Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > > >

Politics version 7.0 more politics.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-14-2017, 11:08 AM   #401
LordJvK
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
LordJvK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,489
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

I took to transcribing videos before and then people complained about that. So I'm not doing that again.
LordJvK is offline  
Old 02-14-2017, 11:11 AM   #402
dereds
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Meath
Posts: 16,792
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK View Post
I would wish to be more circumspect because generalisations are always prone to reduce or elide nuances. But I'd say that 100% of SJWs would be at least one of the things I've listed.
Okay but do 100% of the people who agree with one or more of the above qualify as SJWs?

Let's say that I consider privilege a useful concept, that my experience of the world is somehow related to certain facts about me, that my gender, ethnicity, class, sexual and gender identity all have some bearing on how I am treated. What is your objection? And what is so dangerous about my belief that these facts matter?
dereds is offline  
Old 02-14-2017, 11:12 AM   #403
spanktehbadwookie
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
spanktehbadwookie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: River Region
Posts: 19,376
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK View Post
Actually it is nothing like this at all. If you wish to insist that it is, please explain the terms of how this analogy works. It is not clear to me in the slightest.
I could rest the case right here. That's just like it.
spanktehbadwookie is offline  
Old 02-14-2017, 11:24 AM   #404
LordJvK
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
LordJvK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,489
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds View Post
Okay but do 100% of the people who agree with one or more of the above qualify as SJWs?

Let's say that I consider privilege a useful concept, that my experience of the world is somehow related to certain facts about me, that my gender, ethnicity, class, sexual and gender identity all have some bearing on how I am treated. What is your objection? And what is so dangerous about my belief that these facts matter?
I wouldn't like to say 100% the other way around, no.

I have long-standing objections to the notion of structural privilege as a concept because it functions like original sin.

Straight white men de facto in the wrong because they've even said a word and -- MOST importantly -- regardless of whether they have, in actuality, been the beneficiaries of "privilege". The average Donald Trump voter clearly didn't think so.

The biggest problem with all of it is that in the majority of cases, the identifier is actually a cipher for class and income.

A black guy who has been to Harvard, earns big money, and acts like a guy who has been to Harvard and earns big money will not be perceived in the same way as a black guy who acts like a gangster rapper.

Why would people have preconceptions based on that?

It just comes down to class, income, and growing up in a poor area associated with crime.

The black guy from the good in the USA and the white "chav" from the local council estate in the UK probably have a lot in common, AND they probably face the same amount of prejudice and assumptions about them based on their appearance (drawn from stereotyping).

Identity politics really *does not* get to the heart of this matter. It actually serves to reinforce the issue and insists on race and other markers as being demographic categories with meaning.

There is no wonder at all that working class white communities rejected this ideology thoroughly because no aspect of their lives bore out the claims being made about privilege.

---------

Now, you and I can have a sensible discussion around this. You might disagree and hold that there's still some value in the concept for reasons X, Y and Z.

I likely would not call you an SJW for this.

If, however, your response was built around accusing me of being a white supremacist or a "butt hurt white guy" or whatever, then I likely would call you an SJW.

Hope you can see this.
LordJvK is offline  
Old 02-14-2017, 11:38 AM   #405
Shame Trolly !!!1!
Neo-Gorean
 
Shame Trolly !!!1!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 4,824
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK View Post
... You might disagree and hold that there's still some value in the concept for reasons X, Y and Z. I likely would not call you an SJW for this. If, however, your response was built around accusing me of being a white supremacist or a "butt hurt white guy" or whatever, then I likely would call you an SJW...
So, for an OSJer to label a peep a SJWer, the peep needs to (a) meet at least one criteria on your list -and- (b) the peep must have previously labelled an OSJer in certain particular ways. Those ways include white supremacist, and "butt hurt white guy".

