U.S. Politics

[sexbelowsound]

11 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Cultural appropriation is the strangest thing - it seems to me like a goal rather than a transgression - I'd like to live in a culture made from the best bits of lots of cultures (and in many ways I do.)

 

 

Hippy.  

[StefanAVFC]

I'm not really a SJW or anything like that (probably the least left part of my views tbh) so there's parts of this I don't agree with but it's only fair to post the whole thing and I'll bold the bits I really agree with.

Quote

This victim complex of the right wing and largely white males is to me completely absurd, you are the majority, white males have basically complete control over society on every level. Social culture puts masculinity as the sole dominant trait while everything else becomes subservant. (which also effects men who don't live up to a masculine ideal) The idea that white men are oppressed is so absurd it's laughable.

Yes you are privileged for being white, even the poorest white man will have certain privileges in society that someone with dark skin will basically never have. This is due to racist social conditioning. It's the same thing as living in a first world country is a privileged, the poorest person in the UK, is probably 10000x better off than the poorest person in Bangladesh.

I have the privilege of being a minority with white skin, so I get treated completely differently in public than even my family members because I take after my white mother.

People need to recognize this shit. What Feminists and Identity Politics people say in general is not full of shit. The Gender Quota thing has very real academic reasoning and backing behind it, because largely women are completely overlooked for leadership and hiring positions because of sexist attitudes. I've seen this with my own eyes at work, the best female workers get passed over for some jock retard who gets along with the boy club alpha males at the top of the organization.

This is easily seen in Labour statistics, Sociological studies etc. The Government doesn't want to give itself issues, there is no reason to make this stuff up.

Where I agree is that there is a certain very vocal element of Identity Politics that has become completely and utterly toxic. This is the "Lets shit on some Hippie because he has Dreadlocks and that's wrong because of a incredibly stretched definition of cultural appropriation, oh also people aren't allowed to do Yoga anymore blah blah blah", or the "No you can't talk about class you brocialist, black people come before your emancipation".

These people aren't fighting for social justice, they're pretentious as **** hipsters who want to bully people to make themselves feel good and have found an outlet where they can do it and make themselves feel morally superior.

I'm a left wing activist, I have to deal with these types all the time but honestly they are a minority and they are rarely the thing the right really bitches about. The Right uses these types of people as a excuse to pretend all criticism of their actions is censorship.

And this is the important thing that especially the right wing needs to learn

Criticism is not censorship, being called out as a racist when you say racist shit is not censorship, critiquing **** video games for being sexist is not censorship.

Something I learned very quickly is the right wing do not want freedom of speech, they want the right to be able to say or do anything without consequence.

The last sentence is particularly true.

[Mantis]

I'm right-wing and I don't think people should be able to say anything without consequence. There is a middle ground.

[Keyblade]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

I'm not really a SJW or anything like that (probably the least left part of my views tbh) so there's parts of this I don't agree with but it's only fair to post the whole thing and I'll bold the bits I really agree with.

The last sentence is particularly true.

I wanted to respond to @OutByEaster? 's cultural appropriation comment but couldn't really articulate what I wanted to say. The parts you just highlighted in that article do a good job though 

[Awol]

Sorry but this line about white privilege is toss. 

Some white men are privileged, generally due to the circumstances of their birth - parents wealth, social networks etc. 

To say a normal white working class bloke is inherently more privileged than ANY non Caucasian member of society is so obtuse it boils my piss. 

Privilege equates to wealth, power and status, not skin colour.  If you disagree please explain Keith Vaz.

It's also a fact that white men are the only demographic who can be legally discriminated against in the job market with some roles explicitly advertised as being open only to ethnic minority candidates and/or women, be that in the media, public services or elsewhere.

If a job was advertised as only open to white males the SJW's would hit the roof & people would rightly be facing legal action.

Equality of opportunity should mean exactly that, not some Animal Farm version of reality.

 

Edited November 21, 2016 by Awol

[snowychap]

3 minutes ago, Awol said:

please explain Keith Vaz

The people at Cern have got that on their to do list.

[Keyblade]

7 minutes ago, Awol said:

Sorry but this line about white privilege is toss. 

Some white men are privileged, generally due to the circumstances of their birth - parents wealth, social networks etc. 

To say a normal white working class bloke is inherently more privileged than ANY non Caucasian member of society is so obtuse it boils my piss. 

Privilege equates to wealth, power and status, not skin colour.  If you disagree please explain Keith Vaz.

It's also a fact that white men are the only demographic who can be legally discriminated against in the job market with some roles explicitly advertised as being open only to ethnic minority candidates and/or women, be that in the media, public services or elsewhere.

If a job was advertised as only open to white males the SJW's would hit the roof & people would rightly be facing legal action.

Equality of opportunity should mean exactly that, not some Animal Farm version of reality.

 

Facts about white privilege (in the U.S.)

-White people have at least a 50% upper hand when it comes to job applications for no other reason than being white. The advantage is even larger when compared to people with Muslim sounding names.

-White people are 18 times (!!!) less likely to be tried as an adult for crimes committed as a juvenile compared to their black counterparts.

-White people are stopped on the road 100% less often by the police than their black and Latino counterparts even though they have a 23% higher hit rate (i.e.: being found with contraband or committing a crime)

-After being stopped, white people are searched 400% less often than their black and Latino counterparts, even though they have a 56% higher hit rate in those situations

-Police are far less likely to get physical and use force on white people they suspect of committing crime

-In addition to that, but they are 350% less likely to be shot and killed by police despite the fact that

a.) 'The only thing that was significant in predicting whether someone shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black. . . . Crime variables did not matter in terms of predicting whether the person killed was unarmed.' and

b.) There is no correlation between the level of violent crime in an area and that area’s police killing rates.

-White people have an advantage when it comes to college admissions, making up 77% of enrollment in top schools despite being only 68% of the college age population. This is despite the fact that whites and minorities are equally unprepared for college

-This is proven by the fact that 57 percent of minority students with scores higher than 1200 out of 1600 (the SAT scoring scale changed to a maximum of 2400 points in 2005) on the SAT eventually received some sort of certificate or degree, compared to 77 percent of whites with similar scores.

-Redlining means that white people have the upper hand when it comes to housing. Minority renters are told about 10–12 percent fewer units than whites and are shown 4–7 percent fewer places by agents

-In 17 percent of the cases in that study, whites were offered a unit when blacks were told that none were available

-Over all, black prospective renters were presented 11 percent fewer rentals than whites, Hispanics about 12 percent fewer rentals and Asians about 10 percent fewer rentals. As prospective buyers, blacks were presented 17 percent fewer homes and Asians 15 percent fewer homes, but Hispanics were given the opportunity to see roughly the same number of homes as whites.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Keyblade

[Awol]

@Keyblade fair one about the situation in the US, I was talking about UK. 

For a so called melting pot America doesn't seem to manage race relations all that well, although in fairness you don't seem to have anything like the trouble Europe has with radical Islam. Swings and roundabouts I guess.

[Keyblade]

Just now, Awol said:

@Keyblade fair one about the situation in the US, I was talking about UK. 

For a so called melting pot America doesn't seem to manage race relations all that well, although in fairness you don't seem to have anything like the trouble Europe has with radical Islam. Swings and roundabouts I guess.

The U.S. is a very odd place. Luckily I'm Canadian, so things aren't anywhere near as bonkers up there  

I imagine things to be on much more of an even keel in the U.K. , which is why from what I can tell there isn't as much activism as there is in the U.S. 

[StefanAVFC]

@Awol I think most of what I posted is more relevant to the US, post-Trump which is why I posted it here.

And re: white privilege, I deliberately didn't bold a lot of what was said because a lot of the 'SJW' isn't stuff I agree with. It's the least left of my views. I wanted to make more of the point of this ridiculous 'white men are oppressed by calling them names' after there's been so much about how the left get triggered and need safe spaces.

[Keyblade]

I think the whole SJW movement has been completely blown out of proportion, and for good reason. It's the perfect way to bring people on side if you're the alt-right etc. Textbook reactionary politics. I've said it before, but the far right have played the game to perfection whereas the DNC and co have proven to be incredibly naive.

[Rodders]

the privilege word is a terrible red herring, an example of poor labelling. Preface it with "rich" and it's true, but then the point is effectively more of a class-based wealth distinction. Poor people / those struggling regardless of colour should all be allies in the same fight if the target is trying to get ahead in life, not getting bogged down in a hierarchy of disenfranchisement argument. I mean sure even at the lower levels I'm sure statistics will still advantage the white males, but those stats are pretty cold comfort to people living on the edge of poverty struggling to find a job. Telling them, "well on average you're still more privileged and more likely to have better luck in areas, X,Y,Z" would obviously invite a disparaging and perhaps colourful response. It means shit all if you're also struggling as much as their neighbour, and displays an awful lot of tactlessness on those bringing it up. ( I know you're not advocating it Stefan, just adding my thoughts on it ) 

 

That said as for the positive discrimination bit, I have no real problem with that, depending upon how it's handled. Two wrongs not making a right is a glib retort to the consequences of centuries of racial and male-based dominance. It might be unfair on the individual, but it's not on the collective. The dickheads in the past caused the mess. The mess is still there. The dickheads are long since dead. Who takes responsibility for sorting out the mess? Everyone, and if in some instances to help at least provide an image of hope that means involving some preference for minority groupings then so be it. You can't just leave it to making a couple of laws outlawing the old crap, and say, well we'll leave it to these issues to evolve naturally, slowly and so forth. There is a reason jobs are not open only to white males, they don't - in the collective sense - need it. 

Ingrained suspicions and prejudices take time to improve sadly, and I don't see why those who've been on the wrong end of the stick for so long should be made to wait unnecessarily longer for other people to change their long held views / traditions about the capacities for minorities / women to do a job. As long as you're not employing a lemming idiot to do a skilled job, and otherwise the qualifications are similar, holding a place available for a woman or an other minority grouping to assist the redressing of old injustices is healthy. It is collective responsibility, and having some awareness of why figures have been skewed in the past. There are still strong perceptual bias' that go against women more generally for example, and regulations are actually needed to provide the genuine equality of opportunity spoken. 

Obviously in an ideal world you wouldn't have any of this, but in an ideal world you wouldn't have all the history we've had either. 

 

[Awol]

15 minutes ago, Rodders said:

1) That said as for the positive discrimination bit, I have no real problem with that, depending upon how it's handled. Two wrongs not making a right is a glib retort to the consequences of centuries of racial and male-based dominance. It might be unfair on the individual, but it's not on the collective. The dickheads in the past caused the mess.

2)There is a reason jobs are not open only to white males, they don't - in the collective sense - need it. 

 

I've snipped out two things from your post.

On the first point you seem to be saying the sins of the father (or realistically of the great great grandfather) must be born like stigmata by the son.

I wonder do you hold post war generations of Germans and Japanese to this standard, or only single out your own countrymen to carry the mark of the beast? Why is that? 

The second point sounds like deeply patronising racial stereotyping. Whites don't need help it's all the others that do, how could they possibly make progress unless whitey gives them a leg up? 

Personally I think attitudes like that are part of the problem. 

[chrisp65]

28 minutes ago, Rodders said:

the privilege word is a terrible red herring, an example of poor labelling. Preface it with "rich" and it's true, but then the point is effectively more of a class-based wealth distinction. Poor people / those struggling regardless of colour should all be allies in the same fight if the target is trying to get ahead in life, not getting bogged down in a hierarchy of disenfranchisement argument. ......

That said as for the positive discrimination bit, I have no real problem with that, depending upon how it's handled. Two wrongs not making a right is a glib retort to the consequences of centuries of racial and male-based dominance. It might be unfair on the individual, but it's not on the collective. The dickheads in the past caused the mess. The mess is still there. The dickheads are long since dead. Who takes responsibility for sorting out the mess? Everyone.......

Ingrained suspicions and prejudices take time to improve sadly, and I don't see why those who've been on the wrong end of the stick for so long should be made to wait unnecessarily longer for other people to change their long held views.........

Obviously in an ideal world you wouldn't have any of this, but in an ideal world you wouldn't have all the history we've had either. 

 

several amens! through that post

[mjmooney]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Sorry but this line about white privilege is toss. 

Some white men are privileged, generally due to the circumstances of their birth - parents wealth, social networks etc. 

To say a normal white working class bloke is inherently more privileged than ANY non Caucasian member of society is so obtuse it boils my piss. 

Privilege equates to wealth, power and status, not skin colour.  If you disagree please explain Keith Vaz.

 

This is disingenuous. How many very rich black men are there, compared to very rich white men? 

The fact is, all other things being equal, you're far better off being white than black, in terms of job opportunities, treatment by police and other authority figures, etc., etc. 

[Xela]

11 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

This is disingenuous. How many very rich black men are there, compared to very rich white men? 

The fact is, all other things being equal, you're far better off being white than black, in terms of job opportunities, treatment by police and other authority figures, etc., etc. 

Straying from the original point, isn't the whole advantage thing just linked to the dominant race in that country? eg in Japan, all things being equal you are best off being Asian, specifically Japanese? Same as China, South Korea, Thailand, etc. 

edit: I know we're discussing US but was just making a broader point 

 

Edited November 21, 2016 by Xela

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, Xela said:

Straying from the original point, isn't the whole advantage thing just linked to the dominant race in that country? eg in Japan, all things being equal you are best off being Asian, specifically Japanese? Same as China, South Korea, Thailand, etc. 

edit: I know we're discussing US but was just making a broader point 

 

Not entirely true. White people have dominated outside of their countries borders at the expense of other races. Look at places like South Africa, where it's 80% black and being white has the most advantages.

Edited November 21, 2016 by StefanAVFC

[chrisp65]

Just now, Xela said:

Straying from the original point, isn't the whole advantage thing just linked to the dominant race in that country? eg in Japan, all things being equal you are best off being rich

Very rare to see someone with money excluded from anything worthwhile anywhere.

As a little local example, our office doesn't employ anybody of Somali origin. We're not anti-Somali. It's just that they almost all live in a particularly poor area of the town. What actually happens, is that we don't employ anybody of any colour or creed from that part of town. Sadly, their background, their schooling, their role models mean that their aspirations don't quite match up with taking 7 years in Uni to qualify as an architect.

But statistically, we don't employ Somali's.

[Xela]

7 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Not entirely true. White people have dominated outside of their countries borders at the expense of other races. Look at places like South Africa, where it's 80% black and being white has the most advantages.

Very true about SA but that was down to Apartheid, which is thankfully gone now. Is being white that much more of an advantage now? I genuinely don't know? 

I still think in the US, if you have a desire to do well and work hard you can still be successful even if you aren't white. The highest paid and most educated demographic is Asian Americans. Whether that is a cultural thing that pushes them on to succeed more than blacks and latinos, I don't know? 

[mjmooney]

OK, put it this way- would you rather be a poor white American, or a poor black American? Don't tell me there's no difference, there bloody well is.