Joined: 30 Oct 2006 Gender: Male Posts: 13,553 Location: Leave only a footprint behind
25 Sep 2016, 1:58 am
Here is my opinion. About all the drama going on recently, for me this is a media driven fueld fiasco. Most people are good people, aren't racists and go on about thier business. Every ethnicity can be racist, and I have seen plenty of blacks be EXTEMLY racist. To me it would appear every ethnic group gets a free pass at being racist except white people.
For instance a while back someone in SF (a white guy) had dread locks and some racist black woman came up to him and wanted to cut his hair because it wasn't "culturally appropriate" for him to wear his hair that way. It was all caught on cell phone video, and while it did get some media attention especially locally it was apparent to me that if the roles were reversed and a white man went up to a black woman and oh I dunno did anything simmilar we would probably have national rioting. And endless days of news coverage of it
I think cops kill everyone equally, they in my opinion have always been this way and the only difference is now everybody has a cellphone to record the interactions they have with police. I do not believe they are targeting blacks Poor is poor, and walking is not economically viable so cops pick on those people first because its easy pickn, I know because they always harrased me. whenever I deal with police I am always polite and for the most part do what they say make no sudden moves because well, I like being alive and I dunno if they are stuck on stupid. Cops have tactics and use them, like they'll try to scare ya by sneeking up on you, talking loudly etc. Because when it comes right down too it they are looking to make a bust not be your friend.
Im just tired of the non stop drama that the media will just not stop with. Sometimes you can do everything right and still have everything go wrong when dealing with the cops and hopefully its that the case those people get justice.
My 2 cents
_________________ Winds of clarity. a universal understanding come and go, I've seen though the Darkness to understand the bounty of Light
Joined: 26 Dec 2012 Age: 39 Gender: Female Posts: 1,036 Location: California
25 Sep 2016, 2:52 am
The_Walrus wrote:
kamiyu910 wrote:
Back in the 1800's, it was stipulated that African people were of lower intelligence, etc, than Europeans, and that theory was tossed out as racist. Yet I see the SJWs bringing that thinking back, only it's packaged in a neat little bow and people are eating it up without realizing what it's actually meaning. Saying things like tests are racist to black people because they're geared towards white people only further proves this (as well as the fact that our school systems are in desperate need of a redo anyway).
I don't think I've ever seen an SJW bring this up except in response to a racist saying that lower scores for black students show that they are less intelligent. It's impressive to spin that as the SJW being racist.
Maybe it's not true, but it's definitely not racist. It's not anti-French to point out that the reason the French students did worse on the test was that it was in English.
The conversations I've seen/heard were discussing students from the same schools, aka same neighborhoods/towns since going outside your district is illegal, as many have discovered... It's not about racists claiming black kids have lesser intelligence, though that does come up as well, often quoting multiple studies to prove their point.
However, to claim a test everyone has to take is racist and is aimed at "white" kids is nowhere near the same as French kids taken a test not in their language, nor is it a very good defense against someone claiming they inherently have lower intelligence. It almost sounds like you're actually saying that kids of African decent have different mental capabilities/needs and therefore cannot take a European based test.
The_Walrus wrote:
Quote:
I'm also constantly confused by their ideas on what constitutes as "white." Typically, they use the broader definition of "you look like you're of Northern European descent." Basing it on facial structure, usually not having to do with skin tone. However, there seems to be some disagreement on the one drop rule, as some will claim anyone with one drop of non-white blood is therefore not white, while others say anyone "white passing" benefits from white privilege and therefore must atone for the sins of the ~2% slave owners in the US 150 some odd years ago. They have this bizarre idea on what privilege even is, acting as if a black woman who makes $200,000 per year living in a primarily rich black neighborhood is more oppressed than a homeless white boy living in Compton (majority black poverty ridden city).
There are a few different points tied up here.
Generally speaking, I think "what is a white person?" would get different answers from different people depending on who you asked, and conservative-progressive politics wouldn't have anything to do with them.
White privilege isn't anything to be ashamed of and anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot. It's just a fact that goes along with being white in a society that is racist towards non-whites. You don't have to atone for the sins of other white people, that's plainly ridiculous.
Being rich doesn't suddenly stop someone from being black. There's the story of the woman who nearly got committed for saying she was rich, successful, and followed by Obama on Twitter, because the police assumed she was homeless and crazy based on the colour of her skin. Kanye West still gets "randomly" searched every time he goes through the airport.
It's true that some people don't focus enough on class - but I actually see lots of people on tumblr talking about the reality of poverty and such. I think economic class privilege is a mainstream idea in social justice circles.
I see the world in a rather different viewpoint. I cannot say who is white or who is not unless it's blatant, though even then there are Albino Africans, so are they considered white? Not really, because of their facial structure. People can still determine their race/ethnicity based on that. I think it's the same with Europeans, though there are more than a few who don't fit the typical look. If we're using anecdotal evidence, my Spanish friend has pale skin, and would probably be considered white by most, yet she's constantly getting discriminated against and told to go back to her country.
My Italian/Roma/etc friend also has pale skin and has both been yelled at for being white and having white privilege, and also discriminated against for not being white. Same with my Cherokee friend. No, privilege should not be seen as a bad thing, it's stupid for people to claim people need to be ashamed of such things. I want privilege, I don't want to keep being low on the totem pole of suck.
And no, of course being rich doesn't stop people from being black. Being white also doesn't stop people from experiencing bullcrap just the same as everyone else. Everyone holds different ideas on races, racism will never go away, and everyone can experience it. Stats back this up, and it's exhausting how many people think that white people can't experience racism or police issues. It really depends on location and many other factors.
The_Walrus wrote:
Quote:
Most also refuse to believe that other races hold preferences to their own race, such as in Fontana, CA, they will tell me that white people still somehow manage to have white privilege there, even though it's a majority Hispanic city and it's very clear that there is Hispanic privilege, rather than white privilege. They will hire Hispanics over white, and in some case, will even refuse to serve white people. Privilege is a fluid thing, it's never constant and it's very dependent on the situation, area, and people.
There are definitely some places where being white is a disadvantage. Zimbabwe is the obvious one. I can't comment on Fontana, CA, but Hispanic is something of an umbrella term.
Even in non-white areas, white people often have white privilege. f**k, that's usually where it's most obvious that you're being treated differently. And if there are authority figures around, they're (usually) still going to favour the white person.
Hispanic/Latino in Fontana is an umbrella term for those who speak Spanish, or come from Spanish speaking countries, primarily, and they do hold a bias for their own, against others. I have seen this time and time again, having worked there with the public for many years. The only way white people are treated differently is worse. Often times they are refused service, flat out ignored, or harassed. Fontana is not the most white friendly place... Compton is certainly worse, though their majority is the black community. It's bizarre to me that people say white people have privilege in those places, when most people here know better.
The_Walrus wrote:
Quote:
Yet here in the US and the UK and Canada and other places, universities are starting to create "safe spaces" (aka segregated areas) that refuse entry to white males, or white people in general, in order to keep non-white people "safe." People are actively embracing segregation again, and anyone who opposes such a thing is automatically deemed racist.
Again, I don't think that's what's really happening. Sometimes people create clubs where they can talk with people who are part of their group without needing to worry about the out-group. I don't think there are many cases of them asking authorities to physically segregate spaces.
You might have a problem with that, but you'd be a hypocrite - you're posting in one right now.
Did you not see my post detailing the numerous safe spaces that were being protected by authorities? Where white people were actually kicked out? Even Ruby Bridges, the girl who was led by authorities to be the integrated into a white school, is claiming we've been sent back to before the civil rights movement.
And we here on WrongPlanet are not segregated, we do not kick NT people out, especially not for just for being NT. I would never join such a group.
