World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[jp1]

"Pretending we are above it" means, to me, acting like racial (and I'm using this term as a catch all so I don't have to type 500 different things or use a bunch of quotation marks) differences don't exist when they clearly do. There is no value judgement here, only acknowledgement of said differences.

And my snark is more directed at those who would say that someone like me, a middle-class white male, can't join in the discussion of sensitive topics or have an opinion worth some merit without "checking my privilege" constantly. Of course I have shit easier being white. There are very specific instances I can recall, mainly in interactions with law enforcement, where I am quite sure things would have ended much worse for me if I wasn't white. Acknowledge privilege exists, that should be a given, but harping on it or discounting people because of it is just as ignorant and short-sighted as sheet-wearing, cross-burning, old fashioned racism (just like Grandma used to make).

In the end, nobody is objectively worse or better than anyone else simply based on the color of their skin or their ethnic background. If more people would just fucking realize that, then we'd really start to have an end to racism.

Fair enough, I'm not sure who that is directed at though. Or are you experiencing this kind of attitude in the outside world? It's a hostile take on the discussion that seems unwarranted.

It's all good though TSTR, I support your right to speak your mind. I ain't mad at cha!

Anyway, I disagree with the attitude towards the term "white privilege" as it absolutely exists. I think people take it as an insult, as if they haven't earned something, when it simply points out some advantages you have had since birth and take for granted when compared with the life experiences of someone who didn't enjoy those same advantages.

As was pointed out on the earlier abortion debate regarding the naming of each side, language has a power all of its own in someone's approach to an abstract idea. "White privilege" is definitely a hostile phrase, and it's no wonder that white people respond negatively to it. "White advantage" might be a better phrase in terms of conveying the idea that if you were building a character in America: The RPG and you get to the last step of character creation and have to choose your skin color then the consequence of choosing "white" is to make your time through the rest of the game easier than if you had chosen "black".

There's a part in the novella "If this goes on-" by Heinline (which, incidentally, is about a revolution in a theocratic America that came about after a demagogue won the Presidency and then abolished elections) that talks about the emotional impact of words. The example used in the text wasn't spelled out (it was clearly massively profane) but the response was the narrator getting indignant and saying "Don't you dare say that about my mother!" And the character demonstrating the example says, "What? All I said was that you were the legitimate child of two people legally in wedlock." How a thing is said is just as important as what is said.

This is a good point, however, do you posit that the members of this board are unaware of the context of the message behind "white privilege"? Would you consider someone who is born rich to be privileged financially? It is after-all no fault of their own.

That is splitting hairs though, because I agree that "white-advantage" is a more adequate term. I believe people would take umbrage with it as well though, perhaps less of them, but indeed a great many still would not want any reference to them having had a leg up, as if it discredits their achievements.

1. Ask yourself honestly. What was your first reaction before opening the Spoiler?

2. With the spoiler opened, how did your reaction change?

3. Do past injustices justify creating unbalanced groups or situations such as shown in the Litmus test?

4. In that test showing a real event, Should that Tenessee White Congressman representing 60% black constituents be allowed to join the Black Caucus to have an equal representation for his district?

5. Should anyone be allowed to join any designated Caucus including Black, Asian, Hispanic, etc; if for positive purpose to get and give all the data for their constituents?

1. Obviously fake propaganda. "Oh look it's that stupid "The Banter" image again.
2. I was just happy there weren't any Trump quotes behind the tag.
3. Sure, why not? They face challenges you obviously don't understand, so I don't expect you to agree.
4. No. He has representation already, no need to try and gain political favor jumping in their pond. If he really cares about their plight, he would respect their wishes willingly.
5. No.
6. This "Litmus test" was ridiculous, it served no point other than to push a borderline (and that's being generous) racist point of view.

[MrPopo]

Anyway, I disagree with the attitude towards the term "white privilege" as it absolutely exists. I think people take it as an insult, as if they haven't earned something, when it simply points out some advantages you have had since birth and take for granted when compared with the life experiences of someone who didn't enjoy those same advantages.

As was pointed out on the earlier abortion debate regarding the naming of each side, language has a power all of its own in someone's approach to an abstract idea. "White privilege" is definitely a hostile phrase, and it's no wonder that white people respond negatively to it. "White advantage" might be a better phrase in terms of conveying the idea that if you were building a character in America: The RPG and you get to the last step of character creation and have to choose your skin color then the consequence of choosing "white" is to make your time through the rest of the game easier than if you had chosen "black".

