Jump to content

Rant - Potentially SJW Friend


AyGee
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Saxon said:

So would you agree that University endorsed racially segregated places have no place in 2016, especially in European countries which never had segregation in the first place

This is exactly where one ought to research the positions of "SJWs," understand historical activists, and research political theory.

King made the distinction between two types of segregation: de jure and de facto. While segregation by law is easy to spot, de facto segregation can be a little hard to see. King spoke of "ghettoized conditions," joblessness, homelessness, hosing discrimination, economic inequality, and many other things when he spoke of de facto segregation. He also often pointed to the Bible when speaking on de jure segregation, so it is likely that he would have pointed to things such as Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 24:14 when discussing de facto segregation. He didn't take much action to target de facto segregation outside of the U.S., but he did mention that he thought the U.K. was not a land free of guilt when he gave a speech at St Paul's Cathedral, London. He didn't get much of a chance to take action on de facto segregation anywhere, though.

That's if he was just concerned with segregation, though. He felt that economic inequality, for example, was both an element of de facto segregation and a problem of its own. He actually said that "Many white Americans of good will have never connected bigotry with economic exploitation," where bigotry is both racism and hate for the poor.

5 hours ago, Saxon said:

I think that some very privileged university students like to pretend they are disadvantaged so that they can enjoy feeling like they are part of a movement.

MLK was given a Nobel Peace Prize, he met both JFK and LBJ on more than one occasion, and he traveled around the country and the world. Just owning his own home made him heavily privileged for his time; however, I hardly believe he had a martyr complex.

5 hours ago, Saxon said:

If we're going to hold her up to the judgement of MLK, then:

  • "The majority of white Americans consider themselves sincerely committed to justice for the Negro. They believe that American society is essentially hospitable to fair play and to steady growth toward a middle-class Utopia embodying racial harmony. But unfortunately this is a fantasy of self-deception and comfortable vanity."
  • "I contend that the cry of 'Black Power' is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro."
  • "Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn."
  • "The problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power."

All of these were said after the Civil Rights Act was passed, affirmative action had begun, and integration had nearly become as complete as he thought it could be. He might think that she was lost in her methods and needed God's guidance, but he would not have disagreed with her on much of what she said.

King used much of the "'Tumblrina/SJW' rhetoric" the OP likely meant. He felt that power was an element of racism. He believed all issues of race were the fault of white men. He believed in spaces for black self-love. He believed white men had become arrogant. He believed that oppressors should be kept out of discussions of liberation. He believed a lot of things that are still 'radical' for many. He only got the U.S.A. to agree on one thing, but mostly because he became a martyr.

That's why I think looking into these things before arguing them with friends is important. We miss a lot of things if we don't go much beyond the surface. A lot of people celebrated for bringing about change in the U.S.A. wanted much more than anybody gave them credit for, and 'Tumblrinas' aren't actually designing their own rhetoric. They're pulling from MLK, from Sartre, from criticisms of Hegel and Kant, and on and on. They don't always realize it - many are just repeating what they've heard - but they are doing it.

Tumblrina just sounds like the new communist to me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MalletFace said:

This is exactly where one ought to research the positions of "SJWs," understand historical activists, and research political theory.

King made the distinction between two types of segregation: de jure and de facto. While segregation by law is easy to spot, de facto segregation can be a little hard to see. King spoke of "ghettoized conditions," joblessness, homelessness, hosing discrimination, economic inequality, and many other things when he spoke of de facto segregation. He also often pointed to the Bible when speaking on de jure segregation, so it is likely that he would have pointed to things such as Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 24:14 when discussing de facto segregation. He didn't take much action to target de facto segregation outside of the U.S., but he did mention that he thought the U.K. was not a land free of guilt when he gave a speech at St Paul's Cathedral, London. He didn't get much of a chance to take action on de facto segregation anywhere, though.

That's if he was just concerned with segregation, though. He felt that economic inequality, for example, was both an element of de facto segregation and a problem of its own. He actually said that "Many white Americans of good will have never connected bigotry with economic exploitation," where bigotry is both racism and hate for the poor.

MLK was given a Nobel Peace Prize, he met both JFK and LBJ on more than one occasion, and he traveled around the country and the world. Just owning his own home made him heavily privileged for his time; however, I hardly believe he had a martyr complex.

If we're going to hold her up to the judgement of MLK, then:

  • "The majority of white Americans consider themselves sincerely committed to justice for the Negro. They believe that American society is essentially hospitable to fair play and to steady growth toward a middle-class Utopia embodying racial harmony. But unfortunately this is a fantasy of self-deception and comfortable vanity."
  • "I contend that the cry of 'Black Power' is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro."
  • "Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn."
  • "The problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power."

All of these were said after the Civil Rights Act was passed, affirmative action had begun, and integration had nearly become as complete as he thought it could be. He might think that she was lost in her methods and needed God's guidance, but he would not have disagreed with her on much of what she said.

King used much of the "'Tumblrina/SJW' rhetoric" the OP likely meant. He felt that power was an element of racism. He believed all issues of race were the fault of white men. He believed in spaces for black self-love. He believed white men had become arrogant. He believed that oppressors should be kept out of discussions of liberation. He believed a lot of things that are still 'radical' for many. He only got the U.S.A. to agree on one thing, but mostly because he became a martyr.

That's why I think looking into these things before arguing them with friends is important. We miss a lot of things if we don't go much beyond the surface. A lot of people celebrated for bringing about change in the U.S.A. wanted much more than anybody gave them credit for, and 'Tumblrinas' aren't actually designing their own rhetoric. They're pulling from MLK, from Sartre, from criticisms of Hegel and Kant, and on and on. They don't always realize it - many are just repeating what they've heard - but they are doing it.

Tumblrina just sounds like the new communist to me.

You speak of economic disparity as  a de-facto form of segregation, when the students who conspired to limit which races can attend their events, like Bahar Mustafa, were themselves from wealthy backgrounds. :\ More to the point though, if we did live in a society of de-facto segregation, creating more segregated spaces in an attempt to 'balance things out' would be a terrible response.

But, returning to reality, do you know which group of people is least likely to get a place at University in England?

Turns out that it is white boys from working class backgrounds.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34667100/poor-white-boys-get-a-worse-start-in-life-says-equality-report

only 28% of white boys poor enough to qualify for free school meals achieve grades C and above at the end of their mandatory schooling, compared to 43% of black boys and 74% of Chinese boys.

So do you think Bahar Mustafa is challenging economic segregation, or do you think she is reinforcing it?

 

Your commentary has left me confused, because I'm not sure why you think Martin Luther King is relevant to this scenario anymore. You've established that he held his own prejudices, but I don't understand what you mean to do by showing this; do you mean to excuse the prejudices of people like Bahar Mustafa?

 

Exactly. "safe spaces" of every kind exist only as a means of coping with societal oppression, and would no longer be needed if those oppressions were dismantled

 

So would you recommend a 'safe space' in English Universities for working class white boys, given that the government equality review showed that they're the social group most disadvantaged  by the education system?

Thought not.

Instead you're in favour of having them excluded.

 

You don't care about real people. You care about your ideology. :\

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Saxon said:

So would you recommend a 'safe space' in English Universities for working class white boys, given that the government equality review showed that they're the social group most disadvantaged  by the education system?

Absolutely, I would--but, this doesn't have to be a zero-sum game where working class whites "win" and blacks "lose," and neither should we take a one-size-fits-all approach where we provide the exact same supports and accommodations to everyone across the board.

And, while we're on the subject, while we can empathize with how they feel, members of marginalized groups should also not be allowed to marginalize or beat up on other minorities or marginalized groups just because they're mad about being hurt themselves (i.e., no amount of existential despair justifies a vote for Trump).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Troj said:

Absolutely, I would--but, this doesn't have to be a zero-sum game where working class whites "win" and blacks "lose," and neither should we take a one-size-fits-all approach where we provide the exact same supports and accommodations to everyone across the board.

And, while we can empathize with how they feel, members of marginalized groups should also not be allowed to marginalize or beat up on other minorities or marginalized groups just because they're mad about being hurt themselves.

I wouldn't recommend a university safe space created by the exclusion of anybody, to be honest, because excluding other people from talks and discussions feels like it compromises some of the most important values of higher education.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

I wouldn't recommend a university safe space created by the exclusion of anybody, to be honest, because excluding other people from talks and discussions feels like it compromises some of the most important values of higher education.