Do I have this correct ??
Shame Trolly !!!1! is offline  
Old 02-14-2017, 11:41 AM   #406
LordJvK
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
LordJvK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,489
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

The fault in the scenario is less the specifics and more the reasoning behind making that leap. The reasoning goes:

1. Arguments against identity politics for any reason must mean you are X
2. You made arguements against identity politics, therefore you are X

This drives me potty, especially where X is a pejorative label with the power to ruin someone's career.
LordJvK is offline  
Old 02-14-2017, 11:42 AM   #407
dereds
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Meath
Posts: 16,792
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK View Post
I wouldn't like to say 100% the other way around, no.

I have long-standing objections to the notion of structural privilege as a concept because it functions like original sin.

Straight white men de facto in the wrong because they've even said a word and -- MOST importantly -- regardless of whether they have, in actuality, been the beneficiaries of "privilege". The average Donald Trump voter clearly didn't think so.

The biggest problem with all of it is that in the majority of cases, the identifier is actually a cipher for class and income.

A black guy who has been to Harvard, earns big money, and acts like a guy who has been to Harvard and earns big money will not be perceived in the same way as a black guy who acts like a gangster rapper.

Why would people have preconceptions based on that?

It just comes down to class, income, and growing up in a poor area associated with crime.

The black guy from the good in the USA and the white "chav" from the local council estate in the UK probably have a lot in common, AND they probably face the same amount of prejudice and assumptions about them based on their appearance (drawn from stereotyping).

Identity politics really *does not* get to the heart of this matter. It actually serves to reinforce the issue and insists on race and other markers as being demographic categories with meaning.

There is no wonder at all that working class white communities rejected this ideology thoroughly because no aspect of their lives bore out the claims being made about privilege.

---------

Now, you and I can have a sensible discussion around this. You might disagree and hold that there's still some value in the concept for reasons X, Y and Z.

I likely would not call you an SJW for this.

If, however, your response was built around accusing me of being a white supremacist or a "butt hurt white guy" or whatever, then I likely would call you an SJW.

Hope you can see this.
Okay there's some stuff to unpack here so I'm going to respond later and without calling you a white nationalist. This leaves the problem then if agreeing with one or more of the above list doesn't qualify as a sufficient condition for SJW status what does. Is the supplementary component one who would criticise all those who disagree.

So we have a necessary condition.

Being mean to people that disagree with us.

+ one or more of the list above?

Ponied by ST!!!1!
dereds is offline  
Old 02-14-2017, 11:50 AM   #408
LordJvK
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
LordJvK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,489
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

As I said, less about "being mean" to anyone in particular, and more about using concepts derived from those things listed falsely to label someone as X, where X is a pejorative label with the potential to damage one's reputation and career. I've explained my reasons for this in the last post.

It's not actually a way of addressing the core critique of the ideas, it's a way of AVOIDING doing so.

If nothing else, this core strategy is profoundly anti-intellectual.
LordJvK is offline  
Old 02-14-2017, 11:56 AM   #409
13ball
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
13ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: No Quarter is a Sandy Hook Truther
Posts: 12,925
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK View Post
Straight white men de facto in the wrong because they've even said a word and -- MOST importantly -- regardless of whether they have, in actuality, been the beneficiaries of "privilege". The average Donald Trump voter clearly didn't think so.
All white people in the US are beneficiaries of the privilege. Their resumes get return calls at a higher rate than black people with more experience. White children are more likely to receive pain medication in hospitals.

I agree that the "average Trump voter" doen't believe these things are true.

Quote:
A black guy who has been to Harvard, earns big money, and acts like a guy who has been to Harvard and earns big money will not be perceived in the same way as a black guy who acts like a gangster rapper.
Nor will he be perceived the same as a white guy with the same experiences.

Quote:
It just comes down to class, income, and growing up in a poor area associated with crime.
No. Race is important and racism exists.

Quote:
Identity politics really *does not* get to the heart of this matter. It actually serves to reinforce the issue and insists on race and other markers as being demographic categories with meaning.

There is no wonder at all that working class white communities rejected this ideology thoroughly because no aspect of their lives bore out the claims being made about privilege.
We can show them the research that exists. I've done this over and over in this forum. The evidence is either rejected or ignored. And then people whine about identity politics.

Quote:
If, however, your response was built around accusing me of being a white supremacist or a "butt hurt white guy" or whatever, then I likely would call you an SJW.
I'm pretty sure you will just ignore the evidence of racial bias in the US.
13ball is offline  
Old 02-14-2017, 12:10 PM   #410
LordJvK
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
LordJvK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,489
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

I do not ignore evidence of racial bias, but the cause of racial bias is economic more than anything else.

Take the study in freakonomics on names. Why are people prejudiced about made-up or mis-spelled names vs. names like "Emily Anderson"? It doesn't take a lot to figure out that it's because it suggests all sorts of things about their background, level of education, and so on and so forth. That's clearly still WRONG, but the root cause is class, not race.

I mean they did a study recently in the UK that showed that someone called Adam is 3 times more likely to get called for an interview than someone called Mohammed. Why is that? Is it because employers care that Adam's skin is white and Mohammed's is brown? No, it's because they associate the word Mohammed with a set of events and attitudes. Now, clearly still WRONG, but the root cause here again is not really race, but culture.

I am talking about the root causes of prejudice using data, not making blanket statements about lots of people.

Poor white people also face invisible prejudices. If you turn up to a job interview in a pair of trainers and your dad's old suit because you can't afford a new one, and you've got a regional accent, you are at immediate disadvantage to the guy who is in the prestine suit speaking the Queen's English in crystal clear tones.

Prejudice exists because of real conditions on the ground, and people drawing conclusions based on their experiences of them, or based on what they've been told about them.

This gets much closer to an actual analysis of why these things happen than the hand waving gesture of saying "well X group has privilege and Y group are victims". That solves nothing, it actually just ends up making people of X group resent people of Y group more and vice versa.
LordJvK is offline  
Old 02-14-2017, 12:20 PM   #411
dereds
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Meath
Posts: 16,792
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK View Post
I am talking about the root causes of prejudice using data, not making blanket statements about lots of people.
Okay can you show me this data, I'm going to respond when I'm home in a couple of hours.
dereds is offline  
Old 02-14-2017, 12:33 PM   #412
LordJvK
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
LordJvK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,489
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

Freakonomics chapter on baby names: http://www.cc.ntut.edu.tw/~kmliu/fre...20roshanda.pdf

Adam / Mohammed story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-38751307

Note:

I think it is crucial to grasp here that someone could be either a. black or b. Muslim and still be called "Adam".
LordJvK is offline  
Old 02-14-2017, 12:34 PM   #413
13ball
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
13ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: No Quarter is a Sandy Hook Truther
Posts: 12,925
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK View Post
Take the study in freakonomics on names. Why are people prejudiced about made-up or mis-spelled names vs. names like "Emily Anderson"? It doesn't take a lot to figure out that it's because it suggests all sorts of things about their background, level of education, and so on and so forth. That's clearly still WRONG, but the root cause is class, not race.
What does this have to do with what I posted?

Quote:
I mean they did a study recently in the UK that showed that someone called Adam is 3 times more likely to get called for an interview than someone called Mohammed. Why is that? Is it because employers care that Adam's skin is white and Mohammed's is brown? No, it's because they associate the word Mohammed with a set of events and attitudes. Now, clearly still WRONG, but the root cause here again is not really race, but culture.
So black kids get less pain medicine because of their "culture"? Explain how that works.

Quote:
I am talking about the root causes of prejudice using data, not making blanket statements about lots of people.
You cited no data at all.

Quote:
Poor white people also face invisible prejudices. If you turn up to a job interview in a pair of trainers and your dad's old suit because you can't afford a new one, and you've got a regional accent, you are at immediate disadvantage to the guy who is in the prestine suit speaking the Queen's English in crystal clear tones.
Obviously poor white people experience prejudice. Why are you bringing this up in a discussion of racism? It's irrelevant.

Quote:
Prejudice exists because of real conditions on the ground, and people drawing conclusions based on their experiences of them, or based on what they've been told about them.
That's what racism is.

Quote:
This gets much closer to an actual analysis of why these things happen than the hand waving gesture of saying "well X group has privilege and Y group are victims". That solves nothing, it actually just ends up making people of X group resent people of Y group more and vice versa.
You still aren't acknowledging that racial prejudice exists. Your whole post is one big deflection.
13ball is offline  
Old 02-14-2017, 12:39 PM   #414
ogallalabob
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,448
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by 13ball View Post
All white people in the US are beneficiaries of the privilege. Their resumes get return calls at a higher rate than black people with more experience.
The liberals really need to work on their marketing.

The poor/middle class people should not be considered privileged. They understand they are not privileged. The fact they had to send a resume in at all and not have a rich mom/dad having the contacts to set up a interview is a sign of the lack of privilege.

Privileged is someone like Chelsea Clinton, with almost 0 charisma or on air time experience gets a $600,0000.00 gig with NBC.
ogallalabob is offline  
Old 02-14-2017, 12:44 PM   #415
13ball
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
13ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: No Quarter is a Sandy Hook Truther
Posts: 12,925
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

I've said before that I don't think "privilege" is the best word to use. But conservatives have been ignoring the concept of racial prejudice for years no matter what the label.
13ball is offline  
Old 02-14-2017, 12:50 PM   #416
LordJvK
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
LordJvK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,489
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by 13ball View Post
Obviously poor white people experience prejudice. Why are you bringing this up in a discussion of racism? It's irrelevant.
Because what I'm talking about is prejudice, not racism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 13ball View Post
That's what racism is.
No it isn't. Look again at what I've said:

Prejudice exists because of real conditions on the ground, and people drawing conclusions based on their experiences of them, or based on what they've been told about them.


Think about this.

If you go to a rough neighbourhood, do you feel safe to walk about on your own, yes or no?

Most people do not. Why?

- fear of harm coming to them because there is a higher chance of getting mugged or assualted or even killed.

This has ZERO to do with race, it has to do with prejudice based on economic conditions.

Now, if I wouldn't let a black man come into my house, or if I called him the N word, or if I wouldn't talk to him, or if I assumed that because I am white and he is black that I am better than him ... all of THOSE things are racism.

But the thing I am talking about is simply prejudice.

It's important to be precise in our definitions of words.
LordJvK is offline  
Old 02-14-2017, 12:52 PM   #417
spanktehbadwookie
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
spanktehbadwookie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: River Region
Posts: 19,376
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

Marketing makes it sound like we should lie to folks. Privilege is honest. What are it's synonyms?
spanktehbadwookie is offline  
Old 02-14-2017, 12:58 PM   #418
13ball
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
13ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: No Quarter is a Sandy Hook Truther
Posts: 12,925
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK View Post
Because what I'm talking about is prejudice, not racism.
Yes, I know you are changing the subject.


Quote:
No it isn't. Look again at what I've said:

Prejudice exists because of real conditions on the ground, and people drawing conclusions based on their experiences of them, or based on what they've been told about them.


Think about this.

If you go to a rough neighbourhood, do you feel safe to walk about on your own, yes or no?

Most people do not. Why?

- fear of harm coming to them because there is a higher chance of getting mugged or assualted or even killed.

This has ZERO to do with race, it has to do with prejudice based on economic conditions.
This is you assertion and it is backed by nothing. First, you ignore how economic conditions got so bad for African Americans in the first place. First it was overt discrimination (Jim Crow) and then it was covert discrimination (redlining).

And this is the reason you will get called a white nationalist: your analysis of race in America is IDENTICAL to the idiots on St0rmfr0nt. Except you don't say the N-word or call for deportations (I applaud you for this, btw: credit where it's due.)

Quote:
Now, if I wouldn't let a black man come into my house, or if I called him the N word, or if I wouldn't talk to him, or if I assumed that because I am white and he is black that I am better than him ... all of THOSE things are racism.

But the thing I am talking about is simply prejudice.
Racism and prejudice go hand in hand. People who are prejudiced against black people think they are better than black people. They say it's because of "culture" and etc. but that's just their way of pretending that it isn't about race.
13ball is offline  
Old 02-14-2017, 01:06 PM   #419
Trolly McTrollson
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Trolly McTrollson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Winesburg, Ohio
Posts: 31,683
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK View Post
In the second post I was talking about how Merkel would be perceived by far-right voters.

