B P
·
Dec 21, 2019
·
Unknown Hometown
· Joined Nov 2019
· Points: 0
Peter T wrote:
Racism is about more than just making a generalization based on skin color.. calling someone who is non white racist ignores the fact that racial/ethnic minorities generally don't have the power to damage the interests of whites. It ignores differences in power, influence and authority. When white people are racist toward minorities it has real and lasting consequences (think about the stereotypes of various ethic groups). Articles like this really don't damage economic, social, etc interests of white people so it's not racist. "Reverse racism" is a myth.
Racism is defined as prejudice, discrimination or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that ones own race is superior.
If you want to talk about the social and economic implications of racism I’ll agree with you, but to say that reverse racism is a myth is naive. I’d even venture to say that the BS you’re spouting here is why we have Trump as president.
To claim that those who are being victimized are "creating" a victimized class before it learns to "cooperate" puts the responsibility of dismantling systems of oppression on marginalized groups and has been a strategy of perpetuating racism and sexism for years. These statements are a trope and it's a dangerous one. To claim that laws are in place which create oppression against a dominant group of people when what is really happening is that a marginalized group is asking for fair or better treatment is a pretty dangerous line of thinking.
Also, your article (which you are using for proof but is founded on the principle of the slippery slope fallacy) points to one extreme of how this can manifest, ignores all of the good that can come of anti-oppression work, and acts as though things like this are the only direction this can go. It's hysteria mongering and a false outrage market that is growing quickly. Like when people who are transphobic point to some random 17-year-old on Tumblr who makes a joke about calling snowmen snowpeople and Fox News goes off about the fall of gender and society as we know it and claims that any movement toward trans inclusion will lead us to calling snowmen snowpeople.
We want trans folks to be able to use whichever bathroom they want and don't really care about the gender identity of snow humans.
And everything you are describing here serves my point exactly. Progressive Groupthink purports that only through the Collective can society be advanced. In order to facilitate this Sociopathic paradigm, group identities have to be externally defined, propagandized, agitated and outraged.
Our political paradigm, the Duopoly, has been terrorizing our society since right before the Civil War with this cynical control manipulation. It was Progressivism that herded the slave descendants into inner cities by constructing subsidized habitats for them and isolating them from transacting with the dominant paradigm. The real motivation for this is power and wealth, not altruism althogh that was how it was sold to the gullible public.
Groups and Collective identities are purely mental constructs where a degree of external pressure is imposed onto the individual. By herding the individual into an identity, externalities can then manipulate control over them through narrative, as evidenced by the ongoing Progressive onslaught towards redefining words, terms and phrases.
However, the group identity that both the Duopoly and the Cultural Marxists (I actually have never been a Peterson fan but that term has it's usage) have been propagandizing people into aren't real. They are fabricated, based somewhat on actual cultures, in order to first divide, then conquer.
Actual life, out in the world, defies all that bullshit narrative and redefinition you are trying to foist upon us. By subscribing to it, no doubt as a by-product of your failure to recognize the Statist Indoctrination you spent at least 12 years in with what they call "education", you only present yourself as yet another Useful Idiot who will perpetuate the Ruling Political and Financial Aristocracy. Racism isn't actually a thing. You have no choice in the matter (although I personally believe a just universe would mean constant reincarnation into every race until we as a species figure it out) What we have is Culturalism. The clash of cultures. The Dominant Paradigm doesn't want us recognizing that, because unlike race your attitudes towards cultures can be changed.
Hispanic and Asian cultures have been immigrating here in large numbers for 50 years. Because the State hasn't spent nearly the same effort in corralling them into geographically constrained habitats as they have with African descendants, they have developed their own cultural pockets here and there. Simultaneously, they also aren't participating in outrage culture other than needing to defend themselves from right wing nativism. The cultures they are building are amongst the strongest in our society because they are not enamoured with debt like white culture is, and they aren't decadently consumeristic either. When the big financial day of reckoning hits, their communities will largely continue unaffected. The cultures tied in to the Duopoly will be in existential crisis. By any real metric that doesn't include debt or state spending as positives, these cultures are the most successful in our society aside from the political aristocracy.
What drives society, humanity and mankind forward isn't Collective action. That universally leads to destruction. What drives humanity forth towards evolution is Individual Voluntary Transactions. Billions of them every day. The reason why they are the means to actual progress is because a Voluntary Transaction only occurs when *both sides* realize a benefit from conducting it. This is known as Synergy. Your argument is hereby declared invalid. You may now proceed with the standard Leftist tactic of AdHomming me.
PS: your edgy statement towards bathrooms: I really don't care about that. Adding urinals to womens restrooms is a great idea. Of course, this idea extends to public locker rooms too. Again, I don't care. I look forward towards a society that treats it just like they do in Starship Troopers. But keep in mind, imagine your mother taking a shower at a gym with me scrubbing up right behind her.
It should. I just invalidated every other opinion, and issued the last word. That's just how I roll. If you appreciate my truthbombs, I do accept Bitcoin and Ethereum as gifts, which excludes them from taxation, which is theft.
We're all from the east! You wanna hit up The New/Red some time? I'm based out of Vermont but I'm splitting my time in Pittsburgh. I sure could use a soft shoulder to cry on when I fall off my proj and/or witness a microagression. :(
We're all from the east! You wanna hit up The New/Red some time? I'm based out of Vermont but I'm splitting my time in Pittsburgh. I sure could use a soft shoulder to cry on when I fall off my proj and/or witness a microagression. :(
(But for real let's do it.)
Sounds good to me! (Pretty sure I'll be doing all the crying, if we go to the New... the rock at the New hurts my feelings. Ask Pnelson!)
And everything you are describing here serves my point exactly. Progressive Groupthink purports that only through the Collective can society be advanced. In order to facilitate this Sociopathic paradigm, group identities have to be externally defined, propagandized, agitated and outraged.
Our political paradigm, the Duopoly, has been terrorizing our society since right before the Civil War with this cynical control manipulation. It was Progressivism that herded the slave descendants into inner cities by constructing subsidized habitats for them and isolating them from transacting with the dominant paradigm. The real motivation for this is power and wealth, not altruism althogh that was how it was sold to the gullible public.
Groups and Collective identities are purely mental constructs where a degree of external pressure is imposed onto the individual. By herding the individual into an identity, externalities can then manipulate control over them through narrative, as evidenced by the ongoing Progressive onslaught towards redefining words, terms and phrases.
However, the group identity that both the Duopoly and the Cultural Marxists (I actually have never been a Peterson fan but that term has it's usage) have been propagandizing people into aren't real. They are fabricated, based somewhat on actual cultures, in order to first divide, then conquer.
Actual life, out in the world, defies all that bullshit narrative and redefinition you are trying to foist upon us. By subscribing to it, no doubt as a by-product of your failure to recognize the Statist Indoctrination you spent at least 12 years in with what they call "education", you only present yourself as yet another Useful Idiot who will perpetuate the Ruling Political and Financial Aristocracy. Racism isn't actually a thing. You have no choice in the matter (although I personally believe a just universe would mean constant reincarnation into every race until we as a species figure it out) What we have is Culturalism. The clash of cultures. The Dominant Paradigm doesn't want us recognizing that, because unlike race your attitudes towards cultures can be changed.
Hispanic and Asian cultures have been immigrating here in large numbers for 50 years. Because the State hasn't spent nearly the same effort in corralling them into geographically constrained habitats as they have with African descendants, they have developed their own cultural pockets here and there. Simultaneously, they also aren't participating in outrage culture other than needing to defend themselves from right wing nativism. The cultures they are building are amongst the strongest in our society because they are not enamoured with debt like white culture is, and they aren't decadently consumeristic either. When the big financial day of reckoning hits, their communities will largely continue unaffected. The cultures tied in to the Duopoly will be in existential crisis. By any real metric that doesn't include debt or state spending as positives, these cultures are the most successful in our society aside from the political aristocracy.
What drives society, humanity and mankind forward isn't Collective action. That universally leads to destruction. What drives humanity forth towards evolution is Individual Voluntary Transactions. Billions of them every day. The reason why they are the means to actual progress is because a Voluntary Transaction only occurs when *both sides* realize a benefit from conducting it. This is known as Synergy. Your argument is hereby declared invalid. You may now proceed with the standard Leftist tactic of AdHomming me.
PS: your edgy statement towards bathrooms: I really don't care about that. Adding urinals to womens restrooms is a great idea. Of course, this idea extends to public locker rooms too. Again, I don't care. I look forward towards a society that treats it just like they do in Starship Troopers. But keep in mind, imagine your mother taking a shower at a gym with me scrubbing up right behind her.
With a handle like GK Chesterton I knew you had been holding out on what you really thought, until now. Bravo!
ubu
·
Dec 21, 2019
·
Unknown Hometown
· Joined Jan 2009
· Points: 10
G K Chesterton wrote:
[...]
Hmmm...there are lots of big capitalized words there, so I'm pretty sure this guy has the goods. Count me in.
Racism is defined as prejudice, discrimination or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that ones own race is superior.
If you want to talk about the social and economic implications of racism I’ll agree with you, but to say that reverse racism is a myth is naive. I’d even venture to say that the BS you’re spouting here is why we have Trump as president.
Why is it naive to say that reverse racism is a myth? Can you point to some examples of when discrimination against whites in the U.S. has affected white people in any important social or economic way? I've never seen it. The definition you provide is certainly overly simplistic. Obviously there are much broader implications of racism that can't be captured in a 15-word dictionary definition.
Kris Fiore wrote: We're all from the east! You wanna hit up The New/Red some time? I'm based out of Vermont but I'm splitting my time in Pittsburgh. I sure could use a soft shoulder to cry on when I fall off my proj and/or witness a microagression. :(
Lets do it! I climb a fair bit in NH and the Adirondacks too if you're around VT once the temps warm up.
Kalil we should meet in the gunks or haycock some time.
Why is it naive to say that reverse racism is a myth? Can you point to some examples of when discrimination against whites in the U.S. has affected white people in any important social or economic way? I've never seen it.
Racial quotas in college admissions. Seemed bad enough that they had to do away with them.
Racial quotas in college admissions are not an example of racism by any definition of the word, including your own.
Oh, right, its just racial discrimination. Nothing to see there, move along.
B P
·
Dec 21, 2019
·
Unknown Hometown
· Joined Nov 2019
· Points: 0
Kalil Oldham wrote: I used to believe this too, but after reading a lot of social science and seeing the impact of so-called race neutral policies since the 1990s it’s clear to me they this definition isn’t the one social scientists and policy makers are working with, and it doesn’t go nearly far enough. For sure, people you describe are bigots, but their kind of bigotry doesn’t always bring racism into play.
Here’s why: we build policies and practices into systems like education, medicine, policing, sentencing, or housing, hiring, and those policies and practices are often explicitly race neutral. Moreover, those policies are carried out mainly by people who explicitly disavow racist ideas. Nevertheless, those systems produce racial inequality. Not because there are racist people actively discriminating, but because the system itself is racist.
Historically we can see many clear examples of this: separate but equal schools, poll taxes, mandatory minimums, stop and frisk. People from all parts of the political and ideological spectrum have recognized that these are racist systems and that they need reform, beyond simply making sure they’re not being operated by people with explicitly racist views. For example, mandatory minimum sentencing laws create racist outcomes in the prison system even if there are no racist judges or prosecutors.
Any system that produces racial inequality is a racist system. I realize some won’t agree with this, but I ask you to think about it. If it’s not a racist system, and it produces racial inequality, then the only other option is that there is something wrong with Black people. And maybe you believe that, but it’d be nice if people would say so up front.
Finally, please try to avoid the fallacy of looking at the NBA and arguing that it’s a racist system that’s privileges Blacks. Professional sports are part of a massive industry of capitalist entertainment, and if you think the athletes are the ones benefiting the most from that system I’ve got some team owners, company CEOs, bankers, executives, and shareholders to introduce you to.
I know this will be an unpopular set of opinions with some folks, but I’m asking you to consider them seriously :)
I'm not a PhD on the subject but I would argue the system is oppressive with roots in racism.
Jesus, so many empty words. I mean "you guys are totally making a difference. Great job!"
No one is actually angry about Megos being a good climber .... right? lol
No, of course not. That would be silly!
Individual I is angry about Individual II making a movie about Individual III (Megos) being a good climber because Individual III is a white male. If he were a woman, brown, or some flavor of alt-gender Individual I would have no problem with the Individuals II or III or the movie. Prove me wrong. I'm betting Individual I would most likely praise it, assuming they are capable of praising anything.
I should add that the anger Individual I displays towards II making a film about III is exactly what drives trump supporters. So throw another log on and watch shit burn while the left stumbles over 500 word essays trying to prove to each other how much they understand.
Yeah, the best example of the absence of affirmative action that exists today shows us that Asians and females are getting into good colleges more than whites and males.
See, you are a troll. Before you were berating those who didn’t adequately consider, in your sole estimation, the societal inequities in climbing and at large. Now, you’re defending the white guys agains the same types of arguments you leveled.
You also make a lot of assumptions. First, what evidence do you have that this is the “best” example of an absence of affirmative action? If you examine other venues that supposedly ban affirmative action, particularly in other less diverse states (which is pretty much every other state than CA or HI), you might find very different results. That would certainly be true for the private sector, where diversity is FAR more limited. Also, what makes you believe that the UCs actually complied with the ban and didn’t consider other stealth criteria In their admission policies? Finally, if your claim is true that white women and Asians benefit from a lack of affirmative action, then why do white males usually oppose it. Per your argument, they should favor it.
Kalil Oldham wrote: Any system that produces racial inequality is a racist system.
Racial disparities (of everything: median age, wealth, sexual activity, family size, height, weight, education, lifespan, hours spent doing homework, interest in outdoor sports, hours spent working per week) are the absolute norm in all human societies at all times.
The only "system" which would theoretically not allow such disparities to exist would be an extreme totalitarian regime more controlling than the fictions of something like 1984. Even in that kind of crazy dystopia, I think disparities would still bleed through.
One interesting question is why do certain oppressed or discriminated subcultures consistently overachieve, along certain measures, relative to a more dominant cultural group in a place and time. An example would be that Jewish americans have an median wealth 700% that of white protestant Americans. Another example would be Japanese Peruvians relative to white or mixed-Spanish Peruvians. You see similar trends currently with Chinese in the Phillipines, Parsis in India or Pakistan, or with black Nigerian and West Indian immigrants in the USA and Canada.
Gap-obsessed social science always measures groups in the USA relative to generic "whites" which is a design that concedes the monolithic whites as a sort of default or baseline human around which others should be measured. I find that implication itself unhelpful and racially demeaning, especially as we have seen many disparities among various diverse subgroups of white americans, and now numerous non-white groups surpassing whites on measures of thriving.
Ticklestone wrote: I should add that the anger Individual I displays towards II making a film about III is exactly what drives trump supporters. So throw another log on and watch shit burn while the left stumbles over 500 word essays trying to prove to each other how much they understand.
This kind of claim is made often--including elsewhere in this thread--but, as Ta-Nehisi Coates argues, it isn't founded in empirical or historical reality.
His essay "The First White President" is incisive and worth reading in its entirety. It's hard to choose excerpts, but here are some salient bits:
The scope of Trump’s commitment to whiteness is matched only by the depth of popular disbelief in the power of whiteness. We are now being told that support for Trump’s “Muslim ban,” his scapegoating of immigrants, his defenses of police brutality are somehow the natural outgrowth of the cultural and economic gap between Lena Dunham’s America and Jeff Foxworthy’s. The collective verdict holds that the Democratic Party lost its way when it abandoned everyday economic issues like job creation for the softer fare of social justice. ... In this rendition, Donald Trump is not the product of white supremacy so much as the product of a backlash against contempt for white working-class people. ...
That black people, who have lived for centuries under such derision and condescension, have not yet been driven into the arms of Trump does not trouble these theoreticians. After all, in this analysis, Trump’s racism and the racism of his supporters are incidental to his rise. Indeed, the alleged glee with which liberals call out Trump’s bigotry is assigned even more power than the bigotry itself. Ostensibly assaulted by campus protests, battered by arguments about intersectionality, and oppressed by new bathroom rights, a blameless white working class did the only thing any reasonable polity might: elect an orcish reality-television star who insists on taking his intelligence briefings in picture-book form.
Asserting that Trump’s rise was primarily powered by cultural resentment and economic reversal has become de rigueur among white pundits and thought leaders. But evidence for this is, at best, mixed. In a study of preelection polling data, the Gallup researchers Jonathan Rothwell and Pablo Diego-Rosell found that “people living in areas with diminished economic opportunity” were “somewhat more likely to support Trump.” But the researchers also found that voters in their study who supported Trump generally had a higher mean household income ($81,898) than those who did not ($77,046). Those who approved of Trump were “less likely to be unemployed and less likely to be employed part-time” than those who did not. They also tended to be from areas that were very white: “The racial and ethnic isolation of whites at the zip code level is one of the strongest predictors of Trump support.” ...
The focus on one subsector of Trump voters—the white working class—is puzzling, given the breadth of his white coalition. Indeed, there is a kind of theater at work in which Trump’s presidency is pawned off as a product of the white working class as opposed to a product of an entire whiteness that includes the very authors doing the pawning. The motive is clear: escapism. ... [T]o accept that whiteness brought us Donald Trump is to accept whiteness as an existential danger to the country and the world. But if the broad and remarkable white support for Donald Trump can be reduced to the righteous anger of a noble class of smallville firefighters and evangelicals, mocked by Brooklyn hipsters and womanist professors into voting against their interests, then the threat of racism and whiteness, the threat of the heirloom, can be dismissed. Consciences can be eased; no deeper existential reckoning is required.
This kind of claim is made often--including elsewhere in this thread--but, as Ta-Nehisi Coates argues, it isn't founded in empirical or historical reality.
His essay "The First White President" is incisive and worth reading in its entirety. It's hard to choose excerpts, but here are some salient bits:
I like the irony of Ta-Nehisi Coates criticizing an assertion for its lack of empirical basis.
Dave K, While I appreciate your response, you reply mostly by mischaracterizing my response. First, I did not say anything to suggest that the UC data isn’t “relevant”. I objected to the claim that, without any evidence to support the claim, that is was the ”best” evidence. Second, you devote most of your post to your claim that I’m claiming to state “what white males think and do”. Really? Where do I do that? I’m discussing the subject of race based admission, which requires discussion of others’ ethnic background. Aren’t I, as someone who is part white, not able to discuss university admission policies and their affect on everyone, including white males, without you taking offense? Third, with respect to stealth admissions and their impact on Asian Americans, it is true that they are heavily impacted by such policies. This result is due in part to the fact that Asian Americans apply in greater number to the UCs than any other group. Having said that, different admissions are going to impact some groups more than others. That’s what makes them a difficult subject. There is a debate in the Asian American community whether to support affirmative action. Some so no because it negatively impacts their group. Others say they’re needed to address inequities against people of color, which they are. There is no easy answer here, for any group. Despite that, prior to implementing affirmative action in the 70s, whites made up nearly 75% of UC students ( dailybruin.com/2006/09/23/t…). You can point to post 1986 numbers and say that affirmative action isn’t needed (anymore), and you might be right or you might not. I say look at more data over time. However, when you look at older numbers from the 60s and 70s, those would not have changed on their own without some broader admission policy.
Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
