Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
If feminism was dominating progressive politics and resulting in outcomes counter-productive to the goals of feminism, it would be reasonable to suggest rethinking the approach about how ones talks about the goals/concepts of feminism.
I don’t understand the point of this post. Are we pretending that black people in America haven’t been oppressed?
It’s also reasonable to consider that your ideal first step isn’t the ideal first step.
What is my ideal first step? Finding another way to group people in a way that better achieves improved outcomes for minorities?
Sounds like it. Seems like people who want to talk about white privilege aren’t focusing on fixing how we group people first, they’d like to stop being discriminated against before we try to change our whole language and categorization system around the world.
My point is that I mostly hear about white privilege and intersectionality in conversations from progressives. The language of progressives overwhelmingly seems to be that of identity politics, grouping people in ways that highlight division along artificial boundaries and don't align well with achieving political solutions in America, but actually end up being counter-productive politically.
And I’m telling you that when you say this to many people of color, they hear “we know you’ve been oppressed but you need to let that go right now for the greater good. We got your back.”
You're just substituting one kind of fragmentation with another. I don't really understand your point beyond that. Are we only to discuss the inequities that exist in our society which you approve discussion of?
Which is one of the big problems with the white privilege concept, these kind of comments. The validity of your point is judged based on the skin color of the person making them. There's little more offensive to folks who care about truth than living in that kind of world.
I'm making a distinction that isn't based on identity, but rather one that's fluid that people can move in and out of. Not only that, but there's some objective nature to this reality. Additionally, it's a grouping that's more accurately mapped onto wellbeing in America than race. And finally, it's a grouping that can actually form a political coalition that can help address some of the issues folks are looking to address.
Objective nature to reality? Other forms of segmentation are not objectively identifiable?
Yeah. Update: Did pretending the other side doesn’t do that enough to derail attempts at consolidation of disparate factions work?
Obama: we are all one America
Race isn't based on anything measurable. You can't determine race based on anything genetic as there are no white or black genes or grouping of genes. It's a social construct that people largely choose based on what they identify with, and it can change based on what they choose to be identified with.
And we will just hold off on addressing minority concerns until we work out this linguistic issue?
Obama rode the approach to victories in 2008 and 2012. Progressive society in general did not follow suit...they kept going with identity politics, demonizing those who disagreed with Obama, calling them racists (i'm sure some were, but not all were). Black lives matter rose in prominence, the LGBT issue rose in prominence, and folks were bombarded on all sides about how not accepting all these different things made them bigots.
I don't understand why you keep saying this as I never have said this or implied it.
I keep saying it because the plan you’ve put forth is “change the wording.” As though that fixes something. What is it the people you’re upset with for using the term White Privilege want?
I've answered this question multiple times already and I'm running out of other ways to answer it.
I apologize, I’m probably just being obtuse. They want you to feel guilty? Is that what you’re referring to? Because then, as Ivan mentioned, they’re idiots.
I'm not focused on "changing the wording" but the fundamental structure of the argument from a losing one to one more likely to win. It's not about semantics, it's about strategy and finding common ground to achieve goals.
I agree that a parallel strategy can and should be to change how we talk about race, class, and gender in this country, among other categories.
And that's fine, but the case I've been trying to lay out is that any strategy that furthers identity politics is unlikely to achieve its goals and has already been shown to have undesired consequences.
Here's an analogy you probably won't agree with, but here it goes: You seem to be saying that the people who have created a very unfair game to certain players, which they've been winning for centuries are all of a sudden going to make it more fair because they think it should be more fair and are tired of winning. Imagine the losers getting the creators to a negotiating table for a new rules summit and them not being able to discuss the inequity of the rules in the past. They have little to no power to begin with, the fact that they dealt with so much #### and are still even playing becomes a tangible piece and aspect of the game to them. Which the current players enjoying the rules can easily dismiss cuz, hey, the game is hard and they're just trying to survive as well... you don't see them on god mode, the advantage is barely noticeable now. But you and I agree it exists, let's just not mention it.
Because most of the people talking about this aren’t talking “politics” per se. They’re talking “life.” And “What life is really like right now.”
So again, might makes right? There's privilege in being white because white people have waged political battles along racial identity lines for centuries. It seems you give no weight to history. There are people still alive today that had to use different bathrooms, etc. Literally were unallowed to shop in certain stores or be in towns after dark. That was JUST happening. And people didn't decide one day that it was unfair and they should share the ability to buy goods and go poop in the same place... people had to FIGHT for that right. Die and bleed. And that blood, fight and struggle isn't valid currency to you. You speak like that was a favor done for them because it was fair and right.
I think it's a poor analogy because it doesn't really fit the key points of the situation, but mostly I think you miss my point.
Again, you're missing my point. Likely I'm doing a poor job of explaining myself, but I'll try once more:
Not just black people. My example initially was a Puerto Rican friend. But no, that's not my point.
There are two levels here:
And I'm saying that if black folks want people in power who can help them create systems, or reform systems, so that they're less likely to get shot by a cop next week or get a job, then they need to drop identity politics as a personal framework for how they see the world, and as a political framework. It's wrong in the former situation, and a flawed strategy in the latter.
, fine by me. I don't think you've accurately summarized what i've said after multiple attempts, so if spitting the hook means I won't continue trying to explain my point to you in a way you won't misrepresent, then that may be for the best.
Well, then it appears we are at one of those fundamental disagreement impasses the internet is so good for.
I don't think you even have the right thread, my friend.
(I'm laughing with, not at).
How anyone can feel ashamed about what they are not responsible for is beyond me. You just try to live a better life. Are things perfect?
Such an embarrassment. Then she tries to throw her staffers under the bus by saying they gave her the wrong information. Excuse me? Is it common for them to tell you what color the host is?LAUNCH said:
