I took to transcribing videos before and then people complained about that. So I'm not doing that again.

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 could rest the case right here. That's just like it.

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.

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 ??

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.

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!

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.

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.

Nor will he be perceived the same as a white guy with the same experiences.

No. Race is important and racism exists.

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.

I'm pretty sure you will just ignore the evidence of racial bias in the US.

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.

Okay can you show me this data, I'm going to respond when I'm home in a couple of hours.

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".

What does this have to do with what I posted?

So black kids get less pain medicine because of their "culture"? Explain how that works.

You cited no data at all.

Obviously poor white people experience prejudice. Why are you bringing this up in a discussion of racism? It's irrelevant.

That's what racism is.

You still aren't acknowledging that racial prejudice exists. Your whole post is one big deflection.

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.

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.

Because what I'm talking about is prejudice, not racism.

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.

Marketing makes it sound like we should lie to folks. Privilege is honest. What are it's synonyms?

Yes, I know you are changing the subject.


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.)

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.

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.

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.

Then talk to me about issues you care about and not about this ****.

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.

Do you advocate punching them or stopping them talking?

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.

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.