Confessions of a Neckbeard

[inverarity]

Following Christopher Priest's rant about the Arthur C. Clarke awards, there have been echoes reverberating all over the Internet, particularly as a result of Catherynne Valente's observation that a woman wouldn't get away with that shit.

This really shouldn't be that controversial. And yet, in the comments of Valente's own posts, as well as all the people talking about it, there are all these neckbeards engaging in lengthy diatribes about how it's so haaaaard to be a man and bitches be crazywomen can be so meeeeeeean!

I mean, some dude actually told Valente, after she recounted her own horrific childhood experiences of bullying and then stated that she's a rape survivor, that she had it easy! Because girls were totally mean to him in school!

Holy shit. Just STFU. STFU forever.

This strikes home for me because... I used to be That Guy. Okay, not the guy who told a rape survivor that women have it easy — I don't think I was ever that big of a douche. (If I was, I have thankfully blotted it from my memory and I'm just glad no one ever gave me the beat-down I deserved.) But I was your typical nerdy dude who was totally pro-feminism but could still pull out Mansplainin' 101 about how Women Don't Appreciate Nice Guys and Of Course No One Deserves To Be Raped But If You Walked Through Central Park At Night Flashing a Roll of Cash... and other classics in that vein.

I am pretty ashamed of my younger self, I am. (Not just for those things, but they certainly give me no small amount of painful recollection.)

I make no claim to perfection now. I try to engage viewpoints I don't agree with in a thoughtful manner, and if I still don't agree with them, I'll be measured in my disagreement unless it's just downright offensive or batshit insane. I keep a somewhat cynical eye on a lot of drama & social justice sites, agreeing with much of what is said, thinking that a lot more is rather unnuanced or self-serving or kneejerk, but unlike my younger self, I don't feel a need to jump in and say "U R RONG!" When I do get into it, I have learned to walk away from arguments that are unproductive or in which the other person is clearly a troll and sees all interactions as a win/lose binary that cannot be resolved until someone cries uncle.

The thing is, when this is an argument over Harry Potter, it's merely annoying, provoking a head shake and some eye-rolling, but when it's guys telling women that their silly lady-brains are seeing misogyny that doesn't really exist, it's contributing to the very thing they are claiming doesn't exist.

This also strikes home because of course I am a big genre fan, and I even like some of those big genre works that get neckbeards so het up when people criticize them. And yet, holy shit, the rage that spews out of the keyboard-wielding howler monkeys of the Internet when a woman criticizes the things they love!

Some (in)famous examples:

• Liz Bourke's eviscerating review of Theft of Swords.
  
• _allecto_ pretty much calling Joss Whedon a rapist.
  
• Sady Doyle calling George R. R. Martin creepy and misogynistic.
  
• Pretty much everything acrackedmoon writes at Requires Only That You Hate.
  

Now, I do not agree with what all of the above women say. And one can intelligently disagree with them. I mean, I think _allecto_'s criticisms of Joss Whedon, in particular, are reeeeeeeeally reaching (it's one thing to say you don't think his work deserves all its feminist accolades, it's quite another to say that perceived misogyny in his work means the man himself is a rapist). I haven't actually read A Game of Thrones so don't have much of an opinion on it, but Doyle does seem to stretch a few of her points a bit, and I understand she was pretty nasty to some feminist bloggers who disagreed with her. I love ROTYH, but I don't always agree with acrackedmoon (man, ACM, why you gotta keep harshin' on Evil Stevie? And I still like Harry Potter and The Name of the Wind, so nyah nyah!), and I think she can at times be a little too quick to go for the jugular.



But. All of these women get a shit-ton of nerdrage and fucking rape threats dumped on them. I read a lot of bombastic bloggers, male and female, and while men get namecalled and disagreed with, even at their most vitriolic it's usually more of a schoolyard let's-beat-each-other-up-and-have-a-beer-afterwards exchange that's as much backslapping as brawling. My worst and most nasty trolls did some taunting and dickwaving, but no one threatened me, and if they did, we'd both know they were full of shit and it was hot air. Kathy Sierra and Seanan McGuire have received death threats accompanied by personally identifying information.

What the fuck is wrong with these people?



ETA: Locked. Not because I'm a mean ol' lefty who can't stand to hear dissenting opinions (though I expect that's what jordan179 is going to claim), but because I have to go to work, I cannot access LJ at work, and I really don't want to read ten more pages of this shit when I get home.

Comments

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

You're still responding to what I'm saying in your head, and not to what I'm actually saying.

Women aren't inferior at dealing with hostile arguments from men because of their inherent womanliness. But if you've been socialized all your life to believe that (a) You ought to defer to men's wishes (b) You shouldn't talk as much as men do and (c) If you break the above two rules men are likely to harm you emotionally, physically, or both--is it any real surprise that "Shut the fuck up" carries a far more harsh and threatening tone when it comes from a man to a woman?

And yes, basically every woman in the West is socialized in those ways, because guess what? We still live in a sexist society so everyone is socialized to believe those things. The fact that some women manage to overcome it is heroic, but it's not something they should have to do. The responsibility for ending this state of affairs does not lie with the women, but with the men, because it's the men who created it and the men who benefit from it

You're the only one in this thread who's suggested we "coddle" women. What I'm suggesting is that if men play into sexist tropes when talking with women, they should be called out on it. And if they continue doing so even after being told not to, they should be publically shamed. And guess what? Doing the above things is actually far more empowering and affirming for a woman than stoically ignoring the sexist insults hurled at her.

Re: Victims

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Ancient historical unfairnessess are inameliorable.

*bzzzt* Sorry, this is factually incorrect. Try again?

How do you ameliorate them? Both the oppressors and the victims are mostly dead: we in the West live today in the most racially and sexually equal society the world has ever known. Punishing the descendants of oppressors to reward the descendants of the oppressed doesn't help the original oppressed and oppressors. All it does is to sustain the animosities. And in fact such amelioration is utterly impossible in terms of the sexual oppression of women by men, for the obvious reason that everyone is equally descended from both men and women.

Wow, it sure is great to be a white male, huh? Not only do we get to benefit from centuries of oppressing non-white males ...

You're assuming that oppression benefits the oppressors. While one might imagine this to be so, it often isn't in the longer run, because there is usually an effort which must be made to oppress, which detracts from benefits that might otherwise be gained through free and mutually-benefitting exchange.

Classic American case: the white plantation owners of the prewar South certainly benefitted in the short run from slavery -- until it led directly to the Civil War, and to the South's own inability to win because slavery had crippled her own culture. Those white plantation owners paid the price of their own oppressiveness for decades, in both blood and treasure.

Was even worse for the black slaves and later former slaves, but just because the blacks had it worse doesn't mean that the whites had it better than they would have had it if slavery had NEVER EXISTED.

That's nice. Since I'm not one of the "oppressors", save by tautological claim, and indeed in most cases the actual oppressors are either long-dead or very old by now, that diffuses the responsibility very nicely.

You are benefiting from the oppression right now. I'm given to understand that in a legal context that means some of the responsibility of the crime falls upon you.

Crimes require specific perpetrators and victims. Whom, specifically, have I victimized?

Otherwise, your concept of a "crime" is a free-floating abstraction which can never be punished nor repaid. But that's ok, because you say

Of course, the same holds true for me as well. The difference is that I'm not trying to pour salt on the wound.

which means that you aren't accepting any punishment or offering any restitution either, but you can feel morally superior about it. And, of course, superior to the "oppressed" groups, who don't get to make your noble choice. White Man's Burden, indeed :D

Consider your own life, though. How far have you ever gotten in achieving any end by claiming that someone else is responsible for your own situation?

If it's actually true that someone else was responsible for my situation? Pretty damn far, actually. That's kind of what the entire criminal justice system is based on, after all.

In that case you accuse or prosecute the particular individual(s) who have hurt you and try to get restitution from them. However, you are talking about nebulous groups here, rather than particular individuals, and in consequence the assignment of responsiblity to others can never be resolved, and all that one is left with on the part of the members of the victim groups foolish enough to buy your argument is a general sense of "the world owes me something."

That attitude never leads to success.

Not to be all "Godwin's Law"-ish, but do you think Trayvon Martin's mistake was that he didn't "take responsibility for his own life"--well, when he still had it at least?

Well, yes -- if he hadn't decided to double back and physically attack Zimmerman, Martin would be alive today.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

Just one question: Do you think institutional sexism and racism still exist now, in the year 2012?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I agree with you that too many women are socialized to defer to men. I, personally, prefer to associate with women who are not so socialized, in part because I am very aware of the flip-side of this "deference" -- which is manipulativeness. I prefer women who are strong and honest.

And yes, basically every woman in the West is socialized in those ways ...

Why do you confine your statement to "in the West," when it is precisely the women "in the West" about whom this statement would least be true (though still true to some extent)? The limitation is interesting, because it suggests that you imagine that women are more oppressed in the West than they are in (say) East Asian, Muslim or African nations -- and the reality is the opposite, namely they are far more oppressed outside than inside the modern West.

The fact that some women manage to overcome it is heroic, but it's not something they should have to do. The responsibility for ending this state of affairs does not lie with the women, but with the men, because it's the men who created it and the men who benefit from it.

Then the state of affairs will never end, for polite as you or I may be to women, some men will always be jerks (just as some women will always be jerks) and hence the women who have not overcome it will feel intimidated by the obnoxious men.

Your statement is, in short, logically equivalent to "we should end war by all becoming pacifists," which never works because some will always choose to remain warlike.

Whereas if women themselves learn not to let themselves be intimidated by "male privilege," then this privilege becomes meaningless because the "privileged" man is reduced to just hopping up and down and throwing a tantrum. Which looks pretty silly.

Oh, and I didn't say that the woman should ignore the sexist insults. Oh, no. She should call attention to them, and point and laugh at the silly person who is arguing illogically. And I will heartily join in this laughter.

But treating these insults as a display of real "privilege?" That's giving them more respect than they deserve.

Would you like me to get some women I know to comment on this thread? They're even women "of color," if that matters to you. Heck, some of them might agree with you

Re: Victims

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

How do you ameliorate them?

Helping out people who still suffer from that oppression today would help a lot. (I'm not advocating reparations because poor white people are also suffering from the long history of classism in this county. Rather, I'm advocating welfare.)

Both the oppressors and the victims are mostly dead: we in the West live today in the most racially and sexually equal society the world has ever known.

And yet we're still very very far away from having true racial and sexual equality.

Classic American case: the white plantation owners of the prewar South certainly benefitted in the short run from slavery -- until it led directly to the Civil War, and to the South's own inability to win because slavery had crippled her own culture.

True. But the majority of white plantation owners who ever lived luckily (for them) died before the Civil War occurred. So while I agree oppression only helps in "the short run," that short run can oftentimes be really damn long.

Also both of us are right now benefiting from the oppression of non-white males and we will likely never pay the price for that (at least, not an economic price). So there's that.

Crimes require specific perpetrators and victims. Whom, specifically, have I victimized?

It's not about you. Stop thinking about this in terms of individual people; sexism and racism has never been about this.

The deal is this: Our current society is set up to favor whites over blacks and men over women. No one is personally at fault for this--there's no evil cabal of white men running the world. It's the result of centuries of oppression. The finger of blame can only be pointed at the society as a whole, not at any actual individual person.

I am not saying that you are personally at fault for racism and sexism. I am not saying that you are personally a racist or sexist (although you probably are, as am I, because we grew up in a racist and sexist society and it's damn hard to get away from that). I am saying that you, me, and every other white male benefits from living in the society that we do, and just because we did not ourselves cause this state of affairs does not mean we have no responsibility to try to end it.

which means that you aren't accepting any punishment or offering any restitution either, but you can feel morally superior about it. And, of course, superior to the "oppressed" groups, who don't get to make your noble choice.

Please get off your high horse. I freely admit I haven't done nearly enough to help ameliorate the situation. That's a personal failing. But again, at least I'm not trying to make the situation actively worse.

and all that one is left with on the part of the members of the victim groups foolish enough to buy your argument is a general sense of "the world owes me something."

That attitude never leads to success.

Actually it oftentimes does. Ever read/hear Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech? Remember the dominant metaphor in it?

Well, yes -- if he hadn't decided to double back and physically attack Zimmerman, Martin would be alive today.

Aaaaand this conversation is over. Have a nice day.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

To some extent, yes. Though not always to the benefit of white males any more: some of it directly benefits particular nonwhite groups, or women.

I want to see equality under the law, not a grant of privilege A, B and C to whites and D and E to males countered by F and G to blacks, H, I and J to females, and so forth. Making the system of privilege more complex is not the same thing as making it more equal or fair.

Re: Victims

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Well, yes -- if he hadn't decided to double back and physically attack Zimmerman, Martin would be alive today.

Aaaaand this conversation is over. Have a nice day.

I'm sorry ... you should have explained to me that you believe as unchallengable dogma that Martin didn't strike first. I was assuming that this was a matter of evidence and law, not assertion and shunning of those who disagreed with you.

That's enough of that

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

Would you like me to get some women I know to comment on this thread? They're even women "of color," if that matters to you. Heck, some of them might agree with you

No. If you recruit your buddies to do a dogpile here, I am locking this thread.

Look, jordan179, I know what your politics are and you know what mine are. We're diametrically opposed. I have been giving you leeway here, but I am already getting tired just having to read all these comments and knowing there will be a flood in my inbox tomorrow when I get up, and even more when I get home from work, if I leave this post unlocked, which right now I am thinking is unlikely. So you've had your say, and let's just agree that we both think the other is one is sun-orbiting-the-earth wrong, mmkay?

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

and the reality is the opposite, namely they are far more oppressed outside than inside the modern West.

First of all, that's not necessarily true. They're oppressed in different ways; whether it's better or worse is arguable. (Well, sometimes it isn't--but I'd really hesitate before suggesting Japan, say, or South Africa is more oppressive for women than America.)

Second, I have far more experience with Western culture than non-Western culture (unfortunately for me) so I didn't want to generalize to things I was unfamiliar with. Apparently you do not possess this hesitancy. That is one of the differences between us.

Then the state of affairs will never end, for polite as you or I may be to women, some men will always be jerks (just as some women will always be jerks) and hence the women who have not overcome it will feel intimidated by the obnoxious men.

Stop individuating this. I am not saying I want individual men to stop being jerks. I couldn't give half a shit about what individual men do. What I want is for the society and culture to change. When it does, what individual men do will mean fuck-all.

Whereas if women themselves learn not to let themselves be intimidated by "male privilege," then this privilege becomes meaningless because the "privileged" man is reduced to just hopping up and down and throwing a tantrum.

It's not about "not being intimidated." It's not about "growing thicker skin." It's about the fact that when they get into a conflict with men about this, society will tend to side with the men (as shinygobonkers described above, albeit in a different and far more horrifying context). Kind of hard to overcome that through self-determination.

Oh, and I didn't say that the woman should ignore the sexist insults. Oh, no. She should call attention to them, and point and laugh at the silly person who is arguing illogically. And I will heartily join in this laughter.

And when a bunch of other people come in and say, "Sure, that sexist insult was bad, but really it's not a surprise that it happened because you were kind of uppity" or some variation? And shocking as this may seem, not all women have the benefit of people like you to back them up in these situations. What if everyone turns against them? This isn't exactly rare.

Would you like me to get some women I know to comment on this thread? They're even women "of color," if that matters to you. Heck, some of them might agree with you

If you want.

Re: Victims

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

How do you ameliorate them?

Helping out people who still suffer from that oppression today would help a lot. (I'm not advocating reparations because poor white people are also suffering from the long history of classism in this county. Rather, I'm advocating welfare.)

Would this welfare be distributed in part on racial criteria, or would it be distributed on the basis of individual need? And from where is the money to originate?

Both the oppressors and the victims are mostly dead: we in the West live today in the most racially and sexually equal society the world has ever known.

And yet we're still very very far away from having true racial and sexual equality.

What would "true racial and sexual equality" look like? How would people treat other people in such a system? Would they take their race and sex into consideration in situations not biologically determined (such as the shape of urinals)? If so, then how is this "equality?" If not, then how is this different from what I am advocating?

Crimes require specific perpetrators and victims. Whom, specifically, have I victimized?

It's not about you. Stop thinking about this in terms of individual people; sexism and racism has never been about this.

Oh, I'm glad it's not about me. If it's not about me, I don't have to feel guilty for it -- I only feel guilty for choices I have made. Again, this is "sanity."

The deal is this: Our current society is set up to favor whites over blacks and men over women. No one is personally at fault for this--there's no evil cabal of white men running the world. It's the result of centuries of oppression. The finger of blame can only be pointed at the society as a whole, not at any actual individual person.

How convenient for you. This means you don't actually have to do anything about it. Except pontificate about how enlightened you are by "realizing" this.

I am not saying that you are personally at fault for racism and sexism. I am not saying that you are personally a racist or sexist (although you probably are, as am I, because we grew up in a racist and sexist society and it's damn hard to get away from that). I am saying that you, me, and every other white male benefits from living in the society that we do, and just because we did not ourselves cause this state of affairs does not mean we have no responsibility to try to end it.

I try to end it for MYSELF by judging others on their own merits, rather than giving or taking points to or from them based on their group membership. You claim that this is "racism" -- if so then it is a very odd kind of "racism."

Re: That's enough of that

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

But wait ... the two women of whom I was thinking are Women Of Color! Are you saying that you will use your white male privilege to drown out their non-white female voices? Oh, forfend such an evil day!

(*laughing*)

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

To some extent, yes.

Good! So you agree that, "to some extent," women and minorities are still oppressed, and you benefit directly from that oppression, yes?

Though not always to the benefit of white males any more: some of it directly benefits particular nonwhite groups, or women.

Please don't bring up affirmative action; it really is not very important and I don't feel like debating it. Not as much as I don't feel like debating Trayvon Martin's murder, but still.

EDIT: When I say affirmative action is "not very important," I mean that it in no way constitutes either racism or oppression of anyone and so I don't see a need to argue about it in the context of this conversation. Obviously as an issue in itself it is important, no matter what your stance on it is. (I personally think we should probably have class-based affirmative action instead of race-based, but considering stuff like this I can see where the support for race-based affirmative action comes from.)

I want to see equality under the law,

I am not suggesting legal reparations and have never suggested legal reparations. I am suggesting that we actively try to enact social and cultural change. One part of that--a small part perhaps, but still a part--is to put a stop to our current situation where men get to say whatever they want, while if women step out of line they get volleys of sexist insults and rape threats hurled at them.

You are suggesting that the solution to the above situation is for women to grow thicker skin. I am suggesting that the solution is to get men to stop hurling sexist insults and rape threats. That is the debate we are having.

Re: That's enough of that

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

Ho ho hee.

Re: Victims

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

I find it sadly ironic that you accuse me of holding "unchallengable dogma that Martin didn't strike first," when your comment clearly showed you believe he did strike first despite the fact that, at the very least, there's no evidence for either of our theories. So if you really did believe this was "a matter of evidence at law," you'd be agnostic.

Of course, all the evidence we do have, including: The fact that he was a 17-year-old kid with skittles and iced tea, testimony from everyone else on the scene, the fact that Zimmerman shows no signs of being injured in the police video, etc., supports my view. The only evidence that supports your view is...Zimmerman's testimony. Congrats.

Oops, looks like I broke my promise not to debate this. Oh well.

Re: Victims

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

Would this welfare be distributed in part on racial criteria, or would it be distributed on the basis of individual need?

Reread my post then try again. (Hint: Note the part where I say "I am not advocating reparations.")

And from where is the money to originate?

Progressive taxation. That was easy.

What would "true racial and sexual equality" look like?

I have no idea and neither do you. All I know is that we're not there yet, not by a long shot.

Oh, I'm glad it's not about me. If it's not about me, I don't have to feel guilty for it -- I only feel guilty for choices I have made. Again, this is "sanity."

I have neither stated nor implied anything different.

How convenient for you. This means you don't actually have to do anything about it. Except pontificate about how enlightened you are by "realizing" this.

Read my goddamn posts. I have not done everything I can to help the situation, and that is my personal failing. You do not have to be enlightened to realize this. I certainly am not--I'm just some guy. You just have to have eyes that see (metaphorically; blind people can do it too) and a brain that things.

I try to end it for MYSELF by judging others on their own merits, rather than giving or taking points to or from them based on their group membership. You claim that this is "racism" -- if so then it is a very odd kind of "racism."

http://www.tolerance.org/magazine/number-36-fall-2009/colorblindness-new-racism

Not that I expect this to actually get through to you, but hope springs eternal as they say.

Re: That's enough of that

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

I apologize for the role I played in this, er, situation. As you know, I have yet to conquer my "People are wrong on the internet!" urge.

To be fair, unlike the times with He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, at least we're not hurling insults at each other...

Re: That's enough of that

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

That's why I didn't shut this down. I just really don't want a hundred messages and a multi-person flamewar to wade through when I get home from work tomorrow.

Re: That's enough of that

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. If it starts degenerating into a flamewar, I promise you publicly I'll bow out.

[alicetheowl.livejournal.com]

*facepalm*

Whoof. Your privilege is showing.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Good! So you agree that, "to some extent," women and minorities are still oppressed, and you benefit directly from that oppression, yes?

Yes, I agree that "to some extent" women and minorities are still oppressed.

No, I do not agree that I "benefit directly from that oppression." That formulation implies a limited social pie which cannot grow or have its rate of growth affected under any circumstances. The relevance of this here is that to the degree that there is still irrational prejudice against any groups in society, this shrinks the rate of growth. I would benefit the most from a society in which the minimum possible irrational prejudice existed.

Though not always to the benefit of white males any more: some of it directly benefits particular nonwhite groups, or women.

Please don't bring up affirmative action; it really is not very important and I don't feel like debating it.

"Affirmative action" is highly relevant to the issue, since it shows that whites and males can suffer racial and sexual oppression, rather than being barred from such oppression by their magic "privileges." Furthermore, not all of the direct victims of "affirmative action" are white or male. To wit:

I am very personally aware of the effects of such quotas because my mother suffered from such a quota. Not because she was white or female -- because she was Jewish -- in the 1940's, Columbia University practiced "affirmative action" against Jews. Because Jews tended to have higher than average marks, colleges in that day set maximum quotas of Jewish students they would accept. Today, we directly oppress East Asians in the exact same manner, despite the fact that they are "persons of color" in the (absurd) PC parlance.

EDIT: When I say affirmative action is "not very important," I mean that it in no way constitutes either racism or oppression of anyone and so I don't see a need to argue about it in the context of this conversation.

Whites, East Asians and males are apparently not "anyone" in this context. Or do they deserve to be selected against because of the sins of their ancestors? Btw, of what did these consist in the case of the East Asians against whom we today select? Are we getting revenge for Pearl Harbor? The Korean War? The Mongol invasion of Europe? Inquiring minds want to know ...

Not as much as I don't feel like debating Trayvon Martin's murder, but still.

You directly asked me a question about the shooting of Trayvon Martin, otherwise I would have said nothing about it as it was not very relevant to the issue at hand.

I am not suggesting legal reparations and have never suggested legal reparations. I am suggesting that we actively try to enact social and cultural change. One part of that--a small part perhaps, but still a part--is to put a stop to our current situation where men get to say whatever they want, while if women step out of line they get volleys of sexist insults and rape threats hurled at them.

Women being incapable of insulting men right back because what, the Privilege Police will come arrest them for Violation of Male Privilege? (Incidentally, if the host cares to let my Woman of Color friend on this post, you'll probably be shocked on this topic) :)

"Rape threats" are not only immoral and illogical but actually illegal, which suggests several obvious remedies.

You are suggesting that the solution to the above situation is for women to grow thicker skin. I am suggesting that the solution is to get men to stop hurling sexist insults and rape threats.

I'm suggesting a solution which is actually within the power of each individual woman to achieve and does not require generations of social change. In other words, a practical solution, while your solution essentially allows you to feel moral while it does nothing to help the women involved -- since even if you are extra special super duper nice to every mammalian life form with an "XX" sex chromosome pair, the female will still eventually encounter some male who is not nice at all -- and be utterly unprepared to fight back.

Re: That's enough of that

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Seriously -- you're talking about what conduct needs to be practiced towards Women and People of Color in the abstract, but you don't seem to eager to hear from any such entities who you aren't pretty sure will agree with you on every issue raised. Why is that?

The Sainted Martyr Treyvon Martin

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I find it sadly ironic that you accuse me of holding "unchallengable dogma that Martin didn't strike first," when your comment clearly showed you believe he did strike first despite the fact that, at the very least, there's no evidence for either of our theories. So if you really did believe this was "a matter of evidence at law," you'd be agnostic.

Actually, when I first heard about this case, I assumed from what I'd heard that Zimmerman was a White Male suffering from the delusion that all Non-White Males are criminals and had shot the young man when he either tried to flee or verbally stand up for himself. In other words, I believed exactly what you did.

Then, I heard some more about the case. In particular, that Martin was behaving suspiciously; that the first media reports had very dishonestly edited Zimmerman's conversation with the 911 dispatcher; and most importantly that Zimmerman had already given up following Martin when Martin turned back and launched a serious and unprovoked physical attack on Zimmerman. Which, if true, rather makes a difference, doesn't it?

Of course, all the evidence we do have, including: The fact that he was a 17-year-old kid with skittles and iced tea, testimony from everyone else on the scene, the fact that Zimmerman shows no signs of being injured in the police video, etc., supports my view.

How does being 17 years old or carrying skittles or iced tea make one incapable of launching an unprovoked physical attack on somebody else? The testimony varies: at least one eyewitness reported Martin on top of Zimmerman. As for the video, that was taken after Zimmerman had received medical attention and been cleaned up.

I'm not saying that the evidence makes it iron-clad that Martin started a fight for no good reason, but it certainly blows holes in the original story that Martin was just minding his own business when Zimmerman inexplicably shot him.

Re: Victims

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Would this welfare be distributed in part on racial criteria, or would it be distributed on the basis of individual need?

Reread my post then try again. (Hint: Note the part where I say "I am not advocating reparations.")

You were unclear on this question in your original post. I ask again: "Would this welfare be distributed in part on racial criteria, or would it be distributed on the basis of individual need?"

And from where is the money to originate?

Progressive taxation. That was easy.

As long as it is distributed in a race- and gender-blind fashion, as much as possible, I have no problem with this that I would not have with any other scheme of economic redistribution.

What would "true racial and sexual equality" look like?

I have no idea and neither do you.

Sure I do. It would be a society in which your "race" or sex did not affect anyone else's opinion of you save in very narrow biological terms (he sunburns easy, she can bear children).

All I know is that we're not there yet, not by a long shot.

If you have no idea what true racial and sexual equality looks like, how do you know how far away we are from achieving it? If it's anything other than color-blind and sex-blind, which is what I advocate, then how do you know that (for instance) the modern West is more racially and sexually equal than the 18th century West, or for that matter World War II Imperial Japan?

By my criteria the reasons why we are superior in that regard are obvious. But by yours?

How convenient for you. This means you don't actually have to do anything about it. Except pontificate about how enlightened you are by "realizing" this.

Read my goddamn posts. I have not done everything I can to help the situation, and that is my personal failing.

By your definitions, I see absolutely nothing effective that anyone can do to help the situation. This allows you to confess a "personal failing" and feel superior to other Privileged White Males who fail to make this confession. Even more, since it puts you in the "privileged" position of being able to act while poor benighted Non-Whites and Women only get to re-act, it allows you to feel good old-fashioned racial and sexual superiority while pretending that you are feeling the OPPOSITE.

Nice racket.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

So you didn't actually have a logical response to any of my points? The accusation of "privilege" is unfalsifiable, which makes it a logically null statement -- it is identical to saying "Whoof. You're a white male." Indeed, since the assumption is that white males can never understand, it's both racist and sexist, just in the opposite direction.

Re: The Sainted Martyr Treyvon Martin

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

In particular, that Martin was behaving suspiciously;

According to Zimmerman.

that the first media reports had very dishonestly edited Zimmerman's conversation with the 911 dispatcher;

This is true but it doesn't really matter. He still followed Martin despite being expressly told not to.

and most importantly that Zimmerman had already given up following Martin when Martin turned back and launched a serious and unprovoked physical attack on Zimmerman.

According to Zimmerman. (And seriously, you think that actually happened? It makes less than zero sense.)

Which, if true, rather makes a difference, doesn't it?

If true.

How does being 17 years old or carrying skittles or iced tea make one incapable of launching an unprovoked physical attack on somebody else?

Because normally we don't expect 17-year-old kids to attack people, especially people older and bigger than them, for no reason. I wonder, why do you think this is such a strong possibility in this case...?

The testimony varies: at least one eyewitness reported Martin on top of Zimmerman.

Can I get a link for this? I tried a Google search and the only people I could find saying this were random comments and right-wing websites.

As for the video, that was taken after Zimmerman had received medical attention and been cleaned up.

In the police car, supposedly. And yet he shows no signs whatsoever of injury. If he had really gotten beaten up, shouldn't there at least be some bruises or something?

I'm not saying that the evidence makes it iron-clad that Martin started a fight for no good reason,

And yet you stated this:

Well, yes -- if he hadn't decided to double back and physically attack Zimmerman, Martin would be alive today.

You sure sounded pretty certain there.

I would also like to repeat that I find it really strange that you think a 17-year-old attacking somebody for no reason is a more likely turn of events than a white guy (or I think he's half-Hispanic or something?) thinking a black kid is suspicious and so shooting him.