Generally agreed--however, I'm entirely in favor of the idea of spaces which are designed primarily for certain people, without necessarily excluding others outright.

My university had a Diversity Center, for example. Everybody was welcome, but the layout, the atmosphere, and the scheduled gatherings and club meetings were meant to cater more specifically to minority students. Care was taken to ensure that the atmosphere of the Diversity Center felt like a safe, welcoming place.

There was a super-secret club exclusively for closeted LGBTQQ students, but I appreciated the rationale behind it, since some of these kids would've been in deep shit if anyone had spilled the beans to the wrong people.

I do think people benefit from having some spaces where they generally can be themselves without always having to explain themselves, and can freely discuss experiences, feelings, and ideas that are relevant to them without being concern-trolled or sea-lioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I wouldn't recommend a university safe space created by the exclusion of anybody, to be honest, because excluding other people from talks and discussions feels like it compromises some of the most important values of higher education.

I think it's good to have areas of support for people who need it. LGBT people who don't feel safe in their current environment, domestic abuse victims, transgender individuals who want somewhere to talk while they figure out who they are and what to do with their futures. A safe space should be exactly that, a place where people who need a place of security and privacy can come and congregate without fear. 

But I do not believe a forum of intellectual discussion should be closed off to anyone. I do not believe in closed spaces when it comes to areas of a political or educational nature. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^Exactly that.

Additionally, there's a difference between discussion that deepens understanding and learning, and discussion that just serves as a self-congratulatory circle-jerk or public interrogation.

If you don't set expectations or ground rules for a discussion or dialogue related to gender, racial, disability, or other related issues, you'll often end up with situation in which things dissolve into an "I know you are but what am I" bitchfight, the identified "privileged" people will be put on trial for crimes against humanity, and/or the privileged people will take up all the space and oxygen in the room by getting defensive and "just asking questions."

It's not at all unfair or unreasonable to remind people that they are essentially guests in particular settings or conversations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Saxon said:

Your commentary has left me confused, because I'm not sure why you think Martin Luther King is relevant to this scenario anymore. 

This is why:

On 10/7/2016 at 4:04 PM, Saxon said:

I doubt Martin Luther King would have argued in favour of segregated spaces for different races in Universities. That's like..the exact opposite of what his dream speech was about.

I maintain that you misunderstand him. I'm also trying to emphasize the point I made in my first post.

3 hours ago, Saxon said:

You've established that he held his own prejudices

Which are? I don't believe I ever said anything about prejudices. If I have, I don't recall.

3 hours ago, Saxon said:

Do you mean to excuse the prejudices of people like Bahar Mustafa?

What do you really mean by "prejudices?"

Are we going to talk about it in regards to social psychology? We can talk about things like the frustration–aggression hypothesis, authoritarian personality theory, or scapegoat theory.

Are we talking about it anthropologically? If so, we've got to decide whether or not we're leaning towards social or cultural anthropology. I'm not aware of what anthropological work has been done in regards to prejudice, though, so I wouldn't be able to say much in this case.

Are we talking about it sociologically? Do we go with conflict theory, functionalism, interactionism, or something else? I prefer sociological studies to the other two, and I'm more well-versed in this.

I understand what lexicographers would call a "prejudice," but one might need to go a little deeper than that. I assume you're using prejudice as something inherently negative, but the way one looks at a "prejudice" may indicate something else.

3 hours ago, Saxon said:

So would you recommend a 'safe space' in English Universities for working class white boys, given that the government equality review showed that they're the social group most disadvantaged  by the education system?

I don't actually completely agree with King's approach to social change, so I'm not sure I would recommend a safe space for them; however, the page you linked to suggests that 'poor white boys' aren't disadvantaged by the education system. It suggests that societal expectations can convince one that higher education isn't necessary, that school quality varies scores "only a little bit," and immigrants may be more likely to view higher education as a route out of poverty.

4 hours ago, Saxon said:

You speak of economic disparity as  a de-facto form of segregation, when the students who conspired to limit which races can attend their events, like Bahar Mustafa, were themselves from wealthy backgrounds.

Leaders of movements are very often privileged individuals, while the vast majority of those that follow aren't.

I would actually like to see a breakdown of those that pushed for them and those that use them, but I can't find one.

4 hours ago, Saxon said:

More to the point though, if we did live in a society of de-facto segregation, creating more segregated spaces in an attempt to 'balance things out' would be a terrible response.