The_Walrus wrote:
Quote:
In the online discussions, there are usually only two races assumed; white or black, and those are the only ones that matter to SJWs. Just look at the "Oscars so white" thing. They were concerned only with black people winning, rather than the far less represented races, such as Asians, Hispanics, or Native Americans. If they were truly concerned with equal representation, they wouldn't be solely focused on just white and black people, but all races.
Again, these are straw SJWs. I don't think it's helpful to talk like this. Obviously it is easy, but so is saying "libertarians are against all law enforcement" - doesn't make it true or productive. Cite a specific example and criticise them, don't criticise a group of varied ideology.
In actuality, I see lots of discussion about different races. Discussions about the wage gap, for example, usually talk about white, black, and Latinx. Asians come up in discussions about stereotyping, but there aren't as many social issues associated with that group in America. Native Americans also come up, but they're such a small group that data is often a problem.
It is not straw, it is based on articles and discussions I have read, where they have erased anyone who wasn't black, claiming them to be white, even the Mexican director who won was called white, when he is obviously not. SJWs all hold to the same base ideology - that of the Bolsheviks, Marxism. Some may differ on that, but ultimately there's a mindset that share the same ideas on what is needed, and the focus is on black America. I was even chastised for "not speaking out against systemic racism against black people in the US." Because apparently I couldn't speak up about anything that went against their ideology, such as men's needs. Even speaking up about Native issues has gotten me insulted, claiming that I am detracting from the black problem.
Or did you miss the many tweets, texts, and posts after France got hit with that major bomb attack, of people claiming it was taking away from BLM? http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/13/liber ... -missouri/ I actively seek social justice people out and try to have discussions with them, so I know where they stand. I try very hard to never make baseless claims, things that I cannot back up. I prefer having a large pile of evidence to back my points up. And what makes it worse is that when one of them does come out and speak out against the main group, they get trashed and bullied. I have seen the aftermath of what happens when someone makes a mistake. Sometimes it's just a one time bullying, other times the group throws that person under the bus. Look at what happened to Joss Whedon when he dared make Black Widow regretful that she couldn't have kids.
The_Walrus wrote:
Quote:
allow major problems to be neglected in lieu of focusing on things like "mansplaining" or "microaggressions."
I agree with much of what I deleted - shaming culture and such are often ridiculous. I don't think they're destroying multiple countries by any stretch of the imagination, but damaging hundreds of lives, sure. On balance they're probably up on most ideologies.
Could you provide an example of someone focusing on mansplaining or microaggressions to the detriment of major problems?
Microaggressions are petty little annoyances, like the number of people who have come up and played with my hair or at least asked if they could. Or the people who have asked me where I'm from, or any number of questions I just find as mere curiosities. Maybe it's because I'm not good at social interaction to begin with that I'm more forgiving, as I say random crap all the time. I just can't see it as insulting, but more as people not having tact. Yet, people are so concerned with "microaggressions" that they've been making it harder for people to even want to interact anymore, lest they say the wrong thing.
Instead of the 400 black children being slaughtered in the streets by criminals, they focus on the 250 mainly criminals who get killed by police (there are very few who were innocent, or killed unjustly innocent or not). The numbers do not match their narrative and it's highly disturbing to me.
Again, I think the people who talk about police violence are also those most likely to talk about inner city violence. BLM protestors sing Kendrick Lamar songs at rallies. I'm sure there are some who focus on police violence ahead of inner city violence, but in my experience they go together.
I'll start giving credit to the people who make this criticism when they actually do something to solve inner city violence, rather than just using it to bash people who want to solve another problem. One could just as easily say that you shouldn't go after SJWs when China has a totalitarian government but that's obviously ridiculous.
The people with the loudest voices are not concerned with inner city violence, and in fact I have been told multiple times that it is racist to bring it up. Such as this article, http://www.vox.com/2016/7/12/12152772/r ... ime-police , that talks against the people who bring up valid points. It says, "He mentioned the controversial "Ferguson effect": that more crime is happening because officers are reluctant to do their jobs for fear of backlash from protesters and community members." And that is true, we can see it happening in Chicago, yes, but also in San Bernardino, where the cops are leaving. Crime has skyrocketed, and it's not just black crime, it's every crime.
