Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

Harry Baldman--

That does not make any sense at all.  By that same token, no human can be racist, because all humans are humans.

Eg, I can replace "male" and "female" with "white people" and "black people"-- then replace "sexism" with "racism", and get a completely nonsense statement.

To wit--

There's no racism against black people because both black people and white people are covered by the term "racism"...

The fact that both black people and white people are indeed, people, does not make the racism go away.

Likewise, sarkesian's rhetoric is batshit fucked up and demonstrably false. Her's is entirely a rhetorical position that conveniently sidesteps any guilt or blame, much like racist black people often try to claim that they cannot be racists, because they are black. (and/or, a minority.)

In this case, Sarkesian is claiming that she cannot be sexist, because she is not "empowered".  (nevermind that there are women in congress, we almost had a female president, we have woman CEOs, we have women who are the family breadwinners, etc.  The very notion that women are not empowered in today's society is simply false-- but without that claim, she suddenly has to face up with being sexist against men, and that just cant be allowed! /s)

[smjjames]

It’s pretty obvious that she’s trying to troll anyways.

[Harry Baldman]

Racism is hardly that specific - white supremacy, black oppression and black supremacy as a reaction to black oppression, for example, all exist on the same general spectrum, interconnected by colonialist context and history, along with Islamophobia, the destruction of Native Americans and all manner of other things stemming from the same groundswell of white person fuckery. Treating them as isolated and wholly separate cultural features doesn't really do them justice, and leads to people assuming they're not racist just because they're not in the Ku Klux Klan when they could just as well be entirely complicit (through privilege if nothing else) in a broader system and context of racism that they've simply failed to examine due to overly narrow, technical definitions. Does that make it clearer?

It’s pretty obvious that she’s trying to troll anyways.

It's always hard to tell with Anita Sarkeesian because she can literally say anything and people will read a misandrist agenda into it.

[TamerVirus]

It’s pretty obvious that she’s trying to troll anyways.

Is she, though?
Is she?

[wierd]

Harry Baldman--

This youtube vid pretty clearly summarizes the issue with racism being argued about in that context.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nbnGUUdQTU


However, they did not cover things like-- black person owns a sole proprietorship type business--- is downright racist to white employees or patrons.

There is nothing in current american society that would prevent this circumstance. There are many black business owners, and equal opportunity law says they must hire white people.  However, because black people can be (ahem) "Racially prejudiced"-- and in this case, the business owner has such a proclivity, he is able to systemically exert his power and authority to disadvantage people based exclusively on their race, and suddenly--- BAAAM--- that mother fucker is racist, by the other definition as well.

But of course, "black people cant be racist" is used axiomatically here, not qualitatively, so even in the above, "Well--- Black people in GENERAL can't be racist---"   

It's an endless game of "Nu uh, because..."

The same is true for miss Sarkesian, and her rhetoric.

It's bullshit.



As for the whole "Historical white-people fuckery" thing--- Black people are just as capable of fuckery.

want to know the real reason why white people took over the damn planet first?

Watch Guns, Germs, and Steel. (or better yet, read the book.)  (pro tip-- is has nothing to do with genetics or skincolor. It has everything to do with favorability gained through resource access, and nothing else.)

If the circumstances had been reversed, we would be talking about how white people cant be racist, because of the "Historical black people fuckery"

[Dunamisdeos]

I think we should focus on the ridiculous concept that a person's worth or identity is defined in any way by their gender, perception thereof, or race. The only thing that dividing it by meticulous category accomplishes is ensuring that we are allowed to justify acknowledging only the aspects that we feel like addressing today.

I think it also encourages building one's own identity and self-image around those concepts. This is skin to building a personality around the concept that you have feet. It encourages devaluing of oneself into a shallow category, which encourages devaluing others in the same way, upon which sexism and racism feed.

[smjjames]

Want to know the real reason why white people took over the damn planet first?

Watch Guns, Germs, and Steel. (or better yet, read the book.)  (pro tip-- is has nothing to do with genetics or skincolor. It has everything to do with favorability gained through resource access, and nothing else.)

Plus random historical happenstances that have absolutely nothing to do with god or destiny. For example, if China hadn’t gone into recluse mode, they could have kept pace with Europeans technology wise. Another one, if horses hadn’t gotten wiped out in the Americas, perhaps there would be civilizations on par with Europe.

[wierd]

Indeed-- which is why I favor the dictionary definitions of those terms.

Preferential treatment of one demographic over another, based on "X"--- the root of "X"-ism.

Playing musical chairs with the definitions to try and make a more favorable position for yourself is denial of this basic fact-- it is the preferential treatment that is the root of the problem, not who is in charge, or who has more material resources.

If all individuals are treated without such preference, then the material resource issue goes away, because everyone has equal access.

Insisting "But historical things!  Your ancestors were dickheads! That justifies my being a dickhead now!!!"  is just looking for a justification for being a dickhead.

[Harry Baldman]

If the circumstances had been reversed, we would be talking about how white people cant be racist, because of the "Historical black people fuckery"

There's a lot to talk about in your response, but this is probably the most telling part that encapsulates the underlying problem - does it really matter that things could have worked out another way in a wildly speculative fictional scenario when there's a good case for reparations in the world we live in, and a legacy of real damage to real people that humanity would be well-served to repair? And while I understand perfectly the appeal of a definition of racism that includes everyone as an equally guilty party worthy of equal prosecution (and so implicating no one at all), I don't think it's practically useful in deciding how to allocate the reparations required for finding a way forward into a world where an entire generation of black teenagers might not disproportionately suffer from lead paint-related brain damage, to use the most common example.

[wierd]

Harry--- the thing about reparations, is that they are intended to end. (Otherwise, there is no "repair.")

If your reason for giving the reparations is based exclusively on an unchangable past, and not on the desired future, or the current behavior of people, then you deny this outcome.

It stops being reparation.

So, the ultimate reparation is to make everyone have equal political power.  The argument that black people dont have it is bullshit. We already had a black president before a female one. We have plenty of black congressmen and women.

So, at what point does the reparation end, the repair completed?

I ask with absolute sincerity there.  Because basing the condition of "debt" on an unchangable past, and not on a current status, or a trend toward a better future for all, repairs nothing.

[Kagus]

Harry--- the thing about reparations, is that they are intended to end. (Otherwise, there is no "repair.")

If your reason for giving the reparations is based exclusively on an unchangable past, and not on the desired future, or the current behavior of people, then you deny this outcome.

It stops being reparation.

So, the ultimate reparation is to make everyone have equal political power.  The argument that black people dont have it is bullshit. We already had a black president before a female one. We have plenty of black congressmen and women.

So, at what point does the reparation end, the repair completed?

I ask with absolute sincerity there.  Because basing the condition of "debt" on an unchangable past, and not on a current status, or a trend toward a better future for all, repairs nothing.

Forty acres and two mules, isn't it?

[wierd]

Kagus-- way to miss the point. (or maybe, lamplit the problem in a horrifically ironic way.)

The point being, demanding eternal reparation is no different than demanding tribute. Both are demanding material and financial power, exclusively based on a class, and the history of that class.

One both groups are capable of equally approaching the legal, financial, and judicial systems, with equal access to materials, education, and opportunities, GAME OVER-- REPAIR COMPLETE.

I will acknowledge that we are not QUITE there yet.  However, arguments like "black people cant be racist" work against that outcome, not for it.

The same is true for sexism, or arguments about religion.

At the end of the day, NOBODY is fucking special.  Thats the point.

[pikachu17]

The idea of the statement is that sexism, like racism, doesn't just involve a single group being shat on but instead a set of groups that have a very particular kind of relationship. You don't just discriminate against one group but also in favor of another. There's no sexism against men because both men and women are covered by the term "sexism", and people who go on about sexism against men usually do so as a rhetorical whataboutist trick, much like you do in that very post. If you're looking for the specific culturally enforced norms and habits arising from male cultural domination that ultimately motivate men to lead highly dysfunctional emotional and social lives, the more precise term for that would be toxic masculinity. If you're looking for genuine man-hating, that's misandry. Woman-hating, you know that one already.

So calm your tits, bud, the Dark Mother's not gonna cut your nuts off or anything. That's for after the revolution comes.

How was I doing a rhetorical whataboutist trick? I was just noting that she said she said something sexist, and ironic at that.
And then I noted the flaws in her statement.
How was that wrong? I am not "just asking questions", I seriously want to know how it was a rhetorical whataboutist trick.

It is not misogyny to note a specific feminist's beliefs are incorrect, and I was not denying misogyny either.

Besides, I would have said the exact same thing if I was a woman.

I should note, I want equality. True equality, where men are equal to women, not less or better.

[TamerVirus]

Forty acres and two mules, isn't it?

Nope. Forty acres and a singular mule
Two mules is one mule too many

[Dunamisdeos]

At the end of the day, NOBODY is fucking special.  Thats the point.

Basically, this. The point should be to fight the concept that a person is superior based on race or gender or belief. At what point do we stop demanding punishments to make us feel better about sexism/racism and start actually fighting it? Our mode for generations has been to just hurt the other guy so we can forget about it for now, then be outraged when the problem didn't go away.

One both groups are capable of equally approaching the legal, financial, and judicial systems, with equal access to materials, education, and opportunities, GAME OVER-- REPAIR COMPLETE.

This is the end game we should be working towards.