Confessions of a Neckbeard
Apr. 8th, 2012 06:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
inverarityFollowing 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
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.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
_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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-04-09 09:54 pm (UTC)(*nods*) It's because I believe in the fundamental equality of all human beings, qua human beings.
The fact of the matter is, because of centuries (or even millennia) of oppression, certain actions and words have a special meaning and thus a special effect on victimized groups.
That is something which the individuals belonging to these groups must learn to overcome. Seriously -- this sounds harsh, but the only way to claim one's human equality is to practice it -- which is to say to grow thicker skins. And I am quite aware that this is sometimes hard, but it is the only way to secure one's equality as one's own inherent right, rather than as a gift dispensed by some generous outside authority (which note, can take that gift away on a moment's notice should the member of a "victim group" displease them).
The point is, you should treat everyone with respect and dignity--in terms of that, you should treat all groups the same. But because everyone is different, what it means to treat them with respect will necessarily be different for everyone. In the case of groups historically (and presently) subject to oppression, I really don't think it's too much to ask not to engage in actions which reflect that oppression.
Yes. Actually it is. Going out of one's way to be nicer to an individual because he or she belongs to a group that was historically oppressed means that one does not really respect his or her standing as your own equal.
Now, going out of one's way to be nice to people on general principles is another matter. But note that some of the people linked to in the original post explicitly state that they have the right to be rude to white males, and that those white males do not have the right to be rude back to them.
That argument I will accord no respect.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-09 10:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-09 10:09 pm (UTC)*sigh* I assume you do not belong to one of the "victimized groups" we're talking about. However, even if you do, the following point still holds.
What you're saying is that people who belong to "victimized groups" should all have to overcome hundreds of years of oppression, while people who do not belong to such groups do not have to do this. In other words, you are saying that the responsibility for overcoming a long history of oppression lies with the oppressed groups themselves. This is very much not okay. The responsibility lies with the oppressors.
Given all the advantages white males have in today's world because they are white males, this really should not be a big deal.
the only way to claim one's human equality is to practice it
Oh, give me a break. Equality is not something you "practice" (I have no idea what that even means). Rights only mean anything if they are respected by others, and ideally protected by an outside authority (and yes, I am aware that the "gift" can be taken away "on a moment's notice"--that's why we invented the Constitution). What, you think during Jim Crow all black people had to do was "grow thicker skins"?
Going out of one's way to be nicer to an individual because he or she belongs to a group that was historically oppressed means that one does not really respect his or her standing as your own equal.
No, it means you recognize that while they are equal to you, they are also different from you, and since they are different they should be treated differently (yet still with respect obviously). Again: Because everyone is different, treating them with equal respect requires treating them differently. This is not complicated.
But note that some of the people linked to in the original post explicitly state that they have the right to be rude to white males, and that those white males do not have the right to be rude back to them.
That is not what they're saying. It's not a matter of being rude or polite. It's a matter of whether you're allowed to use slurs that have a long history behind them. Can you honestly not see that there's a difference between a black woman telling a white man he's a rabid animal, and a white man telling a black woman that? Here's a hint: The former was not commonly used to castigate an entire class of people for centuries.
Victims
Date: 2012-04-10 01:11 am (UTC)I was born and raised Jewish. So yet, I do belong to a group which was quite severely victimized: and is being victimized again east of the Atlantic. Though I realize that we're pointedly excluded from the list of "victim groups" currently popular among the Politically Correct.
And I was treated with extra suspicion, and even the threat of violence, in part because I "looked Jewish." Happened in New York City in the early 1980's. So it's not even purely historical or theoretical from my POV.
You know what? I don't let it dominate my life, and I don't imagine that I get any special rights or consideration for it. Nor do I hold that I am required to extend any special rights or consideration to anyone else based on their group identity -- only the rights and consdieration I extend to everyone, REGARDLESS of group identity.
What you're saying is that people who belong to "victimized groups" should all have to overcome hundreds of years of oppression, while people who do not belong to such groups do not have to do this.
Yes. Though, frankly, anyone who has personally suffered "hundreds of years of oppression" is advantaged, rather than disadvantaged -- they have enjoyed an incredibly long life. And I don't think we should repress the Long families -- they might just wind up leaving Earth on a starship if we do that.
Now, is this fair? Nope. But there is literally no way to make this fair, as both the oppressors and oppressed are usually dead, often long dead, in this sort of situation.
Ancient historical unfairnessess are inameliorable. All the people who are alive now can do is overcome their lingering consequences as best they can, and this means learning to be tough and determined, not learning to be whiny and demanding, because the former route leads to personal pride; the latter route leads to eternal dependence on Big Daddy State Justice.
In other words, you are saying that the responsibility for overcoming a long history of oppression lies with the oppressed groups themselves.
Yep.
This is very much not okay.
I'm sorry if this reality bothers you. Would you like to board the crosstime machine and emigrate to some more congenial reality, possibly ones with different human natures?
The responsibility lies with the oppressors.
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.
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? And how far, instead, have you gotten when you took responsiblity for your own life and began working to improve it -- not by petitioning other people for help, but by working hard and improving yourself?
Re: Victims
Date: 2012-04-10 01:32 am (UTC)Trust me, my friend, this isn't purely historical or theoretical for any oppressed group.
You know what? I don't let it dominate my life, and I don't imagine that I get any special rights or consideration for it.
I'm not suggesting that anyone get any special rights. The only special "considerations" I uphold are ones based on the equal respect everyone deserves.
But there is literally no way to make this fair, as both the oppressors and oppressed are usually dead, often long dead, in this sort of situation.
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html
There are people being oppressed right now as we speak, so please quit the "But everyone's dead and there's nothing we can do!" shtick.
Ancient historical unfairnessess are inameliorable.
*bzzzt* Sorry, this is factually incorrect. Try again?
All the people who are alive now can do is overcome their lingering consequences as best they can, and this means learning to be tough and determined,
Oh for the love of all that is holy, give me a fucking break. People cannot overcome centuries of oppression through strength of will. Life is not anime where you get to power a giant robot with your courage. Sexism and racism will not die just in case women and minorities grow thicker skin. I can't believe we're even debating this.
not learning to be whiny and demanding, because the former route leads to personal pride; the latter route leads to eternal dependence on Big Daddy State Justice.
Let me get this straight: In Jordan179 World, asking that people not play into centuries-old tropes of oppression is being whiny and demanding, and will result in totalitarian socialism. Makes sense.
(Me) In other words, you are saying that the responsibility for overcoming a long history of oppression lies with the oppressed groups themselves.
Yep.
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, but we don't even have to do anything to ameliorate the consequences of that oppression! Good thing there isn't a hell, am I right?
I'm sorry if this reality bothers you. Would you like to board the crosstime machine and emigrate to some more congenial reality, possibly ones with different human natures?
Haha, "human nature," that's rich. You may be right that white men will never make up for all the shit that's been done in the past, but if so that isn't because of "human nature." It's because people like you don't want to face the facts of their own privilege.
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. Of course, the same holds true for me as well. The difference is that I'm not trying to pour salt on the wound.
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.
And how far, instead, have you gotten when you took responsiblity for your own life and began working to improve it -- not by petitioning other people for help, but by working hard and improving yourself?
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?
Re: Victims
Date: 2012-04-10 01:53 am (UTC)*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.
Re: Victims
Date: 2012-04-10 02:04 am (UTC)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.
Re: Victims
Date: 2012-04-10 02:06 am (UTC)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.
Re: Victims
Date: 2012-04-10 02:22 am (UTC)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.
The Sainted Martyr Treyvon Martin
Date: 2012-04-10 07:53 am (UTC)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: The Sainted Martyr Treyvon Martin
Date: 2012-04-10 08:04 am (UTC)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.
Re: The Sainted Martyr Treyvon Martin
Date: 2012-04-10 08:17 am (UTC)This is true but it doesn't really matter.
It matters because the whole notion that Zimmerman was obsessed with Martin's race comes from the dishonest editing of the tapes. Zimmerman didn't even mention Martin's race until asked "what race is he?"
... He still followed Martin despite being expressly told not to.
True, but merely following someone does not constitute reasonable provocation to assault and battery.
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, ...
???!!!
Sorry ... did you grow up in a very low-crime area? Teens just under the age of majority, if at all "bad," tend to commit a lot of minor crimes, precisely because they know that they won't do a lot of time if convicted of them.
... especially people older and bigger than them, ...
Zimmerman was about 30 lbs heavier than Martin, but also several inches shorter than Martin. Since Martin probably didn't know that Zimmerman was armed, it may well have looked like not too unreasonable a fight to start and expect to win.
... for no reason.
Ah, but if Martin was part of a "thug" culture -- as his Twitter account implies -- he had a "reason." Just not a very good reason.'
Zimmerman would have been "dissing" Martin by asking him questions and following him. Martin would have felt that his "street cred" was imperiled if he suffered such an insult without administering a beating to Zimmerman.
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.
Because 17-year-olds are notoriously impulsive, because Martin's Twitter site indicated that he belonged to a thug culture, and because thug cultures are notoriously aggressive, and because people usually do not shoot other people for absolutely no motive other than "you're suspicious."
Oh, and Zimmerman is Hispanic, though to me that doesn't matter that much. Nor does it matter much to me that Martin was black -- if he'd belonged to one of the white criminal subcultures, I'd suspect that he started the fight for the exact same reasons.
Haha nice joke in the subject line you're a comic genius
Date: 2012-04-10 08:33 am (UTC)No it doesn't. It comes from the fact that our culture considers all black young men to be inherently suspicious in a way non-black young men aren't. If you don't know this, then this shows (yes) your privilege.
True, but merely following someone does not constitute reasonable provocation to assault and battery.
Please stop debating with the me inside your head; it's really starting to get annoying.
Teens just under the age of majority, if at all "bad," tend to commit a lot of minor crimes, precisely because they know that they won't do a lot of time if convicted of them.
And so Trayvin Martin thought, "Sure, I only came out to buy some snacks, but what the fuck, I'll beat this random guy up"? *shakes head*
Ah, but if Martin was part of a "thug" culture -- as his Twitter account implies -- he had a "reason."
Oh God, now you're psychoanalyzing a dead teenager based on a fucking Twitter account? In the future, before you bring your mighty brain to bear on the mindsets of people you've never met, at least get your information from a website that's not right-wing:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/08/2738118/what-trayvon-martins-social-media.html
"He loved rap music and enjoyed cracking jokes on Twitter about street culture." [emphasis added]
and because people usually do not shoot other people for absolutely no motive other than "you're suspicious."
*beep* *beep* Your privilege is showing!
Re: Victims
Date: 2012-04-10 02:15 am (UTC)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: Victims
Date: 2012-04-10 02:28 am (UTC)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: Victims
Date: 2012-04-10 08:00 am (UTC)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.
Re: Victims
Date: 2012-04-10 08:10 am (UTC)I really was not. But if you want me to be absolutely crystal-clear: individual need.
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).
Racism and sexism are not solely about personal opinions. v_v
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?
Ummm...because minorities and women obviously have it worse off than whites and men?
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?
...Seriously? Um, well, there's no slavery for one. Women are allowed to work, all adults are allowed to vote (technically)...was this supposed to be a trick question?
By your definitions, I see absolutely nothing effective that anyone can do to help the situation.
You are correct. No one can do anything, as an individual. As a group, however--or a social movement, say--something most certainly can be done. Historically speaking actually, progress on these fronts has always come about because of social movements, not because individual people changed their minds about race and sex.
Blah blah blah liberals are the real racists blah blah
Thank you very much for psychoanalyzing me over the internet. I feel like I know myself so much better now after having someone I've never met explain to me exactly how I think.
EDIT: Did you read the article about colorblind racism?
Re: Victims
Date: 2012-04-10 08:26 am (UTC)I read it two years ago, the last time someone pointed me to it. It's a load of crap. To begin with, it's a contradiction in terms, unless we define "racism" as "any statistical disparity between the condition of races on any matter whatsoever," which is a definition of "racism" that pretty much ensure you will find it in any culture in which two races differ in any subcultural aspects whatsoever, since culture affects average capability at specific tasks.
I direct you to the extensive writings of Thomas Sowell on the topic, specifically Race and Culture. Oh, and by the way -- he's a Person of Color, so you have to defer to him.
Re: Victims
Date: 2012-04-10 08:38 am (UTC)I suppose it was only a matter of time before you started spouting the "Black people are worse off not because of their genetics, but because of their culture!" card. As if centuries of oppression by whites had no impact on black culture.
I direct you to the extensive writings of Thomas Sowell on the topic, specifically Race and Culture. Oh, and by the way -- he's a Person of Color, so you have to defer to him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell#Critical_reception
"Sowell was also criticized for an editorial in which he stated that the Democratic Party played the Race card, instigating ethnic divisions and separatism, and argued that a similar situation occurred between the Tutsis and the Hutus in Rwanda."
Yeah, I think not.
http://lilt.ilstu.edu/gmklass/pos334/archive/sowell.htm
The unsucessful races have been put off by hard work and seem as beneath them to do it. The races that become sucessful "pay their dues" by hard work and saving that eventually leads to bigger and better things. The races that are not willing to work or save become stuck in their ways and remain poor.
Holy fucking shit is he suggesting black people are disadvantaged because they're lazy? Because that is straight up, 100% racism.
EDIT: Allow me to explain. "Black people are lazy" is a very old racist trope that goes back centuries. It doesn't necessarily have to do with genetics--plenty of white slaveowners thought they were taking black people out of the "barbaric culture" of Africa into the "civilized culture" of the West.
Even if I admit that this culture difference exists, and I'd like to see the data first, the fact that Powell just takes this difference as a brute fact without analyzing why there's a difference shows he's not really interested in ending racism. Again: You think maybe the whole "centuries of oppression" had an impact on this? Perhaps? Maybe?
Guilt
Date: 2012-04-10 01:16 am (UTC)That's very nice. And I tell you that I am a white male, and I am not going to give anyone any special help or consideration for not being a white male. And furthermore, I take the demand that I should to be itself quite HIGHLY oppressive, especially if backed with force.
And why not? I didn't do anything to oppress non-whites or non-males. And if someone else chose to favor me because of my magic "white male privilege," that was their choice.
I ... only ... feel ... guilty ... for ... things ... I ... do. I do not feel guilty for things that others do. The reason why is that I only control my own actions -- not the actions of others.
The term for this is "responsibility." The term for accepting unearned guilt is "neurotic guilt."
Practicing Equality
Date: 2012-04-10 01:22 am (UTC)Oh, give me a break. Equality is not something you "practice" (I have no idea what that even means).
To "practice" equality is to consider yourself to be fundamentally equal to others, and to treat other people as fundamentally equal to yourself, with your judgement of them being as individuals rather than members of a group.
If Mr. Able, who is white, respects Mr. Baker, who is black, as a fellow human being, and demands such respect in return as a condition of his own respect, then he is "practicing equality." If Mr. Able despises Mr. Baker for being black and demands excessive respect from Baker while treating him contemptuously, then he is being racist. But if Mr. Able gives Mr. Baker unearned respect while demanding little in return because Baker is black, then he is also being racist.
Rights only mean anything if they are respected by others, and ideally protected by an outside authority (and yes, I am aware that the "gift" can be taken away "on a moment's notice"--that's why we invented the Constitution).
If rights inhere equally in humans qua humans, then they are harder to take away. (Indeed, the logic of such a position was strong enough to lead to the abolition of black slavery in America). But if rights are distributed by the State to members of groups based on the groups they belong to, the distribution can always be changed, and no one is secure in the enjoyment of his rights.
What, you think during Jim Crow all black people had to do was "grow thicker skins"?
No, because they were legally disadvantaged, so they had to repeal Jim Crow. And now, during Affirmative Action, whites need to repeal Affirmative Action, for a milder version of the SAME REASON. People have rights as individual humans, and these rights are the SAME for all people.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-10 01:24 am (UTC)Ah. Maybe since members of different groups are equal but different, they should get special facilities designed for these groups? Shall we call this "Some groups are more equal?" Or maybe "separate but equal?"
Again: Because everyone is different, treating them with equal respect requires treating them differently. This is not complicated.
People are different as individuals. They must be judged and treated accordingly as INDIVIDUALS. To treat them differently because of their group membership is to treat them unequally, even if you hop up and down and chant the mantra "equally!" forever.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-10 01:42 am (UTC)That's very nice. And I tell you that I am a white male, and I am not going to give anyone any special help or consideration for not being a white male. And furthermore, I take the demand that I should to be itself quite HIGHLY oppressive, especially if backed with force.
Not just oppressive, but highly oppressive, eh? I dare you to say that to someone who's suffered actual oppression. Well, if you ever manage to get off that high horse at least.
I didn't do anything to oppress non-whites or non-males.
Well, except for arguing in this thread that their oppression doesn't matter.
I ... only ... feel ... guilty ... for ... things ... I ... do. I do not feel guilty for things that others do.
Get over yourself. I have never asked or implied that you feel guilty for your white privilege. Almost every time I've seen white privilege be brought up, you always get a white person (usually a guy) who whines about how I didn't do anything so why should I feel guilty.
It's not about feeling guilty. It's about how non-white people are still at a disadvantage vis-a-vis white people, and to not acknowledge that makes you an asshole. Whether or not you feel guilty is up to you, but you need to at least acknowledge the fact.
To "practice" equality is to consider yourself to be fundamentally equal to others, and to treat other people as fundamentally equal to yourself, with your judgement of them being as individuals rather than members of a group.
All right. Still don't see how oppressed groups doing this will end their oppression, but whatever.
But if Mr. Able gives Mr. Baker unearned respect while demanding little in return because Baker is black, then he is also being racist.
*rolls eyes* "Unearned respect," give me a break. At the very least he earns more respect because Mr. Able has benefited throughout his life from white privilege that simultaneously harmed Mr. Baker.
If rights inhere equally in humans qua humans, then they are harder to take away.
Oh, wouldn't it be great if that were true? And you accuse me of being unrealistic...
No, because they were legally disadvantaged, so they had to repeal Jim Crow. And now, during Affirmative Action, whites need to repeal Affirmative Action, for a milder version of the SAME REASON.
Oh my God. Not only are you equating Jim Crow with affirmative action ("milder version," nice save), but you're also implying that the only way oppression can exist is through the law. Are you for real?
Shall we call this "Some groups are more equal?" Or maybe "separate but equal?"
I repeat: Get off your fucking high horse. This is not at all what I'm talking about and you damn well know it.
To treat them differently because of their group membership is to treat them unequally,
Except their group membership is part of their individuality. So to ignore their group membership is to ignore an essential element of their identity.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-09 11:05 pm (UTC)But, let's take, oh, John Derbyshire's (http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire#axzz1rJPlABLB) recent rant, which was so screamingly racist that the National Review promptly distanced themselves from him, and you have to practically be wearing a white hood and burning crosses before the National Review will call a white man a racist.
But Derbyshire was very civil and used perfectly polite language in explaining that black people are violent, dangerous, and subhuman.
So according to you, if someone were to write a response in which they call Derbyshire a racist piece of shit while tearing into his argument, that person would be morally in the wrong because calling Derbyshire a racist piece of shit is rude, and Derbyshire wasn't rude.
Note that I'm not talking about whether calling him a racist piece of shit is a great rhetorical strategy - it probably isn't. But if someone expresses some truly vile opinions, and someone else uses intemperate language in response, and people then refuse to listen to the response because "You're using nasty language", that's the kind of bullshit the "tone argument" addresses.
The Problem With Argument By Invective or Force
Date: 2012-04-10 01:35 am (UTC)Being a member of a "persecuted group" which rose above persecution precisely by doing that, I think members of other persecuted groups would be wise to follow our example. And it's hard for "their life experience" to "teach them that" if everyone is telling them "You were persecuted so you deserve specially nice treatment now and if you don't get it you should focus your energies on getting it rather than on succeeding personally."
In fact this was a major issue in black America -- remember the argument over the "talented tenth" versus "all the people?"
So according to you, if someone were to write a response in which they call Derbyshire a racist piece of shit while tearing into his argument, that person would be morally in the wrong because calling Derbyshire a racist piece of shit is rude, and Derbyshire wasn't rude.
Not only would that person be morally wrong, more importantly that person would be arguing INEFFECTUALLY. A neutral observer, who knew nothing of the facts at issue, would note that Derbyshire was making his points in a polite and rational manner, while the other person was impolite and arguing by insult, and would conclude even before considering the arguments that something was probably wrong with the other person's arguments, because he was unable to state his case CALMLY and LOGICALLY.
Note that I'm not talking about whether calling him a racist piece of shit is a great rhetorical strategy - it probably isn't.
Well, think about it. Suppose that Adolf Hitler calmly and reasonably outlines how Jews have had a negative impact on every known society, and a Jew then responds to his well-reasoned points by saying "You filthy Nazi barbarian! You molested your own neice!"
If you knew nothing about Hitler or the Jews, what would you conclude from this exchange about the likely merits of the two positions?
Argument by insult has the significant weakness that it will only convince someone who already agrees with the argument. And even then, if the person be fair-minded, it may cause him to doubt the argument, because of the tone of the speaker. This is true even if the argument is true.
This is more than theoretical. Look at how Austria gave credence to David Irving's Holocaust denial by answering his logical points by imprisoning him. And, as a long-time student of World War II, I can with authority tell you that David Irving was factually wrong.
Generally speaking, when someone feels the need to argue by invective, it indicates a logical weakness in their position. This is not always true -- in particular, politicians may employ invective to emotionally sway their audiences -- but it does beg the question why the person can't make the point more calmly.