I happen to think "cuck" is a pretty apt and accurate insult though since it describes exactly the behaviour of those who constantly and persistently put the needs of other countries and peoples ahead of their own country and people. I'm fond of it for that reason, although I seldom use it because of the associations and because of complete morons like you who think that words have usage exclusive to certain groups.

I mean, it really isn't my fault that you cannot handle nuance.
I mean, you sort of give the game away here. You're here to parrot out alt-right gibberish you heard on yootoobe, but you're also just self-conscious enough to know that you have to keep some of the more embarrassing associations at arms length.
Trolly McTrollson is offline  
Old 02-14-2017, 01:18 PM   #420
Paul D
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Paul D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: L.H.O.O.Q.
Posts: 14,684
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK View Post
I think it's pretty insulting to say that I don't have the capacity to interpret real-world data. And also that I am never original in my thinking.

For example, my view that some degree of homogeneity and cultural cache is a good thing and is being lost because people don't really watch TV anymore is an analysis I haven't seen in many places.

My idea that 18 year olds don't know things any more because the process of passive osmosis that most of us picked up from growing up on TV, buying records, magazines and so on, which is lost in a world that privileges diversity and "going your own way" above everything else -- an on-demand culture, a dispersed culture -- as far as I know isn't a widely available view. If other people have made these arguments, I've not come across them.

I mean -- my career, my very livelihood -- has been built on making original arguments, so I find this swipe from Paul D pretty insulting. When have you and I EVER discussed anything for you to make this judgement on my ability to interpret things?

I don't know why you have continuously to demean other people in making your arguments.

And it's really rich this coming in an environment in which various people on the left just parrot endlessly the same talking points as they learn them off by rote. The left is infested by orthodox and herd-like thinking. It cements itself into dogma.

Yet, I'm the one who can't think for myself? GTFO
You routinely demean people. So you can **** right off with this self-righteous bullsheet. It's the problem with you anti-SJW people who spew off on the internet. You're hypocritical. You want the right to criticize and make blanket statements and not receive feedback.

If you want to come out of the internet troll package that Milo made popular and have meaningful discussions you have gone about it completely the wrong way.

I don't mime the left. I certainly disagree with a lot the Californian/West Coast faction/Sanders guys in the regular forums.

On economics, people who have advanced past the intro level courses understand that some policies are good, some are bad.
Paul D is offline  
Old 02-14-2017, 02:00 PM   #421
LordJvK
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
LordJvK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,489
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

Then talk to me about issues you care about and not about this ****.
LordJvK is offline  
Old 02-14-2017, 02:34 PM   #422
Paul D
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Paul D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: L.H.O.O.Q.
Posts: 14,684
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

You're the one railing on social justice warriors constantly instead of comprehending acting like a cretin for cretinous sake isn't really an argument... like in the cases of Milo and Spencer.
Paul D is offline  
Old 02-14-2017, 02:46 PM   #423
LordJvK
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
LordJvK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,489
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

Do you advocate punching them or stopping them talking?
LordJvK is offline  
Old 02-14-2017, 02:48 PM   #424
Paul D
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Paul D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: L.H.O.O.Q.
Posts: 14,684
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

If people shut them down with protests w/o violence. I'm fine with that. In Spencer's case I don't particularly think sucker punches are a nice response, but I'm not crying for him when he inflames that reaction.
Paul D is offline  
Old 02-14-2017, 03:00 PM   #425
Tien
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Tien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Eating NothingBurgers
Posts: 7,466
Re: !!! The opposition to Social Justice thread

I believe that silencing people like Richard Spencer, or even punching him in the face, is no harm done.

If someone wants to talk all day along about the benefits of communism, so be it, let him have the platform and engage their positions on its merits. At least I know its rooted in discussions about inequality, and not about the merits of massacring intellectuals.

But there is no engaging the merits of the positions of Richard Spencers. There is no merit behind Nazism. No economic merit, no social merit, no human benefit, nothing. Its simply reveling in the fact that some dude erased half the Jewish population from planet Earth.
Tien is offline  

 
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive