Page 68 of 108 [ 1723 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 ... 108  Next

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,184
Location: Right over your left shoulder

19 Jan 2018, 6:23 pm

XenoMind wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
So basically your argument has been reduced to 'stop disagreeing with me and accept my redefinition of racism'? :lol:

No, it's more like this: stop contradicting yourself.
And the second point that I just have to add: stop lying.


Try stomping your feet and saying 'I know you are but what am I?' a few more times, it's a very persuasive point.


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


kamiyu910
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,036
Location: California

19 Jan 2018, 7:32 pm

XenoMind wrote:
kamiyu910 wrote:
The term, "white privilege," in and of itself is not racist

It's racist just by the definition, because it's based on this distinction only: race. Stop trying to call black white, this is really boring and doesn't make any sense.


It's only racist if you think there cannot be black privilege, or Hispanic, or Asian privilege as well. There is an inherent preference to one's specific race, tribalism basically, that most people are rather unaware of, and so if a Hispanic person is in a majority Hispanic area, they will be more likely to have a racially specific privilege by way of people being more likely to cater to them. This goes for a Japanese person in a majority Japanese area, etc. I personally wouldn't consider it "privilege" really, tho. It's just biological programming, rather than something afforded to only a few.

The term "white privilege" all by itself is just a statement, tho. Where it gets racist is when people assign specific definitions to it, or connotations, such as how many people consider "white pride" to be a racist statement. However, they claim that black pride is not at all in any circumstance racist, which I find hypocritical. Either both statements are racist, or neither are.
Of course with our current social climate, the term has become racially charged, with how many people use it to silence others merely because of their race. That is despicable, especially when they try to justify it. There is no justification for hating an entire group of people.

It's like, "we're so anti racist! Watch as we completely silence, judge, ridicule, and guilt, this entire demographic based on their skin color!!" Any time anyone treats someone differently because of their race, it is by definition racist.


_________________
Your Aspie score: 171 of 200
Your Neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 40 of 200


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

19 Jan 2018, 9:12 pm

Personally, I think the "privilege" model of society is inherently faultly.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


XenoMind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 684
Location: Absurdistan

23 Jan 2018, 9:21 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Try stomping your feet and saying 'I know you are but what am I?' a few more times, it's a very persuasive point.

You must know well how it is.



XenoMind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 684
Location: Absurdistan

23 Jan 2018, 9:22 pm

kamiyu910 wrote:
It's like, "we're so anti racist! Watch as we completely silence, judge, ridicule, and guilt, this entire demographic based on their skin color!!" Any time anyone treats someone differently because of their race, it is by definition racist.

Absolutely agreed. :cheers:



DarthMetaKnight
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,105
Location: The Infodome

23 Jan 2018, 9:24 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
Personally, I think the "privilege" model of society is inherently faultly.


Really?

There are some people in our society who can use their wealth to influence elections. I can't do that.


_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre

READ THIS -> https://represent.us/


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,184
Location: Right over your left shoulder

23 Jan 2018, 10:04 pm

XenoMind wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Try stomping your feet and saying 'I know you are but what am I?' a few more times, it's a very persuasive point.

You must know well how it is.


You're not the first one to try it on me. :wink:


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

24 Jan 2018, 7:36 am

Lol @ people screaming about being silenced.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


XenoMind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 684
Location: Absurdistan

24 Jan 2018, 11:55 am

funeralxempire wrote:
You're not the first one to try it on me. :wink:

The first ones who gave up must had been your teachers in the primary school.



XenoMind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 684
Location: Absurdistan

26 Jan 2018, 1:17 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
You're completely right. Thank goodness the liberals are denouncing white privilege and standing up to far-right identity politics which has threatened the Western way of life.

I want to get this straight. So, according to you, talking about "higher level of crime among blacks" is racism and is forbidden content on this website, but talking about "white privilege" is not?



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

26 Jan 2018, 3:18 pm

Someone's substituted knowledge of propaganda for knowledge of history.

Your oldest female relative could not open a bank account without her husband's signature when she was young.

Black folks of the same age had to deal with segregation and open employment and housing discrimination. Also, KKK members openly dominating City Councils all over the US, including notably Anaheim, CA.

Look at the data on upward mobility in the US over generations before you speak to this subject again.

ETA: a couple of decades ago, people with disabilities frequently found themselves institutionalised for no good reason, and had no recourse to justice. SJWs changed all these atrocities, so haters can suck it.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


XenoMind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 684
Location: Absurdistan

26 Jan 2018, 4:25 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
SJWs changed all these atrocities, so haters can suck it.

Fighters for the equal rights were the people who changed those things. SJWs nowadays have nothing to do with those people, and you're fighting for segregation rather than against it. You're just cheap drama queens and nothing more.



Disconaut
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 24 Jan 2018
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 81

26 Jan 2018, 8:12 pm

DarthMetaKnight wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Personally, I think the "privilege" model of society is inherently faultly.


Really?

There are some people in our society who can use their wealth to influence elections. I can't do that.


I personally think it's flawed because it relies soley on one's perception of another's life. How can we say someone is priveleged or not without dissecting their lives and trying to quantify "how good they have it". It's impossible to accurately judge that about others.



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,245
Location: Long Island, New York

10 Feb 2018, 6:08 pm

We All Live on Campus Now By Andrew Sullivan

Quote:
Over the last year, the most common rebuttal to my intermittent coverage of campus culture has been: Why does it matter? These are students, after all. They’ll grow up once they leave their cloistered, neo-Marxist safe spaces. The real world isn’t like that. You’re exaggerating anyway. And so on. I certainly see the point. In the world beyond campus, few people use the term microaggressions without irony or an eye roll; claims of “white supremacy,” “rape culture,” or “white privilege” can seem like mere rhetorical flourishes; racial and gender segregation hasn’t been perpetuated in the workplace yet; the campus Title IX sex tribunals where, under the Obama administration, the “preponderance of evidence” rather than the absence of a “reasonable doubt” could ruin a young man’s life and future are just a product of a hothouse environment. And I can sometimes get carried away.

The reason I don’t agree with this is because I believe ideas matter. When elite universities shift their entire worldview away from liberal education as we have long known it toward the imperatives of an identity-based “social justice” movement, the broader culture is in danger of drifting away from liberal democracy as well. If elites believe that the core truth of our society is a system of interlocking and oppressive power structures based around immutable characteristics like race or sex or sexual orientation, then sooner rather than later, this will be reflected in our culture at large. What matters most of all in these colleges — your membership in a group that is embedded in a hierarchy of oppression — will soon enough be what matters in the society as a whole.

And, sure enough, the whole concept of an individual who exists apart from group identity is slipping from the discourse. The idea of individual merit — as opposed to various forms of unearned “privilege” — is increasingly suspect. The Enlightenment principles that formed the bedrock of the American experiment — untrammeled free speech, due process, individual (rather than group) rights — are now routinely understood as mere masks for “white male” power, code words for the oppression of women and nonwhites. Any differences in outcome for various groups must always be a function of “hate,” rather than a function of nature or choice or freedom or individual agency. And anyone who questions these assertions is obviously a white supremacist himself.

Polarization has made this worse — because on the left, moderation now seems like a surrender to white nationalism, and because on the right, white identity politics has overwhelmed moderate conservatism. And Trump plays a critical role. His crude, bigoted version of identity politics seems to require an equal and opposite reaction. And I completely understand this impulse. Living in this period is to experience a daily, even hourly, psychological hazing from the bigot-in-chief. And when this white straight man revels in his torment of those unlike him — and does so with utter impunity among his supporters — there’s a huge temptation to respond in kind. A president who has long treated women, in his words, “like s**t,” and bragged about it, is enough to provoke rage in any decent person. But anger is rarely a good frame of mind to pursue the imperatives of reason, let alone to defend the norms of liberal democracy.

And yes, I’m not talking about formal rules — but norms of liberal behavior. One of them is a robust public debate, free from intimidation. Liberals welcome dissent because it’s our surest way to avoid error. Cultural Marxists fear dissent because they believe it can do harm to others’ feelings and help sustain existing identity-based power structures. Yes, this is not about the First Amendment. The government is not preventing anyone from speaking. But it is about the spirit of the First Amendment.

And the impulse to intimidate, vilify, ruin, and abuse a writer for her opinions chills open debate. This is a real-world echo of the campus habit of disrupting speakers, no-platforming conservatives, and shouting people down. But now this reflexive hostility to speech is actually endorsed by writers and editors. Journalism itself has become a means of intimidating journalists.

If voicing an “incorrect” opinion can end your career, or mark you for instant social ostracism, you tend to keep quiet. This silence on any controversial social issue is endemic on college campuses, but it’s now everywhere.

No one feels capable of saying anything in public. In the #MeToo debate, the gulf between what Twitter screams and what pops up in your private email in-box is staggering. It’s as big a gulf on the left as you find between the public statements and private views of Republicans on Trump. This is compounded by the idea that only a member of a minority group can speak about racism or homophobia, or that only women can discuss sexual harassment. The only reason this should be the case is if we think someone’s identity is more important than the argument they might want to make. And that campus orthodoxy is now the culture’s as a whole.

The whole cultural Marxist idea of a microaggression, after all, is that it’s on a spectrum with macro-aggression. Patriarchy and white supremacy — which define our world — come in micro, mini and macro forms — but it’s all connected. A bad date is just one end of a patriarchal curve that ends with rape. And that’s why left-feminists are not just interested in exposing workplace abuse or punishing sex crimes, but in policing even consensual sex for any hint of patriarchy’s omnipresent threat.

Privacy? Forget about it. Traditionally, liberals have wanted to see politics debated without regard for the private lives of those in the fray — because personal details can distract from the cogency of the argument. But cultural Marxists see no such distinction. In the struggle against patriarchy, a distinction between the public and private makes no sense. In fact, policing private life — the personal is political, remember — is integral to advancing social justice.

There’s a reason that totalitarian states will strip prisoners of their clothing. Left-feminists delight in doing this metaphorically to targeted men — effectively exposing them naked to public ridicule and examination because it both traumatizes the object and more importantly sits out there as a warning to others.

Due process? Real life is beginning to mimic college tribunals. When the perpetrator of an anonymous list accusing dozens of men of a whole range of sexual misdeeds is actually celebrated by much of mainstream media (see this fawning NYT profile), you realize that we are living in another age of the Scarlet Letter. Moira Donegan has yet to express misgivings about possibly smearing the innocent — because the cause is far more important than individual fairness. Besides, if they’re innocent, they’ll be fine! Ezra Klein has openly endorsed campus rules that could frame some innocent men. One of the tweets in response to some of my recent writing on this has stuck in my mind ever since: “can anyone justify why the POSSIBLE innocence of men is so much more important than the DEFINITE safety and comfort of women?” And yet this principle of preferring ten guilty people to go free rather than one innocent person to be found guilty was not so long ago a definition of Western civilization.

Treating people as individuals rather than representatives of designated groups? Almost every corporation now has affirmative action for every victim-group in hiring and promotion. Workplace codes today read like campus speech codes of a few years ago. Voice dissent from this worldview and you’ll be designated a bigot and fired (see James Damore at Google). The media is out front on this too. Just as campuses have diversity tsars, roaming through every department to make sure they are in line, we now have a “gender editor” at the New York Times, Jessica Bennett. Her job is to “curate, elevate and expand gender reporting” throughout the newsroom. Among her previous work are forums on male abuse of power. “Our gender content will exist throughout every section of the paper and be produced in every medium,” Bennett explains. And not just gender, of course: “I want everything we do to be intersectional in its approach — and race, class, and gender identity are an important part of that.” Does she understand that the very word intersectional is a function of neo-Marxist critical race theory? Is this now the guiding philosophy of the paper of record?

Many media organizations now have various private, invitation-only Slack groups among their staffers — and they are often self-segregated into various gender and racial categories along classic campus “safe space” lines. No men are allowed in women’s slack; no non-p.o.c.s in the people-of-color slack; and so on. And, of course, there are no such venues for men — in this Orwellian world, some groups are more equal than others. At The Atlantic, the identity obsession even requires exhaustive analyses of the identity of sources quoted in stories. Ed Yong, a science writer, keeps “a personal list of women and people of color who work in the beats that I usually cover,” so he can make sure that he advances diversity even in his quotes.

Objective truth? Ha! The culture is now saturated with the concept of “your own truth” — based usually on your experience of race and gender. In the culture, it is now highly controversial for individuals in one racial/gender group to write about or portray anyone outside it — because there is no art that isn’t rooted in identity. Movies are constantly pummeled by critics not for being bad movies but for being “problematic” on social justice. Books are censored in advance by sensitivity readers to conform with “social justice” protocols. As for objective reality, I was at an event earlier this week — not on a campus — when I made what I thought was the commonplace observation that Jim Crow laws no longer exist. Uncomprehending stares came back at me. What planet was I on? Not only does Jim Crow still exist, but slavery itself never went away! When I questioned this assertion by an African-American woman, I was told it was “not my place” to question her reality. After all, I’m white.

Look: I don’t doubt the good intentions of the new identity politics — to expand the opportunities for people previously excluded. I favor a politics that never discriminates against someone for immutable characteristics — and tries to make sure that as many people as possible feel they have access to our liberal democracy. But what we have now is far more than the liberal project of integrating minorities. It comes close to an attack on the liberal project itself. Marxism with a patina of liberalism on top is still Marxism — and it’s as hostile to the idea of a free society as white nationalism is.

The goal of our culture now is not the emancipation of the individual from the group, but the permanent definition of the individual by the group. We used to call this bigotry. Now we call it being woke.



Bolding mine


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


XenoMind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 684
Location: Absurdistan

10 Feb 2018, 9:12 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
Almost every corporation now has affirmative action for every victim-group in hiring and promotion.

Not including us, though. SJWs would happily let us all die in psychic wards.

ASPartOfMe wrote:
Look: I don’t doubt the good intentions of the new identity politics — to expand the opportunities for people previously excluded.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

This guy really pinned it.



Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,030
Location: New England

10 Feb 2018, 9:47 pm

We can be thankful for occasional small victories:

Victory Over PC Art Censorship In England Proves We Can Have Nice Things If We Try

It wasn’t religious groups, armies of homeschooling moms, or puritanical conservative activists who wanted the painting removed. It was the new puritan -- the woke activist.

An art gallery in Manchester, England removed a famous painting by pre-Raphaelite painter John William Waterhouse from an exhibit in January. By February, after public outcry, it was back.


http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/09/mus ... ensorship/


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!