• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Random Politics Thread

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,568

I think worker owned enterprises are no especial guarantee of anti-oppressive employment. Bizarrely they can be a breeding ground for authoritarianism too and bullying, harder to challenge as you're meant to be working in a liberated, empowered environment.

This happened in the woman's liberation movements in the seventies and eighties when many of the women involved in them got into conflicts with feminists leading them (sometimes as self-appointed leaders) as they felt their ideologies did not relate to their experience and did not actually represent them that well. Its a fantastic phase and time to read about, at least as good as the various betrayals, splinters and conflicts in the socialist and labour movements.

Anyway, I still support workers control but I think it'll have its advent when its proven a better option for shareholders and dividends and such, as I would think it would, lots of costs in this the post-downsized working world are management or boardrooms, the last place to go to make cuts etc. Some of the models of worker management, those with job rotation, balanced job complexes and such in theory would phase out expensive, costly, privileged management status for those who have it now.

It'll probably have its day in due course.

Though for genuine individual freedom and empowerment, whatever work you do, in whatever field or firm, or how else you choose to occupy your time, ie caring for family, the only real option is universal basic income.
 

Doctor Cringelord

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
20,606
MBTI Type
I
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think worker owned enterprises are no especial guarantee of anti-oppressive employment. Bizarrely they can be a breeding ground for authoritarianism too and bullying, harder to challenge as you're meant to be working in a liberated, empowered environment.

This happened in the woman's liberation movements in the seventies and eighties when many of the women involved in them got into conflicts with feminists leading them (sometimes as self-appointed leaders) as they felt their ideologies did not relate to their experience and did not actually represent them that well. Its a fantastic phase and time to read about, at least as good as the various betrayals, splinters and conflicts in the socialist and labour movements.

Anyway, I still support workers control but I think it'll have its advent when its proven a better option for shareholders and dividends and such, as I would think it would, lots of costs in this the post-downsized working world are management or boardrooms, the last place to go to make cuts etc. Some of the models of worker management, those with job rotation, balanced job complexes and such in theory would phase out expensive, costly, privileged management status for those who have it now.

It'll probably have its day in due course.

Though for genuine individual freedom and empowerment, whatever work you do, in whatever field or firm, or how else you choose to occupy your time, ie caring for family, the only real option is universal basic income.

It’s a stepping stone, yes, and I certainly wouldn’t want worker owned business to be the end goal, and we just give up on progressing once that’s the majority of firms. But still vastly preferable to the old modes of business that treated employees as mindless cogs. I think management could effectively be done by committee. Perhaps a rotating leadership with management positions and jobs like CEO periodically rotating to qualified persons drawn from the ranks of workers.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,568
It’s a stepping stone, yes, and I certainly wouldn’t want worker owned business to be the end goal, and we just give up on progressing once that’s the majority of firms. But still vastly preferable to the old modes of business that treated employees as mindless cogs. I think management could effectively be done by committee. Perhaps a rotating leadership with management positions and jobs like CEO periodically rotating to qualified persons drawn from the ranks of workers.

Rotation or lottery are two ways that they could fill those positions, the medical profession has some precedent of doing this, at least during medical training.

The major criticism of the idea has always been if you train someone to be a surgeon and then require them to do administration, domestic duties or management and they injure their hands doing those things they can not perform the function of a surgeon anymore, which I understand, to a point. A certain kind of vulgar rotation was practiced in Cuba and China, it was really punitive and kind of about coercive control of professionals, or even intellectuals, in ways that if people didnt have some kind of an ideological commitment or conviction they'd just choose to leave behind the country and work elsewhere.

Lottery may or may not work better, some of the ideas about either involve individuals in the firm all being paid the same wage, therefore the only difference is duties, functions, which can involve status differentials and other sorts of power relationships. No matter what anyone says, I've experienced seriously authoritarian or bullying behaviour in movements or groups or individuals which are all declared to be the most progressive and egalitarian going. To an extent the structures always come second to the business culture.

The idea about committee too is that unless its not facilitating as sort of self-government and striking down servility its not going to be achieving the hoped for results.
 

Doctor Cringelord

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
20,606
MBTI Type
I
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Rotation or lottery are two ways that they could fill those positions, the medical profession has some precedent of doing this, at least during medical training.

The major criticism of the idea has always been if you train someone to be a surgeon and then require them to do administration, domestic duties or management and they injure their hands doing those things they can not perform the function of a surgeon anymore, which I understand, to a point. A certain kind of vulgar rotation was practiced in Cuba and China, it was really punitive and kind of about coercive control of professionals, or even intellectuals, in ways that if people didnt have some kind of an ideological commitment or conviction they'd just choose to leave behind the country and work elsewhere.

Lottery may or may not work better, some of the ideas about either involve individuals in the firm all being paid the same wage, therefore the only difference is duties, functions, which can involve status differentials and other sorts of power relationships. No matter what anyone says, I've experienced seriously authoritarian or bullying behaviour in movements or groups or individuals which are all declared to be the most progressive and egalitarian going. To an extent the structures always come second to the business culture.

The idea about committee too is that unless its not facilitating as sort of self-government and striking down servility its not going to be achieving the hoped for results.

I guess vigilance is key, though easier said than done. The biggest problem with any form of democracy is how easy it is for individuals to become complacent, always assuming the elected governing body is acting in the best interests of the whole. That’s at least partly how we end up with strongmen like Trump.
 

Jonny

null
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
3,134
MBTI Type
FREE
zD5verS.jpg
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,568
I guess vigilance is key, though easier said than done. The biggest problem with any form of democracy is how easy it is for individuals to become complacent, always assuming the elected governing body is acting in the best interests of the whole. That’s at least partly how we end up with strongmen like Trump.

Servility produces strong men or electorates that will identify with them.

Casting a vote every once in a while is about as token democracy as you can get, as limited and unparticipatory as you can get but its not surprising when peoples working lives and private lives dont involve a lot of personal responsibility and self-government. Or isnt appreciably understood that way.

Servility is false consciousness but its comfortable and familiar and most people opt for that all the time.

As to pundits raving about personal responsibility, well, the more remote from lived experience any idea is the more sacred and revered it formally or academically can be.
 

Mind Maverick

ENTP 8w7 845 Sp/Sx
Joined
Jan 17, 2018
Messages
4,770
Someone: The BLM protests are not doing a great job

Me: yeah
and I've said all along that they wouldn't
they're only making it worse, if anything
that approach
breeds
anger
anger will breed more racism

Someone: yeah, the white nationalist groups are expanding






Should I act surprised? God forbid I actually say any of this in front of a group of people though, despite everything turning out as I predicted.
 

Mind Maverick

ENTP 8w7 845 Sp/Sx
Joined
Jan 17, 2018
Messages
4,770
God forbid I point out the way people (mostly blacks) often falsely accuse people of being racist when they aren't necessarily, too...and yet, it's everywhere.

unknown.png


unknown.png


But these things aren't politically nice for me to say, nor are they popular opinions. Nevermind the issues they create and the way this actually BREEDS racism.
 

Merced

Talk to me.
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
3,596
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
28?
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
God forbid I point out the way people (mostly blacks) often falsely accuse people of being racist when they aren't necessarily, too...and yet, it's everywhere.

unknown.png


unknown.png


But these things aren't politically nice for me to say, nor are they popular opinions. Nevermind the issues they create and the way this actually BREEDS racism.

po981pB.png


In all seriousness, no one becomes racist just because they were called racist. If it was that easy, feminists would all be nazis for how often they were called that for wanting civil liberties. What actually breeds racism is an unwillingness to accept the criticism from people of color, ignorance to the fact that maybe some people are actually being racist, and general defensiveness.

In the first image, the question does still stand. If presumably the suspect was white, why would the cops target a black man? Are there any social or societal reasonings that could justify their actions?

In the second image, these things don't happen to white people because of their skin color. Yes, unfair things happen to white people but rarely is it race based. It's not a fair comparison to go "How come it's not a race thing when it happens to a white person?" because that's the privilege white people have.

And as a friend, please don't refer to black people as "blacks". It looks really, really bad.
 

Mind Maverick

ENTP 8w7 845 Sp/Sx
Joined
Jan 17, 2018
Messages
4,770
In all seriousness, no one becomes racist just because they were called racist. If it was that easy, feminists would all be nazis for how often they were called that for wanting civil liberties. What actually breeds racism is an unwillingness to accept the criticism from people of color, ignorance to the fact that maybe some people are actually being racist, and general defensiveness.
Some people do start becoming more racist, actually, because of the aggression they're treated with for crimes they did not commit. It breeds anger. For example, my cousins aren't racist but they do have some animosity toward black people due to experiences with one of them being harshly bullied by black people in school--jumped, etc. for being the white minority. I don't really know what people are trying to accomplish by antagonizing police, many of them for things they haven't actually done wrong. It makes them start to feel that way against the people they're being targeted by--and yes, I say targeted, as in victimized, because many of them haven't done anything and they're being punished anyway. I myself have always been a huge advocate of diversity and frankly, I have a preference attraction wise for people who aren't white, but even I have been tempted to say some things out of sheer anger before when racism was directed toward me in retaliation for racism I've never in my life committed. It makes people feel justified in being racist--"well you do it to me, so I'll do it to you"--which is immature, but so are a lot of people, and then both sides are feeling the same way about doing the same thing. There shouldn't even be "sides" in the first place and it's so stupid, but anger is not the way you resolve it. Attacking people who haven't done anything is not the way you resolve it, it just creates war. That anger people feel about it makes people feel like "well maybe you deserve it" as well. I personally don't feel this way, but again, a lot of people do.

In the first image, the question does still stand. If presumably the suspect was white, why would the cops target a black man? Are there any social or societal reasonings that could justify their actions?

In the second image, these things don't happen to white people because of their skin color. Yes, unfair things happen to white people but rarely is it race based. It's not a fair comparison to go "How come it's not a race thing when it happens to a white person?" because that's the privilege white people have.
You're actually missing my point. My point is that it's happening to a white person also, therefore why is it automatically racism when it's happening to the black guy? I'm not saying it's racism with whites also, I'm saying you can't chalk it up to racism based on pure suspicion. People do these things to people period, and sometimes it has nothing to do with racism at all, and yet it gets attributed to it when it's not. Racism exists, but the fact that it happens to white people also just goes to show that's not all there is to things when it's often treated like it is anyways.

And as a friend, please don't refer to black people as "blacks". It looks really, really bad.
OK, but referring to black people as pretty much anything is taken that way these days and you pretty much have to walk on eggshells, yet you turn on predominantly black TV shows and it's, "white people this, white people that, white people white people" my point is anything is racist when used in a racist way and half the time I don't even know what to say because people are offended when you say things like African American, too, but I don't mean it in a racist way, and meanwhile I don't even know what the fuck Caucasian even is but I'm still not getting all offended about it. I honestly often feel like I can't look in the wrong direction even without someone pulling the racism card and I do feel like I walk on eggshells even with my black friends and family. It's like...either you agree with everything they say and learn the individual preferences of each before opening your mouth or else you're a racist. That's pretty much what it's come to these days.


EDIT:
Btw, yes, racism is a thing for whites as well, but it comes from black people. That's why when I walked to my ex bf's house he flipped out because I was a white girl walking through a black neighborhood, like "wtf are you doing, you cant come here like that, youll get shot or raped, youre a white girl" that's not white privilege
(Me saying 'whites' was automatic btw, didn't even think about it.)
 

Merced

Talk to me.
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
3,596
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
28?
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Some people do start becoming more racist, actually, because of the aggression they're treated with for crimes they did not commit. It breeds anger. For example, my cousins aren't racist but they do have some animosity toward black people due to experiences with one of them being harshly bullied by black people in school--jumped, etc. for being the white minority.

If their response to being bullied was "wow black people are mean" as opposed to the more natural response of "wow those kids were mean", then I'm sorry to say but they were racist to begin with and black kids being mean to them did not trigger that. It may have reinforced that racism, but no, it was not the cause. Society has been conditioned to treat black people like they are violent when in reality it's just not true. I am positive what you were describing wasn't a strictly race based hate crime. Not saying that anyone deserves to be bullied or anything, no it's wrong no matter who is doing it, but I find it really hard to believe some black kids saw a white kid and went "yep, they're white so we are going to attack them now".

I don't really know what people are trying to accomplish by antagonizing police, many of them for things they haven't actually done wrong. It makes them start to feel that way against the people they're being targeted by--and yes, I say targeted, as in victimized, because many of them haven't done anything and they're being punished anyway.

This is an odd transition in topic. It sounds like to me that you are seeing this as 'police vs black people', when in reality, the situation is 'people in power vs people not in power'. I am a strong proponent of ACAB (All Cops Are bad) and what that means is that the institution of police is bad, not the individual police officers. I can explain more on that topic if you want, but I understand that with such an aggressive tagline, it may not be the best conversation starter.

I myself have always been a huge advocate of diversity and frankly, I have a preference attraction wise for people who aren't white, but even I have been tempted to say some things out of sheer anger before when racism was directed toward me in retaliation for racism I've never in my life committed. It makes people feel justified in being racist--"well you do it to me, so I'll do it to you"--which is immature, but so are a lot of people, and then both sides are feeling the same way about doing the same thing. There shouldn't even be "sides" in the first place and it's so stupid, but anger is not the way you resolve it. Attacking people who haven't done anything is not the way you resolve it, it just creates war. That anger people feel about it makes people feel like "well maybe you deserve it" as well. I personally don't feel this way, but again, a lot of people do.

I think this is a little weird of a tangent to go on. Firstly, your attraction to people of other races doesn't absolve you of racism. I'm not accusing you of being racist, mind you, I'm just saying that adding that doesn't help your case if that was what you were going for.

Controversial opinion here, but I do think racism against white people exists. Now, do I think it is as harmful or widespread as other forms of racism? Nope. There's a reason why cracker isn't even a slur and why we can't even bring ourselves to actually say the N-word. It's hard for me to sympathize with a 'both sides' argument because one instance makes you a little annoyed and the other is literally a threat to life.

White people aren't being denied housing because of the color of their skin, for example. Black people are. There's no equivalent that black people can do to white people that white people have done to black people. Period. A white person will never have their near immediate ancestors be victims of slavery and other forms of systematic provisions to keep them from being treated like human beings.

If you are arguing, in any capacity, that white people are being oppressed in the ways black people are, let me know now because I will not continue if so.

You're actually missing my point. My point is that it's happening to a white person also, therefore why is it automatically racism when it's happening to the black guy? I'm not saying it's racism with whites also, I'm saying you can't chalk it up to racism based on pure suspicion. People do these things to people period, and sometimes it has nothing to do with racism at all, and yet it gets attributed to it when it's not. Racism exists, but the fact that it happens to white people also just goes to show that's not all there is to things when it's often treated like it is anyways.

This ignores context. This isn't as if someone was getting less meat in their bowl at Chipotle, this is an interaction with the police. The US Police (in the form that we know it as) started out as Slave Patrols. We live in a country where for a majority of its history, black people were property. Police are more likely to arrest a black man over a white one. Black men spend more time in jail than white men for the exact same crimes. There's a precedent for it being racist. At this point in history, the question should be whether or not it wasn't racially motivated because racism is baked into the genetics of the police system.


OK, but referring to black people as pretty much anything is taken that way these days and you pretty much have to walk on eggshells, yet you turn on predominantly black TV shows and it's, "white people this, white people that, white people white people" my point is anything is racist when used in a racist way and half the time I don't even know what to say because people are offended when you say things like African American, too, but I don't mean it in a racist way, and meanwhile I don't even know what the fuck Caucasian even is but I'm still not getting all offended about it. I honestly often feel like I can't look in the wrong direction even without someone pulling the racism card and I do feel like I walk on eggshells even with my black friends and family. It's like...either you agree with everything they say and learn the individual preferences of each before opening your mouth or else you're a racist. That's pretty much what it's come to these days.

Again, I am not calling you racist. I don't think there is a single black person who likes to be referred to as "the blacks" though. The only time I can ever see a conundrum with what to call the demographic is with "Black vs African American" and that is a very simple and easy discussion to have. African American implies their origin is from Africa. Black American implies their origin is from America. Were they born in Africa? No? Not African American. Boom, easy.

Caucasian is synonymous with white. Don't know what to tell you there. I guess it has the implication of European descent but the connotation is "white" whereas African American has a literal meaning that people incorrectly use as a blanket term. Do you get what I mean?

And I would say for the rest of this point, maybe if you are constantly being accused of racism, maybe instead check yourself as opposed to getting angry and defensive? Microaggressions exist and some people have a lower tolerance for it than others. Sometimes we do things on accident and without even knowing it. But your response should be to try to learn from it, not bite your tongue and suppress it for when you want to rant online, y'know?

I have a bigger bone to pick with the "everyone is offended by everything" mentality though. It's simply not true. I think the tolerance for intolerance has lowered, but that doesn't mean that "all of a sudden" everything is offensive. It's late at night, otherwise I could articulate this better, but the whole "everyone else is wrong for being angry" thing is a huge pet peeve of mine. Sometimes, you gotta just take an L and admit you were being out of line and you can't just get angry at people for pointing out that there is in fact a line you can be out of. (Not you specifically, but the nebulous "you".)

EDIT:
Btw, yes, racism is a thing for whites as well, but it comes from black people. That's why when I walked to my ex bf's house he flipped out because I was a white girl walking through a black neighborhood, like "wtf are you doing, you cant come here like that, youll get shot or raped, youre a white girl" that's not white privilege
(Me saying 'whites' was automatic btw, didn't even think about it.)

Referring to white people as "whites" is just as bad of a look as calling black people "blacks".

I think your ex's concern was more of a sexism thing than it was a racism thing. Sexism is bad too, but we're specifically talking about race here. Plus, there is a precedent for the stereotype and imagery of "innocent white woman accosted by black people". I think your ex was being racist, to both you and himself.

Also, this does not negate your privilege as a white person. If anything, it kind of exemplifies it because the situation being presented is "Oh no, you, as a white woman, are entering an area inherently dangerous because it is occupied by *gasp* black people". Because I can tell you with the utmost confidence that a black man walking in his white girlfriend's white neighborhood wouldn't just be an aside for an argument. It would be a phone call to the police. It would be getting chased out by a man with a gun and a neighborhood watch badge. It would be a lynching.

Yeah, you realizing after the fact that you were in a dangerous environment is bad. But if something happened to you, no one would justify it. If something happened to your ex for walking in a white neighborhood, I guarantee there would be counter protests about how he was no angel to begin with. No one would even dare give your attacker the benefit of "maybe it was self defense". But if it was a black man the victim? Well, there's just no proof he wasn't the attacker himself.

I hope this is the start of a dialogue (unless again, you are arguing that white people are oppressed. That is an argument I won't engage with, sorry). I know talks of race aren't easy. I will reiterate one more time that I don't think you are racist, but do encourage you to self reflect on your actions and ask yourself why these interactions are so unbearable because maybe there are some internal biases at play.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,568
po981pB.png


In all seriousness, no one becomes racist just because they were called racist. If it was that easy, feminists would all be nazis for how often they were called that for wanting civil liberties. What actually breeds racism is an unwillingness to accept the criticism from people of color, ignorance to the fact that maybe some people are actually being racist, and general defensiveness.

In the first image, the question does still stand. If presumably the suspect was white, why would the cops target a black man? Are there any social or societal reasonings that could justify their actions?

In the second image, these things don't happen to white people because of their skin color. Yes, unfair things happen to white people but rarely is it race based. It's not a fair comparison to go "How come it's not a race thing when it happens to a white person?" because that's the privilege white people have.

And as a friend, please don't refer to black people as "blacks". It looks really, really bad.

I feel that a lot of the racism discussion is stuck in the personal and cultural anyway, never really gets to a serious discussion of the structural and historical (not history as past but history in the making).

Its always micro-aggressions or personal social interaction, which sure, they matter but it doesnt reflect whether or not ethno-nationalism is or isnt a major geo-political force, influencing famine, war, disease, corporate dumping, global corruption, crime, modern day slavery and the shady actions of intelligence communities.

Even the whole "black vs white" simplicity of how racism/anti-racism is framed misses the point that there are major self-identified ethno-nationalist factions who are neither, could really care less about that and are happy to see it happen because they really have a view of "a curse on all your houses".

That's before you get to the issue of other varieties of nationalism, non-racist, which are content to sit on the sidelines and watch people kill each other off over something like race. Or secondary to that simply misanthropy and malthusianism.
 

Merced

Talk to me.
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
3,596
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
28?
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I feel that a lot of the racism discussion is stuck in the personal and cultural anyway, never really gets to a serious discussion of the structural and historical (not history as past but history in the making).

Its always micro-aggressions or personal social interaction, which sure, they matter but it doesnt reflect whether or not ethno-nationalism is or isnt a major geo-political force, influencing famine, war, disease, corporate dumping, global corruption, crime, modern day slavery and the shady actions of intelligence communities.

Even the whole "black vs white" simplicity of how racism/anti-racism is framed misses the point that there are major self-identified ethno-nationalist factions who are neither, could really care less about that and are happy to see it happen because they really have a view of "a curse on all your houses".

That's before you get to the issue of other varieties of nationalism, non-racist, which are content to sit on the sidelines and watch people kill each other off over something like race. Or secondary to that simply misanthropy and malthusianism.

There's definitely room to talk about the subject on a more global, broader scale. Race being a social construct and all that jazz. I think the systematic aspects of it do tie directly with the cultural, the contemporary, and the personal though. Can't have proper discussion of one without the others.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,568
There's definitely room to talk about the subject on a more global, broader scale. Race being a social construct and all that jazz. I think the systematic aspects of it do tie directly with the cultural, the contemporary, and the personal though. Can't have proper discussion of one without the others.

Aye, the demarcations between the personal, cultural and structural are not exacting ever but I do think the PCS model is a good way of looking at oppression of any type. Most of the time concentration is on the P and C rather than the S, for a bunch of reasons.

Racism/Anti-racism is one of those things though, hard to discuss anti-racism without inadvertently discussing racism and keeping it current.

The more effective and crafty trend managers simply excise the descriptors for whatever it is they dislike, remove it from discussion, remove it from indexes, contents and content of whatever the media is and assist with it being completely forgotten and disappearing from memory, tradition and thinking.
 

Doctor Cringelord

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
20,606
MBTI Type
I
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I should probably plan on giving up vaping soon. It is very likely the next president will issue a blanket ban on all products and devices. Need to start weaning off the nicotine
 

Red Memories

Haunted Echoes
Joined
Jun 3, 2017
Messages
6,280
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
215
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
[MENTION=27952]Merced[/MENTION] I am actually inclined to ask more about the ACAB mentality, because that mentality appears TO often actually treat all individual officers as bad people and minority officers even discuss feeling completely disowned by their communities for trying to join the police force to make a difference. You are honestly the first one I heard who seems to want to keep it to the actually organization itself and not the individuals alone. You can PM me about it if you like but I'm interested.

I know Ceecee sent me some stuff discussing intersectionality which kind of helped me understand privilege better than I did before. But often a lot of people don't realize this fact, that when you say "white privilege" you suggest to them that we are white so we never face suffering, we never had to worry about certain things, we don't feel anxiety toward the police ever, etc. and without that reading honestly I always felt white privilege was pretty racist in nature, to assume my life is somehow automatically good because I am a white person. It did make me feel kind of hostile and like I couldn't even speak of it. I had an african american person tell me he didn't like my area because there was too many white people. So I am also kind of glad you acknowledge that sometimes, the african american community can be racist. I sometimes feel though that "white privilege" is a divisive term and it is separating a lot of people from actual understanding. I am not sure where to change it...but I think we need to use terms that aren't so...dividing. Because we need to work together without people having to feel sorry for who they are. I think we all just want equal opportunities, equal respect, and equal justice. And I am definitely always going to fight for that, for women, for minorities, everyone deserves that opportunity.

I feel like trying to make safe spaces for everyone is just trying to reintroduce segregation with pretty words which ALSO angers me. I love culture, learning different things, etc. I was raised not to think of people as colors but as people. So sometimes I feel really annoyed with the obsession with who is "black" and who is white because it seems to take us back so far because in the end I think we all just want to be viewed as people regardless of skin or religion or etc. and it is so stupid to judge someone for it. Racists suck and they're usually assholes. And I don't care if you have a PHD, if you still judge people by the color of their skin, you are an uneducated bigot.

- - - Updated - - -

There's definitely room to talk about the subject on a more global, broader scale. Race being a social construct and all that jazz. I think the systematic aspects of it do tie directly with the cultural, the contemporary, and the personal though. Can't have proper discussion of one without the others.

"race is a social construct" hell yes high five.
 

Doctor Cringelord

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
20,606
MBTI Type
I
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I cant believe that any party would campaign as being in favour of "big government"

I don’t think any have overtly stated big government as a cornerstone of their platforms, but I might be wrong

Given the use of the term by that site, I have to wonder about any bias on the parts of those who write and design the test and labels there

I think there are very few parties or politicians who would support big bloated government for the sake of having big bloated government.

It is interesting some view big/small government as an ends rather than a means.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,044
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
[MENTION=27952]Merced[/MENTION] [MENTION=36353]Aerix[/MENTION]
Your discussion is a valuable read. Since the George Floyd protests a lot of these issues are more in the forefront of people's minds. I've had some thoughts about the issues of that feeling of walking on eggshells, "white fragility", "white guilt", and all the defensive responses to this issue.

One aspect of belonging to a privileged demographic is that you are not required to learn the context of the demographics not receiving as much privilege. In this way, once an awareness of racism in the U.S. comes to the forefront, it is a steep learning curve. People are used to thinking George Washington will "never tell a lie" and then find out he pulled the teeth of his slaves to make his dentures. There is a mental shock, a huge paradigm shift that the mind naturally resists. One has to understand a completely new reality.

As a person who rejects racism and values equality, a rigorous look inside myself reveals that I have been infected by racism because I grew up in a racist society and was given impressions and assumptions before my frontal lobe developed in my 20's, so a lot of input went into my brain without a developed judgment center. I sometimes become conscious of some odd assumption or reaction that results from racist input and I try to delete it from my brain. It's painful to see it because the notion of racism makes me sick and I reject it. I think it helps to see it as a disease that infects the subconscious mind, so when some moment surfaces and I realize it inside me, I have the power to reject it.

Because of having a sense that I was initially infected with racism, I do feel a bit like walking on eggshells. I feel hyper aware when there is a racial dynamic instead of being completely relaxed. I do some of that "white guilt" stuff, but the best I know to do is to try to keep learning, listen to others, and realize that some of this crap in my brain is not my fault. What I choose to do with the crap is my responsibility. We have to separate these impressions from our identity, and that makes it easier to be honest with oneself and say, 'yeah, that assumption is wrong and it sucks, so I will try to change that'. We have to be okay realizing that we WILL make mistakes. You can't go from being raised surrounded by racist impressions to being perfectly free of those impressions in every word, deed, and choice even at a minuscule level.

It's easy to get defensive with the word "racist" because I don't think most people want to be that, but we also can't embrace an identity of having arrived at complete anti-racist mindsets. There is some way that people need to be able to know their values and identity are anti-racist, but that doesn't erase all influences. We can admit where we fail without slapping a racist identity onto ourselves.

I would be interested to hear what others think and develop this idea or contrast it.
 
Top