The intent isn't to balance things out. The intent is to do things like provide a space for planning, discussion, self-love, and social freedom.

It worked out for the SCLC, SNCC, CORE, LCCR, NAACP, SSOC, and many other organizations that formed the African American portion of the Civil Rights Movement. I'm not sure one could say that their response was terrible. At most, meeting in closed groups gave KKK and police bombers a good target.

It never really ended up stiffing discussion, limiting free speech, or excluding people from the movement, though.

4 hours ago, Saxon said:

But, returning to reality, do you know which group of people is least likely to get a place at University in England?

Turns out that it is white boys from working class backgrounds.

only 28% of white boys poor enough to qualify for free school meals achieve grades C and above at the end of their mandatory schooling, compared to 43% of black boys and 74% of Chinese boys.

The research doesn't say why that is. The article actually reads, "But why is there a difference? Sorry, we can't give you a definite answer. Neither can the EHRC. Neither can the government."

The suggestions they offer up have nothing to do with the disenfranchisement of whites as an ethnicity economically or socially, and it actually suggests low expectations are the most likely reason 'poor white boys' aren't going for higher education.

4 hours ago, Saxon said:

So do you think Bahar Mustafa is challenging economic segregation, or do you think she is reinforcing it?

If non-white individuals are more likely to experience unemployment, housing discrimination, homelessness, and other elements of general economic and social inequality in the U.K. as a result of state and social influences, then I would contend that she is challenging King's de facto segregation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Troj said:

Absolutely, I would--but, this doesn't have to be a zero-sum game where working class whites "win" and blacks "lose," and neither should we take a one-size-fits-all approach where we provide the exact same supports and accommodations to everyone across the board.

And, while we're on the subject, while we can empathize with how they feel, members of marginalized groups should also not be allowed to marginalize or beat up on other minorities or marginalized groups just because they're mad about being hurt themselves (i.e., no amount of existential despair justifies a vote for Trump).

Do expect them to vote for Democrats when they openly hold working class whites in antipathy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, MalletFace said:

This is why:

I maintain that you misunderstand him. I'm also trying to emphasize the point I made in my first post.

Which are? I don't believe I ever said anything about prejudices. If I have, I don't recall.

What do you really mean by "prejudices?"

Are we going to talk about it in regards to social psychology? We can talk about things like the frustration–aggression hypothesis, authoritarian personality theory, or scapegoat theory.

Are we talking about it anthropologically? If so, we've got to decide whether or not we're leaning towards social or cultural anthropology. I'm not aware of what anthropological work has been done in regards to prejudice, though, so I wouldn't be able to say much in this case.

Are we talking about it sociologically? Do we go with conflict theory, functionalism, interactionism, or something else? I prefer sociological studies to the other two, and I'm more well-versed in this.

I understand what lexicographers would call a "prejudice," but one might need to go a little deeper than that. I assume you're using prejudice as something inherently negative, but the way one looks at a "prejudice" may indicate something else.

I don't actually completely agree with King's approach to social change, so I'm not sure I would recommend a safe space for them; however, the page you linked to suggests that 'poor white boys' aren't disadvantaged by the education system. It suggests that societal expectations can convince one that higher education isn't necessary, that school quality varies scores "only a little bit," and immigrants may be more likely to view higher education as a route out of poverty.

Leaders of movements are very often privileged individuals, while the vast majority of those that follow aren't.

I would actually like to see a breakdown of those that pushed for them and those that use them, but I can't find one.

The intent isn't to balance things out. The intent is to do things like provide a space for planning, discussion, self-love, and social freedom.

It worked out for the SCLC, SNCC, CORE, LCCR, NAACP, SSOC, and many other organizations that formed the African American portion of the Civil Rights Movement. I'm not sure one could say that their response was terrible. At most, meeting in closed groups gave KKK and police bombers a good target.

It never really ended up stiffing discussion, limiting free speech, or excluding people from the movement, though.

The research doesn't say why that is. The article actually reads, "But why is there a difference? Sorry, we can't give you a definite answer. Neither can the EHRC. Neither can the government."

The suggestions they offer up have nothing to do with the disenfranchisement of whites as an ethnicity economically or socially, and it actually suggests low expectations are the most likely reason 'poor white boys' aren't going for higher education.

If non-white individuals are more likely to experience unemployment, housing discrimination, homelessness, and other elements of general economic and social inequality in the U.K. as a result of state and social influences, then I would contend that she is challenging King's de facto segregation.

 

Bahar Mustafa made her prejudices clear when she forbid anybody who was a man or who was white from attending her talks because she finds the way they were born oppressive. She excuses her perspective because she believes that, because she is a woman, that it is impossible for her to be sexist because she is disadvantaged in society and therefore the same standards that would be considered prejudice for other people don't apply to her.

Trying to confuse the subject by name dropping different social science theories isn't going to change that.

It is very telling that you're dismissive when reality comes knocking on your door and reveals that not everybody who is disadvantaged belongs to an ethnic minority. 'Oh, they don't matter because it's low expectations, so obviously it is their own fault'. If it was discovered that black people are less likely to get into University because of endemic low ambition in their community, due to lack of self belief or whatever else, you would be among the first to cry from the roof tops that it is a great misfortune and society's fault.

You care about your ideology, you don't care about real people. :\

 

Generally agreed--however, I'm entirely in favor of the idea of spaces which are designed primarily for certain people, without necessarily excluding others outright.

My university had a Diversity Center, for example. Everybody was welcome, but the layout, the atmosphere, and the scheduled gatherings and club meetings were meant to cater more specifically to minority students. Care was taken to ensure that the atmosphere of the Diversity Center felt like a safe, welcoming place.

 

and that's fine, but it is unacceptable for people to exclude or tatget others for being born wrong. Must people be reminded which century we are living in? 

It is especially ironic when the reasons for exclusion are as arbitrary as skin colour. SKIN COLOUR, and end up representing higher education as an unwelcoming hostile place to some of the most disadvantaged people in society.

Just look at this story from my own University, where a waitress was singled out by Qwabe, the cofounder of a 'post-colonialism' movement  in order to 'disrupt whiteness'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rhodes-must-fall-campaigner-ntokozo-qwabe-oxford-university-claims-cape-town-waitress-white-tears-a7037911.html
In Qwabe's words it doesn't matter that he, a student privileged enough to be at a prestigious university like Oxford, was picking on a waitress who had to drop out of University to care for their cancerous mother, because the waitress was white, so however shite he makes her life, she is still and forever will be his oppressor.

They're the kinds of people who literally want the french tricolour to be banned. Yes they actually felt oppressed by people sharing the french flag on facebook after the paris attacks and have the gall to say that other people's problems are trivial.

 

 

It definitely doesn't make working class people feel unwelcome in higher education when this is the disdain and prejudice with which scholars treat them nowadays, does it?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Saxon said:

Ehhh...You also think there is a systematic program of eugenics operated by the US government against the deaf, so I don't think you have a very stringent standard of evidence to prove the existence of any system, do you? Do you even have a clear idea of what the word system means?

these are really big words coming from the person who thinks Australians and now apparently the English can't possibly be racist lmao

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Saxon said:

Bahar Mustafa made her prejudices clear when she forbid anybody who was a man or who was white from attending her talks because she finds the way they were born oppressive. She excuses her perspective because she believes that, because she is a woman, that it is impossible for her to be sexist because she is disadvantaged in society and therefore the same standards that would be considered prejudice for other people don't apply to her.

Trying to confuse the subject by name dropping different social science theories isn't going to change that.

Those social sciences are why she argues she cannot be racist and sexist. Understanding them is important to her position, and the positions of people like her.

And, like I said, what you mean by 'prejudice' is important. Racism, sexism, and prejudice are treated differently in different social sciences.

3 hours ago, Saxon said:

It is very telling that you're dismissive when reality comes knocking on your door and reveals that not everybody who is disadvantaged belongs to an ethnic minority. 'Oh, they don't matter because it's low expectations, so obviously it is their own fault'. If it was discovered that black people are less likely to get into University because of endemic low ambition in their community, due to lack of self belief or whatever else, you would be among the first to cry from the roof tops that it is a great misfortune and society's fault.

The. Article. And. The. Report. Said. They. Had. Low. Expectations.

I. Listed. The. Three. Suggestions. They. Had. To. Explain. The. Information.

_86408829_table3corr.jpg

Capture.PNG

derf.PNG

3 hours ago, MalletFace said:

It suggests that societal expectations can convince one that higher education isn't necessary, that school quality varies scores "only a little bit," and immigrants may be more likely to view higher education as a route out of poverty.
...
The suggestions they offer up have nothing to do with the disenfranchisement of whites as an ethnicity economically or socially, and it actually suggests low expectations are the most likely reason 'poor white boys' aren't going for higher education.

Knock. Knock.

3 hours ago, Saxon said:

You care about your ideology, you don't care about real people. :\

I do care about real people. It is why I help people fill out college applications and provide tutoring services for free. I live in one of my state's poorer counties, and some people are afraid of the professional services their schools offer.

I haven't actually revealed anything about my ideology, either. I've mentioned the social science I use to defend my ideology, but the closest I've come to speaking of my ideology is saying that I disagree with MLK and Mustafa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Another Ampers& said:

these are really big words coming from the person who thinks Australians and now apparently the English can't possibly be racist lmao

Let me riddle you this. If I think that Bahar Mustafa is a racist, and she is English, how can I possibly think that English people can't be racist?

8 hours ago, MalletFace said:

Those social sciences are why she argues she cannot be racist and sexist. Understanding them is important to her position, and the positions of people like her.

And, like I said, what you mean by 'prejudice' is important. Racism, sexism, and prejudice are treated differently in different social sciences.

The. Article. And. The. Report. Said. They. Had. Low. Expectations.

I. Listed. The. Three. Suggestions. They. Had. To. Explain. The. Information.

_86408829_table3corr.jpg

Capture.PNG

derf.PNG

Knock. Knock.

I do care about real people. It is why I help people fill out college applications and provide tutoring services for free. I live in one of my state's poorer counties, and some people are afraid of the professional services their schools offer.

I haven't actually revealed anything about my ideology, either. I've mentioned the social science I use to defend my ideology, but the closest I've come to speaking of my ideology is saying that I disagree with MLK and Mustafa.

 

Do you honestly think that you can't be racist if you belong to an ethnic minority? ._. If not, then why are you saying 'ah yes, but' ? To be frank, when people can call upon social science to say that being from an Arabic ancestry means they cannot be racist, no matter how they behave, then what we've really demonstrated is that the social sciences are riddled with pseudo science and politics, although I believe I demonstrated this when I cited an example of their literature. Physicists have previously managed to accidentally publish papers claiming that gravity is a social construct in social science journals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

 

"After referring skeptically to the "so-called scientific method", the article declared that "it is becoming increasingly apparent that physical 'reality'" is fundamentally "a social and linguistic construct"."

>> Published in Social Text, a real social 'sciences' journal

The editors of the journal were in 1996 awarded the Ig Nobel Prize for literature by "eagerly publishing research that they could not understand, that the author said was meaningless, and which claimed that reality does not exist"


I agree that endemic low aspirations could be an explanation for poor performance in higher education among white working class backgrounds.
The trouble is that you are saying this as if it means that it is okay that this group is disadvantaged. It must also be noted that, if the explanation is low expectation, then this doesn't seem to affect working class white girls so severely, as they are 58% more likely to apply for University than their male counterparts. So we should definitely not be content to see talent missed, given that we know people from working class backgrounds can be motivated to pursue higher education.

May I ask that you state your comments more clearly, Malletface? You haven't made it at all clear that you thought Mustafa was incorrect; you've been posting lots of arguments that come to her defense, which provided the impression that you thought she was right.
For example you argued that Mustafa was 'challenging defacto segregation' even when I provided proof that the most disadvantaged group in education actually belongs to the ethnic majority, the very group she was deliberately excluding.

Can you see why this makes it look like you are in favour of what she was doing?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Hux said:

Do expect them to vote for Democrats when they openly hold working class whites in antipathy?

Neither party holds them in high esteem, sadly. The Democrats sniff at them for being "rednecky" and for voting Republican. The Democrats also use language that they hear as patronizing and as denying their dignity as hard-working, resilient people.

Republicans will butter them up with lots of sweet talk, and then throw them under the bus.

The Democrats are at least more likely to pass legislation that is supportive of working class and low-SES people.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

I just dislike that being white means I automatically don't get to have a view on racial inequality.

I kind of see it as just sticking it to the man. The big white man in office or the white lawyer who prosecuted a black person or whatever. I get that we as white people have no actual context from which to draw from to actually understand racism other than what we see and what we read about and what our friends experience. We are privileged.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This got way off topic.  Then again, when I put 'SJW' in the thread title, I guess that was inevitable.

@Another Ampers& I find the idea of thinking my friend comfortable enough around us to express those ideas a little reassuring.  So far, none of it has been targeted at me or my other friends specifically, just kind of put out in the air regarding characters in movies we watch for the most part.  And let's be fair; if I was talking disparagingly about a specific group, and a member of that group was part of my social circle, I'd append an explicit or implicit 'except for you' to it, and I can only assume my friend is doing the same.

I suppose I should shed just a little more light on the situation, since most of you seem to be under the impression that this is among older teens/late twenty-somethings.  We're all at least 30, and I believe the friend in question is the oldest of us, if not the second oldest, and we're all out of college.  I guess that might explain why any "SJW-ness" has been so moderate.  However, the situation seems relatively stable.  I'll keep you all posted if anything develops.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

when_doubt.gif

imho

but then, i don't have a lot of tolerance left in me these days, especially for those who throw around the word "privilege", etc.  as a few others have stated in this thread, those types tend to care more about ideologies than individuals, and i don't really care to be around them.  a friend you have to walk on eggshells and avoid certain topics for is not a friend worth keeping.

if you're determined and you've got more patience than me, though, maybe a long and serious "not stopping until we reach some sort of understanding" talk will do you both good.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Saxon said:

Let me riddle you this. If I think that Bahar Mustafa is a racist, and she is English, how can I possibly think that English people can't be racist?

white boy going to oxford claims that australians and english ppl can't be racist, also claims that ethnic minorities CAN be racist

what do they teach you at that school

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Lucyfish said:

I just dislike that being white means I automatically don't get to have a view on racial inequality.

I see it this way:

You do get to have an opinion, but there's a difference between someone who's studied about China, and a person who has been to China.

The person who's read some books and seen some movies may have an interesting and worthwhile perspective on China, but there will likely be moments where they should defer to the person who's actually been to China.

Too often, white people insert themselves into conversations on race to basically offer the equivalent of either, "Well, I don't feel this is an issue, because I've never experienced it," or "I don't think racism is a big deal, because one time, someone told me my shoes were ugly, and I got over it."

Conversations about these issues are fruitful and worthwhile when people come into them with a sense of humility, openness, and compassion, and are pointless and damaging when people come in expecting to have their preconceptions validated and their "goodness" affirmed.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Troj said:

I see it this way:

You do get to have an opinion, but there's a difference between someone who's studied about China, and a person who has been to China.

The person who's read some books and seen some movies may have an interesting and worthwhile perspective on China, but there will likely be moments where they should defer to the person who's actually been to China.

Too often, white people insert themselves into conversations on race to basically offer the equivalent of either, "Well, I don't feel this is an issue, because I've never experienced it," or "I don't think racism is a big deal, because one time, someone told me my shoes were ugly, and I got over it."

Conversations about these issues are fruitful and worthwhile when people come into them with a sense of humility, openness, and compassion, and are pointless and damaging when people come in expecting to have their preconceptions validated and their "goodness" affirmed.

I'll post and be totally supportive of people's issues, but then my opinion means nothing because I don't hate white people having dreadlocks as much as I apparently should.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Another Ampers& said:

white boy going to oxford claims that australians and english ppl can't be racist, also claims that ethnic minorities CAN be racist

what do they teach you at that school

Wait...so you actually think that Ethnic minority people living in England can't be English people?

That's abhorrently prejudiced. :\

 

 

You know, the irony here is that I think anybody can be a racist, no matter what race they are or where they are from. You, on the other hand, think it's impossible for people to be racist if they belong to certain races.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Wait...so you actually think that Ethnic minority people living in England can't be English people?

That's abhorrently prejudiced. :\

You know, the irony here is that I think anybody can be a racist, no matter what race they are or where they are from. You, on the other hand, think it's impossible for people to be racist if they belong to certain races.

oh fuck my dude, that's exactly it, that's exactly what I'm saying

you spelling it out and telling me Like It Is has encouraged me to renounce my sjw ways and listen to iggy azalea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Another Ampers& said:

oh fuck my dude, that's exactly it, that's exactly what I'm saying

you spelling it out and telling me Like It Is has encouraged me to renounce my sjw ways and listen to iggy azalea

Actually, Iggy Azalea is deaf people's revenge for the government's conspiracy of eugenics against them. :V

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Troj said:

Republicans will butter them up with lots of sweet talk, and then throw them under the bus.

The Democrats are at least more likely to pass legislation that is supportive of working class and low-SES people.

 

Nah, I think you have it backwards. Democrats will butter them up for political points then throw them under the bus when they've outlived their usefulness (ex. Democrat interest groups pushing grieving families in Aurora into a losing lawsuit and then abandoning them with $100k in legal fees).

Republicans are at least honest about hating poor people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Racism will continue as long as we focus on race. It should be one of the *least* remarkable things about a person. The more somebody defines themselves or others by race, the more one endorses special programs or groups devoted to coddling or hindering people of particular races, the more racist they are. Racists can be of any race. Fortunately, people of any race can also choose to not be racist.

FWIW, I think "safe spaces" should be one's friends and family, or better yet a happy place in one's own mind. Even religious institutions, which are basically safe spaces for people who share particular belief systems, can lead to hurt and disillusionment if one isn't careful. People don't always have your best interests at heart, and a group is only as good as its members. Close friends and family may sometimes let you down, but not as often as strangers in my experience. I guess what I'm trying to say is beware of groups or institutions who promise emotional safety. They're often in it for themselves, and want to control/use others.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Xaende said:

Racism will continue as long as we focus on race. It should be one of the *least* remarkable things about a person. The more somebody defines themselves or others by race, the more one endorses special programs or groups devoted to coddling or hindering people of particular races, the more racist they are. Racists can be of any race. Fortunately, people of any race can also choose to not be racist.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Lucyfish said:

I'll post and be totally supportive of people's issues, but then my opinion means nothing because I don't hate white people having dreadlocks as much as I apparently should.

Oh, that.

I think we need to try to understand, say, the argument against whites having dreadlocks on its own terms, but at a certain point, people will sometimes just have to agree to disagree. Two people can care equally about the same values or the same outcome, and still have very different ideas about how to live those values or achieve that outcome.

I've made an effort to grok the various arguments around cultural appropriation, and there are some arguments and proposals that I just can't get on board with.

As for people "not seeing race" or not defining themselves by their race--or gender, or sexual orientation, or disability, or other things--I agree that I'd like to someday live in world where those things are seen as trivial or peripheral.

The problem is, we're caught in a Prisoner's Dilemma of sorts, because I'd be a fool to stop seeing myself as disabled before the rest of the world stops treating me according to its stereotypes of disabled people. I have to be aware of how the world perceives me in order to operate realistically and successfully in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

It's like, people don't want me to be not racist. They want me to be racist in their favor.

Not being racist is bad, but being racist in favor of black people is good.

It's all so confusing to me.

I think a lot of people, who insist on this double standard, want to paint normal people as abominable racists, so that they have an oppressor to rally against and be morally superior to.
As CanaanKitty explained, their entire outlook on life is about sticking it to 'the man', so what do they do when they're in an environment where nobody judges people based on race and there is no 'the man'? Invent one by changing the standard of what they consider racism to be, so that a guy wearing a sombrero can now be viewed as a horrible racist and representative of 'the man'.


Even if you're an 'ally' you have to confess your original sin of privilege and self flagellate for being born wrong, because naturally being an ally doesn't make one any less of an oppressor.
It's like a religion where they've declared themselves saints and the rest of us have to be sinners so that they have souls to save. :\

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

It's like, people don't want me to be not racist. They want me to be racist in their favor.

Not being racist is bad, but being racist in favor of black people is good.

It's all so confusing to me.

Fuck whites, I hate being white, white people are totes gross

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

It's like, people don't want me to be not racist. They want me to be racist in their favor.

Not being racist is bad, but being racist in favor of black people is good.

It's all so confusing to me.

The only people who have ever tried to lecture me about racism are white.

They always get upset when I tell them they don't know what they're talking about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

The only people who have ever tried to lecture me about racism are white.

They always get upset when I tell them they don't know what they're talking about. 

I'm gay myself and was given a talking-down-to because I said that I didn't want university outreach teams to specifically target gay people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...