And no worries, I do what I can in my own community. I don't just sit behind a keyboard, and I go after the SJWs because they are the ones who are helping destroy my community, just like the environmentalists make it harder when fires start in this area. They don't want us to clean up the underbrush due to conservation efforts, and that is why more than 100 homes were lost in our latest fire. We see it in our cities with crime as well.
The less cops we have, the more the gangs are able to work. They have even issued our fire departments with body armor, and a fire station not that long ago was shot up. We see this happening, and we try to stop it, but we're told it's a cop problem, or that talking about it is racist, or get told that we're wrong to want to carry our own guns like the cops are suggesting, because we are responsible for our own safety. We can no longer rely on the cops, there aren't enough of them.
The SJWs are there, controlling the majority of the media, claiming falsehoods such as how we have an epidemic of police shooting black people, when the stats don't show that, and in fact all stats show the death rates have gone down quite a bit, in both police killings and homicides by other people. Suicides are the ones that are going up now. The major media sites and news networks, even Wikipedia and Snopes, have shown bias, sometimes very blatantly, as if they want to fuel a race war. The people who truly care are not getting the attention they need. The people getting the (positive) attention are the SJWs, while those who oppose them get insulted. The people who have the actual pull, influence, power, and money are the ones not focusing on what's important. The people who can help make things happen are the ones telling us that we're wrong, as we live it.
_________________ Your Aspie score: 171 of 200
Your Neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 40 of 200
Joined: 21 Jan 2008 Age: 45 Gender: Male Posts: 2,885
25 Sep 2016, 7:21 am
Dox47 wrote:
anagram wrote:
no matter what i do, i'll be misunderstood. i got used to it. and i got used to the fact that it's nobody's fault. people have their own problems. i can't expect them to understand and sympathize with mine, especially if i piss them off, which does happen sometimes. and i can't pretend to know or understand theirs.
This is fairly close to my own operating philosophy, which is to generally be agreeable and not assume that other people are doing things out of malice, and to realize that everyone has their own issues to deal with, which means I shouldn't inflict mine on them if it's not absolutely necessary. If anything, I tend to be too agreeable day to day, and often get disappointed that my efforts to get along with others are not reciprocated on the rare occasion I do have a real issue.
An extension of this is to assume a neutral tone of voice when reading what others have written on the internet, to recognise rhetoric as rhetoric rather than emotion (especially in political discussions) and to take the meaning at face value, to judge a post based on its own internal logic rather than anything external.
The obvious problem with assuming that people aren't operating out of malice is that they very often are, simply because you're different. Though I also believe that living with AS virtually guarantees a slow descent into cynicism and misanthropy without discipline or intervention.
When it comes to your posts on PPR, I'm genuinely appalled at the lengths some people appear to take in order to misconstrue and misrepresent - especially Dox's posts. Considering how direct and unambiguous you both are in your writing, I find it next to impossible to give anyone the benefit of the doubt when they're responding with wildly illogical strawmen based on nothing but their own projections.
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 13,577 Location: Seattle-ish
25 Sep 2016, 11:02 am
adifferentname wrote:
The obvious problem with assuming that people aren't operating out of malice is that they very often are, simply because you're different. Though I also believe that living with AS virtually guarantees a slow descent into cynicism and misanthropy without discipline or intervention.
Eh, maybe "active malice" would be more accurate, I'm a big proponent of Hanlon's Razor, and tend to eliminate other possibilities before deciding that someone was being intentionally malicious. I think that slows that slide you mentioned, as I've noticed a real paranoid streak in autistic thinking, and would like to avoid that as much as possible myself.
adifferentname wrote:
When it comes to your posts on PPR, I'm genuinely appalled at the lengths some people appear to take in order to misconstrue and misrepresent - especially Dox's posts. Considering how direct and unambiguous you both are in your writing, I find it next to impossible to give anyone the benefit of the doubt when they're responding with wildly illogical strawmen based on nothing but their own projections.
Oh, I actually enjoy it when people try the egregious straw man on me, especially since the written medium allows for perfect recall of what was actually said. It's like watching someone try to cheat at sports while being videotaped, they only make themselves look dishonest, and in my case, open themselves up to some rhetorical jabs to further damage their credibility and reputation. I suspect that's the real reason I make some people "uncomfortable".
_________________ “The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.” -- Robert Anton Wilson
Joined: 4 Nov 2012 Gender: Male Posts: 1,433 Location: 4 Nov 2012
25 Sep 2016, 11:40 am
one of the reasons that led me to stop caring about being accused of being insensitive and such (as long as i don't foresee any consequences from the accusation, or else i do care) is that i'm also often "accused" of over-explaining myself or asking too many questions. some people seem to find it suspicious, and those remarks tend to come from the same people who complain or would probably complain that i'm insensitive. they take offense that i'm not able to read their mind on my own
there's really no point in constantly trying to read people's minds for their sake. it's a fool's errand. it doesn't benefit me at all, and, notably, it doesn't even benefit them either
Dox47 wrote:
Oh, I actually enjoy it when people try the egregious straw man on me, especially since the written medium allows for perfect recall of what was actually said. It's like watching someone try to cheat at sports while being videotaped, they only make themselves look dishonest, and in my case, open themselves up to some rhetorical jabs to further damage their credibility and reputation. I suspect that's the real reason I make some people "uncomfortable".
lol, at least you don't pretend you don't do that. but to be honest, usually when i see those kinds of back-and-forth debates filled with rhetorical jabs, all i see is a pot calling a kettle black and the kettle responding in kind and so on
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 13,577 Location: Seattle-ish
25 Sep 2016, 12:26 pm
anagram wrote:
lol, at least you don't pretend you don't do that. but to be honest, usually when i see those kinds of back-and-forth debates filled with rhetorical jabs, all i see is a pot calling a kettle black and the kettle responding in kind and so on
When I first started posting on WP, I posted much more dispassionately, and people accused me of being cold and detached; I'm not sure if they're entirely happy with my new, more engaged style. Really, I'm fully aware that I could be more persuasive if I stuck to a more 'just the facts' approach, but that's much less fun to write, and I've long made peace with the idea that I post here because I enjoy it, not because I think I'm going to affect any real change. That, and my role here as gadfly necessarily involves a lot of stinging.
_________________ “The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.” -- Robert Anton Wilson
Joined: 10 May 2005 Age: 40 Gender: Female Posts: 7,245
25 Sep 2016, 2:25 pm
Yes, no one should feel bad for having privilege. It's not something that an individual chooses for themselves; rather, it's assigned by society. You can put your privilege to good ends, however, to try to make things better for those without it.
_________________ "You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
Joined: 10 May 2005 Age: 40 Gender: Female Posts: 7,245
25 Sep 2016, 2:26 pm
Dox47 wrote:
anagram wrote:
lol, at least you don't pretend you don't do that. but to be honest, usually when i see those kinds of back-and-forth debates filled with rhetorical jabs, all i see is a pot calling a kettle black and the kettle responding in kind and so on
When I first started posting on WP, I posted much more dispassionately, and people accused me of being cold and detached; I'm not sure if they're entirely happy with my new, more engaged style. Really, I'm fully aware that I could be more persuasive if I stuck to a more 'just the facts' approach, but that's much less fun to write, and I've long made peace with the idea that I post here because I enjoy it, not because I think I'm going to affect any real change. That, and my role here as gadfly necessarily involves a lot of stinging.
I think your posting style is just fine as it is right now. Also, every little bit counts.
_________________ "You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
Joined: 4 Nov 2012 Gender: Male Posts: 1,433 Location: 4 Nov 2012
25 Sep 2016, 3:16 pm
Dox47 wrote:
Really, I'm fully aware that I could be more persuasive if I stuck to a more 'just the facts' approach, but that's much less fun to write, and I've long made peace with the idea that I post here because I enjoy it, not because I think I'm going to affect any real change.
well, what is fun or not is up to you, but as for persuasion, i actually think that "sticking to the bare cold facts" tends to not be a very persuasive approach at all. it's often informative, but people who want to argue don't want to be informed. they want someone to automatically agree with, or someone to automatically disagree with. i think you can only be persuasive if you give them neither of those things. if you don't puzzle or surprise or confuse them, then you're no challenge to their views. persuasion comes from the active effort that the listener needs to make to figure you out when they try to think of a comeback
Joined: 4 Nov 2012 Gender: Male Posts: 1,433 Location: 4 Nov 2012
25 Sep 2016, 4:01 pm
as for the "safespaceness" of this place... lol. it's the total opposite for me, and it's been from the very beginning. i post here as a challenge to myself. i feel more like a double(?) agent instead. "then what side am i actually spying for?", well you'll never know
It seems like those opposed to SJW whine an awful lot for people who think that SJW's are a bunch of whinersvwho complain about non-issues. It's like they don't want to admit that they have feelings or something so rather than admit that their poor feelings got hurt when they got called a sexist or a racist they just project the whininess on to the SJW's as if it is not their own.
(I have no probably with whiners - I have a probably with people who accuse people of whining who do whining themselveses - it's hypocrisy at its finest(.
When it comes to mob SJW bullying, I am firmly opposed but so is every rational person.
Joined: 21 Jan 2008 Age: 45 Gender: Male Posts: 2,885
26 Sep 2016, 2:17 am
heavenlyabyss wrote:
It seems like those opposed to SJW whine an awful lot for people who think that SJW's are a bunch of whinersvwho complain about non-issues.
It's like they don't want to admit that they have feelings or something so rather than admit that their poor feelings got hurt when they got called a sexist or a racist they just project the whininess on to the SJW's as if it is not their own.
(I have no probably with whiners - I have a probably with people who accuse people of whining who do whining themselveses - it's hypocrisy at its finest(.
When it comes to mob SJW bullying, I am firmly opposed but so is every rational person.
Anyone dismissing SJW's as "whiny", and nothing more, doesn't know what SJWs are.
You also appear to be saying that every rational person is a whiner, which rather dilutes the message.
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 13,577 Location: Seattle-ish
26 Sep 2016, 2:14 pm
heavenlyabyss wrote:
It seems like those opposed to SJW whine an awful lot for people who think that SJW's are a bunch of whinersvwho complain about non-issues. It's like they don't want to admit that they have feelings or something so rather than admit that their poor feelings got hurt when they got called a sexist or a racist they just project the whininess on to the SJW's as if it is not their own.
I see this as a failure to understand the power of the rhetorical weapons wielded by the social justice crowd theses days; being branded a racists or a sexist or a homophobe is not a matter of hurt feelings, it's a matter of lost jobs, social ostracization, receiving threats online, etc, much more than just something to "whine" about.
heavenlyabyss wrote:
When it comes to mob SJW bullying, I am firmly opposed but so is every rational person.
You just called about 8 posters here I can name off the top of my head irrational; glad we can agree on something.
_________________ “The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.” -- Robert Anton Wilson
Joined: 18 Dec 2015 Gender: Male Posts: 12,030 Location: New England
26 Sep 2016, 3:57 pm
"Last semester, the University of Central Florida included a ball pit as part of its Social Justice Week. “The campus community will have an opportunity to enter a ball pit with another person and have an engaging conversation about a variety of social justice topics,” the event page said."
"Texas Tech University also got a ball pit, which it put in its “free speech area,” as part of its Diversity Week in March 2016. Advertising its event as “a flashback to your childhood,” the Residence Hall Organization said it offered “an opportunity to meet new people, learn new things about different cultures, all while sitting in a ball pit!”"
25 Sep 2016, 1:58 am
Also, every little bit counts.
