|
Transage (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dykes_on_Jay |
| Y'all are more sensitive than ching chong chinese:toothless |
|
|
| Jon_Snow |
| If the police shot half as many transgenders [sic] as they did niggas last year, it’d be a ing war in LA! |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
I'll take a stab at the "whites can't be racist" question, then. Always good to be a contrarian once in a while.
| quote: | Originally posted by idoru
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue:
Cite your sources, buddy. |
The guy is most likely referring to prejudice plus power, an (in)famous sociological definition of racism as a phenomenon that was developed by anti-racist activists in the 1970s. Try googling the name Patricia Bidol. It stipulates that since the dominant/majority demographic in a hierarchically structured society will have more power and agency than a minority demographic group, bigotry and/or racism towards the former can be deprioritized or labeled as negligible. In the US, that dominant group is obviously whites.
The massively simplified "you can't be racist towards whites" trope, then, is a side effect of that definition. It spawns ignorance of class based hierarchy that transcends identity (progressives and anti-racist activists are usually urban and middle to upper middle class), waves away bigotry towards whites on a micro level (such as the Sarah Jeong x NY Times Twitter debacle), lumps jews in with whites, conveniently providing space for left wing antisemitism (The Women's March is catching major flak for associating with Louis Farrakhan and his idea of the "satanic" jew) and inflames racial tension by painting a specific identity as tyrannical and oppressive, sowing discord and turning classes on themselves (which in turn causes havoc among Marxists and anarcho-communists, who can't agree on which part of western society that needs to die first). This is what happens when you try to fix inequality in society by simply messing around with its superstructure.
Now, you could definitely argue that right wingers and centrists like to inflate the real impact of this idea to fuel the "cultural marxism" boogeyman, which is an easy source of clicks and donations. It's not just some Alex Jones tier conspiracy theory, though. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
centrists like to inflate the real impact of this idea to fuel the "cultural marxism" boogeyman |
Hey, most centrists (myself included) think "cultural marxism" is about as dangerous as "neoliberalism" and vampires :p |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
It stipulates that since the dominant/majority demographic in a hierarchically structured society will have more power and agency than a minority demographic group, bigotry and/or racism towards the former can be deprioritized or labeled as negligible. |
I dont think that is the stipulation at all from reading some of this . I obviously agree that it is an attempt at redefining the word and a distraction to real class struggles, but I think the stipulation presented is that the power to enforce one's prejudice is essential in determining whether something is racist or not. Not that prejudiced behavior gets carte blanche if it comes from a minority group. |
|
|
| Jon_Snow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Hey, most centrists (myself included) think "cultural marxism" is about as dangerous as "neoliberalism" and vampires :p |
Vampires aren’t what they were used to... You can’t even depend on even them |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
Don't get me wrong, there's a hell of a lot to critique about the current leftist discourse, and the climate of shrill censorious mob rule makes it difficult to critique it constructively sometimes.
I imagine what luckystrike is trying, somewhat ineptly, to say is that male and female behaviour isn't entirely the creation of social conditions. And I would generally agree with that. A lot of leftists would argue off the edge of a cliff that every aspect of "male behaviour" (for example) is just invented by society, when a great deal of it is quite clearly rooted in things like hormone levels that are determined by biological sex. |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| quote: | Originally posted by wotyzoid
I dont think that is the stipulation at all from reading some of this . I obviously agree that it is an attempt at redefining the word and a distraction to real class struggles, but I think the stipulation presented is that the power to enforce one's prejudice is essential in determining whether something is racist or not. Not that prejudiced behavior gets carte blanche if it comes from a minority group. |
Well yes, that was my point. The classification of certain behavior (bigotry from the dominant group) as racist, from an idpol perspective, is ultimately a way of classifying something as an oppressive force contributing to inequality. If certain behavior does not qualify as such under this definition (bigotry from a minority group), the idpol perspective now displays it as less of or not a problem.
The reason I worded my post more pragmatically is that I don't necessarily agree with this definition, and because I've seen plenty of progressives who have espoused this more pragmatic version of the argument. They most likely realize that flat out classifying bigotry as "not bigotry" on the basis of skin color makes for very bad optics, no matter what your rationale for doing so is.
To clarify: I'm not claiming that the definition gives anyone carte blanche for bigoted behavior, but rather that when bigotry does come from a minority group, activists give it more leeway and less or no focus, since it now doesn't fall under the definition's classification of an oppressive force. This is fairly clear cut motivated reasoning. After all, these definitions have been carefully written and modified to aid activists in the propagation of a specific ideology.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Hey, most centrists (myself included) think "cultural marxism" is about as dangerous as "neoliberalism" and vampires :p
|
I was going more for center-right here. ;) |
|
|
| LoveHate |
| quote: | Originally posted by wotyzoid
Big difference in whether you wear a dress or not and whether you qualify for social security. |
Good point, plus being a house music lover I should be more accepting of alternative lifestyles
I'm working on it |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
 |
|
|
| Woony |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J ...
when a great deal of it is quite clearly rooted in things like hormone levels that are determined by biological sex. |
The problem I see here is that it's a pretty big leap to go from biological facts like hormone levels to some kind of essentialist conception of behaviour within society. Lets say ok, men are biologically dispositioned to cry less due to hormone levels. You could probably rightfully argue that on average, men in societies show less emotion than women. But that still doesn't tell us anything about what an essentialist conception of men's emotion should look like since there clearly is a huge range of behaviourial differences in different times and different societies. When people, especially right wingers, invoke biological differences they are almost always trying to invoke a fairly specific, essentialist conception of behaviour that doesn't really follow from the biological facts they laid out. Ie. something like, men cry less -> mens role in society should be to stay away from emotion as much as possible. It just rarely seems useful to the discussion at hand.
That said, parts of the identiarian left are clearly moving backwards in their erasure of the role of basic biology. The goal of the radical feminist project used to be to flatten any differences between the sexes that don't immediately follow from direct biological differences ie. to abolish gender. When you claim that sex is entirely socially constructed, you are ironically moving to a position that is more socially-restrictive than the old one, since inevatibly, differences that cannot be flattened because they are biological are posited and affirmed as essentialist, socially constructed gender identities which means abolishing gender becomes impossible. This can, for example, be clearly seen in parts of the LBTQ community, where due to insane and backwards trans-activism (Male-to-Female trans persons can have periods, too!), periods are now longer a basic biological function but some kind of magic, essentialist ritual that is part of being a "women". This means, having a period as a women is no longer something that you can just shrugg off as your body being an and then go back to being whatever the you want socially, but instead you are forced to participate in a completely unecessary perfomative ritual of social gender identity - "oh, I'm having a period, am I not being so girly? Lets get some chocolate & red wine and watch rom-coms!" |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | | The problem I see here is that it's a pretty big leap to go from biological facts like hormone levels to some kind of essentialist conception of behaviour within society. Lets say ok, men are biologically dispositioned to cry less due to hormone levels. You could probably rightfully argue that on average, men in societies show less emotion than women. But that still doesn't tell us anything about what an essentialist conception of men's emotion should look like since there clearly is a huge range of behaviourial differences in different times and different societies. When people, especially right wingers, invoke biological differences they are almost always trying to invoke a fairly specific, essentialist conception of behaviour that doesn't really follow from the biological facts they laid out. Ie. something like, men cry less -> mens role in society should be to stay away from emotion as much as possible. It just rarely seems useful to the discussion at hand. |
You’ve touched on the real problem, which is that it has become a culture war where the reasoning of the left seems to over-compensate to the stupidity of the right and ends up painting itself in ridiculous corners. The end result of this is a watering down of a worthwhile cause and the kind of debate we’ve had in this thread. |
|
|
|
|
