (this is your example), technically that would be true... and would be the argument of reverse racism. It's essentially a standpoint of some white people, that they are too the victim in this. I'm not sure if that's the point you are trying to make, but you are dancing on that edge of people interpreting you that way. The problem with that is while in some sense maybe it is true, you are focusing on the most privileged group and the ways in which the might not have privilege... Therefore ignoring essentially 90% (or more) of the issue of privilege. No it’s not reverse racism. I’m not talking about a person’s of color presumptions about rednecks or even about race at all. Their being unprivileged need not be connected to race at all. I have absolutely no idea where you pulled that “90%” number from or why you think including white redneck West Virginians in a group that is “most privileged” is an especially astute or helpful way of grouping people. The whole point of this exercise has been to point out that if you think the children of two doctors of color in 2019 who live in a major city are unambiguously less “privileged” than some white children born in West Virginia to parents who didn’t complete high school and are living in a trailer, your concept of privilege is inadequate. (To heighten the point, consider black sons of NBA players, who are vastly vastly more likely than anyone else on the planet to play in the NBA). You haven’t mentioned “intersectionality” yet, but maybe you should pick it up. Show nested quote +And for the record I still don't think you get it, but I encourage you to try a bit more to consider yourself and how much easier your life is day to day, because when you walk into a grocery store people aren't eyeing you the whole time to see if you are going to steal something. For the record, even if I thought you were a moron I wouldn’t let that opinion distract me from engaging with what you’ve actually said, and I don’t see why you should attempt to let your assumptions about me carry the argument for you either. In any case, let’s say I had never ever considered before how my experience shopping might be different than that of a person of color. Now I’ve had the epiphany: Wow! They get followed by security some times! Ok. Now what power do I have to give up to rectify that situation (even if I’m the security guard?!?)? Show nested quote +By virtue of being born white in the US you have an exponentially disproportionate lower risk of being incarcerated in your life time than and African American person. * That alone is massive privilege. If you get stuck in that system of incarceration it will chew you up and spit you out broken. Imagine if I told you today, as of today you are 5 times more likely to be locked up than prior in your life, and you knew this to be true for a fact. Do you think that would increase your daily stress? How would you feel the next time you get pulled over for speeding? How would your relationship to police officers change (would you still see them has here to help you)? How would your life change if you actually got locked up (maybe you lost your privilege to have your vote counted)? Maybe you got killed in prison... https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2018/02/the-race-gap-in-u-s-prisons-is-glaring-and-poverty-is-making-it-worse/This is just one example of the many you don't have to worry about because you are white, are you going to tell me that is a weak effect? Yeah I know all that. I don’t see what privileges I have to give up in order for this not to happen, or how anything you’ve talked about relating to your awokening bears on this beyond the fact that you are no longer ignorant of it. This also raises issues of boundary-drawing which your own source points out. How do we disentangle blackness from poverty or from even more difficult to capture factors like community cohesion, family structures, attitudes, etc.? Show nested quote +If you were born black back in the days of slavery you had a 100% chance of ending up a slave. How do you think that would have affected your life?
A weak affect? I’ve been very careful to say “in 2019” repeatedly. I wasn’t born in the days of slavery and neither were you. To your first point, privilege is directly tied to race... you cannot separate the two, this is true world wide. Race has been shown throughout human history to carry favor in regard to cultural classes. And historically/generally, people with darker skin are persecuted simply for that fact. I don't think that statement is up for debate. "Bleaching skin" to a lighter color is a cultural phenomenon in India because there simply a skin color bias. People actually attempt to stain their skin to a lighter color so they are less dark skinned. http://theconversation.com/bleached-girls-india-and-its-love-for-light-skin-80655In India, it doesn't matter if you are poor or rich, if you have lighter skin you are likely to be favored by society. The same is true in America... If you are a white redneck in West Virginia, you are going to be favored in society based simply on the fact you have white skin. That doesn't mean you won't be treated poorly based on other characteristics, such as the perception/stereotype of how people might negatively view being a "redneck," but you will for sure carry advantage in American culture for being white. That statement is also not up for debate imo. There is a huge body of research that supports it, studies in police violence, poverty, discrimination in housing, white people getting more favorable sentences in the justice system... this list goes on. In your example of a doctor with 2 black kids, you are looking very myopically at the fact their father was a doctor or an NBA player. Below is a recent example (there are more if you just research it) of an NBA player who was tazered by police for no good reason. If you consider an NBA player part of a privileged class of society (because of money), then it is a striking thing to note that he gets tazered... the conclusion many people draw is that it is because he was black. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/23/613657447/milwaukee-police-disciplined-for-tasing-arrest-of-nba-playerBelow is a black senator who states he was pulled over 6-7 times in one year, I (not a senator, or rich, but white) have been pulled over maybe 1 time in the last 4-5 years (maybe more). https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/13/politics/tim-scott-police-racial-profiling/index.htmlMy point is that despite position in class or society, African Americans face discrimination that white people don't... that occurs despite financial status. You can bet that if you are poor and African American it will happen wayyyyyy more, that if you are rich and African American. But please take your time, and find me any example in the last decade of a white NBA player who was tasered for no good reason by a cop. I just did a google search, "white man harassed by cop." Every example on the page that turned up was of a black man being harassed by police or someone harassing police. You did a great job of saying the word, "intersectionality" but don't describe at all how it contributes to your comments. Intersectionality is important, it means to not have a myopic view in considering discrimination and abuse of power. For example, not just being black in America, but also poor and how the two dynamics interact together. Or being white and poor, there you have a mix of privilege (being white), and lack of privilege (being poor). In your early statements you seem unable to consider both of these things being able to exist in the same space, in your comments about redneck people. It's as if you think, how can they be white poor and privileged... as if being poor negates any form of privilege from being white... That is exactly what intersectionality address imo... That both things can and do occur in the same space... you can be privilege in some ways and not privileged in others. I'm not making my comments as a judgement toward you, I make them because you speak like someone who in my subjective opinion doesn't understand the dynamics of privilege... as a white person I try to make an effort to help other white Americans understand what their privilege is and how it affects others, and how we can consciously work with our privilege to balance the imbalance it creates in society. I am far from the person with the most understanding or expertise in this area (many more know much more than me), but I know something and I'm trying to do something about it, rather than ignore it (even if it is just talking to you in a forum). You weren't born in a time of overt slavery, and you didn't enslave anyone... but you absolutely were born in a culture that at one point it time was ubiquitous with the practice of slavery, and because of being born white you benefitted from the cultural imbalance that was created (and was never fully corrected) from the practice of slavery so many years ago. The only reason you don't know that, is because people know what affects them. If you had dark skin, the bias of our culture would affect you daily, you would feel it... and be unable to ignore how shitty it made you feel. You would be likely feel depressed, tense, and probably have less social motility as a result. As a white person you don't even have to consider it... You don't have to spend your time doing ANYTHING about it... you just get to live your life as normal, that is privilege. African Americans don't get to do that. Their daily list of things to do includes a list of things you don't have to worry about, such as "teach my son how to talk to police in a way that doesn't get him shot." That is a conversation you would never have with your kids because it sounds insane to say to them, but for other races of American citizens it is a very sane and potentially necessary conversation to have. As far as disentangling poverty from color of skin or race, I think that is a phonemically good question. In my opinion, it's the result of decades old damage done by slavery. Look at the Native American culture and African American culture, two cultures extremely harmed by white culture... both were left in poverty, white culture basically hamstrung them by essentially murdering and enslaving them all. Slaves have nothing, you set them free, they now have freedom... but still no money or home. How do you think that affects someone's social mobility? It destroys it. How many generations do you think it takes for a culture of people that were enslaved to get to a place of equal footing with the people that enslaved them? Our racism continued past slavery, we are not too far from 200 years since the end of overt slavery and many of the dynamics are still at play, and the imbalance is certainly there. The concept of "reparations" was born out of this very problem... which is the idea of giving up your privilege/power (in the case of reparations is money) so that underprivileged groups can have equal footing in society. It's as if white people said lets run a race, then as the race starts shot the African American runner in the leg and then pretended that never happened. Then the whole race we are like, "you just aren't trying hard enough man... you got to run faster if you ever want to make it to the finish line." First step in rectifying that situation... is to own that "you" or your culture/ancestors actually shot the other runner, and that the race isn't fair... to make if fair you don't need to shoot yourself per se (which is what I think most white people fear), but you need to do something drastic. At the very least, stop the race, nurture the shot runner, feed them for months until the wounds heal, then help them to get physical therapy and strength training... Then reschedule the race and run again if they feel fit and equal. That's what you give up, the privilege of ignoring the problem... you have to actually exert yourself to correct the fuck up of your ancestors... you have to actually talk about the problem and acknowledge it, so that it somehow gets fixed. It is the responsibility of all white people to attend to the fuck ups of our ancestors. quite simply, you are projecting your last paragraph is totally devoid of content. it amounts to talking about talking about something: “you have to actually exert yourself [...] you have to actually talk about the problem and acknowledge it.” well, mission accomplished then. we’ve done that. If that's all you took from that post, I gave you wayyyyyy more credit than you deserve as someone who I thought wanted to have a discussion about the blind spots of white American culture. "You're projecting" is just a cop out, I've made many valid points, none of which you are addressing. My guess is you don't have any answers, but that it's so much easier to just ignore the whole thing... Which really does reenforce what I'm saying. No, see, I never said I wanted to have “a discussion about the blind spots of white American culture.” I originally asked you what privileges you’ve given up and you just keep hammering us with facts about systemic racism. I grant you all those facts, but they are irrelevant to the much narrower question I asked and the discussion I wanted to have. You are projecting. I already know all the things relating to differences in outcomes between whites and blacks and grant you most of it. I don’t need an education from you about them. I’d wager I can give a better education than you can. But I am not the one here who claimed to have “answers” (to what? what are you talking about?). I had a question for you, which you’ve done your very best to avoid answering, but I think I know what the answer is. For you the answer to white privilege is to spread the Gospel of Privilege. Ok, that’s fine. From the perspective of an outsider to this conversation... 1) Racial privileges aren't something that can be given up for the simple fact that a person cannot give up their race. You say that "I already know all the things relating to differences in outcomes between whites and blacks" but if you think privilege = outcomes then you're using a bad definition of it which might be leading to your confusion. This is the same misstep Bill O'Reilly made a long time ago when asking Jon Stewart if Asian privilege was a thing because median Asian family income was higher than whites. Privilege is more the set of legal, social and systemic advantages that members of a race have towards achieving goals such as education, housing, safety, financial well-being equal treatment under the law, etc., and it's also important to remember that even if certain racially discriminatory things have been outlawed over time, the privileges conferred by those things do not magically disappear when the law changes or when an exception takes place. 2) You might not want to hear this, but the mere fact that you are seriously saying that you don't want to have "a discussion about the blind spots of white American culture" shows how unused you are to being defined by your race. I know it's uncomfortable to be defined that way, but recognize that all nonwhite people in America and many other places don't get to decide whether or not to define themselves by their race or to avoid conversations about their race. It's done for them and to them whether they like it or not. That avoidance of discussion, in and of itself, is a privilege. And guess what? The "blind spots of white American culture" are where a whole lot of hard work needs to be done. So, when the other poster says "you have to actually talk about the problem and acknowledge it, so that it somehow gets fixed" - this is the hard work of thinking about and seriously confronting what it means to be white. It's not easy. You can avoid it if you want, but if you do, remember there's only one reason why you get to do that. 1) if you are going to define an Asian group which is defined by its differences from other groups, and some of those differences are such that they result in better group outcomes along certain axes, then such group differences can reasonably be called privilege. there may be a number of other dimensions in which privilege runs the other way or privilege doesn’t exist in such a group, but privilege is inherently a multidimensional concept. what you are doing here is explicitly saying the term “privilege” is arbitrarily defined to only apply to whites for a host of historical issues. intersectionality taken on its own terms explodes that definition, or at least situates it as merely a politically motivated tactic which puts blinders on itself to achieve a set of narrow ends 2) honestly you can fuck off with this. taking your demand to its logical end, we shouldn’t be talking about anything but white privilege until the end of time. it’s complete nonsense. i already granted all the presuppositions about empirically existing white privilege and you want to keep bringing the discussion back to how i am not repeating ad nauseum all the horrors of racism. but i am allowed, actually, to specify what i want to talk about, and the fact that i want to talk about something more narrowly right now actually says nothing about any of the wild conclusions you are lobbing at me about the lack of “work” i’ve done examining my white privilege and repenting and spreading the good word. i will point out that you’ve rather sneakily shifted the focus of this conversation from “whites need to relinquish their privilege” / “equality feels like oppression” to “whites need to think about their privilege indefinitely” those are starkly different framings, although i admit there’s a certain perverse connection insofar as when i ask “what do you mean by” the first two you can say the second, and even use my question as evidence that i must feel oppressed. and i admit, it is a bit oppressive to have someone like you come in and tyrannically dictate that, in fact, i am not allowed to talk about the phrase “relinquishing privilege” because i need to do the “hard work” of pondering Gospel passages i’ve already committed to memory 1 - "what you are doing here is explicitly saying the term “privilege” is arbitrarily defined to only apply to whites for a host of historical issues." White privilege IS only applicable to whites (though not arbitrarily). That's exactly it. There are certain privileges that only whites enjoy in America and many other nations. Congratulations, you passed the first test. As for the rest of that first response, you're using a bunch of words you do not understand, or are (more likely) willfully refusing to understand or use correctly. Intersectionality, for example does not eliminate different individual aspects of identity. You can't just say "well gender privilege exists also, so racial privilege can't be a thing!" and vice versa - that allows you to dodge conversation about ANY aspect of identity. One can also be both privileged in some ways and disadvantaged in others (a white transgender person, for example). And, once again, because it bears repeating, because you're still using your definition of privilege as a set of outcomes, when it's NOT...it's a set of conditions.2 - "honestly you can fuck off with this" You know what? That was my first reaction when I got challenged with the concept of white privilege for the first time too. I worked my ass off in life, I earned a lot of what I have, I overcame some serious life-threatening shit, who the fuck are these assholes to tell me that the deck's been stacked in my favor all along? But, I got over it and realized there was something to it. The evidence was there. It makes sense. And unlike your suggestion, I do plenty with my life other than "talking about anything but white privilege until the end of time." Nobody's "tyrannically dictating" anything to you, and I'm not "sneakily shifting" anything by pointing out ways you're using terms incorrectly. I'm one poster you don't know on a gaming forum. Lighten up. No reason to be disrespectful. I know you mean well but I wouldn't be doing what I request of others if I didn't point out that IgnE is familiar with all this and is making a more sophisticated critique. IgnE is absurdly well read (@IgnE did you read Freire or some summary/critique, because he directly addressed some of that stuff I feel and I doubt you would have missed it) and buff so I wouldn't mess with him if I was you lol. He's basically one of those ANTIFA super soldiers you may have heard about. (t-i-c*) I'm curious what you're trying to communicate with this. Are you trying to get Redfish to not critically engage IgnE at all? Are you cautioning them against engaging from the angle of IgnE not understanding the words IgnE is using? It reads as though you are saying "I know IgnE, and he is smarter/better educated than you, so you shouldn't even bother.". I trust that is not what you are trying to say, but exactly what you are cautioning against is unclear.
+ Show Spoiler +I don't know IgnE's educational background but he's long been (at least among) the most knowledgeable person here regarding various political philosophies and their roots/popular critiques so there's probably a little of the former tainted by my most recent situation like this. To the degree there is, it's not fair and I apologize.
I obviously want to encourage dialogue but that's not what was happening imo. IgnE was having positions/ignorance that he didn't possess blasted at him in a somewhat obnoxious manner and that's not only counterproductive to their discussion but to the cause they believe they are advocating for.
Probably doesn't make a difference in 9 out of 10 interactions (they probably are basically making the argument/have the awareness IgnE is accused of) but IgnE is "the wrong one" as they say.
EDIT: the key word missed in the exchanges was "Intersectionality" which both IgnE and I have more complicated critiques of/related arguments than most posters I've seen opine on the topic of race/privilege (his perspective is more European based and complicated, mine more US and maybe radical, imo). I just finally finished my little snafu and didn't want it to get replaced with one like this.
TLDR: cautioning them against engaging from the angle of IgnE not understanding the words IgnE is using.
On July 27 2019 11:18 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2019 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2019 04:40 Falling wrote:On July 26 2019 22:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 22:53 Ryzel wrote:On July 26 2019 22:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 22:40 Ryzel wrote:On July 26 2019 22:29 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 26 2019 22:25 Ryzel wrote: I mean the refugee/immigrant problem is obviously ethically complicated. I personally would be more interested in a deeper discussion on the underlying issues. For example...
1) Should it be a basic human right for anyone to settle wherever they choose, regardless of country?
2) Since a population in a democracy could theoretically vote to have open borders and allow all refugees in and reduce their suffering, does that mean said population has an ethical obligation to do so? Alternative scenario: if a refugee knocked on your door and asked to stay at your place, and you had an extra room that you weren’t using, are you ethically obligated to let him/her stay? 1) I think it should. This is one of those questions where you tend to get brick wall answers and ideological divide that you can't cross though. 2) Ethics are relative to the society you live in, but the answer to these questions is literally no. I think the answer should be yes, but it isn't. A further question I would ask is: If there are laws determining how you have to treat prisoners who were born in your country, is there any reason these laws shouldn't apply to people who were arrested while attempting to illegally enter your country? I’d say that depends on whether the citizenship of the country in question is what entitles you to/justifies those protections, or if it’s being a human. Intuitively it seems to be the latter though; it’s not like Americans specifically have an issue with starving in prison and needing laws guaranteeing sustenance. I guess the most simplified version is... Does a human’s “right to claim ownership” trump a human’s “right to pursue minimization of suffering by any means necessary”? For me personally the answer is a resounding no, in the US, both parties say yes imo. EDIT: It's like the farmers that let their crops rot when they couldn't find workers rather than just turn their farms into free "u-picks" or whatever See, this is what I’m talking about. I haven’t actually given that question much in-depth thought, but intuitively I feel I agree with you (not quite as resoundingly though). Do you think humans have a “right to claim ownership” at all? I see a practical application for personal property, distinct from private property. Basically personal property is your toothbrush, private property is the factory where toothbrushes are made. Capitalism doesn't make this distinction. Where does a house and the physical land the house sits upon fit within that particular divide? (And then, depending on the answer, what about the land surrounding the house?) I wouldn't begrudge you personal sheets, it's kinda like underwear for a bed. Kwark covered a bit more. But you might begrudge me a bed  I'm not looking for a laundry list- but if I understand you correctly, I can have my bed, but in an ideal society for you the building and land where my bed resides would not be personally owned by me.
Just you 
Depends on the general material conditions of people, but it's not unreasonable for people in a private property free US to have personal beds. The land and building usually will be unreasonable to claim as personal, but I can't say that it'd always be impractical. IgnE laid out the general theory behind the calculation pretty well and why it's not supposed to be rigid and absolute though.
|
On July 27 2019 09:11 Redfish wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2019 06:57 IgnE wrote:On July 27 2019 06:03 Redfish wrote:On July 27 2019 02:49 IgnE wrote:On July 27 2019 02:15 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 26 2019 08:11 IgnE wrote:On July 26 2019 03:46 ShambhalaWar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 19 2019 07:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 06:29 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 19 2019 05:32 IgnE wrote:On July 19 2019 04:02 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 19 2019 02:35 IgnE wrote:On July 19 2019 01:45 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 19 2019 00:05 IgnE wrote:On July 18 2019 15:29 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 18 2019 13:46 IgnE wrote:On July 18 2019 13:20 ShambhalaWar wrote: [quote]
I would say the first step, and probably the most important is simply acknowledging that I have privilege, and giving up my ignorance about my privilege.
The nature of privilege is ignorance, the privileged people don't have to consider the problems other people do. So in regard to racial privilege, in acknowledging it I would think there comes some degree of commitment in calling it out when I see rather than just letting it slide because, "I'm white and it doesn't affect me."
If I'm playing a game a CSGO and I hear the N word (happens all the time), rather than just be ok with that, I can at the very least confront them on it, and report the account. There are many different versions of that... for example is I see a nazi symbol written on a wall, I can get a pen and mark over it.
Donate to a charity organization that combats racial inequality, march for black lives matter. I haven't done these latter two things, but for a lot of my black friends growing up I apologized for not believe them when we were kids, and tell them I believe them now.
Small steps, but if all privileged people did that, the world would change. I thought there was more to privilege than that. You don't sound like someone who's given much of any thought to the subject. What's the point of your post? Are you actually curious about my experience or just want something to rail against? The post GH made that I quoted, you sound exactly like the type of person that post describes. Equality feels like oppression for you, that true for you or you just never even gave it a thought? No, I'm actually just surprised at how little privilege you actually had to relinquish. It's almost like you didn't have much power in the first place. You really stretched there, too, with the suggestion to donate to BLM. Giving away money counts as giving away power I guess. But maybe the metaphorical language doesn't really work? Why do you think this idea that giving up privilege feels like oppression resonates with you so much when your examples of giving up privilege are so lame? I can think of something else that might better describe the experience of 1) conversion to a cause, 2) spreading the good news to blasphemers, and 3) tithing — but "relinquishing power" isn't it. I'll ask again... What is the point of your post? Does Equality feel like oppression for you? And if you don't think money is power, you are incredibly naive. I am trying to decide why this “relinquish (white) power” articulation seems so off to me. Who are the kind of people you imagine when you imagine indignant whites for whom giving up privilege feels like oppression? Are they people who can actually give up “power”? What kind of power do they have and don’t have, now, in 2019? And what kind of power do you gain as a “woke” white who can preach to others? I feel obliged to point out that 1) I acknowledged that giving money might be some kind of “relinquishing power” although such language feels overwrought — I’m not sure why that would be different in kind from other charitable giving or why it would feel oppressive and 2) you said you haven’t actually given money to BLM so it seems fairly moot. As for my personal opinion, no, equality doesn’t feel like oppression to me, hence my line of questioning. Personally, I am inclined more towards the idea of “recognition.” edit: given that someone posted a Nazi talking about “race-recognition” while I was typing this post, I have to now clarify that I meant “recognition” in the sense of Hegel or Levinas: recognition of the subject. Not some scientistic recognition of race, which we want to deconstruct anyway right? You speak like someone who really doesn't understand the concept of privilege, which is really the nature of it privilege... you don't have to worry about it because it doesn't directly affect you. If you are are white, there are a host of difficulties in life you don't have to worry about... In other words, day to day, you don't have to give these difficulties a second of thought, but minorities do, because they are affected by the difficulties. For example, as a white person, when you are pulled over by the police in America, you don't have to worry about being killed in the same way an African-American does. When you get pulled over you expect to pay a speeding ticket. When an African-American gets pulled over they have to worry they might die. The privileged person doesn't have to give a seconds thought to the latter problem, that is their privilege... To walk through life worrying about other things and thinking about things other than being killed by a cop. Let's use your word... recognition. If you "recognize" your privilege, that is the first step, Yay! After you recognize it, you can do other things to be allies for minority groups, and there are varying degrees of time and effort you can put toward that. But... by virtue of "recognizing" your privilege, you are in a sense giving up some degree of your power, because you can no longer just pretend minority groups aren't being persecuted. And it's also not enough to simply now "recognize" your privilege, you have to speak out against it... or be the person who knows and does nothing. No, I understand all that quite well. What am I trying to get at here is what you meant by “relinquishing power” and the particular resonance of “when you’ve been privileged, equality feels like oppression.” Don’t you find it curious that “privilege” is usually described via its lack? People of color lack certain presumptions of innocence, people of color lack certain presumptions of competence, people of color lack safety in their dealings with police. So what are we really talking about here? Giving up those presumptions? Giving up the privilege of ignoring people? If the “power” you give up is the power to “pretend” or the power not to sympathize it seems like a rather weak form of power. If that’s all it is, it’s not exactly clear how it’s related to some white people’s complaints that they aren’t particularly privileged. You might not even begrudge some redneck in West Virginia his complaints that he also lacks such presumptions (of competence, etc.), that he might even face worse presumptions, in 2019, than an upper class person of color dressed in a well-tailored suit who gets paid a bunch of money. Ah well, fuck the rednecks. If you dress like that, and wear a rat-tail, and drive a truck, and listen to country music you probably are ignorant and incompetent anyway. So you could make the same statement about a "red-neck" and competence (this is your example), technically that would be true... and would be the argument of reverse racism. It's essentially a standpoint of some white people, that they are too the victim in this. I'm not sure if that's the point you are trying to make, but you are dancing on that edge of people interpreting you that way. The problem with that is while in some sense maybe it is true, you are focusing on the most privileged group and the ways in which the might not have privilege... Therefore ignoring essentially 90% (or more) of the issue of privilege. No it’s not reverse racism. I’m not talking about a person’s of color presumptions about rednecks or even about race at all. Their being unprivileged need not be connected to race at all. I have absolutely no idea where you pulled that “90%” number from or why you think including white redneck West Virginians in a group that is “most privileged” is an especially astute or helpful way of grouping people. The whole point of this exercise has been to point out that if you think the children of two doctors of color in 2019 who live in a major city are unambiguously less “privileged” than some white children born in West Virginia to parents who didn’t complete high school and are living in a trailer, your concept of privilege is inadequate. (To heighten the point, consider black sons of NBA players, who are vastly vastly more likely than anyone else on the planet to play in the NBA). You haven’t mentioned “intersectionality” yet, but maybe you should pick it up. Show nested quote +And for the record I still don't think you get it, but I encourage you to try a bit more to consider yourself and how much easier your life is day to day, because when you walk into a grocery store people aren't eyeing you the whole time to see if you are going to steal something. For the record, even if I thought you were a moron I wouldn’t let that opinion distract me from engaging with what you’ve actually said, and I don’t see why you should attempt to let your assumptions about me carry the argument for you either. In any case, let’s say I had never ever considered before how my experience shopping might be different than that of a person of color. Now I’ve had the epiphany: Wow! They get followed by security some times! Ok. Now what power do I have to give up to rectify that situation (even if I’m the security guard?!?)? Show nested quote +By virtue of being born white in the US you have an exponentially disproportionate lower risk of being incarcerated in your life time than and African American person. * That alone is massive privilege. If you get stuck in that system of incarceration it will chew you up and spit you out broken. Imagine if I told you today, as of today you are 5 times more likely to be locked up than prior in your life, and you knew this to be true for a fact. Do you think that would increase your daily stress? How would you feel the next time you get pulled over for speeding? How would your relationship to police officers change (would you still see them has here to help you)? How would your life change if you actually got locked up (maybe you lost your privilege to have your vote counted)? Maybe you got killed in prison... https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2018/02/the-race-gap-in-u-s-prisons-is-glaring-and-poverty-is-making-it-worse/This is just one example of the many you don't have to worry about because you are white, are you going to tell me that is a weak effect? Yeah I know all that. I don’t see what privileges I have to give up in order for this not to happen, or how anything you’ve talked about relating to your awokening bears on this beyond the fact that you are no longer ignorant of it. This also raises issues of boundary-drawing which your own source points out. How do we disentangle blackness from poverty or from even more difficult to capture factors like community cohesion, family structures, attitudes, etc.? Show nested quote +If you were born black back in the days of slavery you had a 100% chance of ending up a slave. How do you think that would have affected your life?
A weak affect? I’ve been very careful to say “in 2019” repeatedly. I wasn’t born in the days of slavery and neither were you. To your first point, privilege is directly tied to race... you cannot separate the two, this is true world wide. Race has been shown throughout human history to carry favor in regard to cultural classes. And historically/generally, people with darker skin are persecuted simply for that fact. I don't think that statement is up for debate. "Bleaching skin" to a lighter color is a cultural phenomenon in India because there simply a skin color bias. People actually attempt to stain their skin to a lighter color so they are less dark skinned. http://theconversation.com/bleached-girls-india-and-its-love-for-light-skin-80655In India, it doesn't matter if you are poor or rich, if you have lighter skin you are likely to be favored by society. The same is true in America... If you are a white redneck in West Virginia, you are going to be favored in society based simply on the fact you have white skin. That doesn't mean you won't be treated poorly based on other characteristics, such as the perception/stereotype of how people might negatively view being a "redneck," but you will for sure carry advantage in American culture for being white. That statement is also not up for debate imo. There is a huge body of research that supports it, studies in police violence, poverty, discrimination in housing, white people getting more favorable sentences in the justice system... this list goes on. In your example of a doctor with 2 black kids, you are looking very myopically at the fact their father was a doctor or an NBA player. Below is a recent example (there are more if you just research it) of an NBA player who was tazered by police for no good reason. If you consider an NBA player part of a privileged class of society (because of money), then it is a striking thing to note that he gets tazered... the conclusion many people draw is that it is because he was black. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/23/613657447/milwaukee-police-disciplined-for-tasing-arrest-of-nba-playerBelow is a black senator who states he was pulled over 6-7 times in one year, I (not a senator, or rich, but white) have been pulled over maybe 1 time in the last 4-5 years (maybe more). https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/13/politics/tim-scott-police-racial-profiling/index.htmlMy point is that despite position in class or society, African Americans face discrimination that white people don't... that occurs despite financial status. You can bet that if you are poor and African American it will happen wayyyyyy more, that if you are rich and African American. But please take your time, and find me any example in the last decade of a white NBA player who was tasered for no good reason by a cop. I just did a google search, "white man harassed by cop." Every example on the page that turned up was of a black man being harassed by police or someone harassing police. You did a great job of saying the word, "intersectionality" but don't describe at all how it contributes to your comments. Intersectionality is important, it means to not have a myopic view in considering discrimination and abuse of power. For example, not just being black in America, but also poor and how the two dynamics interact together. Or being white and poor, there you have a mix of privilege (being white), and lack of privilege (being poor). In your early statements you seem unable to consider both of these things being able to exist in the same space, in your comments about redneck people. It's as if you think, how can they be white poor and privileged... as if being poor negates any form of privilege from being white... That is exactly what intersectionality address imo... That both things can and do occur in the same space... you can be privilege in some ways and not privileged in others. I'm not making my comments as a judgement toward you, I make them because you speak like someone who in my subjective opinion doesn't understand the dynamics of privilege... as a white person I try to make an effort to help other white Americans understand what their privilege is and how it affects others, and how we can consciously work with our privilege to balance the imbalance it creates in society. I am far from the person with the most understanding or expertise in this area (many more know much more than me), but I know something and I'm trying to do something about it, rather than ignore it (even if it is just talking to you in a forum). You weren't born in a time of overt slavery, and you didn't enslave anyone... but you absolutely were born in a culture that at one point it time was ubiquitous with the practice of slavery, and because of being born white you benefitted from the cultural imbalance that was created (and was never fully corrected) from the practice of slavery so many years ago. The only reason you don't know that, is because people know what affects them. If you had dark skin, the bias of our culture would affect you daily, you would feel it... and be unable to ignore how shitty it made you feel. You would be likely feel depressed, tense, and probably have less social motility as a result. As a white person you don't even have to consider it... You don't have to spend your time doing ANYTHING about it... you just get to live your life as normal, that is privilege. African Americans don't get to do that. Their daily list of things to do includes a list of things you don't have to worry about, such as "teach my son how to talk to police in a way that doesn't get him shot." That is a conversation you would never have with your kids because it sounds insane to say to them, but for other races of American citizens it is a very sane and potentially necessary conversation to have. As far as disentangling poverty from color of skin or race, I think that is a phonemically good question. In my opinion, it's the result of decades old damage done by slavery. Look at the Native American culture and African American culture, two cultures extremely harmed by white culture... both were left in poverty, white culture basically hamstrung them by essentially murdering and enslaving them all. Slaves have nothing, you set them free, they now have freedom... but still no money or home. How do you think that affects someone's social mobility? It destroys it. How many generations do you think it takes for a culture of people that were enslaved to get to a place of equal footing with the people that enslaved them? Our racism continued past slavery, we are not too far from 200 years since the end of overt slavery and many of the dynamics are still at play, and the imbalance is certainly there. The concept of "reparations" was born out of this very problem... which is the idea of giving up your privilege/power (in the case of reparations is money) so that underprivileged groups can have equal footing in society. It's as if white people said lets run a race, then as the race starts shot the African American runner in the leg and then pretended that never happened. Then the whole race we are like, "you just aren't trying hard enough man... you got to run faster if you ever want to make it to the finish line." First step in rectifying that situation... is to own that "you" or your culture/ancestors actually shot the other runner, and that the race isn't fair... to make if fair you don't need to shoot yourself per se (which is what I think most white people fear), but you need to do something drastic. At the very least, stop the race, nurture the shot runner, feed them for months until the wounds heal, then help them to get physical therapy and strength training... Then reschedule the race and run again if they feel fit and equal. That's what you give up, the privilege of ignoring the problem... you have to actually exert yourself to correct the fuck up of your ancestors... you have to actually talk about the problem and acknowledge it, so that it somehow gets fixed. It is the responsibility of all white people to attend to the fuck ups of our ancestors. quite simply, you are projecting your last paragraph is totally devoid of content. it amounts to talking about talking about something: “you have to actually exert yourself [...] you have to actually talk about the problem and acknowledge it.” well, mission accomplished then. we’ve done that. If that's all you took from that post, I gave you wayyyyyy more credit than you deserve as someone who I thought wanted to have a discussion about the blind spots of white American culture. "You're projecting" is just a cop out, I've made many valid points, none of which you are addressing. My guess is you don't have any answers, but that it's so much easier to just ignore the whole thing... Which really does reenforce what I'm saying. No, see, I never said I wanted to have “a discussion about the blind spots of white American culture.” I originally asked you what privileges you’ve given up and you just keep hammering us with facts about systemic racism. I grant you all those facts, but they are irrelevant to the much narrower question I asked and the discussion I wanted to have. You are projecting. I already know all the things relating to differences in outcomes between whites and blacks and grant you most of it. I don’t need an education from you about them. I’d wager I can give a better education than you can. But I am not the one here who claimed to have “answers” (to what? what are you talking about?). I had a question for you, which you’ve done your very best to avoid answering, but I think I know what the answer is. For you the answer to white privilege is to spread the Gospel of Privilege. Ok, that’s fine. From the perspective of an outsider to this conversation... 1) Racial privileges aren't something that can be given up for the simple fact that a person cannot give up their race. You say that "I already know all the things relating to differences in outcomes between whites and blacks" but if you think privilege = outcomes then you're using a bad definition of it which might be leading to your confusion. This is the same misstep Bill O'Reilly made a long time ago when asking Jon Stewart if Asian privilege was a thing because median Asian family income was higher than whites. Privilege is more the set of legal, social and systemic advantages that members of a race have towards achieving goals such as education, housing, safety, financial well-being equal treatment under the law, etc., and it's also important to remember that even if certain racially discriminatory things have been outlawed over time, the privileges conferred by those things do not magically disappear when the law changes or when an exception takes place. 2) You might not want to hear this, but the mere fact that you are seriously saying that you don't want to have "a discussion about the blind spots of white American culture" shows how unused you are to being defined by your race. I know it's uncomfortable to be defined that way, but recognize that all nonwhite people in America and many other places don't get to decide whether or not to define themselves by their race or to avoid conversations about their race. It's done for them and to them whether they like it or not. That avoidance of discussion, in and of itself, is a privilege. And guess what? The "blind spots of white American culture" are where a whole lot of hard work needs to be done. So, when the other poster says "you have to actually talk about the problem and acknowledge it, so that it somehow gets fixed" - this is the hard work of thinking about and seriously confronting what it means to be white. It's not easy. You can avoid it if you want, but if you do, remember there's only one reason why you get to do that. 1) if you are going to define an Asian group which is defined by its differences from other groups, and some of those differences are such that they result in better group outcomes along certain axes, then such group differences can reasonably be called privilege. there may be a number of other dimensions in which privilege runs the other way or privilege doesn’t exist in such a group, but privilege is inherently a multidimensional concept. what you are doing here is explicitly saying the term “privilege” is arbitrarily defined to only apply to whites for a host of historical issues. intersectionality taken on its own terms explodes that definition, or at least situates it as merely a politically motivated tactic which puts blinders on itself to achieve a set of narrow ends 2) honestly you can fuck off with this. taking your demand to its logical end, we shouldn’t be talking about anything but white privilege until the end of time. it’s complete nonsense. i already granted all the presuppositions about empirically existing white privilege and you want to keep bringing the discussion back to how i am not repeating ad nauseum all the horrors of racism. but i am allowed, actually, to specify what i want to talk about, and the fact that i want to talk about something more narrowly right now actually says nothing about any of the wild conclusions you are lobbing at me about the lack of “work” i’ve done examining my white privilege and repenting and spreading the good word. i will point out that you’ve rather sneakily shifted the focus of this conversation from “whites need to relinquish their privilege” / “equality feels like oppression” to “whites need to think about their privilege indefinitely” those are starkly different framings, although i admit there’s a certain perverse connection insofar as when i ask “what do you mean by” the first two you can say the second, and even use my question as evidence that i must feel oppressed. and i admit, it is a bit oppressive to have someone like you come in and tyrannically dictate that, in fact, i am not allowed to talk about the phrase “relinquishing privilege” because i need to do the “hard work” of pondering Gospel passages i’ve already committed to memory 1 - "what you are doing here is explicitly saying the term “privilege” is arbitrarily defined to only apply to whites for a host of historical issues." White privilege IS only applicable to whites (though not arbitrarily). That's exactly it. There are certain privileges that only whites enjoy in America and many other nations. Congratulations, you passed the first test. As for the rest of that first response, you're using a bunch of words you do not understand, or are (more likely) willfully refusing to understand or use correctly. Intersectionality, for example does not eliminate different individual aspects of identity. You can't just say "well gender privilege exists also, so racial privilege can't be a thing!" and vice versa - that allows you to dodge conversation about ANY aspect of identity. One can also be both privileged in some ways and disadvantaged in others (a white transgender person, for example). And, once again, because it bears repeating, because you're still using your definition of privilege as a set of outcomes, when it's NOT...it's a set of conditions.2 - "honestly you can fuck off with this" You know what? That was my first reaction when I got challenged with the concept of white privilege for the first time too. I worked my ass off in life, I earned a lot of what I have, I overcame some serious life-threatening shit, who the fuck are these assholes to tell me that the deck's been stacked in my favor all along? But, I got over it and realized there was something to it. The evidence was there. It makes sense. And unlike your suggestion, I do plenty with my life other than "talking about anything but white privilege until the end of time." Nobody's "tyrannically dictating" anything to you, and I'm not "sneakily shifting" anything by pointing out ways you're using terms incorrectly. I'm one poster you don't know on a gaming forum. Lighten up. No reason to be disrespectful.
you know what is disrespectful? quoting a block of my text that specifically uses the word “privilege” by itself, and then saying
“White privilege IS only applicable to whites (though not arbitrarily). That's exactly it.“
well i counted and you yourself use “white privilege” exactly zero times in the post i was responding to there. let me assure you, i know that the adjective “white” means it relates to “white people,” and not, for example, non-whites. i didn’t, for example, imply that asians couldn’t benefit from any form of privilege like someone else did. i’m not as careless with my words as you are, so you might want to reread my post before saying some more dumb things
@GH yeah I read Freire. if you think Freire answers my questions bring me some quotes and arguments
|
|
|
|