Print

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

[wierd]

Pikachu--

Miss Sarkesian is arguing in the context of the "Sociology definition" for "sexism"-- which is directly paralleled by the sociology definition of racism--- which is exactly why I have been hashing it out with Harry about racism.

Sexism is just the same thing, but about tallywhackers and hoohas, instead of people of different skin colors and cultural backgrounds.


If you think a person is somehow less valuable because they have a hooha instead of tallywhacker, you are being sexist.  If you do that, and abuse a position of authority to artificially give an advantage to your preferred group, you are engaging in the sociological version of sexism.

Again, there are female CEOs.  We almost had a female president. We have female congresspeople and senators.  We have female supreme court justices.  The posession of a hooha does not really inhibit the social climb.  What inhibits the social climb is the lack of demand for equal treatment, and the acceptance of unfair treatment--- and yes-- women are just as capable of inflicting gender bias as men are, and with the more balanced scales of the modern world, miss Sarkesian's argument falls pretty damn flat.

[pikachu17]

Why are you addressing this to me?
I don't disagree with the above statement at all.

[Doomblade187]

One issue with these debates about racism and sexism is that people come off as using whataboutism even when they aren't, which feeds conflict.

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.

Yes. One thing that I see, however, is that people will say that we need to treat everyone equally, and then proceed to speak against affirmative action programs and similar tactics to give those disadvantaged a way up that isn't filled with spikes. Granted, I know not everything works as designed, but it's tendency that I see to say "yes, equality", but then do nothing to actually support the change needed, or even oppose it.

Weird, I think that Harry is trying to base his argument more around the fact that racism and sexism doesn't happen in a vacuum of related thoughts and tendencies.
But I could be misreading?

[Kagus]

Forty acres and two mules, isn't it?

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

Ah, yes, you are correct. I'm not sure where I got the second mule from; maybe some form of interest due to late payment? Or it could just be one of Enron's cows.


And yes, wierd, I'm mainly just being horrible.

[TD1]

Wierd has a peculiar ability to say (write?) things which I wholly disagree with, then later say things I wholly agree with.

Stop messing with my head.

Anyway. My way of saying that I agree with wierd. It is ridiculous to demand perpetual reparation for the sake of it, with no real desire to heal rifts whatsoever.

[wierd]

I was more drawing attention to the "Gender + Power" being the definition she is using, rather than "Preferential treatment towards a gender" definition that 99% of living humans use.

Since she is using that definition, you have to combat her argument from within that context, not the more reasonable (IMO) context of "Look chicka, you are trying to claim that because you have a vagina, you can't be sexist. That's dumb."




Doomblade:

Who said I was arguing that it was a vacuum?  I argued that all humans exhibit human nature, and the only reason why white people got the top slot was pure dumb luck in being "privileged" to migrate onto land that had useful crops, animals, and metal ores first---- That had any other of the groups being discussed been in that position, the exact same outcome would have occurred, except the people on top of the world would have a different skin color.

Because white people dont have a monopoly on being dickheads-- all races are equally capable of it, and show equal prevalence of that feature set.

His reaction was to claim I was denying the past, or some shit.

Which is why I attacked looking back and living in the past instead of at the now, or the future, and letting those dictate your actions and beliefs.

[smjjames]

‘Reparations’ can also be coming to terms or having a reckoning (not to be confused with retconning) with the past, like Germany did after WWII. The US never went through that kind of self flagellation over racism.

Reparations are one thing, coming to terms and having a reckoning with said past is something else entirely.

Edit: Wait, I totally self contradicted myself... I guess it depends on what one would consider reparations?

[Harry Baldman]

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.

That's probably a question to ask after people in the US stop getting bent out of shape about people wanting to tear down Confederate monuments erected almost a century after the Confederacy specifically to remind black people about their place in the southern states, for example, or the housing inequality is rectified, or the black conviction rate doesn't massively exceed the white conviction rate, or the ICE is abolished and its members tried for their many, many crimes, or when any civil reform to do any of the former isn't hamstrung by more or less openly racist initiatives against it, and quite possibly a million other things beyond literally a token representation in the US presidency and neoliberal overtures toward diversification in the highest echelons of power. Or, to be more precise, it's not a question of when it'll end but when it'll actually start in earnest, if it ever will at all. And to tie it back in, it seems a more holistic understanding of racism may well be critical to beginning to make such reparations.

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.

The real point though is that "nuh-uh, black people can be racist too!" is fundamentally a dumb thing to get worked up about because black people hating white people is not a sentiment born in a vacuum, but as much a fruit of the completely fucked power dynamic passed down through history (and the culture that's unable to address and fix this) as white people hating black people. Atomizing these things and examining them individually prevents you from seeing the important context of things, such as black mistrust of white people being nowhere near as damaging on the whole as the systemic racism they receive in turn. It's more clearly visible for sexism, even, in that separating it into sexism against men specifically without taking into account the culture and relationship it originates from mangles the concept and does the actual suffering of men very little justice.

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.

"But what about the oppression of men" is by now an all-time classic, is all, for reasons already mentioned and elaborated upon with relation to race, some of them in this very post!

[wierd]

SMJJames:

You might be surprised.  Simply because there is not solidarity ("The south will rise agaaaiiin!!" [in the most horrible drawl you can muster], et al), does not mean that there is no trend toward that reckoning.

I am white. I acknowledge that the artificial successes of my ancestors, that hinged on racist BULLSHIT, have contributed to my current status of living.  Which is WHY i am totally down with genuine efforts to level that playing field.

However, arguments like "black people cant be racist" are just attempts at justifying the exact same kinds of racist BULLSHIT.  I denounce it with vengeance, BECAUSE I acknowledge that the racist bullshit is WRONG.

This is no different than a German denouncing Nazism, and the kind of thinking that enabled it. (I will remind you even, that even Germany lacks complete, comprehensive solidarity on that issue. There *ARE* nazi sympathizers living in Germany right at this very moment.)


Harry Baldman:

Your major error, is asserting that I think there is nothing wrong with that laundry list of things you just rattled off, because I happen to be white. Or that I turn a blind eye to those kinds of things--- because I happen to be white.

If anything, I find that *VERY* offensive.

[Harry Baldman]

Your major error, is asserting that I think there is nothing wrong with that laundry list of things you just rattled off, because I happen to be white. Or that I turn a blind eye to those kinds of things--- because I happen to be white.

If anything, I find that *VERY* offensive.

It'd be very troubling if you didn't find something wrong about them, I was just clarifying which direction the endpoint of the reparations needed was pointing since you did appear to genuinely ask (and we obviously have very different opinions of what "reparations" should entail). It's not enough to provide a notional equality of opportunity going forward when said equality of opportunity is tainted by a deep preexisting inequality, not to mention one directly traceable to particular human greed, malice and apathy.

[wierd]

Indeed-- However, eternal self-flagellation accomplishes precisely DICK.

Likewise, eternally decrying that your ancestors were enslaved accomplishes precisely DICK.

To wit--- The British.  Conquered by Rome.  Do they hold some deep seated grudge against Italians? Do they demand reparations from Rome?

Hell, nearly all of Europe, a good chunk of north africa, and a fair slice of the middle east all got to enjoy the yoke of slavery-- to Rome.

If we are going to ride that slipper slide about "cultural vacuums", why isn't there such irreparable hatred to Italians? Hm?

(I should remind you that Europe has FAAAAR more reason to hate Italians, than black americans do to hate white americans.  Why?  See how many CENTURIES the after-shocks of Rome's claim to dominance reverberated around the place, and how many people died.)

[smjjames]

If you want to get technical, those were Celtic peoples that got conquered by Rome, not Bretons or Anglo-Saxons, or whoever, which came later.

That may not be the best analogy though, separated as they are by time and space, while black Americans still share the same space as white Americans.

[wierd]

See the middle east. They are still fighting over things that happened in the bronze age.

[scriver]

If you want to get technical, those were Celtic peoples that got conquered by Rome, not Bretons or Anglo-Saxons, or whoever, which came later.

That may not be the best analogy though, separated as they are by time and space, while black Americans still share the same space as white Americans.

British is the appropriate word for the British Celts (which Britain is named after, and Breton, Brython, and the rest of those words derives from). Breton, Welsh, Irish and the rest are still Celtic peoples.

[Harry Baldman]

If we are going to ride that slipper slide about "cultural vacuums", why isn't there such irreparable hatred to Italians? Hm?

(I should remind you that Europe has FAAAAR more reason to hate Italians, than black americans do to hate white americans.  Why?  See how many CENTURIES the after-shocks of Rome's claim to dominance reverberated around the place, and how many people died.)

Because Rome got theirs already? I guess you could throw shit at the Pope about it if you wanted to, but I don't see even His Holiness having the power to mend whatever sins the Romans committed in your interpretation.

Colonialism, and specifically slavery in America, is something that's barely been dead a century and a half. More importantly, its ingrained culture of dehumanization still persists remarkably strongly, and many of its architects have rather pointedly never got their full due either legally or culturally, and furthermore, the class most privileged under colonialism are also the ones least sympathetic toward efforts to amend (not acknowledge, but amend, it should be stressed) the circumstances it fairly plainly produced.

Indeed-- However, eternal self-flagellation accomplishes precisely DICK.

Likewise, eternally decrying that your ancestors were enslaved accomplishes precisely DICK.

Agreed! It's time we marched in solidarity with Black Lives Matter in pursuit of positive social change rather than chat shit on the Internet. We're white so they won't put us in prison for doing that either, so it's really a win all around!

Or alternatively I guess we could just approach the matter with some nuance instead of saying black people can be racist too and also there was a black president before, well, the next guy, don't worry about the next guy, and considering the whole matter settled.