There's a part in the novella "If this goes on-" by Heinline (which, incidentally, is about a revolution in a theocratic America that came about after a demagogue won the Presidency and then abolished elections) that talks about the emotional impact of words. The example used in the text wasn't spelled out (it was clearly massively profane) but the response was the narrator getting indignant and saying "Don't you dare say that about my mother!" And the character demonstrating the example says, "What? All I said was that you were the legitimate child of two people legally in wedlock." How a thing is said is just as important as what is said.

This is a good point, however, do you posit that the members of this board are unaware of the context of the message behind "white privilege"? Would you consider someone who is born rich to be privileged financially? It is after-all no fault of their own.

That is splitting hairs though, because I agree that "white-advantage" is a more adequate term. I believe people would take umbrage with it as well though, perhaps less of them, but indeed a great many still would not want any reference to them having had a leg up, as if it discredits their achievements.

I was actually focusing less on the people on the boards (I interpreted TSTR's last sentence in the snark he intended) and more on the general case of your first sentence about not liking how people rail against the term in the first place. I'm also personally aware of my privileged upbringing (not rich, but two white collar parents in well paying jobs) so I don't really have problems with the general term. The people who do tend to come from the lower end of the financial spectrum who don't see themselves as having a good thing. And you are absolutely correct that a certain segment will never accept that they have things easier based on race or gender, but you're probably never going to reach them anyway.

And just because Heinlein is a better writer than I am, here's a link to a StackExchange that has the full text from the novella I referenced; it'll be better than my paraphrasing.

http://scifi.stackexchange.com/question ... onal-value

[Sarge]

6. This "Litmus test" was ridiculous, it served no point other than to push a borderline (and that's being generous) racist point of view.

I don't know if I'd go that far. I think this really can be an interesting thought experiment, to examine why things are the way they are. When do we, as a society, decide that past sins are no longer a valid reasoning for said groups if the goal is a color-blind society? Do we ever actually hit that point? What metric do we use to gauge whether we are successful?

I think that it's important to keep these discussions in the forefront. Just asking the question gives a chance to explain why things are the way they are, and educate those that might not understand why we do these things. The less we lambast people for broaching a topic that is taboo, the more I think we can advance as a people.

On a more specific note, not all of us have developed the vocabulary to express what we think in as cogent a manner as would be preferred. I know I still have work to do in that regard. I think perhaps we should be a little more willing to give each other the benefit of the doubt.

EDIT: This assumes we can discuss such weighty matters effectively on a message board, of course!

[jp1]

6. This "Litmus test" was ridiculous, it served no point other than to push a borderline (and that's being generous) racist point of view.

I don't know if I'd go that far. I think this really can be an interesting thought experiment, to examine why things are the way they are. When do we, as a society, decide that past sins are no longer a valid reasoning for said groups if the goal is a color-blind society? Do we ever actually hit that point? What metric do we use to gauge whether we are successful?

I think that it's important to keep these discussions in the forefront. Just asking the question gives a chance to explain why things are the way they are, and educate those that might not understand why we do these things. The less we lambast people for broaching a topic that is taboo, the more I think we can advance as a people.

On a more specific note, not all of us have developed the vocabulary to express what we think in as cogent a manner as would be preferred. I know I still have work to do in that regard. I think perhaps we should be a little more willing to give each other the benefit of the doubt.

EDIT: This assumes we can discuss such weighty matters effectively on a message board, of course!

Certainly, it was just my opinion. It's like when people have an issue with BET, or really anything that is exclusively black. The distinction can't be made that they aren't from the culture, don't understand the struggles, and have no idea what issues black people face in daily life. I find this to be a racist point of view, or at the very least an ignorant one.

I believe that when you know that any ethnic group faces daily struggles just because they were born, and you still think it's "unfair" to see them have something of their own in this world, you can't possibly be empathetic to their struggles.

Ultimately, I took issue because race wasn't even a relevant issue of discussion at this point in the thread and it simply popped up like, "Hey look...black people are excluding us!" Including a reverse racism "Litmus test".

[Erik_Twice]

Anyway, I disagree with the attitude towards the term "white privilege" as it absolutely exists. I think people take it as an insult, as if they haven't earned something, when it simply points out some advantages you have had since birth and take for granted when compared with the life experiences of someone who didn't enjoy those same advantages.

I think that, regardless of the validity or meaning of the term, "White privilege" is taken as an insult because more often than not, it's either used as one or as a cheap way to "win" an online debate.

It's also a term that tends to attract fairly negative tendences in discussion, namely:
1) Ad Hominem
2) Opression olympics
3) More radical than thou
4) Nasty In-group/out-group dynamics
5) Semantic debates and faking obliviousness
6) Self-justification
7) Sins of our forefathers
General elitism
9) Whatbaoutism
etc.

I think there's a lot of value in these kind of topics and even the terms themselves, but they are very flammable material and discussions about them often end up with people bludgeoning each other or drenched in privilege themselves.

When do we, as a society, decide that past sins are no longer a valid reasoning for said groups if the goal is a color-blind society?

I think the discussion has moved from colour-blindness because it's felt it promotes about overlooking race altogether. That is, it's felt that "race-awareness" is a better, more informed and more realistic paradigm than "colour-blindness" which tends to be oblivious, often intentionally so.

[jp1]

Probably closer to TSTRs intent than my interpretation. Good post Erik.

Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk

[marurun]

I think discussion, and action, on race are necessary as ongoing things. And we do sometimes have to revisit the core premises. But "thought exercises" like what CRT presented are usually red herrings. They typically attempt to construct a false equivalency for one primary purpose: baiting people into supposed hypocrisy. We are either exposed as racists for declaring skin color (devoid of context in the example) adequate for discrimination in one case but not the other, or embarrassed by the thinly veiled ruse while we stumble over ourselves for not having read all the way through. As a tool for more meaningful exploration of ideas like Sarge brings up, such as when is enough and where are the end posts, this example is unsuited. Those conversations are best started directly and free of any semblance of subterfuge or reductio ad absurdum.

[Tanooki]

1. Ask yourself honestly. What was your first reaction before opening the Spoiler?

2. With the spoiler opened, how did your reaction change?

3. Do past injustices justify creating unbalanced groups or situations such as shown in the Litmus test?

4. In that test showing a real event, Should that Tenessee White Congressman representing 60% black constituents be allowed to join the Black Caucus to have an equal representation for his district?

5. Should anyone be allowed to join any designated Caucus including Black, Asian, Hispanic, etc; if for positive purpose to get and give all the data for their constituents?

1. I figured it was sarcasm post (so being litmus made sense) as I figured that...
2. Is where you were going with the CBC.
3. No they do not, all it does is creative divisive conversations and problems that don't help repair but further damage relations.
4. Most definitely. So what if he's white, dude could have been yellow, red, or even martian green. If the majority of his constituency would benefit being in such a caucus that would cover his voters needs he should be made welcome, not bullied and shut out.
5. #4 pretty well covers #5. They do this at my work these NRG groups. Anyone can join a gay group, womens group, veterans, amputee, whatever if they are that or not as it's about support. So when it comes to the CBC they seem more about negative reinforcement support than looking for inclusive positive change.

[TSTR]

Erik got the hammer and hit that nail I put down earlier square on the head. Right on.

[Blu]

+1 to Erik, TSTR, and jp1's posts. Same for Popo, Marurun, Ack, and Sarge, too.

Here's an example I really spend some time thinking about, regarding the intersection of race and immigration, that adds a layer of complexity. Ack, you were heading this way in a few posts.

Say a family immigrated to USA, a person of color. We refer to them as Asian-American, for example. How many generations of family will pass before we regard them as simply American? I'm speaking from the perspective specifically as a white American to the Asian-American group, without a relationship established. I think as this person goes about their life, they will continue to encounter questions of nation of origin, and other subtle things that don't allow them to solely claim American.

I want to note that claiming group membership from within the community is something entirely different. Affinity groups and the like are quite important for cultural identity, solidarity, processing, and care. However in some ways when it's used, Asian American groups a hugely diverse group of people into one hegemonic group, which has not so good ramifications.

Mainly my premise revolves around whether or not people of color (be they Asian, South Asian, Latinx, Arab, etc) will frequently have their citizenship questioned in ways that I simply do not. I think the construct of race really informs the lens of citizenship for people of color in the country. Just a thought that's been on my mind as I interact with more of my students lately.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk