by Doctor Science
Last week the elder Child of Science and I were at Worldcon, about which I will have lots more to say later. Anyway, while I was there I had a very good conversation with a gracious gentleman of the Old School of SFF Fandom (Print Fanzine Division). One of his points of dismay with Fandom These Days is that many people (such as myself) don’t use our legal names, so he doesn’t know where we live or “where we come from”, socially as well as literally.
Now, this attitude is what we call “privilege”, these days: not noticing that things that aren’t difficult or a problem for you may be not at all easy for other people. The communities I “grew up in”, fannishly speaking, were majority female and heavily queer (LGBTA+ of all stripes). Such people cannot assume that using their legal names and revealing their physical locations is innocuous.
This is not just because of the Internet, either. When I got my first phone, back in the 1970s, I had to decide how to have my name listed in the telephone book (unlisted costs more). Being a single woman, I naturally listed myself in the form “Doe J”, not “Doe Jane”, to reduce the chance I’d get harassing phone calls or active stalking. That was what we all did: the expectation that you could be publicly known by your first name was a “privilege” reserved for men, or for women under cover of men — “Doe John & Jane”.
Now I’ve decided that I really hate calling an expectation of safety and respect “privilege”, and I can see why it gets some people’s back up. “Privilege” often sounds like the opposite of “right”, as in “Having a phone while you’re a teenager is a privilege, not a right.” Yet the core part of “having privilege” is “being able to count on being treated with basic respect” — such as not being harassed or stalked in public spaces. These things *should* be rights, given to all people as a matter of course, not “privileges” awarded to a few.
Is there another word than “privilege” to use, then, to describe things some people experience as rights and which ought to be rights, but which aren’t in practice always easily available to other people? To say to someone, “No, you can’t just judge by your own experience, it isn’t universal — but it should be.”
Maldroit is not a word, but it could be. A right corrupted. A tainted right.
Maldroit is not a word, but it could be. A right corrupted. A tainted right.
Maldroit is not a word, but it could be. A right corrupted. A tainted right.
Perhaps something could be built upon the word “default.” Default humans in the U.S. (and elsewhere) are white, male, straight, and Christian. They don’t require modifiers nearly as often as people who don’t fit into all of those categories. Despite what I’m sure we’ll hear from someone or other, they are not generally burdened on the societal level with the baggage that non-white, non-male, non-straight (and I’m using straight very broadly – perhaps synonymously with cisgendered, without bothering to dig into detailed definitions), non-Christians are.
Perhaps something could be built upon the word “default.” Default humans in the U.S. (and elsewhere) are white, male, straight, and Christian. They don’t require modifiers nearly as often as people who don’t fit into all of those categories. Despite what I’m sure we’ll hear from someone or other, they are not generally burdened on the societal level with the baggage that non-white, non-male, non-straight (and I’m using straight very broadly – perhaps synonymously with cisgendered, without bothering to dig into detailed definitions), non-Christians are.
Perhaps something could be built upon the word “default.” Default humans in the U.S. (and elsewhere) are white, male, straight, and Christian. They don’t require modifiers nearly as often as people who don’t fit into all of those categories. Despite what I’m sure we’ll hear from someone or other, they are not generally burdened on the societal level with the baggage that non-white, non-male, non-straight (and I’m using straight very broadly – perhaps synonymously with cisgendered, without bothering to dig into detailed definitions), non-Christians are.
Linguistics has the notion of ‘unmarked’ and ‘marked’ (pronounced mar-ked) It gets at the same thing, unmarked is the more common, and therefore less obtrusive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markedness
Linguistics has the notion of ‘unmarked’ and ‘marked’ (pronounced mar-ked) It gets at the same thing, unmarked is the more common, and therefore less obtrusive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markedness
Linguistics has the notion of ‘unmarked’ and ‘marked’ (pronounced mar-ked) It gets at the same thing, unmarked is the more common, and therefore less obtrusive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markedness
With an acknowledgement to lj’s un/marked notion, the best I can come up offhand with is the compound ‘untainted right’ or ‘untrammelled right’.
Similarly, is there a word to express the gap between de facto and de jure (other than reality) ?
With an acknowledgement to lj’s un/marked notion, the best I can come up offhand with is the compound ‘untainted right’ or ‘untrammelled right’.
Similarly, is there a word to express the gap between de facto and de jure (other than reality) ?
With an acknowledgement to lj’s un/marked notion, the best I can come up offhand with is the compound ‘untainted right’ or ‘untrammelled right’.
Similarly, is there a word to express the gap between de facto and de jure (other than reality) ?
“Norm-rights”
That is, the same rights that Norm would get.
“Norm-rights”
That is, the same rights that Norm would get.
“Norm-rights”
That is, the same rights that Norm would get.
I think I’d go with something more like “default rights.” That is, the rights that are assumed to be yours . . . unless you don’t happen to fall into the constellation of categories that the culture assumes is the default.
Even when demographic or other changes mean that the default category is no longer anything like a majority of the population. Or even a majority of the politically/economically/socially significant population.
I think I’d go with something more like “default rights.” That is, the rights that are assumed to be yours . . . unless you don’t happen to fall into the constellation of categories that the culture assumes is the default.
Even when demographic or other changes mean that the default category is no longer anything like a majority of the population. Or even a majority of the politically/economically/socially significant population.
I think I’d go with something more like “default rights.” That is, the rights that are assumed to be yours . . . unless you don’t happen to fall into the constellation of categories that the culture assumes is the default.
Even when demographic or other changes mean that the default category is no longer anything like a majority of the population. Or even a majority of the politically/economically/socially significant population.
“Level playing field” or something like that, perhaps? The short way I define “privilege” (and I’ve long been uncomfortable with it as a term myself) is “being able to assume the playing field is level”.
As for fans using pseudonyms, that’s been a thing as long as fandom has existed. I’d be tempted to ask your gracious gentleman of the Old School of SFF Fandom (Print Fanzine Division) if he’d ever taken that up with 4SJ.
“Level playing field” or something like that, perhaps? The short way I define “privilege” (and I’ve long been uncomfortable with it as a term myself) is “being able to assume the playing field is level”.
As for fans using pseudonyms, that’s been a thing as long as fandom has existed. I’d be tempted to ask your gracious gentleman of the Old School of SFF Fandom (Print Fanzine Division) if he’d ever taken that up with 4SJ.
“Level playing field” or something like that, perhaps? The short way I define “privilege” (and I’ve long been uncomfortable with it as a term myself) is “being able to assume the playing field is level”.
As for fans using pseudonyms, that’s been a thing as long as fandom has existed. I’d be tempted to ask your gracious gentleman of the Old School of SFF Fandom (Print Fanzine Division) if he’d ever taken that up with 4SJ.
“As for fans using pseudonyms, that’s been a thing as long as fandom has existed. ”
What? R.U. Sirius?
“As for fans using pseudonyms, that’s been a thing as long as fandom has existed. ”
What? R.U. Sirius?
“As for fans using pseudonyms, that’s been a thing as long as fandom has existed. ”
What? R.U. Sirius?
How about something like “specific advantage”?
One of the things that gets people’s back up about the discussion of “privilege” is that it sounds like a general state of being and is often incorrectly used as such. When you try to tell a white working class dude that he’s “privileged”, it sounds like an attack.
“Specific advantage” tells people that we’re talking about certain situations, actions and activities and not about privilege in a more general sense.
One thing that really gets lost in a discussion of privilege is that two people can have different levels of privilege over each other depending on the circumstance. If we consider, for example, a black professional person and a working poor white person, you can imagine different scenarios where each one might have the privilege.
Plus, I think “consider your specific advantage in this situation” sounds a lot less hostile than “check your privilege”.
How about something like “specific advantage”?
One of the things that gets people’s back up about the discussion of “privilege” is that it sounds like a general state of being and is often incorrectly used as such. When you try to tell a white working class dude that he’s “privileged”, it sounds like an attack.
“Specific advantage” tells people that we’re talking about certain situations, actions and activities and not about privilege in a more general sense.
One thing that really gets lost in a discussion of privilege is that two people can have different levels of privilege over each other depending on the circumstance. If we consider, for example, a black professional person and a working poor white person, you can imagine different scenarios where each one might have the privilege.
Plus, I think “consider your specific advantage in this situation” sounds a lot less hostile than “check your privilege”.
How about something like “specific advantage”?
One of the things that gets people’s back up about the discussion of “privilege” is that it sounds like a general state of being and is often incorrectly used as such. When you try to tell a white working class dude that he’s “privileged”, it sounds like an attack.
“Specific advantage” tells people that we’re talking about certain situations, actions and activities and not about privilege in a more general sense.
One thing that really gets lost in a discussion of privilege is that two people can have different levels of privilege over each other depending on the circumstance. If we consider, for example, a black professional person and a working poor white person, you can imagine different scenarios where each one might have the privilege.
Plus, I think “consider your specific advantage in this situation” sounds a lot less hostile than “check your privilege”.
i am an aficionado of irony. many times there are situations which i’ve experienced which have struck me as funny when no one else has been because of my intense appreciation of irony. strangely, the underlying premise behind this conversation we’re having here is almost too bitter for me to enjoy. think about it. we’ve been asked to find a p.c. euphemism for privilege so we won’t trample the feelings of people who are mostly attracted to people like donald trump because he doesn’t put up with p.c. bullshit and tells it like it is.
i’ve been using the term privilege for decades to describe the fact that as an upper-middle-class white man i don’t have to worry about being shot dead or tased in an encounter with law enforcement officers, that i can get a mortgage to the limits of my credit at the lowest available rate on a house in pretty much any neighborhood i want without worrying about being redlined out of a location or charged a higher interest rate or being shoved into a subprime loan despite my good credit, and that my words are frequently taken more seriously than those of my colleagues who are female or black or hispanic. and i’ve been using that term because i possess all those advantages and more. john scalzi was on to something when he referred to the status of white male as the easy setting of life. even the poorest white man in the town i grew up in got more respect at the hands of anyone else he encountered than the wealthiest black man, be he a preacher or a doctor.
i find this conversation too bitter to enjoy.
i am an aficionado of irony. many times there are situations which i’ve experienced which have struck me as funny when no one else has been because of my intense appreciation of irony. strangely, the underlying premise behind this conversation we’re having here is almost too bitter for me to enjoy. think about it. we’ve been asked to find a p.c. euphemism for privilege so we won’t trample the feelings of people who are mostly attracted to people like donald trump because he doesn’t put up with p.c. bullshit and tells it like it is.
i’ve been using the term privilege for decades to describe the fact that as an upper-middle-class white man i don’t have to worry about being shot dead or tased in an encounter with law enforcement officers, that i can get a mortgage to the limits of my credit at the lowest available rate on a house in pretty much any neighborhood i want without worrying about being redlined out of a location or charged a higher interest rate or being shoved into a subprime loan despite my good credit, and that my words are frequently taken more seriously than those of my colleagues who are female or black or hispanic. and i’ve been using that term because i possess all those advantages and more. john scalzi was on to something when he referred to the status of white male as the easy setting of life. even the poorest white man in the town i grew up in got more respect at the hands of anyone else he encountered than the wealthiest black man, be he a preacher or a doctor.
i find this conversation too bitter to enjoy.
i am an aficionado of irony. many times there are situations which i’ve experienced which have struck me as funny when no one else has been because of my intense appreciation of irony. strangely, the underlying premise behind this conversation we’re having here is almost too bitter for me to enjoy. think about it. we’ve been asked to find a p.c. euphemism for privilege so we won’t trample the feelings of people who are mostly attracted to people like donald trump because he doesn’t put up with p.c. bullshit and tells it like it is.
i’ve been using the term privilege for decades to describe the fact that as an upper-middle-class white man i don’t have to worry about being shot dead or tased in an encounter with law enforcement officers, that i can get a mortgage to the limits of my credit at the lowest available rate on a house in pretty much any neighborhood i want without worrying about being redlined out of a location or charged a higher interest rate or being shoved into a subprime loan despite my good credit, and that my words are frequently taken more seriously than those of my colleagues who are female or black or hispanic. and i’ve been using that term because i possess all those advantages and more. john scalzi was on to something when he referred to the status of white male as the easy setting of life. even the poorest white man in the town i grew up in got more respect at the hands of anyone else he encountered than the wealthiest black man, be he a preacher or a doctor.
i find this conversation too bitter to enjoy.
Coming from a lily-white environment, navarro, I find your last claim difficult to believe. How about the drunks on the street? How about the juvenile delinquents? I would not claim that my compatriots in Finland treat everyone with equal respect. However, in a society as white as ours, it is easy for a white man to fall below the default respect given for a non-Finn.
Coming from a lily-white environment, navarro, I find your last claim difficult to believe. How about the drunks on the street? How about the juvenile delinquents? I would not claim that my compatriots in Finland treat everyone with equal respect. However, in a society as white as ours, it is easy for a white man to fall below the default respect given for a non-Finn.
Coming from a lily-white environment, navarro, I find your last claim difficult to believe. How about the drunks on the street? How about the juvenile delinquents? I would not claim that my compatriots in Finland treat everyone with equal respect. However, in a society as white as ours, it is easy for a white man to fall below the default respect given for a non-Finn.
Maldroit is not a word, but it could be.
“Maladroit”, however, is a word. Confusion would ensue.
Maldroit is not a word, but it could be.
“Maladroit”, however, is a word. Confusion would ensue.
Maldroit is not a word, but it could be.
“Maladroit”, however, is a word. Confusion would ensue.
Navarro, we have not been asked to find a “PC euphemism”.
A self professed aficionado of irony ought to appreciate subtle distinctions, and here those distinctions are clearly exemplified in your own post.
I’ve been using the term privilege for decades to describe the fact that as an upper-middle-class white man i don’t have to worry about being shot dead or tased in an encounter with law enforcement officers…and that my words are frequently taken more seriously than those of my colleagues who are female or black or hispanic….
The good Doc wasn’t suggesting a euphemism, but another word than “privilege” to use, then, to describe things some people experience as rights and which ought to be rights, but which aren’t in practice always easily available to other people…
Not worrying about being shot clearly falls into that category; being taken more seriously than you colleagues equally obviously doesn’t.
Like most Norman imports, privilege has a slightly formal tone, and also associations with the nobility — hence, a small part of society. So it is easy to say “But a poor white person isn’t privileged!” I think just saying “has the privilege of being white” is better because more specific; “has the benefits of being white” even better (benefit lacks the snootier tone of privilege). If I were to coin a word, it would be “autoboon”: boon has somewhat fallen out of use, but perhaps that saves it from the associations of privilege.
Navarro, we have not been asked to find a “PC euphemism”.
A self professed aficionado of irony ought to appreciate subtle distinctions, and here those distinctions are clearly exemplified in your own post.
I’ve been using the term privilege for decades to describe the fact that as an upper-middle-class white man i don’t have to worry about being shot dead or tased in an encounter with law enforcement officers…and that my words are frequently taken more seriously than those of my colleagues who are female or black or hispanic….
The good Doc wasn’t suggesting a euphemism, but another word than “privilege” to use, then, to describe things some people experience as rights and which ought to be rights, but which aren’t in practice always easily available to other people…
Not worrying about being shot clearly falls into that category; being taken more seriously than you colleagues equally obviously doesn’t.
Like most Norman imports, privilege has a slightly formal tone, and also associations with the nobility — hence, a small part of society. So it is easy to say “But a poor white person isn’t privileged!” I think just saying “has the privilege of being white” is better because more specific; “has the benefits of being white” even better (benefit lacks the snootier tone of privilege). If I were to coin a word, it would be “autoboon”: boon has somewhat fallen out of use, but perhaps that saves it from the associations of privilege.
Navarro, we have not been asked to find a “PC euphemism”.
A self professed aficionado of irony ought to appreciate subtle distinctions, and here those distinctions are clearly exemplified in your own post.
I’ve been using the term privilege for decades to describe the fact that as an upper-middle-class white man i don’t have to worry about being shot dead or tased in an encounter with law enforcement officers…and that my words are frequently taken more seriously than those of my colleagues who are female or black or hispanic….
The good Doc wasn’t suggesting a euphemism, but another word than “privilege” to use, then, to describe things some people experience as rights and which ought to be rights, but which aren’t in practice always easily available to other people…
Not worrying about being shot clearly falls into that category; being taken more seriously than you colleagues equally obviously doesn’t.
Like most Norman imports, privilege has a slightly formal tone, and also associations with the nobility — hence, a small part of society. So it is easy to say “But a poor white person isn’t privileged!” I think just saying “has the privilege of being white” is better because more specific; “has the benefits of being white” even better (benefit lacks the snootier tone of privilege). If I were to coin a word, it would be “autoboon”: boon has somewhat fallen out of use, but perhaps that saves it from the associations of privilege.
I suspect what Navarro is alluding to in that last bit, and if he’s not I am, is that an individual black or Hispanic derelict lying in the gutter is viewed as yet another particular data point in the evidence of some generalized colossal racial failure or deficiency .. look at him, if only his people valued education and advancement, if only his father didn’t abandon his family like all of their fathers do, if only his racial peers did not embrace the sociopathy of lacking the work ethic, etc. What do you expect? They are all bums. There but by the grace of God … no, scratch that, that wouldn’t happen to me. I was raised right, even though I am Irish, the onlooker might think. If luck enters one’s thoughts, it is the bad luck of his race that gets blamed. Those people. The entire race receives justice by the unfortunate individual’s failure. His race is a blight on him. He can’t even own his own failure.
The white derelict sprawled in the gutter is at least accorded the backhanded respect of having failed miserably by his own individual effort. It’s his fault. His failure in not taking all of the decent, wholesome values of his parentage, his peers, and commonly-accepted white society is seen at least as his sole ownership. We don’t know what happened. I’m sure he had decent parents and was afforded all of the opportunity his society had to offer, and look at him, HE, that individual failed to take advantage. He is looked upon as sort of a rogue entrepreneur of massive individual failure. No one in America and elsewhere would think, look, he has Aryan features and his hair looks as if it was once blonde (am I stereotyping, well there we go) .. he must be one of those Finns, or maybe Norwegian or, God forbid, Swedish and we know what that means, don’t we? No, this guy had integrity and did it his way, the chump. There but by the grace of God, go I, we might think, unlike in the other case, because really the man is down on his luck and he gets to own it like a paid off mortgage. He alone is accorded the dignity of justice’s judgement. HE is a blight on his race; the rest of us had nothing to do with it.
In Ayn Rand’s “The Virtues of Selfishness”* her definitive essays in which she quotes her own fictional character, John Galt, at stupifying length, for insight, somehow forgetting I guess that she authored his words, but then her characters are hard to get a word in edgewise on (it would be like Flaubert writing a one hundred page essay on adultery and using up 30% of the text quoting Emma Bovary, except at least that would be good reading, his words in her mouth being so delicious), she mentions the revulsion to the point of physical sickness those of her ethos experience when they step over a derelict in the street.
I’d wager, and see if many of us catch ourselves doing this at least occasionally, that when she stepped over an unfortunate white person in the street and told Nathaniel Brandon about it .. who she eventually stepped over too, in stiletto heels, probably with Alan Greenspan looking on, but never mind …. she would say “I felt revulsion today stepping over that homeless person down on the corner”
That’s how you can tell the unfortunate one was white.
If otherwise, she would say, “I felt revulsion today stepping over that homeless person …. he was a Negro … down on the corner.”
A signifier not accorded to the white guy by the white woman. Of what?
I am generalizing in this comment beyond the political categories of conservative and liberal.
If we add those back in, well, that’s a whole other can of worms.
*The only book I ever threw out. I kept my “Atlas Shrugged” for a time to place on the floor against a door that kept slamming shut when the wind came up.
I suspect what Navarro is alluding to in that last bit, and if he’s not I am, is that an individual black or Hispanic derelict lying in the gutter is viewed as yet another particular data point in the evidence of some generalized colossal racial failure or deficiency .. look at him, if only his people valued education and advancement, if only his father didn’t abandon his family like all of their fathers do, if only his racial peers did not embrace the sociopathy of lacking the work ethic, etc. What do you expect? They are all bums. There but by the grace of God … no, scratch that, that wouldn’t happen to me. I was raised right, even though I am Irish, the onlooker might think. If luck enters one’s thoughts, it is the bad luck of his race that gets blamed. Those people. The entire race receives justice by the unfortunate individual’s failure. His race is a blight on him. He can’t even own his own failure.
The white derelict sprawled in the gutter is at least accorded the backhanded respect of having failed miserably by his own individual effort. It’s his fault. His failure in not taking all of the decent, wholesome values of his parentage, his peers, and commonly-accepted white society is seen at least as his sole ownership. We don’t know what happened. I’m sure he had decent parents and was afforded all of the opportunity his society had to offer, and look at him, HE, that individual failed to take advantage. He is looked upon as sort of a rogue entrepreneur of massive individual failure. No one in America and elsewhere would think, look, he has Aryan features and his hair looks as if it was once blonde (am I stereotyping, well there we go) .. he must be one of those Finns, or maybe Norwegian or, God forbid, Swedish and we know what that means, don’t we? No, this guy had integrity and did it his way, the chump. There but by the grace of God, go I, we might think, unlike in the other case, because really the man is down on his luck and he gets to own it like a paid off mortgage. He alone is accorded the dignity of justice’s judgement. HE is a blight on his race; the rest of us had nothing to do with it.
In Ayn Rand’s “The Virtues of Selfishness”* her definitive essays in which she quotes her own fictional character, John Galt, at stupifying length, for insight, somehow forgetting I guess that she authored his words, but then her characters are hard to get a word in edgewise on (it would be like Flaubert writing a one hundred page essay on adultery and using up 30% of the text quoting Emma Bovary, except at least that would be good reading, his words in her mouth being so delicious), she mentions the revulsion to the point of physical sickness those of her ethos experience when they step over a derelict in the street.
I’d wager, and see if many of us catch ourselves doing this at least occasionally, that when she stepped over an unfortunate white person in the street and told Nathaniel Brandon about it .. who she eventually stepped over too, in stiletto heels, probably with Alan Greenspan looking on, but never mind …. she would say “I felt revulsion today stepping over that homeless person down on the corner”
That’s how you can tell the unfortunate one was white.
If otherwise, she would say, “I felt revulsion today stepping over that homeless person …. he was a Negro … down on the corner.”
A signifier not accorded to the white guy by the white woman. Of what?
I am generalizing in this comment beyond the political categories of conservative and liberal.
If we add those back in, well, that’s a whole other can of worms.
*The only book I ever threw out. I kept my “Atlas Shrugged” for a time to place on the floor against a door that kept slamming shut when the wind came up.
I suspect what Navarro is alluding to in that last bit, and if he’s not I am, is that an individual black or Hispanic derelict lying in the gutter is viewed as yet another particular data point in the evidence of some generalized colossal racial failure or deficiency .. look at him, if only his people valued education and advancement, if only his father didn’t abandon his family like all of their fathers do, if only his racial peers did not embrace the sociopathy of lacking the work ethic, etc. What do you expect? They are all bums. There but by the grace of God … no, scratch that, that wouldn’t happen to me. I was raised right, even though I am Irish, the onlooker might think. If luck enters one’s thoughts, it is the bad luck of his race that gets blamed. Those people. The entire race receives justice by the unfortunate individual’s failure. His race is a blight on him. He can’t even own his own failure.
The white derelict sprawled in the gutter is at least accorded the backhanded respect of having failed miserably by his own individual effort. It’s his fault. His failure in not taking all of the decent, wholesome values of his parentage, his peers, and commonly-accepted white society is seen at least as his sole ownership. We don’t know what happened. I’m sure he had decent parents and was afforded all of the opportunity his society had to offer, and look at him, HE, that individual failed to take advantage. He is looked upon as sort of a rogue entrepreneur of massive individual failure. No one in America and elsewhere would think, look, he has Aryan features and his hair looks as if it was once blonde (am I stereotyping, well there we go) .. he must be one of those Finns, or maybe Norwegian or, God forbid, Swedish and we know what that means, don’t we? No, this guy had integrity and did it his way, the chump. There but by the grace of God, go I, we might think, unlike in the other case, because really the man is down on his luck and he gets to own it like a paid off mortgage. He alone is accorded the dignity of justice’s judgement. HE is a blight on his race; the rest of us had nothing to do with it.
In Ayn Rand’s “The Virtues of Selfishness”* her definitive essays in which she quotes her own fictional character, John Galt, at stupifying length, for insight, somehow forgetting I guess that she authored his words, but then her characters are hard to get a word in edgewise on (it would be like Flaubert writing a one hundred page essay on adultery and using up 30% of the text quoting Emma Bovary, except at least that would be good reading, his words in her mouth being so delicious), she mentions the revulsion to the point of physical sickness those of her ethos experience when they step over a derelict in the street.
I’d wager, and see if many of us catch ourselves doing this at least occasionally, that when she stepped over an unfortunate white person in the street and told Nathaniel Brandon about it .. who she eventually stepped over too, in stiletto heels, probably with Alan Greenspan looking on, but never mind …. she would say “I felt revulsion today stepping over that homeless person down on the corner”
That’s how you can tell the unfortunate one was white.
If otherwise, she would say, “I felt revulsion today stepping over that homeless person …. he was a Negro … down on the corner.”
A signifier not accorded to the white guy by the white woman. Of what?
I am generalizing in this comment beyond the political categories of conservative and liberal.
If we add those back in, well, that’s a whole other can of worms.
*The only book I ever threw out. I kept my “Atlas Shrugged” for a time to place on the floor against a door that kept slamming shut when the wind came up.
I’m curious, do black people and Latinos and, perhaps white women, all look at the black person in the gutter differently than the white person in the gutter? Is white privilege conveyed by everyone? Do black bankers give better mortgages to white people, black Realtors showing black people houses only the right neighborhoods? Do Latino cops give the white boys a pass? Do white women, blacks and others give more respect to what white men say?
I’m curious, do black people and Latinos and, perhaps white women, all look at the black person in the gutter differently than the white person in the gutter? Is white privilege conveyed by everyone? Do black bankers give better mortgages to white people, black Realtors showing black people houses only the right neighborhoods? Do Latino cops give the white boys a pass? Do white women, blacks and others give more respect to what white men say?
I’m curious, do black people and Latinos and, perhaps white women, all look at the black person in the gutter differently than the white person in the gutter? Is white privilege conveyed by everyone? Do black bankers give better mortgages to white people, black Realtors showing black people houses only the right neighborhoods? Do Latino cops give the white boys a pass? Do white women, blacks and others give more respect to what white men say?
Count, those first two paragraphs are a very nice summary.
But I would note that there is a historical caveat: A century ago, if that white guy lying in the gutter were Italian or Irish, he would get the same negatively-charged group-membership assumption as non-white groups get today. Different groups; same view.
In a way, that’s actually kind of hopeful. It means that groups can work their way across the boundary. I don’t know how, in specific, a group does that. I don’t think they ought to have to. (And I really hope it doesn’t require some other group be found to serve as a replacement.) But it is hopeful that it least it appears to be possible.
Count, those first two paragraphs are a very nice summary.
But I would note that there is a historical caveat: A century ago, if that white guy lying in the gutter were Italian or Irish, he would get the same negatively-charged group-membership assumption as non-white groups get today. Different groups; same view.
In a way, that’s actually kind of hopeful. It means that groups can work their way across the boundary. I don’t know how, in specific, a group does that. I don’t think they ought to have to. (And I really hope it doesn’t require some other group be found to serve as a replacement.) But it is hopeful that it least it appears to be possible.
Count, those first two paragraphs are a very nice summary.
But I would note that there is a historical caveat: A century ago, if that white guy lying in the gutter were Italian or Irish, he would get the same negatively-charged group-membership assumption as non-white groups get today. Different groups; same view.
In a way, that’s actually kind of hopeful. It means that groups can work their way across the boundary. I don’t know how, in specific, a group does that. I don’t think they ought to have to. (And I really hope it doesn’t require some other group be found to serve as a replacement.) But it is hopeful that it least it appears to be possible.
A century ago, if that white guy lying in the gutter were Italian or Irish …
Thus my crack about the Irish.
Yes, there is hope for crossing the boundary and joining the fraternity. After generations of hazing by various means, some more grotesque than others. By, generally speaking, a certain class of self-appointed people sharing certain physical traits who assumed themselves as members of the fraternity gratis from the get-go, but then unwittingly, really they didn’t mean it, wrote this thing called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, with those miraculous words that could be thrown back in their faces and enforced in ways they never dreamed of, given their assumptions about privilege.
Privilege as a birthright. Out of the privileged few, One. Them. Not the others.
“(And I really hope it doesn’t require some other group be found to serve as a replacement.)”
This I’m not too hopeful about given the outbreak of outright radical demagoguery. When demagoguery against one set of Others seems to wear out its welcome, the “pivot”, as it is so charmingly called now, happens and new prey is swiftly located and hoisted to the gallows.
A cursory examination of election cycles since forever, but let’s take since 1980, traces an uninterrupted arc from Reagan’s fat black welfare mother baiting to Rove’s gay baiting on behalf of George W. Bush to post-9/11 Muslim-bashing to the more recent focus on wetback rapists, with interspersing of uppity feminazi baiting, and the general demonization of liberals.
The upshot now is that we whites, mostly male, hold ourselves to be endangered victims because the franchise keeps being extended beyond the original legacy members.
The terrible beauty of the Trump phenomenon is that he has brilliantly, for a four-legged swine, that is, gathered up all of those threads into one big simultaneous hate lollapalooza and any criticism is labeled political correctness, which is exactly what conservatives have been saying for years, one group at a time with some overlap as political convenience demands.
And 40% are on board.
Watching Ryan and McConnell studiously examine their fingernails as Trump speaks plainly through a megaphone all of the demagogic prejudices their party has been dog whistling and exploiting forever is really quite something to behold.
You’d think they’d run out of targets. But Ann Coulter et al are remarkably resourceful, the dirt.
None of this of course lets the Democratic Party of old off the hook and maybe even some elements of it now can go f*ck themselves.
I’m sure at some point I will mouth those words towards Hillary Clinton if she is elected, and she’d better be, but unless she actually murders a guy in Time Square during rush hour, I will vote for her, because as cleek points out, it is a binary choice.
Trump on the other hand could stab a guy in Times Square and lick the blood off the knife and his frenzied minions would go wild with enthusiasm. Not Ryan or McConnell, I’ll admit. They’d slink away to an appointment for a root canal and rest assured silently that they can work with the man toward their own murderous ends.
None of this of course lets the Democratic Party of old off the hook and maybe even some elements of it now can go f*ck themselves.
Nor does it condemn decent conservatives who have been deliberately driven from the Party for compromising with those outside the hallowed privileged circle. People who I don’t consider to be Republicans any longer and should stop mistaking themselves as part of that monstrosity when that monstrosity is called on the carpet.
Like Marty and McTX.
By the way, I’m under no illusion that had a Jewish individual happened by while George Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon Martin with a fucking gun, it very well could be that the two of them might have have found common ground and today Trayvon would be alive, Zimmerman would be running for Congress, and the Jewish guy would still be on disability from his injuries because all groups in America, generally speaking, seem to agree that when all is said and done, the Jews are behind it all.
A century ago, if that white guy lying in the gutter were Italian or Irish …
Thus my crack about the Irish.
Yes, there is hope for crossing the boundary and joining the fraternity. After generations of hazing by various means, some more grotesque than others. By, generally speaking, a certain class of self-appointed people sharing certain physical traits who assumed themselves as members of the fraternity gratis from the get-go, but then unwittingly, really they didn’t mean it, wrote this thing called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, with those miraculous words that could be thrown back in their faces and enforced in ways they never dreamed of, given their assumptions about privilege.
Privilege as a birthright. Out of the privileged few, One. Them. Not the others.
“(And I really hope it doesn’t require some other group be found to serve as a replacement.)”
This I’m not too hopeful about given the outbreak of outright radical demagoguery. When demagoguery against one set of Others seems to wear out its welcome, the “pivot”, as it is so charmingly called now, happens and new prey is swiftly located and hoisted to the gallows.
A cursory examination of election cycles since forever, but let’s take since 1980, traces an uninterrupted arc from Reagan’s fat black welfare mother baiting to Rove’s gay baiting on behalf of George W. Bush to post-9/11 Muslim-bashing to the more recent focus on wetback rapists, with interspersing of uppity feminazi baiting, and the general demonization of liberals.
The upshot now is that we whites, mostly male, hold ourselves to be endangered victims because the franchise keeps being extended beyond the original legacy members.
The terrible beauty of the Trump phenomenon is that he has brilliantly, for a four-legged swine, that is, gathered up all of those threads into one big simultaneous hate lollapalooza and any criticism is labeled political correctness, which is exactly what conservatives have been saying for years, one group at a time with some overlap as political convenience demands.
And 40% are on board.
Watching Ryan and McConnell studiously examine their fingernails as Trump speaks plainly through a megaphone all of the demagogic prejudices their party has been dog whistling and exploiting forever is really quite something to behold.
You’d think they’d run out of targets. But Ann Coulter et al are remarkably resourceful, the dirt.
None of this of course lets the Democratic Party of old off the hook and maybe even some elements of it now can go f*ck themselves.
I’m sure at some point I will mouth those words towards Hillary Clinton if she is elected, and she’d better be, but unless she actually murders a guy in Time Square during rush hour, I will vote for her, because as cleek points out, it is a binary choice.
Trump on the other hand could stab a guy in Times Square and lick the blood off the knife and his frenzied minions would go wild with enthusiasm. Not Ryan or McConnell, I’ll admit. They’d slink away to an appointment for a root canal and rest assured silently that they can work with the man toward their own murderous ends.
None of this of course lets the Democratic Party of old off the hook and maybe even some elements of it now can go f*ck themselves.
Nor does it condemn decent conservatives who have been deliberately driven from the Party for compromising with those outside the hallowed privileged circle. People who I don’t consider to be Republicans any longer and should stop mistaking themselves as part of that monstrosity when that monstrosity is called on the carpet.
Like Marty and McTX.
By the way, I’m under no illusion that had a Jewish individual happened by while George Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon Martin with a fucking gun, it very well could be that the two of them might have have found common ground and today Trayvon would be alive, Zimmerman would be running for Congress, and the Jewish guy would still be on disability from his injuries because all groups in America, generally speaking, seem to agree that when all is said and done, the Jews are behind it all.
A century ago, if that white guy lying in the gutter were Italian or Irish …
Thus my crack about the Irish.
Yes, there is hope for crossing the boundary and joining the fraternity. After generations of hazing by various means, some more grotesque than others. By, generally speaking, a certain class of self-appointed people sharing certain physical traits who assumed themselves as members of the fraternity gratis from the get-go, but then unwittingly, really they didn’t mean it, wrote this thing called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, with those miraculous words that could be thrown back in their faces and enforced in ways they never dreamed of, given their assumptions about privilege.
Privilege as a birthright. Out of the privileged few, One. Them. Not the others.
“(And I really hope it doesn’t require some other group be found to serve as a replacement.)”
This I’m not too hopeful about given the outbreak of outright radical demagoguery. When demagoguery against one set of Others seems to wear out its welcome, the “pivot”, as it is so charmingly called now, happens and new prey is swiftly located and hoisted to the gallows.
A cursory examination of election cycles since forever, but let’s take since 1980, traces an uninterrupted arc from Reagan’s fat black welfare mother baiting to Rove’s gay baiting on behalf of George W. Bush to post-9/11 Muslim-bashing to the more recent focus on wetback rapists, with interspersing of uppity feminazi baiting, and the general demonization of liberals.
The upshot now is that we whites, mostly male, hold ourselves to be endangered victims because the franchise keeps being extended beyond the original legacy members.
The terrible beauty of the Trump phenomenon is that he has brilliantly, for a four-legged swine, that is, gathered up all of those threads into one big simultaneous hate lollapalooza and any criticism is labeled political correctness, which is exactly what conservatives have been saying for years, one group at a time with some overlap as political convenience demands.
And 40% are on board.
Watching Ryan and McConnell studiously examine their fingernails as Trump speaks plainly through a megaphone all of the demagogic prejudices their party has been dog whistling and exploiting forever is really quite something to behold.
You’d think they’d run out of targets. But Ann Coulter et al are remarkably resourceful, the dirt.
None of this of course lets the Democratic Party of old off the hook and maybe even some elements of it now can go f*ck themselves.
I’m sure at some point I will mouth those words towards Hillary Clinton if she is elected, and she’d better be, but unless she actually murders a guy in Time Square during rush hour, I will vote for her, because as cleek points out, it is a binary choice.
Trump on the other hand could stab a guy in Times Square and lick the blood off the knife and his frenzied minions would go wild with enthusiasm. Not Ryan or McConnell, I’ll admit. They’d slink away to an appointment for a root canal and rest assured silently that they can work with the man toward their own murderous ends.
None of this of course lets the Democratic Party of old off the hook and maybe even some elements of it now can go f*ck themselves.
Nor does it condemn decent conservatives who have been deliberately driven from the Party for compromising with those outside the hallowed privileged circle. People who I don’t consider to be Republicans any longer and should stop mistaking themselves as part of that monstrosity when that monstrosity is called on the carpet.
Like Marty and McTX.
By the way, I’m under no illusion that had a Jewish individual happened by while George Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon Martin with a fucking gun, it very well could be that the two of them might have have found common ground and today Trayvon would be alive, Zimmerman would be running for Congress, and the Jewish guy would still be on disability from his injuries because all groups in America, generally speaking, seem to agree that when all is said and done, the Jews are behind it all.
Perhaps “opportunity”? I don’t have a problem with “privilege” except that I can’t spell it. I think it is the right word to use to express the concept. But if we are looking for a different word, perhaps “opportunity” would work. White men, especially professionally dressedone, have the opportunity to survive encounters with police officers. White proffessionla men have the opportunity to be perceived as credible, where others may have to earn credibility . And so on.
Perhaps “opportunity”? I don’t have a problem with “privilege” except that I can’t spell it. I think it is the right word to use to express the concept. But if we are looking for a different word, perhaps “opportunity” would work. White men, especially professionally dressedone, have the opportunity to survive encounters with police officers. White proffessionla men have the opportunity to be perceived as credible, where others may have to earn credibility . And so on.
Perhaps “opportunity”? I don’t have a problem with “privilege” except that I can’t spell it. I think it is the right word to use to express the concept. But if we are looking for a different word, perhaps “opportunity” would work. White men, especially professionally dressedone, have the opportunity to survive encounters with police officers. White proffessionla men have the opportunity to be perceived as credible, where others may have to earn credibility . And so on.
My cat is interfering, so I’ll do my best – please ignore typos.
Now that we all know what privilege means, after having had to be educated, isn’t it best to stick with the definition? I mean, c’mon – it’s hard enough to “check your privilege” when you’re having to “check whatever else the hell it is that you have to check”.
Hey, make it easy on us privileged folks! We’re privileged!
My cat is interfering, so I’ll do my best – please ignore typos.
Now that we all know what privilege means, after having had to be educated, isn’t it best to stick with the definition? I mean, c’mon – it’s hard enough to “check your privilege” when you’re having to “check whatever else the hell it is that you have to check”.
Hey, make it easy on us privileged folks! We’re privileged!
My cat is interfering, so I’ll do my best – please ignore typos.
Now that we all know what privilege means, after having had to be educated, isn’t it best to stick with the definition? I mean, c’mon – it’s hard enough to “check your privilege” when you’re having to “check whatever else the hell it is that you have to check”.
Hey, make it easy on us privileged folks! We’re privileged!
In a nutshell, where the nuts are:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/your-day-trump-friday-26-august-2016-74-days-until-election
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKMK3XGO27k
In a nutshell, where the nuts are:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/your-day-trump-friday-26-august-2016-74-days-until-election
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKMK3XGO27k
In a nutshell, where the nuts are:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/your-day-trump-friday-26-august-2016-74-days-until-election
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKMK3XGO27k
I like “born on third and thought you hit a triple”
I like “born on third and thought you hit a triple”
I like “born on third and thought you hit a triple”
Which has little to do with white privilege. There are tons of people not born on third base that seemingly enjoy white privilege.
Which has little to do with white privilege. There are tons of people not born on third base that seemingly enjoy white privilege.
Which has little to do with white privilege. There are tons of people not born on third base that seemingly enjoy white privilege.
“The white derelict sprawled in the gutter is at least accorded the backhanded respect of having failed miserably by his own individual effort”
lol
a story. maybe i’ve told this one before, apologies if so.
one night i’m loading into a gig. it’s probably 9 or 9:30 PM. this guy, kind of reasonable looking guy, not smelly or unkempt or anything, walks up and asks me for $5.
he’s a carpenter – sorry, a General Contractor – and after working in a town up the coast he got to bending the elbow a bit and drank up all his cash.
and his truck was running out of gas.
he didn’t want to call his wife to come bail him out, so here he was, asking J-random strangers for $5 so he could get home.
i gave the guy my standard “seriously, WTF?” response, and I guess he was offended.
“what, you think i’m some kind of bum?” he burst out. “I’m not a bum, I’m an entrepreneur!”
I have to admit, it cracked me the hell up.
I gave the guy a couple of bucks and off he went, I don’t know whether to buy enough gas to get home, or to pony up for another round.
“I’m not a bum, I’m an entepreneur!”. words to live by.
“The white derelict sprawled in the gutter is at least accorded the backhanded respect of having failed miserably by his own individual effort”
lol
a story. maybe i’ve told this one before, apologies if so.
one night i’m loading into a gig. it’s probably 9 or 9:30 PM. this guy, kind of reasonable looking guy, not smelly or unkempt or anything, walks up and asks me for $5.
he’s a carpenter – sorry, a General Contractor – and after working in a town up the coast he got to bending the elbow a bit and drank up all his cash.
and his truck was running out of gas.
he didn’t want to call his wife to come bail him out, so here he was, asking J-random strangers for $5 so he could get home.
i gave the guy my standard “seriously, WTF?” response, and I guess he was offended.
“what, you think i’m some kind of bum?” he burst out. “I’m not a bum, I’m an entrepreneur!”
I have to admit, it cracked me the hell up.
I gave the guy a couple of bucks and off he went, I don’t know whether to buy enough gas to get home, or to pony up for another round.
“I’m not a bum, I’m an entepreneur!”. words to live by.
“The white derelict sprawled in the gutter is at least accorded the backhanded respect of having failed miserably by his own individual effort”
lol
a story. maybe i’ve told this one before, apologies if so.
one night i’m loading into a gig. it’s probably 9 or 9:30 PM. this guy, kind of reasonable looking guy, not smelly or unkempt or anything, walks up and asks me for $5.
he’s a carpenter – sorry, a General Contractor – and after working in a town up the coast he got to bending the elbow a bit and drank up all his cash.
and his truck was running out of gas.
he didn’t want to call his wife to come bail him out, so here he was, asking J-random strangers for $5 so he could get home.
i gave the guy my standard “seriously, WTF?” response, and I guess he was offended.
“what, you think i’m some kind of bum?” he burst out. “I’m not a bum, I’m an entrepreneur!”
I have to admit, it cracked me the hell up.
I gave the guy a couple of bucks and off he went, I don’t know whether to buy enough gas to get home, or to pony up for another round.
“I’m not a bum, I’m an entepreneur!”. words to live by.
“Which has little to do with white privilege.”
see, to me, this whole thing is getting a little long in the tooth.
black people are treated differently in the united states than white people, asian people, latinos, whoever. they are treated differently, and not to their advantage.
because their skin is black.
i’m just putting that out there as an assertion, because it’s just too freaking tedious to go document it once again.
no links. just accept it as demonstrated, or not.
if we get past the “accept it as demonstrated” hurdle, then watch this:
all the crap you don’t have to put up with because you’re not black? that’s the white, or at least not-black, privilege part.
yes, there are lots of people who aren’t black who are up shit’s creek without a paddle.
If that’s you, and you’re also black, you get an extra helping of shit. that’s the white privilege part.
“Which has little to do with white privilege.”
see, to me, this whole thing is getting a little long in the tooth.
black people are treated differently in the united states than white people, asian people, latinos, whoever. they are treated differently, and not to their advantage.
because their skin is black.
i’m just putting that out there as an assertion, because it’s just too freaking tedious to go document it once again.
no links. just accept it as demonstrated, or not.
if we get past the “accept it as demonstrated” hurdle, then watch this:
all the crap you don’t have to put up with because you’re not black? that’s the white, or at least not-black, privilege part.
yes, there are lots of people who aren’t black who are up shit’s creek without a paddle.
If that’s you, and you’re also black, you get an extra helping of shit. that’s the white privilege part.
“Which has little to do with white privilege.”
see, to me, this whole thing is getting a little long in the tooth.
black people are treated differently in the united states than white people, asian people, latinos, whoever. they are treated differently, and not to their advantage.
because their skin is black.
i’m just putting that out there as an assertion, because it’s just too freaking tedious to go document it once again.
no links. just accept it as demonstrated, or not.
if we get past the “accept it as demonstrated” hurdle, then watch this:
all the crap you don’t have to put up with because you’re not black? that’s the white, or at least not-black, privilege part.
yes, there are lots of people who aren’t black who are up shit’s creek without a paddle.
If that’s you, and you’re also black, you get an extra helping of shit. that’s the white privilege part.
Sure, so where’s third base?
I may have told this story before. Thirty years ago I worked in a Datacenter that was pretty well integrated. Actually black people were probably 40% of the workers. I was just a guy, the guy I hung out with and went to lunch with, had drinks after work now and then etc.was black.
One day we were hanging out and another of our friends stopped to chat and mentioned he was coming to the party on Friday. My friend got really nervous, awkwardness ensued and my feelings were hurt. So the next day he invited my wife and I, with some back and forth about not feeling obligated etc. We were cool.
Friday came, we showed up, not a single person talked to us. Even people I talked to everyday at work. We never got our coats off. A couple of people just asked my friend what the hell
we were doing there. He looked awful, I excused myself thanked him and we left. We never talked about it, and never got together with our families again. Not so many lunches then none.
There is a point in there somewhere. I still wonder what it is. But white privilege discussions always bring that to mind.
So we talk about how black people are treated differently, but that in itself is a white perspective. My earlier question wasn’t without a point. White males make up about 35- 40% of the population, so who is treating black people different in their other 60% of their interactions?
Is white privilege conferred by all of society? Or just white people?
Sure, so where’s third base?
I may have told this story before. Thirty years ago I worked in a Datacenter that was pretty well integrated. Actually black people were probably 40% of the workers. I was just a guy, the guy I hung out with and went to lunch with, had drinks after work now and then etc.was black.
One day we were hanging out and another of our friends stopped to chat and mentioned he was coming to the party on Friday. My friend got really nervous, awkwardness ensued and my feelings were hurt. So the next day he invited my wife and I, with some back and forth about not feeling obligated etc. We were cool.
Friday came, we showed up, not a single person talked to us. Even people I talked to everyday at work. We never got our coats off. A couple of people just asked my friend what the hell
we were doing there. He looked awful, I excused myself thanked him and we left. We never talked about it, and never got together with our families again. Not so many lunches then none.
There is a point in there somewhere. I still wonder what it is. But white privilege discussions always bring that to mind.
So we talk about how black people are treated differently, but that in itself is a white perspective. My earlier question wasn’t without a point. White males make up about 35- 40% of the population, so who is treating black people different in their other 60% of their interactions?
Is white privilege conferred by all of society? Or just white people?
Sure, so where’s third base?
I may have told this story before. Thirty years ago I worked in a Datacenter that was pretty well integrated. Actually black people were probably 40% of the workers. I was just a guy, the guy I hung out with and went to lunch with, had drinks after work now and then etc.was black.
One day we were hanging out and another of our friends stopped to chat and mentioned he was coming to the party on Friday. My friend got really nervous, awkwardness ensued and my feelings were hurt. So the next day he invited my wife and I, with some back and forth about not feeling obligated etc. We were cool.
Friday came, we showed up, not a single person talked to us. Even people I talked to everyday at work. We never got our coats off. A couple of people just asked my friend what the hell
we were doing there. He looked awful, I excused myself thanked him and we left. We never talked about it, and never got together with our families again. Not so many lunches then none.
There is a point in there somewhere. I still wonder what it is. But white privilege discussions always bring that to mind.
So we talk about how black people are treated differently, but that in itself is a white perspective. My earlier question wasn’t without a point. White males make up about 35- 40% of the population, so who is treating black people different in their other 60% of their interactions?
Is white privilege conferred by all of society? Or just white people?
Briefly (because I’ve had a hell of a day and wound up self-medicating with Scotch): white privilege is general, having to do with the place of “whites” in most societies. I’ve certainly been treated with such privilege in Asia, quite extensively. You also wind up paying extra often (some of my friends refer to this as “skin tax”) and may be subject to sotto voce insults in a language you may or may not understand, but by and large it is understood that a White Person is someone not to be messed with lightly, that any harm done to him/her may have Consequences. Much the same is true in some dealings with “persons of color” in the US; they may or may not like me, but in most cases they’re going to treat me with caution, if not actual respect. I’d have to go off the beaten track, into areas known to be “unsafe,” in most cases, to feel the absence of the aura of protection that generally surround me.
As a classic Person Of Privilege – American (a big factor, globally speaking), white, male, straight, nominally “Christian,” evidently educated (and therefore in some sense of the elite), and even tall (that helps, you know!) – I cannot be unaware of the number of situations in which I have had some advantage over those who were less privileged. Less likely to be snubbed and overlooked, more likely to be taken seriously by those in authority if I complained or was questioned, facing (if I thought about it) reduced competition for admission or jobs (because many of those who might have competed had been weeded out earlier in the process, so didn’t even appear on the “short list”), more likely to be called on or seen as a prospective “leader,” etc. And that’s not even considering the crucial aspect for some people, which is Less Likely To Be Stopped And Then Shot By The Police. Never even occurred to me.
There are just enough snubs and inconveniences (cf. “skin tax,” above, or Marty’s anecdote) to make one realize that this Privilege has its occasional downs as well as ups. And I spent most of the first half of my life poor – not destitute but well down in the lower tax brackets (my father never made enough to pay any income tax at all) – and thus was acutely aware of the extra privilege that wealth supplies, some of which I now enjoy. But anyone who thinks that he’d be better off – legally, socially, vocationally – as a person without these privileges is not really thinking at all, just reacting viscerally to his plight in an imperfect world. There may well be psychological advantages to not being as WASP-y as I am – I’m certainly not suggesting that everyone wants to be me! – but almost all the mundane real world privileges work on my behalf.
(I realize I said “Briefly” at the outset – please accept that for an ex-academic who has been drinking, this IS brief.)
Briefly (because I’ve had a hell of a day and wound up self-medicating with Scotch): white privilege is general, having to do with the place of “whites” in most societies. I’ve certainly been treated with such privilege in Asia, quite extensively. You also wind up paying extra often (some of my friends refer to this as “skin tax”) and may be subject to sotto voce insults in a language you may or may not understand, but by and large it is understood that a White Person is someone not to be messed with lightly, that any harm done to him/her may have Consequences. Much the same is true in some dealings with “persons of color” in the US; they may or may not like me, but in most cases they’re going to treat me with caution, if not actual respect. I’d have to go off the beaten track, into areas known to be “unsafe,” in most cases, to feel the absence of the aura of protection that generally surround me.
As a classic Person Of Privilege – American (a big factor, globally speaking), white, male, straight, nominally “Christian,” evidently educated (and therefore in some sense of the elite), and even tall (that helps, you know!) – I cannot be unaware of the number of situations in which I have had some advantage over those who were less privileged. Less likely to be snubbed and overlooked, more likely to be taken seriously by those in authority if I complained or was questioned, facing (if I thought about it) reduced competition for admission or jobs (because many of those who might have competed had been weeded out earlier in the process, so didn’t even appear on the “short list”), more likely to be called on or seen as a prospective “leader,” etc. And that’s not even considering the crucial aspect for some people, which is Less Likely To Be Stopped And Then Shot By The Police. Never even occurred to me.
There are just enough snubs and inconveniences (cf. “skin tax,” above, or Marty’s anecdote) to make one realize that this Privilege has its occasional downs as well as ups. And I spent most of the first half of my life poor – not destitute but well down in the lower tax brackets (my father never made enough to pay any income tax at all) – and thus was acutely aware of the extra privilege that wealth supplies, some of which I now enjoy. But anyone who thinks that he’d be better off – legally, socially, vocationally – as a person without these privileges is not really thinking at all, just reacting viscerally to his plight in an imperfect world. There may well be psychological advantages to not being as WASP-y as I am – I’m certainly not suggesting that everyone wants to be me! – but almost all the mundane real world privileges work on my behalf.
(I realize I said “Briefly” at the outset – please accept that for an ex-academic who has been drinking, this IS brief.)
Briefly (because I’ve had a hell of a day and wound up self-medicating with Scotch): white privilege is general, having to do with the place of “whites” in most societies. I’ve certainly been treated with such privilege in Asia, quite extensively. You also wind up paying extra often (some of my friends refer to this as “skin tax”) and may be subject to sotto voce insults in a language you may or may not understand, but by and large it is understood that a White Person is someone not to be messed with lightly, that any harm done to him/her may have Consequences. Much the same is true in some dealings with “persons of color” in the US; they may or may not like me, but in most cases they’re going to treat me with caution, if not actual respect. I’d have to go off the beaten track, into areas known to be “unsafe,” in most cases, to feel the absence of the aura of protection that generally surround me.
As a classic Person Of Privilege – American (a big factor, globally speaking), white, male, straight, nominally “Christian,” evidently educated (and therefore in some sense of the elite), and even tall (that helps, you know!) – I cannot be unaware of the number of situations in which I have had some advantage over those who were less privileged. Less likely to be snubbed and overlooked, more likely to be taken seriously by those in authority if I complained or was questioned, facing (if I thought about it) reduced competition for admission or jobs (because many of those who might have competed had been weeded out earlier in the process, so didn’t even appear on the “short list”), more likely to be called on or seen as a prospective “leader,” etc. And that’s not even considering the crucial aspect for some people, which is Less Likely To Be Stopped And Then Shot By The Police. Never even occurred to me.
There are just enough snubs and inconveniences (cf. “skin tax,” above, or Marty’s anecdote) to make one realize that this Privilege has its occasional downs as well as ups. And I spent most of the first half of my life poor – not destitute but well down in the lower tax brackets (my father never made enough to pay any income tax at all) – and thus was acutely aware of the extra privilege that wealth supplies, some of which I now enjoy. But anyone who thinks that he’d be better off – legally, socially, vocationally – as a person without these privileges is not really thinking at all, just reacting viscerally to his plight in an imperfect world. There may well be psychological advantages to not being as WASP-y as I am – I’m certainly not suggesting that everyone wants to be me! – but almost all the mundane real world privileges work on my behalf.
(I realize I said “Briefly” at the outset – please accept that for an ex-academic who has been drinking, this IS brief.)
Marty, this is not meant to be sarcastic, but it will probably be taken as such. Your experience, being judged by your skin color in some circumstance where they didn’t expect it happens to African-Americans day in and day out. That being the case, is it hard to imagine that minority groups might carve out places where they can feel comfortable? And might not their urge to carve out these spaces account for the experience you had?
I don’t mean to interrogate you, but are there not places where you might not invite an African-American co-worker? If there are, why would you hesitate?
Given the particular historic arc of African Americans, part of their history has been devoted to carving out ‘safe spaces’ where they can be themselves. That African-Americans do this doesn’t invalidate the concept of white privilege, it simply shows that human trait of ‘if you can’t beat em (doing it), join em’. Furthermore, one could see it as a symptom of white privilege wondering why they, as outsiders, aren’t made comfortable when they enter these spaces.
Marty, this is not meant to be sarcastic, but it will probably be taken as such. Your experience, being judged by your skin color in some circumstance where they didn’t expect it happens to African-Americans day in and day out. That being the case, is it hard to imagine that minority groups might carve out places where they can feel comfortable? And might not their urge to carve out these spaces account for the experience you had?
I don’t mean to interrogate you, but are there not places where you might not invite an African-American co-worker? If there are, why would you hesitate?
Given the particular historic arc of African Americans, part of their history has been devoted to carving out ‘safe spaces’ where they can be themselves. That African-Americans do this doesn’t invalidate the concept of white privilege, it simply shows that human trait of ‘if you can’t beat em (doing it), join em’. Furthermore, one could see it as a symptom of white privilege wondering why they, as outsiders, aren’t made comfortable when they enter these spaces.
Marty, this is not meant to be sarcastic, but it will probably be taken as such. Your experience, being judged by your skin color in some circumstance where they didn’t expect it happens to African-Americans day in and day out. That being the case, is it hard to imagine that minority groups might carve out places where they can feel comfortable? And might not their urge to carve out these spaces account for the experience you had?
I don’t mean to interrogate you, but are there not places where you might not invite an African-American co-worker? If there are, why would you hesitate?
Given the particular historic arc of African Americans, part of their history has been devoted to carving out ‘safe spaces’ where they can be themselves. That African-Americans do this doesn’t invalidate the concept of white privilege, it simply shows that human trait of ‘if you can’t beat em (doing it), join em’. Furthermore, one could see it as a symptom of white privilege wondering why they, as outsiders, aren’t made comfortable when they enter these spaces.
I suspect this is too gamergeeky, but it seems to me that white people (men especially) start off with a certain number of automatically achieved saving throws and bonuses on the others. Doesn’t stop them from screwing up or getting screwed over by other white people, but it sure helps vis a vis everyone else. Maybe something could be made of that notion.
I suspect this is too gamergeeky, but it seems to me that white people (men especially) start off with a certain number of automatically achieved saving throws and bonuses on the others. Doesn’t stop them from screwing up or getting screwed over by other white people, but it sure helps vis a vis everyone else. Maybe something could be made of that notion.
I suspect this is too gamergeeky, but it seems to me that white people (men especially) start off with a certain number of automatically achieved saving throws and bonuses on the others. Doesn’t stop them from screwing up or getting screwed over by other white people, but it sure helps vis a vis everyone else. Maybe something could be made of that notion.
I am happy to answer lj, there is no place in my life I can imagine where I would exclude someone based on their skin color.
Hmm, that’s not quite true, I know some racists that I would not invite a person of color to be around. Dinner, social events. In an instance where I control the guest list the person of color would get the invitation .
I do not find it hard to imagine the desire to “carve out a space”. If you are white that’s called racist. If you are a male it’s called misogyny. If you are black it’s OK. If you are a w7oman it’s called supporting sisterhood. The creation of exclusionary groups in response to being excluded, while continuing to demand inclusion in all groups creates a sense of privilege in itself. We get to be part of the whole and separate. A concept most white males today have been taught is wrong.
I am happy to answer lj, there is no place in my life I can imagine where I would exclude someone based on their skin color.
Hmm, that’s not quite true, I know some racists that I would not invite a person of color to be around. Dinner, social events. In an instance where I control the guest list the person of color would get the invitation .
I do not find it hard to imagine the desire to “carve out a space”. If you are white that’s called racist. If you are a male it’s called misogyny. If you are black it’s OK. If you are a w7oman it’s called supporting sisterhood. The creation of exclusionary groups in response to being excluded, while continuing to demand inclusion in all groups creates a sense of privilege in itself. We get to be part of the whole and separate. A concept most white males today have been taught is wrong.
I am happy to answer lj, there is no place in my life I can imagine where I would exclude someone based on their skin color.
Hmm, that’s not quite true, I know some racists that I would not invite a person of color to be around. Dinner, social events. In an instance where I control the guest list the person of color would get the invitation .
I do not find it hard to imagine the desire to “carve out a space”. If you are white that’s called racist. If you are a male it’s called misogyny. If you are black it’s OK. If you are a w7oman it’s called supporting sisterhood. The creation of exclusionary groups in response to being excluded, while continuing to demand inclusion in all groups creates a sense of privilege in itself. We get to be part of the whole and separate. A concept most white males today have been taught is wrong.
Marty,
I am a Finn, and belong to the Finnish-speaking majority of this nation. In addition to the Finnish-speakers, there is a historical minority of Swedish-speaking Finns, comprising about 5 % of the population. Their language is one of our two national languages.
The Finnish nation is, as such, bilingual. In practice, it means that most organisations are theoretically bilingual, but in practice unilingual, because Finnish is spoken by the vast majority. In addition, the Swedish-speakers usually have their own organisations, which are unilingually Swedish. We Finnish-speakers accept that, because in practice, any bilingual organisation becomes functionally Finnish-speaking in a decade or two. The Swedish-speakers need their own dedicated cultural space so that they can maintain their language. That’s OK, because keeping your native language, if you are a historical minority, is a basic right.
The situation with white male safe spaces is similar. They are needed only if and when the white males lose their dominant position in the society. Minority safe spaces are necessary to establish.
Majority will create its safe space by its raw dominance anyhow.
Marty,
I am a Finn, and belong to the Finnish-speaking majority of this nation. In addition to the Finnish-speakers, there is a historical minority of Swedish-speaking Finns, comprising about 5 % of the population. Their language is one of our two national languages.
The Finnish nation is, as such, bilingual. In practice, it means that most organisations are theoretically bilingual, but in practice unilingual, because Finnish is spoken by the vast majority. In addition, the Swedish-speakers usually have their own organisations, which are unilingually Swedish. We Finnish-speakers accept that, because in practice, any bilingual organisation becomes functionally Finnish-speaking in a decade or two. The Swedish-speakers need their own dedicated cultural space so that they can maintain their language. That’s OK, because keeping your native language, if you are a historical minority, is a basic right.
The situation with white male safe spaces is similar. They are needed only if and when the white males lose their dominant position in the society. Minority safe spaces are necessary to establish.
Majority will create its safe space by its raw dominance anyhow.
Marty,
I am a Finn, and belong to the Finnish-speaking majority of this nation. In addition to the Finnish-speakers, there is a historical minority of Swedish-speaking Finns, comprising about 5 % of the population. Their language is one of our two national languages.
The Finnish nation is, as such, bilingual. In practice, it means that most organisations are theoretically bilingual, but in practice unilingual, because Finnish is spoken by the vast majority. In addition, the Swedish-speakers usually have their own organisations, which are unilingually Swedish. We Finnish-speakers accept that, because in practice, any bilingual organisation becomes functionally Finnish-speaking in a decade or two. The Swedish-speakers need their own dedicated cultural space so that they can maintain their language. That’s OK, because keeping your native language, if you are a historical minority, is a basic right.
The situation with white male safe spaces is similar. They are needed only if and when the white males lose their dominant position in the society. Minority safe spaces are necessary to establish.
Majority will create its safe space by its raw dominance anyhow.
I think that’s a great insight Lurker. The challenge for me would be if all those Finnish speaking groups were considered racists and hateful. The other dynamic is that the individual can be included by speaking Finnish*, the black person in the US can’t really be white, or vice versa. So blacks can’t be included if the criteria is white. And the other way.
*That’s an assumption
I think that’s a great insight Lurker. The challenge for me would be if all those Finnish speaking groups were considered racists and hateful. The other dynamic is that the individual can be included by speaking Finnish*, the black person in the US can’t really be white, or vice versa. So blacks can’t be included if the criteria is white. And the other way.
*That’s an assumption
I think that’s a great insight Lurker. The challenge for me would be if all those Finnish speaking groups were considered racists and hateful. The other dynamic is that the individual can be included by speaking Finnish*, the black person in the US can’t really be white, or vice versa. So blacks can’t be included if the criteria is white. And the other way.
*That’s an assumption
lots of non-white people are racist. lots of women are hostile to men.
white men have no monopoly on that stuff.
the difference is the degree to which the laws, institutions, and culture you live in are relatively more favorable to you, as a kind of default, because you are white, or male, or whatever.
that’s the privilege part. that’s third base.
there are demoraphics with white skin, historically and now, that did not and do not enjoy a privileged status. so, maybe the conversation should be about the privileges enjoyed by white people with a certain minimum income. or white people who dont have certain regional accents. or pick any number of markers other than skin color that might cause you to lose your privileged status.
but privilege, as an assumed preferred status, most definitely exists.
lots of non-white people are racist. lots of women are hostile to men.
white men have no monopoly on that stuff.
the difference is the degree to which the laws, institutions, and culture you live in are relatively more favorable to you, as a kind of default, because you are white, or male, or whatever.
that’s the privilege part. that’s third base.
there are demoraphics with white skin, historically and now, that did not and do not enjoy a privileged status. so, maybe the conversation should be about the privileges enjoyed by white people with a certain minimum income. or white people who dont have certain regional accents. or pick any number of markers other than skin color that might cause you to lose your privileged status.
but privilege, as an assumed preferred status, most definitely exists.
lots of non-white people are racist. lots of women are hostile to men.
white men have no monopoly on that stuff.
the difference is the degree to which the laws, institutions, and culture you live in are relatively more favorable to you, as a kind of default, because you are white, or male, or whatever.
that’s the privilege part. that’s third base.
there are demoraphics with white skin, historically and now, that did not and do not enjoy a privileged status. so, maybe the conversation should be about the privileges enjoyed by white people with a certain minimum income. or white people who dont have certain regional accents. or pick any number of markers other than skin color that might cause you to lose your privileged status.
but privilege, as an assumed preferred status, most definitely exists.
Marty,
my point was exactly that there are very few purely Finnish-speaking national organisations. They are all bilingual: They have an official Swedish-language name, their bylaws exist in Swedish and you can, for example, use Swedish in your correspondence or speeches in meetings. (Every educated Finn speaks both languages.) It is only an practical level that they are monolingually Finnish. If an organisation declares itself formally monolingual it is considered hateful.
Marty,
my point was exactly that there are very few purely Finnish-speaking national organisations. They are all bilingual: They have an official Swedish-language name, their bylaws exist in Swedish and you can, for example, use Swedish in your correspondence or speeches in meetings. (Every educated Finn speaks both languages.) It is only an practical level that they are monolingually Finnish. If an organisation declares itself formally monolingual it is considered hateful.
Marty,
my point was exactly that there are very few purely Finnish-speaking national organisations. They are all bilingual: They have an official Swedish-language name, their bylaws exist in Swedish and you can, for example, use Swedish in your correspondence or speeches in meetings. (Every educated Finn speaks both languages.) It is only an practical level that they are monolingually Finnish. If an organisation declares itself formally monolingual it is considered hateful.
Interesting Lurker, so the culture outweighs the rule over time, but the accommodation is enough to foster inclusion. I could see that.
Interesting Lurker, so the culture outweighs the rule over time, but the accommodation is enough to foster inclusion. I could see that.
Interesting Lurker, so the culture outweighs the rule over time, but the accommodation is enough to foster inclusion. I could see that.
“born on third base”
Whenever I hear that term, I think of Jackie Robinson.
http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/bb9e2490
Sorry, lots of reading.
Second base was the problem, what with Enos Slaughter and all.
Not content with third, which was no sweat, he drove pitchers and opposing managers nuts stealing home. When he purchased another type of home, that was considered stealing too:
“With the help of a welfare agency, the Robinson family purchased a home in a predominantly white Pasadena neighborhood, where neighbors immediately petitioned to get rid of the newcomers and even offered to buy them out. When those ploys failed the family was harassed for several years. The Robinson boys often had to fight to defend themselves, and young Jackie was involved in his share of scrapes with white youths and had some run-ins with authorities.”
Now, here’s another pretty good base stealer and competitor who figured prominently in laying land mines, hurdles, and incoming on Robinson no matter which base the latter earned:
http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/0fe7f158
But Chapman’s mortgage papers on any of the home bases he purchased in the meat world were never questioned.
Chapman had a mouth on him, which he got away with for most of his career. So did Robinson, but Branch Rickey told him to stow it, so what looked like dignity, not that Robinson was not dignified, was in many cases suppressed fury.
Where do you think Barack Obama learned the restraint of NOT pulling South Carolina Rep Joe Wilson over the balcony by his necktie and breaking every bone in his cracker face when the lousy racist f*ck took the unprecedented Chapman-like step of shooting off his confederate mouth, but instead Barack danced off third for a cool walk-off steal of home during his SOTU.
The White House might as well have been in a tony white neighborhood in Pasadena for Wilson’s tens of millions of fellow-travelers.
“Former teammate Joe Black, speaking for generations of black ballplayers, later said, “When I look at my house. I say ‘Thank God for Jackie Robinson.’”
Black wasn’t talking about home base.
“born on third base”
Whenever I hear that term, I think of Jackie Robinson.
http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/bb9e2490
Sorry, lots of reading.
Second base was the problem, what with Enos Slaughter and all.
Not content with third, which was no sweat, he drove pitchers and opposing managers nuts stealing home. When he purchased another type of home, that was considered stealing too:
“With the help of a welfare agency, the Robinson family purchased a home in a predominantly white Pasadena neighborhood, where neighbors immediately petitioned to get rid of the newcomers and even offered to buy them out. When those ploys failed the family was harassed for several years. The Robinson boys often had to fight to defend themselves, and young Jackie was involved in his share of scrapes with white youths and had some run-ins with authorities.”
Now, here’s another pretty good base stealer and competitor who figured prominently in laying land mines, hurdles, and incoming on Robinson no matter which base the latter earned:
http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/0fe7f158
But Chapman’s mortgage papers on any of the home bases he purchased in the meat world were never questioned.
Chapman had a mouth on him, which he got away with for most of his career. So did Robinson, but Branch Rickey told him to stow it, so what looked like dignity, not that Robinson was not dignified, was in many cases suppressed fury.
Where do you think Barack Obama learned the restraint of NOT pulling South Carolina Rep Joe Wilson over the balcony by his necktie and breaking every bone in his cracker face when the lousy racist f*ck took the unprecedented Chapman-like step of shooting off his confederate mouth, but instead Barack danced off third for a cool walk-off steal of home during his SOTU.
The White House might as well have been in a tony white neighborhood in Pasadena for Wilson’s tens of millions of fellow-travelers.
“Former teammate Joe Black, speaking for generations of black ballplayers, later said, “When I look at my house. I say ‘Thank God for Jackie Robinson.’”
Black wasn’t talking about home base.
“born on third base”
Whenever I hear that term, I think of Jackie Robinson.
http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/bb9e2490
Sorry, lots of reading.
Second base was the problem, what with Enos Slaughter and all.
Not content with third, which was no sweat, he drove pitchers and opposing managers nuts stealing home. When he purchased another type of home, that was considered stealing too:
“With the help of a welfare agency, the Robinson family purchased a home in a predominantly white Pasadena neighborhood, where neighbors immediately petitioned to get rid of the newcomers and even offered to buy them out. When those ploys failed the family was harassed for several years. The Robinson boys often had to fight to defend themselves, and young Jackie was involved in his share of scrapes with white youths and had some run-ins with authorities.”
Now, here’s another pretty good base stealer and competitor who figured prominently in laying land mines, hurdles, and incoming on Robinson no matter which base the latter earned:
http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/0fe7f158
But Chapman’s mortgage papers on any of the home bases he purchased in the meat world were never questioned.
Chapman had a mouth on him, which he got away with for most of his career. So did Robinson, but Branch Rickey told him to stow it, so what looked like dignity, not that Robinson was not dignified, was in many cases suppressed fury.
Where do you think Barack Obama learned the restraint of NOT pulling South Carolina Rep Joe Wilson over the balcony by his necktie and breaking every bone in his cracker face when the lousy racist f*ck took the unprecedented Chapman-like step of shooting off his confederate mouth, but instead Barack danced off third for a cool walk-off steal of home during his SOTU.
The White House might as well have been in a tony white neighborhood in Pasadena for Wilson’s tens of millions of fellow-travelers.
“Former teammate Joe Black, speaking for generations of black ballplayers, later said, “When I look at my house. I say ‘Thank God for Jackie Robinson.’”
Black wasn’t talking about home base.
or white people who dont have certain regional accents.
And isn’t it interesting that, even if you are white, you can also get bonus points if you have the right regional accent. More, that the “right” regional accent is actually British, rather than American. (Or Australian. Americans are terrible at telling the difference.)
or white people who dont have certain regional accents.
And isn’t it interesting that, even if you are white, you can also get bonus points if you have the right regional accent. More, that the “right” regional accent is actually British, rather than American. (Or Australian. Americans are terrible at telling the difference.)
or white people who dont have certain regional accents.
And isn’t it interesting that, even if you are white, you can also get bonus points if you have the right regional accent. More, that the “right” regional accent is actually British, rather than American. (Or Australian. Americans are terrible at telling the difference.)
A concept most white males today have been taught is wrong.
Just my opinion, but I feel those other private spaces offer refuge, but the white male space, when aggregated, offers power.
Therein lies the difference.
A concept most white males today have been taught is wrong.
Just my opinion, but I feel those other private spaces offer refuge, but the white male space, when aggregated, offers power.
Therein lies the difference.
A concept most white males today have been taught is wrong.
Just my opinion, but I feel those other private spaces offer refuge, but the white male space, when aggregated, offers power.
Therein lies the difference.
Nick T “I suspect this is too gamergeeky, but it seems to me that white people (men especially) start off with a certain number of automatically achieved saving throws and bonuses on the others. Doesn’t stop them from screwing up or getting screwed over by other white people, but it sure helps vis a vis everyone else. Maybe something could be made of that notion.”
In old school RPG design we’re talking about Advantages (or Perks, Backgrounds or Merits) which are ways of getting extra points to spend on character creation or to have chances weighted in your character’s favor in particular circumstances. RPG design being what it is, those Advantages are bought, zero sum, by counterbalancing Disadvantages (or Flaws). Frex: Sherlock is a character who has an Eiditic Memory that is balanced by a Dependency on Cocaine.
IRL, though, none of these Advantages and Disadvantages are zero sum. The game is not balanced.
Another good discussion of this that I’ve taught in my courses on video games in society: All Skulls On: Teaching intersectionality through Halo
Nick T “I suspect this is too gamergeeky, but it seems to me that white people (men especially) start off with a certain number of automatically achieved saving throws and bonuses on the others. Doesn’t stop them from screwing up or getting screwed over by other white people, but it sure helps vis a vis everyone else. Maybe something could be made of that notion.”
In old school RPG design we’re talking about Advantages (or Perks, Backgrounds or Merits) which are ways of getting extra points to spend on character creation or to have chances weighted in your character’s favor in particular circumstances. RPG design being what it is, those Advantages are bought, zero sum, by counterbalancing Disadvantages (or Flaws). Frex: Sherlock is a character who has an Eiditic Memory that is balanced by a Dependency on Cocaine.
IRL, though, none of these Advantages and Disadvantages are zero sum. The game is not balanced.
Another good discussion of this that I’ve taught in my courses on video games in society: All Skulls On: Teaching intersectionality through Halo
Nick T “I suspect this is too gamergeeky, but it seems to me that white people (men especially) start off with a certain number of automatically achieved saving throws and bonuses on the others. Doesn’t stop them from screwing up or getting screwed over by other white people, but it sure helps vis a vis everyone else. Maybe something could be made of that notion.”
In old school RPG design we’re talking about Advantages (or Perks, Backgrounds or Merits) which are ways of getting extra points to spend on character creation or to have chances weighted in your character’s favor in particular circumstances. RPG design being what it is, those Advantages are bought, zero sum, by counterbalancing Disadvantages (or Flaws). Frex: Sherlock is a character who has an Eiditic Memory that is balanced by a Dependency on Cocaine.
IRL, though, none of these Advantages and Disadvantages are zero sum. The game is not balanced.
Another good discussion of this that I’ve taught in my courses on video games in society: All Skulls On: Teaching intersectionality through Halo
Lurker: does Finnish bilingualism extend to Sami speakers?
Lurker: does Finnish bilingualism extend to Sami speakers?
Lurker: does Finnish bilingualism extend to Sami speakers?
privilege is what you have when you aren’t subject to myriad prejudices that hurt minorities.
alternately, it’s the benefits accrued do to positive prejudice.
privilege is what you have when you aren’t subject to myriad prejudices that hurt minorities.
alternately, it’s the benefits accrued do to positive prejudice.
privilege is what you have when you aren’t subject to myriad prejudices that hurt minorities.
alternately, it’s the benefits accrued do to positive prejudice.
s/do/due
s/do/due
s/do/due
Marty, do you really not see the difference between a white affinity group and a black one?
I don’t actually believe that.
If an African-American person told you they were going to an NAACP meeting, you would’t think the same thing you would if a white American told you they were going to a group that was dedicated to the advancement of white people, right? With the white person, you’d immediately suspect that they were a white supremacist.
So why don’t you tell me why you think that instinct is wrong?
Marty, do you really not see the difference between a white affinity group and a black one?
I don’t actually believe that.
If an African-American person told you they were going to an NAACP meeting, you would’t think the same thing you would if a white American told you they were going to a group that was dedicated to the advancement of white people, right? With the white person, you’d immediately suspect that they were a white supremacist.
So why don’t you tell me why you think that instinct is wrong?
Marty, do you really not see the difference between a white affinity group and a black one?
I don’t actually believe that.
If an African-American person told you they were going to an NAACP meeting, you would’t think the same thing you would if a white American told you they were going to a group that was dedicated to the advancement of white people, right? With the white person, you’d immediately suspect that they were a white supremacist.
So why don’t you tell me why you think that instinct is wrong?
Snarki,
There are some 5,000 Sami speakers, with three separate languages, in Finland. Their language does not have the status as a National language, and Sami speakers have linguistic rights only in their traditional area, Northern Lapland. There, the road signs are in all Sami languages, in addition to Finnish, and the Sami have full rights to use Sami in schools and public offices.
However, there is nothing comparable to the Swedish-speaking society. The Swedish-speakers have a completely parallel structure of civil society, organized by language: Separate sports clubs, learned societies, NGOs, choirs, parishes, theaters, think tanks and foundations. (E.g. There are two national mathematical societies in Finland: a bilingual and a Swedish-speaking one.) Even a separate Swedish-speaking brigade in the Finnish Navy for Swedish-speaking conscripts to serve in. This is possible, because the Swedish-speaking Finns are clearly wealthier and better educated than rural Sami, in addition to having a population roughly 80 times larger. The existence of such structure is necessary if we want to maintain a living minority language, but difficult to organize for 5,000 people.
Snarki,
There are some 5,000 Sami speakers, with three separate languages, in Finland. Their language does not have the status as a National language, and Sami speakers have linguistic rights only in their traditional area, Northern Lapland. There, the road signs are in all Sami languages, in addition to Finnish, and the Sami have full rights to use Sami in schools and public offices.
However, there is nothing comparable to the Swedish-speaking society. The Swedish-speakers have a completely parallel structure of civil society, organized by language: Separate sports clubs, learned societies, NGOs, choirs, parishes, theaters, think tanks and foundations. (E.g. There are two national mathematical societies in Finland: a bilingual and a Swedish-speaking one.) Even a separate Swedish-speaking brigade in the Finnish Navy for Swedish-speaking conscripts to serve in. This is possible, because the Swedish-speaking Finns are clearly wealthier and better educated than rural Sami, in addition to having a population roughly 80 times larger. The existence of such structure is necessary if we want to maintain a living minority language, but difficult to organize for 5,000 people.
Snarki,
There are some 5,000 Sami speakers, with three separate languages, in Finland. Their language does not have the status as a National language, and Sami speakers have linguistic rights only in their traditional area, Northern Lapland. There, the road signs are in all Sami languages, in addition to Finnish, and the Sami have full rights to use Sami in schools and public offices.
However, there is nothing comparable to the Swedish-speaking society. The Swedish-speakers have a completely parallel structure of civil society, organized by language: Separate sports clubs, learned societies, NGOs, choirs, parishes, theaters, think tanks and foundations. (E.g. There are two national mathematical societies in Finland: a bilingual and a Swedish-speaking one.) Even a separate Swedish-speaking brigade in the Finnish Navy for Swedish-speaking conscripts to serve in. This is possible, because the Swedish-speaking Finns are clearly wealthier and better educated than rural Sami, in addition to having a population roughly 80 times larger. The existence of such structure is necessary if we want to maintain a living minority language, but difficult to organize for 5,000 people.
Re: what got Irish, Italians, etc., into the “white privilege” camp.
My opinion? Intermarriage, and the resulting kids.
Re: what got Irish, Italians, etc., into the “white privilege” camp.
My opinion? Intermarriage, and the resulting kids.
Re: what got Irish, Italians, etc., into the “white privilege” camp.
My opinion? Intermarriage, and the resulting kids.
what got Irish, Italians, etc., into the “white privilege” camp?
My reflexive response was: when the public image of the drunken Irishman was replaced in popular culture by the image of the Irish cop on the beat. That is, they moved from being the problem to being the solution. The social acceptance of Italians lagged because no image of an Italian cop quite made it into the popular culture to elbow out the Mafia.
But I suspect that Snarki’s explanation is more correct. And the biggest impediment for blacks making the transition to the “privilege” camp via intermarriage may just be the tradition of “one drop” — that is, especially in the South, if you had even just a single black ancestor anywhere, you were considered black.
what got Irish, Italians, etc., into the “white privilege” camp?
My reflexive response was: when the public image of the drunken Irishman was replaced in popular culture by the image of the Irish cop on the beat. That is, they moved from being the problem to being the solution. The social acceptance of Italians lagged because no image of an Italian cop quite made it into the popular culture to elbow out the Mafia.
But I suspect that Snarki’s explanation is more correct. And the biggest impediment for blacks making the transition to the “privilege” camp via intermarriage may just be the tradition of “one drop” — that is, especially in the South, if you had even just a single black ancestor anywhere, you were considered black.
what got Irish, Italians, etc., into the “white privilege” camp?
My reflexive response was: when the public image of the drunken Irishman was replaced in popular culture by the image of the Irish cop on the beat. That is, they moved from being the problem to being the solution. The social acceptance of Italians lagged because no image of an Italian cop quite made it into the popular culture to elbow out the Mafia.
But I suspect that Snarki’s explanation is more correct. And the biggest impediment for blacks making the transition to the “privilege” camp via intermarriage may just be the tradition of “one drop” — that is, especially in the South, if you had even just a single black ancestor anywhere, you were considered black.
Maybe a good baseball analogy (and one surely dear to the heart of our esteemed Chief Justice Roberts!) would be that rich white men get six strikes, rich white women and Asian Americans get five, middle class white people get four, poor whites get three – and most African Americans and Latinos get two at best.
Just speculating, as one does.
Maybe a good baseball analogy (and one surely dear to the heart of our esteemed Chief Justice Roberts!) would be that rich white men get six strikes, rich white women and Asian Americans get five, middle class white people get four, poor whites get three – and most African Americans and Latinos get two at best.
Just speculating, as one does.
Maybe a good baseball analogy (and one surely dear to the heart of our esteemed Chief Justice Roberts!) would be that rich white men get six strikes, rich white women and Asian Americans get five, middle class white people get four, poor whites get three – and most African Americans and Latinos get two at best.
Just speculating, as one does.
I don’t think that the rich actually get more strikes. It’s just that their foul balls don’t count as strikes. No matter when they come, even early in the count.
I don’t think that the rich actually get more strikes. It’s just that their foul balls don’t count as strikes. No matter when they come, even early in the count.
I don’t think that the rich actually get more strikes. It’s just that their foul balls don’t count as strikes. No matter when they come, even early in the count.
what got Irish, Italians, etc., into the “white privilege” camp.
the Irish did it the way many bullied kids get themselves out from under the bully’s heel: they found someone made an even easier target for the bully, shouted to the bully “hey, look at that guy! what a loser!” and then they joined in the harassment with all the gusto they could manage.
and guess who that guy was.
what got Irish, Italians, etc., into the “white privilege” camp.
the Irish did it the way many bullied kids get themselves out from under the bully’s heel: they found someone made an even easier target for the bully, shouted to the bully “hey, look at that guy! what a loser!” and then they joined in the harassment with all the gusto they could manage.
and guess who that guy was.
what got Irish, Italians, etc., into the “white privilege” camp.
the Irish did it the way many bullied kids get themselves out from under the bully’s heel: they found someone made an even easier target for the bully, shouted to the bully “hey, look at that guy! what a loser!” and then they joined in the harassment with all the gusto they could manage.
and guess who that guy was.
I like entitlement.
Everyone has the right to a telephone, and with that right, the entitlement to not have that telephone used against them either as a weapon or a source of vexation.
I like entitlement.
Everyone has the right to a telephone, and with that right, the entitlement to not have that telephone used against them either as a weapon or a source of vexation.
I like entitlement.
Everyone has the right to a telephone, and with that right, the entitlement to not have that telephone used against them either as a weapon or a source of vexation.
What’s best about entitlement is that nobody has a lein on the house any longer.
What’s best about entitlement is that nobody has a lein on the house any longer.
What’s best about entitlement is that nobody has a lein on the house any longer.
nope, there’s no white privilege.
nope, there’s no white privilege.
nope, there’s no white privilege.
Indeed, cleek. And it gets even worse when some folks, who just happen to always be white, go on to say, “Well yes, I admit that happens, but just suck it up. That’s the way it is. Nothing can be done.”
Indeed, cleek. And it gets even worse when some folks, who just happen to always be white, go on to say, “Well yes, I admit that happens, but just suck it up. That’s the way it is. Nothing can be done.”
Indeed, cleek. And it gets even worse when some folks, who just happen to always be white, go on to say, “Well yes, I admit that happens, but just suck it up. That’s the way it is. Nothing can be done.”
One undeserving recipient of Affirmative Action is worth 1000 recipients of white privilege.
One undeserving recipient of Affirmative Action is worth 1000 recipients of white privilege.
One undeserving recipient of Affirmative Action is worth 1000 recipients of white privilege.
Ok, I read the linked story. Not much meat, the chart, created by one person who was watching other people assess candidates is suspect in the first place, they certainly can’t be guilty of bias in their assessment.
Ultimately saying things like this:
makes me disregard pretty much anything the article says. Because it’s stupid. Victims all.
Ok, I read the linked story. Not much meat, the chart, created by one person who was watching other people assess candidates is suspect in the first place, they certainly can’t be guilty of bias in their assessment.
Ultimately saying things like this:
makes me disregard pretty much anything the article says. Because it’s stupid. Victims all.
Ok, I read the linked story. Not much meat, the chart, created by one person who was watching other people assess candidates is suspect in the first place, they certainly can’t be guilty of bias in their assessment.
Ultimately saying things like this:
makes me disregard pretty much anything the article says. Because it’s stupid. Victims all.
The article was a little goofy, but I had little doubt about such racial and gender biases before reading it. If it were the only thing on which I were basing my opinion on the subject, I’d have a hard time forming one at all.
The article was a little goofy, but I had little doubt about such racial and gender biases before reading it. If it were the only thing on which I were basing my opinion on the subject, I’d have a hard time forming one at all.
The article was a little goofy, but I had little doubt about such racial and gender biases before reading it. If it were the only thing on which I were basing my opinion on the subject, I’d have a hard time forming one at all.
Because it’s stupid. Victims all.
ya know, Marty, you are the exact reason i posted that link here. as soon as i started reading that article, i thought of you, and i i knew what your reaction to it would be. and you did not let me down!
Because it’s stupid. Victims all.
ya know, Marty, you are the exact reason i posted that link here. as soon as i started reading that article, i thought of you, and i i knew what your reaction to it would be. and you did not let me down!
Because it’s stupid. Victims all.
ya know, Marty, you are the exact reason i posted that link here. as soon as i started reading that article, i thought of you, and i i knew what your reaction to it would be. and you did not let me down!
“non-whites face particular problems and biases that are often subtle, often unconscious, and haven’t disappeared yet.”
does anyone think this isnt true?
“non-whites face particular problems and biases that are often subtle, often unconscious, and haven’t disappeared yet.”
does anyone think this isnt true?
“non-whites face particular problems and biases that are often subtle, often unconscious, and haven’t disappeared yet.”
does anyone think this isnt true?
Since Marty is reading links, I offer this one.
does anyone think this isnt true?
There goes russell again with his rhetorical questions. 🙂
Since Marty is reading links, I offer this one.
does anyone think this isnt true?
There goes russell again with his rhetorical questions. 🙂
Since Marty is reading links, I offer this one.
does anyone think this isnt true?
There goes russell again with his rhetorical questions. 🙂
Plenty of people think minorities get all the breaks. I think you’d have to be blind to think that, be it willfully or otherwise, but there it is.
Plenty of people think minorities get all the breaks. I think you’d have to be blind to think that, be it willfully or otherwise, but there it is.
Plenty of people think minorities get all the breaks. I think you’d have to be blind to think that, be it willfully or otherwise, but there it is.
Our old friend Gary Farber posted a link to that same article on FB, bobbyp. I read it a few days ago. It’s an interesting read.
Our old friend Gary Farber posted a link to that same article on FB, bobbyp. I read it a few days ago. It’s an interesting read.
Our old friend Gary Farber posted a link to that same article on FB, bobbyp. I read it a few days ago. It’s an interesting read.
Awesome article, honest perspective.
hsh, You don’t have to be blind, you have to be poor, white and working.
Awesome article, honest perspective.
hsh, You don’t have to be blind, you have to be poor, white and working.
Awesome article, honest perspective.
hsh, You don’t have to be blind, you have to be poor, white and working.
When I hear about ‘subtle’ biases, I’d point folks to Abbie Conant’s story.
http://www.osborne-conant.org/ladies.htm#sixteen
Another account is in Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink.
When I hear about ‘subtle’ biases, I’d point folks to Abbie Conant’s story.
http://www.osborne-conant.org/ladies.htm#sixteen
Another account is in Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink.
When I hear about ‘subtle’ biases, I’d point folks to Abbie Conant’s story.
http://www.osborne-conant.org/ladies.htm#sixteen
Another account is in Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink.
I had a lot to drink last night, so that may account for my crankiness this morning. Here’s my better word for “privilege”: Bullshit.
The first human being I spoke to this morning was an African American female who, I learned as we chatted while standing in line together to order our take-out breakfast, is a 29 year senior property and casualty underwriter of a major insurance that, by coincidence, hired me last week to defend a large lawsuit in San Antonio.
Then I got to thinking about lunch yesterday. I took our most recently hired young lawyer out to discuss two cases I was bringing her in on, one of which is the case in San Antonio, and this young Asian female got the “McKinney pep” talk, which is a fairly level toned discussion of how high my standards are–at least in my mind if not elsewhere–and she doesn’t have to take assignments from me but if she does, expect to be held to account accordingly, blah, blah, blah. She was happy to sign on, as are most people who are ambitious and want to get ahead.
Then I thought about the email I sent to Associate Corporate General Counsel X, an African American male, yesterday advising on how, in a death case I’m defending for his employer, Fortune 500 international engineering firm X, we are going to handle a particular thorny issue that my senior female associate on the case was struggling with.
Then I thought about my African American male law partner who sits in the office next to me who updated me on a case he and I will try together early next year if the judge doesn’t throw the case out first.
Here are a few others I’ve had contact with in the last five days: two married doctors whose two daughters are both in med school, my daughter (MBA, top promotion and raise at every review, 7 months pregnant), my daughter in law (senior VP in some kind of snorky, complex marketing operation that I can’t begin to understand), our female African American office manager, the African American female at another insurance company who hired me and who I report to weekly on case status.
There’s more, but I have to get back to work. Which reminds me: GFTNC, I didn’t walk away from the conversation, I was dragged away by work. I’m totally underwater, but in a mostly good way.
And then I started counting all of the other people of color or women or gay or what have you I deal with and tons of other people deal with everyday and I am again reminded of much bullshit there is about how shitty women/people of color have it because they are not *at this moment in time* exactly co-equal with white males.
And I got to thinking, why is it, if American is such a shit hole for people of color, why are so many of them coming here and not somewhere else?
Because, compared to 36 years ago when I got my law license, there has been a huge f’ing change. And all of this social justice hooey is making things worse, not better. We are in retrograde movement in race relations now because the PC “spokespeople” for women/people of color are surplus to needs if they can’t find something wrong somewhere and blow it all out of proportion. And so they practice this totally divisive game of making everything about race and gender, pitting group against group. It’s stupid, counter to reality and counterproductive to what was, up until Obama took office, a pretty stead trend of advancement.
And then have microaggressions, safe spaces and cultural appropriation. Really? Fuck me running.
It’s a fucking embarrassment for women, gays and people of color to be recognized and touted for their skin pigmentation or their plumbing or who they sleep with when what got them where they are is that they could and did do the job.
Kevin Drum has no fucking clue what all women, LGBT’s, people of color think. He is not their spokesperson and he is fucking clueless about what running a business is like. Clueless with a capital C.
Black Lives Matter has even less clue than Drum. Here you have a group that actively desires the absence of police, for all practical purposes, in the very neighborhoods that call the police the most. Has anyone taken a vote of the single women and the elderly in African American neighborhoods to ask them how they feel about the police?
An electrician is a good electrician regardless of color or gender and a bad electrician can burn your house down with you in it regardless of color or gender.
Making companies do a diversity disclosure is the first step toward slut shaming those companies for not meeting the Social Justice Warrior criteria for PC rectitude. So, hire a bunch of women and people of color, put them behind a desk and what you get is the worst possible outcome: people being hired for no better reason than plumbing or pigmentation and everyone else knows it. THAT will make everyone come together in peace and love.
So, when you say privilege, I hear bullshit.
Peace out.
I had a lot to drink last night, so that may account for my crankiness this morning. Here’s my better word for “privilege”: Bullshit.
The first human being I spoke to this morning was an African American female who, I learned as we chatted while standing in line together to order our take-out breakfast, is a 29 year senior property and casualty underwriter of a major insurance that, by coincidence, hired me last week to defend a large lawsuit in San Antonio.
Then I got to thinking about lunch yesterday. I took our most recently hired young lawyer out to discuss two cases I was bringing her in on, one of which is the case in San Antonio, and this young Asian female got the “McKinney pep” talk, which is a fairly level toned discussion of how high my standards are–at least in my mind if not elsewhere–and she doesn’t have to take assignments from me but if she does, expect to be held to account accordingly, blah, blah, blah. She was happy to sign on, as are most people who are ambitious and want to get ahead.
Then I thought about the email I sent to Associate Corporate General Counsel X, an African American male, yesterday advising on how, in a death case I’m defending for his employer, Fortune 500 international engineering firm X, we are going to handle a particular thorny issue that my senior female associate on the case was struggling with.
Then I thought about my African American male law partner who sits in the office next to me who updated me on a case he and I will try together early next year if the judge doesn’t throw the case out first.
Here are a few others I’ve had contact with in the last five days: two married doctors whose two daughters are both in med school, my daughter (MBA, top promotion and raise at every review, 7 months pregnant), my daughter in law (senior VP in some kind of snorky, complex marketing operation that I can’t begin to understand), our female African American office manager, the African American female at another insurance company who hired me and who I report to weekly on case status.
There’s more, but I have to get back to work. Which reminds me: GFTNC, I didn’t walk away from the conversation, I was dragged away by work. I’m totally underwater, but in a mostly good way.
And then I started counting all of the other people of color or women or gay or what have you I deal with and tons of other people deal with everyday and I am again reminded of much bullshit there is about how shitty women/people of color have it because they are not *at this moment in time* exactly co-equal with white males.
And I got to thinking, why is it, if American is such a shit hole for people of color, why are so many of them coming here and not somewhere else?
Because, compared to 36 years ago when I got my law license, there has been a huge f’ing change. And all of this social justice hooey is making things worse, not better. We are in retrograde movement in race relations now because the PC “spokespeople” for women/people of color are surplus to needs if they can’t find something wrong somewhere and blow it all out of proportion. And so they practice this totally divisive game of making everything about race and gender, pitting group against group. It’s stupid, counter to reality and counterproductive to what was, up until Obama took office, a pretty stead trend of advancement.
And then have microaggressions, safe spaces and cultural appropriation. Really? Fuck me running.
It’s a fucking embarrassment for women, gays and people of color to be recognized and touted for their skin pigmentation or their plumbing or who they sleep with when what got them where they are is that they could and did do the job.
Kevin Drum has no fucking clue what all women, LGBT’s, people of color think. He is not their spokesperson and he is fucking clueless about what running a business is like. Clueless with a capital C.
Black Lives Matter has even less clue than Drum. Here you have a group that actively desires the absence of police, for all practical purposes, in the very neighborhoods that call the police the most. Has anyone taken a vote of the single women and the elderly in African American neighborhoods to ask them how they feel about the police?
An electrician is a good electrician regardless of color or gender and a bad electrician can burn your house down with you in it regardless of color or gender.
Making companies do a diversity disclosure is the first step toward slut shaming those companies for not meeting the Social Justice Warrior criteria for PC rectitude. So, hire a bunch of women and people of color, put them behind a desk and what you get is the worst possible outcome: people being hired for no better reason than plumbing or pigmentation and everyone else knows it. THAT will make everyone come together in peace and love.
So, when you say privilege, I hear bullshit.
Peace out.
I had a lot to drink last night, so that may account for my crankiness this morning. Here’s my better word for “privilege”: Bullshit.
The first human being I spoke to this morning was an African American female who, I learned as we chatted while standing in line together to order our take-out breakfast, is a 29 year senior property and casualty underwriter of a major insurance that, by coincidence, hired me last week to defend a large lawsuit in San Antonio.
Then I got to thinking about lunch yesterday. I took our most recently hired young lawyer out to discuss two cases I was bringing her in on, one of which is the case in San Antonio, and this young Asian female got the “McKinney pep” talk, which is a fairly level toned discussion of how high my standards are–at least in my mind if not elsewhere–and she doesn’t have to take assignments from me but if she does, expect to be held to account accordingly, blah, blah, blah. She was happy to sign on, as are most people who are ambitious and want to get ahead.
Then I thought about the email I sent to Associate Corporate General Counsel X, an African American male, yesterday advising on how, in a death case I’m defending for his employer, Fortune 500 international engineering firm X, we are going to handle a particular thorny issue that my senior female associate on the case was struggling with.
Then I thought about my African American male law partner who sits in the office next to me who updated me on a case he and I will try together early next year if the judge doesn’t throw the case out first.
Here are a few others I’ve had contact with in the last five days: two married doctors whose two daughters are both in med school, my daughter (MBA, top promotion and raise at every review, 7 months pregnant), my daughter in law (senior VP in some kind of snorky, complex marketing operation that I can’t begin to understand), our female African American office manager, the African American female at another insurance company who hired me and who I report to weekly on case status.
There’s more, but I have to get back to work. Which reminds me: GFTNC, I didn’t walk away from the conversation, I was dragged away by work. I’m totally underwater, but in a mostly good way.
And then I started counting all of the other people of color or women or gay or what have you I deal with and tons of other people deal with everyday and I am again reminded of much bullshit there is about how shitty women/people of color have it because they are not *at this moment in time* exactly co-equal with white males.
And I got to thinking, why is it, if American is such a shit hole for people of color, why are so many of them coming here and not somewhere else?
Because, compared to 36 years ago when I got my law license, there has been a huge f’ing change. And all of this social justice hooey is making things worse, not better. We are in retrograde movement in race relations now because the PC “spokespeople” for women/people of color are surplus to needs if they can’t find something wrong somewhere and blow it all out of proportion. And so they practice this totally divisive game of making everything about race and gender, pitting group against group. It’s stupid, counter to reality and counterproductive to what was, up until Obama took office, a pretty stead trend of advancement.
And then have microaggressions, safe spaces and cultural appropriation. Really? Fuck me running.
It’s a fucking embarrassment for women, gays and people of color to be recognized and touted for their skin pigmentation or their plumbing or who they sleep with when what got them where they are is that they could and did do the job.
Kevin Drum has no fucking clue what all women, LGBT’s, people of color think. He is not their spokesperson and he is fucking clueless about what running a business is like. Clueless with a capital C.
Black Lives Matter has even less clue than Drum. Here you have a group that actively desires the absence of police, for all practical purposes, in the very neighborhoods that call the police the most. Has anyone taken a vote of the single women and the elderly in African American neighborhoods to ask them how they feel about the police?
An electrician is a good electrician regardless of color or gender and a bad electrician can burn your house down with you in it regardless of color or gender.
Making companies do a diversity disclosure is the first step toward slut shaming those companies for not meeting the Social Justice Warrior criteria for PC rectitude. So, hire a bunch of women and people of color, put them behind a desk and what you get is the worst possible outcome: people being hired for no better reason than plumbing or pigmentation and everyone else knows it. THAT will make everyone come together in peace and love.
So, when you say privilege, I hear bullshit.
Peace out.
Kevin Drum has no fucking clue what all women, LGBT’s, people of color think. He is not their spokesperson and he is fucking clueless about what running a business is like. Clueless with a capital C.
…immediately precedes…
Black Lives Matter has even less clue than Drum.
go back to bed. you’re still drunk.
Kevin Drum has no fucking clue what all women, LGBT’s, people of color think. He is not their spokesperson and he is fucking clueless about what running a business is like. Clueless with a capital C.
…immediately precedes…
Black Lives Matter has even less clue than Drum.
go back to bed. you’re still drunk.
Kevin Drum has no fucking clue what all women, LGBT’s, people of color think. He is not their spokesperson and he is fucking clueless about what running a business is like. Clueless with a capital C.
…immediately precedes…
Black Lives Matter has even less clue than Drum.
go back to bed. you’re still drunk.
It’s Obama’s fault, of course. Oy vey…
It’s Obama’s fault, of course. Oy vey…
It’s Obama’s fault, of course. Oy vey…
hsh, You don’t have to be blind, you have to be poor, white and working.
To think that minorities get all the breaks? Is that how it works? Do all poor, working, white people think this, or is it a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite for this belief?
hsh, You don’t have to be blind, you have to be poor, white and working.
To think that minorities get all the breaks? Is that how it works? Do all poor, working, white people think this, or is it a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite for this belief?
hsh, You don’t have to be blind, you have to be poor, white and working.
To think that minorities get all the breaks? Is that how it works? Do all poor, working, white people think this, or is it a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite for this belief?
“So, when you say privilege, I hear bullshit.”
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Sec 9:
“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
“So, when you say privilege, I hear bullshit.”
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Sec 9:
“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
“So, when you say privilege, I hear bullshit.”
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Sec 9:
“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
Here you have a group that actively desires the absence of police, for all practical purposes,
FFS. talk about not having a clue.
Here you have a group that actively desires the absence of police, for all practical purposes,
FFS. talk about not having a clue.
Here you have a group that actively desires the absence of police, for all practical purposes,
FFS. talk about not having a clue.
“”non-whites face particular problems and biases that are often subtle, often unconscious, and haven’t disappeared yet.”
Yes they do, and women and old people and people with a southern drawl and any of a number of other markers that have biases associated with them.
What I see is more overt racism and sexism in the workforce than most people understand. The wink, wink of hiring managers who know they will not hire a black, gay or woman (often this is dependent on what she looks like) is still a real thing and more frequent than people like to imagine.
Outside that cadre of assholes, the unconscious biases also exist, although often things like this article are confusing these underlying biases with more “practical” assessments.
For example, the poor communicator who is black is a greater risk in a consulting company, their success with the customer base is more questionable and they are often less coachable. Why are they deemed less coachable? Because they are being asked to communicate like “white people”, which is often taken as insulting. There are many white poor communicators that fail, the question is who is more likely to come up to speed?
The point being this is not a subtle bias, it is perceived to be, and sometimes is, an actual limitation. In this case it is hard to determine where the line is between prejudice and the consulting companies legitimate interest.
Once you get past the few areas like that, the subtle biases kick in. Mostly vague uneasiness attributable to culture fit but in some ways the equivalent of the article. However, these are not limited to minorities and are frustrating for lots of people.
In Massachusetts the mention of an unknown out of state college can be almost immediate rejection, an observation I have made over time that no hiring manager would admit to except in reverse. (Well, BC that guy must be well rounded).
There are dozens of markers that effect the hiring process and often the minority candidate falls victim to one of those(a southern accent from a black person is almost certain to exclude you, from a woman gets you closer to a job, from a white male is a red flag. Not a great school?, It helps if you played a sport. I did watch a guy get hired once because the departmental basketball team could use a good player)
I have sat in on hiring decisions for a few thousand people, it is all just more complex than the article makes it out to be and the interviewer/assessor biases are incredibly more complex than “your black” or “a woman” or old. Although I will say old is almost always an exclusionary marker all by itself. Being LGBT is also as likely as old to be an immediate disqualification, (see not subtle above).
That’s just in hiring. I could write another few paragraphs about things like retail store. In my younger days I worked with the security people following folks around the high end department store I worked at, one of my sisters is a manager at Family Dollar stores. But, I don’t have the time.
So the answer is, yes non-whites, along with a range of other people, face particular problems and biases. The overt ones are declining generationally though not as fast as we sometimes like to pretend(IMO), the subtle ones do exist but are perhaps not as prevalent in some areas as attributed.
“”non-whites face particular problems and biases that are often subtle, often unconscious, and haven’t disappeared yet.”
Yes they do, and women and old people and people with a southern drawl and any of a number of other markers that have biases associated with them.
What I see is more overt racism and sexism in the workforce than most people understand. The wink, wink of hiring managers who know they will not hire a black, gay or woman (often this is dependent on what she looks like) is still a real thing and more frequent than people like to imagine.
Outside that cadre of assholes, the unconscious biases also exist, although often things like this article are confusing these underlying biases with more “practical” assessments.
For example, the poor communicator who is black is a greater risk in a consulting company, their success with the customer base is more questionable and they are often less coachable. Why are they deemed less coachable? Because they are being asked to communicate like “white people”, which is often taken as insulting. There are many white poor communicators that fail, the question is who is more likely to come up to speed?
The point being this is not a subtle bias, it is perceived to be, and sometimes is, an actual limitation. In this case it is hard to determine where the line is between prejudice and the consulting companies legitimate interest.
Once you get past the few areas like that, the subtle biases kick in. Mostly vague uneasiness attributable to culture fit but in some ways the equivalent of the article. However, these are not limited to minorities and are frustrating for lots of people.
In Massachusetts the mention of an unknown out of state college can be almost immediate rejection, an observation I have made over time that no hiring manager would admit to except in reverse. (Well, BC that guy must be well rounded).
There are dozens of markers that effect the hiring process and often the minority candidate falls victim to one of those(a southern accent from a black person is almost certain to exclude you, from a woman gets you closer to a job, from a white male is a red flag. Not a great school?, It helps if you played a sport. I did watch a guy get hired once because the departmental basketball team could use a good player)
I have sat in on hiring decisions for a few thousand people, it is all just more complex than the article makes it out to be and the interviewer/assessor biases are incredibly more complex than “your black” or “a woman” or old. Although I will say old is almost always an exclusionary marker all by itself. Being LGBT is also as likely as old to be an immediate disqualification, (see not subtle above).
That’s just in hiring. I could write another few paragraphs about things like retail store. In my younger days I worked with the security people following folks around the high end department store I worked at, one of my sisters is a manager at Family Dollar stores. But, I don’t have the time.
So the answer is, yes non-whites, along with a range of other people, face particular problems and biases. The overt ones are declining generationally though not as fast as we sometimes like to pretend(IMO), the subtle ones do exist but are perhaps not as prevalent in some areas as attributed.
“”non-whites face particular problems and biases that are often subtle, often unconscious, and haven’t disappeared yet.”
Yes they do, and women and old people and people with a southern drawl and any of a number of other markers that have biases associated with them.
What I see is more overt racism and sexism in the workforce than most people understand. The wink, wink of hiring managers who know they will not hire a black, gay or woman (often this is dependent on what she looks like) is still a real thing and more frequent than people like to imagine.
Outside that cadre of assholes, the unconscious biases also exist, although often things like this article are confusing these underlying biases with more “practical” assessments.
For example, the poor communicator who is black is a greater risk in a consulting company, their success with the customer base is more questionable and they are often less coachable. Why are they deemed less coachable? Because they are being asked to communicate like “white people”, which is often taken as insulting. There are many white poor communicators that fail, the question is who is more likely to come up to speed?
The point being this is not a subtle bias, it is perceived to be, and sometimes is, an actual limitation. In this case it is hard to determine where the line is between prejudice and the consulting companies legitimate interest.
Once you get past the few areas like that, the subtle biases kick in. Mostly vague uneasiness attributable to culture fit but in some ways the equivalent of the article. However, these are not limited to minorities and are frustrating for lots of people.
In Massachusetts the mention of an unknown out of state college can be almost immediate rejection, an observation I have made over time that no hiring manager would admit to except in reverse. (Well, BC that guy must be well rounded).
There are dozens of markers that effect the hiring process and often the minority candidate falls victim to one of those(a southern accent from a black person is almost certain to exclude you, from a woman gets you closer to a job, from a white male is a red flag. Not a great school?, It helps if you played a sport. I did watch a guy get hired once because the departmental basketball team could use a good player)
I have sat in on hiring decisions for a few thousand people, it is all just more complex than the article makes it out to be and the interviewer/assessor biases are incredibly more complex than “your black” or “a woman” or old. Although I will say old is almost always an exclusionary marker all by itself. Being LGBT is also as likely as old to be an immediate disqualification, (see not subtle above).
That’s just in hiring. I could write another few paragraphs about things like retail store. In my younger days I worked with the security people following folks around the high end department store I worked at, one of my sisters is a manager at Family Dollar stores. But, I don’t have the time.
So the answer is, yes non-whites, along with a range of other people, face particular problems and biases. The overt ones are declining generationally though not as fast as we sometimes like to pretend(IMO), the subtle ones do exist but are perhaps not as prevalent in some areas as attributed.
“Do all poor, working, white people think this, or is it a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite for this belief?”
Yes every poor, white , working person believes think this, and no one else does. Because all demographics are completely consistent in their thinking. But you don’t have to be blind.
“Do all poor, working, white people think this, or is it a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite for this belief?”
Yes every poor, white , working person believes think this, and no one else does. Because all demographics are completely consistent in their thinking. But you don’t have to be blind.
“Do all poor, working, white people think this, or is it a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite for this belief?”
Yes every poor, white , working person believes think this, and no one else does. Because all demographics are completely consistent in their thinking. But you don’t have to be blind.
Do you think minorities get all the breaks, Marty? Why or why not?
Do you think minorities get all the breaks, Marty? Why or why not?
Do you think minorities get all the breaks, Marty? Why or why not?
Marty, your 10:59 is incredibly thoughtful. Thanks.
Marty, your 10:59 is incredibly thoughtful. Thanks.
Marty, your 10:59 is incredibly thoughtful. Thanks.
Great comment @10:59 Marty. It’s absurdly difficult to escape one’s own internal biases.
Great comment @10:59 Marty. It’s absurdly difficult to escape one’s own internal biases.
Great comment @10:59 Marty. It’s absurdly difficult to escape one’s own internal biases.
I think that minorities get to cut in line over poor and lower middle class whites pretty regularly. I think that the article bobbyp posted is really good discussion of the perception and actuality of that happening.
That article is a much more detailed explanation of lots of the cultural factors that have gone into the Tea Party and then Trump than the places I have tried to share my views here.
I find myself as appalled at the capitulation to living off of the government support by a wider range of poor people, and even people who don’t need it, as the lady in the article seems to be. Her view of the evolving lack of shame is very close to mine.
I think that minorities get to cut in line over poor and lower middle class whites pretty regularly. I think that the article bobbyp posted is really good discussion of the perception and actuality of that happening.
That article is a much more detailed explanation of lots of the cultural factors that have gone into the Tea Party and then Trump than the places I have tried to share my views here.
I find myself as appalled at the capitulation to living off of the government support by a wider range of poor people, and even people who don’t need it, as the lady in the article seems to be. Her view of the evolving lack of shame is very close to mine.
I think that minorities get to cut in line over poor and lower middle class whites pretty regularly. I think that the article bobbyp posted is really good discussion of the perception and actuality of that happening.
That article is a much more detailed explanation of lots of the cultural factors that have gone into the Tea Party and then Trump than the places I have tried to share my views here.
I find myself as appalled at the capitulation to living off of the government support by a wider range of poor people, and even people who don’t need it, as the lady in the article seems to be. Her view of the evolving lack of shame is very close to mine.
“Because, compared to 36 years ago when I got my law license, there has been a huge f’ing change.”
True. But are we saying there is NO resentment of that change? What accounts for the resentment observed in bobbyp’s link, which Trump, an asshole, as you have observed, MCTX, is exploiting and riding the crest of? Are there other more salient reasons you (we) believe he is an asshole?
“And I got to thinking, why is it, if American is such a shit hole for people of color, why are so many of them coming here and not somewhere else?”
According to the ressentiment (listen to my pouncy fucking French, will ya) raging in the land among 40% of the electorate, to rape, pillage, game the welfare system, take our jobs, commit terrorism, and spread the gospel of the street taco.
“Here you have a group that actively desires the absence of police, for all practical purposes, in the very neighborhoods that call the police the most.”
http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/news/2015/08/21/black-lives-matter-releases-list-of-demands-for-police-reform.aspx
That’s a police website, as you can tell from some of the comments. For one thing, why would BLM be calling for body cameras if police presence in those neighborhoods was eliminated? To record their choice of donuts, as so many f*cking conservatives all my life might crack about these public servants when the former aren’t calling for police pension cuts, but I digress.
Also, why would so many “responsible” parties, as cited in the article on the law enforcement website, concur with a number of the ten demands. Not all, to be sure, but still.
“Has anyone taken a vote of the single women and the elderly in African American neighborhoods to ask them how they feel about the police?”
Depends on where they live. In North Carolina and some other states, they may not have access to the polls because of recently enacted ID requirements. I can’t think why that is. Maybe it’s because most of them are going to vote for Hillary Clinton.
“It’s a fucking embarrassment for women, gays and people of color to be recognized and touted for their skin pigmentation or their plumbing or who they sleep with when what got them where they are is that they could and did do the job.”
Yeah, it is. Hillary slept with Bill (some (none of them fucking liberals) say she sleeps with Huma Abedin), we’ve been told, otherwise she’d be an ambulance chaser in some small American town, we’ve been advised.
But, who’s doing the touting? I suspect it’s roughly the same types who were touting their skin pigmentation, their plumbing (again with the plumbing!) and who they sleep with, in 1975, 1965, 1955, 1985, to denigrate their unearned achievements and lookee here, 2016, as white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and their fellow travelers come out of the wood work to police and hold a central place at Trump rallies.
“gays and people of color”. Let’s you and I go to a Trump rally, where, nearly all of the Republican base of recent decades is hot for resentment, and you raise your hand and use politically correct terms like “gay” and “people of color” and see what it gets you. You wanna fit in, which you don’t, because you are NOT a Republican as the Republican Party defines itself this very moment, because you have better values than Paul Ryan and the rest of those filth … you too Marty … then you will use the retrograde language “faggot”, “nigger”, “wetback”, “”towelback”, etc etc, or you will be forcibly removed and physically abused for your politically correct speech.
Actually you won’t because I will be standing there beside you physically kicking their f*cking racist asses in your defense.
“We are in a retrograde movement in race relations now because the PC “spokespeople” for women/people of color are surplus to needs if they can’t find something wrong somewhere and blow it all out of proportion.”
I look forward to some of those people losing their jobs, but not until the Trump movement (40% is not blown out of proportion) and its tens of million of republican adherents are shot in the face, and I mean that literally because I’m no longer interested in using delicate politically correct terms for what they deserve.
“An electrician is a good electrician regardless of color or gender and a bad electrician can burn your house down with you in it regardless of color or gender.”
What about plumbers? Kidding. Here’s what I bet. If it was a black, Mexican, or female electrician who burned the house down, (not yours, but too many), many white victims of the incompetence would never hire a black, Mexican, or female plumber again. If it was a white male electrician who burned the house down, he’d get full individual credit via the law (you know, those regulatory state) for his incompetence and the very next electrician called to survey the damage would be a white male, probably competent.
No one who I know, would say “that’s it, if you want something done right, hire a woman, a black, or a Mexican, because those white guys can’t tell the green wires from the red ones.”
I find that at my age I can’t mix red wine and spirits any longer either, because it causes killer hangovers. 😉
Also, what Marty said at 10:59. I’m old and immature for my age, which is two strikes against me.
One caveat to Marty.
This:
“I find myself as appalled at the capitulation to living off of the government support by a wider range of poor people, and even people who don’t need it, as the lady in the article seems to be. Her view of the evolving lack of shame is very close to mine.”
Yeah well, having worked for the government, you know, applying, being interviewed, and hired for a couple of jobs, for which I returned pretty good value, just like folks in the private sector do, the utter contempt that my colleagues and I are held in for the simple fact of working, is equal to the contempt that these same fucks hold for folks gaming the welfare system, let alone those who require the help.
To which I say, go f*ck yourselves.
You wanna get rid of this shame and the government programs, then the fucking private sector can feel a little shame too and pay a living wage and decent health insurance for all of their workers, stop gutting pensions, and stop fighting every fucking disability and unemployment claim. Stop firing and laying people off.
Until then, eat shit and pay your fucking taxes.
I haven’t had a drop of alcohol so there is no accounting for my peevishness. Or maybe that IS the reason. 😉
“Because, compared to 36 years ago when I got my law license, there has been a huge f’ing change.”
True. But are we saying there is NO resentment of that change? What accounts for the resentment observed in bobbyp’s link, which Trump, an asshole, as you have observed, MCTX, is exploiting and riding the crest of? Are there other more salient reasons you (we) believe he is an asshole?
“And I got to thinking, why is it, if American is such a shit hole for people of color, why are so many of them coming here and not somewhere else?”
According to the ressentiment (listen to my pouncy fucking French, will ya) raging in the land among 40% of the electorate, to rape, pillage, game the welfare system, take our jobs, commit terrorism, and spread the gospel of the street taco.
“Here you have a group that actively desires the absence of police, for all practical purposes, in the very neighborhoods that call the police the most.”
http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/news/2015/08/21/black-lives-matter-releases-list-of-demands-for-police-reform.aspx
That’s a police website, as you can tell from some of the comments. For one thing, why would BLM be calling for body cameras if police presence in those neighborhoods was eliminated? To record their choice of donuts, as so many f*cking conservatives all my life might crack about these public servants when the former aren’t calling for police pension cuts, but I digress.
Also, why would so many “responsible” parties, as cited in the article on the law enforcement website, concur with a number of the ten demands. Not all, to be sure, but still.
“Has anyone taken a vote of the single women and the elderly in African American neighborhoods to ask them how they feel about the police?”
Depends on where they live. In North Carolina and some other states, they may not have access to the polls because of recently enacted ID requirements. I can’t think why that is. Maybe it’s because most of them are going to vote for Hillary Clinton.
“It’s a fucking embarrassment for women, gays and people of color to be recognized and touted for their skin pigmentation or their plumbing or who they sleep with when what got them where they are is that they could and did do the job.”
Yeah, it is. Hillary slept with Bill (some (none of them fucking liberals) say she sleeps with Huma Abedin), we’ve been told, otherwise she’d be an ambulance chaser in some small American town, we’ve been advised.
But, who’s doing the touting? I suspect it’s roughly the same types who were touting their skin pigmentation, their plumbing (again with the plumbing!) and who they sleep with, in 1975, 1965, 1955, 1985, to denigrate their unearned achievements and lookee here, 2016, as white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and their fellow travelers come out of the wood work to police and hold a central place at Trump rallies.
“gays and people of color”. Let’s you and I go to a Trump rally, where, nearly all of the Republican base of recent decades is hot for resentment, and you raise your hand and use politically correct terms like “gay” and “people of color” and see what it gets you. You wanna fit in, which you don’t, because you are NOT a Republican as the Republican Party defines itself this very moment, because you have better values than Paul Ryan and the rest of those filth … you too Marty … then you will use the retrograde language “faggot”, “nigger”, “wetback”, “”towelback”, etc etc, or you will be forcibly removed and physically abused for your politically correct speech.
Actually you won’t because I will be standing there beside you physically kicking their f*cking racist asses in your defense.
“We are in a retrograde movement in race relations now because the PC “spokespeople” for women/people of color are surplus to needs if they can’t find something wrong somewhere and blow it all out of proportion.”
I look forward to some of those people losing their jobs, but not until the Trump movement (40% is not blown out of proportion) and its tens of million of republican adherents are shot in the face, and I mean that literally because I’m no longer interested in using delicate politically correct terms for what they deserve.
“An electrician is a good electrician regardless of color or gender and a bad electrician can burn your house down with you in it regardless of color or gender.”
What about plumbers? Kidding. Here’s what I bet. If it was a black, Mexican, or female electrician who burned the house down, (not yours, but too many), many white victims of the incompetence would never hire a black, Mexican, or female plumber again. If it was a white male electrician who burned the house down, he’d get full individual credit via the law (you know, those regulatory state) for his incompetence and the very next electrician called to survey the damage would be a white male, probably competent.
No one who I know, would say “that’s it, if you want something done right, hire a woman, a black, or a Mexican, because those white guys can’t tell the green wires from the red ones.”
I find that at my age I can’t mix red wine and spirits any longer either, because it causes killer hangovers. 😉
Also, what Marty said at 10:59. I’m old and immature for my age, which is two strikes against me.
One caveat to Marty.
This:
“I find myself as appalled at the capitulation to living off of the government support by a wider range of poor people, and even people who don’t need it, as the lady in the article seems to be. Her view of the evolving lack of shame is very close to mine.”
Yeah well, having worked for the government, you know, applying, being interviewed, and hired for a couple of jobs, for which I returned pretty good value, just like folks in the private sector do, the utter contempt that my colleagues and I are held in for the simple fact of working, is equal to the contempt that these same fucks hold for folks gaming the welfare system, let alone those who require the help.
To which I say, go f*ck yourselves.
You wanna get rid of this shame and the government programs, then the fucking private sector can feel a little shame too and pay a living wage and decent health insurance for all of their workers, stop gutting pensions, and stop fighting every fucking disability and unemployment claim. Stop firing and laying people off.
Until then, eat shit and pay your fucking taxes.
I haven’t had a drop of alcohol so there is no accounting for my peevishness. Or maybe that IS the reason. 😉
“Because, compared to 36 years ago when I got my law license, there has been a huge f’ing change.”
True. But are we saying there is NO resentment of that change? What accounts for the resentment observed in bobbyp’s link, which Trump, an asshole, as you have observed, MCTX, is exploiting and riding the crest of? Are there other more salient reasons you (we) believe he is an asshole?
“And I got to thinking, why is it, if American is such a shit hole for people of color, why are so many of them coming here and not somewhere else?”
According to the ressentiment (listen to my pouncy fucking French, will ya) raging in the land among 40% of the electorate, to rape, pillage, game the welfare system, take our jobs, commit terrorism, and spread the gospel of the street taco.
“Here you have a group that actively desires the absence of police, for all practical purposes, in the very neighborhoods that call the police the most.”
http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/news/2015/08/21/black-lives-matter-releases-list-of-demands-for-police-reform.aspx
That’s a police website, as you can tell from some of the comments. For one thing, why would BLM be calling for body cameras if police presence in those neighborhoods was eliminated? To record their choice of donuts, as so many f*cking conservatives all my life might crack about these public servants when the former aren’t calling for police pension cuts, but I digress.
Also, why would so many “responsible” parties, as cited in the article on the law enforcement website, concur with a number of the ten demands. Not all, to be sure, but still.
“Has anyone taken a vote of the single women and the elderly in African American neighborhoods to ask them how they feel about the police?”
Depends on where they live. In North Carolina and some other states, they may not have access to the polls because of recently enacted ID requirements. I can’t think why that is. Maybe it’s because most of them are going to vote for Hillary Clinton.
“It’s a fucking embarrassment for women, gays and people of color to be recognized and touted for their skin pigmentation or their plumbing or who they sleep with when what got them where they are is that they could and did do the job.”
Yeah, it is. Hillary slept with Bill (some (none of them fucking liberals) say she sleeps with Huma Abedin), we’ve been told, otherwise she’d be an ambulance chaser in some small American town, we’ve been advised.
But, who’s doing the touting? I suspect it’s roughly the same types who were touting their skin pigmentation, their plumbing (again with the plumbing!) and who they sleep with, in 1975, 1965, 1955, 1985, to denigrate their unearned achievements and lookee here, 2016, as white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and their fellow travelers come out of the wood work to police and hold a central place at Trump rallies.
“gays and people of color”. Let’s you and I go to a Trump rally, where, nearly all of the Republican base of recent decades is hot for resentment, and you raise your hand and use politically correct terms like “gay” and “people of color” and see what it gets you. You wanna fit in, which you don’t, because you are NOT a Republican as the Republican Party defines itself this very moment, because you have better values than Paul Ryan and the rest of those filth … you too Marty … then you will use the retrograde language “faggot”, “nigger”, “wetback”, “”towelback”, etc etc, or you will be forcibly removed and physically abused for your politically correct speech.
Actually you won’t because I will be standing there beside you physically kicking their f*cking racist asses in your defense.
“We are in a retrograde movement in race relations now because the PC “spokespeople” for women/people of color are surplus to needs if they can’t find something wrong somewhere and blow it all out of proportion.”
I look forward to some of those people losing their jobs, but not until the Trump movement (40% is not blown out of proportion) and its tens of million of republican adherents are shot in the face, and I mean that literally because I’m no longer interested in using delicate politically correct terms for what they deserve.
“An electrician is a good electrician regardless of color or gender and a bad electrician can burn your house down with you in it regardless of color or gender.”
What about plumbers? Kidding. Here’s what I bet. If it was a black, Mexican, or female electrician who burned the house down, (not yours, but too many), many white victims of the incompetence would never hire a black, Mexican, or female plumber again. If it was a white male electrician who burned the house down, he’d get full individual credit via the law (you know, those regulatory state) for his incompetence and the very next electrician called to survey the damage would be a white male, probably competent.
No one who I know, would say “that’s it, if you want something done right, hire a woman, a black, or a Mexican, because those white guys can’t tell the green wires from the red ones.”
I find that at my age I can’t mix red wine and spirits any longer either, because it causes killer hangovers. 😉
Also, what Marty said at 10:59. I’m old and immature for my age, which is two strikes against me.
One caveat to Marty.
This:
“I find myself as appalled at the capitulation to living off of the government support by a wider range of poor people, and even people who don’t need it, as the lady in the article seems to be. Her view of the evolving lack of shame is very close to mine.”
Yeah well, having worked for the government, you know, applying, being interviewed, and hired for a couple of jobs, for which I returned pretty good value, just like folks in the private sector do, the utter contempt that my colleagues and I are held in for the simple fact of working, is equal to the contempt that these same fucks hold for folks gaming the welfare system, let alone those who require the help.
To which I say, go f*ck yourselves.
You wanna get rid of this shame and the government programs, then the fucking private sector can feel a little shame too and pay a living wage and decent health insurance for all of their workers, stop gutting pensions, and stop fighting every fucking disability and unemployment claim. Stop firing and laying people off.
Until then, eat shit and pay your fucking taxes.
I haven’t had a drop of alcohol so there is no accounting for my peevishness. Or maybe that IS the reason. 😉
I wonder if anyone has tried, recently, to do a reprise of John Howard Griffin’s Black Like Me? It might be enlightening.
Things are nowhere near as bad today as what Griffen saw. But Marty et al might be startled at what kind of reaction they got if they tried, for example, to engage in “open carry”.
And that’s without the kind of subtle discrimination that happens in employment. Witness the repeated experiments where they take two resumes which are identical except for the name. Put on a “black name” or “female name”, and suddenly the treatment changes.
I wonder if anyone has tried, recently, to do a reprise of John Howard Griffin’s Black Like Me? It might be enlightening.
Things are nowhere near as bad today as what Griffen saw. But Marty et al might be startled at what kind of reaction they got if they tried, for example, to engage in “open carry”.
And that’s without the kind of subtle discrimination that happens in employment. Witness the repeated experiments where they take two resumes which are identical except for the name. Put on a “black name” or “female name”, and suddenly the treatment changes.
I wonder if anyone has tried, recently, to do a reprise of John Howard Griffin’s Black Like Me? It might be enlightening.
Things are nowhere near as bad today as what Griffen saw. But Marty et al might be startled at what kind of reaction they got if they tried, for example, to engage in “open carry”.
And that’s without the kind of subtle discrimination that happens in employment. Witness the repeated experiments where they take two resumes which are identical except for the name. Put on a “black name” or “female name”, and suddenly the treatment changes.
white privilege is being able to run a racist-approved Presidential campaign around the idea that America is in the shitter – as opposed to being the subject of death threats from racists for saying America is in the shitter.
white privilege is being able to run a racist-approved Presidential campaign around the idea that America is in the shitter – as opposed to being the subject of death threats from racists for saying America is in the shitter.
white privilege is being able to run a racist-approved Presidential campaign around the idea that America is in the shitter – as opposed to being the subject of death threats from racists for saying America is in the shitter.
I find myself as appalled at the capitulation to living off of the government support by a wider range of poor people, and even people who don’t need it, as the lady in the article seems to be. Her view of the evolving lack of shame is very close to mine.
This is what is wrong with your sentiment. If people need help, they should accept help, and try to make their own lives better, and make things better for their kids. If they don’t need help, then they should stop complaining about the possibility that the government might help people who do need it.
And, by the way, “help” can be defined not just as cash support (which would be fine with me), but as education, training programs, infrastructure projects (to create jobs), better medical assistance, etc.
It’s okay with me if people want to eschew “help”. Fine. But get out of the way of making the country work better for others (in ways that, perhaps, have helped McKinney point to his anecdotal representatives of positive change). Societal attitudes have not changed all by themselves – we’ve worked for it. And we’re a long way from being done.
I find myself as appalled at the capitulation to living off of the government support by a wider range of poor people, and even people who don’t need it, as the lady in the article seems to be. Her view of the evolving lack of shame is very close to mine.
This is what is wrong with your sentiment. If people need help, they should accept help, and try to make their own lives better, and make things better for their kids. If they don’t need help, then they should stop complaining about the possibility that the government might help people who do need it.
And, by the way, “help” can be defined not just as cash support (which would be fine with me), but as education, training programs, infrastructure projects (to create jobs), better medical assistance, etc.
It’s okay with me if people want to eschew “help”. Fine. But get out of the way of making the country work better for others (in ways that, perhaps, have helped McKinney point to his anecdotal representatives of positive change). Societal attitudes have not changed all by themselves – we’ve worked for it. And we’re a long way from being done.
I find myself as appalled at the capitulation to living off of the government support by a wider range of poor people, and even people who don’t need it, as the lady in the article seems to be. Her view of the evolving lack of shame is very close to mine.
This is what is wrong with your sentiment. If people need help, they should accept help, and try to make their own lives better, and make things better for their kids. If they don’t need help, then they should stop complaining about the possibility that the government might help people who do need it.
And, by the way, “help” can be defined not just as cash support (which would be fine with me), but as education, training programs, infrastructure projects (to create jobs), better medical assistance, etc.
It’s okay with me if people want to eschew “help”. Fine. But get out of the way of making the country work better for others (in ways that, perhaps, have helped McKinney point to his anecdotal representatives of positive change). Societal attitudes have not changed all by themselves – we’ve worked for it. And we’re a long way from being done.
because you have better values than Paul Ryan and the rest of those filth … you too Marty … then you will use the retrograde language “faggot”, “nigger”, “wetback”, “”towelback”, etc etc, or you will be forcibly removed and physically abused for your politically correct speech.
A very large part of our circle of friends are Trump supporters. Those are not common terms, although what we call Jihadists in polite company get pretty rough treatment. I will point out that Islam is a religion, not an ethnicity.
If it was a black, Mexican, or female electrician who burned the house down, (not yours, but too many), many white victims of the incompetence would never hire a black, Mexican, or female plumber again.
Not in Houston, where the majority of tradespeople are Hispanic. And the competence level is fairly high.
But, who’s doing the touting?
The SJW’s, for lack of a better collective term. They are the one’s who value diversity for it’s own sake, who openly reject merit as the dominant legitimate factor in any hiring decision and who tell themselves ridiculous bedtime stories about morons like BLM.
But Marty et al might be startled at what kind of reaction they got if they tried, for example, to engage in “open carry”.
Not startled. Furious maybe, but not startled. The poor guy in MN who was shot for doing exactly what the law requires is the kind of extreme and statistically rare event that underscores Marty’s far more lucid and balanced observations.
No one is saying all the problems are solved. What we are saying is that we are, and have for a long time, been moving toward solving them and this SJW/privilege bullshit is setting us back. It’s divisive, intellectually lazy and ultimately pointless.
Which is not to say that anyone who F’s someone over in a large or small way based on race, gender, etc doesn’t deserve prosecution, litigation, termination, ostracizing, etc, as the case may be. They do. It’s been the law since 1964 for crying out loud.
When do you think 42 USC 1942 was passed?
But “privilege”–how does anyone think this sounds to a listener, “you are white. as a white person you think and act in certain ways that are bad. you need to stop doing that. we will tell you how you need to think and act. please listen. because you are white.”?
Bullshit.
because you have better values than Paul Ryan and the rest of those filth … you too Marty … then you will use the retrograde language “faggot”, “nigger”, “wetback”, “”towelback”, etc etc, or you will be forcibly removed and physically abused for your politically correct speech.
A very large part of our circle of friends are Trump supporters. Those are not common terms, although what we call Jihadists in polite company get pretty rough treatment. I will point out that Islam is a religion, not an ethnicity.
If it was a black, Mexican, or female electrician who burned the house down, (not yours, but too many), many white victims of the incompetence would never hire a black, Mexican, or female plumber again.
Not in Houston, where the majority of tradespeople are Hispanic. And the competence level is fairly high.
But, who’s doing the touting?
The SJW’s, for lack of a better collective term. They are the one’s who value diversity for it’s own sake, who openly reject merit as the dominant legitimate factor in any hiring decision and who tell themselves ridiculous bedtime stories about morons like BLM.
But Marty et al might be startled at what kind of reaction they got if they tried, for example, to engage in “open carry”.
Not startled. Furious maybe, but not startled. The poor guy in MN who was shot for doing exactly what the law requires is the kind of extreme and statistically rare event that underscores Marty’s far more lucid and balanced observations.
No one is saying all the problems are solved. What we are saying is that we are, and have for a long time, been moving toward solving them and this SJW/privilege bullshit is setting us back. It’s divisive, intellectually lazy and ultimately pointless.
Which is not to say that anyone who F’s someone over in a large or small way based on race, gender, etc doesn’t deserve prosecution, litigation, termination, ostracizing, etc, as the case may be. They do. It’s been the law since 1964 for crying out loud.
When do you think 42 USC 1942 was passed?
But “privilege”–how does anyone think this sounds to a listener, “you are white. as a white person you think and act in certain ways that are bad. you need to stop doing that. we will tell you how you need to think and act. please listen. because you are white.”?
Bullshit.
because you have better values than Paul Ryan and the rest of those filth … you too Marty … then you will use the retrograde language “faggot”, “nigger”, “wetback”, “”towelback”, etc etc, or you will be forcibly removed and physically abused for your politically correct speech.
A very large part of our circle of friends are Trump supporters. Those are not common terms, although what we call Jihadists in polite company get pretty rough treatment. I will point out that Islam is a religion, not an ethnicity.
If it was a black, Mexican, or female electrician who burned the house down, (not yours, but too many), many white victims of the incompetence would never hire a black, Mexican, or female plumber again.
Not in Houston, where the majority of tradespeople are Hispanic. And the competence level is fairly high.
But, who’s doing the touting?
The SJW’s, for lack of a better collective term. They are the one’s who value diversity for it’s own sake, who openly reject merit as the dominant legitimate factor in any hiring decision and who tell themselves ridiculous bedtime stories about morons like BLM.
But Marty et al might be startled at what kind of reaction they got if they tried, for example, to engage in “open carry”.
Not startled. Furious maybe, but not startled. The poor guy in MN who was shot for doing exactly what the law requires is the kind of extreme and statistically rare event that underscores Marty’s far more lucid and balanced observations.
No one is saying all the problems are solved. What we are saying is that we are, and have for a long time, been moving toward solving them and this SJW/privilege bullshit is setting us back. It’s divisive, intellectually lazy and ultimately pointless.
Which is not to say that anyone who F’s someone over in a large or small way based on race, gender, etc doesn’t deserve prosecution, litigation, termination, ostracizing, etc, as the case may be. They do. It’s been the law since 1964 for crying out loud.
When do you think 42 USC 1942 was passed?
But “privilege”–how does anyone think this sounds to a listener, “you are white. as a white person you think and act in certain ways that are bad. you need to stop doing that. we will tell you how you need to think and act. please listen. because you are white.”?
Bullshit.
$20,000,000,000 per year in farm subsidies sure help a lot of people complain about the evils of welfare and big government.
$20,000,000,000 per year in farm subsidies sure help a lot of people complain about the evils of welfare and big government.
$20,000,000,000 per year in farm subsidies sure help a lot of people complain about the evils of welfare and big government.
Marty, I apologize for singling you out in my 12:33 post. I should have kept reading, as if I had read your 10:59 post I would have known better. Sorry.
Marty, I apologize for singling you out in my 12:33 post. I should have kept reading, as if I had read your 10:59 post I would have known better. Sorry.
Marty, I apologize for singling you out in my 12:33 post. I should have kept reading, as if I had read your 10:59 post I would have known better. Sorry.
“towelback”?
See, I’m so liberal, I can’t even SPELL the slurs correctly.
I also apologize for other incidences of my blogging aphasia, but this is what happens when I rant while sober.
Regarding shame, I simply do not get why folks with blackened teeth or no teeth at all would be shameful and resentful because the taxpayer runs a free dental clinic. Nor do I get the resentful taxpayers who want to shut the joint down.
I also don’t get why a Tea Party member, as I saw quoted somewhere recently, would resent paying a little more for health insurance to cover the sicker people in their health insurance pools.
Apparently the sick are supposed to be ashamed too, for good measure, as a sign of health.
That isn’t shame. It’s brutal stupidity, of the sort acted out on train platforms in 1942 Germany.
“towelback”?
See, I’m so liberal, I can’t even SPELL the slurs correctly.
I also apologize for other incidences of my blogging aphasia, but this is what happens when I rant while sober.
Regarding shame, I simply do not get why folks with blackened teeth or no teeth at all would be shameful and resentful because the taxpayer runs a free dental clinic. Nor do I get the resentful taxpayers who want to shut the joint down.
I also don’t get why a Tea Party member, as I saw quoted somewhere recently, would resent paying a little more for health insurance to cover the sicker people in their health insurance pools.
Apparently the sick are supposed to be ashamed too, for good measure, as a sign of health.
That isn’t shame. It’s brutal stupidity, of the sort acted out on train platforms in 1942 Germany.
“towelback”?
See, I’m so liberal, I can’t even SPELL the slurs correctly.
I also apologize for other incidences of my blogging aphasia, but this is what happens when I rant while sober.
Regarding shame, I simply do not get why folks with blackened teeth or no teeth at all would be shameful and resentful because the taxpayer runs a free dental clinic. Nor do I get the resentful taxpayers who want to shut the joint down.
I also don’t get why a Tea Party member, as I saw quoted somewhere recently, would resent paying a little more for health insurance to cover the sicker people in their health insurance pools.
Apparently the sick are supposed to be ashamed too, for good measure, as a sign of health.
That isn’t shame. It’s brutal stupidity, of the sort acted out on train platforms in 1942 Germany.
McKinney, let me suggest an experiment to you. You list a whole bunch of women and minorities that you work with. Next time you talk with them, ask them if they think the whole concept of white male priviledge is bullshit.
Of course, some of them may be wary of giving you an honest answer. But the results may surprise you.
McKinney, let me suggest an experiment to you. You list a whole bunch of women and minorities that you work with. Next time you talk with them, ask them if they think the whole concept of white male priviledge is bullshit.
Of course, some of them may be wary of giving you an honest answer. But the results may surprise you.
McKinney, let me suggest an experiment to you. You list a whole bunch of women and minorities that you work with. Next time you talk with them, ask them if they think the whole concept of white male priviledge is bullshit.
Of course, some of them may be wary of giving you an honest answer. But the results may surprise you.
wj, no problem. I might be startled, or furious, or both. Or not. Who knows.
wj, no problem. I might be startled, or furious, or both. Or not. Who knows.
wj, no problem. I might be startled, or furious, or both. Or not. Who knows.
I think that minorities get to cut in line over poor and lower middle class whites pretty regularly.
I don’t doubt that it happens. The question is whether or not that is the prevailing trend in the United States. I know people who think that it’s generally, on average, overall, as a rule – or however you want to put it – easier to be black in America because of all the special treatment (the good kind) that blacks get. That’s what my comment way up the thread about one undeserving recipient of Affirmative Action being worth 1000 recipients of white privilege was about.
I think that minorities get to cut in line over poor and lower middle class whites pretty regularly.
I don’t doubt that it happens. The question is whether or not that is the prevailing trend in the United States. I know people who think that it’s generally, on average, overall, as a rule – or however you want to put it – easier to be black in America because of all the special treatment (the good kind) that blacks get. That’s what my comment way up the thread about one undeserving recipient of Affirmative Action being worth 1000 recipients of white privilege was about.
I think that minorities get to cut in line over poor and lower middle class whites pretty regularly.
I don’t doubt that it happens. The question is whether or not that is the prevailing trend in the United States. I know people who think that it’s generally, on average, overall, as a rule – or however you want to put it – easier to be black in America because of all the special treatment (the good kind) that blacks get. That’s what my comment way up the thread about one undeserving recipient of Affirmative Action being worth 1000 recipients of white privilege was about.
But “privilege”–how does anyone think this sounds to a listener, “you are white. as a white person you think and act in certain ways that are bad. you need to stop doing that. we will tell you how you need to think and act. please listen. because you are white.”?
Bullshit.
indeed, that is bullshit. also, that’s not what ‘privilege’ means.
privilege is what society as a whole grants you, automatically – without you having to ask for it – simply because you’re white (and male – twofer!). it’s the pre-judgement that means you with your fine white skin and upstanding WASPy surname don’t need to be pulled over quite as often, that you are better qualified for that job, that you are a better credit risk, that you can be an Olympic medalist and not have to explain what your personal victory means for everybody who shares your skin color, that you don’t get automatically labelled a ‘terrorist’ when you kill a bunch of people for no reason.
But “privilege”–how does anyone think this sounds to a listener, “you are white. as a white person you think and act in certain ways that are bad. you need to stop doing that. we will tell you how you need to think and act. please listen. because you are white.”?
Bullshit.
indeed, that is bullshit. also, that’s not what ‘privilege’ means.
privilege is what society as a whole grants you, automatically – without you having to ask for it – simply because you’re white (and male – twofer!). it’s the pre-judgement that means you with your fine white skin and upstanding WASPy surname don’t need to be pulled over quite as often, that you are better qualified for that job, that you are a better credit risk, that you can be an Olympic medalist and not have to explain what your personal victory means for everybody who shares your skin color, that you don’t get automatically labelled a ‘terrorist’ when you kill a bunch of people for no reason.
But “privilege”–how does anyone think this sounds to a listener, “you are white. as a white person you think and act in certain ways that are bad. you need to stop doing that. we will tell you how you need to think and act. please listen. because you are white.”?
Bullshit.
indeed, that is bullshit. also, that’s not what ‘privilege’ means.
privilege is what society as a whole grants you, automatically – without you having to ask for it – simply because you’re white (and male – twofer!). it’s the pre-judgement that means you with your fine white skin and upstanding WASPy surname don’t need to be pulled over quite as often, that you are better qualified for that job, that you are a better credit risk, that you can be an Olympic medalist and not have to explain what your personal victory means for everybody who shares your skin color, that you don’t get automatically labelled a ‘terrorist’ when you kill a bunch of people for no reason.
But “privilege”–how does anyone think this sounds to a listener…
Of course, this was the entire point of the original post, unless I’m missing something.
But “privilege”–how does anyone think this sounds to a listener…
Of course, this was the entire point of the original post, unless I’m missing something.
But “privilege”–how does anyone think this sounds to a listener…
Of course, this was the entire point of the original post, unless I’m missing something.
They are the one’s who value diversity for it’s own sake, who openly reject merit as the dominant legitimate factor in any hiring decision and who tell themselves ridiculous bedtime stories about morons like BLM.
I’d say diversity does have value for it’s own sake, but not that it should prevail over all other factors. In my experience, the people who are most likely to have really off-base, negative ideas about people who are unlike them in whatever way or other are those who have had little to no exposure to such people. There’s value in being exposed to people of different backgrounds than one’s own.
Then there’s a question of why there is such a lack of diversity in so many areas, particularly in the higher echelons of political, social and economic life. Why did it take so long for there to be black quarterbacks and head coaches in the NFL, for example, when there had been so many black players for so many years? There has been plenty of progress on that front, but what about C-level executives in large corporations or the Unites States Senate? Where are they in relation to the progress elsewhere?
Sometimes concerns over diversity do overcome other legitimate concerns – sometimes wrongly. But, again, is that the prevailing trend? Do you really think that’s what most people who express concerns over the lack of diversity in various areas actually want?
They are the one’s who value diversity for it’s own sake, who openly reject merit as the dominant legitimate factor in any hiring decision and who tell themselves ridiculous bedtime stories about morons like BLM.
I’d say diversity does have value for it’s own sake, but not that it should prevail over all other factors. In my experience, the people who are most likely to have really off-base, negative ideas about people who are unlike them in whatever way or other are those who have had little to no exposure to such people. There’s value in being exposed to people of different backgrounds than one’s own.
Then there’s a question of why there is such a lack of diversity in so many areas, particularly in the higher echelons of political, social and economic life. Why did it take so long for there to be black quarterbacks and head coaches in the NFL, for example, when there had been so many black players for so many years? There has been plenty of progress on that front, but what about C-level executives in large corporations or the Unites States Senate? Where are they in relation to the progress elsewhere?
Sometimes concerns over diversity do overcome other legitimate concerns – sometimes wrongly. But, again, is that the prevailing trend? Do you really think that’s what most people who express concerns over the lack of diversity in various areas actually want?
They are the one’s who value diversity for it’s own sake, who openly reject merit as the dominant legitimate factor in any hiring decision and who tell themselves ridiculous bedtime stories about morons like BLM.
I’d say diversity does have value for it’s own sake, but not that it should prevail over all other factors. In my experience, the people who are most likely to have really off-base, negative ideas about people who are unlike them in whatever way or other are those who have had little to no exposure to such people. There’s value in being exposed to people of different backgrounds than one’s own.
Then there’s a question of why there is such a lack of diversity in so many areas, particularly in the higher echelons of political, social and economic life. Why did it take so long for there to be black quarterbacks and head coaches in the NFL, for example, when there had been so many black players for so many years? There has been plenty of progress on that front, but what about C-level executives in large corporations or the Unites States Senate? Where are they in relation to the progress elsewhere?
Sometimes concerns over diversity do overcome other legitimate concerns – sometimes wrongly. But, again, is that the prevailing trend? Do you really think that’s what most people who express concerns over the lack of diversity in various areas actually want?
Look at this.
Look at this.
Look at this.
I think that minorities get to cut in line over poor and lower middle class whites pretty regularly.
Glad you enjoyed the article. I thought you would. It has some very good insights.
But….
Statistics don’t lie. Blacks lag in wealth, income, education, on and on. Housing is as segregated as ever. They lag poor and lower class middle class whites as well.
It could be that there are some number of near poor whites “just above the cut line” when it comes to public benefits, so when they see EVEN POORER blacks get largess from some paltry government program, I guess they could feel the way you seem to….BUT THAT IS OBJECTIVELY NOT THE CASE.
Blacks are still, in aggregate, worse off.
Absent some other explanation, these differences come down to bias and discrimination.
So what do we do about it on the level of public policy? Nothing? Wait it out?
There is no doubt that progress has been made, but we have a longer way to go than many realize.
When we get to the point that a random sample of blacks and whites will pretty much compare across socioeconomic status, well, then I shall STFU.
But not before.
I think that minorities get to cut in line over poor and lower middle class whites pretty regularly.
Glad you enjoyed the article. I thought you would. It has some very good insights.
But….
Statistics don’t lie. Blacks lag in wealth, income, education, on and on. Housing is as segregated as ever. They lag poor and lower class middle class whites as well.
It could be that there are some number of near poor whites “just above the cut line” when it comes to public benefits, so when they see EVEN POORER blacks get largess from some paltry government program, I guess they could feel the way you seem to….BUT THAT IS OBJECTIVELY NOT THE CASE.
Blacks are still, in aggregate, worse off.
Absent some other explanation, these differences come down to bias and discrimination.
So what do we do about it on the level of public policy? Nothing? Wait it out?
There is no doubt that progress has been made, but we have a longer way to go than many realize.
When we get to the point that a random sample of blacks and whites will pretty much compare across socioeconomic status, well, then I shall STFU.
But not before.
I think that minorities get to cut in line over poor and lower middle class whites pretty regularly.
Glad you enjoyed the article. I thought you would. It has some very good insights.
But….
Statistics don’t lie. Blacks lag in wealth, income, education, on and on. Housing is as segregated as ever. They lag poor and lower class middle class whites as well.
It could be that there are some number of near poor whites “just above the cut line” when it comes to public benefits, so when they see EVEN POORER blacks get largess from some paltry government program, I guess they could feel the way you seem to….BUT THAT IS OBJECTIVELY NOT THE CASE.
Blacks are still, in aggregate, worse off.
Absent some other explanation, these differences come down to bias and discrimination.
So what do we do about it on the level of public policy? Nothing? Wait it out?
There is no doubt that progress has been made, but we have a longer way to go than many realize.
When we get to the point that a random sample of blacks and whites will pretty much compare across socioeconomic status, well, then I shall STFU.
But not before.
You know it is really amazing that when white folks are shut out from economic opportunity that they, too, exhibit certain social pathologies generally ascribed to “black culture” by all too many of the relatively well off.
How could that be?
You know it is really amazing that when white folks are shut out from economic opportunity that they, too, exhibit certain social pathologies generally ascribed to “black culture” by all too many of the relatively well off.
How could that be?
You know it is really amazing that when white folks are shut out from economic opportunity that they, too, exhibit certain social pathologies generally ascribed to “black culture” by all too many of the relatively well off.
How could that be?
indeed, that is bullshit. also, that’s not what ‘privilege’ means.
That depends entirely on who is doing the defining. I’ve been called ‘privileged’ any number of times on this site, usually as a substitute to engaging on the merits, as if being a white, reasonably successful male is, in and of itself, a disqualification from holding a valid opinion.
The bullshit on campus these days supports my take on the meaning of privilege.
But, glad–and this is not me being my usual asshole self–and very glad that you don’t buy into that version of privilege. That is appreciated.
As for your laundry list, you are simply enumerating some of the indicia of invidious and not-so-invidious discrimination that exists to one degree or another. However, I’m not aware of Asians being routinely pulled over. Or women. Blacks, maybe, but there are stats going both ways.
Blacks are still, in aggregate, worse off.
Yes, for a ton of reasons, but, if your thesis is true for “white” privilege, why are all minorities and women equally or almost equally bad off?
I’m jammed. I hate it. I’d rather engage here. Dammit.
I don’t deny discrimination.
indeed, that is bullshit. also, that’s not what ‘privilege’ means.
That depends entirely on who is doing the defining. I’ve been called ‘privileged’ any number of times on this site, usually as a substitute to engaging on the merits, as if being a white, reasonably successful male is, in and of itself, a disqualification from holding a valid opinion.
The bullshit on campus these days supports my take on the meaning of privilege.
But, glad–and this is not me being my usual asshole self–and very glad that you don’t buy into that version of privilege. That is appreciated.
As for your laundry list, you are simply enumerating some of the indicia of invidious and not-so-invidious discrimination that exists to one degree or another. However, I’m not aware of Asians being routinely pulled over. Or women. Blacks, maybe, but there are stats going both ways.
Blacks are still, in aggregate, worse off.
Yes, for a ton of reasons, but, if your thesis is true for “white” privilege, why are all minorities and women equally or almost equally bad off?
I’m jammed. I hate it. I’d rather engage here. Dammit.
I don’t deny discrimination.
indeed, that is bullshit. also, that’s not what ‘privilege’ means.
That depends entirely on who is doing the defining. I’ve been called ‘privileged’ any number of times on this site, usually as a substitute to engaging on the merits, as if being a white, reasonably successful male is, in and of itself, a disqualification from holding a valid opinion.
The bullshit on campus these days supports my take on the meaning of privilege.
But, glad–and this is not me being my usual asshole self–and very glad that you don’t buy into that version of privilege. That is appreciated.
As for your laundry list, you are simply enumerating some of the indicia of invidious and not-so-invidious discrimination that exists to one degree or another. However, I’m not aware of Asians being routinely pulled over. Or women. Blacks, maybe, but there are stats going both ways.
Blacks are still, in aggregate, worse off.
Yes, for a ton of reasons, but, if your thesis is true for “white” privilege, why are all minorities and women equally or almost equally bad off?
I’m jammed. I hate it. I’d rather engage here. Dammit.
I don’t deny discrimination.
why *aren’t* all minorities and women . . .
why *aren’t* all minorities and women . . .
why *aren’t* all minorities and women . . .
…but, if your thesis is true for “white” privilege, why are all minorities and women equally or almost equally bad off?
This is either a rhetorical question or a really dumb one. So I’ll ascribe it to your being in a hurry.
…but, if your thesis is true for “white” privilege, why are all minorities and women equally or almost equally bad off?
This is either a rhetorical question or a really dumb one. So I’ll ascribe it to your being in a hurry.
…but, if your thesis is true for “white” privilege, why are all minorities and women equally or almost equally bad off?
This is either a rhetorical question or a really dumb one. So I’ll ascribe it to your being in a hurry.
I’m jammed. I hate it. I’d rather engage here.
Then you should. People are interested when you actually do. And you could start by addressing this, posed by bobbyp:
So what do we do about it [the fact that blacks are still, in aggregate, worse off] on the level of public policy? Nothing? Wait it out?
I mean, we need to figure out the answers to problems, and part of our failure to do so is that some of us have the privilege of not seeing them as priorities.
I’m jammed. I hate it. I’d rather engage here.
Then you should. People are interested when you actually do. And you could start by addressing this, posed by bobbyp:
So what do we do about it [the fact that blacks are still, in aggregate, worse off] on the level of public policy? Nothing? Wait it out?
I mean, we need to figure out the answers to problems, and part of our failure to do so is that some of us have the privilege of not seeing them as priorities.
I’m jammed. I hate it. I’d rather engage here.
Then you should. People are interested when you actually do. And you could start by addressing this, posed by bobbyp:
So what do we do about it [the fact that blacks are still, in aggregate, worse off] on the level of public policy? Nothing? Wait it out?
I mean, we need to figure out the answers to problems, and part of our failure to do so is that some of us have the privilege of not seeing them as priorities.
That depends entirely on who is doing the defining.
in this context, ‘privilege’ has a specific meaning.
DocS’s article here has a good explanation: not noticing (and not having to notice) that what is easy for you isn’t so easy for other people.
other people are subject to all kinds of slights, discrimination, discouragement, and obstacles that you aren’t due to your race, gender, whatever. it is your privilege to not have to face all of that; indeed you might not even know those obstacles exist for those other people.
you don’t have to ask for it or work for it. from your point of view, that’s just how life works. from one of those other people’s point of view, you have it easy, because they do face all that crap.
However, I’m not aware of Asians being routinely pulled over.
me either. never looked into it.
Asians are subject to the same prejudicial resume screening that blacks are, however.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/17/jobs-search-hiring-racial-discrimination-resume-whitening-callbacks
have you ever felt that you had to ‘whiten’ your resume in order to get a job? probably not. but not having to disguise your race is a privilege many Asians don’t enjoy in this country.
That depends entirely on who is doing the defining.
in this context, ‘privilege’ has a specific meaning.
DocS’s article here has a good explanation: not noticing (and not having to notice) that what is easy for you isn’t so easy for other people.
other people are subject to all kinds of slights, discrimination, discouragement, and obstacles that you aren’t due to your race, gender, whatever. it is your privilege to not have to face all of that; indeed you might not even know those obstacles exist for those other people.
you don’t have to ask for it or work for it. from your point of view, that’s just how life works. from one of those other people’s point of view, you have it easy, because they do face all that crap.
However, I’m not aware of Asians being routinely pulled over.
me either. never looked into it.
Asians are subject to the same prejudicial resume screening that blacks are, however.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/17/jobs-search-hiring-racial-discrimination-resume-whitening-callbacks
have you ever felt that you had to ‘whiten’ your resume in order to get a job? probably not. but not having to disguise your race is a privilege many Asians don’t enjoy in this country.
That depends entirely on who is doing the defining.
in this context, ‘privilege’ has a specific meaning.
DocS’s article here has a good explanation: not noticing (and not having to notice) that what is easy for you isn’t so easy for other people.
other people are subject to all kinds of slights, discrimination, discouragement, and obstacles that you aren’t due to your race, gender, whatever. it is your privilege to not have to face all of that; indeed you might not even know those obstacles exist for those other people.
you don’t have to ask for it or work for it. from your point of view, that’s just how life works. from one of those other people’s point of view, you have it easy, because they do face all that crap.
However, I’m not aware of Asians being routinely pulled over.
me either. never looked into it.
Asians are subject to the same prejudicial resume screening that blacks are, however.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/17/jobs-search-hiring-racial-discrimination-resume-whitening-callbacks
have you ever felt that you had to ‘whiten’ your resume in order to get a job? probably not. but not having to disguise your race is a privilege many Asians don’t enjoy in this country.
It may be worth noting that, at least in some fields (IT springs to mind), Asians no longer need to “whiten” their resumes. But this is definitely a recent development; I can remember when IT was still pretty much a lily-white field as well. And it’s definitely not universal across all fields of employment.
And still, so some degree, there is background whitening. I know one lady, given name (i.e. what’s on her birth certificate) Mariko (her parents were immigrants from Japan). But she has been called Mary for as long as I have known her. Including things like on her driver’s license, credit cards, etc.
Sometimes, whitening is so pervasive in your life that others barely even notice that it has happened….
It may be worth noting that, at least in some fields (IT springs to mind), Asians no longer need to “whiten” their resumes. But this is definitely a recent development; I can remember when IT was still pretty much a lily-white field as well. And it’s definitely not universal across all fields of employment.
And still, so some degree, there is background whitening. I know one lady, given name (i.e. what’s on her birth certificate) Mariko (her parents were immigrants from Japan). But she has been called Mary for as long as I have known her. Including things like on her driver’s license, credit cards, etc.
Sometimes, whitening is so pervasive in your life that others barely even notice that it has happened….
It may be worth noting that, at least in some fields (IT springs to mind), Asians no longer need to “whiten” their resumes. But this is definitely a recent development; I can remember when IT was still pretty much a lily-white field as well. And it’s definitely not universal across all fields of employment.
And still, so some degree, there is background whitening. I know one lady, given name (i.e. what’s on her birth certificate) Mariko (her parents were immigrants from Japan). But she has been called Mary for as long as I have known her. Including things like on her driver’s license, credit cards, etc.
Sometimes, whitening is so pervasive in your life that others barely even notice that it has happened….
I’m not sure what “worse off in the aggregate on the level of public policy” means?
I’m not sure what “worse off in the aggregate on the level of public policy” means?
I’m not sure what “worse off in the aggregate on the level of public policy” means?
Privilege or theft? Inquiring minds want to know.
Privilege or theft? Inquiring minds want to know.
Privilege or theft? Inquiring minds want to know.
“While 25.5% of resumes received callbacks if African American candidates’ names were “whitened”, only 10% received a callback if they left their name and experience unaltered”
Does this mean the 25.5 % test group altered their experience? Huh?
“While 25.5% of resumes received callbacks if African American candidates’ names were “whitened”, only 10% received a callback if they left their name and experience unaltered”
Does this mean the 25.5 % test group altered their experience? Huh?
“While 25.5% of resumes received callbacks if African American candidates’ names were “whitened”, only 10% received a callback if they left their name and experience unaltered”
Does this mean the 25.5 % test group altered their experience? Huh?
Marty,
Here’s just one easily found example.
I see this data as a shameful mark against our society, and the values we profess to believe in.
Now, from your point of view, what explains this disparity?
There are a variety of answers to this question:
1. They are less intelligent (cf Andrew Sullivan, asshole).
2. They have “cultural pathologies” holding them back (explain them).
3. It’s OK, they are catching up (the comforting “not my fault” hypothesis). But then if they are only just now catching up due to what we did to them in the past, then why are they not due compensation for that injustice? And why is it taking so long, or in some cases, getting worse?
4. Ongoing racial discrimination.
Pick ’em.
Marty,
Here’s just one easily found example.
I see this data as a shameful mark against our society, and the values we profess to believe in.
Now, from your point of view, what explains this disparity?
There are a variety of answers to this question:
1. They are less intelligent (cf Andrew Sullivan, asshole).
2. They have “cultural pathologies” holding them back (explain them).
3. It’s OK, they are catching up (the comforting “not my fault” hypothesis). But then if they are only just now catching up due to what we did to them in the past, then why are they not due compensation for that injustice? And why is it taking so long, or in some cases, getting worse?
4. Ongoing racial discrimination.
Pick ’em.
Marty,
Here’s just one easily found example.
I see this data as a shameful mark against our society, and the values we profess to believe in.
Now, from your point of view, what explains this disparity?
There are a variety of answers to this question:
1. They are less intelligent (cf Andrew Sullivan, asshole).
2. They have “cultural pathologies” holding them back (explain them).
3. It’s OK, they are catching up (the comforting “not my fault” hypothesis). But then if they are only just now catching up due to what we did to them in the past, then why are they not due compensation for that injustice? And why is it taking so long, or in some cases, getting worse?
4. Ongoing racial discrimination.
Pick ’em.
Does this mean the 25.5 % test group altered their experience?
25.5% of those who whitened got callbacks.
it doesn’t say how many of the resumes were whitened and how many weren’t, but we can probably assume it was 50/50.
Does this mean the 25.5 % test group altered their experience?
25.5% of those who whitened got callbacks.
it doesn’t say how many of the resumes were whitened and how many weren’t, but we can probably assume it was 50/50.
Does this mean the 25.5 % test group altered their experience?
25.5% of those who whitened got callbacks.
it doesn’t say how many of the resumes were whitened and how many weren’t, but we can probably assume it was 50/50.
Sometimes, where you worked can be as revealing of your ethnic group as your name. It’s a bit different from padding your resume by claiming experience you don’t actually have.
Sometimes, where you worked can be as revealing of your ethnic group as your name. It’s a bit different from padding your resume by claiming experience you don’t actually have.
Sometimes, where you worked can be as revealing of your ethnic group as your name. It’s a bit different from padding your resume by claiming experience you don’t actually have.
Atrios, as always, has some solid suggestions that might help out all colors of “the working class”.
Atrios, as always, has some solid suggestions that might help out all colors of “the working class”.
Atrios, as always, has some solid suggestions that might help out all colors of “the working class”.
How come not a single white person, outside of white hip-hop artists, has tried to “blacken” their job resumes in the history of job-seeking in America?
Except for George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the Roosevelt boys, if they only knew.
Is it because they know what the consequences might be?
You never saw WASP comedians in the 1930s ever change their surnames from Smith or Swanson to Rothschild or Kubelsky either.
I’m not sure how old I was when I thought to myself that George Burns was pretty funny … for a Scotsman.
Regarding Nashville Hot Chicken, didn’t Colonel Sanders put Nashville Hot on its menu recently? But that’s OK because the Colonel invented fried chicken, which is what Dick Gregory preferred anyway when they didn’t use to serve Negros on toast at lunch.
But, I’m a little bit of a foodie, and it never ceases to amaze me how professional chefs can “discover” a common food item, like grits, for example, or pork belly, all delicious, and pretty soon you can’t get either dish for less than $15 anywhere, if your life depended on it.
Americans, being human, consume marketing, presentation, and packaging. The thing in itself is not particularly appetizing without the show biz.
Would you like pommes frites with that?
Sure. Sounds delish.
They are just french fries.
Well, then absolutely not, those quisling Muslim lovers.
How come not a single white person, outside of white hip-hop artists, has tried to “blacken” their job resumes in the history of job-seeking in America?
Except for George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the Roosevelt boys, if they only knew.
Is it because they know what the consequences might be?
You never saw WASP comedians in the 1930s ever change their surnames from Smith or Swanson to Rothschild or Kubelsky either.
I’m not sure how old I was when I thought to myself that George Burns was pretty funny … for a Scotsman.
Regarding Nashville Hot Chicken, didn’t Colonel Sanders put Nashville Hot on its menu recently? But that’s OK because the Colonel invented fried chicken, which is what Dick Gregory preferred anyway when they didn’t use to serve Negros on toast at lunch.
But, I’m a little bit of a foodie, and it never ceases to amaze me how professional chefs can “discover” a common food item, like grits, for example, or pork belly, all delicious, and pretty soon you can’t get either dish for less than $15 anywhere, if your life depended on it.
Americans, being human, consume marketing, presentation, and packaging. The thing in itself is not particularly appetizing without the show biz.
Would you like pommes frites with that?
Sure. Sounds delish.
They are just french fries.
Well, then absolutely not, those quisling Muslim lovers.
How come not a single white person, outside of white hip-hop artists, has tried to “blacken” their job resumes in the history of job-seeking in America?
Except for George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the Roosevelt boys, if they only knew.
Is it because they know what the consequences might be?
You never saw WASP comedians in the 1930s ever change their surnames from Smith or Swanson to Rothschild or Kubelsky either.
I’m not sure how old I was when I thought to myself that George Burns was pretty funny … for a Scotsman.
Regarding Nashville Hot Chicken, didn’t Colonel Sanders put Nashville Hot on its menu recently? But that’s OK because the Colonel invented fried chicken, which is what Dick Gregory preferred anyway when they didn’t use to serve Negros on toast at lunch.
But, I’m a little bit of a foodie, and it never ceases to amaze me how professional chefs can “discover” a common food item, like grits, for example, or pork belly, all delicious, and pretty soon you can’t get either dish for less than $15 anywhere, if your life depended on it.
Americans, being human, consume marketing, presentation, and packaging. The thing in itself is not particularly appetizing without the show biz.
Would you like pommes frites with that?
Sure. Sounds delish.
They are just french fries.
Well, then absolutely not, those quisling Muslim lovers.
You should really be posting on LGM count. Hard to keep up with the same conversation in two different places.
You should really be posting on LGM count. Hard to keep up with the same conversation in two different places.
You should really be posting on LGM count. Hard to keep up with the same conversation in two different places.
But, I’m a little bit of a foodie, and it never ceases to amaze me how professional chefs can “discover” a common food item, like grits, for example, or pork belly, all delicious, and pretty soon you can’t get either dish for less than $15 anywhere, if your life depended on it.
That’s what your kitchen is for. If you want someone to serve you, you’ve got to pay up. It’s extra nice if the people who are serving you actually get the cash.
But, I’m a little bit of a foodie, and it never ceases to amaze me how professional chefs can “discover” a common food item, like grits, for example, or pork belly, all delicious, and pretty soon you can’t get either dish for less than $15 anywhere, if your life depended on it.
That’s what your kitchen is for. If you want someone to serve you, you’ve got to pay up. It’s extra nice if the people who are serving you actually get the cash.
But, I’m a little bit of a foodie, and it never ceases to amaze me how professional chefs can “discover” a common food item, like grits, for example, or pork belly, all delicious, and pretty soon you can’t get either dish for less than $15 anywhere, if your life depended on it.
That’s what your kitchen is for. If you want someone to serve you, you’ve got to pay up. It’s extra nice if the people who are serving you actually get the cash.
“It’s extra nice if the people who are serving you actually get the cash.”
Yes. A line chef in even some top restaurants gets maybe $11 an hour, plus I’ve talked to some who have $100,000 student loans to go to cooking school, so I’m thinking they aren’t. I’m a good tipper, even for bad service, but then I think people should get paid well for mere breathing.
Big bonuses for everything beyond that.
I was talking more about the very cheap, very common raw ingredient all of sudden discovered and sold like diamonds or rare pearls.
Lobster was once a trash comestible. They blanketed the sea floor until something happened.
They tasted the same when no one wanted them.
“It’s extra nice if the people who are serving you actually get the cash.”
Yes. A line chef in even some top restaurants gets maybe $11 an hour, plus I’ve talked to some who have $100,000 student loans to go to cooking school, so I’m thinking they aren’t. I’m a good tipper, even for bad service, but then I think people should get paid well for mere breathing.
Big bonuses for everything beyond that.
I was talking more about the very cheap, very common raw ingredient all of sudden discovered and sold like diamonds or rare pearls.
Lobster was once a trash comestible. They blanketed the sea floor until something happened.
They tasted the same when no one wanted them.
“It’s extra nice if the people who are serving you actually get the cash.”
Yes. A line chef in even some top restaurants gets maybe $11 an hour, plus I’ve talked to some who have $100,000 student loans to go to cooking school, so I’m thinking they aren’t. I’m a good tipper, even for bad service, but then I think people should get paid well for mere breathing.
Big bonuses for everything beyond that.
I was talking more about the very cheap, very common raw ingredient all of sudden discovered and sold like diamonds or rare pearls.
Lobster was once a trash comestible. They blanketed the sea floor until something happened.
They tasted the same when no one wanted them.
Pam Geller says Hillary wants to shut down Breitbart.
I hope she does it on her first day in office, but offers the staffers a spot on the Obamacare exchanges.
Pam Geller says Hillary wants to shut down Breitbart.
I hope she does it on her first day in office, but offers the staffers a spot on the Obamacare exchanges.
Pam Geller says Hillary wants to shut down Breitbart.
I hope she does it on her first day in office, but offers the staffers a spot on the Obamacare exchanges.
Well, not too many restaurant start-ups make it big, just saying. If you want cheap shrimp and grits, make them at home.
Well, not too many restaurant start-ups make it big, just saying. If you want cheap shrimp and grits, make them at home.
Well, not too many restaurant start-ups make it big, just saying. If you want cheap shrimp and grits, make them at home.
How come not a single white person, outside of white hip-hop artists, has tried to “blacken” their job resumes in the history of job-seeking in America?
Red Rodney comes to mind. Claimed to be an “albino black” in order to get work (trumpet player) in the early post WW II era.
How come not a single white person, outside of white hip-hop artists, has tried to “blacken” their job resumes in the history of job-seeking in America?
Red Rodney comes to mind. Claimed to be an “albino black” in order to get work (trumpet player) in the early post WW II era.
How come not a single white person, outside of white hip-hop artists, has tried to “blacken” their job resumes in the history of job-seeking in America?
Red Rodney comes to mind. Claimed to be an “albino black” in order to get work (trumpet player) in the early post WW II era.
There was that one lady that NAACP lady that identified black, she blackened her resume substantially. Then Elizabeth Warren made her a little more American Indian.
There are probably a lot more like those.
There was that one lady that NAACP lady that identified black, she blackened her resume substantially. Then Elizabeth Warren made her a little more American Indian.
There are probably a lot more like those.
There was that one lady that NAACP lady that identified black, she blackened her resume substantially. Then Elizabeth Warren made her a little more American Indian.
There are probably a lot more like those.
Believe me, I know the overwhelming odds against long-term success in the restaurant business, even for the good ones.
I do make them at home. Whaddaya want from me? Jeez, youda thunk I was complaining about the NSA. 😉
Let’s not forget Ward Churchill. See, we can name all four of them.
Bill Clinton was the first black President, so there’s another.
Barack Obama? He doesn’t have to claim he’s something he’s not. Others do it for him.
Believe me, I know the overwhelming odds against long-term success in the restaurant business, even for the good ones.
I do make them at home. Whaddaya want from me? Jeez, youda thunk I was complaining about the NSA. 😉
Let’s not forget Ward Churchill. See, we can name all four of them.
Bill Clinton was the first black President, so there’s another.
Barack Obama? He doesn’t have to claim he’s something he’s not. Others do it for him.
Believe me, I know the overwhelming odds against long-term success in the restaurant business, even for the good ones.
I do make them at home. Whaddaya want from me? Jeez, youda thunk I was complaining about the NSA. 😉
Let’s not forget Ward Churchill. See, we can name all four of them.
Bill Clinton was the first black President, so there’s another.
Barack Obama? He doesn’t have to claim he’s something he’s not. Others do it for him.
They tasted the same when no one wanted them.
Hahahaha. You are on a roll, Countme.
Same for scallops.
They tasted the same when no one wanted them.
Hahahaha. You are on a roll, Countme.
Same for scallops.
They tasted the same when no one wanted them.
Hahahaha. You are on a roll, Countme.
Same for scallops.
There are probably a lot more like those.
From 2 to “a lot”? Dear me. Is that what they call a “quantum leap”?
There are probably a lot more like those.
From 2 to “a lot”? Dear me. Is that what they call a “quantum leap”?
There are probably a lot more like those.
From 2 to “a lot”? Dear me. Is that what they call a “quantum leap”?
it’s entirely possible that black and other non-white people are subject to discrimination, AND that some white demographics are subject to discrimination.
it’s not like like exclusion is some zero-sun game. the more faces pressed up against the glass the better, i would think, at least for those on the inside.
it’s entirely possible that somebody like McK could know lots of accomplished, successful women and people of color in the legal or other white collar professions, AND that the barriers to that level of success are much higher for women or non-white people.
who knows, maybe some places are not as enlightened as houston. boston might not be, for one exanple.
also – my understanding about red rodney is that he had to pretend to be an albino negro while touring with charlie parker to avoid the scandal of an integrated band. especially when working in the south.
plus parker probably thought it was a great big prank.
it’s entirely possible that black and other non-white people are subject to discrimination, AND that some white demographics are subject to discrimination.
it’s not like like exclusion is some zero-sun game. the more faces pressed up against the glass the better, i would think, at least for those on the inside.
it’s entirely possible that somebody like McK could know lots of accomplished, successful women and people of color in the legal or other white collar professions, AND that the barriers to that level of success are much higher for women or non-white people.
who knows, maybe some places are not as enlightened as houston. boston might not be, for one exanple.
also – my understanding about red rodney is that he had to pretend to be an albino negro while touring with charlie parker to avoid the scandal of an integrated band. especially when working in the south.
plus parker probably thought it was a great big prank.
it’s entirely possible that black and other non-white people are subject to discrimination, AND that some white demographics are subject to discrimination.
it’s not like like exclusion is some zero-sun game. the more faces pressed up against the glass the better, i would think, at least for those on the inside.
it’s entirely possible that somebody like McK could know lots of accomplished, successful women and people of color in the legal or other white collar professions, AND that the barriers to that level of success are much higher for women or non-white people.
who knows, maybe some places are not as enlightened as houston. boston might not be, for one exanple.
also – my understanding about red rodney is that he had to pretend to be an albino negro while touring with charlie parker to avoid the scandal of an integrated band. especially when working in the south.
plus parker probably thought it was a great big prank.
Trump hires the king of Clinton trolls:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/01/trump-enlists-veteran-operative-david-bossie-as-deputy-campaign-manager/
David Bossie.
Trump hires the king of Clinton trolls:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/01/trump-enlists-veteran-operative-david-bossie-as-deputy-campaign-manager/
David Bossie.
Trump hires the king of Clinton trolls:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/01/trump-enlists-veteran-operative-david-bossie-as-deputy-campaign-manager/
David Bossie.
I’m just catching up here, so forgive me if I repeat some of what others have said, but the main point surely is that those who possess “privilege” in this sense are lucky enough to benefit from the absence of something bad (like fear, paranoia, expectation of violence or prejudice), rather than being the possessors or perpetrators of something bad (as McKinney implies above is the accusation).
I remember that a long time ago, in a thread far, far away, McKinney protested about the concept of White Male Privilege and Snarki remarked on her experience in (I think) Japan, of not having to look over her shoulder when walking on the street at night, and speculated (unarguably I would have thought) that this was an experience that, in the US, McK was a lot more likely than her to have taken for granted. So it seems to me that the only thing that is Bad in those benefitting from White (Male) Privilege is their unawareness that they have expectations (of being listened to, of not being shot when unarmed, of getting interviews without whitening their c.v.s etc etc) which expectations are not reasonably held by, mutatis mutandis, women/persons of colour etc etc. I’m sure you’ve all read the widely praised/damned commencement speech by David Foster Wallace called This is Water, but for present purposes only the beginning is relevant:
There may be many things wrong with Black Lives Matter as a movement (although I haven’t followed fully enough to see what or if there are), but I don’t believe that for example cops killing unarmed black men, or treating partying black teenagers violently or disrespectfully, are phenomenona the frequency of which have suddenly increased, and it seems to me that someone like McKinney, a well-off white lawyer driving a Lexus, despite comfortably swimming in it, has no idea WTF is water.
I’m just catching up here, so forgive me if I repeat some of what others have said, but the main point surely is that those who possess “privilege” in this sense are lucky enough to benefit from the absence of something bad (like fear, paranoia, expectation of violence or prejudice), rather than being the possessors or perpetrators of something bad (as McKinney implies above is the accusation).
I remember that a long time ago, in a thread far, far away, McKinney protested about the concept of White Male Privilege and Snarki remarked on her experience in (I think) Japan, of not having to look over her shoulder when walking on the street at night, and speculated (unarguably I would have thought) that this was an experience that, in the US, McK was a lot more likely than her to have taken for granted. So it seems to me that the only thing that is Bad in those benefitting from White (Male) Privilege is their unawareness that they have expectations (of being listened to, of not being shot when unarmed, of getting interviews without whitening their c.v.s etc etc) which expectations are not reasonably held by, mutatis mutandis, women/persons of colour etc etc. I’m sure you’ve all read the widely praised/damned commencement speech by David Foster Wallace called This is Water, but for present purposes only the beginning is relevant:
There may be many things wrong with Black Lives Matter as a movement (although I haven’t followed fully enough to see what or if there are), but I don’t believe that for example cops killing unarmed black men, or treating partying black teenagers violently or disrespectfully, are phenomenona the frequency of which have suddenly increased, and it seems to me that someone like McKinney, a well-off white lawyer driving a Lexus, despite comfortably swimming in it, has no idea WTF is water.
I’m just catching up here, so forgive me if I repeat some of what others have said, but the main point surely is that those who possess “privilege” in this sense are lucky enough to benefit from the absence of something bad (like fear, paranoia, expectation of violence or prejudice), rather than being the possessors or perpetrators of something bad (as McKinney implies above is the accusation).
I remember that a long time ago, in a thread far, far away, McKinney protested about the concept of White Male Privilege and Snarki remarked on her experience in (I think) Japan, of not having to look over her shoulder when walking on the street at night, and speculated (unarguably I would have thought) that this was an experience that, in the US, McK was a lot more likely than her to have taken for granted. So it seems to me that the only thing that is Bad in those benefitting from White (Male) Privilege is their unawareness that they have expectations (of being listened to, of not being shot when unarmed, of getting interviews without whitening their c.v.s etc etc) which expectations are not reasonably held by, mutatis mutandis, women/persons of colour etc etc. I’m sure you’ve all read the widely praised/damned commencement speech by David Foster Wallace called This is Water, but for present purposes only the beginning is relevant:
There may be many things wrong with Black Lives Matter as a movement (although I haven’t followed fully enough to see what or if there are), but I don’t believe that for example cops killing unarmed black men, or treating partying black teenagers violently or disrespectfully, are phenomenona the frequency of which have suddenly increased, and it seems to me that someone like McKinney, a well-off white lawyer driving a Lexus, despite comfortably swimming in it, has no idea WTF is water.
I was just thinking yesterday that we should elect a President with the courage to overturn the First Amendment, nationalize the press, close any anti administration outlets, on the first day in office. As long as they defended Obama care to the death, It’s death and everyone elses.
I was just thinking yesterday that we should elect a President with the courage to overturn the First Amendment, nationalize the press, close any anti administration outlets, on the first day in office. As long as they defended Obama care to the death, It’s death and everyone elses.
I was just thinking yesterday that we should elect a President with the courage to overturn the First Amendment, nationalize the press, close any anti administration outlets, on the first day in office. As long as they defended Obama care to the death, It’s death and everyone elses.
GftNC, great comment.
GftNC, great comment.
GftNC, great comment.
“phenomena” not “phenomenona”!
“phenomena” not “phenomenona”!
“phenomena” not “phenomenona”!
“McKinney, a well-off white lawyer driving a Lexus, despite comfortably swimming in it, has no idea WTF is water.”
Yes, not speaking for Mckinney, I’m sure that after 50 years of discussing this, 45 years of legal changes to try to fix it, innumerable discussions and explanations s, that us white males are so stupid and unempathetic that we still don’t understand. To quote myself, that’s just stupid. And the problem. As long as I’m told that I somehow don’t have the capacity to understand the issues, or know wtf is water, then my answer is not very printable.
“McKinney, a well-off white lawyer driving a Lexus, despite comfortably swimming in it, has no idea WTF is water.”
Yes, not speaking for Mckinney, I’m sure that after 50 years of discussing this, 45 years of legal changes to try to fix it, innumerable discussions and explanations s, that us white males are so stupid and unempathetic that we still don’t understand. To quote myself, that’s just stupid. And the problem. As long as I’m told that I somehow don’t have the capacity to understand the issues, or know wtf is water, then my answer is not very printable.
“McKinney, a well-off white lawyer driving a Lexus, despite comfortably swimming in it, has no idea WTF is water.”
Yes, not speaking for Mckinney, I’m sure that after 50 years of discussing this, 45 years of legal changes to try to fix it, innumerable discussions and explanations s, that us white males are so stupid and unempathetic that we still don’t understand. To quote myself, that’s just stupid. And the problem. As long as I’m told that I somehow don’t have the capacity to understand the issues, or know wtf is water, then my answer is not very printable.
White privilege (or male privilege, or Christian privilege–there’s many kinds) refers to ways white, male, or Christian (etc.) people are treated better as a result of their whiteness, maleness, or Christianness.. There’s women being treated as pushy but men being lauded as go-getters for doing the same things. There’s fat people getting yelled at in the street and non-fat people . . . not getting yelled at in the street. The list is very, very, long.
If that is conceptually difficult, you can get to the same point by thinking of the treatment white, male, Christian people get as normal, and the treatment people of color, women, and nonChristians get as subpar.
Whatever you prefer.
It’s just another way of describing racism.
So let’s use a stark example. Let’s say you’re a 14 year old white kid in Missouri in 1955, and you allegedly whistle at a black woman. What happens to you?
Nothing. Nothing happens to you. If you actually did it, maybe your friends high five you for putting her in her place.
Now let’s say you’re a 14 year old black kid in Missouri in 1955, and you allegedly whistle at a white woman. What happens to you?
See where I’m going here?
Okay, you say, but that was then! America isn’t like that any more!
And I say yes, America is better in many ways, but really what we’re fighting about his exactly how much better.
So let’s fast forward to 2012. Let’s say you’re a white teenager walking through a neighborhood after you bought some skittles. What happens to you?
Nothing. Nothing happens to you.
Let’s say you’re Trayvon Martin and you’re walking through a neighborhood after you bought some skittles. What happens to you?
These are just the most famous examples of people being treated differently because of their
Now, I’m sure you will say some version of “I’ve never seen anything like that!”
So what? Why would this be something that you see? You are the straight, white, Christian (perhaps not necessarily practicing) man. You are the very person who is not on the receiving end of this treatment.
White privilege (or male privilege, or Christian privilege–there’s many kinds) refers to ways white, male, or Christian (etc.) people are treated better as a result of their whiteness, maleness, or Christianness.. There’s women being treated as pushy but men being lauded as go-getters for doing the same things. There’s fat people getting yelled at in the street and non-fat people . . . not getting yelled at in the street. The list is very, very, long.
If that is conceptually difficult, you can get to the same point by thinking of the treatment white, male, Christian people get as normal, and the treatment people of color, women, and nonChristians get as subpar.
Whatever you prefer.
It’s just another way of describing racism.
So let’s use a stark example. Let’s say you’re a 14 year old white kid in Missouri in 1955, and you allegedly whistle at a black woman. What happens to you?
Nothing. Nothing happens to you. If you actually did it, maybe your friends high five you for putting her in her place.
Now let’s say you’re a 14 year old black kid in Missouri in 1955, and you allegedly whistle at a white woman. What happens to you?
See where I’m going here?
Okay, you say, but that was then! America isn’t like that any more!
And I say yes, America is better in many ways, but really what we’re fighting about his exactly how much better.
So let’s fast forward to 2012. Let’s say you’re a white teenager walking through a neighborhood after you bought some skittles. What happens to you?
Nothing. Nothing happens to you.
Let’s say you’re Trayvon Martin and you’re walking through a neighborhood after you bought some skittles. What happens to you?
These are just the most famous examples of people being treated differently because of their
Now, I’m sure you will say some version of “I’ve never seen anything like that!”
So what? Why would this be something that you see? You are the straight, white, Christian (perhaps not necessarily practicing) man. You are the very person who is not on the receiving end of this treatment.
White privilege (or male privilege, or Christian privilege–there’s many kinds) refers to ways white, male, or Christian (etc.) people are treated better as a result of their whiteness, maleness, or Christianness.. There’s women being treated as pushy but men being lauded as go-getters for doing the same things. There’s fat people getting yelled at in the street and non-fat people . . . not getting yelled at in the street. The list is very, very, long.
If that is conceptually difficult, you can get to the same point by thinking of the treatment white, male, Christian people get as normal, and the treatment people of color, women, and nonChristians get as subpar.
Whatever you prefer.
It’s just another way of describing racism.
So let’s use a stark example. Let’s say you’re a 14 year old white kid in Missouri in 1955, and you allegedly whistle at a black woman. What happens to you?
Nothing. Nothing happens to you. If you actually did it, maybe your friends high five you for putting her in her place.
Now let’s say you’re a 14 year old black kid in Missouri in 1955, and you allegedly whistle at a white woman. What happens to you?
See where I’m going here?
Okay, you say, but that was then! America isn’t like that any more!
And I say yes, America is better in many ways, but really what we’re fighting about his exactly how much better.
So let’s fast forward to 2012. Let’s say you’re a white teenager walking through a neighborhood after you bought some skittles. What happens to you?
Nothing. Nothing happens to you.
Let’s say you’re Trayvon Martin and you’re walking through a neighborhood after you bought some skittles. What happens to you?
These are just the most famous examples of people being treated differently because of their
Now, I’m sure you will say some version of “I’ve never seen anything like that!”
So what? Why would this be something that you see? You are the straight, white, Christian (perhaps not necessarily practicing) man. You are the very person who is not on the receiving end of this treatment.
“Nothing. Nothing happens to you.”
That depends on what neighborhood you’re in.
Again Sig, who would ever say that they’ve “never seen anything like that”? You don’t think white males have been in situations where they felt the need to constantly look over their shoulder? I’ve run 30 blocks home because walking seemed to put me at risk. I’ve spent hours editing my resume to see which way might be more likely to get an interview.
And, I’ve been beat up for being white, robbed for the same reason.
And some of your examples are sketchy, women being pushy is often because they are pushy, not aggressive go getters, pushy without accomplishment. Now days any criticism of women is just written off to sex ism, double standard. The one that po’s me is “women have to work twice as hard as men”. It is physically impossible for anyone to have worked twice as hard as most of the people that I managed that were successful. Successful people usually get there by hard work. Lots of them work harder than less successful people. But successful women don’t work twice as hard as successful men.
My point is that men aren’t stupid or unempathetic but they really object to constantly being criticized and demean Ed because of oh their sex and skin color.
“Nothing. Nothing happens to you.”
That depends on what neighborhood you’re in.
Again Sig, who would ever say that they’ve “never seen anything like that”? You don’t think white males have been in situations where they felt the need to constantly look over their shoulder? I’ve run 30 blocks home because walking seemed to put me at risk. I’ve spent hours editing my resume to see which way might be more likely to get an interview.
And, I’ve been beat up for being white, robbed for the same reason.
And some of your examples are sketchy, women being pushy is often because they are pushy, not aggressive go getters, pushy without accomplishment. Now days any criticism of women is just written off to sex ism, double standard. The one that po’s me is “women have to work twice as hard as men”. It is physically impossible for anyone to have worked twice as hard as most of the people that I managed that were successful. Successful people usually get there by hard work. Lots of them work harder than less successful people. But successful women don’t work twice as hard as successful men.
My point is that men aren’t stupid or unempathetic but they really object to constantly being criticized and demean Ed because of oh their sex and skin color.
“Nothing. Nothing happens to you.”
That depends on what neighborhood you’re in.
Again Sig, who would ever say that they’ve “never seen anything like that”? You don’t think white males have been in situations where they felt the need to constantly look over their shoulder? I’ve run 30 blocks home because walking seemed to put me at risk. I’ve spent hours editing my resume to see which way might be more likely to get an interview.
And, I’ve been beat up for being white, robbed for the same reason.
And some of your examples are sketchy, women being pushy is often because they are pushy, not aggressive go getters, pushy without accomplishment. Now days any criticism of women is just written off to sex ism, double standard. The one that po’s me is “women have to work twice as hard as men”. It is physically impossible for anyone to have worked twice as hard as most of the people that I managed that were successful. Successful people usually get there by hard work. Lots of them work harder than less successful people. But successful women don’t work twice as hard as successful men.
My point is that men aren’t stupid or unempathetic but they really object to constantly being criticized and demean Ed because of oh their sex and skin color.
Marty,
No one here has said white men do not experience bad things. We have said they generally
generally
Generally, as in as a statistical matter
because of course there are instances of white people treated terribly
But we’re talking about “in general,” here
generally get treated badly LESS OFTEN and LESS INTENSELY.
So your anecdotes about a bad thing that happened to you one time are completely irrelevant.
“My point is that men aren’t stupid or unempathetic ”
You’re not helping make this point, you know.
“they really object to constantly being criticized and demean Ed because of oh their sex and skin color.”
If you think that’s bad, try being murdered because of your sex and skin color.
Marty,
No one here has said white men do not experience bad things. We have said they generally
generally
Generally, as in as a statistical matter
because of course there are instances of white people treated terribly
But we’re talking about “in general,” here
generally get treated badly LESS OFTEN and LESS INTENSELY.
So your anecdotes about a bad thing that happened to you one time are completely irrelevant.
“My point is that men aren’t stupid or unempathetic ”
You’re not helping make this point, you know.
“they really object to constantly being criticized and demean Ed because of oh their sex and skin color.”
If you think that’s bad, try being murdered because of your sex and skin color.
Marty,
No one here has said white men do not experience bad things. We have said they generally
generally
Generally, as in as a statistical matter
because of course there are instances of white people treated terribly
But we’re talking about “in general,” here
generally get treated badly LESS OFTEN and LESS INTENSELY.
So your anecdotes about a bad thing that happened to you one time are completely irrelevant.
“My point is that men aren’t stupid or unempathetic ”
You’re not helping make this point, you know.
“they really object to constantly being criticized and demean Ed because of oh their sex and skin color.”
If you think that’s bad, try being murdered because of your sex and skin color.
Marty, nobody is claiming that you (or McKinney) are a racist, or stupid, or unempathetic. It’s perfectly clear, from this thread and many others, that you aren’t. The discussion at hand is not primarily the absence or presence of racism etc in white people, or white men, it is the phenomenon of certain groups being comparatively immune from regular discrimination or even harrassment (therefore “privileged”), and unaware of it, and of the extent to which other groups are subject to such treatment as groups, not individuals. This comparative immunity is a real thing, and when for example someone like McKinney derides it, as he does in the quote I excerpted above, it is legitimate to call him on it, with reference to the features which grant him such immunity.
Marty, nobody is claiming that you (or McKinney) are a racist, or stupid, or unempathetic. It’s perfectly clear, from this thread and many others, that you aren’t. The discussion at hand is not primarily the absence or presence of racism etc in white people, or white men, it is the phenomenon of certain groups being comparatively immune from regular discrimination or even harrassment (therefore “privileged”), and unaware of it, and of the extent to which other groups are subject to such treatment as groups, not individuals. This comparative immunity is a real thing, and when for example someone like McKinney derides it, as he does in the quote I excerpted above, it is legitimate to call him on it, with reference to the features which grant him such immunity.
Marty, nobody is claiming that you (or McKinney) are a racist, or stupid, or unempathetic. It’s perfectly clear, from this thread and many others, that you aren’t. The discussion at hand is not primarily the absence or presence of racism etc in white people, or white men, it is the phenomenon of certain groups being comparatively immune from regular discrimination or even harrassment (therefore “privileged”), and unaware of it, and of the extent to which other groups are subject to such treatment as groups, not individuals. This comparative immunity is a real thing, and when for example someone like McKinney derides it, as he does in the quote I excerpted above, it is legitimate to call him on it, with reference to the features which grant him such immunity.
“So your anecdotes about a bad thing that happened to you one time are completely irrelevant”
No, they aren’t. My issue is the continuing statement that white males don’t understand the plight of others because we cant possibly know how their lives are.
Your generalizations are generalizing the worst case to everyone. Both white in terms of privilege and nonwhite in terms of their experience. Neither is completely accurate.
But, if you want to see how effective that argument is go sit down with one of your friends. significant other and start a discussion this way:
Look, you cant possibly understand the problem I am talking about, and you are the cause of it. So what I want you to do is sit and listen to me tell you how much you suck and what I expect you to do about it. You are not allowed to have an opinion or disagree, you are expected to do exactly what I say and agree that I have the problem exactly right. Now lets have a dialogue on this.
See how that works for you.
“So your anecdotes about a bad thing that happened to you one time are completely irrelevant”
No, they aren’t. My issue is the continuing statement that white males don’t understand the plight of others because we cant possibly know how their lives are.
Your generalizations are generalizing the worst case to everyone. Both white in terms of privilege and nonwhite in terms of their experience. Neither is completely accurate.
But, if you want to see how effective that argument is go sit down with one of your friends. significant other and start a discussion this way:
Look, you cant possibly understand the problem I am talking about, and you are the cause of it. So what I want you to do is sit and listen to me tell you how much you suck and what I expect you to do about it. You are not allowed to have an opinion or disagree, you are expected to do exactly what I say and agree that I have the problem exactly right. Now lets have a dialogue on this.
See how that works for you.
“So your anecdotes about a bad thing that happened to you one time are completely irrelevant”
No, they aren’t. My issue is the continuing statement that white males don’t understand the plight of others because we cant possibly know how their lives are.
Your generalizations are generalizing the worst case to everyone. Both white in terms of privilege and nonwhite in terms of their experience. Neither is completely accurate.
But, if you want to see how effective that argument is go sit down with one of your friends. significant other and start a discussion this way:
Look, you cant possibly understand the problem I am talking about, and you are the cause of it. So what I want you to do is sit and listen to me tell you how much you suck and what I expect you to do about it. You are not allowed to have an opinion or disagree, you are expected to do exactly what I say and agree that I have the problem exactly right. Now lets have a dialogue on this.
See how that works for you.
Marty, McTx:
if white privilege does not exist, then what are all these non-white people complaining about ? and why are the only people to loudly proclaim its non-existence conservative whites ?
Marty, McTx:
if white privilege does not exist, then what are all these non-white people complaining about ? and why are the only people to loudly proclaim its non-existence conservative whites ?
Marty, McTx:
if white privilege does not exist, then what are all these non-white people complaining about ? and why are the only people to loudly proclaim its non-existence conservative whites ?
if white privilege does not exist…
Yes, that seems to be the basic question here. Not, “what are its attributes” or “what can we do about it?”
Rather, we go round in circles debating the thesis: “Whites have privilege in the USA due to the color of their skin, true or false?”
Is this one of those category errors I keep hearing about so much?
if white privilege does not exist…
Yes, that seems to be the basic question here. Not, “what are its attributes” or “what can we do about it?”
Rather, we go round in circles debating the thesis: “Whites have privilege in the USA due to the color of their skin, true or false?”
Is this one of those category errors I keep hearing about so much?
if white privilege does not exist…
Yes, that seems to be the basic question here. Not, “what are its attributes” or “what can we do about it?”
Rather, we go round in circles debating the thesis: “Whites have privilege in the USA due to the color of their skin, true or false?”
Is this one of those category errors I keep hearing about so much?
A free moment popped up.
This is either a rhetorical question or a really dumb one. So I’ll ascribe it to your being in a hurry.
Dumb? So, white male privilege impacts different victims differently? How do we account for that?
Then you should. People are interested when you actually do. And you could start by addressing this, posed by bobbyp:
So what do we do about it [the fact that blacks are still, in aggregate, worse off] on the level of public policy? Nothing? Wait it out?
I’ve addressed this in a number of contexts before at ObWi. The very high incidence of generational uneducated, single parent families is probably the single largest driver of African American’s aggregate inability to progress.
Here’s a quote I just googled, ” Nationwide, black students graduated at a rate of 69 percent; Hispanics graduated at 73 percent; whites graduated at a rate of 86 percent.”
So, this accounts for some of the disparity.
Here’s another quote I googled: “According to the most recent statistics, the nationwide college graduation rate for black students stands at an appallingly low rate of 42 percent. This figure is 20 percentage points below the 62 percent rate for white students.”
This is a white privilege only if I and my fellow co-conspirators are somehow keeping young African Americans from attending class or getting student loans.
Here’s another one: “At the time of the Harlem Renaissance in the 1920s, about 10,000 American blacks — one in 1,000 — were college educated. The editor of this journal, who was born in 1924, points out that a black child born that same year had about as much chance of completing four years of college as he had of playing shortstop for the Boston Red Sox. Today the world is different. There are more than 4.5 million African Americans alive today who hold a four-year college degree.
The breakdown is as follows: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are 3,215,000 blacks in this country who have a bachelor’s degree. And there are an additional 1,078,000 African Americans who have both a four-year college degree and a master’s degree. An additional 150,000 blacks hold a professional degree in fields such as law, business, and medicine. Another 136,000 Afri-can Americans have ob-tained a doctorate. Over-all, 4,579,000 African Americans possess a four-year college de-gree or higher.
This is breathtaking progress.
In 2008, 19.6 percent of all African Amer-icans over the age of 25 held a college degree. This figure has in-creased significantly from 13.8 percent in 1996 and 11.3 percent in 1990.
Despite the good news, the data still shows that blacks must continue to travel a huge distance before they reach parity with white Americans in higher education.
Overall, 32.6 percent of the non-Hispanic white population over the age of 25 holds a college degree compared to 19.6 percent of adult blacks. This percentage gap has remained steady in recent years.”
Ok, so how does WMP figure into these statistics? Particularly since the above article also states that, of the degrees awarded to African Americans, 62% go to females. So, black female privilege?
Seems to me there are other, fundamental issues. I don’t see how a young child, born to a single high school dropout, easily overcomes that disadvantage.
So, if there is a solution, it begins with inculcating, if possible, a different ethic among young men and women generally. Here is another quote, “The out-of-wedlock rate in 2013 among Hispanic women was 53.2 percent. For African American women the rate was 71.4 percent. White women gave birth out of marriage at a rate of 29.3 percent in 2013, the CDC said . . .:
According to the Kaiser Foundation, there were 3,019,000 white births and 640,000 black births in 2014.
I realize 2013 and 2014 are different years, so I am going to assume the variance isn’t huge. I couldn’t find matching stats. Sorry.
So, there seem to have been almost as many white, single parent births as there were total black births. There is a swing in percentage, but big deal. It’s close on to a million kids a year who are born with a huge disadvantage.
We address that by attempting to persuade young women that having children young and without a spouse is a huge, life-limiting factor.
We enact draconian, no exceptions penalties for men who father and fail to support children.
Next, we do a much better job than we currently are in motivating children beginning at an early age by making very clear the devastating effect of having kids early and not getting a good education and good life and work skills.
We were fortunate that our kids were competitive and viewed good grades as part of life’s competition. I still had very hard talks with both of them about the consequences of not maximizing their opportunities. We need to get a lot better at making hard work, finishing school, responsible procreation etc a part of the national ethos.
I reject, generally, lowering standards and other handicapping devices to increase diversity. It’s not fair to anyone, particularly the “beneficiary” of forced inclusion.
DocS’s article here has a good explanation: not noticing (and not having to notice) that what is easy for you isn’t so easy for other people.
other people are subject to all kinds of slights, discrimination, discouragement, and obstacles that you aren’t due to your race, gender, whatever. it is your privilege to not have to face all of that; indeed you might not even know those obstacles exist for those other people.
Ok, this is a different take on privilege. Most of the time I see it used, it’s bullshit tied into some kind of PC/progressive silliness about power relationships, preserving status, assumed attitudes toward women, LGBT’s, minorities, assumed inability to relate to same, etc.
It seems to me, then, that what we are talking about is actually a range of conduct running from bad manners to invidious discrimination. I think the latter is far more rare today than at any time in our country’s history and those who contend otherwise are overstating the case and giving up credibility.
Also, there is a huge generational component, that the privilege-sensitive overlook. I’ll grant that higher numbers of people my age and older have less flexible views on color, sexuality etc. The good news is that we are dying (my favorite cousin, by coincidence, passed away yesterday at the age of 72, quite suddenly–I was her favorite from infancy, yet she was a not unusual [for her age and background] blend of great integrity in many ways and not all all open to social equality of the races even as she agreed that equality under the law was the right thing), but as I tried, not well, in my parenthetical to point out, people are individuals and are complex.
You can’t fix bigots. That isn’t happening. If your concern is that various races, genders, etc don’t mix and match well, or that non-whites have barriers that whites don’t have, as Marty pointed out above, that is a very, very general observation riddled with exceptions. So large and so riddled, that I find the notion of privilege in your context not very useful.
Most here are probably not familiar with daily life in the Rio Grande Valley. It is demographically Hispanic by huge margins, 90% maybe more in many places. Very few African Americans, the rest white. I and hundreds of other very white people do a lot of business in the Valley, have friends (all Hispanic) who we go out with, play golf, hunt, whatever. Ditto for San Antonio. So a lot of what people assume about privilege is just crap for huge swaths of people–millions–in a state that is routinely held up as the last bastion of unrepentant ultra conservatism.
Further to my point, the other Houston Equity Partner is married to a Hispanic woman. Ethnic intermingling, for lack of a better word, is so ubiquitous that no one notices outside of a few old fossils. So, a lot of what the privilege-sensitive say seems blown out of proportion, particularly by historical standards. And, for what rudeness and other daily slights there might be, the corresponding issue might be a degree of over-sensitivity.
But then, there is the study of resumes and call backs. I personally would want to see the resumes, and I would particularly like to know what size and what type of businesses were getting the resumes.
Title VII applies to any business with 15 or more employees. Discrimination cases cost between $75,000 and $300,000 to defend. Settlements can run 10K to close to 100K. Large and medium institutions can carry that load. Small operations would go bankrupt. I just settled a claim for a client (8K) that was total bullshit. Pure opportunistic litigation. But, much cheaper to settle early than go the distance. Not for nothing, small business owners are, as a group, hyper paranoid about litigation of any kind. They are particularly concerned about being sued for discrimination. Hiring a minority is seen by many as hiring a potential lawsuit. What if the employee doesn’t work out? One privilege of being a white male is the right to be fired with minimal, if any, legal recourse. The upside is, it makes getting hired more easy.
If you want to lower barriers, raise the Title VII attachment point to employers with 50 or maybe 75 employees.
if white privilege does not exist, then what are all these non-white people complaining about ? and why are the only people to loudly proclaim its non-existence conservative whites ?
I’m not sure the number of complainers–as opposed to forums happy to publish the complaints–is as high as you think it is. See, eg, my Valley example.
A free moment popped up.
This is either a rhetorical question or a really dumb one. So I’ll ascribe it to your being in a hurry.
Dumb? So, white male privilege impacts different victims differently? How do we account for that?
Then you should. People are interested when you actually do. And you could start by addressing this, posed by bobbyp:
So what do we do about it [the fact that blacks are still, in aggregate, worse off] on the level of public policy? Nothing? Wait it out?
I’ve addressed this in a number of contexts before at ObWi. The very high incidence of generational uneducated, single parent families is probably the single largest driver of African American’s aggregate inability to progress.
Here’s a quote I just googled, ” Nationwide, black students graduated at a rate of 69 percent; Hispanics graduated at 73 percent; whites graduated at a rate of 86 percent.”
So, this accounts for some of the disparity.
Here’s another quote I googled: “According to the most recent statistics, the nationwide college graduation rate for black students stands at an appallingly low rate of 42 percent. This figure is 20 percentage points below the 62 percent rate for white students.”
This is a white privilege only if I and my fellow co-conspirators are somehow keeping young African Americans from attending class or getting student loans.
Here’s another one: “At the time of the Harlem Renaissance in the 1920s, about 10,000 American blacks — one in 1,000 — were college educated. The editor of this journal, who was born in 1924, points out that a black child born that same year had about as much chance of completing four years of college as he had of playing shortstop for the Boston Red Sox. Today the world is different. There are more than 4.5 million African Americans alive today who hold a four-year college degree.
The breakdown is as follows: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are 3,215,000 blacks in this country who have a bachelor’s degree. And there are an additional 1,078,000 African Americans who have both a four-year college degree and a master’s degree. An additional 150,000 blacks hold a professional degree in fields such as law, business, and medicine. Another 136,000 Afri-can Americans have ob-tained a doctorate. Over-all, 4,579,000 African Americans possess a four-year college de-gree or higher.
This is breathtaking progress.
In 2008, 19.6 percent of all African Amer-icans over the age of 25 held a college degree. This figure has in-creased significantly from 13.8 percent in 1996 and 11.3 percent in 1990.
Despite the good news, the data still shows that blacks must continue to travel a huge distance before they reach parity with white Americans in higher education.
Overall, 32.6 percent of the non-Hispanic white population over the age of 25 holds a college degree compared to 19.6 percent of adult blacks. This percentage gap has remained steady in recent years.”
Ok, so how does WMP figure into these statistics? Particularly since the above article also states that, of the degrees awarded to African Americans, 62% go to females. So, black female privilege?
Seems to me there are other, fundamental issues. I don’t see how a young child, born to a single high school dropout, easily overcomes that disadvantage.
So, if there is a solution, it begins with inculcating, if possible, a different ethic among young men and women generally. Here is another quote, “The out-of-wedlock rate in 2013 among Hispanic women was 53.2 percent. For African American women the rate was 71.4 percent. White women gave birth out of marriage at a rate of 29.3 percent in 2013, the CDC said . . .:
According to the Kaiser Foundation, there were 3,019,000 white births and 640,000 black births in 2014.
I realize 2013 and 2014 are different years, so I am going to assume the variance isn’t huge. I couldn’t find matching stats. Sorry.
So, there seem to have been almost as many white, single parent births as there were total black births. There is a swing in percentage, but big deal. It’s close on to a million kids a year who are born with a huge disadvantage.
We address that by attempting to persuade young women that having children young and without a spouse is a huge, life-limiting factor.
We enact draconian, no exceptions penalties for men who father and fail to support children.
Next, we do a much better job than we currently are in motivating children beginning at an early age by making very clear the devastating effect of having kids early and not getting a good education and good life and work skills.
We were fortunate that our kids were competitive and viewed good grades as part of life’s competition. I still had very hard talks with both of them about the consequences of not maximizing their opportunities. We need to get a lot better at making hard work, finishing school, responsible procreation etc a part of the national ethos.
I reject, generally, lowering standards and other handicapping devices to increase diversity. It’s not fair to anyone, particularly the “beneficiary” of forced inclusion.
DocS’s article here has a good explanation: not noticing (and not having to notice) that what is easy for you isn’t so easy for other people.
other people are subject to all kinds of slights, discrimination, discouragement, and obstacles that you aren’t due to your race, gender, whatever. it is your privilege to not have to face all of that; indeed you might not even know those obstacles exist for those other people.
Ok, this is a different take on privilege. Most of the time I see it used, it’s bullshit tied into some kind of PC/progressive silliness about power relationships, preserving status, assumed attitudes toward women, LGBT’s, minorities, assumed inability to relate to same, etc.
It seems to me, then, that what we are talking about is actually a range of conduct running from bad manners to invidious discrimination. I think the latter is far more rare today than at any time in our country’s history and those who contend otherwise are overstating the case and giving up credibility.
Also, there is a huge generational component, that the privilege-sensitive overlook. I’ll grant that higher numbers of people my age and older have less flexible views on color, sexuality etc. The good news is that we are dying (my favorite cousin, by coincidence, passed away yesterday at the age of 72, quite suddenly–I was her favorite from infancy, yet she was a not unusual [for her age and background] blend of great integrity in many ways and not all all open to social equality of the races even as she agreed that equality under the law was the right thing), but as I tried, not well, in my parenthetical to point out, people are individuals and are complex.
You can’t fix bigots. That isn’t happening. If your concern is that various races, genders, etc don’t mix and match well, or that non-whites have barriers that whites don’t have, as Marty pointed out above, that is a very, very general observation riddled with exceptions. So large and so riddled, that I find the notion of privilege in your context not very useful.
Most here are probably not familiar with daily life in the Rio Grande Valley. It is demographically Hispanic by huge margins, 90% maybe more in many places. Very few African Americans, the rest white. I and hundreds of other very white people do a lot of business in the Valley, have friends (all Hispanic) who we go out with, play golf, hunt, whatever. Ditto for San Antonio. So a lot of what people assume about privilege is just crap for huge swaths of people–millions–in a state that is routinely held up as the last bastion of unrepentant ultra conservatism.
Further to my point, the other Houston Equity Partner is married to a Hispanic woman. Ethnic intermingling, for lack of a better word, is so ubiquitous that no one notices outside of a few old fossils. So, a lot of what the privilege-sensitive say seems blown out of proportion, particularly by historical standards. And, for what rudeness and other daily slights there might be, the corresponding issue might be a degree of over-sensitivity.
But then, there is the study of resumes and call backs. I personally would want to see the resumes, and I would particularly like to know what size and what type of businesses were getting the resumes.
Title VII applies to any business with 15 or more employees. Discrimination cases cost between $75,000 and $300,000 to defend. Settlements can run 10K to close to 100K. Large and medium institutions can carry that load. Small operations would go bankrupt. I just settled a claim for a client (8K) that was total bullshit. Pure opportunistic litigation. But, much cheaper to settle early than go the distance. Not for nothing, small business owners are, as a group, hyper paranoid about litigation of any kind. They are particularly concerned about being sued for discrimination. Hiring a minority is seen by many as hiring a potential lawsuit. What if the employee doesn’t work out? One privilege of being a white male is the right to be fired with minimal, if any, legal recourse. The upside is, it makes getting hired more easy.
If you want to lower barriers, raise the Title VII attachment point to employers with 50 or maybe 75 employees.
if white privilege does not exist, then what are all these non-white people complaining about ? and why are the only people to loudly proclaim its non-existence conservative whites ?
I’m not sure the number of complainers–as opposed to forums happy to publish the complaints–is as high as you think it is. See, eg, my Valley example.
A free moment popped up.
This is either a rhetorical question or a really dumb one. So I’ll ascribe it to your being in a hurry.
Dumb? So, white male privilege impacts different victims differently? How do we account for that?
Then you should. People are interested when you actually do. And you could start by addressing this, posed by bobbyp:
So what do we do about it [the fact that blacks are still, in aggregate, worse off] on the level of public policy? Nothing? Wait it out?
I’ve addressed this in a number of contexts before at ObWi. The very high incidence of generational uneducated, single parent families is probably the single largest driver of African American’s aggregate inability to progress.
Here’s a quote I just googled, ” Nationwide, black students graduated at a rate of 69 percent; Hispanics graduated at 73 percent; whites graduated at a rate of 86 percent.”
So, this accounts for some of the disparity.
Here’s another quote I googled: “According to the most recent statistics, the nationwide college graduation rate for black students stands at an appallingly low rate of 42 percent. This figure is 20 percentage points below the 62 percent rate for white students.”
This is a white privilege only if I and my fellow co-conspirators are somehow keeping young African Americans from attending class or getting student loans.
Here’s another one: “At the time of the Harlem Renaissance in the 1920s, about 10,000 American blacks — one in 1,000 — were college educated. The editor of this journal, who was born in 1924, points out that a black child born that same year had about as much chance of completing four years of college as he had of playing shortstop for the Boston Red Sox. Today the world is different. There are more than 4.5 million African Americans alive today who hold a four-year college degree.
The breakdown is as follows: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are 3,215,000 blacks in this country who have a bachelor’s degree. And there are an additional 1,078,000 African Americans who have both a four-year college degree and a master’s degree. An additional 150,000 blacks hold a professional degree in fields such as law, business, and medicine. Another 136,000 Afri-can Americans have ob-tained a doctorate. Over-all, 4,579,000 African Americans possess a four-year college de-gree or higher.
This is breathtaking progress.
In 2008, 19.6 percent of all African Amer-icans over the age of 25 held a college degree. This figure has in-creased significantly from 13.8 percent in 1996 and 11.3 percent in 1990.
Despite the good news, the data still shows that blacks must continue to travel a huge distance before they reach parity with white Americans in higher education.
Overall, 32.6 percent of the non-Hispanic white population over the age of 25 holds a college degree compared to 19.6 percent of adult blacks. This percentage gap has remained steady in recent years.”
Ok, so how does WMP figure into these statistics? Particularly since the above article also states that, of the degrees awarded to African Americans, 62% go to females. So, black female privilege?
Seems to me there are other, fundamental issues. I don’t see how a young child, born to a single high school dropout, easily overcomes that disadvantage.
So, if there is a solution, it begins with inculcating, if possible, a different ethic among young men and women generally. Here is another quote, “The out-of-wedlock rate in 2013 among Hispanic women was 53.2 percent. For African American women the rate was 71.4 percent. White women gave birth out of marriage at a rate of 29.3 percent in 2013, the CDC said . . .:
According to the Kaiser Foundation, there were 3,019,000 white births and 640,000 black births in 2014.
I realize 2013 and 2014 are different years, so I am going to assume the variance isn’t huge. I couldn’t find matching stats. Sorry.
So, there seem to have been almost as many white, single parent births as there were total black births. There is a swing in percentage, but big deal. It’s close on to a million kids a year who are born with a huge disadvantage.
We address that by attempting to persuade young women that having children young and without a spouse is a huge, life-limiting factor.
We enact draconian, no exceptions penalties for men who father and fail to support children.
Next, we do a much better job than we currently are in motivating children beginning at an early age by making very clear the devastating effect of having kids early and not getting a good education and good life and work skills.
We were fortunate that our kids were competitive and viewed good grades as part of life’s competition. I still had very hard talks with both of them about the consequences of not maximizing their opportunities. We need to get a lot better at making hard work, finishing school, responsible procreation etc a part of the national ethos.
I reject, generally, lowering standards and other handicapping devices to increase diversity. It’s not fair to anyone, particularly the “beneficiary” of forced inclusion.
DocS’s article here has a good explanation: not noticing (and not having to notice) that what is easy for you isn’t so easy for other people.
other people are subject to all kinds of slights, discrimination, discouragement, and obstacles that you aren’t due to your race, gender, whatever. it is your privilege to not have to face all of that; indeed you might not even know those obstacles exist for those other people.
Ok, this is a different take on privilege. Most of the time I see it used, it’s bullshit tied into some kind of PC/progressive silliness about power relationships, preserving status, assumed attitudes toward women, LGBT’s, minorities, assumed inability to relate to same, etc.
It seems to me, then, that what we are talking about is actually a range of conduct running from bad manners to invidious discrimination. I think the latter is far more rare today than at any time in our country’s history and those who contend otherwise are overstating the case and giving up credibility.
Also, there is a huge generational component, that the privilege-sensitive overlook. I’ll grant that higher numbers of people my age and older have less flexible views on color, sexuality etc. The good news is that we are dying (my favorite cousin, by coincidence, passed away yesterday at the age of 72, quite suddenly–I was her favorite from infancy, yet she was a not unusual [for her age and background] blend of great integrity in many ways and not all all open to social equality of the races even as she agreed that equality under the law was the right thing), but as I tried, not well, in my parenthetical to point out, people are individuals and are complex.
You can’t fix bigots. That isn’t happening. If your concern is that various races, genders, etc don’t mix and match well, or that non-whites have barriers that whites don’t have, as Marty pointed out above, that is a very, very general observation riddled with exceptions. So large and so riddled, that I find the notion of privilege in your context not very useful.
Most here are probably not familiar with daily life in the Rio Grande Valley. It is demographically Hispanic by huge margins, 90% maybe more in many places. Very few African Americans, the rest white. I and hundreds of other very white people do a lot of business in the Valley, have friends (all Hispanic) who we go out with, play golf, hunt, whatever. Ditto for San Antonio. So a lot of what people assume about privilege is just crap for huge swaths of people–millions–in a state that is routinely held up as the last bastion of unrepentant ultra conservatism.
Further to my point, the other Houston Equity Partner is married to a Hispanic woman. Ethnic intermingling, for lack of a better word, is so ubiquitous that no one notices outside of a few old fossils. So, a lot of what the privilege-sensitive say seems blown out of proportion, particularly by historical standards. And, for what rudeness and other daily slights there might be, the corresponding issue might be a degree of over-sensitivity.
But then, there is the study of resumes and call backs. I personally would want to see the resumes, and I would particularly like to know what size and what type of businesses were getting the resumes.
Title VII applies to any business with 15 or more employees. Discrimination cases cost between $75,000 and $300,000 to defend. Settlements can run 10K to close to 100K. Large and medium institutions can carry that load. Small operations would go bankrupt. I just settled a claim for a client (8K) that was total bullshit. Pure opportunistic litigation. But, much cheaper to settle early than go the distance. Not for nothing, small business owners are, as a group, hyper paranoid about litigation of any kind. They are particularly concerned about being sued for discrimination. Hiring a minority is seen by many as hiring a potential lawsuit. What if the employee doesn’t work out? One privilege of being a white male is the right to be fired with minimal, if any, legal recourse. The upside is, it makes getting hired more easy.
If you want to lower barriers, raise the Title VII attachment point to employers with 50 or maybe 75 employees.
if white privilege does not exist, then what are all these non-white people complaining about ? and why are the only people to loudly proclaim its non-existence conservative whites ?
I’m not sure the number of complainers–as opposed to forums happy to publish the complaints–is as high as you think it is. See, eg, my Valley example.
I’m not sure the number of complainers–as opposed to forums happy to publish the complaints–is as high as you think it is.
that doesn’t actually answer the question.
I’m not sure the number of complainers–as opposed to forums happy to publish the complaints–is as high as you think it is.
that doesn’t actually answer the question.
I’m not sure the number of complainers–as opposed to forums happy to publish the complaints–is as high as you think it is.
that doesn’t actually answer the question.
McKinney, a well-off white lawyer driving a Lexus, despite comfortably swimming in it, has no idea WTF is water.
GFTNC–did you see the part where I mentioned prosecuting, litigating etc as the case may be for invidious discrimination? Would not the subtext for that statement suggest that I am aware of racial discrimination.
As a matter of fact, one of the things that informs my indifference to what sounds like, in many instances, whining and excuse making is that I attended an integrated high school from 1968 to 1970 in Shelby County TN. Shelby County is where MLK was assassinated. We had a curfew in effect for everyone, white or black, under 18. The school fight song was “Dixie”. Black kids didn’t like that. There was a peaceful protest. Dixie went away. There was a gang of rednecks (I was a “Navy Brat” and a jock) that liked to gang up on blacks. There were lots of fights. Because jocks were black and white, we were closer–not super close–but closer. Which meant we were aligned against the rednecks. It didn’t seem particularly like a very small piece of history then, but looking back, I think it was.
And what we had then was seriously bad shit. Makes today look like a freaking cake walk. And, with that, I’m done. Duty calls.
McKinney, a well-off white lawyer driving a Lexus, despite comfortably swimming in it, has no idea WTF is water.
GFTNC–did you see the part where I mentioned prosecuting, litigating etc as the case may be for invidious discrimination? Would not the subtext for that statement suggest that I am aware of racial discrimination.
As a matter of fact, one of the things that informs my indifference to what sounds like, in many instances, whining and excuse making is that I attended an integrated high school from 1968 to 1970 in Shelby County TN. Shelby County is where MLK was assassinated. We had a curfew in effect for everyone, white or black, under 18. The school fight song was “Dixie”. Black kids didn’t like that. There was a peaceful protest. Dixie went away. There was a gang of rednecks (I was a “Navy Brat” and a jock) that liked to gang up on blacks. There were lots of fights. Because jocks were black and white, we were closer–not super close–but closer. Which meant we were aligned against the rednecks. It didn’t seem particularly like a very small piece of history then, but looking back, I think it was.
And what we had then was seriously bad shit. Makes today look like a freaking cake walk. And, with that, I’m done. Duty calls.
McKinney, a well-off white lawyer driving a Lexus, despite comfortably swimming in it, has no idea WTF is water.
GFTNC–did you see the part where I mentioned prosecuting, litigating etc as the case may be for invidious discrimination? Would not the subtext for that statement suggest that I am aware of racial discrimination.
As a matter of fact, one of the things that informs my indifference to what sounds like, in many instances, whining and excuse making is that I attended an integrated high school from 1968 to 1970 in Shelby County TN. Shelby County is where MLK was assassinated. We had a curfew in effect for everyone, white or black, under 18. The school fight song was “Dixie”. Black kids didn’t like that. There was a peaceful protest. Dixie went away. There was a gang of rednecks (I was a “Navy Brat” and a jock) that liked to gang up on blacks. There were lots of fights. Because jocks were black and white, we were closer–not super close–but closer. Which meant we were aligned against the rednecks. It didn’t seem particularly like a very small piece of history then, but looking back, I think it was.
And what we had then was seriously bad shit. Makes today look like a freaking cake walk. And, with that, I’m done. Duty calls.
…and start a discussion this way:
I’ve rarely seen anybody start a discussion like that, and they always ended badly.
Nobody here has prefaced their remarks in such a manner.
…and start a discussion this way:
I’ve rarely seen anybody start a discussion like that, and they always ended badly.
Nobody here has prefaced their remarks in such a manner.
…and start a discussion this way:
I’ve rarely seen anybody start a discussion like that, and they always ended badly.
Nobody here has prefaced their remarks in such a manner.
What demographics would you say are overrepresented relative to the general population here?
(Dick Yuengling made the list, just barely. If you order “a lager” in Philadelphia, without any modifiers, you will be served a Yuengling.)
What demographics would you say are overrepresented relative to the general population here?
(Dick Yuengling made the list, just barely. If you order “a lager” in Philadelphia, without any modifiers, you will be served a Yuengling.)
What demographics would you say are overrepresented relative to the general population here?
(Dick Yuengling made the list, just barely. If you order “a lager” in Philadelphia, without any modifiers, you will be served a Yuengling.)
Makes today look like a freaking cake walk.
For some.
Makes today look like a freaking cake walk.
For some.
Makes today look like a freaking cake walk.
For some.
McKinney,
If the rate of out of wedlock births is a major causual factor explaining the rate of poverty, rather than the effect, how do you explain this graph?
By your reasoning, the % of poor white women should be dramatically higher now than in 1980. Is that the case?
McKinney,
If the rate of out of wedlock births is a major causual factor explaining the rate of poverty, rather than the effect, how do you explain this graph?
By your reasoning, the % of poor white women should be dramatically higher now than in 1980. Is that the case?
McKinney,
If the rate of out of wedlock births is a major causual factor explaining the rate of poverty, rather than the effect, how do you explain this graph?
By your reasoning, the % of poor white women should be dramatically higher now than in 1980. Is that the case?
I’ve addressed this in a number of contexts before at ObWi. The very high incidence of generational uneducated, single parent families is probably the single largest driver of African American’s aggregate inability to progress.
Here’s a quote I just googled, ” Nationwide, black students graduated at a rate of 69 percent; Hispanics graduated at 73 percent; whites graduated at a rate of 86 percent.”
So, this accounts for some of the disparity.
These are proximate causes. It’s like reading Guns, Germs and Steel. Of course Europeans were able to conquer the New World in large part because they had superior technology, mainly in the forms of weapons. But that doesn’t answer the question of why they had those things in the first place but the natives didn’t.
Why aren’t black kids graduating at the same rates as whites? (I’m pretty sure it’s because McKinney is preventing them from going to class, and I’m really close to being able to prove it.)
I’ve addressed this in a number of contexts before at ObWi. The very high incidence of generational uneducated, single parent families is probably the single largest driver of African American’s aggregate inability to progress.
Here’s a quote I just googled, ” Nationwide, black students graduated at a rate of 69 percent; Hispanics graduated at 73 percent; whites graduated at a rate of 86 percent.”
So, this accounts for some of the disparity.
These are proximate causes. It’s like reading Guns, Germs and Steel. Of course Europeans were able to conquer the New World in large part because they had superior technology, mainly in the forms of weapons. But that doesn’t answer the question of why they had those things in the first place but the natives didn’t.
Why aren’t black kids graduating at the same rates as whites? (I’m pretty sure it’s because McKinney is preventing them from going to class, and I’m really close to being able to prove it.)
I’ve addressed this in a number of contexts before at ObWi. The very high incidence of generational uneducated, single parent families is probably the single largest driver of African American’s aggregate inability to progress.
Here’s a quote I just googled, ” Nationwide, black students graduated at a rate of 69 percent; Hispanics graduated at 73 percent; whites graduated at a rate of 86 percent.”
So, this accounts for some of the disparity.
These are proximate causes. It’s like reading Guns, Germs and Steel. Of course Europeans were able to conquer the New World in large part because they had superior technology, mainly in the forms of weapons. But that doesn’t answer the question of why they had those things in the first place but the natives didn’t.
Why aren’t black kids graduating at the same rates as whites? (I’m pretty sure it’s because McKinney is preventing them from going to class, and I’m really close to being able to prove it.)
McT – I recommend that you read The American Dream and the Public Schools. It has a very nuanced discussion of both education issues that you mention above. Yes, we are somehow conspiring against African American students in multiple small ways, most of them not in any way personal.
You might also want to check out the current discussions of “intersectionality.” You might start with the article I linked earlier on teaching intersectionality.
McT – I recommend that you read The American Dream and the Public Schools. It has a very nuanced discussion of both education issues that you mention above. Yes, we are somehow conspiring against African American students in multiple small ways, most of them not in any way personal.
You might also want to check out the current discussions of “intersectionality.” You might start with the article I linked earlier on teaching intersectionality.
McT – I recommend that you read The American Dream and the Public Schools. It has a very nuanced discussion of both education issues that you mention above. Yes, we are somehow conspiring against African American students in multiple small ways, most of them not in any way personal.
You might also want to check out the current discussions of “intersectionality.” You might start with the article I linked earlier on teaching intersectionality.
So, if there is a solution, it begins with inculcating, if possible, a different ethic among young men and women generally.
Given that when the civil rights movement picked up speed, things like ‘white flight’ occurred, which, coupled with the hollowing out of urban areas, left African American school underfunded. This results in a range of disparities
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/07/health/schools-disparity-education-study/
From the article
Schools suspended minority students more often than white students, and it starts very early — in preschool. In preschool, black kids were 3.6 times more likely to be suspended than white kids. In K through 12, black students were 3.8 times more likely to be suspended.
and
The study found schools with large numbers of black and Latino students offered fewer classes in calculus, algebra II, chemistry and physics. This was the case with gifted classes too. Blacks and Latinos made up 42% of the student body in schools with gifted classes, and yet they made up just 28% of students enrolled in gifted classes.
Around the nation, 1.6 million kids attended schools that have a law enforcement officer but no counselor. And Asian, black and Latino students were more likely to be among those kids.
Officers: Among high schools with more than 75% black and Latino students, 51% had an officer. Another startling stat: A black student was 2.3 times more likely than a white student to be referred to or arrested by an officer.
and
Nearly 800,000 students were enrolled in schools where 20% of the teachers didn’t meet all the requirements for a state license. And once again, blacks and Hispanics were more likely to attend such schools. The same is true when it came to experienced teachers. Students of color were more likely than white students to attend schools with teachers who were in their first year of teaching.
Of course, given that US education is based on local property taxes, it is not surprising that there are inequities in funding, but I just wonder how a trained lawyer like McT can’t seem to acknowledge the fact.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/01/28/us-education-still-separate-and-unequal
The disparities in punishment even reach to black students with disabilities, who are more likely to receive out-of-school suspensions or to be subjected to mechanical restraint than their white peers.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/unequal-opportunity-race-and-education/
Jonathan Kozol s 1991 Savage Inequalities described the striking differences between public schools serving students of color in urban settings and their suburban counterparts, which typically spend twice as much per student for populations with many fewer special needs. Contrast MacKenzie High School in Detroit, where word processing courses are taught without word processors because the school cannot afford them, or East St. Louis Senior High School, whose biology lab has no laboratory tables or usable dissecting kits, with nearby suburban schools where children enjoy a computer hookup to Dow Jones to study stock transactions and science laboratories that rival those in some industries. Or contrast Paterson, New Jersey, which could not afford the qualified teachers needed to offer foreign language courses to most high school students, with Princeton, where foreign languages begin in elementary school.
http://www.topmastersineducation.com/school-funding-post-racial-us/
in supermajority-minority public schools–schools where students of color make up 90 percent or more of the student population–the number of Black and Latino students in attendance increased 4.9% and 14.2%, respectively, between 1980 and 2009. In 2005, 88 percent of supermajority-minority schools were associated with levels of poverty characteristic of educational ghettos, which was not the case for White-dominated schools.
This is what privilege looks like.Just because a chosen few are able to weather the storm and pop up for your pep talk about working hard and doing their best does not mean it doesn’t exist.
So, if there is a solution, it begins with inculcating, if possible, a different ethic among young men and women generally.
Given that when the civil rights movement picked up speed, things like ‘white flight’ occurred, which, coupled with the hollowing out of urban areas, left African American school underfunded. This results in a range of disparities
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/07/health/schools-disparity-education-study/
From the article
Schools suspended minority students more often than white students, and it starts very early — in preschool. In preschool, black kids were 3.6 times more likely to be suspended than white kids. In K through 12, black students were 3.8 times more likely to be suspended.
and
The study found schools with large numbers of black and Latino students offered fewer classes in calculus, algebra II, chemistry and physics. This was the case with gifted classes too. Blacks and Latinos made up 42% of the student body in schools with gifted classes, and yet they made up just 28% of students enrolled in gifted classes.
Around the nation, 1.6 million kids attended schools that have a law enforcement officer but no counselor. And Asian, black and Latino students were more likely to be among those kids.
Officers: Among high schools with more than 75% black and Latino students, 51% had an officer. Another startling stat: A black student was 2.3 times more likely than a white student to be referred to or arrested by an officer.
and
Nearly 800,000 students were enrolled in schools where 20% of the teachers didn’t meet all the requirements for a state license. And once again, blacks and Hispanics were more likely to attend such schools. The same is true when it came to experienced teachers. Students of color were more likely than white students to attend schools with teachers who were in their first year of teaching.
Of course, given that US education is based on local property taxes, it is not surprising that there are inequities in funding, but I just wonder how a trained lawyer like McT can’t seem to acknowledge the fact.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/01/28/us-education-still-separate-and-unequal
The disparities in punishment even reach to black students with disabilities, who are more likely to receive out-of-school suspensions or to be subjected to mechanical restraint than their white peers.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/unequal-opportunity-race-and-education/
Jonathan Kozol s 1991 Savage Inequalities described the striking differences between public schools serving students of color in urban settings and their suburban counterparts, which typically spend twice as much per student for populations with many fewer special needs. Contrast MacKenzie High School in Detroit, where word processing courses are taught without word processors because the school cannot afford them, or East St. Louis Senior High School, whose biology lab has no laboratory tables or usable dissecting kits, with nearby suburban schools where children enjoy a computer hookup to Dow Jones to study stock transactions and science laboratories that rival those in some industries. Or contrast Paterson, New Jersey, which could not afford the qualified teachers needed to offer foreign language courses to most high school students, with Princeton, where foreign languages begin in elementary school.
http://www.topmastersineducation.com/school-funding-post-racial-us/
in supermajority-minority public schools–schools where students of color make up 90 percent or more of the student population–the number of Black and Latino students in attendance increased 4.9% and 14.2%, respectively, between 1980 and 2009. In 2005, 88 percent of supermajority-minority schools were associated with levels of poverty characteristic of educational ghettos, which was not the case for White-dominated schools.
This is what privilege looks like.Just because a chosen few are able to weather the storm and pop up for your pep talk about working hard and doing their best does not mean it doesn’t exist.
So, if there is a solution, it begins with inculcating, if possible, a different ethic among young men and women generally.
Given that when the civil rights movement picked up speed, things like ‘white flight’ occurred, which, coupled with the hollowing out of urban areas, left African American school underfunded. This results in a range of disparities
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/07/health/schools-disparity-education-study/
From the article
Schools suspended minority students more often than white students, and it starts very early — in preschool. In preschool, black kids were 3.6 times more likely to be suspended than white kids. In K through 12, black students were 3.8 times more likely to be suspended.
and
The study found schools with large numbers of black and Latino students offered fewer classes in calculus, algebra II, chemistry and physics. This was the case with gifted classes too. Blacks and Latinos made up 42% of the student body in schools with gifted classes, and yet they made up just 28% of students enrolled in gifted classes.
Around the nation, 1.6 million kids attended schools that have a law enforcement officer but no counselor. And Asian, black and Latino students were more likely to be among those kids.
Officers: Among high schools with more than 75% black and Latino students, 51% had an officer. Another startling stat: A black student was 2.3 times more likely than a white student to be referred to or arrested by an officer.
and
Nearly 800,000 students were enrolled in schools where 20% of the teachers didn’t meet all the requirements for a state license. And once again, blacks and Hispanics were more likely to attend such schools. The same is true when it came to experienced teachers. Students of color were more likely than white students to attend schools with teachers who were in their first year of teaching.
Of course, given that US education is based on local property taxes, it is not surprising that there are inequities in funding, but I just wonder how a trained lawyer like McT can’t seem to acknowledge the fact.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/01/28/us-education-still-separate-and-unequal
The disparities in punishment even reach to black students with disabilities, who are more likely to receive out-of-school suspensions or to be subjected to mechanical restraint than their white peers.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/unequal-opportunity-race-and-education/
Jonathan Kozol s 1991 Savage Inequalities described the striking differences between public schools serving students of color in urban settings and their suburban counterparts, which typically spend twice as much per student for populations with many fewer special needs. Contrast MacKenzie High School in Detroit, where word processing courses are taught without word processors because the school cannot afford them, or East St. Louis Senior High School, whose biology lab has no laboratory tables or usable dissecting kits, with nearby suburban schools where children enjoy a computer hookup to Dow Jones to study stock transactions and science laboratories that rival those in some industries. Or contrast Paterson, New Jersey, which could not afford the qualified teachers needed to offer foreign language courses to most high school students, with Princeton, where foreign languages begin in elementary school.
http://www.topmastersineducation.com/school-funding-post-racial-us/
in supermajority-minority public schools–schools where students of color make up 90 percent or more of the student population–the number of Black and Latino students in attendance increased 4.9% and 14.2%, respectively, between 1980 and 2009. In 2005, 88 percent of supermajority-minority schools were associated with levels of poverty characteristic of educational ghettos, which was not the case for White-dominated schools.
This is what privilege looks like.Just because a chosen few are able to weather the storm and pop up for your pep talk about working hard and doing their best does not mean it doesn’t exist.
How does the McKinney theory explain this?
How does the McKinney theory explain this?
How does the McKinney theory explain this?
What is McKinney’s proposed public policy to address observed racial disparities in wealth and income? It strikes me it is pretty much a regurgitation of the infamous Pound Cake Speech.
And just about as effective.
What is McKinney’s proposed public policy to address observed racial disparities in wealth and income? It strikes me it is pretty much a regurgitation of the infamous Pound Cake Speech.
And just about as effective.
What is McKinney’s proposed public policy to address observed racial disparities in wealth and income? It strikes me it is pretty much a regurgitation of the infamous Pound Cake Speech.
And just about as effective.
I don’t have time to find more data so here:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/big-gap-in-college-graduation-rates-for-rich-and-poor-study-finds-1422997677
Blacks by percentage have more poor people, whites account for a higher percentage of wealthy people. It is almost universally accepted (AFAICT) that it is harder to be upwardly mobile for the poor, thus continuing poverty across generations.
So lets stop comparing blacks to whites, the time frame to create equitable public policy to make the percentage of blacks and whites that are wealthy isn’t even necessarily a public policy goal. The public policy goal is to create equal opportunity within economic strata for whites and blacks.
There are enough differences there to work on to not confuse the issue by counting the wealthy in the statistics.
I don’t have time to find more data so here:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/big-gap-in-college-graduation-rates-for-rich-and-poor-study-finds-1422997677
Blacks by percentage have more poor people, whites account for a higher percentage of wealthy people. It is almost universally accepted (AFAICT) that it is harder to be upwardly mobile for the poor, thus continuing poverty across generations.
So lets stop comparing blacks to whites, the time frame to create equitable public policy to make the percentage of blacks and whites that are wealthy isn’t even necessarily a public policy goal. The public policy goal is to create equal opportunity within economic strata for whites and blacks.
There are enough differences there to work on to not confuse the issue by counting the wealthy in the statistics.
I don’t have time to find more data so here:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/big-gap-in-college-graduation-rates-for-rich-and-poor-study-finds-1422997677
Blacks by percentage have more poor people, whites account for a higher percentage of wealthy people. It is almost universally accepted (AFAICT) that it is harder to be upwardly mobile for the poor, thus continuing poverty across generations.
So lets stop comparing blacks to whites, the time frame to create equitable public policy to make the percentage of blacks and whites that are wealthy isn’t even necessarily a public policy goal. The public policy goal is to create equal opportunity within economic strata for whites and blacks.
There are enough differences there to work on to not confuse the issue by counting the wealthy in the statistics.
The public policy goal is to create equal opportunity within economic strata for whites and blacks.
So basically you are trying to tell me that obvious disparate outcomes across race should just be ignored?
Really? Just ‘suck it up’ black folks?
Some policy.
Here’s an interesting article on the intersection of race and public policy with respect to drawing up school district boundaries.
No racism here, nosirrrreee!
The public policy goal is to create equal opportunity within economic strata for whites and blacks.
So basically you are trying to tell me that obvious disparate outcomes across race should just be ignored?
Really? Just ‘suck it up’ black folks?
Some policy.
Here’s an interesting article on the intersection of race and public policy with respect to drawing up school district boundaries.
No racism here, nosirrrreee!
The public policy goal is to create equal opportunity within economic strata for whites and blacks.
So basically you are trying to tell me that obvious disparate outcomes across race should just be ignored?
Really? Just ‘suck it up’ black folks?
Some policy.
Here’s an interesting article on the intersection of race and public policy with respect to drawing up school district boundaries.
No racism here, nosirrrreee!
“The public policy goal is to create equal opportunity within economic strata for whites and blacks.”
Marty,
I may have been a bit unfair above, but your goal is fine, but lacks policy chops. What policies would you advocate to “create equal opportunity within economic strata for whites and blacks.
McKinney wants to give young black women lectures on sex and marriage. What’s your imagined policy or policies to address the issue as you see it?
“The public policy goal is to create equal opportunity within economic strata for whites and blacks.”
Marty,
I may have been a bit unfair above, but your goal is fine, but lacks policy chops. What policies would you advocate to “create equal opportunity within economic strata for whites and blacks.
McKinney wants to give young black women lectures on sex and marriage. What’s your imagined policy or policies to address the issue as you see it?
“The public policy goal is to create equal opportunity within economic strata for whites and blacks.”
Marty,
I may have been a bit unfair above, but your goal is fine, but lacks policy chops. What policies would you advocate to “create equal opportunity within economic strata for whites and blacks.
McKinney wants to give young black women lectures on sex and marriage. What’s your imagined policy or policies to address the issue as you see it?
McKinney:
And then I started counting all of the other people of color or women or gay or what have you I deal with and tons of other people deal with everyday and I am again reminded of much bullshit there is about how shitty women/people of color have it because they are not *at this moment in time* exactly co-equal with white males.
Your list of all the professional women/minorities you deal with does indeed show that things have moved on, racism-wise and sexism-wise since way back when. But that is not what this thread is about.
I’ve been called ‘privileged’ any number of times on this site, usually as a substitute to engaging on the merits, as if being a white, reasonably successful male is, in and of itself, a disqualification from holding a valid opinion.
Not only am I not saying that, but in fact would be in a very poor position to say that since I myself have spent most of my life in fairly serious privilege. For a similar reason, I would like to make crystal clear that when I categorise you as a well-off, white, male lawyer driving a Lexus this is not a criticism: many of my best friends and relations (as the racists famously say) etc etc. Again, this thread is not about wealth, or race, it is about the awareness of privilege, or if you prefer, advantage.
GFTNC–did you see the part where I mentioned prosecuting, litigating etc as the case may be for invidious discrimination? Would not the subtext for that statement suggest that I am aware of racial discrimination.
Do you mean this:
So again, no-one is claiming that you are not aware of racial discrimination, or that you have the wrong (i.e a racist) attitude to it when you see it. No-one is claiming that you are not entitled to an opinion, or that you are a racist, or stupid, or unempathetic.
What we are talking about here is privilege, and the awareness of it by the possessors of it. Somewhere upthread (I don’t know how to search without going through the whole thing) you say that the definition of the sort of privilege we are talking about is not the one you usually have to deal with. Presumably you know by now that the sort of straw men who insist on safe spaces and trigger warnings etc are not the kind of people you are dealing with here.
There is something strange about not recognising that if you were a successful black male driving a Lexus you might get frequently stopped and asked for ID, and before it was produced assumed to be the thief of the vehicle. And not recognising that if that happened to you a lot, it might influence your view of the police, and society, and your place in it.
McKinney:
And then I started counting all of the other people of color or women or gay or what have you I deal with and tons of other people deal with everyday and I am again reminded of much bullshit there is about how shitty women/people of color have it because they are not *at this moment in time* exactly co-equal with white males.
Your list of all the professional women/minorities you deal with does indeed show that things have moved on, racism-wise and sexism-wise since way back when. But that is not what this thread is about.
I’ve been called ‘privileged’ any number of times on this site, usually as a substitute to engaging on the merits, as if being a white, reasonably successful male is, in and of itself, a disqualification from holding a valid opinion.
Not only am I not saying that, but in fact would be in a very poor position to say that since I myself have spent most of my life in fairly serious privilege. For a similar reason, I would like to make crystal clear that when I categorise you as a well-off, white, male lawyer driving a Lexus this is not a criticism: many of my best friends and relations (as the racists famously say) etc etc. Again, this thread is not about wealth, or race, it is about the awareness of privilege, or if you prefer, advantage.
GFTNC–did you see the part where I mentioned prosecuting, litigating etc as the case may be for invidious discrimination? Would not the subtext for that statement suggest that I am aware of racial discrimination.
Do you mean this:
So again, no-one is claiming that you are not aware of racial discrimination, or that you have the wrong (i.e a racist) attitude to it when you see it. No-one is claiming that you are not entitled to an opinion, or that you are a racist, or stupid, or unempathetic.
What we are talking about here is privilege, and the awareness of it by the possessors of it. Somewhere upthread (I don’t know how to search without going through the whole thing) you say that the definition of the sort of privilege we are talking about is not the one you usually have to deal with. Presumably you know by now that the sort of straw men who insist on safe spaces and trigger warnings etc are not the kind of people you are dealing with here.
There is something strange about not recognising that if you were a successful black male driving a Lexus you might get frequently stopped and asked for ID, and before it was produced assumed to be the thief of the vehicle. And not recognising that if that happened to you a lot, it might influence your view of the police, and society, and your place in it.
McKinney:
And then I started counting all of the other people of color or women or gay or what have you I deal with and tons of other people deal with everyday and I am again reminded of much bullshit there is about how shitty women/people of color have it because they are not *at this moment in time* exactly co-equal with white males.
Your list of all the professional women/minorities you deal with does indeed show that things have moved on, racism-wise and sexism-wise since way back when. But that is not what this thread is about.
I’ve been called ‘privileged’ any number of times on this site, usually as a substitute to engaging on the merits, as if being a white, reasonably successful male is, in and of itself, a disqualification from holding a valid opinion.
Not only am I not saying that, but in fact would be in a very poor position to say that since I myself have spent most of my life in fairly serious privilege. For a similar reason, I would like to make crystal clear that when I categorise you as a well-off, white, male lawyer driving a Lexus this is not a criticism: many of my best friends and relations (as the racists famously say) etc etc. Again, this thread is not about wealth, or race, it is about the awareness of privilege, or if you prefer, advantage.
GFTNC–did you see the part where I mentioned prosecuting, litigating etc as the case may be for invidious discrimination? Would not the subtext for that statement suggest that I am aware of racial discrimination.
Do you mean this:
So again, no-one is claiming that you are not aware of racial discrimination, or that you have the wrong (i.e a racist) attitude to it when you see it. No-one is claiming that you are not entitled to an opinion, or that you are a racist, or stupid, or unempathetic.
What we are talking about here is privilege, and the awareness of it by the possessors of it. Somewhere upthread (I don’t know how to search without going through the whole thing) you say that the definition of the sort of privilege we are talking about is not the one you usually have to deal with. Presumably you know by now that the sort of straw men who insist on safe spaces and trigger warnings etc are not the kind of people you are dealing with here.
There is something strange about not recognising that if you were a successful black male driving a Lexus you might get frequently stopped and asked for ID, and before it was produced assumed to be the thief of the vehicle. And not recognising that if that happened to you a lot, it might influence your view of the police, and society, and your place in it.
Cats hate water and know when they are in it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weeNYQg_j04
Saw that originally at Balloon Juice this morning.
Come on in, the water is fine, according to the enabling pilot fish tending to the great white shark:
“Ailes’s longtime executive assistant Judy Laterza — who became one of his top lieutenants, earning more than $2 million a year, according to a Fox executive — seemed to function as a recruiter of sorts. According to Carlson’s attorney, in 2002, Laterza remarked to a college intern she saw on the elevator about how pretty she was and invited her to meet Ailes. After that meeting, Ailes arranged for the young woman to transfer to his staff. Her first assignment was to go down to the newsstand and fetch him the latest issue of Maxim. When she returned with the magazine, Ailes asked her to stay with him in his office. He flipped through the pages. The woman told the Washington Post that Ailes said, “You look like the women in here. You have great legs. If you sleep with me, you could be a model or a newscaster.”
That passage was from this:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/how-fox-news-women-took-down-roger-ailes.html
I joked the other day about Trump saving us from those crossing the border preaching the gospel of the street taco.
This impressionable dumbass sh*thead piece of vermin (he has taken full advantage of the opportunities this country provides for achieving self-generated assholery) must have read me and the irony escaped him:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/top-latino-trump-surrogate-warns-taco-truck-every-corner
See, I agree with MCKT, as we all do, in his main point that extraordinary strides have been made in this matter that concerns us. All strides fought against tooth and nail every step along the way, but who’s counting?
Well, lots of people have been keeping track. I can self-congratulate as an American that in fact we have made great strides and at the same time wonder if I should be a little jumpy and keep my over-sensitive PC guard up because every step of the way was met with severe beatings, fire hoses, savage dogs, and gunfire.
I think they call it conditioning. Maybe we (I generalize, I’ve had it easy; I speak generationally) suffer from PTSD.
But, if we aren’t the fish in Wallace’s water, what is it with the Trump tsunami just offshore. Should I ignore the blaring warnings. Cats and dogs and even snakes are seeking higher ground. Shouldn’t all of us? Or would that be too much sensitivo PC bullshit?
MCTX wrote: “You can’t fix bigots.”
I agree. Apparently, we can’t prevent them from running for President either with a campaign staff made up fully of bigots. But if we can’t fix them at this late date in the 250-year history of fighting and fixing bigotry in this country, then this sizable remnant (remnant? roughly 38% percent of the electorate) need to be physically assaulted whenever possible and beaten to a pulp.
There was not nearly enough violence at Trump rallies. We need more.
David Bossie? If Hillary Clinton is such a murderous beast, how come she hasn’t Vince Fostered that f*ck through a wood chipper?
It’s the least we could do as a sane polity.
Also, this politically correct sensitivity expressed about over- generalization when it comes to white males, of which I am one ….. well, welcome to the deep end of the pool.
Absent gills, which so many of the Other have had to develop to survive and achieve, I do the backstroke.
Cats hate water and know when they are in it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weeNYQg_j04
Saw that originally at Balloon Juice this morning.
Come on in, the water is fine, according to the enabling pilot fish tending to the great white shark:
“Ailes’s longtime executive assistant Judy Laterza — who became one of his top lieutenants, earning more than $2 million a year, according to a Fox executive — seemed to function as a recruiter of sorts. According to Carlson’s attorney, in 2002, Laterza remarked to a college intern she saw on the elevator about how pretty she was and invited her to meet Ailes. After that meeting, Ailes arranged for the young woman to transfer to his staff. Her first assignment was to go down to the newsstand and fetch him the latest issue of Maxim. When she returned with the magazine, Ailes asked her to stay with him in his office. He flipped through the pages. The woman told the Washington Post that Ailes said, “You look like the women in here. You have great legs. If you sleep with me, you could be a model or a newscaster.”
That passage was from this:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/how-fox-news-women-took-down-roger-ailes.html
I joked the other day about Trump saving us from those crossing the border preaching the gospel of the street taco.
This impressionable dumbass sh*thead piece of vermin (he has taken full advantage of the opportunities this country provides for achieving self-generated assholery) must have read me and the irony escaped him:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/top-latino-trump-surrogate-warns-taco-truck-every-corner
See, I agree with MCKT, as we all do, in his main point that extraordinary strides have been made in this matter that concerns us. All strides fought against tooth and nail every step along the way, but who’s counting?
Well, lots of people have been keeping track. I can self-congratulate as an American that in fact we have made great strides and at the same time wonder if I should be a little jumpy and keep my over-sensitive PC guard up because every step of the way was met with severe beatings, fire hoses, savage dogs, and gunfire.
I think they call it conditioning. Maybe we (I generalize, I’ve had it easy; I speak generationally) suffer from PTSD.
But, if we aren’t the fish in Wallace’s water, what is it with the Trump tsunami just offshore. Should I ignore the blaring warnings. Cats and dogs and even snakes are seeking higher ground. Shouldn’t all of us? Or would that be too much sensitivo PC bullshit?
MCTX wrote: “You can’t fix bigots.”
I agree. Apparently, we can’t prevent them from running for President either with a campaign staff made up fully of bigots. But if we can’t fix them at this late date in the 250-year history of fighting and fixing bigotry in this country, then this sizable remnant (remnant? roughly 38% percent of the electorate) need to be physically assaulted whenever possible and beaten to a pulp.
There was not nearly enough violence at Trump rallies. We need more.
David Bossie? If Hillary Clinton is such a murderous beast, how come she hasn’t Vince Fostered that f*ck through a wood chipper?
It’s the least we could do as a sane polity.
Also, this politically correct sensitivity expressed about over- generalization when it comes to white males, of which I am one ….. well, welcome to the deep end of the pool.
Absent gills, which so many of the Other have had to develop to survive and achieve, I do the backstroke.
Cats hate water and know when they are in it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weeNYQg_j04
Saw that originally at Balloon Juice this morning.
Come on in, the water is fine, according to the enabling pilot fish tending to the great white shark:
“Ailes’s longtime executive assistant Judy Laterza — who became one of his top lieutenants, earning more than $2 million a year, according to a Fox executive — seemed to function as a recruiter of sorts. According to Carlson’s attorney, in 2002, Laterza remarked to a college intern she saw on the elevator about how pretty she was and invited her to meet Ailes. After that meeting, Ailes arranged for the young woman to transfer to his staff. Her first assignment was to go down to the newsstand and fetch him the latest issue of Maxim. When she returned with the magazine, Ailes asked her to stay with him in his office. He flipped through the pages. The woman told the Washington Post that Ailes said, “You look like the women in here. You have great legs. If you sleep with me, you could be a model or a newscaster.”
That passage was from this:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/how-fox-news-women-took-down-roger-ailes.html
I joked the other day about Trump saving us from those crossing the border preaching the gospel of the street taco.
This impressionable dumbass sh*thead piece of vermin (he has taken full advantage of the opportunities this country provides for achieving self-generated assholery) must have read me and the irony escaped him:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/top-latino-trump-surrogate-warns-taco-truck-every-corner
See, I agree with MCKT, as we all do, in his main point that extraordinary strides have been made in this matter that concerns us. All strides fought against tooth and nail every step along the way, but who’s counting?
Well, lots of people have been keeping track. I can self-congratulate as an American that in fact we have made great strides and at the same time wonder if I should be a little jumpy and keep my over-sensitive PC guard up because every step of the way was met with severe beatings, fire hoses, savage dogs, and gunfire.
I think they call it conditioning. Maybe we (I generalize, I’ve had it easy; I speak generationally) suffer from PTSD.
But, if we aren’t the fish in Wallace’s water, what is it with the Trump tsunami just offshore. Should I ignore the blaring warnings. Cats and dogs and even snakes are seeking higher ground. Shouldn’t all of us? Or would that be too much sensitivo PC bullshit?
MCTX wrote: “You can’t fix bigots.”
I agree. Apparently, we can’t prevent them from running for President either with a campaign staff made up fully of bigots. But if we can’t fix them at this late date in the 250-year history of fighting and fixing bigotry in this country, then this sizable remnant (remnant? roughly 38% percent of the electorate) need to be physically assaulted whenever possible and beaten to a pulp.
There was not nearly enough violence at Trump rallies. We need more.
David Bossie? If Hillary Clinton is such a murderous beast, how come she hasn’t Vince Fostered that f*ck through a wood chipper?
It’s the least we could do as a sane polity.
Also, this politically correct sensitivity expressed about over- generalization when it comes to white males, of which I am one ….. well, welcome to the deep end of the pool.
Absent gills, which so many of the Other have had to develop to survive and achieve, I do the backstroke.
My issue is the continuing statement that white males don’t understand the plight of others because we cant possibly know how their lives are.
Actually, Marty. your issue appears to be with sloppy phrasing. Often (way too often, even) people say “white males” when what they mean is some variation of “lots of white males” or “many white males” or “most white males”. Rather than meaning “all white males,” which seems to be the way you are taking it.
I would say further than many of us white males, even those of us who are aware of the problem, don’t have it on the top of our minds a lot of the time. I know I don’t.
And while I have a glimmer of what life is like for someone who is black in this country, I am self-aware enough to realize that I don’t entirely get it. Simply because I don’t have to have it on the top of my mind all the time. And, I submit, the same is true for all of us here who are in the same boat. (I don’t know if we have any regular commenters who are black. Or Latino. If you are out there, please chime in.)
Certainly it seems like the ladies here have the perception (and, I believe, the reality) that they get treated differently. Which suggests that any of us who are male and who are arguing that they don’t, just possibly don’t get it.
My issue is the continuing statement that white males don’t understand the plight of others because we cant possibly know how their lives are.
Actually, Marty. your issue appears to be with sloppy phrasing. Often (way too often, even) people say “white males” when what they mean is some variation of “lots of white males” or “many white males” or “most white males”. Rather than meaning “all white males,” which seems to be the way you are taking it.
I would say further than many of us white males, even those of us who are aware of the problem, don’t have it on the top of our minds a lot of the time. I know I don’t.
And while I have a glimmer of what life is like for someone who is black in this country, I am self-aware enough to realize that I don’t entirely get it. Simply because I don’t have to have it on the top of my mind all the time. And, I submit, the same is true for all of us here who are in the same boat. (I don’t know if we have any regular commenters who are black. Or Latino. If you are out there, please chime in.)
Certainly it seems like the ladies here have the perception (and, I believe, the reality) that they get treated differently. Which suggests that any of us who are male and who are arguing that they don’t, just possibly don’t get it.
My issue is the continuing statement that white males don’t understand the plight of others because we cant possibly know how their lives are.
Actually, Marty. your issue appears to be with sloppy phrasing. Often (way too often, even) people say “white males” when what they mean is some variation of “lots of white males” or “many white males” or “most white males”. Rather than meaning “all white males,” which seems to be the way you are taking it.
I would say further than many of us white males, even those of us who are aware of the problem, don’t have it on the top of our minds a lot of the time. I know I don’t.
And while I have a glimmer of what life is like for someone who is black in this country, I am self-aware enough to realize that I don’t entirely get it. Simply because I don’t have to have it on the top of my mind all the time. And, I submit, the same is true for all of us here who are in the same boat. (I don’t know if we have any regular commenters who are black. Or Latino. If you are out there, please chime in.)
Certainly it seems like the ladies here have the perception (and, I believe, the reality) that they get treated differently. Which suggests that any of us who are male and who are arguing that they don’t, just possibly don’t get it.
bobbyp,
I am sure that the list of disparities you point out in the articles/links between whites and blacks, quality of schools, unemployment, college graduation rates, etc. narrows considerably within economic strata. Not equal, but much closer, I suspect. The lower the strata the more equal is my sense. I wish I had time to find the data, but if you have a source I would love to review it.
What I do know is the disparity between rich and poor whites is just as striking as between whites and blacks, simply because the top of the economic scale is so heavily weighted to whites.
My policy proscriptions would simply include all poor people. Lower income school improvement, school choice, etc. I live in a town where poor children, as part of the school lunch program, get sent home with food for the weekend. Food, shelter, education, at least minimal security. School curriculum/programs always need work, however, some city schools have approached some suburban schools in dollars per student without the equivalent progress, that’s a teacher/program issue.
And yes, the actuality of inner city schools being more difficult and, in some cases, dangerous to teach at perpetuates the teacher recruitment problem. If there is a common and consistent challenge it is with keeping experienced teachers in the poorest schools. If there is a public policy solution to that we should explore it. The same problem, maybe more difficult to solve, is to get more experienced teachers in poor, rural schools. I think they just impact fewer students.
I think there are lots of public policy potential to help, let’s not gentrify the neighborhood without bringing the neighbors along with us. That is an investment policy to explore, but gentrifying so everyone is forced to move and concentrate poverty even more just allows the issue to be ignored while politicians point to their previously blighted neighborhoods as successes.
Now I’m rambling, sorry.
bobbyp,
I am sure that the list of disparities you point out in the articles/links between whites and blacks, quality of schools, unemployment, college graduation rates, etc. narrows considerably within economic strata. Not equal, but much closer, I suspect. The lower the strata the more equal is my sense. I wish I had time to find the data, but if you have a source I would love to review it.
What I do know is the disparity between rich and poor whites is just as striking as between whites and blacks, simply because the top of the economic scale is so heavily weighted to whites.
My policy proscriptions would simply include all poor people. Lower income school improvement, school choice, etc. I live in a town where poor children, as part of the school lunch program, get sent home with food for the weekend. Food, shelter, education, at least minimal security. School curriculum/programs always need work, however, some city schools have approached some suburban schools in dollars per student without the equivalent progress, that’s a teacher/program issue.
And yes, the actuality of inner city schools being more difficult and, in some cases, dangerous to teach at perpetuates the teacher recruitment problem. If there is a common and consistent challenge it is with keeping experienced teachers in the poorest schools. If there is a public policy solution to that we should explore it. The same problem, maybe more difficult to solve, is to get more experienced teachers in poor, rural schools. I think they just impact fewer students.
I think there are lots of public policy potential to help, let’s not gentrify the neighborhood without bringing the neighbors along with us. That is an investment policy to explore, but gentrifying so everyone is forced to move and concentrate poverty even more just allows the issue to be ignored while politicians point to their previously blighted neighborhoods as successes.
Now I’m rambling, sorry.
bobbyp,
I am sure that the list of disparities you point out in the articles/links between whites and blacks, quality of schools, unemployment, college graduation rates, etc. narrows considerably within economic strata. Not equal, but much closer, I suspect. The lower the strata the more equal is my sense. I wish I had time to find the data, but if you have a source I would love to review it.
What I do know is the disparity between rich and poor whites is just as striking as between whites and blacks, simply because the top of the economic scale is so heavily weighted to whites.
My policy proscriptions would simply include all poor people. Lower income school improvement, school choice, etc. I live in a town where poor children, as part of the school lunch program, get sent home with food for the weekend. Food, shelter, education, at least minimal security. School curriculum/programs always need work, however, some city schools have approached some suburban schools in dollars per student without the equivalent progress, that’s a teacher/program issue.
And yes, the actuality of inner city schools being more difficult and, in some cases, dangerous to teach at perpetuates the teacher recruitment problem. If there is a common and consistent challenge it is with keeping experienced teachers in the poorest schools. If there is a public policy solution to that we should explore it. The same problem, maybe more difficult to solve, is to get more experienced teachers in poor, rural schools. I think they just impact fewer students.
I think there are lots of public policy potential to help, let’s not gentrify the neighborhood without bringing the neighbors along with us. That is an investment policy to explore, but gentrifying so everyone is forced to move and concentrate poverty even more just allows the issue to be ignored while politicians point to their previously blighted neighborhoods as successes.
Now I’m rambling, sorry.
This is a white privilege only if I and my fellow co-conspirators are somehow keeping young African Americans from attending class or getting student loans.
Come on, McKinney, you know better than this. To take just the most blindingly obvious factor, if young African Americans go to schools with inferior teachers (generally, not universally, less able, less prepared, etc.), which they unarguably do, they are going to do less well in school. No matter how dilligently they study, they are operating under a handicap. And, should they get into college, they are handicapped there as well because they have less good perparation.
Are you responsible for that? Well, to what extent do you support having local schools be locally funded? Think that doesn’t make a difference in what quality of teachers those districts can afford? Do you bother to object when school district boundaries are being drawn to keep schools segregated? (And, as I’m sure you know, that happens. Even if it is glossed as “keeping communities together” or something.)
The examples of indirect ways of making a difference in the schools go on and on. And we haven’t gotten beyond education yet. Sure, a lot of blacks succeed anyway. But we are talking about statistics here — graduation rates nationwide, etc.
This is a white privilege only if I and my fellow co-conspirators are somehow keeping young African Americans from attending class or getting student loans.
Come on, McKinney, you know better than this. To take just the most blindingly obvious factor, if young African Americans go to schools with inferior teachers (generally, not universally, less able, less prepared, etc.), which they unarguably do, they are going to do less well in school. No matter how dilligently they study, they are operating under a handicap. And, should they get into college, they are handicapped there as well because they have less good perparation.
Are you responsible for that? Well, to what extent do you support having local schools be locally funded? Think that doesn’t make a difference in what quality of teachers those districts can afford? Do you bother to object when school district boundaries are being drawn to keep schools segregated? (And, as I’m sure you know, that happens. Even if it is glossed as “keeping communities together” or something.)
The examples of indirect ways of making a difference in the schools go on and on. And we haven’t gotten beyond education yet. Sure, a lot of blacks succeed anyway. But we are talking about statistics here — graduation rates nationwide, etc.
This is a white privilege only if I and my fellow co-conspirators are somehow keeping young African Americans from attending class or getting student loans.
Come on, McKinney, you know better than this. To take just the most blindingly obvious factor, if young African Americans go to schools with inferior teachers (generally, not universally, less able, less prepared, etc.), which they unarguably do, they are going to do less well in school. No matter how dilligently they study, they are operating under a handicap. And, should they get into college, they are handicapped there as well because they have less good perparation.
Are you responsible for that? Well, to what extent do you support having local schools be locally funded? Think that doesn’t make a difference in what quality of teachers those districts can afford? Do you bother to object when school district boundaries are being drawn to keep schools segregated? (And, as I’m sure you know, that happens. Even if it is glossed as “keeping communities together” or something.)
The examples of indirect ways of making a difference in the schools go on and on. And we haven’t gotten beyond education yet. Sure, a lot of blacks succeed anyway. But we are talking about statistics here — graduation rates nationwide, etc.
The public policy goal is to create equal opportunity within economic strata for whites and blacks.
So basically you are trying to tell me that obvious disparate outcomes across race should just be ignored?
Bobby, that’s not what he said — at least as I read it. What Marty seemed to me to be saying is that we should look first at making economic opportunity more equal among blacks and whites in the same economic class. No “such it up” required or suggested.
Now once we get that, there may still be some wealth disparities. Almost have to be, at least for a while. But I would expect them to level out over time.**
** My basis for that. Look at professional sports, since they (at least most of them) tend to be mostly merit-based these days. See how the pay rates for the most skilled players compare. Once you can rise up on at least a semi-equal basis, you tend to end up with a very similar wealth picture.
The public policy goal is to create equal opportunity within economic strata for whites and blacks.
So basically you are trying to tell me that obvious disparate outcomes across race should just be ignored?
Bobby, that’s not what he said — at least as I read it. What Marty seemed to me to be saying is that we should look first at making economic opportunity more equal among blacks and whites in the same economic class. No “such it up” required or suggested.
Now once we get that, there may still be some wealth disparities. Almost have to be, at least for a while. But I would expect them to level out over time.**
** My basis for that. Look at professional sports, since they (at least most of them) tend to be mostly merit-based these days. See how the pay rates for the most skilled players compare. Once you can rise up on at least a semi-equal basis, you tend to end up with a very similar wealth picture.
The public policy goal is to create equal opportunity within economic strata for whites and blacks.
So basically you are trying to tell me that obvious disparate outcomes across race should just be ignored?
Bobby, that’s not what he said — at least as I read it. What Marty seemed to me to be saying is that we should look first at making economic opportunity more equal among blacks and whites in the same economic class. No “such it up” required or suggested.
Now once we get that, there may still be some wealth disparities. Almost have to be, at least for a while. But I would expect them to level out over time.**
** My basis for that. Look at professional sports, since they (at least most of them) tend to be mostly merit-based these days. See how the pay rates for the most skilled players compare. Once you can rise up on at least a semi-equal basis, you tend to end up with a very similar wealth picture.
“such it up” ==>> “suck it up”
Sigh
“such it up” ==>> “suck it up”
Sigh
“such it up” ==>> “suck it up”
Sigh
Get ready for a tsunami of generalized three-day-old fish wrap anti-Semitism from the fake pro-Israeli white Christian right, male and female … because they are open-minded that way … Trump backers and staff:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-idea-america-unbelievable-ignore-144555145.html
Maybe Ryan and McConnell will invite Peres to speak his mind directly to Congress.
Ya think?
I expect Death Palin and Oh-My-Eyes Bachmann to hit the mics shortly to asshole-splain to Peres that HE doesn’t speak for Jews and Israelis, THEY do.
Get ready for a tsunami of generalized three-day-old fish wrap anti-Semitism from the fake pro-Israeli white Christian right, male and female … because they are open-minded that way … Trump backers and staff:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-idea-america-unbelievable-ignore-144555145.html
Maybe Ryan and McConnell will invite Peres to speak his mind directly to Congress.
Ya think?
I expect Death Palin and Oh-My-Eyes Bachmann to hit the mics shortly to asshole-splain to Peres that HE doesn’t speak for Jews and Israelis, THEY do.
Get ready for a tsunami of generalized three-day-old fish wrap anti-Semitism from the fake pro-Israeli white Christian right, male and female … because they are open-minded that way … Trump backers and staff:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-idea-america-unbelievable-ignore-144555145.html
Maybe Ryan and McConnell will invite Peres to speak his mind directly to Congress.
Ya think?
I expect Death Palin and Oh-My-Eyes Bachmann to hit the mics shortly to asshole-splain to Peres that HE doesn’t speak for Jews and Israelis, THEY do.
If I were to suggest a program like Affirmative Action based on socioeconomic status right now, I wouldn’t be doing it for the first time. Such a thing would target the people most in need of help and would help people in other demographic categories in proportion to the degree of socioeconomic disadvantage those demographics suffered. While there may be far fewer wealthy black kids going to really good schools before college, I’d still rather not provide them unneeded aid that could go to someone more in need of it.
As a given demographic’s socioeconomic standing improved, less aid would go to that group with no need for adjustment in the targeting of the program.
All in theory, of course, assuming it was administered in good faith.
If I were to suggest a program like Affirmative Action based on socioeconomic status right now, I wouldn’t be doing it for the first time. Such a thing would target the people most in need of help and would help people in other demographic categories in proportion to the degree of socioeconomic disadvantage those demographics suffered. While there may be far fewer wealthy black kids going to really good schools before college, I’d still rather not provide them unneeded aid that could go to someone more in need of it.
As a given demographic’s socioeconomic standing improved, less aid would go to that group with no need for adjustment in the targeting of the program.
All in theory, of course, assuming it was administered in good faith.
If I were to suggest a program like Affirmative Action based on socioeconomic status right now, I wouldn’t be doing it for the first time. Such a thing would target the people most in need of help and would help people in other demographic categories in proportion to the degree of socioeconomic disadvantage those demographics suffered. While there may be far fewer wealthy black kids going to really good schools before college, I’d still rather not provide them unneeded aid that could go to someone more in need of it.
As a given demographic’s socioeconomic standing improved, less aid would go to that group with no need for adjustment in the targeting of the program.
All in theory, of course, assuming it was administered in good faith.
My issue is the continuing statement that white males don’t understand the plight of others because we cant possibly know how their lives are.
we could know. we should know. but we apparently don’t.
there are plenty of non-white people who are eager to tell white people exactly what they go through day to day. when i read or hear these accounts i am frequently stunned.
and yet, a sizeable number of white people (primarily conservatives, for some reason) insist those non-white people are either mistaken or lying about their own lives. but how do white conservatives know more about the actual lives of those people than the people themselves do?
My issue is the continuing statement that white males don’t understand the plight of others because we cant possibly know how their lives are.
we could know. we should know. but we apparently don’t.
there are plenty of non-white people who are eager to tell white people exactly what they go through day to day. when i read or hear these accounts i am frequently stunned.
and yet, a sizeable number of white people (primarily conservatives, for some reason) insist those non-white people are either mistaken or lying about their own lives. but how do white conservatives know more about the actual lives of those people than the people themselves do?
My issue is the continuing statement that white males don’t understand the plight of others because we cant possibly know how their lives are.
we could know. we should know. but we apparently don’t.
there are plenty of non-white people who are eager to tell white people exactly what they go through day to day. when i read or hear these accounts i am frequently stunned.
and yet, a sizeable number of white people (primarily conservatives, for some reason) insist those non-white people are either mistaken or lying about their own lives. but how do white conservatives know more about the actual lives of those people than the people themselves do?
Now I’m rambling, sorry.
No problem. Good start. Good suggestions (if by “choice” you mean charter schools, well, that’s a non-starter with me, but whatever-big issue in MASS as I understand).
And I certainly agree that issues of class are inextricably intertwined with issues of race.
I see the widening wealth disparities as between classes as the major social issue in this country….but racism is still way too (and in my view-widely) prevalent. It acts to reinforce this socially destructive class division.
Thanks.
Now I’m rambling, sorry.
No problem. Good start. Good suggestions (if by “choice” you mean charter schools, well, that’s a non-starter with me, but whatever-big issue in MASS as I understand).
And I certainly agree that issues of class are inextricably intertwined with issues of race.
I see the widening wealth disparities as between classes as the major social issue in this country….but racism is still way too (and in my view-widely) prevalent. It acts to reinforce this socially destructive class division.
Thanks.
Now I’m rambling, sorry.
No problem. Good start. Good suggestions (if by “choice” you mean charter schools, well, that’s a non-starter with me, but whatever-big issue in MASS as I understand).
And I certainly agree that issues of class are inextricably intertwined with issues of race.
I see the widening wealth disparities as between classes as the major social issue in this country….but racism is still way too (and in my view-widely) prevalent. It acts to reinforce this socially destructive class division.
Thanks.
Look at professional sports
Indeed, we should….
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/bondy-10-places-racism-major-issue-sport-article-1.1778178
https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/racism-in-baseball-isnt-going-anywhere
Look at professional sports
Indeed, we should….
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/bondy-10-places-racism-major-issue-sport-article-1.1778178
https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/racism-in-baseball-isnt-going-anywhere
Look at professional sports
Indeed, we should….
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/bondy-10-places-racism-major-issue-sport-article-1.1778178
https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/racism-in-baseball-isnt-going-anywhere
As aside to this thread, or maybe not, I have been thinking about the difficulties in discussing some of these issues.
One of the more difficult things is the assumption by white males, me included, that white privilege and discussions of it always include or imply that white males are engaged in the defense of white privilege.
I won’t go through this thread to see if it has been implied, that isn’t my point. My point is that it has been, in many forums and often, stated that white males don’t want to understand because they want to maintain their privilege, white and male. So almost any discussion creates an emotional reaction and an intellectual response that’s defensive.
(as a note I am talking for me, not anyone else here, now)
So, if that assertion/accusation is not your intent then I think some apology is in order, generically. But, on the other hand, perhaps some understanding that the reaction and response is not without its own history.
So, for me, in its simplest form white privilege exists in almost every phase of society. Male privilege is harder to generalize for me. Male/female cultural identities are not so cut and dry in America today. There are certainly male advantages.
But white privilege is nothing I care about reducing, it is availing everyone of those privileges that is the goal. I do not have to feel less safe, less empowered, less confident of my right to be treated fairly for everyone else to feel that way too. The idea is to create equal privilege to the upside.
Making me feel defensive does not further that goal, nor does my inference that I am being attacked.
As aside to this thread, or maybe not, I have been thinking about the difficulties in discussing some of these issues.
One of the more difficult things is the assumption by white males, me included, that white privilege and discussions of it always include or imply that white males are engaged in the defense of white privilege.
I won’t go through this thread to see if it has been implied, that isn’t my point. My point is that it has been, in many forums and often, stated that white males don’t want to understand because they want to maintain their privilege, white and male. So almost any discussion creates an emotional reaction and an intellectual response that’s defensive.
(as a note I am talking for me, not anyone else here, now)
So, if that assertion/accusation is not your intent then I think some apology is in order, generically. But, on the other hand, perhaps some understanding that the reaction and response is not without its own history.
So, for me, in its simplest form white privilege exists in almost every phase of society. Male privilege is harder to generalize for me. Male/female cultural identities are not so cut and dry in America today. There are certainly male advantages.
But white privilege is nothing I care about reducing, it is availing everyone of those privileges that is the goal. I do not have to feel less safe, less empowered, less confident of my right to be treated fairly for everyone else to feel that way too. The idea is to create equal privilege to the upside.
Making me feel defensive does not further that goal, nor does my inference that I am being attacked.
As aside to this thread, or maybe not, I have been thinking about the difficulties in discussing some of these issues.
One of the more difficult things is the assumption by white males, me included, that white privilege and discussions of it always include or imply that white males are engaged in the defense of white privilege.
I won’t go through this thread to see if it has been implied, that isn’t my point. My point is that it has been, in many forums and often, stated that white males don’t want to understand because they want to maintain their privilege, white and male. So almost any discussion creates an emotional reaction and an intellectual response that’s defensive.
(as a note I am talking for me, not anyone else here, now)
So, if that assertion/accusation is not your intent then I think some apology is in order, generically. But, on the other hand, perhaps some understanding that the reaction and response is not without its own history.
So, for me, in its simplest form white privilege exists in almost every phase of society. Male privilege is harder to generalize for me. Male/female cultural identities are not so cut and dry in America today. There are certainly male advantages.
But white privilege is nothing I care about reducing, it is availing everyone of those privileges that is the goal. I do not have to feel less safe, less empowered, less confident of my right to be treated fairly for everyone else to feel that way too. The idea is to create equal privilege to the upside.
Making me feel defensive does not further that goal, nor does my inference that I am being attacked.
Marty – I think that’s why Doc Sci wants a different word than “privilege.”
Marty – I think that’s why Doc Sci wants a different word than “privilege.”
Marty – I think that’s why Doc Sci wants a different word than “privilege.”
but how do white conservatives know more about the actual lives of those people than the people themselves do?
The same way Roman Catholic priests know best about sex, of course.
Not being personally involved* is the only way to be objective.
*not counting involving oneself constantly into other people’s private life of course.
but how do white conservatives know more about the actual lives of those people than the people themselves do?
The same way Roman Catholic priests know best about sex, of course.
Not being personally involved* is the only way to be objective.
*not counting involving oneself constantly into other people’s private life of course.
but how do white conservatives know more about the actual lives of those people than the people themselves do?
The same way Roman Catholic priests know best about sex, of course.
Not being personally involved* is the only way to be objective.
*not counting involving oneself constantly into other people’s private life of course.
Bobby, thanks for the links. Those were interesting.
But I would note that what they conspicuously didn’t mention was any big pay disparities among players according to race. And economics was the subject I was discussing at that point, not racism in general.
Yes, there is a lack of diversity in the front offices. And among the ownership (see the previous discussion about who has the money to afford a hobby like owning a major league sports team.) But it’s arrived among the players. And is getting there among the managers and coaches as well. And given how small the number of managers and coaches is, simple statistics will tell you that the fraction which belong to any given group will bounce up and down, even with perfect diversity. It’s just such a small sample size.
Bobby, thanks for the links. Those were interesting.
But I would note that what they conspicuously didn’t mention was any big pay disparities among players according to race. And economics was the subject I was discussing at that point, not racism in general.
Yes, there is a lack of diversity in the front offices. And among the ownership (see the previous discussion about who has the money to afford a hobby like owning a major league sports team.) But it’s arrived among the players. And is getting there among the managers and coaches as well. And given how small the number of managers and coaches is, simple statistics will tell you that the fraction which belong to any given group will bounce up and down, even with perfect diversity. It’s just such a small sample size.
Bobby, thanks for the links. Those were interesting.
But I would note that what they conspicuously didn’t mention was any big pay disparities among players according to race. And economics was the subject I was discussing at that point, not racism in general.
Yes, there is a lack of diversity in the front offices. And among the ownership (see the previous discussion about who has the money to afford a hobby like owning a major league sports team.) But it’s arrived among the players. And is getting there among the managers and coaches as well. And given how small the number of managers and coaches is, simple statistics will tell you that the fraction which belong to any given group will bounce up and down, even with perfect diversity. It’s just such a small sample size.
Making me feel defensive does not further that goal, nor does my inference that I am being attacked.
some people definitely use the word and the concept to attack others. jerks abound.
but, in my experience, the core of the idea is to get ‘privileged’ people to pause and think about why whatever it is they’re doing might be easier for them, compared to what other people have to deal with. i think ‘check your privilege’ is the official shorthand for that. it’s about opening eyes, not shaming. if you can see what this person has to go through maybe you’ll try to do something about it.
but yeah, ‘privilege’ is not a great word for this because it gets people’s backs up.
Making me feel defensive does not further that goal, nor does my inference that I am being attacked.
some people definitely use the word and the concept to attack others. jerks abound.
but, in my experience, the core of the idea is to get ‘privileged’ people to pause and think about why whatever it is they’re doing might be easier for them, compared to what other people have to deal with. i think ‘check your privilege’ is the official shorthand for that. it’s about opening eyes, not shaming. if you can see what this person has to go through maybe you’ll try to do something about it.
but yeah, ‘privilege’ is not a great word for this because it gets people’s backs up.
Making me feel defensive does not further that goal, nor does my inference that I am being attacked.
some people definitely use the word and the concept to attack others. jerks abound.
but, in my experience, the core of the idea is to get ‘privileged’ people to pause and think about why whatever it is they’re doing might be easier for them, compared to what other people have to deal with. i think ‘check your privilege’ is the official shorthand for that. it’s about opening eyes, not shaming. if you can see what this person has to go through maybe you’ll try to do something about it.
but yeah, ‘privilege’ is not a great word for this because it gets people’s backs up.
And economics was the subject I was discussing at that point, not racism in general.
Well sure. But let it be noted that major professional sports in the good ol’ USA are unionized.
Coincidence? I think not!*
*sorry, I couldn’t resist.
And economics was the subject I was discussing at that point, not racism in general.
Well sure. But let it be noted that major professional sports in the good ol’ USA are unionized.
Coincidence? I think not!*
*sorry, I couldn’t resist.
And economics was the subject I was discussing at that point, not racism in general.
Well sure. But let it be noted that major professional sports in the good ol’ USA are unionized.
Coincidence? I think not!*
*sorry, I couldn’t resist.
What? Racism you say? Umpossible!
What? Racism you say? Umpossible!
What? Racism you say? Umpossible!
the core of the idea is to get ‘privileged’ people to pause and think about why whatever it is they’re doing might be easier for them, compared to what other people have to deal with. i think ‘check your privilege’ is the official shorthand for that. it’s about opening eyes, not shaming. if you can see what this person has to go through maybe you’ll try to do something about it.
Several points. First, this is a comparatively benign view of the common intent behind privilege sensitive people. Nous’ intersecctionality crowd has a much different take, and this is a much larger group, as afar as I can tell and no one on the left is pushing back. And, with respect, I reject the whole ‘oppression/dominance/etc’ line of thought as being a mental/societal/individual straight jacket. Because I’ve cast off the effects of night before last, I will graciously refrain from further characterizing this line of thought as Bullsh*t. I will refer to it simply as “the worst idea ever conceived of in the history of the universe”. I think that’s pretty balanced.
Second, I think I get the gist of what you are saying, but what I’m missing are enough specifics of how, in my daily life, I am supposed to do anything different that what I already do.
Third, if there was a true consensus that what everyone meant by privilege is ‘advantage’ or ‘head start’ as in ‘white people have the advantage of having always been at the top of the social and economic order’, I’d say yes, subject to lots of context, nuance, etc.
I’d also say that this is changing, visibly, and that if lots and lots of currently disadvantaged individuals do more to improve their own situation and that of their children–with reasonable but finite levels of assistance–more change will happen over time. It is a gradual process that the law can effect somewhat but only somewhat. For example, that law can and does forbid exclusion in many contexts. It does not and should not compel involuntary inclusion.
Marty points out that whatever white men have, there isn’t some white male conspiracy to deny that to others. Contra BP, every young woman needs guidance and support in the teen and early adult years, validating their decisions to avoid getting pregnant and not being or allowing themselves to be subordinate to stupid, demanding young men. Young men who make babies and leave need their asses beaten and that’s just for starters. Feel free to scoff, but then try to tell me that if young, poor women, black or white, avoided pregnancy, finished high school with a starter set of skills or prepped for college, they and their eventual children wouldn’t be a hell of a lot better off. Bill Cosby notwithstanding, anyone who thinks early, single female pregnancy is a good start in life should put that into practice in their own home and encourage their daughters to get pregnant whenever they happen to feel like it. I have a life sized picture of that happening.
That said, where I think people could do more is in our daily interactions with others. A black kid who shows up at a mostly white school and without the spending money of his/her classmates is on the outside looking in from the get-go. Loneliness and a sense of isolation is a universal human phenomena. If I was allowed to wave my magic wand, instead of all this multicultural race/gender identity guacamole, I’d make ordinary kindness and politeness a matter of daily convention. I’d also promote a culture in which flashing daddy’s money is considered truly bad form.
If it was my call, we’d have a national conversation about getting along and living together and move away from this theory or that, particularly those theories and concepts that focus so intently on race and sexuality. Because we really don’t have a choice. We”re stuck with each other, regardless of who we are. I’m great with that, personally. I like being in a country whose ideal is equality for all.
the core of the idea is to get ‘privileged’ people to pause and think about why whatever it is they’re doing might be easier for them, compared to what other people have to deal with. i think ‘check your privilege’ is the official shorthand for that. it’s about opening eyes, not shaming. if you can see what this person has to go through maybe you’ll try to do something about it.
Several points. First, this is a comparatively benign view of the common intent behind privilege sensitive people. Nous’ intersecctionality crowd has a much different take, and this is a much larger group, as afar as I can tell and no one on the left is pushing back. And, with respect, I reject the whole ‘oppression/dominance/etc’ line of thought as being a mental/societal/individual straight jacket. Because I’ve cast off the effects of night before last, I will graciously refrain from further characterizing this line of thought as Bullsh*t. I will refer to it simply as “the worst idea ever conceived of in the history of the universe”. I think that’s pretty balanced.
Second, I think I get the gist of what you are saying, but what I’m missing are enough specifics of how, in my daily life, I am supposed to do anything different that what I already do.
Third, if there was a true consensus that what everyone meant by privilege is ‘advantage’ or ‘head start’ as in ‘white people have the advantage of having always been at the top of the social and economic order’, I’d say yes, subject to lots of context, nuance, etc.
I’d also say that this is changing, visibly, and that if lots and lots of currently disadvantaged individuals do more to improve their own situation and that of their children–with reasonable but finite levels of assistance–more change will happen over time. It is a gradual process that the law can effect somewhat but only somewhat. For example, that law can and does forbid exclusion in many contexts. It does not and should not compel involuntary inclusion.
Marty points out that whatever white men have, there isn’t some white male conspiracy to deny that to others. Contra BP, every young woman needs guidance and support in the teen and early adult years, validating their decisions to avoid getting pregnant and not being or allowing themselves to be subordinate to stupid, demanding young men. Young men who make babies and leave need their asses beaten and that’s just for starters. Feel free to scoff, but then try to tell me that if young, poor women, black or white, avoided pregnancy, finished high school with a starter set of skills or prepped for college, they and their eventual children wouldn’t be a hell of a lot better off. Bill Cosby notwithstanding, anyone who thinks early, single female pregnancy is a good start in life should put that into practice in their own home and encourage their daughters to get pregnant whenever they happen to feel like it. I have a life sized picture of that happening.
That said, where I think people could do more is in our daily interactions with others. A black kid who shows up at a mostly white school and without the spending money of his/her classmates is on the outside looking in from the get-go. Loneliness and a sense of isolation is a universal human phenomena. If I was allowed to wave my magic wand, instead of all this multicultural race/gender identity guacamole, I’d make ordinary kindness and politeness a matter of daily convention. I’d also promote a culture in which flashing daddy’s money is considered truly bad form.
If it was my call, we’d have a national conversation about getting along and living together and move away from this theory or that, particularly those theories and concepts that focus so intently on race and sexuality. Because we really don’t have a choice. We”re stuck with each other, regardless of who we are. I’m great with that, personally. I like being in a country whose ideal is equality for all.
the core of the idea is to get ‘privileged’ people to pause and think about why whatever it is they’re doing might be easier for them, compared to what other people have to deal with. i think ‘check your privilege’ is the official shorthand for that. it’s about opening eyes, not shaming. if you can see what this person has to go through maybe you’ll try to do something about it.
Several points. First, this is a comparatively benign view of the common intent behind privilege sensitive people. Nous’ intersecctionality crowd has a much different take, and this is a much larger group, as afar as I can tell and no one on the left is pushing back. And, with respect, I reject the whole ‘oppression/dominance/etc’ line of thought as being a mental/societal/individual straight jacket. Because I’ve cast off the effects of night before last, I will graciously refrain from further characterizing this line of thought as Bullsh*t. I will refer to it simply as “the worst idea ever conceived of in the history of the universe”. I think that’s pretty balanced.
Second, I think I get the gist of what you are saying, but what I’m missing are enough specifics of how, in my daily life, I am supposed to do anything different that what I already do.
Third, if there was a true consensus that what everyone meant by privilege is ‘advantage’ or ‘head start’ as in ‘white people have the advantage of having always been at the top of the social and economic order’, I’d say yes, subject to lots of context, nuance, etc.
I’d also say that this is changing, visibly, and that if lots and lots of currently disadvantaged individuals do more to improve their own situation and that of their children–with reasonable but finite levels of assistance–more change will happen over time. It is a gradual process that the law can effect somewhat but only somewhat. For example, that law can and does forbid exclusion in many contexts. It does not and should not compel involuntary inclusion.
Marty points out that whatever white men have, there isn’t some white male conspiracy to deny that to others. Contra BP, every young woman needs guidance and support in the teen and early adult years, validating their decisions to avoid getting pregnant and not being or allowing themselves to be subordinate to stupid, demanding young men. Young men who make babies and leave need their asses beaten and that’s just for starters. Feel free to scoff, but then try to tell me that if young, poor women, black or white, avoided pregnancy, finished high school with a starter set of skills or prepped for college, they and their eventual children wouldn’t be a hell of a lot better off. Bill Cosby notwithstanding, anyone who thinks early, single female pregnancy is a good start in life should put that into practice in their own home and encourage their daughters to get pregnant whenever they happen to feel like it. I have a life sized picture of that happening.
That said, where I think people could do more is in our daily interactions with others. A black kid who shows up at a mostly white school and without the spending money of his/her classmates is on the outside looking in from the get-go. Loneliness and a sense of isolation is a universal human phenomena. If I was allowed to wave my magic wand, instead of all this multicultural race/gender identity guacamole, I’d make ordinary kindness and politeness a matter of daily convention. I’d also promote a culture in which flashing daddy’s money is considered truly bad form.
If it was my call, we’d have a national conversation about getting along and living together and move away from this theory or that, particularly those theories and concepts that focus so intently on race and sexuality. Because we really don’t have a choice. We”re stuck with each other, regardless of who we are. I’m great with that, personally. I like being in a country whose ideal is equality for all.
I particularly love this quote:
I note that, while he claims it was about politics rather than race, he flat out says that African American voters were specifically targeted. I suppose he should get credit for honesty on that.
I particularly love this quote:
I note that, while he claims it was about politics rather than race, he flat out says that African American voters were specifically targeted. I suppose he should get credit for honesty on that.
I particularly love this quote:
I note that, while he claims it was about politics rather than race, he flat out says that African American voters were specifically targeted. I suppose he should get credit for honesty on that.
Marty points out that whatever white men have, there isn’t some white male conspiracy to deny that to others
see wj’s blockquote, above.
Marty points out that whatever white men have, there isn’t some white male conspiracy to deny that to others
see wj’s blockquote, above.
Marty points out that whatever white men have, there isn’t some white male conspiracy to deny that to others
see wj’s blockquote, above.
MCKT wrote:
“That said, where I think people could do more is in our daily interactions with others. A black kid who shows up at a mostly white school and without the spending money of his/her classmates is on the outside looking in from the get-go. Loneliness and a sense of isolation is a universal human phenomena. If I was allowed to wave my magic wand, instead of all this multicultural race/gender identity guacamole, I’d make ordinary kindness and politeness a matter of daily convention. I’d also promote a culture in which flashing daddy’s money is considered truly bad form.”
If it was my call, we’d have a national conversation about getting along and living together and move away from this theory or that, particularly those theories and concepts that focus so intently on race and sexuality. Because we really don’t have a choice. We”re stuck with each other, regardless of who we are. I’m great with that, personally. I like being in a country whose ideal is equality for all.”
This, along with Russell’s plea for kindness recently, I endorse wholeheartedly. The only way out is paying it forward. So, what MCKT and Russell said.
I confess to a certain distaste for the guacamole mentioned therein, especially its codification in the relatively recent jargon of the social sciences. It makes me squirm, a little like the wet, undigestible cardboard of John Galt’s speechifying in Rand’s ideological bodice-rippers does.
Paddy Chayevsky, the late screenwriter, made quick work of various species of yadda-yadda crapola … Marxist identity and crypto-journo-capitalist business jargon both.
I’d prefer the plain words of Rodney King .. “Why can’t we all just get along” at the person-to-person street level and replicate that on up through the various institutional structures.
Those last two words, “institutional structures” are an example of guacamole, but I used them to make the point that for women, African-Americans, gays and lesbians, Native Americans, Hispanics … all of the groups who were carved out as separate identities and with different, less complimentary labels, and subject to different rules and treatment for so long, by, frankly, institutionalized prejudice, much of which in its most obvious symptoms has been knocked down, yes, but still I think those groups decided that when life gives you avocados, why not make guacamole and lots of it.
Better that we had Departments of Universal Human Kindness Studies in our educational institutions. That would probably be shut down and defunded by real men, but I’m a real man too, and I’d be happy to take it outside instead, if that’s how real men want it.
As I would exhort my son with some heat those VERY FEW times when he was just a kid and I might overhear him being unkind to a peer, “Hey, be nice!”
And now he is a very kind adult to all comers. Not to Donald Trump, but the kid is smart too.
Unfortunately, the avocado purveyors, such as the fruitcake quoted by wj (from bobbyp’s cite) in his 4:45pm comment, keep the the avocados coming all year round, so until they are persuaded of the need for simple institutionalized human kindness, even to blacks and Democrats, I regretfully see the need for a period of human brutality toward Wrenn et al before we shut down the identity politics game.
It is Wrenn et al who practice the original identity politics.
MCKT wrote:
“That said, where I think people could do more is in our daily interactions with others. A black kid who shows up at a mostly white school and without the spending money of his/her classmates is on the outside looking in from the get-go. Loneliness and a sense of isolation is a universal human phenomena. If I was allowed to wave my magic wand, instead of all this multicultural race/gender identity guacamole, I’d make ordinary kindness and politeness a matter of daily convention. I’d also promote a culture in which flashing daddy’s money is considered truly bad form.”
If it was my call, we’d have a national conversation about getting along and living together and move away from this theory or that, particularly those theories and concepts that focus so intently on race and sexuality. Because we really don’t have a choice. We”re stuck with each other, regardless of who we are. I’m great with that, personally. I like being in a country whose ideal is equality for all.”
This, along with Russell’s plea for kindness recently, I endorse wholeheartedly. The only way out is paying it forward. So, what MCKT and Russell said.
I confess to a certain distaste for the guacamole mentioned therein, especially its codification in the relatively recent jargon of the social sciences. It makes me squirm, a little like the wet, undigestible cardboard of John Galt’s speechifying in Rand’s ideological bodice-rippers does.
Paddy Chayevsky, the late screenwriter, made quick work of various species of yadda-yadda crapola … Marxist identity and crypto-journo-capitalist business jargon both.
I’d prefer the plain words of Rodney King .. “Why can’t we all just get along” at the person-to-person street level and replicate that on up through the various institutional structures.
Those last two words, “institutional structures” are an example of guacamole, but I used them to make the point that for women, African-Americans, gays and lesbians, Native Americans, Hispanics … all of the groups who were carved out as separate identities and with different, less complimentary labels, and subject to different rules and treatment for so long, by, frankly, institutionalized prejudice, much of which in its most obvious symptoms has been knocked down, yes, but still I think those groups decided that when life gives you avocados, why not make guacamole and lots of it.
Better that we had Departments of Universal Human Kindness Studies in our educational institutions. That would probably be shut down and defunded by real men, but I’m a real man too, and I’d be happy to take it outside instead, if that’s how real men want it.
As I would exhort my son with some heat those VERY FEW times when he was just a kid and I might overhear him being unkind to a peer, “Hey, be nice!”
And now he is a very kind adult to all comers. Not to Donald Trump, but the kid is smart too.
Unfortunately, the avocado purveyors, such as the fruitcake quoted by wj (from bobbyp’s cite) in his 4:45pm comment, keep the the avocados coming all year round, so until they are persuaded of the need for simple institutionalized human kindness, even to blacks and Democrats, I regretfully see the need for a period of human brutality toward Wrenn et al before we shut down the identity politics game.
It is Wrenn et al who practice the original identity politics.
MCKT wrote:
“That said, where I think people could do more is in our daily interactions with others. A black kid who shows up at a mostly white school and without the spending money of his/her classmates is on the outside looking in from the get-go. Loneliness and a sense of isolation is a universal human phenomena. If I was allowed to wave my magic wand, instead of all this multicultural race/gender identity guacamole, I’d make ordinary kindness and politeness a matter of daily convention. I’d also promote a culture in which flashing daddy’s money is considered truly bad form.”
If it was my call, we’d have a national conversation about getting along and living together and move away from this theory or that, particularly those theories and concepts that focus so intently on race and sexuality. Because we really don’t have a choice. We”re stuck with each other, regardless of who we are. I’m great with that, personally. I like being in a country whose ideal is equality for all.”
This, along with Russell’s plea for kindness recently, I endorse wholeheartedly. The only way out is paying it forward. So, what MCKT and Russell said.
I confess to a certain distaste for the guacamole mentioned therein, especially its codification in the relatively recent jargon of the social sciences. It makes me squirm, a little like the wet, undigestible cardboard of John Galt’s speechifying in Rand’s ideological bodice-rippers does.
Paddy Chayevsky, the late screenwriter, made quick work of various species of yadda-yadda crapola … Marxist identity and crypto-journo-capitalist business jargon both.
I’d prefer the plain words of Rodney King .. “Why can’t we all just get along” at the person-to-person street level and replicate that on up through the various institutional structures.
Those last two words, “institutional structures” are an example of guacamole, but I used them to make the point that for women, African-Americans, gays and lesbians, Native Americans, Hispanics … all of the groups who were carved out as separate identities and with different, less complimentary labels, and subject to different rules and treatment for so long, by, frankly, institutionalized prejudice, much of which in its most obvious symptoms has been knocked down, yes, but still I think those groups decided that when life gives you avocados, why not make guacamole and lots of it.
Better that we had Departments of Universal Human Kindness Studies in our educational institutions. That would probably be shut down and defunded by real men, but I’m a real man too, and I’d be happy to take it outside instead, if that’s how real men want it.
As I would exhort my son with some heat those VERY FEW times when he was just a kid and I might overhear him being unkind to a peer, “Hey, be nice!”
And now he is a very kind adult to all comers. Not to Donald Trump, but the kid is smart too.
Unfortunately, the avocado purveyors, such as the fruitcake quoted by wj (from bobbyp’s cite) in his 4:45pm comment, keep the the avocados coming all year round, so until they are persuaded of the need for simple institutionalized human kindness, even to blacks and Democrats, I regretfully see the need for a period of human brutality toward Wrenn et al before we shut down the identity politics game.
It is Wrenn et al who practice the original identity politics.
“But white privilege is nothing I care about reducing, it is availing everyone of those privileges that is the goal. I do not have to feel less safe, less empowered, less confident of my right to be treated fairly for everyone else to feel that way too. The idea is to create equal privilege to the upside.”
This is what The American Dream and the Public Schools does such a good job of addressing.
Let’s consider education and school funding, as so many here have been suggesting. I recognize the inherent justice of your response here, Marty, but when it comes to public school policy this particular framing rapidly runs into problems.
Does equalizing privilege mean equalizing school budgets on a per-capita spending level? If so, then what of the Special Needs students who cost more to educate?
If we accede to the reality of special education and increase funding for those students, then we are saying that school budgets should be figured according to the cost of providing for the needs of individual students. Does this also then mean the cost of hiring and retaining experienced teachers for urban and small rural schools with hiring and retention difficulties? What about schools with greater need for bi-lingual counseling?
If we accede to those needs, then we either have to increase the overall education budget to pay for expensive programs, and increase taxes or shift budgets to cover that, or we need to reduce the budget of schools that do not have those expensive needs.
But reducing those budgets then comes out looking like you are reducing the quality of education for those students who had enjoyed better funding and teaching all along under the current method of dividing up the revenues. We’d be reducing what we have been calling privilege.
“But white privilege is nothing I care about reducing, it is availing everyone of those privileges that is the goal. I do not have to feel less safe, less empowered, less confident of my right to be treated fairly for everyone else to feel that way too. The idea is to create equal privilege to the upside.”
This is what The American Dream and the Public Schools does such a good job of addressing.
Let’s consider education and school funding, as so many here have been suggesting. I recognize the inherent justice of your response here, Marty, but when it comes to public school policy this particular framing rapidly runs into problems.
Does equalizing privilege mean equalizing school budgets on a per-capita spending level? If so, then what of the Special Needs students who cost more to educate?
If we accede to the reality of special education and increase funding for those students, then we are saying that school budgets should be figured according to the cost of providing for the needs of individual students. Does this also then mean the cost of hiring and retaining experienced teachers for urban and small rural schools with hiring and retention difficulties? What about schools with greater need for bi-lingual counseling?
If we accede to those needs, then we either have to increase the overall education budget to pay for expensive programs, and increase taxes or shift budgets to cover that, or we need to reduce the budget of schools that do not have those expensive needs.
But reducing those budgets then comes out looking like you are reducing the quality of education for those students who had enjoyed better funding and teaching all along under the current method of dividing up the revenues. We’d be reducing what we have been calling privilege.
“But white privilege is nothing I care about reducing, it is availing everyone of those privileges that is the goal. I do not have to feel less safe, less empowered, less confident of my right to be treated fairly for everyone else to feel that way too. The idea is to create equal privilege to the upside.”
This is what The American Dream and the Public Schools does such a good job of addressing.
Let’s consider education and school funding, as so many here have been suggesting. I recognize the inherent justice of your response here, Marty, but when it comes to public school policy this particular framing rapidly runs into problems.
Does equalizing privilege mean equalizing school budgets on a per-capita spending level? If so, then what of the Special Needs students who cost more to educate?
If we accede to the reality of special education and increase funding for those students, then we are saying that school budgets should be figured according to the cost of providing for the needs of individual students. Does this also then mean the cost of hiring and retaining experienced teachers for urban and small rural schools with hiring and retention difficulties? What about schools with greater need for bi-lingual counseling?
If we accede to those needs, then we either have to increase the overall education budget to pay for expensive programs, and increase taxes or shift budgets to cover that, or we need to reduce the budget of schools that do not have those expensive needs.
But reducing those budgets then comes out looking like you are reducing the quality of education for those students who had enjoyed better funding and teaching all along under the current method of dividing up the revenues. We’d be reducing what we have been calling privilege.
“Marty points out that whatever white men have, there isn’t some white male conspiracy to deny that to others
see wj’s blockquote, above.”
That’s the water David Foster Wallace’s fish swim in.
So we make the fish swim in guacamole. THAT they sense.
“Marty points out that whatever white men have, there isn’t some white male conspiracy to deny that to others
see wj’s blockquote, above.”
That’s the water David Foster Wallace’s fish swim in.
So we make the fish swim in guacamole. THAT they sense.
“Marty points out that whatever white men have, there isn’t some white male conspiracy to deny that to others
see wj’s blockquote, above.”
That’s the water David Foster Wallace’s fish swim in.
So we make the fish swim in guacamole. THAT they sense.
“But reducing those budgets then comes out looking like you are reducing the quality of education for those students who had enjoyed better funding and teaching all along under the current method of dividing up the revenues. We’d be reducing what we have been calling privilege.”
yes, that’s a problem. Well, some of it is. makes school choice, charter schools, magnet schools and private schools incredibly important to add to the mix. So dividing up the funding is driven by the quality of the education provided.
“But reducing those budgets then comes out looking like you are reducing the quality of education for those students who had enjoyed better funding and teaching all along under the current method of dividing up the revenues. We’d be reducing what we have been calling privilege.”
yes, that’s a problem. Well, some of it is. makes school choice, charter schools, magnet schools and private schools incredibly important to add to the mix. So dividing up the funding is driven by the quality of the education provided.
“But reducing those budgets then comes out looking like you are reducing the quality of education for those students who had enjoyed better funding and teaching all along under the current method of dividing up the revenues. We’d be reducing what we have been calling privilege.”
yes, that’s a problem. Well, some of it is. makes school choice, charter schools, magnet schools and private schools incredibly important to add to the mix. So dividing up the funding is driven by the quality of the education provided.
It is Wrenn et al who practice the original identity politics.
Exactly.
And when the Wrenns of the world get called out on it, they play the, “Who, me?” card. Let us not forget we’re the ones who invented this lunatic ladder of superiority based on “race”.
This won’t stop until they stop or get stopped.
What goes around, comes around. The comes around end-times have started, not only nationally, but world-wide.
Get used to it. Payback is a (insert the unflattering term of your choice here).
It is Wrenn et al who practice the original identity politics.
Exactly.
And when the Wrenns of the world get called out on it, they play the, “Who, me?” card. Let us not forget we’re the ones who invented this lunatic ladder of superiority based on “race”.
This won’t stop until they stop or get stopped.
What goes around, comes around. The comes around end-times have started, not only nationally, but world-wide.
Get used to it. Payback is a (insert the unflattering term of your choice here).
It is Wrenn et al who practice the original identity politics.
Exactly.
And when the Wrenns of the world get called out on it, they play the, “Who, me?” card. Let us not forget we’re the ones who invented this lunatic ladder of superiority based on “race”.
This won’t stop until they stop or get stopped.
What goes around, comes around. The comes around end-times have started, not only nationally, but world-wide.
Get used to it. Payback is a (insert the unflattering term of your choice here).
“yes, that’s a problem. Well, some of it is. makes school choice, charter schools, magnet schools and private schools incredibly important to add to the mix. So dividing up the funding is driven by the quality of the education provided.”
Wait…the parent gets to choose and the money follows the student? But that’s parental privilege. What if I want to give my education tax dollars to the poor public urban school because I have a different set of priorities? How do we decide who gets funded? Choice does not solve the problem, it just shifts the grounds for the argument.
“yes, that’s a problem. Well, some of it is. makes school choice, charter schools, magnet schools and private schools incredibly important to add to the mix. So dividing up the funding is driven by the quality of the education provided.”
Wait…the parent gets to choose and the money follows the student? But that’s parental privilege. What if I want to give my education tax dollars to the poor public urban school because I have a different set of priorities? How do we decide who gets funded? Choice does not solve the problem, it just shifts the grounds for the argument.
“yes, that’s a problem. Well, some of it is. makes school choice, charter schools, magnet schools and private schools incredibly important to add to the mix. So dividing up the funding is driven by the quality of the education provided.”
Wait…the parent gets to choose and the money follows the student? But that’s parental privilege. What if I want to give my education tax dollars to the poor public urban school because I have a different set of priorities? How do we decide who gets funded? Choice does not solve the problem, it just shifts the grounds for the argument.
Second, I think I get the gist of what you are saying, but what I’m missing are enough specifics of how, in my daily life, I am supposed to do anything different that what I already do.
One thing you could do is not trash the whole enterprise. Just because a discussion doesn’t tell you what you need to do doesn’t mean that it is invalid or meaningless.
And, as bobbyp notes, taking this tack is going to encourage people to rub your nose in the idea.
This comment
This is a white privilege only if I and my fellow co-conspirators….
Reminded me that a lot of what I got up to in HS and College would have probably given an African-American a space on a police blotter.
I’ve been away from the US for a long time, so maybe there are no problems. It is easy for me to resort to sarcasm, but I’m not being sarcastic when I say that it’s truly good that there is such diversity around you McT. But I’ve pointed out to you things like Men’s Rights
http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/05/mens-rights-circumcision/
https://www.buzzfeed.com/adamserwer/how-mens-rights-leader-paul-elam-turned-being-a-deadbeat-dad?utm_term=.aizELOvJ7#.qaBKrg0qO
You talk about the ‘intersectionality crew’, but why is something that comes from the academy counterbalanced by something that seems to have no academic pedigree or standing? If you think that what separates the West in terms of civilization is the academy, why is the vehicle that supposedly indicates our superiority so wrong? It’s the same dynamic as climate change deniers, the academy is wrong, the academy is lying, they have been bought off. Intersectionality discusses identity and acknowledging the context as a way of trying to explain why disparities are nuanced and it is not simply that one group is being oppressed and another is not. Blanket dismissal sounds like you feel threatened by it. (and before you complain about mind-reading, recall you wrote this “First, this is a comparatively benign view of the common intent behind privilege sensitive people.”)
I realize that we rely on our daily interactions to act as a thermometer for the health of society, but it seems viewing those as the only evidence that you need is like assuming that because your supermarket stocks tuna, it obviously means that there is no problem with overfishing.
A lot of us thought that electing Obama was a sign of a post-racial future, yet the level of racism that has come thru for the past 8 years is astonishing. Seeing some of the same things play out through Hillary’s candidacy has a lot of us say ‘fooled me once…’
Privilege is the refracted image of the racism and sexism that we see when some of these arguments are deployed. I would be much more willing to restrict addressing privilege in the way that McT and Marty say if we didn’t see the root cause bubbling up all the time.
The refusal to pay for our society, the constant push to ‘drown government in a bathtub’, the hyping of free enterprise as a cure-all, when there are the level of disparities in our society comes out as a ‘I’ve got mine, and screw everyone else’. When one can no longer depend on government to distribute the goodies in a way that I am first in line, closing down the window seems a bit convenient.
I’m half asian, but I’ve gotten tons of white privilege. Living in Japan, a paradise for white privilege, makes me very conscious of the privileges I continue to receive. I often wonder if I fled the US in part because I was unwilling to deal with the hard work of trying to make a change where I was. But the fact that I could pick up and live in another country is another facet of privilege. Dealing with it for me is just reminding myself everyday that it exists, I have benefited and trying not to be judgemental and assume that what my experience is dictates how others should be judged. I don’t think this is a bad thing. But from what is written here from the other side, the mere fact that I do that means that I’m somehow part of the problem.
Second, I think I get the gist of what you are saying, but what I’m missing are enough specifics of how, in my daily life, I am supposed to do anything different that what I already do.
One thing you could do is not trash the whole enterprise. Just because a discussion doesn’t tell you what you need to do doesn’t mean that it is invalid or meaningless.
And, as bobbyp notes, taking this tack is going to encourage people to rub your nose in the idea.
This comment
This is a white privilege only if I and my fellow co-conspirators….
Reminded me that a lot of what I got up to in HS and College would have probably given an African-American a space on a police blotter.
I’ve been away from the US for a long time, so maybe there are no problems. It is easy for me to resort to sarcasm, but I’m not being sarcastic when I say that it’s truly good that there is such diversity around you McT. But I’ve pointed out to you things like Men’s Rights
http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/05/mens-rights-circumcision/
https://www.buzzfeed.com/adamserwer/how-mens-rights-leader-paul-elam-turned-being-a-deadbeat-dad?utm_term=.aizELOvJ7#.qaBKrg0qO
You talk about the ‘intersectionality crew’, but why is something that comes from the academy counterbalanced by something that seems to have no academic pedigree or standing? If you think that what separates the West in terms of civilization is the academy, why is the vehicle that supposedly indicates our superiority so wrong? It’s the same dynamic as climate change deniers, the academy is wrong, the academy is lying, they have been bought off. Intersectionality discusses identity and acknowledging the context as a way of trying to explain why disparities are nuanced and it is not simply that one group is being oppressed and another is not. Blanket dismissal sounds like you feel threatened by it. (and before you complain about mind-reading, recall you wrote this “First, this is a comparatively benign view of the common intent behind privilege sensitive people.”)
I realize that we rely on our daily interactions to act as a thermometer for the health of society, but it seems viewing those as the only evidence that you need is like assuming that because your supermarket stocks tuna, it obviously means that there is no problem with overfishing.
A lot of us thought that electing Obama was a sign of a post-racial future, yet the level of racism that has come thru for the past 8 years is astonishing. Seeing some of the same things play out through Hillary’s candidacy has a lot of us say ‘fooled me once…’
Privilege is the refracted image of the racism and sexism that we see when some of these arguments are deployed. I would be much more willing to restrict addressing privilege in the way that McT and Marty say if we didn’t see the root cause bubbling up all the time.
The refusal to pay for our society, the constant push to ‘drown government in a bathtub’, the hyping of free enterprise as a cure-all, when there are the level of disparities in our society comes out as a ‘I’ve got mine, and screw everyone else’. When one can no longer depend on government to distribute the goodies in a way that I am first in line, closing down the window seems a bit convenient.
I’m half asian, but I’ve gotten tons of white privilege. Living in Japan, a paradise for white privilege, makes me very conscious of the privileges I continue to receive. I often wonder if I fled the US in part because I was unwilling to deal with the hard work of trying to make a change where I was. But the fact that I could pick up and live in another country is another facet of privilege. Dealing with it for me is just reminding myself everyday that it exists, I have benefited and trying not to be judgemental and assume that what my experience is dictates how others should be judged. I don’t think this is a bad thing. But from what is written here from the other side, the mere fact that I do that means that I’m somehow part of the problem.
Second, I think I get the gist of what you are saying, but what I’m missing are enough specifics of how, in my daily life, I am supposed to do anything different that what I already do.
One thing you could do is not trash the whole enterprise. Just because a discussion doesn’t tell you what you need to do doesn’t mean that it is invalid or meaningless.
And, as bobbyp notes, taking this tack is going to encourage people to rub your nose in the idea.
This comment
This is a white privilege only if I and my fellow co-conspirators….
Reminded me that a lot of what I got up to in HS and College would have probably given an African-American a space on a police blotter.
I’ve been away from the US for a long time, so maybe there are no problems. It is easy for me to resort to sarcasm, but I’m not being sarcastic when I say that it’s truly good that there is such diversity around you McT. But I’ve pointed out to you things like Men’s Rights
http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/05/mens-rights-circumcision/
https://www.buzzfeed.com/adamserwer/how-mens-rights-leader-paul-elam-turned-being-a-deadbeat-dad?utm_term=.aizELOvJ7#.qaBKrg0qO
You talk about the ‘intersectionality crew’, but why is something that comes from the academy counterbalanced by something that seems to have no academic pedigree or standing? If you think that what separates the West in terms of civilization is the academy, why is the vehicle that supposedly indicates our superiority so wrong? It’s the same dynamic as climate change deniers, the academy is wrong, the academy is lying, they have been bought off. Intersectionality discusses identity and acknowledging the context as a way of trying to explain why disparities are nuanced and it is not simply that one group is being oppressed and another is not. Blanket dismissal sounds like you feel threatened by it. (and before you complain about mind-reading, recall you wrote this “First, this is a comparatively benign view of the common intent behind privilege sensitive people.”)
I realize that we rely on our daily interactions to act as a thermometer for the health of society, but it seems viewing those as the only evidence that you need is like assuming that because your supermarket stocks tuna, it obviously means that there is no problem with overfishing.
A lot of us thought that electing Obama was a sign of a post-racial future, yet the level of racism that has come thru for the past 8 years is astonishing. Seeing some of the same things play out through Hillary’s candidacy has a lot of us say ‘fooled me once…’
Privilege is the refracted image of the racism and sexism that we see when some of these arguments are deployed. I would be much more willing to restrict addressing privilege in the way that McT and Marty say if we didn’t see the root cause bubbling up all the time.
The refusal to pay for our society, the constant push to ‘drown government in a bathtub’, the hyping of free enterprise as a cure-all, when there are the level of disparities in our society comes out as a ‘I’ve got mine, and screw everyone else’. When one can no longer depend on government to distribute the goodies in a way that I am first in line, closing down the window seems a bit convenient.
I’m half asian, but I’ve gotten tons of white privilege. Living in Japan, a paradise for white privilege, makes me very conscious of the privileges I continue to receive. I often wonder if I fled the US in part because I was unwilling to deal with the hard work of trying to make a change where I was. But the fact that I could pick up and live in another country is another facet of privilege. Dealing with it for me is just reminding myself everyday that it exists, I have benefited and trying not to be judgemental and assume that what my experience is dictates how others should be judged. I don’t think this is a bad thing. But from what is written here from the other side, the mere fact that I do that means that I’m somehow part of the problem.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/michele-bachmann-2016-last-election-demographic-change
I guarantee this vile crazy beast with the cracked ten-thousand mile stare and the frozen killer’s smile decal pasted on her face that if Trump wins and she gets anywhere near the White House and/or American foreign policy that it will be the last American election.
Especially for her.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/michele-bachmann-2016-last-election-demographic-change
I guarantee this vile crazy beast with the cracked ten-thousand mile stare and the frozen killer’s smile decal pasted on her face that if Trump wins and she gets anywhere near the White House and/or American foreign policy that it will be the last American election.
Especially for her.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/michele-bachmann-2016-last-election-demographic-change
I guarantee this vile crazy beast with the cracked ten-thousand mile stare and the frozen killer’s smile decal pasted on her face that if Trump wins and she gets anywhere near the White House and/or American foreign policy that it will be the last American election.
Especially for her.
“This is a white privilege only if I and my fellow co-conspirators are somehow keeping young African Americans from attending class or getting student loans.”
this is exactly wrong.
if you and your co-conspirators are somehow intentionally keeping young blacks from attending class, that’s not privilege, it’s oppression.
privilege is when the barriers to yoy attendoing class are lower for you if you are white than if you are black.
privilege is not primarily about intent, it’s about position.
“This is a white privilege only if I and my fellow co-conspirators are somehow keeping young African Americans from attending class or getting student loans.”
this is exactly wrong.
if you and your co-conspirators are somehow intentionally keeping young blacks from attending class, that’s not privilege, it’s oppression.
privilege is when the barriers to yoy attendoing class are lower for you if you are white than if you are black.
privilege is not primarily about intent, it’s about position.
“This is a white privilege only if I and my fellow co-conspirators are somehow keeping young African Americans from attending class or getting student loans.”
this is exactly wrong.
if you and your co-conspirators are somehow intentionally keeping young blacks from attending class, that’s not privilege, it’s oppression.
privilege is when the barriers to yoy attendoing class are lower for you if you are white than if you are black.
privilege is not primarily about intent, it’s about position.
you attending. not yoy attendoing.
frigging tablet keyboard.
you attending. not yoy attendoing.
frigging tablet keyboard.
you attending. not yoy attendoing.
frigging tablet keyboard.
Up thread (at least I think it was this thread) there was some discussion of the differences in the age at marriage and childbearing, and the numbers of single mothers, between the rich and everyone else. And the suggestion that this was a significant factor in keeping the economic disparities the way that they are.
I think there is a lot to that. So here’s an off the wall suggestion for something that we could do. And something we could all write our school boards, city governments, and state legislators about enacting. (Not that it will be an easy sell!)
All children get mandatory sex education in school. Start with a What is Puberty class (4th or 5th grade for girls, maybe 8th grade for boys?). Follow up with yearly classes in high school.
Every child is required to attend. No opt out for anybody. Except your child can TEST out — if you are determined that you should be the one to teach your kid about sex, and nobody else, fine. But you have to actually do so; if the kid can’t pass the test, he has to go to class. (And that included home-schooled kids. The kids still have to pass the test, or else they have to go to school and take the class with everybody else.)
The goal of this draconian intrusion of government? To get the number of single mothers, especially teenage single mothers, back down. And, we expect, thereby improve the educational prospects of the next generation. Not to mention the educational options of the generation which is putting off parenthood until they have finished their educations.
Like I say, it would be a hard sell. But it would probably do more to resolve our problems with wealth disparities and lack of economic mobility than any other single thing we could do.
Up thread (at least I think it was this thread) there was some discussion of the differences in the age at marriage and childbearing, and the numbers of single mothers, between the rich and everyone else. And the suggestion that this was a significant factor in keeping the economic disparities the way that they are.
I think there is a lot to that. So here’s an off the wall suggestion for something that we could do. And something we could all write our school boards, city governments, and state legislators about enacting. (Not that it will be an easy sell!)
All children get mandatory sex education in school. Start with a What is Puberty class (4th or 5th grade for girls, maybe 8th grade for boys?). Follow up with yearly classes in high school.
Every child is required to attend. No opt out for anybody. Except your child can TEST out — if you are determined that you should be the one to teach your kid about sex, and nobody else, fine. But you have to actually do so; if the kid can’t pass the test, he has to go to class. (And that included home-schooled kids. The kids still have to pass the test, or else they have to go to school and take the class with everybody else.)
The goal of this draconian intrusion of government? To get the number of single mothers, especially teenage single mothers, back down. And, we expect, thereby improve the educational prospects of the next generation. Not to mention the educational options of the generation which is putting off parenthood until they have finished their educations.
Like I say, it would be a hard sell. But it would probably do more to resolve our problems with wealth disparities and lack of economic mobility than any other single thing we could do.
Up thread (at least I think it was this thread) there was some discussion of the differences in the age at marriage and childbearing, and the numbers of single mothers, between the rich and everyone else. And the suggestion that this was a significant factor in keeping the economic disparities the way that they are.
I think there is a lot to that. So here’s an off the wall suggestion for something that we could do. And something we could all write our school boards, city governments, and state legislators about enacting. (Not that it will be an easy sell!)
All children get mandatory sex education in school. Start with a What is Puberty class (4th or 5th grade for girls, maybe 8th grade for boys?). Follow up with yearly classes in high school.
Every child is required to attend. No opt out for anybody. Except your child can TEST out — if you are determined that you should be the one to teach your kid about sex, and nobody else, fine. But you have to actually do so; if the kid can’t pass the test, he has to go to class. (And that included home-schooled kids. The kids still have to pass the test, or else they have to go to school and take the class with everybody else.)
The goal of this draconian intrusion of government? To get the number of single mothers, especially teenage single mothers, back down. And, we expect, thereby improve the educational prospects of the next generation. Not to mention the educational options of the generation which is putting off parenthood until they have finished their educations.
Like I say, it would be a hard sell. But it would probably do more to resolve our problems with wealth disparities and lack of economic mobility than any other single thing we could do.
I am not a woman. But I think that the rate of pregnancy and single motherhood will not be solved by sex education. There are a lot of things we can teach that would probably solve that problem better.
Teach young men respect. That means no means no, but it also means condoms show respect. It means don’t bully, berate or even inveigle your way into sex. Deserting fathers are likely first to be disrespectful boyfriends or lovers.
Then teach young women they are worthy of respect. They are in charge of what they give to the relationships they have and if they don’t feel like they are then it is not a good relationship. They can, but should not have to, demand a condom and should exercise their right to birth control if they choose to have sex.
These are not sex education topics, they are life topics that can be reinforced in schools but won’t take if they are not taught at home.
Both young men and women will seek respect and affection in whatever way they can get it if they do not have it at home. They will accept sex for love and domination for respect if that’s all they get.
Schools can’t provide the sense of self that a family, of whatever makeup, can.
I do look for the public policy that supports strong and respectful young men and women that understand their value as people, just because they are. Outside the parental substitutes that try hard, Boys and Girls Clubs, big Brothers and Sisters, I find little support that can adequately fill that void.
When many of your adult role models have been forced into the young single mom role and cheerfully make the best of it, strive hard, love their children. and in most ways are awesome people, it is easy to ignore their warnings and not avoid that outcome.
And, to end the rant, we need to find a way to broaden the role model pool for young people. Mentors and role models from their community, and other communities, that broaden there sense of possibility. The most tragic thing to me is the poor young person who can’t imagine living any other way.
I am not a woman. But I think that the rate of pregnancy and single motherhood will not be solved by sex education. There are a lot of things we can teach that would probably solve that problem better.
Teach young men respect. That means no means no, but it also means condoms show respect. It means don’t bully, berate or even inveigle your way into sex. Deserting fathers are likely first to be disrespectful boyfriends or lovers.
Then teach young women they are worthy of respect. They are in charge of what they give to the relationships they have and if they don’t feel like they are then it is not a good relationship. They can, but should not have to, demand a condom and should exercise their right to birth control if they choose to have sex.
These are not sex education topics, they are life topics that can be reinforced in schools but won’t take if they are not taught at home.
Both young men and women will seek respect and affection in whatever way they can get it if they do not have it at home. They will accept sex for love and domination for respect if that’s all they get.
Schools can’t provide the sense of self that a family, of whatever makeup, can.
I do look for the public policy that supports strong and respectful young men and women that understand their value as people, just because they are. Outside the parental substitutes that try hard, Boys and Girls Clubs, big Brothers and Sisters, I find little support that can adequately fill that void.
When many of your adult role models have been forced into the young single mom role and cheerfully make the best of it, strive hard, love their children. and in most ways are awesome people, it is easy to ignore their warnings and not avoid that outcome.
And, to end the rant, we need to find a way to broaden the role model pool for young people. Mentors and role models from their community, and other communities, that broaden there sense of possibility. The most tragic thing to me is the poor young person who can’t imagine living any other way.
I am not a woman. But I think that the rate of pregnancy and single motherhood will not be solved by sex education. There are a lot of things we can teach that would probably solve that problem better.
Teach young men respect. That means no means no, but it also means condoms show respect. It means don’t bully, berate or even inveigle your way into sex. Deserting fathers are likely first to be disrespectful boyfriends or lovers.
Then teach young women they are worthy of respect. They are in charge of what they give to the relationships they have and if they don’t feel like they are then it is not a good relationship. They can, but should not have to, demand a condom and should exercise their right to birth control if they choose to have sex.
These are not sex education topics, they are life topics that can be reinforced in schools but won’t take if they are not taught at home.
Both young men and women will seek respect and affection in whatever way they can get it if they do not have it at home. They will accept sex for love and domination for respect if that’s all they get.
Schools can’t provide the sense of self that a family, of whatever makeup, can.
I do look for the public policy that supports strong and respectful young men and women that understand their value as people, just because they are. Outside the parental substitutes that try hard, Boys and Girls Clubs, big Brothers and Sisters, I find little support that can adequately fill that void.
When many of your adult role models have been forced into the young single mom role and cheerfully make the best of it, strive hard, love their children. and in most ways are awesome people, it is easy to ignore their warnings and not avoid that outcome.
And, to end the rant, we need to find a way to broaden the role model pool for young people. Mentors and role models from their community, and other communities, that broaden there sense of possibility. The most tragic thing to me is the poor young person who can’t imagine living any other way.
In one way, they aren’t sex education topics. But in another they are.
I would say that teaching things like respect (including both “no means no” and “it’s OK to say no”) should be part of the class.
For that matter, I’d include some information on the correlation between getting pregnant young and being poor. Between being a single parent and being poor. And then ask the kids: would you rather be rich or poor?
In one way, they aren’t sex education topics. But in another they are.
I would say that teaching things like respect (including both “no means no” and “it’s OK to say no”) should be part of the class.
For that matter, I’d include some information on the correlation between getting pregnant young and being poor. Between being a single parent and being poor. And then ask the kids: would you rather be rich or poor?
In one way, they aren’t sex education topics. But in another they are.
I would say that teaching things like respect (including both “no means no” and “it’s OK to say no”) should be part of the class.
For that matter, I’d include some information on the correlation between getting pregnant young and being poor. Between being a single parent and being poor. And then ask the kids: would you rather be rich or poor?
work hard, do your best, stay in school, don’t have children if you can’t support them, financially and otherwise. respect yourself and others.
all good. no doubt if black people, or any other people, observed these basic principles, their odds of success in life would be better than if they didn’t.
this is not a mystery, nor is it in question.
what nobody seems to want to address is why any given group of people is less likely to observe all of these things than another.
why do people do counter-productive things? are they just stupid? are they inherently prone to poor judgement? temperamentally incapable of delaying gratification?
if you’re talking about an individual, maybe, a simple failure to practice good life skills is all the explanation that’s needed.
if you’re talking about patterns that are marked enough to show up in a statistical analysis, maybe not so much. maybe other factors are involved.
it’s great to say we’re all ultimately responsible for our own behavior, and the consequences thereof. but some folks have a steeper hill to climb than others.
work hard, do your best, stay in school, don’t have children if you can’t support them, financially and otherwise. respect yourself and others.
all good. no doubt if black people, or any other people, observed these basic principles, their odds of success in life would be better than if they didn’t.
this is not a mystery, nor is it in question.
what nobody seems to want to address is why any given group of people is less likely to observe all of these things than another.
why do people do counter-productive things? are they just stupid? are they inherently prone to poor judgement? temperamentally incapable of delaying gratification?
if you’re talking about an individual, maybe, a simple failure to practice good life skills is all the explanation that’s needed.
if you’re talking about patterns that are marked enough to show up in a statistical analysis, maybe not so much. maybe other factors are involved.
it’s great to say we’re all ultimately responsible for our own behavior, and the consequences thereof. but some folks have a steeper hill to climb than others.
work hard, do your best, stay in school, don’t have children if you can’t support them, financially and otherwise. respect yourself and others.
all good. no doubt if black people, or any other people, observed these basic principles, their odds of success in life would be better than if they didn’t.
this is not a mystery, nor is it in question.
what nobody seems to want to address is why any given group of people is less likely to observe all of these things than another.
why do people do counter-productive things? are they just stupid? are they inherently prone to poor judgement? temperamentally incapable of delaying gratification?
if you’re talking about an individual, maybe, a simple failure to practice good life skills is all the explanation that’s needed.
if you’re talking about patterns that are marked enough to show up in a statistical analysis, maybe not so much. maybe other factors are involved.
it’s great to say we’re all ultimately responsible for our own behavior, and the consequences thereof. but some folks have a steeper hill to climb than others.
An interesting piece which reminds me of our continuing tussle throughout this thread about what we mean by “privilege”:
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/trump-the-university-of-chicago-and-the-collapse-of-public-language
An interesting piece which reminds me of our continuing tussle throughout this thread about what we mean by “privilege”:
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/trump-the-university-of-chicago-and-the-collapse-of-public-language
An interesting piece which reminds me of our continuing tussle throughout this thread about what we mean by “privilege”:
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/trump-the-university-of-chicago-and-the-collapse-of-public-language
GFTNC, great article, made me think of Lewis Carroll
GFTNC, great article, made me think of Lewis Carroll
GFTNC, great article, made me think of Lewis Carroll
GftNC, I agree with Marty, great article. And also that Lewis Carroll has much to teach us, even today.
And while Humpty Dumpty is relevant, I’d point you to a poem: Jabberwocky:
I’m sure that someone more educated in art history will correct me, but Jabberwocky always seemed to me to be an expression, in poetic form, of “Impressionistic” art: look in detail, you see an incoherent confusion; stand back, and the the meaning is clear and bright.
GftNC, I agree with Marty, great article. And also that Lewis Carroll has much to teach us, even today.
And while Humpty Dumpty is relevant, I’d point you to a poem: Jabberwocky:
I’m sure that someone more educated in art history will correct me, but Jabberwocky always seemed to me to be an expression, in poetic form, of “Impressionistic” art: look in detail, you see an incoherent confusion; stand back, and the the meaning is clear and bright.
GftNC, I agree with Marty, great article. And also that Lewis Carroll has much to teach us, even today.
And while Humpty Dumpty is relevant, I’d point you to a poem: Jabberwocky:
I’m sure that someone more educated in art history will correct me, but Jabberwocky always seemed to me to be an expression, in poetic form, of “Impressionistic” art: look in detail, you see an incoherent confusion; stand back, and the the meaning is clear and bright.
lemme note that:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,…
…is immediately preceded by:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2016/08/seeking-a-better-word-for-privilege.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e201b8d218236a970c#comment-6a00d834515c2369e201b8d218236a970c
toot toot
/MyOwnHorn
lemme note that:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,…
…is immediately preceded by:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2016/08/seeking-a-better-word-for-privilege.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e201b8d218236a970c#comment-6a00d834515c2369e201b8d218236a970c
toot toot
/MyOwnHorn
lemme note that:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,…
…is immediately preceded by:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2016/08/seeking-a-better-word-for-privilege.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e201b8d218236a970c#comment-6a00d834515c2369e201b8d218236a970c
toot toot
/MyOwnHorn
I’m sure I was just channeling cleek.
I’m sure I was just channeling cleek.
I’m sure I was just channeling cleek.
Marty, and Snarki, agree, and have always loved Jabberwocky. I even know someone (a possessor of white privilege!) who called their child Callay after it. Cleek: toot away; it’s so fascinating to me how little attention has been paid to all attempts to define privilege how the Doc did in her post, and to how most of us seem to/want to, and to discuss it in that context. Alice and Humpty Dumpty seem the obvious references to turn to…..
Marty, and Snarki, agree, and have always loved Jabberwocky. I even know someone (a possessor of white privilege!) who called their child Callay after it. Cleek: toot away; it’s so fascinating to me how little attention has been paid to all attempts to define privilege how the Doc did in her post, and to how most of us seem to/want to, and to discuss it in that context. Alice and Humpty Dumpty seem the obvious references to turn to…..
Marty, and Snarki, agree, and have always loved Jabberwocky. I even know someone (a possessor of white privilege!) who called their child Callay after it. Cleek: toot away; it’s so fascinating to me how little attention has been paid to all attempts to define privilege how the Doc did in her post, and to how most of us seem to/want to, and to discuss it in that context. Alice and Humpty Dumpty seem the obvious references to turn to…..
wj,
You are describing Finnish sex ed. It started on the 5th grade, I think. We went through the human biology the whole year, and sexual biology got a couple of weeks. The issues included menstruation, puberty, nightly ejaculations but also the mechanics of procreation, combined with a hefty dose of the importance on condom use. On the eighth grade, these issues were revisited, and on the ninth grade, genetics and sexually transmitted diseases were discussed in biology. The stress was in being able to recognize the symptoms of typical diseases early.
The education was quite guilt-free. It was pointed out that the sex should take place in an atmosphere of love and respect, but the stress was on mechanics. The main point that was repeated was responsibility, especially for boys: If the girl gets pregnant, she decides whether she keeps the baby, and you become the father. Every sexual act means you take the chance to become a father, and you have no knowledge whether she is using contraception or having STDs, so only an idiot leaves out the condom. And even then you can become a father. Best to use both condom and the pill.
However, McKinney’s point about out-of-wedlock births is misleading. The number is not necessarily an indication about the number of fatherless children. In Finland, half of the newborns are born out-of-wedlock but most of them are born into stable common law marriages. Technically, this means that those fathers need to confess their paternity, and they do. The rate of children without established paternity is now the same as a hundred years ago: Every sixth child.
wj,
You are describing Finnish sex ed. It started on the 5th grade, I think. We went through the human biology the whole year, and sexual biology got a couple of weeks. The issues included menstruation, puberty, nightly ejaculations but also the mechanics of procreation, combined with a hefty dose of the importance on condom use. On the eighth grade, these issues were revisited, and on the ninth grade, genetics and sexually transmitted diseases were discussed in biology. The stress was in being able to recognize the symptoms of typical diseases early.
The education was quite guilt-free. It was pointed out that the sex should take place in an atmosphere of love and respect, but the stress was on mechanics. The main point that was repeated was responsibility, especially for boys: If the girl gets pregnant, she decides whether she keeps the baby, and you become the father. Every sexual act means you take the chance to become a father, and you have no knowledge whether she is using contraception or having STDs, so only an idiot leaves out the condom. And even then you can become a father. Best to use both condom and the pill.
However, McKinney’s point about out-of-wedlock births is misleading. The number is not necessarily an indication about the number of fatherless children. In Finland, half of the newborns are born out-of-wedlock but most of them are born into stable common law marriages. Technically, this means that those fathers need to confess their paternity, and they do. The rate of children without established paternity is now the same as a hundred years ago: Every sixth child.
wj,
You are describing Finnish sex ed. It started on the 5th grade, I think. We went through the human biology the whole year, and sexual biology got a couple of weeks. The issues included menstruation, puberty, nightly ejaculations but also the mechanics of procreation, combined with a hefty dose of the importance on condom use. On the eighth grade, these issues were revisited, and on the ninth grade, genetics and sexually transmitted diseases were discussed in biology. The stress was in being able to recognize the symptoms of typical diseases early.
The education was quite guilt-free. It was pointed out that the sex should take place in an atmosphere of love and respect, but the stress was on mechanics. The main point that was repeated was responsibility, especially for boys: If the girl gets pregnant, she decides whether she keeps the baby, and you become the father. Every sexual act means you take the chance to become a father, and you have no knowledge whether she is using contraception or having STDs, so only an idiot leaves out the condom. And even then you can become a father. Best to use both condom and the pill.
However, McKinney’s point about out-of-wedlock births is misleading. The number is not necessarily an indication about the number of fatherless children. In Finland, half of the newborns are born out-of-wedlock but most of them are born into stable common law marriages. Technically, this means that those fathers need to confess their paternity, and they do. The rate of children without established paternity is now the same as a hundred years ago: Every sixth child.
IIRC, the statistics show that teen pregnancies in the USA have been declining over the past couple of decades. Whether the reason is economics, education, or the aftermath of AIDS is unclear.
Trust the Finns to deal with the issue sensibly and rationally. I blame the (relatively) late spread of christianism to Scandinavia, so its brain-eating prion infection didn’t really get a grip.
IIRC, the statistics show that teen pregnancies in the USA have been declining over the past couple of decades. Whether the reason is economics, education, or the aftermath of AIDS is unclear.
Trust the Finns to deal with the issue sensibly and rationally. I blame the (relatively) late spread of christianism to Scandinavia, so its brain-eating prion infection didn’t really get a grip.
IIRC, the statistics show that teen pregnancies in the USA have been declining over the past couple of decades. Whether the reason is economics, education, or the aftermath of AIDS is unclear.
Trust the Finns to deal with the issue sensibly and rationally. I blame the (relatively) late spread of christianism to Scandinavia, so its brain-eating prion infection didn’t really get a grip.
Thanks, Lurker. I didn’t imagine that I was the first person ever to come up with the idea. But it’s nice to learn that it has actually been implemented somewhere.
Snarki, is it Christianism? Or libertarianism? I’m thinking that a significant factor in our resistance to such education might be just blind determination to make all of our decisions ourselves.
See, for example, the number of people fighting against having their children vaccinated against childhood diseases. There’s nothing of religion involved, but they seem to resist the idea with religious fervor anyway.
Thanks, Lurker. I didn’t imagine that I was the first person ever to come up with the idea. But it’s nice to learn that it has actually been implemented somewhere.
Snarki, is it Christianism? Or libertarianism? I’m thinking that a significant factor in our resistance to such education might be just blind determination to make all of our decisions ourselves.
See, for example, the number of people fighting against having their children vaccinated against childhood diseases. There’s nothing of religion involved, but they seem to resist the idea with religious fervor anyway.
Thanks, Lurker. I didn’t imagine that I was the first person ever to come up with the idea. But it’s nice to learn that it has actually been implemented somewhere.
Snarki, is it Christianism? Or libertarianism? I’m thinking that a significant factor in our resistance to such education might be just blind determination to make all of our decisions ourselves.
See, for example, the number of people fighting against having their children vaccinated against childhood diseases. There’s nothing of religion involved, but they seem to resist the idea with religious fervor anyway.
wj, do not underestimate the religious component in anti-vaccination. The movement has returned to its 19th century roots. Then it was primarily catholic these days protestants (in the widest sense) lead the charge (followed admittedly by people of the esoteric persuasion).
wj, do not underestimate the religious component in anti-vaccination. The movement has returned to its 19th century roots. Then it was primarily catholic these days protestants (in the widest sense) lead the charge (followed admittedly by people of the esoteric persuasion).
wj, do not underestimate the religious component in anti-vaccination. The movement has returned to its 19th century roots. Then it was primarily catholic these days protestants (in the widest sense) lead the charge (followed admittedly by people of the esoteric persuasion).
The anti-vax part of the religious right is very concerned with the issue of parental rights at the moment and link it with abortion notification and home schooling and a general fear that the government will use H&HS to take away their kids or to push an ungodly social agenda on their kids through government oversight.
The anti-vax part of the religious right is very concerned with the issue of parental rights at the moment and link it with abortion notification and home schooling and a general fear that the government will use H&HS to take away their kids or to push an ungodly social agenda on their kids through government oversight.
The anti-vax part of the religious right is very concerned with the issue of parental rights at the moment and link it with abortion notification and home schooling and a general fear that the government will use H&HS to take away their kids or to push an ungodly social agenda on their kids through government oversight.
If you say your goal is “equal opportunity” then you have to back it up with some kind of public policy. Pound Cake speeches don’t cut it.
Rubber, meet road.
If you say your goal is “equal opportunity” then you have to back it up with some kind of public policy. Pound Cake speeches don’t cut it.
Rubber, meet road.
If you say your goal is “equal opportunity” then you have to back it up with some kind of public policy. Pound Cake speeches don’t cut it.
Rubber, meet road.
I’m pretty much live and let live for the meanderings of discussion here, but going from privilege to a discussion of what barriers minorities suffer to a discussion of no means no really gives me whiplash and leaves me with the impression of an argument that if we somehow just taught African-American men that no means no, we would make serious progress on the racial disparities in this country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/opinion/ken-starrs-squalid-second-act.html?_r=0
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/07/brock-turner-statement-stanford-rape-case-campus-culture
Maybe it is just the juxtaposition, so I’m not lighting into anyone, but the notion that somehow no means no is even in the mix of solutions is ludicrous on its face. This is not to dismiss its importance, but if it is being raised as a problem of the AA community, that’s as pure an example of privilege that one could find.
I’m pretty much live and let live for the meanderings of discussion here, but going from privilege to a discussion of what barriers minorities suffer to a discussion of no means no really gives me whiplash and leaves me with the impression of an argument that if we somehow just taught African-American men that no means no, we would make serious progress on the racial disparities in this country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/opinion/ken-starrs-squalid-second-act.html?_r=0
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/07/brock-turner-statement-stanford-rape-case-campus-culture
Maybe it is just the juxtaposition, so I’m not lighting into anyone, but the notion that somehow no means no is even in the mix of solutions is ludicrous on its face. This is not to dismiss its importance, but if it is being raised as a problem of the AA community, that’s as pure an example of privilege that one could find.
I’m pretty much live and let live for the meanderings of discussion here, but going from privilege to a discussion of what barriers minorities suffer to a discussion of no means no really gives me whiplash and leaves me with the impression of an argument that if we somehow just taught African-American men that no means no, we would make serious progress on the racial disparities in this country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/opinion/ken-starrs-squalid-second-act.html?_r=0
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/07/brock-turner-statement-stanford-rape-case-campus-culture
Maybe it is just the juxtaposition, so I’m not lighting into anyone, but the notion that somehow no means no is even in the mix of solutions is ludicrous on its face. This is not to dismiss its importance, but if it is being raised as a problem of the AA community, that’s as pure an example of privilege that one could find.
I think how we got here is by trying to work out to what extent the disparities we see are due to privilege (or whatever term we should use instead, barriers perhaps being one), versus to what extent they are due to factors such as high single parenthood. And thence to the “cause of the cause” if you will.
Personally, I think (a lack of) “no means no” is far less of a root cause of single parenthood than the drastic drug laws which radically reduce the number of (not in prison) single men in poor communities. And leave a lot of those who are out with poor job prospects due to their status as ex-cons. But that probably should be in another thread.
I think how we got here is by trying to work out to what extent the disparities we see are due to privilege (or whatever term we should use instead, barriers perhaps being one), versus to what extent they are due to factors such as high single parenthood. And thence to the “cause of the cause” if you will.
Personally, I think (a lack of) “no means no” is far less of a root cause of single parenthood than the drastic drug laws which radically reduce the number of (not in prison) single men in poor communities. And leave a lot of those who are out with poor job prospects due to their status as ex-cons. But that probably should be in another thread.
I think how we got here is by trying to work out to what extent the disparities we see are due to privilege (or whatever term we should use instead, barriers perhaps being one), versus to what extent they are due to factors such as high single parenthood. And thence to the “cause of the cause” if you will.
Personally, I think (a lack of) “no means no” is far less of a root cause of single parenthood than the drastic drug laws which radically reduce the number of (not in prison) single men in poor communities. And leave a lot of those who are out with poor job prospects due to their status as ex-cons. But that probably should be in another thread.
LJ, could not agree more.
LJ, could not agree more.
LJ, could not agree more.
There isn’t a single word, nor underlying implication, regarding race in my specific answer to wjs sex education comment. Specifically, my view that more or more explicit or earlier sex education wont reduce the number of young single mother households and what I think would.
There isn’t a single word, nor underlying implication, regarding race in my specific answer to wjs sex education comment. Specifically, my view that more or more explicit or earlier sex education wont reduce the number of young single mother households and what I think would.
There isn’t a single word, nor underlying implication, regarding race in my specific answer to wjs sex education comment. Specifically, my view that more or more explicit or earlier sex education wont reduce the number of young single mother households and what I think would.
Marty, I had no problem with your suggestions, (although as you know I disagree with your assumptions about the generally benign influence of families), and did not take them as being aimed particularly at one race (although I think discussion of the issue of young single mothers is often implicitly or explicitly about the AA community), but I think that the original discussion of privilege has mutated strangely, and in ways that pretty much constitute either a denial of its existence or at least a refusal to see how it works.
Marty, I had no problem with your suggestions, (although as you know I disagree with your assumptions about the generally benign influence of families), and did not take them as being aimed particularly at one race (although I think discussion of the issue of young single mothers is often implicitly or explicitly about the AA community), but I think that the original discussion of privilege has mutated strangely, and in ways that pretty much constitute either a denial of its existence or at least a refusal to see how it works.
Marty, I had no problem with your suggestions, (although as you know I disagree with your assumptions about the generally benign influence of families), and did not take them as being aimed particularly at one race (although I think discussion of the issue of young single mothers is often implicitly or explicitly about the AA community), but I think that the original discussion of privilege has mutated strangely, and in ways that pretty much constitute either a denial of its existence or at least a refusal to see how it works.
No, Marty, there’s not. However, McT wrote this
Contra BP, every young woman needs guidance and support in the teen and early adult years, validating their decisions to avoid getting pregnant and not being or allowing themselves to be subordinate to stupid, demanding young men. Young men who make babies and leave need their asses beaten and that’s just for starters. Feel free to scoff, but then try to tell me that if young, poor women, black or white, avoided pregnancy, finished high school with a starter set of skills or prepped for college, they and their eventual children wouldn’t be a hell of a lot better off. Bill Cosby notwithstanding, anyone who thinks early, single female pregnancy is a good start in life should put that into practice in their own home and encourage their daughters to get pregnant whenever they happen to feel like it. I have a life sized picture of that happening.
No, Marty, there’s not. However, McT wrote this
Contra BP, every young woman needs guidance and support in the teen and early adult years, validating their decisions to avoid getting pregnant and not being or allowing themselves to be subordinate to stupid, demanding young men. Young men who make babies and leave need their asses beaten and that’s just for starters. Feel free to scoff, but then try to tell me that if young, poor women, black or white, avoided pregnancy, finished high school with a starter set of skills or prepped for college, they and their eventual children wouldn’t be a hell of a lot better off. Bill Cosby notwithstanding, anyone who thinks early, single female pregnancy is a good start in life should put that into practice in their own home and encourage their daughters to get pregnant whenever they happen to feel like it. I have a life sized picture of that happening.
No, Marty, there’s not. However, McT wrote this
Contra BP, every young woman needs guidance and support in the teen and early adult years, validating their decisions to avoid getting pregnant and not being or allowing themselves to be subordinate to stupid, demanding young men. Young men who make babies and leave need their asses beaten and that’s just for starters. Feel free to scoff, but then try to tell me that if young, poor women, black or white, avoided pregnancy, finished high school with a starter set of skills or prepped for college, they and their eventual children wouldn’t be a hell of a lot better off. Bill Cosby notwithstanding, anyone who thinks early, single female pregnancy is a good start in life should put that into practice in their own home and encourage their daughters to get pregnant whenever they happen to feel like it. I have a life sized picture of that happening.
“Marty points out that whatever white men have, there isn’t some white male conspiracy to deny that to others.”
This is laughable and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What people like Marty and McKT consistently fail to understand is that racism, misogyny, and religious bigotry are extremely resilient ideas that are thousands or even tens of thousands of years old. They do not evaporate merely because one or two especially salient aspects of them go away. They are passed down from parents to children, and imposed on a wide scale. They are often absorbed and reproduced even by the people they most hurt. They are pernicious and persistent. Rooting them out is difficult and we’re not close to finished.
There indisputably were such conspiracies across the country for several centuries, right? The people enforcing segregation, for example. The people serially sexually harassing women and forcing them out of jobs. The people systematically lynching African-Americans in the Jim Crow south. The people beating and murdering and bombing. The people (liberals included–everybody was in on this back then, albeit to different degrees) who designed the New Deal and the GI bill to exclude african-Americans, and who officially adopted redlining to exclude African-Americans from the benefits of home-ownership. Those were white, largely male (by virtue of women being excluded from most positions of power) conspiracies to enforce white male power.
Those white men did not all curl up and die when the CRA was passed, you know. They had children. What do you think they taught their children? What did they say to their children when they pulled them out of integrated schools and resisted busing to integrated schools and put them in segregated private schools; then, when those schools were closed or lost government funding, moved away entirely? Do you think that generation of white people got together and said “Okay, we lost, time to stop being racist?” What year did they all give in? Where was the armistice?
Just to take a recent example, at Fox News there was a multi decade conspiracy to allow Roger Ailes to serially sexually abuse women in his employ. Based on the reporting and legal complaints surrounding that fiasco, multiple senior white male Fox News executives were enlisted to intimidate, nudge, coerce, settle, and otherwise protect Ailes from the consequences of his sexual predation.
And of course THE DAY AFTER Shelby County came down state legislatures started collecting on voting practices by race to figure out how they could enact voter ID laws that would, as much as possible, disenfranchise African-American voters.
So tell me again how there are no more white male conspiracies to protect their power?
“Marty points out that whatever white men have, there isn’t some white male conspiracy to deny that to others.”
This is laughable and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What people like Marty and McKT consistently fail to understand is that racism, misogyny, and religious bigotry are extremely resilient ideas that are thousands or even tens of thousands of years old. They do not evaporate merely because one or two especially salient aspects of them go away. They are passed down from parents to children, and imposed on a wide scale. They are often absorbed and reproduced even by the people they most hurt. They are pernicious and persistent. Rooting them out is difficult and we’re not close to finished.
There indisputably were such conspiracies across the country for several centuries, right? The people enforcing segregation, for example. The people serially sexually harassing women and forcing them out of jobs. The people systematically lynching African-Americans in the Jim Crow south. The people beating and murdering and bombing. The people (liberals included–everybody was in on this back then, albeit to different degrees) who designed the New Deal and the GI bill to exclude african-Americans, and who officially adopted redlining to exclude African-Americans from the benefits of home-ownership. Those were white, largely male (by virtue of women being excluded from most positions of power) conspiracies to enforce white male power.
Those white men did not all curl up and die when the CRA was passed, you know. They had children. What do you think they taught their children? What did they say to their children when they pulled them out of integrated schools and resisted busing to integrated schools and put them in segregated private schools; then, when those schools were closed or lost government funding, moved away entirely? Do you think that generation of white people got together and said “Okay, we lost, time to stop being racist?” What year did they all give in? Where was the armistice?
Just to take a recent example, at Fox News there was a multi decade conspiracy to allow Roger Ailes to serially sexually abuse women in his employ. Based on the reporting and legal complaints surrounding that fiasco, multiple senior white male Fox News executives were enlisted to intimidate, nudge, coerce, settle, and otherwise protect Ailes from the consequences of his sexual predation.
And of course THE DAY AFTER Shelby County came down state legislatures started collecting on voting practices by race to figure out how they could enact voter ID laws that would, as much as possible, disenfranchise African-American voters.
So tell me again how there are no more white male conspiracies to protect their power?
“Marty points out that whatever white men have, there isn’t some white male conspiracy to deny that to others.”
This is laughable and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What people like Marty and McKT consistently fail to understand is that racism, misogyny, and religious bigotry are extremely resilient ideas that are thousands or even tens of thousands of years old. They do not evaporate merely because one or two especially salient aspects of them go away. They are passed down from parents to children, and imposed on a wide scale. They are often absorbed and reproduced even by the people they most hurt. They are pernicious and persistent. Rooting them out is difficult and we’re not close to finished.
There indisputably were such conspiracies across the country for several centuries, right? The people enforcing segregation, for example. The people serially sexually harassing women and forcing them out of jobs. The people systematically lynching African-Americans in the Jim Crow south. The people beating and murdering and bombing. The people (liberals included–everybody was in on this back then, albeit to different degrees) who designed the New Deal and the GI bill to exclude african-Americans, and who officially adopted redlining to exclude African-Americans from the benefits of home-ownership. Those were white, largely male (by virtue of women being excluded from most positions of power) conspiracies to enforce white male power.
Those white men did not all curl up and die when the CRA was passed, you know. They had children. What do you think they taught their children? What did they say to their children when they pulled them out of integrated schools and resisted busing to integrated schools and put them in segregated private schools; then, when those schools were closed or lost government funding, moved away entirely? Do you think that generation of white people got together and said “Okay, we lost, time to stop being racist?” What year did they all give in? Where was the armistice?
Just to take a recent example, at Fox News there was a multi decade conspiracy to allow Roger Ailes to serially sexually abuse women in his employ. Based on the reporting and legal complaints surrounding that fiasco, multiple senior white male Fox News executives were enlisted to intimidate, nudge, coerce, settle, and otherwise protect Ailes from the consequences of his sexual predation.
And of course THE DAY AFTER Shelby County came down state legislatures started collecting on voting practices by race to figure out how they could enact voter ID laws that would, as much as possible, disenfranchise African-American voters.
So tell me again how there are no more white male conspiracies to protect their power?
Sig, California has pretty much institutionalized the advantage of Democrats over Republicans in their districting and pretty much every other voting rule. I suppose some of that is disenfranchising white voters if we discussed it that way. But we don’t, we call it politics.
Voter ID is ubiquitous outside the US, but here it is racist. I love the “prove there is widespread fraud” argument because , of course, the other side of that is “prove there is widespread disenfranchising of legitimate voters”. The difference is of course that the list of things we require an ID for wont fit in a comment, but requiring it for voting is racist. That’s BS.
All that said, in the nuanced discussion of “privilege”, there is no white male conspiracy to deny privilege to others. That there are white males that do things that are obviously against the law does not indict “white males”.
Ailes is an ass and a criminal, I cant imagine who is surprised by that, so is Bill Clinton for the same reasons. They broke the law, the law protects the rights of the women involved.
Should I start naming black males that have broken the law, or used their political sway to maintain power?
Your anecdotal criminal activities actually support my view, because they are now crimes.
Sig, California has pretty much institutionalized the advantage of Democrats over Republicans in their districting and pretty much every other voting rule. I suppose some of that is disenfranchising white voters if we discussed it that way. But we don’t, we call it politics.
Voter ID is ubiquitous outside the US, but here it is racist. I love the “prove there is widespread fraud” argument because , of course, the other side of that is “prove there is widespread disenfranchising of legitimate voters”. The difference is of course that the list of things we require an ID for wont fit in a comment, but requiring it for voting is racist. That’s BS.
All that said, in the nuanced discussion of “privilege”, there is no white male conspiracy to deny privilege to others. That there are white males that do things that are obviously against the law does not indict “white males”.
Ailes is an ass and a criminal, I cant imagine who is surprised by that, so is Bill Clinton for the same reasons. They broke the law, the law protects the rights of the women involved.
Should I start naming black males that have broken the law, or used their political sway to maintain power?
Your anecdotal criminal activities actually support my view, because they are now crimes.
Sig, California has pretty much institutionalized the advantage of Democrats over Republicans in their districting and pretty much every other voting rule. I suppose some of that is disenfranchising white voters if we discussed it that way. But we don’t, we call it politics.
Voter ID is ubiquitous outside the US, but here it is racist. I love the “prove there is widespread fraud” argument because , of course, the other side of that is “prove there is widespread disenfranchising of legitimate voters”. The difference is of course that the list of things we require an ID for wont fit in a comment, but requiring it for voting is racist. That’s BS.
All that said, in the nuanced discussion of “privilege”, there is no white male conspiracy to deny privilege to others. That there are white males that do things that are obviously against the law does not indict “white males”.
Ailes is an ass and a criminal, I cant imagine who is surprised by that, so is Bill Clinton for the same reasons. They broke the law, the law protects the rights of the women involved.
Should I start naming black males that have broken the law, or used their political sway to maintain power?
Your anecdotal criminal activities actually support my view, because they are now crimes.
California has pretty much institutionalized the advantage of Democrats over Republicans in their districting
Marty, I realize that news sometimes travels slowly across the entire width of the country. But several years back (in 2008) California voters circumvented the legislature by passing an initiative which took redistricting away from the legislature. It now gets done by a non-partisan Citizens Redistricting Commission — that’s who drew the current districts.
The Commission consists of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 4 members who do not belong to either party. It was designed that way explicitly to prevent redistricting for partisan ends. And it works.
Of course, California’ Congressional delegation, and both houses of the state legislature, are overwhelmingly Democratic. But that is just a reflection of the self-destruction of the California GOP over the past couple of decades. Gone are the days when Republicans routinely won elections for Governor. Currently (June 2016) 62% of registerede voters are registered as Democrats, vs 37% registered as Republicans.
California has pretty much institutionalized the advantage of Democrats over Republicans in their districting
Marty, I realize that news sometimes travels slowly across the entire width of the country. But several years back (in 2008) California voters circumvented the legislature by passing an initiative which took redistricting away from the legislature. It now gets done by a non-partisan Citizens Redistricting Commission — that’s who drew the current districts.
The Commission consists of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 4 members who do not belong to either party. It was designed that way explicitly to prevent redistricting for partisan ends. And it works.
Of course, California’ Congressional delegation, and both houses of the state legislature, are overwhelmingly Democratic. But that is just a reflection of the self-destruction of the California GOP over the past couple of decades. Gone are the days when Republicans routinely won elections for Governor. Currently (June 2016) 62% of registerede voters are registered as Democrats, vs 37% registered as Republicans.
California has pretty much institutionalized the advantage of Democrats over Republicans in their districting
Marty, I realize that news sometimes travels slowly across the entire width of the country. But several years back (in 2008) California voters circumvented the legislature by passing an initiative which took redistricting away from the legislature. It now gets done by a non-partisan Citizens Redistricting Commission — that’s who drew the current districts.
The Commission consists of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 4 members who do not belong to either party. It was designed that way explicitly to prevent redistricting for partisan ends. And it works.
Of course, California’ Congressional delegation, and both houses of the state legislature, are overwhelmingly Democratic. But that is just a reflection of the self-destruction of the California GOP over the past couple of decades. Gone are the days when Republicans routinely won elections for Governor. Currently (June 2016) 62% of registerede voters are registered as Democrats, vs 37% registered as Republicans.
The commission was what I was referring to.
The commission was what I was referring to.
The commission was what I was referring to.
but here it is racist
indeed: by the GOP’s own admission, in state after state.
the other side of that is “prove there is widespread disenfranchising of legitimate voters”
study after study proves there is.
but here it is racist
indeed: by the GOP’s own admission, in state after state.
the other side of that is “prove there is widespread disenfranchising of legitimate voters”
study after study proves there is.
but here it is racist
indeed: by the GOP’s own admission, in state after state.
the other side of that is “prove there is widespread disenfranchising of legitimate voters”
study after study proves there is.
And how does that institutionalized the advantage of Democrats? They get exactly the same number of commissioners as the Republicans. No more; no less.
If anything, it would appear to institutionalize greater influence for Republicans than their portion of the electorate would warrant. (And note that, for example, if commissioners were allocated in proportion to the fraction of voters, the Libertarians would get one as well.)
And how does that institutionalized the advantage of Democrats? They get exactly the same number of commissioners as the Republicans. No more; no less.
If anything, it would appear to institutionalize greater influence for Republicans than their portion of the electorate would warrant. (And note that, for example, if commissioners were allocated in proportion to the fraction of voters, the Libertarians would get one as well.)
And how does that institutionalized the advantage of Democrats? They get exactly the same number of commissioners as the Republicans. No more; no less.
If anything, it would appear to institutionalize greater influence for Republicans than their portion of the electorate would warrant. (And note that, for example, if commissioners were allocated in proportion to the fraction of voters, the Libertarians would get one as well.)
You would think there were no court cases on voter-ID laws where facts were presented and the courts determined that said laws were racially discriminatory. It’s all just pure conjecture and speculation. It’s all “Hoocoodanode?”
You would think there were no court cases on voter-ID laws where facts were presented and the courts determined that said laws were racially discriminatory. It’s all just pure conjecture and speculation. It’s all “Hoocoodanode?”
You would think there were no court cases on voter-ID laws where facts were presented and the courts determined that said laws were racially discriminatory. It’s all just pure conjecture and speculation. It’s all “Hoocoodanode?”
“study after study proves there is.”
No, and btw, no. There are all kinds of assumptions, just like voter fraud, but there is no documented widespread voter disenfranchisement since Jim Crow.
“study after study proves there is.”
No, and btw, no. There are all kinds of assumptions, just like voter fraud, but there is no documented widespread voter disenfranchisement since Jim Crow.
“study after study proves there is.”
No, and btw, no. There are all kinds of assumptions, just like voter fraud, but there is no documented widespread voter disenfranchisement since Jim Crow.
Marty, have you read the court decision tossing out North Carolina’s new voting law? The court was pretty explicit on the subject.
Or does that one not count because it got tossed before it could actually be implemented?
Marty, have you read the court decision tossing out North Carolina’s new voting law? The court was pretty explicit on the subject.
Or does that one not count because it got tossed before it could actually be implemented?
Marty, have you read the court decision tossing out North Carolina’s new voting law? The court was pretty explicit on the subject.
Or does that one not count because it got tossed before it could actually be implemented?
wj, I haven’t read the particular law, maybe there is an issue with that law, or the court is assuming facts that don’t exist. You have to have a picture ID for almost everything in our society, the number of people it could possibly effect is miniscule.
wj, I haven’t read the particular law, maybe there is an issue with that law, or the court is assuming facts that don’t exist. You have to have a picture ID for almost everything in our society, the number of people it could possibly effect is miniscule.
wj, I haven’t read the particular law, maybe there is an issue with that law, or the court is assuming facts that don’t exist. You have to have a picture ID for almost everything in our society, the number of people it could possibly effect is miniscule.
“The commission was what I was referring to.”
And? Is someone lying? You have one “suppose” versus the facts of the bipartisan conspiratorial Commission.
Is it a hoax, like, I don’t know, global warming science, which is endangering our military readiness along the coasts, but our stinking Republican Congress won’t permit the military to do a thing about it. Yet another problem that will be tackled via savage violence, since all civilized actionable options are verboten by malign dumbass filth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.html?_r=0
But regarding the conspiracy at hand:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/09/02/where-did-donald-trump-get-his-racialized-rhetoric-from-libertarians/?utm_term=.12be1eef3a69
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-white-nationalists-nazi-social-media-227673#ixzz4JDtv0OON
It is true that you and I, Marty, were passed over when the white male conservative conspiracy was hatched, though I remember being asked to join both Ron Paul’s cause via conspiratorial mailers and more recently, Donald Trump’s. And I’ve seen a few mailers exhorting me to conspire with the rotten racists at the Cato Institute as a source of all racist wisdom come over the transom too over the years.
It’s also true that the white males who run the thing have opened their ranks to filthy, racist, homophobic, nationalistic white females and those wacko shitheads of a different color who would regulate taco trucks out of existence and fake brain surgery as a path to grifting success.
So, true, not all white males. But enough, so that if I were you and drove a taxi, I don’t think I’d pick up white male hailing a ride at night, even in a tony part of town, because the weight of the evidence of their scumhood is reason to generalize about the danger they pose to the country and our persons.
Here’s another facet of the conspiracy, but that you also deny, but testified to by a center-right conservative think tank somebody:
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/4314395-155/norman-ornstein-republicans-need-to-realize
They’re gearing up for an even more ferocious round of the conspiracy if Clinton is elected, but if the country wishes to forgo that bullshit this time around, then the conspirators should have hails of automatic gunfire following them and their families every conspiratorial step of the way.
Regarding IDs for voting, issue National ID cards at birth to every citizen, including the 11 million new ones who are not going to be deported, unless it’s over my and their dead bodies, to paraphrase George W. Bush.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_identity_card_policies_by_country
“The commission was what I was referring to.”
And? Is someone lying? You have one “suppose” versus the facts of the bipartisan conspiratorial Commission.
Is it a hoax, like, I don’t know, global warming science, which is endangering our military readiness along the coasts, but our stinking Republican Congress won’t permit the military to do a thing about it. Yet another problem that will be tackled via savage violence, since all civilized actionable options are verboten by malign dumbass filth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.html?_r=0
But regarding the conspiracy at hand:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/09/02/where-did-donald-trump-get-his-racialized-rhetoric-from-libertarians/?utm_term=.12be1eef3a69
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-white-nationalists-nazi-social-media-227673#ixzz4JDtv0OON
It is true that you and I, Marty, were passed over when the white male conservative conspiracy was hatched, though I remember being asked to join both Ron Paul’s cause via conspiratorial mailers and more recently, Donald Trump’s. And I’ve seen a few mailers exhorting me to conspire with the rotten racists at the Cato Institute as a source of all racist wisdom come over the transom too over the years.
It’s also true that the white males who run the thing have opened their ranks to filthy, racist, homophobic, nationalistic white females and those wacko shitheads of a different color who would regulate taco trucks out of existence and fake brain surgery as a path to grifting success.
So, true, not all white males. But enough, so that if I were you and drove a taxi, I don’t think I’d pick up white male hailing a ride at night, even in a tony part of town, because the weight of the evidence of their scumhood is reason to generalize about the danger they pose to the country and our persons.
Here’s another facet of the conspiracy, but that you also deny, but testified to by a center-right conservative think tank somebody:
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/4314395-155/norman-ornstein-republicans-need-to-realize
They’re gearing up for an even more ferocious round of the conspiracy if Clinton is elected, but if the country wishes to forgo that bullshit this time around, then the conspirators should have hails of automatic gunfire following them and their families every conspiratorial step of the way.
Regarding IDs for voting, issue National ID cards at birth to every citizen, including the 11 million new ones who are not going to be deported, unless it’s over my and their dead bodies, to paraphrase George W. Bush.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_identity_card_policies_by_country
“The commission was what I was referring to.”
And? Is someone lying? You have one “suppose” versus the facts of the bipartisan conspiratorial Commission.
Is it a hoax, like, I don’t know, global warming science, which is endangering our military readiness along the coasts, but our stinking Republican Congress won’t permit the military to do a thing about it. Yet another problem that will be tackled via savage violence, since all civilized actionable options are verboten by malign dumbass filth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.html?_r=0
But regarding the conspiracy at hand:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/09/02/where-did-donald-trump-get-his-racialized-rhetoric-from-libertarians/?utm_term=.12be1eef3a69
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-white-nationalists-nazi-social-media-227673#ixzz4JDtv0OON
It is true that you and I, Marty, were passed over when the white male conservative conspiracy was hatched, though I remember being asked to join both Ron Paul’s cause via conspiratorial mailers and more recently, Donald Trump’s. And I’ve seen a few mailers exhorting me to conspire with the rotten racists at the Cato Institute as a source of all racist wisdom come over the transom too over the years.
It’s also true that the white males who run the thing have opened their ranks to filthy, racist, homophobic, nationalistic white females and those wacko shitheads of a different color who would regulate taco trucks out of existence and fake brain surgery as a path to grifting success.
So, true, not all white males. But enough, so that if I were you and drove a taxi, I don’t think I’d pick up white male hailing a ride at night, even in a tony part of town, because the weight of the evidence of their scumhood is reason to generalize about the danger they pose to the country and our persons.
Here’s another facet of the conspiracy, but that you also deny, but testified to by a center-right conservative think tank somebody:
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/4314395-155/norman-ornstein-republicans-need-to-realize
They’re gearing up for an even more ferocious round of the conspiracy if Clinton is elected, but if the country wishes to forgo that bullshit this time around, then the conspirators should have hails of automatic gunfire following them and their families every conspiratorial step of the way.
Regarding IDs for voting, issue National ID cards at birth to every citizen, including the 11 million new ones who are not going to be deported, unless it’s over my and their dead bodies, to paraphrase George W. Bush.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_identity_card_policies_by_country
“maybe there is an issue with that law, or the court is assuming facts that don’t exist.”
Well, c’mon, out with it!
I think the aggrieved parties should have foregone the courts altogether (the Court was one Scalia short of armed insurrection) and remedied the problem by taking Second Amendment measures directly to the conservative Art Pope f*cks in North Carolina.
When Art Pope et al are dead, then they will be eligible to vote for Democrats, which is at it should be.
Go ahead, fuck with voting rights by race. See what happens.
“maybe there is an issue with that law, or the court is assuming facts that don’t exist.”
Well, c’mon, out with it!
I think the aggrieved parties should have foregone the courts altogether (the Court was one Scalia short of armed insurrection) and remedied the problem by taking Second Amendment measures directly to the conservative Art Pope f*cks in North Carolina.
When Art Pope et al are dead, then they will be eligible to vote for Democrats, which is at it should be.
Go ahead, fuck with voting rights by race. See what happens.
“maybe there is an issue with that law, or the court is assuming facts that don’t exist.”
Well, c’mon, out with it!
I think the aggrieved parties should have foregone the courts altogether (the Court was one Scalia short of armed insurrection) and remedied the problem by taking Second Amendment measures directly to the conservative Art Pope f*cks in North Carolina.
When Art Pope et al are dead, then they will be eligible to vote for Democrats, which is at it should be.
Go ahead, fuck with voting rights by race. See what happens.
Marty, try Googling
north carolina voter law ruling
From the 4th Circuit’s unanimous decision: “The new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision” and “impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation.”
The bill selectively chose voter-ID requirements — driver’s licenses are acceptable, but state-issued public assistance IDs are not. It also reduced the number of early-voting days and changed registration procedures.
All these after state legislators (in the days immediately after the Shelby County ruling freed them from Justice Department oversight) wrote numerous requests to the NC Secretary of State for data on the racial composition of various aspects of state voting. There wasn’t anything subtle about it. (I also like the NC Republican legislator who said that it was “just politics” because, “if African American voters voted Republican, they wouldn’t have been targetted.”)
Marty, try Googling
north carolina voter law ruling
From the 4th Circuit’s unanimous decision: “The new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision” and “impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation.”
The bill selectively chose voter-ID requirements — driver’s licenses are acceptable, but state-issued public assistance IDs are not. It also reduced the number of early-voting days and changed registration procedures.
All these after state legislators (in the days immediately after the Shelby County ruling freed them from Justice Department oversight) wrote numerous requests to the NC Secretary of State for data on the racial composition of various aspects of state voting. There wasn’t anything subtle about it. (I also like the NC Republican legislator who said that it was “just politics” because, “if African American voters voted Republican, they wouldn’t have been targetted.”)
Marty, try Googling
north carolina voter law ruling
From the 4th Circuit’s unanimous decision: “The new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision” and “impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation.”
The bill selectively chose voter-ID requirements — driver’s licenses are acceptable, but state-issued public assistance IDs are not. It also reduced the number of early-voting days and changed registration procedures.
All these after state legislators (in the days immediately after the Shelby County ruling freed them from Justice Department oversight) wrote numerous requests to the NC Secretary of State for data on the racial composition of various aspects of state voting. There wasn’t anything subtle about it. (I also like the NC Republican legislator who said that it was “just politics” because, “if African American voters voted Republican, they wouldn’t have been targetted.”)
You talk about the ‘intersectionality crew’, but why is something that comes from the academy counterbalanced by something that seems to have no academic pedigree or standing? If you think that what separates the West in terms of civilization is the academy, why is the vehicle that supposedly indicates our superiority so wrong? It’s the same dynamic as climate change deniers, the academy is wrong, the academy is lying, they have been bought off. Intersectionality discusses identity and acknowledging the context as a way of trying to explain why disparities are nuanced and it is not simply that one group is being oppressed and another is not. Blanket dismissal sounds like you feel threatened by it. (and before you complain about mind-reading, recall you wrote this “First, this is a comparatively benign view of the common intent behind privilege sensitive people.”)
Ok, at the risk of putting words in your mouth, I think a shorter version would be: ‘intersectionality’ and climate change emanate from the academy, an institution that sets the west apart. The subtext I’m reading here is “and, the academy knows what it is doing.”
First of all, the academy is the least ideologically diverse institution in middle or higher education there is. That man’s presence contributes to climate change isn’t so much at issue as are the myriad remedies that emanate from the academy and elsewhere that don’t hold up under reasoned analysis. The academy is intolerant of dissent and in its worst aspects stands by while its pseudo-intellectual brown-shirts prevent dissenting speakers from appearing on campus or engage in mob twitter assaults and protests of any deviation from academy orthodoxy.
Getting around to the issue at hand, privilege, in its current iteration appears to have arrived on the academic scene in 1987. It is an accepted truth within the very limited circle that concerns itself with this kind of thing, but has yet to be tested in any remotely scientific manner, and that is no surprise because even questioning the premise is racist and a sure way to end one’s academic career.
It is intellectual and academic fraud to posit a theory and then declare all criticism or questioning of the theory to be beyond the pale. Yet, that is exactly what we see.
Last observation on this point: this is an appeal to authority, nothing less. The academy’s history for solving society’s problems is not good and it’s record for being right over the course of history is poor. To say the least. The academy has not, in the last three decades arrived at the level of infallibility. Just the opposite if the kind of silliness we are talking about here is its best product.
Privilege is the refracted image of the racism and sexism that we see when some of these arguments are deployed. I would be much more willing to restrict addressing privilege in the way that McT and Marty say if we didn’t see the root cause bubbling up all the time.
Sweet Jesus. Who thinks like this? At at time when progress is greater than anytime in history in the only truly diverse country on the planet, and we get this?
BP–education is a program. The subject matter being taught is a program. Telling kids, hammering home relentlessly, that drugs, pregnancy, etc are almost a sure fire guarantee to an unhappy life is a program. It just doesn’t involve a ton of money. Money isn’t working.
Anyone who has raised children with a reasonable degree of success has done so by setting a reasonably good example and by guiding and teaching and coaching. THAT is how you break the cycle, white or black or Hispanic. Change the mind, change the behaviors. Not complicated. And it ought to be tried and tried with sustained conviction and not dismissed or mocked out of hand.
You talk about the ‘intersectionality crew’, but why is something that comes from the academy counterbalanced by something that seems to have no academic pedigree or standing? If you think that what separates the West in terms of civilization is the academy, why is the vehicle that supposedly indicates our superiority so wrong? It’s the same dynamic as climate change deniers, the academy is wrong, the academy is lying, they have been bought off. Intersectionality discusses identity and acknowledging the context as a way of trying to explain why disparities are nuanced and it is not simply that one group is being oppressed and another is not. Blanket dismissal sounds like you feel threatened by it. (and before you complain about mind-reading, recall you wrote this “First, this is a comparatively benign view of the common intent behind privilege sensitive people.”)
Ok, at the risk of putting words in your mouth, I think a shorter version would be: ‘intersectionality’ and climate change emanate from the academy, an institution that sets the west apart. The subtext I’m reading here is “and, the academy knows what it is doing.”
First of all, the academy is the least ideologically diverse institution in middle or higher education there is. That man’s presence contributes to climate change isn’t so much at issue as are the myriad remedies that emanate from the academy and elsewhere that don’t hold up under reasoned analysis. The academy is intolerant of dissent and in its worst aspects stands by while its pseudo-intellectual brown-shirts prevent dissenting speakers from appearing on campus or engage in mob twitter assaults and protests of any deviation from academy orthodoxy.
Getting around to the issue at hand, privilege, in its current iteration appears to have arrived on the academic scene in 1987. It is an accepted truth within the very limited circle that concerns itself with this kind of thing, but has yet to be tested in any remotely scientific manner, and that is no surprise because even questioning the premise is racist and a sure way to end one’s academic career.
It is intellectual and academic fraud to posit a theory and then declare all criticism or questioning of the theory to be beyond the pale. Yet, that is exactly what we see.
Last observation on this point: this is an appeal to authority, nothing less. The academy’s history for solving society’s problems is not good and it’s record for being right over the course of history is poor. To say the least. The academy has not, in the last three decades arrived at the level of infallibility. Just the opposite if the kind of silliness we are talking about here is its best product.
Privilege is the refracted image of the racism and sexism that we see when some of these arguments are deployed. I would be much more willing to restrict addressing privilege in the way that McT and Marty say if we didn’t see the root cause bubbling up all the time.
Sweet Jesus. Who thinks like this? At at time when progress is greater than anytime in history in the only truly diverse country on the planet, and we get this?
BP–education is a program. The subject matter being taught is a program. Telling kids, hammering home relentlessly, that drugs, pregnancy, etc are almost a sure fire guarantee to an unhappy life is a program. It just doesn’t involve a ton of money. Money isn’t working.
Anyone who has raised children with a reasonable degree of success has done so by setting a reasonably good example and by guiding and teaching and coaching. THAT is how you break the cycle, white or black or Hispanic. Change the mind, change the behaviors. Not complicated. And it ought to be tried and tried with sustained conviction and not dismissed or mocked out of hand.
You talk about the ‘intersectionality crew’, but why is something that comes from the academy counterbalanced by something that seems to have no academic pedigree or standing? If you think that what separates the West in terms of civilization is the academy, why is the vehicle that supposedly indicates our superiority so wrong? It’s the same dynamic as climate change deniers, the academy is wrong, the academy is lying, they have been bought off. Intersectionality discusses identity and acknowledging the context as a way of trying to explain why disparities are nuanced and it is not simply that one group is being oppressed and another is not. Blanket dismissal sounds like you feel threatened by it. (and before you complain about mind-reading, recall you wrote this “First, this is a comparatively benign view of the common intent behind privilege sensitive people.”)
Ok, at the risk of putting words in your mouth, I think a shorter version would be: ‘intersectionality’ and climate change emanate from the academy, an institution that sets the west apart. The subtext I’m reading here is “and, the academy knows what it is doing.”
First of all, the academy is the least ideologically diverse institution in middle or higher education there is. That man’s presence contributes to climate change isn’t so much at issue as are the myriad remedies that emanate from the academy and elsewhere that don’t hold up under reasoned analysis. The academy is intolerant of dissent and in its worst aspects stands by while its pseudo-intellectual brown-shirts prevent dissenting speakers from appearing on campus or engage in mob twitter assaults and protests of any deviation from academy orthodoxy.
Getting around to the issue at hand, privilege, in its current iteration appears to have arrived on the academic scene in 1987. It is an accepted truth within the very limited circle that concerns itself with this kind of thing, but has yet to be tested in any remotely scientific manner, and that is no surprise because even questioning the premise is racist and a sure way to end one’s academic career.
It is intellectual and academic fraud to posit a theory and then declare all criticism or questioning of the theory to be beyond the pale. Yet, that is exactly what we see.
Last observation on this point: this is an appeal to authority, nothing less. The academy’s history for solving society’s problems is not good and it’s record for being right over the course of history is poor. To say the least. The academy has not, in the last three decades arrived at the level of infallibility. Just the opposite if the kind of silliness we are talking about here is its best product.
Privilege is the refracted image of the racism and sexism that we see when some of these arguments are deployed. I would be much more willing to restrict addressing privilege in the way that McT and Marty say if we didn’t see the root cause bubbling up all the time.
Sweet Jesus. Who thinks like this? At at time when progress is greater than anytime in history in the only truly diverse country on the planet, and we get this?
BP–education is a program. The subject matter being taught is a program. Telling kids, hammering home relentlessly, that drugs, pregnancy, etc are almost a sure fire guarantee to an unhappy life is a program. It just doesn’t involve a ton of money. Money isn’t working.
Anyone who has raised children with a reasonable degree of success has done so by setting a reasonably good example and by guiding and teaching and coaching. THAT is how you break the cycle, white or black or Hispanic. Change the mind, change the behaviors. Not complicated. And it ought to be tried and tried with sustained conviction and not dismissed or mocked out of hand.
In recent days, I’ve been picking up Marty’s voice through those new dental fillings I had installed last year.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/04/they-say-government-mind-control-is-real-and-that-they-re-part-of-it.html?via=newsletter&source=WeekendDigest
The voice, if it is Marty’s, keeps repeating the mantra: “Don’t believe what your lying eyes are telling you is right in front of your face.”
I nearly got run over by a bus yesterday.
In recent days, I’ve been picking up Marty’s voice through those new dental fillings I had installed last year.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/04/they-say-government-mind-control-is-real-and-that-they-re-part-of-it.html?via=newsletter&source=WeekendDigest
The voice, if it is Marty’s, keeps repeating the mantra: “Don’t believe what your lying eyes are telling you is right in front of your face.”
I nearly got run over by a bus yesterday.
In recent days, I’ve been picking up Marty’s voice through those new dental fillings I had installed last year.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/04/they-say-government-mind-control-is-real-and-that-they-re-part-of-it.html?via=newsletter&source=WeekendDigest
The voice, if it is Marty’s, keeps repeating the mantra: “Don’t believe what your lying eyes are telling you is right in front of your face.”
I nearly got run over by a bus yesterday.
I was going to respond to Marty in the same vein as our dear Count. In most countries with voter-ID requirements, having ID is mandatory.
In my own country, having ID at voting is mandatory, but the police will issue you a separate voter ID for free if you don’t have one. In addition, the poll workers don’t need to ask for ID if they know the voter. I remember the pride in being part of community after I had lived a few years in my rural municipality, went to vote, started fumbling for my ID, but was stopped by the poll worker simply saying that naturally she knew me. I was not really surprised, I had ministered the wine of the holy communion to her several times.
However, the compulsory ID is offset by an important facet: There is no voter registration as such. The national population database, which has an accuracy better than 99%, is run into voter registry. Everyone is automatically registered as a voter of their domicile. A few weeks before the election, every voter then receives a letter reminding them that they are registered, tells them their polling station address and opening hours, informs about the absentee ballot and aids for the disabled and also includes a short piece of information on the purpose of that particular election, particularly the duties of the body being elected.
I was going to respond to Marty in the same vein as our dear Count. In most countries with voter-ID requirements, having ID is mandatory.
In my own country, having ID at voting is mandatory, but the police will issue you a separate voter ID for free if you don’t have one. In addition, the poll workers don’t need to ask for ID if they know the voter. I remember the pride in being part of community after I had lived a few years in my rural municipality, went to vote, started fumbling for my ID, but was stopped by the poll worker simply saying that naturally she knew me. I was not really surprised, I had ministered the wine of the holy communion to her several times.
However, the compulsory ID is offset by an important facet: There is no voter registration as such. The national population database, which has an accuracy better than 99%, is run into voter registry. Everyone is automatically registered as a voter of their domicile. A few weeks before the election, every voter then receives a letter reminding them that they are registered, tells them their polling station address and opening hours, informs about the absentee ballot and aids for the disabled and also includes a short piece of information on the purpose of that particular election, particularly the duties of the body being elected.
I was going to respond to Marty in the same vein as our dear Count. In most countries with voter-ID requirements, having ID is mandatory.
In my own country, having ID at voting is mandatory, but the police will issue you a separate voter ID for free if you don’t have one. In addition, the poll workers don’t need to ask for ID if they know the voter. I remember the pride in being part of community after I had lived a few years in my rural municipality, went to vote, started fumbling for my ID, but was stopped by the poll worker simply saying that naturally she knew me. I was not really surprised, I had ministered the wine of the holy communion to her several times.
However, the compulsory ID is offset by an important facet: There is no voter registration as such. The national population database, which has an accuracy better than 99%, is run into voter registry. Everyone is automatically registered as a voter of their domicile. A few weeks before the election, every voter then receives a letter reminding them that they are registered, tells them their polling station address and opening hours, informs about the absentee ballot and aids for the disabled and also includes a short piece of information on the purpose of that particular election, particularly the duties of the body being elected.
“Who thinks like this? At at time when progress is greater than anytime in history in the only truly diverse country on the planet, and we get this?”
This what? The bubbling Trump campaign?
“Who thinks like this? At at time when progress is greater than anytime in history in the only truly diverse country on the planet, and we get this?”
This what? The bubbling Trump campaign?
“Who thinks like this? At at time when progress is greater than anytime in history in the only truly diverse country on the planet, and we get this?”
This what? The bubbling Trump campaign?
” the academy is the least ideologically diverse institution in middle or higher education there is”
I blame the overwhelming majority of hard-leftists in the fields of Engineering and Business. Commie pinkos, one and all.
” the academy is the least ideologically diverse institution in middle or higher education there is”
I blame the overwhelming majority of hard-leftists in the fields of Engineering and Business. Commie pinkos, one and all.
” the academy is the least ideologically diverse institution in middle or higher education there is”
I blame the overwhelming majority of hard-leftists in the fields of Engineering and Business. Commie pinkos, one and all.
McT loves going on about how un-diverse and monolithic “the academy” is as if everyone in the academy, driven by some common ideology, automatically supports each other on the salient points where they concern race, gender, scientific models, economic models, medical practices, etc..
Meanwhile…
All but a few white men are free from prejudice and eager to help out everyone who is willing to quit being whatever it is they identify as and the pathologies that keep them down and start practicing the superior methods of successful citizens. There’s no conspiracy. It’s all Open Source Civilization.
But the academy, and any group that dares brand themselves as something other than “ungendered generic American”? Cabals, every one.
Because they mostly vote Democrat.
Helluva set of filters there.
McT loves going on about how un-diverse and monolithic “the academy” is as if everyone in the academy, driven by some common ideology, automatically supports each other on the salient points where they concern race, gender, scientific models, economic models, medical practices, etc..
Meanwhile…
All but a few white men are free from prejudice and eager to help out everyone who is willing to quit being whatever it is they identify as and the pathologies that keep them down and start practicing the superior methods of successful citizens. There’s no conspiracy. It’s all Open Source Civilization.
But the academy, and any group that dares brand themselves as something other than “ungendered generic American”? Cabals, every one.
Because they mostly vote Democrat.
Helluva set of filters there.
McT loves going on about how un-diverse and monolithic “the academy” is as if everyone in the academy, driven by some common ideology, automatically supports each other on the salient points where they concern race, gender, scientific models, economic models, medical practices, etc..
Meanwhile…
All but a few white men are free from prejudice and eager to help out everyone who is willing to quit being whatever it is they identify as and the pathologies that keep them down and start practicing the superior methods of successful citizens. There’s no conspiracy. It’s all Open Source Civilization.
But the academy, and any group that dares brand themselves as something other than “ungendered generic American”? Cabals, every one.
Because they mostly vote Democrat.
Helluva set of filters there.
I’m fine with providing free id’s. If you lose it is the replacement free? How often does the picture get changed? I also am fine with striking down a law that is overly zealous in restricting what kind of ID is used. None of that nor the reality that local poll workers won’t check ID if they know who you are make voter ID laws racist.
I’m fine with providing free id’s. If you lose it is the replacement free? How often does the picture get changed? I also am fine with striking down a law that is overly zealous in restricting what kind of ID is used. None of that nor the reality that local poll workers won’t check ID if they know who you are make voter ID laws racist.
I’m fine with providing free id’s. If you lose it is the replacement free? How often does the picture get changed? I also am fine with striking down a law that is overly zealous in restricting what kind of ID is used. None of that nor the reality that local poll workers won’t check ID if they know who you are make voter ID laws racist.
“Should I start naming black males that have broken the law, or used their political sway to maintain power?”
I don’t know, should you? What would the point be? Can you just spit out what you’re hinting at so we don’t have to grope after it?
“All that said, in the nuanced discussion of “privilege”, there is no white male conspiracy to deny privilege to others. That there are white males that do things that are obviously against the law does not indict “white males”.”
I named the white male conspiracy to deny privilege to others. It was called the Jim Crow South, the Ku Klux Klan, the White Citizen’s Councils. And my supplementary point is that the human beings behind those efforts did not pack their bags and call it quits after 1964. They stuck around and taught their children to believe the same things they did. They used their political power to continue de facto segregation as best they could.
Do you even have anything responsive to say to any of this?
“Ailes is an ass and a criminal, I cant imagine who is surprised by that, so is Bill Clinton for the same reasons. They broke the law, the law protects the rights of the women involved.”
So the head of one of the most powerful organizations in modern american politics was in charge of an organized campaign to sexually assault and blackmail dozens of women who worked for him. His numerous subordinates helped perpetuate that campaign and protect him.
I cited this as proof of male efforts to systematically keep women down.
Your response is that Bill Clinton did it too!
If you think that Bill Clinton’s offenses are somehow proof that Roger Ailes’ misogyny is not indicative of a larger social problem, then I am wasting my breath on you.
“Should I start naming black males that have broken the law, or used their political sway to maintain power?”
I don’t know, should you? What would the point be? Can you just spit out what you’re hinting at so we don’t have to grope after it?
“All that said, in the nuanced discussion of “privilege”, there is no white male conspiracy to deny privilege to others. That there are white males that do things that are obviously against the law does not indict “white males”.”
I named the white male conspiracy to deny privilege to others. It was called the Jim Crow South, the Ku Klux Klan, the White Citizen’s Councils. And my supplementary point is that the human beings behind those efforts did not pack their bags and call it quits after 1964. They stuck around and taught their children to believe the same things they did. They used their political power to continue de facto segregation as best they could.
Do you even have anything responsive to say to any of this?
“Ailes is an ass and a criminal, I cant imagine who is surprised by that, so is Bill Clinton for the same reasons. They broke the law, the law protects the rights of the women involved.”
So the head of one of the most powerful organizations in modern american politics was in charge of an organized campaign to sexually assault and blackmail dozens of women who worked for him. His numerous subordinates helped perpetuate that campaign and protect him.
I cited this as proof of male efforts to systematically keep women down.
Your response is that Bill Clinton did it too!
If you think that Bill Clinton’s offenses are somehow proof that Roger Ailes’ misogyny is not indicative of a larger social problem, then I am wasting my breath on you.
“Should I start naming black males that have broken the law, or used their political sway to maintain power?”
I don’t know, should you? What would the point be? Can you just spit out what you’re hinting at so we don’t have to grope after it?
“All that said, in the nuanced discussion of “privilege”, there is no white male conspiracy to deny privilege to others. That there are white males that do things that are obviously against the law does not indict “white males”.”
I named the white male conspiracy to deny privilege to others. It was called the Jim Crow South, the Ku Klux Klan, the White Citizen’s Councils. And my supplementary point is that the human beings behind those efforts did not pack their bags and call it quits after 1964. They stuck around and taught their children to believe the same things they did. They used their political power to continue de facto segregation as best they could.
Do you even have anything responsive to say to any of this?
“Ailes is an ass and a criminal, I cant imagine who is surprised by that, so is Bill Clinton for the same reasons. They broke the law, the law protects the rights of the women involved.”
So the head of one of the most powerful organizations in modern american politics was in charge of an organized campaign to sexually assault and blackmail dozens of women who worked for him. His numerous subordinates helped perpetuate that campaign and protect him.
I cited this as proof of male efforts to systematically keep women down.
Your response is that Bill Clinton did it too!
If you think that Bill Clinton’s offenses are somehow proof that Roger Ailes’ misogyny is not indicative of a larger social problem, then I am wasting my breath on you.
“did you see the part where I mentioned prosecuting, litigating etc as the case may be for invidious discrimination?”
I like this idea best of all.
Discriminate based on race, gender, religious affiliation or the lack thereof, etc etc etc, and you will pay.
Not a fine. You go to jail.
Plus, if you’re a banker who refuses credit, you can no longer work as a banker. If you are a real estate professional who won’t sho black people certain homes, you lose your license.
And so on.
It’s a denial of basic civil and constitutional law. It shouldn’t be tolerated.
Go to jail for a year, and if the discrimination occurred in some professional capacity, you will no longer be working in that profession.
You can’t change bigots, but you can get them the hell out of the way.
“did you see the part where I mentioned prosecuting, litigating etc as the case may be for invidious discrimination?”
I like this idea best of all.
Discriminate based on race, gender, religious affiliation or the lack thereof, etc etc etc, and you will pay.
Not a fine. You go to jail.
Plus, if you’re a banker who refuses credit, you can no longer work as a banker. If you are a real estate professional who won’t sho black people certain homes, you lose your license.
And so on.
It’s a denial of basic civil and constitutional law. It shouldn’t be tolerated.
Go to jail for a year, and if the discrimination occurred in some professional capacity, you will no longer be working in that profession.
You can’t change bigots, but you can get them the hell out of the way.
“did you see the part where I mentioned prosecuting, litigating etc as the case may be for invidious discrimination?”
I like this idea best of all.
Discriminate based on race, gender, religious affiliation or the lack thereof, etc etc etc, and you will pay.
Not a fine. You go to jail.
Plus, if you’re a banker who refuses credit, you can no longer work as a banker. If you are a real estate professional who won’t sho black people certain homes, you lose your license.
And so on.
It’s a denial of basic civil and constitutional law. It shouldn’t be tolerated.
Go to jail for a year, and if the discrimination occurred in some professional capacity, you will no longer be working in that profession.
You can’t change bigots, but you can get them the hell out of the way.
“If you lose it is the replacement free? How often does the picture get changed?”
I suspect the DMVs at the state level have turnkey solutions to those formidable problems. But I also suspect (it’s a conspiracy, thus I can’t be sure) the States with red legislatures will shut those DMV offices down who do it best, or at least provide the following hours for the replacement ID queue, which oddly, leads into the men’s porta-potty (the sign will say: closed for repairs) in the parking lot: The third Thursday in months with the letter “X” in their names, between the minutes of 4:31 am and 4:33 am.
The line item for providing this service conveniently via the internet will be struck from the budget, probably at 4:32 am, Confederate Standard Time.
As to specifics, The Koch Brothers may use the same ID they were provided at birth for their naturally cursed lives, the one with Grover Cleveland’s mug on the front. The rest of us will be required to get a photo update weekly from birth to death on a sliding scale.
Those in Ferguson, Missouri, the Carolinas. Louisiana, Wisconsin, Texas, and all points right (in Chicago, those without a pulse move to the head of the line) will be arrested promptly merely by virtue of showing up and admitting they need a new ID, jailed, and then fined hourly for never having seen Grover Cleveland’s face.
“If you lose it is the replacement free? How often does the picture get changed?”
I suspect the DMVs at the state level have turnkey solutions to those formidable problems. But I also suspect (it’s a conspiracy, thus I can’t be sure) the States with red legislatures will shut those DMV offices down who do it best, or at least provide the following hours for the replacement ID queue, which oddly, leads into the men’s porta-potty (the sign will say: closed for repairs) in the parking lot: The third Thursday in months with the letter “X” in their names, between the minutes of 4:31 am and 4:33 am.
The line item for providing this service conveniently via the internet will be struck from the budget, probably at 4:32 am, Confederate Standard Time.
As to specifics, The Koch Brothers may use the same ID they were provided at birth for their naturally cursed lives, the one with Grover Cleveland’s mug on the front. The rest of us will be required to get a photo update weekly from birth to death on a sliding scale.
Those in Ferguson, Missouri, the Carolinas. Louisiana, Wisconsin, Texas, and all points right (in Chicago, those without a pulse move to the head of the line) will be arrested promptly merely by virtue of showing up and admitting they need a new ID, jailed, and then fined hourly for never having seen Grover Cleveland’s face.
“If you lose it is the replacement free? How often does the picture get changed?”
I suspect the DMVs at the state level have turnkey solutions to those formidable problems. But I also suspect (it’s a conspiracy, thus I can’t be sure) the States with red legislatures will shut those DMV offices down who do it best, or at least provide the following hours for the replacement ID queue, which oddly, leads into the men’s porta-potty (the sign will say: closed for repairs) in the parking lot: The third Thursday in months with the letter “X” in their names, between the minutes of 4:31 am and 4:33 am.
The line item for providing this service conveniently via the internet will be struck from the budget, probably at 4:32 am, Confederate Standard Time.
As to specifics, The Koch Brothers may use the same ID they were provided at birth for their naturally cursed lives, the one with Grover Cleveland’s mug on the front. The rest of us will be required to get a photo update weekly from birth to death on a sliding scale.
Those in Ferguson, Missouri, the Carolinas. Louisiana, Wisconsin, Texas, and all points right (in Chicago, those without a pulse move to the head of the line) will be arrested promptly merely by virtue of showing up and admitting they need a new ID, jailed, and then fined hourly for never having seen Grover Cleveland’s face.
Sig,
To quote myself,”…, but there is no documented widespread voter disenfranchisement since Jim Crow” so you are arguing with yourself I guess. I never said there weren’t men who abused there positions of power, or abused privilege to maintain power.
What I said was there isn’t a “white male” conspiracy to deny privilege to others.
You do grasp the difference right?
“I cited this as proof of male efforts to systematically keep women down.”
Men, women, and people of all backgrounds use power to take advantage of other people and retain power. Your examples of a white man doing it doesn’t justify the indictment of “white males” as co-conspirators.
And yes, I am being purposefully and staunchly defensive. I am neither Roger Ailes, nor Bill Clinton and I don’t support, condone or do what they did. Most of my white male friends and acquaintances don’t. My experience tells me that white males in general are as appalled as anyone else when these things happen.
Sig,
To quote myself,”…, but there is no documented widespread voter disenfranchisement since Jim Crow” so you are arguing with yourself I guess. I never said there weren’t men who abused there positions of power, or abused privilege to maintain power.
What I said was there isn’t a “white male” conspiracy to deny privilege to others.
You do grasp the difference right?
“I cited this as proof of male efforts to systematically keep women down.”
Men, women, and people of all backgrounds use power to take advantage of other people and retain power. Your examples of a white man doing it doesn’t justify the indictment of “white males” as co-conspirators.
And yes, I am being purposefully and staunchly defensive. I am neither Roger Ailes, nor Bill Clinton and I don’t support, condone or do what they did. Most of my white male friends and acquaintances don’t. My experience tells me that white males in general are as appalled as anyone else when these things happen.
Sig,
To quote myself,”…, but there is no documented widespread voter disenfranchisement since Jim Crow” so you are arguing with yourself I guess. I never said there weren’t men who abused there positions of power, or abused privilege to maintain power.
What I said was there isn’t a “white male” conspiracy to deny privilege to others.
You do grasp the difference right?
“I cited this as proof of male efforts to systematically keep women down.”
Men, women, and people of all backgrounds use power to take advantage of other people and retain power. Your examples of a white man doing it doesn’t justify the indictment of “white males” as co-conspirators.
And yes, I am being purposefully and staunchly defensive. I am neither Roger Ailes, nor Bill Clinton and I don’t support, condone or do what they did. Most of my white male friends and acquaintances don’t. My experience tells me that white males in general are as appalled as anyone else when these things happen.
None of that nor the reality that local poll workers won’t check ID if they know who you are make voter ID laws racist.
No, of course not. What makes a voter ID law racist is when the types of ID which are accepted at the polls are carefully chosen to have maximum impact on certain racial groups. As in North Carolina’s recent law.
None of that nor the reality that local poll workers won’t check ID if they know who you are make voter ID laws racist.
No, of course not. What makes a voter ID law racist is when the types of ID which are accepted at the polls are carefully chosen to have maximum impact on certain racial groups. As in North Carolina’s recent law.
None of that nor the reality that local poll workers won’t check ID if they know who you are make voter ID laws racist.
No, of course not. What makes a voter ID law racist is when the types of ID which are accepted at the polls are carefully chosen to have maximum impact on certain racial groups. As in North Carolina’s recent law.
I never said there weren’t men who abused there positions of power, or abused privilege to maintain power.
What I said was there isn’t a “white male” conspiracy to deny privilege to others.
OK, let’s parse this a different way. There is a conspriacy to do this. Those involved in the conspiracy are, overwhelmingly, white males in positions of power. The conspiracy does not, admittedly involved all white males. These days, not even anywhere near “most” — at least in the country as a whole.
So if, by “white male conspiracy” you mean a conspiracy of all (or at least most) white males, then no, there isn’t one. But if by “white male conspiracy” you mean a conspiracy, all of the members of which are white males in positions of power, then yes there is one.
Does that work for everybody?
I never said there weren’t men who abused there positions of power, or abused privilege to maintain power.
What I said was there isn’t a “white male” conspiracy to deny privilege to others.
OK, let’s parse this a different way. There is a conspriacy to do this. Those involved in the conspiracy are, overwhelmingly, white males in positions of power. The conspiracy does not, admittedly involved all white males. These days, not even anywhere near “most” — at least in the country as a whole.
So if, by “white male conspiracy” you mean a conspiracy of all (or at least most) white males, then no, there isn’t one. But if by “white male conspiracy” you mean a conspiracy, all of the members of which are white males in positions of power, then yes there is one.
Does that work for everybody?
I never said there weren’t men who abused there positions of power, or abused privilege to maintain power.
What I said was there isn’t a “white male” conspiracy to deny privilege to others.
OK, let’s parse this a different way. There is a conspriacy to do this. Those involved in the conspiracy are, overwhelmingly, white males in positions of power. The conspiracy does not, admittedly involved all white males. These days, not even anywhere near “most” — at least in the country as a whole.
So if, by “white male conspiracy” you mean a conspiracy of all (or at least most) white males, then no, there isn’t one. But if by “white male conspiracy” you mean a conspiracy, all of the members of which are white males in positions of power, then yes there is one.
Does that work for everybody?
“Your examples of a white man doing it doesn’t justify the indictment of “white males” as co-conspirators.”
I’ve downgraded myself from co-conspirator to passive beneficiary, though I’ve managed to lay waste to any advantages that were conferred at birth.
“Your examples of a white man doing it doesn’t justify the indictment of “white males” as co-conspirators.”
I’ve downgraded myself from co-conspirator to passive beneficiary, though I’ve managed to lay waste to any advantages that were conferred at birth.
“Your examples of a white man doing it doesn’t justify the indictment of “white males” as co-conspirators.”
I’ve downgraded myself from co-conspirator to passive beneficiary, though I’ve managed to lay waste to any advantages that were conferred at birth.
Money isn’t working.
Please be so kind as to actually back up this absurd claim with even ONE fact. The problem is we are not spending much, if any, money here.
Money isn’t working.
Please be so kind as to actually back up this absurd claim with even ONE fact. The problem is we are not spending much, if any, money here.
Money isn’t working.
Please be so kind as to actually back up this absurd claim with even ONE fact. The problem is we are not spending much, if any, money here.
McT, You are right, it is an appeal to authority, but given that you don’t seem to have any understanding of what intersectionality is, so my appeal is less ‘shut up and agree with them’ and more ‘prove to me that you can talk about intersectionality intelligently’. And trying to turn the tables by talking about the lack of diversity in the academy is like saying there were no Republican slaveholders. It’s diversion, plain and simple. If you don’t like to talk about it, no problem, but until you show some minimal understanding of the term, you really shouldn’t try and use it to make a point, cause you’ll just whack yourself on the back of the head with it.
Sweet Jesus. Who thinks like this?
Obviously, I do. Perhaps it might do to think of this as the last 100 yards. It’s fantastic that we aren’t enslaving African Americans, preventing women from voting, rounding up Japanese-Americans and interning them, of having Texas Rangers kill Latinos. But granting the last measure of equality seems to be beyond us. (though granting it is the last 100 yards seems to be granting people who don’t understand things outside of their own shell a lot more leeway than one should)
But you’ve got your diverse crew happily nodding their head when you give them the pep talk while they bring you your coffee (why is it that no one _above_ you seems to be diverse?), so move along, there’s nothing to see. And of course, you support those strong measures. Why, invidious racism or sexism, you would throw the book at them! So go off and assure yourself that privilege is bullshit, cause it just can’t be true, it is just made up by an undiverse bunch of pointy headed academic liberals who don’t know what real muricans think.
Doc puts up a post saying how she thinks that a different word to privilege might be more useful because she understands how it gets peoples’ backs up. You reply with a drunken privilege=bullshit comment. You assume that privilege means that you are being accused of actively oppressing people. Any number of people try to patiently and carefully explain this, pointing out that there is a difference between talking about privilege and accusing someone of racism. But you insist on sticking your pointy little head in that cap.
As Nous said, helluva set of filters there.
McT, You are right, it is an appeal to authority, but given that you don’t seem to have any understanding of what intersectionality is, so my appeal is less ‘shut up and agree with them’ and more ‘prove to me that you can talk about intersectionality intelligently’. And trying to turn the tables by talking about the lack of diversity in the academy is like saying there were no Republican slaveholders. It’s diversion, plain and simple. If you don’t like to talk about it, no problem, but until you show some minimal understanding of the term, you really shouldn’t try and use it to make a point, cause you’ll just whack yourself on the back of the head with it.
Sweet Jesus. Who thinks like this?
Obviously, I do. Perhaps it might do to think of this as the last 100 yards. It’s fantastic that we aren’t enslaving African Americans, preventing women from voting, rounding up Japanese-Americans and interning them, of having Texas Rangers kill Latinos. But granting the last measure of equality seems to be beyond us. (though granting it is the last 100 yards seems to be granting people who don’t understand things outside of their own shell a lot more leeway than one should)
But you’ve got your diverse crew happily nodding their head when you give them the pep talk while they bring you your coffee (why is it that no one _above_ you seems to be diverse?), so move along, there’s nothing to see. And of course, you support those strong measures. Why, invidious racism or sexism, you would throw the book at them! So go off and assure yourself that privilege is bullshit, cause it just can’t be true, it is just made up by an undiverse bunch of pointy headed academic liberals who don’t know what real muricans think.
Doc puts up a post saying how she thinks that a different word to privilege might be more useful because she understands how it gets peoples’ backs up. You reply with a drunken privilege=bullshit comment. You assume that privilege means that you are being accused of actively oppressing people. Any number of people try to patiently and carefully explain this, pointing out that there is a difference between talking about privilege and accusing someone of racism. But you insist on sticking your pointy little head in that cap.
As Nous said, helluva set of filters there.
McT, You are right, it is an appeal to authority, but given that you don’t seem to have any understanding of what intersectionality is, so my appeal is less ‘shut up and agree with them’ and more ‘prove to me that you can talk about intersectionality intelligently’. And trying to turn the tables by talking about the lack of diversity in the academy is like saying there were no Republican slaveholders. It’s diversion, plain and simple. If you don’t like to talk about it, no problem, but until you show some minimal understanding of the term, you really shouldn’t try and use it to make a point, cause you’ll just whack yourself on the back of the head with it.
Sweet Jesus. Who thinks like this?
Obviously, I do. Perhaps it might do to think of this as the last 100 yards. It’s fantastic that we aren’t enslaving African Americans, preventing women from voting, rounding up Japanese-Americans and interning them, of having Texas Rangers kill Latinos. But granting the last measure of equality seems to be beyond us. (though granting it is the last 100 yards seems to be granting people who don’t understand things outside of their own shell a lot more leeway than one should)
But you’ve got your diverse crew happily nodding their head when you give them the pep talk while they bring you your coffee (why is it that no one _above_ you seems to be diverse?), so move along, there’s nothing to see. And of course, you support those strong measures. Why, invidious racism or sexism, you would throw the book at them! So go off and assure yourself that privilege is bullshit, cause it just can’t be true, it is just made up by an undiverse bunch of pointy headed academic liberals who don’t know what real muricans think.
Doc puts up a post saying how she thinks that a different word to privilege might be more useful because she understands how it gets peoples’ backs up. You reply with a drunken privilege=bullshit comment. You assume that privilege means that you are being accused of actively oppressing people. Any number of people try to patiently and carefully explain this, pointing out that there is a difference between talking about privilege and accusing someone of racism. But you insist on sticking your pointy little head in that cap.
As Nous said, helluva set of filters there.
so many issues raised in this thread.
When people bring up the whole family and general social dysfunction thing, I’m never clear about whether that should be considered an effect or a cause.
Do people achieve less and have generally worse outcomes in life because they came from broken families? Or do families break up because people haven’t been able to find a stable and secure place for themselves in a given culture and society?
Charles Murray, not really my favorite guy, is amazed to discover that white people who are systematically excluded from a position of respect and stability in society act very very badly indeed. Divorce, absentee parents, substance abuse, etc. He even writes a book about it
Who is excluding these white people who now find themselves living out the stereotype of white trash? Who among us wishes them any ill?
Certainly nobody here. We’re all nice people.
But, it seems, circumstances have a will of their own, and most of the non-white-collar and non-professional paths to a respectable place at the social and cultural table are going the hell away.
If I were to say that white collar and professional workers in this country occupy a position of privilege, would that seem unfair? Would folks take offense? Would I be accusing people holding those white collar and professional jobs of classicism?
No, I would simply be pointing out that white collar professionals in the US enjoy a position of privilege relative to other folks.
If “privilege” bugs you, think “advantage”. They are at an advantage, relative to other people.
Their jobs are less likely to be outsourced or automated away. They are accorded a degree of social respect that is not generally accorded to, for example, plumbers. All other things being equal, it’s probably easier for them to get credit, or join prestigious or influential cultural institutions, or enjoy the acquaintance of and access to people who are in positions of influence.
White collar and professional people are, socially culturally and most other ways, at an advantage.
Right?
The stuff we are talking about here is kind of like that.
If stuff like trigger warning policies at Oberlin, or the social jihads of intersectionalists, whatever the hell an “intersectionalist” is, make it impossible for you to hear simple, basic, obvious stuff like this, I think maybe your skin is too thin.
Some people have a higher hill to climb than others. Not because of who they are or anything they’ve done, but because of crap like their skin color, or their gender (biological or otherwise), or any number of other things that just really shouldn’t matter to anybody other than them.
They have a higher hill to climb. They are at a relative disadvantage.
Folks who don’t have such a high hill to climb are in a position of relative privilege.
That’s all.
so many issues raised in this thread.
When people bring up the whole family and general social dysfunction thing, I’m never clear about whether that should be considered an effect or a cause.
Do people achieve less and have generally worse outcomes in life because they came from broken families? Or do families break up because people haven’t been able to find a stable and secure place for themselves in a given culture and society?
Charles Murray, not really my favorite guy, is amazed to discover that white people who are systematically excluded from a position of respect and stability in society act very very badly indeed. Divorce, absentee parents, substance abuse, etc. He even writes a book about it
Who is excluding these white people who now find themselves living out the stereotype of white trash? Who among us wishes them any ill?
Certainly nobody here. We’re all nice people.
But, it seems, circumstances have a will of their own, and most of the non-white-collar and non-professional paths to a respectable place at the social and cultural table are going the hell away.
If I were to say that white collar and professional workers in this country occupy a position of privilege, would that seem unfair? Would folks take offense? Would I be accusing people holding those white collar and professional jobs of classicism?
No, I would simply be pointing out that white collar professionals in the US enjoy a position of privilege relative to other folks.
If “privilege” bugs you, think “advantage”. They are at an advantage, relative to other people.
Their jobs are less likely to be outsourced or automated away. They are accorded a degree of social respect that is not generally accorded to, for example, plumbers. All other things being equal, it’s probably easier for them to get credit, or join prestigious or influential cultural institutions, or enjoy the acquaintance of and access to people who are in positions of influence.
White collar and professional people are, socially culturally and most other ways, at an advantage.
Right?
The stuff we are talking about here is kind of like that.
If stuff like trigger warning policies at Oberlin, or the social jihads of intersectionalists, whatever the hell an “intersectionalist” is, make it impossible for you to hear simple, basic, obvious stuff like this, I think maybe your skin is too thin.
Some people have a higher hill to climb than others. Not because of who they are or anything they’ve done, but because of crap like their skin color, or their gender (biological or otherwise), or any number of other things that just really shouldn’t matter to anybody other than them.
They have a higher hill to climb. They are at a relative disadvantage.
Folks who don’t have such a high hill to climb are in a position of relative privilege.
That’s all.
so many issues raised in this thread.
When people bring up the whole family and general social dysfunction thing, I’m never clear about whether that should be considered an effect or a cause.
Do people achieve less and have generally worse outcomes in life because they came from broken families? Or do families break up because people haven’t been able to find a stable and secure place for themselves in a given culture and society?
Charles Murray, not really my favorite guy, is amazed to discover that white people who are systematically excluded from a position of respect and stability in society act very very badly indeed. Divorce, absentee parents, substance abuse, etc. He even writes a book about it
Who is excluding these white people who now find themselves living out the stereotype of white trash? Who among us wishes them any ill?
Certainly nobody here. We’re all nice people.
But, it seems, circumstances have a will of their own, and most of the non-white-collar and non-professional paths to a respectable place at the social and cultural table are going the hell away.
If I were to say that white collar and professional workers in this country occupy a position of privilege, would that seem unfair? Would folks take offense? Would I be accusing people holding those white collar and professional jobs of classicism?
No, I would simply be pointing out that white collar professionals in the US enjoy a position of privilege relative to other folks.
If “privilege” bugs you, think “advantage”. They are at an advantage, relative to other people.
Their jobs are less likely to be outsourced or automated away. They are accorded a degree of social respect that is not generally accorded to, for example, plumbers. All other things being equal, it’s probably easier for them to get credit, or join prestigious or influential cultural institutions, or enjoy the acquaintance of and access to people who are in positions of influence.
White collar and professional people are, socially culturally and most other ways, at an advantage.
Right?
The stuff we are talking about here is kind of like that.
If stuff like trigger warning policies at Oberlin, or the social jihads of intersectionalists, whatever the hell an “intersectionalist” is, make it impossible for you to hear simple, basic, obvious stuff like this, I think maybe your skin is too thin.
Some people have a higher hill to climb than others. Not because of who they are or anything they’ve done, but because of crap like their skin color, or their gender (biological or otherwise), or any number of other things that just really shouldn’t matter to anybody other than them.
They have a higher hill to climb. They are at a relative disadvantage.
Folks who don’t have such a high hill to climb are in a position of relative privilege.
That’s all.
Actually, that’s not quite all. Because if it were as possible as it was in the mid-20th century for people to climb that hill we would be having a somewhat different discussion. (And, I suspect, one rather closer to the topic Dr S raised initially.) Because one of the significant differences today is how difficult it has become to climb that hill.
Yes, it is harder if you have the “wrong” plumbing, or a permanent suntan, or other disadvantageous features. But it has arguably worsened less (if that makes sense) for them than for poor whites. Which contributes to the sense of reverse discrimination that poor whites feel. If you feel like you have a real chance to move up, or at least see your children move up, you can tolerate a lot more efforts to help others move up as well.
You are going to hate hearing about “white privilege”, no matter how accurate it is, if you aren’t seeing any signs of you getting some of it for yourself.
Actually, that’s not quite all. Because if it were as possible as it was in the mid-20th century for people to climb that hill we would be having a somewhat different discussion. (And, I suspect, one rather closer to the topic Dr S raised initially.) Because one of the significant differences today is how difficult it has become to climb that hill.
Yes, it is harder if you have the “wrong” plumbing, or a permanent suntan, or other disadvantageous features. But it has arguably worsened less (if that makes sense) for them than for poor whites. Which contributes to the sense of reverse discrimination that poor whites feel. If you feel like you have a real chance to move up, or at least see your children move up, you can tolerate a lot more efforts to help others move up as well.
You are going to hate hearing about “white privilege”, no matter how accurate it is, if you aren’t seeing any signs of you getting some of it for yourself.
Actually, that’s not quite all. Because if it were as possible as it was in the mid-20th century for people to climb that hill we would be having a somewhat different discussion. (And, I suspect, one rather closer to the topic Dr S raised initially.) Because one of the significant differences today is how difficult it has become to climb that hill.
Yes, it is harder if you have the “wrong” plumbing, or a permanent suntan, or other disadvantageous features. But it has arguably worsened less (if that makes sense) for them than for poor whites. Which contributes to the sense of reverse discrimination that poor whites feel. If you feel like you have a real chance to move up, or at least see your children move up, you can tolerate a lot more efforts to help others move up as well.
You are going to hate hearing about “white privilege”, no matter how accurate it is, if you aren’t seeing any signs of you getting some of it for yourself.
“Because if it were as possible as it was in the mid-20th century for people to climb that hill we would be having a somewhat different discussion”
How is this a zero sum thing? How does the fact that things have gotten worse for blue collar white people make the complaints of blacks, or latinos, or women, or whoever, any less legitimate?
Does the fact that blue collar whites are getting screwed somehow mean that white skin no longer confers any advantage in American society?
I am more than sympathetic to folks who have been screwed over by this country’s cult-like mania for the free market.
I’m way, way, way less sympathetic to people who respond to that by nurturing resentments toward black and brown people.
“Because if it were as possible as it was in the mid-20th century for people to climb that hill we would be having a somewhat different discussion”
How is this a zero sum thing? How does the fact that things have gotten worse for blue collar white people make the complaints of blacks, or latinos, or women, or whoever, any less legitimate?
Does the fact that blue collar whites are getting screwed somehow mean that white skin no longer confers any advantage in American society?
I am more than sympathetic to folks who have been screwed over by this country’s cult-like mania for the free market.
I’m way, way, way less sympathetic to people who respond to that by nurturing resentments toward black and brown people.
“Because if it were as possible as it was in the mid-20th century for people to climb that hill we would be having a somewhat different discussion”
How is this a zero sum thing? How does the fact that things have gotten worse for blue collar white people make the complaints of blacks, or latinos, or women, or whoever, any less legitimate?
Does the fact that blue collar whites are getting screwed somehow mean that white skin no longer confers any advantage in American society?
I am more than sympathetic to folks who have been screwed over by this country’s cult-like mania for the free market.
I’m way, way, way less sympathetic to people who respond to that by nurturing resentments toward black and brown people.
How is this a zero sum thing? How does the fact that things have gotten worse for blue collar white people make the complaints of blacks, or latinos, or women, or whoever, any less legitimate?
Especially since the blue collar white people most affected by the “getting worse” are women?
How is this a zero sum thing? How does the fact that things have gotten worse for blue collar white people make the complaints of blacks, or latinos, or women, or whoever, any less legitimate?
Especially since the blue collar white people most affected by the “getting worse” are women?
How is this a zero sum thing? How does the fact that things have gotten worse for blue collar white people make the complaints of blacks, or latinos, or women, or whoever, any less legitimate?
Especially since the blue collar white people most affected by the “getting worse” are women?
It occurs to me that this sort of discussion is normally meat and drink to Nombrilisme Vide, and that now I think of it s/he hasn’t shown up here recently. Anybody know why?
It occurs to me that this sort of discussion is normally meat and drink to Nombrilisme Vide, and that now I think of it s/he hasn’t shown up here recently. Anybody know why?
It occurs to me that this sort of discussion is normally meat and drink to Nombrilisme Vide, and that now I think of it s/he hasn’t shown up here recently. Anybody know why?
GftNC i may have been too disagreeable.
just that one time.
GftNC i may have been too disagreeable.
just that one time.
GftNC i may have been too disagreeable.
just that one time.
Cleek, you’re never too disagreeable! Plus, you’ve taught me all I know about HTML formatting, so I am undyingly grateful.
Cleek, you’re never too disagreeable! Plus, you’ve taught me all I know about HTML formatting, so I am undyingly grateful.
Cleek, you’re never too disagreeable! Plus, you’ve taught me all I know about HTML formatting, so I am undyingly grateful.
“How is this a zero sum thing?”
It’s not, but those who perceive it as such will have a different, more hostile and resentful, reaction.
Or perhaps the “hostile and resentful” leads to the “zero sum perception” to justify themselves.
“How is this a zero sum thing?”
It’s not, but those who perceive it as such will have a different, more hostile and resentful, reaction.
Or perhaps the “hostile and resentful” leads to the “zero sum perception” to justify themselves.
“How is this a zero sum thing?”
It’s not, but those who perceive it as such will have a different, more hostile and resentful, reaction.
Or perhaps the “hostile and resentful” leads to the “zero sum perception” to justify themselves.
How is this a zero sum thing? How does the fact that things have gotten worse for blue collar white people make the complaints of blacks, or latinos, or women, or whoever, any less legitimate?
Obviously, it doesn’t.
But the subject was “priviledge”. And became a discussionn of why various people might dislike the word. What I was giving was one possible reason why that resentment might exist. Specifically, why the resentment for government helping others might be larger than it once was.
I’m way, way, way less sympathetic to people who respond to that by nurturing resentments toward black and brown people.
If we are talking about those nurturing those resentments, as opposed to those merely feeling them, I am completely with you. Especially since those doing the nurturing are frequently also among those causing the lack of mobility which is fostering those resentments in the first place.
How is this a zero sum thing? How does the fact that things have gotten worse for blue collar white people make the complaints of blacks, or latinos, or women, or whoever, any less legitimate?
Obviously, it doesn’t.
But the subject was “priviledge”. And became a discussionn of why various people might dislike the word. What I was giving was one possible reason why that resentment might exist. Specifically, why the resentment for government helping others might be larger than it once was.
I’m way, way, way less sympathetic to people who respond to that by nurturing resentments toward black and brown people.
If we are talking about those nurturing those resentments, as opposed to those merely feeling them, I am completely with you. Especially since those doing the nurturing are frequently also among those causing the lack of mobility which is fostering those resentments in the first place.
How is this a zero sum thing? How does the fact that things have gotten worse for blue collar white people make the complaints of blacks, or latinos, or women, or whoever, any less legitimate?
Obviously, it doesn’t.
But the subject was “priviledge”. And became a discussionn of why various people might dislike the word. What I was giving was one possible reason why that resentment might exist. Specifically, why the resentment for government helping others might be larger than it once was.
I’m way, way, way less sympathetic to people who respond to that by nurturing resentments toward black and brown people.
If we are talking about those nurturing those resentments, as opposed to those merely feeling them, I am completely with you. Especially since those doing the nurturing are frequently also among those causing the lack of mobility which is fostering those resentments in the first place.
Wait until Trump and the Republican Party, those nurturers of the sadistic race to the bottom, get done with their no-union, low-wage renaissance.
All of the American men and women of all races spavined by these filth will kill the people who did this to them:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/donald-trump-on-falling-wages-people.html
Wait until Trump and the Republican Party, those nurturers of the sadistic race to the bottom, get done with their no-union, low-wage renaissance.
All of the American men and women of all races spavined by these filth will kill the people who did this to them:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/donald-trump-on-falling-wages-people.html
Wait until Trump and the Republican Party, those nurturers of the sadistic race to the bottom, get done with their no-union, low-wage renaissance.
All of the American men and women of all races spavined by these filth will kill the people who did this to them:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/donald-trump-on-falling-wages-people.html
Wait until these filth get done with no union, low-wage Americans of all races and gender:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/donald-trump-on-falling-wages-people.html
Trump and the Republican Party are going to be very sorry about that Second Amendment fetish of theirs.
Wait until these filth get done with no union, low-wage Americans of all races and gender:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/donald-trump-on-falling-wages-people.html
Trump and the Republican Party are going to be very sorry about that Second Amendment fetish of theirs.
Wait until these filth get done with no union, low-wage Americans of all races and gender:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/donald-trump-on-falling-wages-people.html
Trump and the Republican Party are going to be very sorry about that Second Amendment fetish of theirs.
Oh yeah, and Happy Fucking Veterans Day to all of you:
http://juanitajean.com/and-when-the-easter-bunny-brings-a-pumpkin-to-christmas-dinner-greg-abbott-will-be-ready/
Oh yeah, and Happy Fucking Veterans Day to all of you:
http://juanitajean.com/and-when-the-easter-bunny-brings-a-pumpkin-to-christmas-dinner-greg-abbott-will-be-ready/
Oh yeah, and Happy Fucking Veterans Day to all of you:
http://juanitajean.com/and-when-the-easter-bunny-brings-a-pumpkin-to-christmas-dinner-greg-abbott-will-be-ready/
Too bad the conservative vermin who have ruined our country and brought us to this pass can’t die all at once:
http://www.courant.com/nation-world/ct-phyllis-schlafly-dead-20160905-story.html
We have to settle for one at a time.
Too bad the conservative vermin who have ruined our country and brought us to this pass can’t die all at once:
http://www.courant.com/nation-world/ct-phyllis-schlafly-dead-20160905-story.html
We have to settle for one at a time.
Too bad the conservative vermin who have ruined our country and brought us to this pass can’t die all at once:
http://www.courant.com/nation-world/ct-phyllis-schlafly-dead-20160905-story.html
We have to settle for one at a time.
I demand the open carry of loaded automatic weaponry on the floor of the House of Reprimandibles, with hair triggers:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/09/05/open-thread-paul-ryan-sucking-up-to-the-nra-again/
I demand the open carry of loaded automatic weaponry on the floor of the House of Reprimandibles, with hair triggers:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/09/05/open-thread-paul-ryan-sucking-up-to-the-nra-again/
I demand the open carry of loaded automatic weaponry on the floor of the House of Reprimandibles, with hair triggers:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/09/05/open-thread-paul-ryan-sucking-up-to-the-nra-again/
Somewhat related–
http://thewire.in/64132/liberal-academics-are-open-but-are-they-truly-tolerant/
I’m on the liberal side in this perennial argument, but the link supports to some debatable degree McT’s distrust of the social sciences.
Somewhat related–
http://thewire.in/64132/liberal-academics-are-open-but-are-they-truly-tolerant/
I’m on the liberal side in this perennial argument, but the link supports to some debatable degree McT’s distrust of the social sciences.
Somewhat related–
http://thewire.in/64132/liberal-academics-are-open-but-are-they-truly-tolerant/
I’m on the liberal side in this perennial argument, but the link supports to some debatable degree McT’s distrust of the social sciences.
There is very good reason to distrust the social “sciences”, independent of politics.
To put it simply: Humans make shitty data points.
BTW, “economics” is included in those social “sciences”, but has far more potential for doing harm than most of the others.
To wit: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-04
There is very good reason to distrust the social “sciences”, independent of politics.
To put it simply: Humans make shitty data points.
BTW, “economics” is included in those social “sciences”, but has far more potential for doing harm than most of the others.
To wit: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-04
There is very good reason to distrust the social “sciences”, independent of politics.
To put it simply: Humans make shitty data points.
BTW, “economics” is included in those social “sciences”, but has far more potential for doing harm than most of the others.
To wit: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-04
The social science blues.
The social science blues.
The social science blues.
Here’s to the ever so liberal economics profession.
Here’s to the ever so liberal economics profession.
Here’s to the ever so liberal economics profession.
Donald, I think that is granting people who don’t want to deal with intersectionality too much slack. Ironically, intersectionality has made the biggest impact in feminism, especially for people of color and the fact that Kimberlé Crenshaw, a black feminist scholar, first came up with it, should be a prima facie argument against McT’S claim that we can’t really give it much credence because academy that it comes from is not diverse.
Donald, I think that is granting people who don’t want to deal with intersectionality too much slack. Ironically, intersectionality has made the biggest impact in feminism, especially for people of color and the fact that Kimberlé Crenshaw, a black feminist scholar, first came up with it, should be a prima facie argument against McT’S claim that we can’t really give it much credence because academy that it comes from is not diverse.
Donald, I think that is granting people who don’t want to deal with intersectionality too much slack. Ironically, intersectionality has made the biggest impact in feminism, especially for people of color and the fact that Kimberlé Crenshaw, a black feminist scholar, first came up with it, should be a prima facie argument against McT’S claim that we can’t really give it much credence because academy that it comes from is not diverse.
McTx’s diversity complaint seems to be that there isn’t enough ‘ideological’ diversity in the ‘academy’. specifically, he wants “conservative” ideas to have equal representation.
McTx’s diversity complaint seems to be that there isn’t enough ‘ideological’ diversity in the ‘academy’. specifically, he wants “conservative” ideas to have equal representation.
McTx’s diversity complaint seems to be that there isn’t enough ‘ideological’ diversity in the ‘academy’. specifically, he wants “conservative” ideas to have equal representation.
it is an appeal to authority, but given that you don’t seem to have any understanding of what intersectionality is,
You may be right. I read about it and it seems to be a fancy way of saying that everyone is the sum of a series of related and unrelated parts which produces an unique perspective for each individual and then–and here’s the fun part–it all ties into “oppression, domination and racism”. Bingo!
And trying to turn the tables by talking about the lack of diversity in the academy is like saying there were no Republican slaveholders. It’s diversion, plain and simple. If you don’t like to talk about it, no problem, but until you show some minimal understanding of the term, you really shouldn’t try and use it to make a point, cause you’ll just whack yourself on the back of the head with it.
There is no meaningful intellectual/political/philosophical diversity in the academy, particularly in the social sciences and even more particularly in that quarter of social science that comes up with ideas like ‘intersectionality’. You can say otherwise but that doesn’t make it so.
Indeed, any substantive pushback is racist, oppressive domination. Or, ignorance. Either way, the veracity/efficacy of privelege/intersectionality is self-evident, self-proving and indisputable. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or racist or both.
Not a bad gig–making shit up that no one can contest and remain in polite company.
I read the entire Wikipedia pieces on diversity and intersectionality. If I wanted to force Jihadists terror suspects to fess up, I’d read to them extensively from this subset of alleged academia. It is a complete mish-mash of socio-babble that, but for taxpayer and alumni-funded chairs, would gain zero traction in the marketplace of ideas.
The problem with getting on the really high moral ground is that the air thins out and impairs the thought processes.
So much that coddled black students on campus are demanding and getting segregated housing. Because young white and others are presumably so insensitive to young black needs that these poor little hothouse flowers just can’t live in an integrated community.
Has it occurred to anyone that when it hits the fan in someplace like Ferguson or the University of Missouri, the number of protesters is a small fraction of the (almost always) African American population. Does it ever occur to anyone that this small slice of the community is actually not representative? Does it make sense that most African American students get by pretty much ok, that they are uncomfortable making “demands” (because people who make demands sound like entitled assholes) and that they’d just like to get through the week, pass their tests, get their papers written and have some fun on the weekend?
And on this happy topic, anyone who thinks huge progress hasn’t been made has their head in the sand. However, that hasn’t prevented the racial grievance industry from being a growth industry on campus. The problem with people whose livelihood depends on fighting prejudice is, if they can’t find any prejudice, they are out of work. So, we have microaggressions and safe spaces and all of the other guacamole that goes with the stupidity that is extreme campus PC.
But you’ve got your diverse crew happily nodding their head when you give them the pep talk while they bring you your coffee (why is it that no one _above_ you seems to be diverse?), so move along, there’s nothing to see.
Hmm, a bit of rewriting going on here. Actually, we had lunch and I paid. I get my own coffee and no one is above me, been that way since 1995 or thereabouts, certainly since 2000. Since 2000, I’ve either owned my own shop or, as is the case today, I am one of 30 or so owners and–since you brought it up–probably somewhere between first and third on the combined metrics of personal collections, business origination and number of files managed and I’m on the firm’s executive committee. I’m definitely first out of 200 plus lawyers in number of cases tried to verdict and I’m probably first in number of appeals. I got all of that at the White Boy Club, where they hand that shit out as door prizes. It’s a gift. Don’t ever let anyone tell you it is earned. That is a big myth.
LJ on 9/4 at 8:03 pm.
Any number of people try to patiently and carefully explain this, pointing out that there is a difference between talking about privilege and accusing someone of racism.
LJ on 9/2 at 7:35 pm.
Privilege is the refracted image of the racism and sexism that we see when some of these arguments are deployed. I would be much more willing to restrict addressing privilege in the way that McT and Marty say if we didn’t see the root cause bubbling up all the time.
So, it’s kind of a moving target.
Ironically, intersectionality has made the biggest impact in feminism, especially for people of color and the fact that Kimberlé Crenshaw, a black feminist scholar, first came up with it, should be a prima facie argument against McT’S claim that we can’t really give it much credence because academy that it comes from is not diverse.
LJ, do you get the difference between intellectual diversity and ethnic/gender diversity? Did you read Donald’s link? Did you see the Kristoff quote? Seriously, this is why holding the ‘academy’ out as some kind of self-authenticating, self-credentialing entity is crap. The academy you are talking about will not tolerate and in fact marginalizes dissent. It will not submit to rigorous cross examination, testing etc in the manner of the scientific method.
Your academy is most like the medieval Catholic Church. It deals in received wisdom, inferred or derived from inviolate precepts and hands down dogma, anathematizing the heretics.
In summary, the word Doc S is looking for is advantage. It isn’t fair and it will be around a while longer, but it is and has been diminishing. The demographic trends, if nothing else, tell us this will most certainly continue.
But the real problem with *privilege* as a concept is that it means different things to different people. It can be presented in a relatively mild, non-judgmental way, or it can be an intellectual club used to silence contrary views. I am grateful to LJ for making the point I tried to make initially. The privilege that dominates PC progressivism is most like that oozing out of the academy. And *that* privilege is bullshit.
it is an appeal to authority, but given that you don’t seem to have any understanding of what intersectionality is,
You may be right. I read about it and it seems to be a fancy way of saying that everyone is the sum of a series of related and unrelated parts which produces an unique perspective for each individual and then–and here’s the fun part–it all ties into “oppression, domination and racism”. Bingo!
And trying to turn the tables by talking about the lack of diversity in the academy is like saying there were no Republican slaveholders. It’s diversion, plain and simple. If you don’t like to talk about it, no problem, but until you show some minimal understanding of the term, you really shouldn’t try and use it to make a point, cause you’ll just whack yourself on the back of the head with it.
There is no meaningful intellectual/political/philosophical diversity in the academy, particularly in the social sciences and even more particularly in that quarter of social science that comes up with ideas like ‘intersectionality’. You can say otherwise but that doesn’t make it so.
Indeed, any substantive pushback is racist, oppressive domination. Or, ignorance. Either way, the veracity/efficacy of privelege/intersectionality is self-evident, self-proving and indisputable. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or racist or both.
Not a bad gig–making shit up that no one can contest and remain in polite company.
I read the entire Wikipedia pieces on diversity and intersectionality. If I wanted to force Jihadists terror suspects to fess up, I’d read to them extensively from this subset of alleged academia. It is a complete mish-mash of socio-babble that, but for taxpayer and alumni-funded chairs, would gain zero traction in the marketplace of ideas.
The problem with getting on the really high moral ground is that the air thins out and impairs the thought processes.
So much that coddled black students on campus are demanding and getting segregated housing. Because young white and others are presumably so insensitive to young black needs that these poor little hothouse flowers just can’t live in an integrated community.
Has it occurred to anyone that when it hits the fan in someplace like Ferguson or the University of Missouri, the number of protesters is a small fraction of the (almost always) African American population. Does it ever occur to anyone that this small slice of the community is actually not representative? Does it make sense that most African American students get by pretty much ok, that they are uncomfortable making “demands” (because people who make demands sound like entitled assholes) and that they’d just like to get through the week, pass their tests, get their papers written and have some fun on the weekend?
And on this happy topic, anyone who thinks huge progress hasn’t been made has their head in the sand. However, that hasn’t prevented the racial grievance industry from being a growth industry on campus. The problem with people whose livelihood depends on fighting prejudice is, if they can’t find any prejudice, they are out of work. So, we have microaggressions and safe spaces and all of the other guacamole that goes with the stupidity that is extreme campus PC.
But you’ve got your diverse crew happily nodding their head when you give them the pep talk while they bring you your coffee (why is it that no one _above_ you seems to be diverse?), so move along, there’s nothing to see.
Hmm, a bit of rewriting going on here. Actually, we had lunch and I paid. I get my own coffee and no one is above me, been that way since 1995 or thereabouts, certainly since 2000. Since 2000, I’ve either owned my own shop or, as is the case today, I am one of 30 or so owners and–since you brought it up–probably somewhere between first and third on the combined metrics of personal collections, business origination and number of files managed and I’m on the firm’s executive committee. I’m definitely first out of 200 plus lawyers in number of cases tried to verdict and I’m probably first in number of appeals. I got all of that at the White Boy Club, where they hand that shit out as door prizes. It’s a gift. Don’t ever let anyone tell you it is earned. That is a big myth.
LJ on 9/4 at 8:03 pm.
Any number of people try to patiently and carefully explain this, pointing out that there is a difference between talking about privilege and accusing someone of racism.
LJ on 9/2 at 7:35 pm.
Privilege is the refracted image of the racism and sexism that we see when some of these arguments are deployed. I would be much more willing to restrict addressing privilege in the way that McT and Marty say if we didn’t see the root cause bubbling up all the time.
So, it’s kind of a moving target.
Ironically, intersectionality has made the biggest impact in feminism, especially for people of color and the fact that Kimberlé Crenshaw, a black feminist scholar, first came up with it, should be a prima facie argument against McT’S claim that we can’t really give it much credence because academy that it comes from is not diverse.
LJ, do you get the difference between intellectual diversity and ethnic/gender diversity? Did you read Donald’s link? Did you see the Kristoff quote? Seriously, this is why holding the ‘academy’ out as some kind of self-authenticating, self-credentialing entity is crap. The academy you are talking about will not tolerate and in fact marginalizes dissent. It will not submit to rigorous cross examination, testing etc in the manner of the scientific method.
Your academy is most like the medieval Catholic Church. It deals in received wisdom, inferred or derived from inviolate precepts and hands down dogma, anathematizing the heretics.
In summary, the word Doc S is looking for is advantage. It isn’t fair and it will be around a while longer, but it is and has been diminishing. The demographic trends, if nothing else, tell us this will most certainly continue.
But the real problem with *privilege* as a concept is that it means different things to different people. It can be presented in a relatively mild, non-judgmental way, or it can be an intellectual club used to silence contrary views. I am grateful to LJ for making the point I tried to make initially. The privilege that dominates PC progressivism is most like that oozing out of the academy. And *that* privilege is bullshit.
it is an appeal to authority, but given that you don’t seem to have any understanding of what intersectionality is,
You may be right. I read about it and it seems to be a fancy way of saying that everyone is the sum of a series of related and unrelated parts which produces an unique perspective for each individual and then–and here’s the fun part–it all ties into “oppression, domination and racism”. Bingo!
And trying to turn the tables by talking about the lack of diversity in the academy is like saying there were no Republican slaveholders. It’s diversion, plain and simple. If you don’t like to talk about it, no problem, but until you show some minimal understanding of the term, you really shouldn’t try and use it to make a point, cause you’ll just whack yourself on the back of the head with it.
There is no meaningful intellectual/political/philosophical diversity in the academy, particularly in the social sciences and even more particularly in that quarter of social science that comes up with ideas like ‘intersectionality’. You can say otherwise but that doesn’t make it so.
Indeed, any substantive pushback is racist, oppressive domination. Or, ignorance. Either way, the veracity/efficacy of privelege/intersectionality is self-evident, self-proving and indisputable. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or racist or both.
Not a bad gig–making shit up that no one can contest and remain in polite company.
I read the entire Wikipedia pieces on diversity and intersectionality. If I wanted to force Jihadists terror suspects to fess up, I’d read to them extensively from this subset of alleged academia. It is a complete mish-mash of socio-babble that, but for taxpayer and alumni-funded chairs, would gain zero traction in the marketplace of ideas.
The problem with getting on the really high moral ground is that the air thins out and impairs the thought processes.
So much that coddled black students on campus are demanding and getting segregated housing. Because young white and others are presumably so insensitive to young black needs that these poor little hothouse flowers just can’t live in an integrated community.
Has it occurred to anyone that when it hits the fan in someplace like Ferguson or the University of Missouri, the number of protesters is a small fraction of the (almost always) African American population. Does it ever occur to anyone that this small slice of the community is actually not representative? Does it make sense that most African American students get by pretty much ok, that they are uncomfortable making “demands” (because people who make demands sound like entitled assholes) and that they’d just like to get through the week, pass their tests, get their papers written and have some fun on the weekend?
And on this happy topic, anyone who thinks huge progress hasn’t been made has their head in the sand. However, that hasn’t prevented the racial grievance industry from being a growth industry on campus. The problem with people whose livelihood depends on fighting prejudice is, if they can’t find any prejudice, they are out of work. So, we have microaggressions and safe spaces and all of the other guacamole that goes with the stupidity that is extreme campus PC.
But you’ve got your diverse crew happily nodding their head when you give them the pep talk while they bring you your coffee (why is it that no one _above_ you seems to be diverse?), so move along, there’s nothing to see.
Hmm, a bit of rewriting going on here. Actually, we had lunch and I paid. I get my own coffee and no one is above me, been that way since 1995 or thereabouts, certainly since 2000. Since 2000, I’ve either owned my own shop or, as is the case today, I am one of 30 or so owners and–since you brought it up–probably somewhere between first and third on the combined metrics of personal collections, business origination and number of files managed and I’m on the firm’s executive committee. I’m definitely first out of 200 plus lawyers in number of cases tried to verdict and I’m probably first in number of appeals. I got all of that at the White Boy Club, where they hand that shit out as door prizes. It’s a gift. Don’t ever let anyone tell you it is earned. That is a big myth.
LJ on 9/4 at 8:03 pm.
Any number of people try to patiently and carefully explain this, pointing out that there is a difference between talking about privilege and accusing someone of racism.
LJ on 9/2 at 7:35 pm.
Privilege is the refracted image of the racism and sexism that we see when some of these arguments are deployed. I would be much more willing to restrict addressing privilege in the way that McT and Marty say if we didn’t see the root cause bubbling up all the time.
So, it’s kind of a moving target.
Ironically, intersectionality has made the biggest impact in feminism, especially for people of color and the fact that Kimberlé Crenshaw, a black feminist scholar, first came up with it, should be a prima facie argument against McT’S claim that we can’t really give it much credence because academy that it comes from is not diverse.
LJ, do you get the difference between intellectual diversity and ethnic/gender diversity? Did you read Donald’s link? Did you see the Kristoff quote? Seriously, this is why holding the ‘academy’ out as some kind of self-authenticating, self-credentialing entity is crap. The academy you are talking about will not tolerate and in fact marginalizes dissent. It will not submit to rigorous cross examination, testing etc in the manner of the scientific method.
Your academy is most like the medieval Catholic Church. It deals in received wisdom, inferred or derived from inviolate precepts and hands down dogma, anathematizing the heretics.
In summary, the word Doc S is looking for is advantage. It isn’t fair and it will be around a while longer, but it is and has been diminishing. The demographic trends, if nothing else, tell us this will most certainly continue.
But the real problem with *privilege* as a concept is that it means different things to different people. It can be presented in a relatively mild, non-judgmental way, or it can be an intellectual club used to silence contrary views. I am grateful to LJ for making the point I tried to make initially. The privilege that dominates PC progressivism is most like that oozing out of the academy. And *that* privilege is bullshit.
Interesting link, bobby, but I do wish left of centre critics would actually read a bit of Adam Smith…
The great nineteenth century economist, John Stuart Mill, writing well after Adam Smith, was skeptical that competition alone was the great regulator as Smith insisted it was in his invisible hand…
Smith was equally sceptical:
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
Interesting link, bobby, but I do wish left of centre critics would actually read a bit of Adam Smith…
The great nineteenth century economist, John Stuart Mill, writing well after Adam Smith, was skeptical that competition alone was the great regulator as Smith insisted it was in his invisible hand…
Smith was equally sceptical:
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
Interesting link, bobby, but I do wish left of centre critics would actually read a bit of Adam Smith…
The great nineteenth century economist, John Stuart Mill, writing well after Adam Smith, was skeptical that competition alone was the great regulator as Smith insisted it was in his invisible hand…
Smith was equally sceptical:
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
As russell has pointed out here on many occasions, it is not Adam Smith who is the problem. It is those who have perverted his writing, distilling it down to a simplistic, absolutist, rule-based system without context, nuance or conditionality.
As russell has pointed out here on many occasions, it is not Adam Smith who is the problem. It is those who have perverted his writing, distilling it down to a simplistic, absolutist, rule-based system without context, nuance or conditionality.
As russell has pointed out here on many occasions, it is not Adam Smith who is the problem. It is those who have perverted his writing, distilling it down to a simplistic, absolutist, rule-based system without context, nuance or conditionality.
For those of you outside the US, is there a particular ideological makeup of the Academy in the “social sciences” in the Universities in your country? If so, in what direction?
For those of you outside the US, is there a particular ideological makeup of the Academy in the “social sciences” in the Universities in your country? If so, in what direction?
For those of you outside the US, is there a particular ideological makeup of the Academy in the “social sciences” in the Universities in your country? If so, in what direction?
There is very good reason to distrust the social “sciences”, independent of politics.
To put it simply: Humans make shitty data points.
Which is true, but the implications you seem to be taking are not necessarily true.
No, you can’t do well trying to predict what *a* human being will do. At least, not without a lot of study of that particular individual.
But social sciences are not the only place where that can be a problem. Try figuring out the path of a specific individual air molecule some time. And you definitely can’t just take that and scale up by billions and reach a sensible conclusion.**
But, by using a large mass of air molecules, fluid dynamics (and things like aeronautical engineering) become possible. The same approach, using human beings in large numbers (statistics, not just aggregate multiple data points), starts to get you something that starts to work.
** Note that it still isn’t particularly simple. Read up on the Navier Stokes equations some time. In engineering school, we would have an entire quarter on each different topic, which was addressed with a particular set of massive simplifying assumptions — frictionless flows, boundary layers, etc., etc., etc.
There is very good reason to distrust the social “sciences”, independent of politics.
To put it simply: Humans make shitty data points.
Which is true, but the implications you seem to be taking are not necessarily true.
No, you can’t do well trying to predict what *a* human being will do. At least, not without a lot of study of that particular individual.
But social sciences are not the only place where that can be a problem. Try figuring out the path of a specific individual air molecule some time. And you definitely can’t just take that and scale up by billions and reach a sensible conclusion.**
But, by using a large mass of air molecules, fluid dynamics (and things like aeronautical engineering) become possible. The same approach, using human beings in large numbers (statistics, not just aggregate multiple data points), starts to get you something that starts to work.
** Note that it still isn’t particularly simple. Read up on the Navier Stokes equations some time. In engineering school, we would have an entire quarter on each different topic, which was addressed with a particular set of massive simplifying assumptions — frictionless flows, boundary layers, etc., etc., etc.
There is very good reason to distrust the social “sciences”, independent of politics.
To put it simply: Humans make shitty data points.
Which is true, but the implications you seem to be taking are not necessarily true.
No, you can’t do well trying to predict what *a* human being will do. At least, not without a lot of study of that particular individual.
But social sciences are not the only place where that can be a problem. Try figuring out the path of a specific individual air molecule some time. And you definitely can’t just take that and scale up by billions and reach a sensible conclusion.**
But, by using a large mass of air molecules, fluid dynamics (and things like aeronautical engineering) become possible. The same approach, using human beings in large numbers (statistics, not just aggregate multiple data points), starts to get you something that starts to work.
** Note that it still isn’t particularly simple. Read up on the Navier Stokes equations some time. In engineering school, we would have an entire quarter on each different topic, which was addressed with a particular set of massive simplifying assumptions — frictionless flows, boundary layers, etc., etc., etc.
You people write faster than I can read, but I have learned at least one thing from this thread:
“Privilege” is a trigger word for some people.
There ought to be a policy about it.
–TP
You people write faster than I can read, but I have learned at least one thing from this thread:
“Privilege” is a trigger word for some people.
There ought to be a policy about it.
–TP
You people write faster than I can read, but I have learned at least one thing from this thread:
“Privilege” is a trigger word for some people.
There ought to be a policy about it.
–TP
There is no meaningful intellectual/political/philosophical diversity in the academy, particularly in the social sciences
Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you spent any time at a university, hanging out with social science faculty? Because my own experience (admittedly quite a while ago) was that there was a range of views there.
The far left views got a lot more press. Not least because they were so different from the views of society as a whole. But they were not the whole story, or even anywhere near the majority opinion. They just were the most visible — in fact, at the time you could easily have concluded from what you read in the news that the social science (and other) faculty were universally radical extremists. They weren’t.
Things might have changed, I don’t know. But unless you spend several weeks sitting in a variety of classes, or hanging out in the faculty lounge, you don’t know either. And even then, unless you assume quite a bit of uniformity across all colleges and universities, saying “the academy” is all of one ideology is, to be kind, a real stretch.
There is no meaningful intellectual/political/philosophical diversity in the academy, particularly in the social sciences
Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you spent any time at a university, hanging out with social science faculty? Because my own experience (admittedly quite a while ago) was that there was a range of views there.
The far left views got a lot more press. Not least because they were so different from the views of society as a whole. But they were not the whole story, or even anywhere near the majority opinion. They just were the most visible — in fact, at the time you could easily have concluded from what you read in the news that the social science (and other) faculty were universally radical extremists. They weren’t.
Things might have changed, I don’t know. But unless you spend several weeks sitting in a variety of classes, or hanging out in the faculty lounge, you don’t know either. And even then, unless you assume quite a bit of uniformity across all colleges and universities, saying “the academy” is all of one ideology is, to be kind, a real stretch.
There is no meaningful intellectual/political/philosophical diversity in the academy, particularly in the social sciences
Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you spent any time at a university, hanging out with social science faculty? Because my own experience (admittedly quite a while ago) was that there was a range of views there.
The far left views got a lot more press. Not least because they were so different from the views of society as a whole. But they were not the whole story, or even anywhere near the majority opinion. They just were the most visible — in fact, at the time you could easily have concluded from what you read in the news that the social science (and other) faculty were universally radical extremists. They weren’t.
Things might have changed, I don’t know. But unless you spend several weeks sitting in a variety of classes, or hanging out in the faculty lounge, you don’t know either. And even then, unless you assume quite a bit of uniformity across all colleges and universities, saying “the academy” is all of one ideology is, to be kind, a real stretch.
There is no meaningful intellectual/political/philosophical diversity in the academy
troll.
There is no meaningful intellectual/political/philosophical diversity in the academy
troll.
There is no meaningful intellectual/political/philosophical diversity in the academy
troll.
The ideas that governed the mainstream economics profession since the 1980s were turned into rules when they were at best only hypotheses. Rules are easier to deal with; ambiguity and uncertainty are shunted aside. But the world is not so simple, and good policy is scarce when a profession once dedicated to brilliant thinking and extemporaneous judgment to fit changing times turns to formula and ultimately cliché.
I wonder if this is true also for the mainstream of LJ’s academy? And for the thought process underlying the regulatory state?
On the merits, is the author saying inflation is good because it makes wages go up? Don’t prices go up too, offsetting the wage gain? Wouldn’t there be less inequality today if those 1% bastards weren’t hoarding all the gold? If inequality is the concern, can it be demonstrated that inflating wages and prices across the board would materially affect the upper part of the 1%?
McTx’s diversity complaint seems to be that there isn’t enough ‘ideological’ diversity in the ‘academy’. specifically, he wants “conservative” ideas to have equal representation.
Sort of. I’d settle for–hell, I’d prefer–a broad range of intellectual thought with the express understanding that any idea one puts forth is subject to rigorous proof and testing.
The ideas that governed the mainstream economics profession since the 1980s were turned into rules when they were at best only hypotheses. Rules are easier to deal with; ambiguity and uncertainty are shunted aside. But the world is not so simple, and good policy is scarce when a profession once dedicated to brilliant thinking and extemporaneous judgment to fit changing times turns to formula and ultimately cliché.
I wonder if this is true also for the mainstream of LJ’s academy? And for the thought process underlying the regulatory state?
On the merits, is the author saying inflation is good because it makes wages go up? Don’t prices go up too, offsetting the wage gain? Wouldn’t there be less inequality today if those 1% bastards weren’t hoarding all the gold? If inequality is the concern, can it be demonstrated that inflating wages and prices across the board would materially affect the upper part of the 1%?
McTx’s diversity complaint seems to be that there isn’t enough ‘ideological’ diversity in the ‘academy’. specifically, he wants “conservative” ideas to have equal representation.
Sort of. I’d settle for–hell, I’d prefer–a broad range of intellectual thought with the express understanding that any idea one puts forth is subject to rigorous proof and testing.
The ideas that governed the mainstream economics profession since the 1980s were turned into rules when they were at best only hypotheses. Rules are easier to deal with; ambiguity and uncertainty are shunted aside. But the world is not so simple, and good policy is scarce when a profession once dedicated to brilliant thinking and extemporaneous judgment to fit changing times turns to formula and ultimately cliché.
I wonder if this is true also for the mainstream of LJ’s academy? And for the thought process underlying the regulatory state?
On the merits, is the author saying inflation is good because it makes wages go up? Don’t prices go up too, offsetting the wage gain? Wouldn’t there be less inequality today if those 1% bastards weren’t hoarding all the gold? If inequality is the concern, can it be demonstrated that inflating wages and prices across the board would materially affect the upper part of the 1%?
McTx’s diversity complaint seems to be that there isn’t enough ‘ideological’ diversity in the ‘academy’. specifically, he wants “conservative” ideas to have equal representation.
Sort of. I’d settle for–hell, I’d prefer–a broad range of intellectual thought with the express understanding that any idea one puts forth is subject to rigorous proof and testing.
troll.
Yep, I’m making it up: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/diversifying-the-academy-how-conservative-academics-can-thrive-in-liberal-academia/EBDEEC82C4D7EA1AEB876D44E8772333
This article attempts to make the case that it really isn’t just prejudice against conservative thought that produces such political lopsidedness in academia, but rather “it is more complex”. Hmmm, sound familiar–we’re not bigots, it’s more complicated than that!?!?!?
The article also usefully offers guidance to conservative scholars on how they can prosper in the liberal academic environment. Imagine someone writing an article for black college bound students with the same theme.
troll.
Yep, I’m making it up: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/diversifying-the-academy-how-conservative-academics-can-thrive-in-liberal-academia/EBDEEC82C4D7EA1AEB876D44E8772333
This article attempts to make the case that it really isn’t just prejudice against conservative thought that produces such political lopsidedness in academia, but rather “it is more complex”. Hmmm, sound familiar–we’re not bigots, it’s more complicated than that!?!?!?
The article also usefully offers guidance to conservative scholars on how they can prosper in the liberal academic environment. Imagine someone writing an article for black college bound students with the same theme.
troll.
Yep, I’m making it up: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/diversifying-the-academy-how-conservative-academics-can-thrive-in-liberal-academia/EBDEEC82C4D7EA1AEB876D44E8772333
This article attempts to make the case that it really isn’t just prejudice against conservative thought that produces such political lopsidedness in academia, but rather “it is more complex”. Hmmm, sound familiar–we’re not bigots, it’s more complicated than that!?!?!?
The article also usefully offers guidance to conservative scholars on how they can prosper in the liberal academic environment. Imagine someone writing an article for black college bound students with the same theme.
is the author saying inflation is good because it makes wages go up? Don’t prices go up too, offsetting the wage gain?
Yes, prices go up some. Albeit usually not as much. More to the point, for most of the population, which has debt (mortages, as well as credit cards, etc.), their expenses relative to income for things like interest go down because the value (as opposed to the absolute number) of their debt goes down.
The down side is for those who are creditors, rather than debtors. Because our savings is worth less, and our interest payments smaller, than it would have been without inflation.
Since the wealthy tend to have more assets, and the poor more debt, it’s basically a method of wealth equalization that doesn’t require government legislative action. Of course, if you would rather the poor stay poor, that’s a bad thing….
is the author saying inflation is good because it makes wages go up? Don’t prices go up too, offsetting the wage gain?
Yes, prices go up some. Albeit usually not as much. More to the point, for most of the population, which has debt (mortages, as well as credit cards, etc.), their expenses relative to income for things like interest go down because the value (as opposed to the absolute number) of their debt goes down.
The down side is for those who are creditors, rather than debtors. Because our savings is worth less, and our interest payments smaller, than it would have been without inflation.
Since the wealthy tend to have more assets, and the poor more debt, it’s basically a method of wealth equalization that doesn’t require government legislative action. Of course, if you would rather the poor stay poor, that’s a bad thing….
is the author saying inflation is good because it makes wages go up? Don’t prices go up too, offsetting the wage gain?
Yes, prices go up some. Albeit usually not as much. More to the point, for most of the population, which has debt (mortages, as well as credit cards, etc.), their expenses relative to income for things like interest go down because the value (as opposed to the absolute number) of their debt goes down.
The down side is for those who are creditors, rather than debtors. Because our savings is worth less, and our interest payments smaller, than it would have been without inflation.
Since the wealthy tend to have more assets, and the poor more debt, it’s basically a method of wealth equalization that doesn’t require government legislative action. Of course, if you would rather the poor stay poor, that’s a bad thing….
Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you spent any time at a university, hanging out with social science faculty? Because my own experience (admittedly quite a while ago) was that there was a range of views there.
When I got my history degree in 1977, there was one Rockefeller Republican and 20 plus Democrats on the history faculty. One Republican and 20 or so Democrats on the Poli Sci faculty. Ditto sociology. I didn’t hang out in anthropology or econ departments (which is less lefty). Google the topic (intellectual diversity in US academia) and see if you can find a piece that claims there is balance. Good luck. The imbalance is a documented, well known phenomena.
Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you spent any time at a university, hanging out with social science faculty? Because my own experience (admittedly quite a while ago) was that there was a range of views there.
When I got my history degree in 1977, there was one Rockefeller Republican and 20 plus Democrats on the history faculty. One Republican and 20 or so Democrats on the Poli Sci faculty. Ditto sociology. I didn’t hang out in anthropology or econ departments (which is less lefty). Google the topic (intellectual diversity in US academia) and see if you can find a piece that claims there is balance. Good luck. The imbalance is a documented, well known phenomena.
Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you spent any time at a university, hanging out with social science faculty? Because my own experience (admittedly quite a while ago) was that there was a range of views there.
When I got my history degree in 1977, there was one Rockefeller Republican and 20 plus Democrats on the history faculty. One Republican and 20 or so Democrats on the Poli Sci faculty. Ditto sociology. I didn’t hang out in anthropology or econ departments (which is less lefty). Google the topic (intellectual diversity in US academia) and see if you can find a piece that claims there is balance. Good luck. The imbalance is a documented, well known phenomena.
Yep, I’m making it up:
you’re trolling.
because this “There is no meaningful intellectual/political/philosophical diversity in the academy” is either trivially easy to disprove or entirely dependent on your own personal definitions of “meaningful” and “academy”.
Yep, I’m making it up:
you’re trolling.
because this “There is no meaningful intellectual/political/philosophical diversity in the academy” is either trivially easy to disprove or entirely dependent on your own personal definitions of “meaningful” and “academy”.
Yep, I’m making it up:
you’re trolling.
because this “There is no meaningful intellectual/political/philosophical diversity in the academy” is either trivially easy to disprove or entirely dependent on your own personal definitions of “meaningful” and “academy”.
because this “There is no meaningful intellectual/political/philosophical diversity in the academy” is either trivially easy to disprove or entirely dependent on your own personal definitions of “meaningful” and “academy”.
Fine. Disprove it.
because this “There is no meaningful intellectual/political/philosophical diversity in the academy” is either trivially easy to disprove or entirely dependent on your own personal definitions of “meaningful” and “academy”.
Fine. Disprove it.
because this “There is no meaningful intellectual/political/philosophical diversity in the academy” is either trivially easy to disprove or entirely dependent on your own personal definitions of “meaningful” and “academy”.
Fine. Disprove it.
I’d settle for–hell, I’d prefer–a broad range of intellectual thought with the express understanding that any idea one puts forth is subject to rigorous proof and testing.
do you actually know any academics?
I’d settle for–hell, I’d prefer–a broad range of intellectual thought with the express understanding that any idea one puts forth is subject to rigorous proof and testing.
do you actually know any academics?
I’d settle for–hell, I’d prefer–a broad range of intellectual thought with the express understanding that any idea one puts forth is subject to rigorous proof and testing.
do you actually know any academics?
The imbalance is a documented, well known phenomena.
I’m pretty sure that if the imbalance exists, it’s because facts have a liberal bias.
The imbalance is a documented, well known phenomena.
I’m pretty sure that if the imbalance exists, it’s because facts have a liberal bias.
The imbalance is a documented, well known phenomena.
I’m pretty sure that if the imbalance exists, it’s because facts have a liberal bias.
For those of you outside the US, is there a particular ideological makeup of the Academy in the “social sciences” in the Universities in your country? If so, in what direction?
The only serious academics I know these days are a) very right wing and b) in the humanities (literature, history etc) rather than the social sciences. They certainly claim that there is a strong liberal/left wing bias in a) the media, and b) their part of the academy (and presumably would say it was even worse in the social sciences). I cannot say to what extent it is true in the academy, but I believe (I wonder if Nigel or our other UK residents concur?) it is generally untrue about the media in this country, except in the case of newspapers, who make their allegiance explicit (Guardian, Independent, Mirror, Observer: liberal/lefty, all the rest, who have generally much higher circulations, the Times, Sunday Times, Sun, Mail, Mail on Sunday, Express and Sunday Express: conservative/right wing). The BBC, unfortunately and unfairly I believe, has been somewhat intimidated by these kinds of accusations of liberal bias, however, so that they now often adhere to the kind of “evenhandedness” so well satirised by John Oliver in his piece about climate change: i.e. in studio discussions on the subject, they often have one exponent of climate change versus one climate change denier, rather than a properly evenhanded discussion, reflective of the views of actual scientific experts, which would have one climate change denier versus ninety nine supporters of it.
For those of you outside the US, is there a particular ideological makeup of the Academy in the “social sciences” in the Universities in your country? If so, in what direction?
The only serious academics I know these days are a) very right wing and b) in the humanities (literature, history etc) rather than the social sciences. They certainly claim that there is a strong liberal/left wing bias in a) the media, and b) their part of the academy (and presumably would say it was even worse in the social sciences). I cannot say to what extent it is true in the academy, but I believe (I wonder if Nigel or our other UK residents concur?) it is generally untrue about the media in this country, except in the case of newspapers, who make their allegiance explicit (Guardian, Independent, Mirror, Observer: liberal/lefty, all the rest, who have generally much higher circulations, the Times, Sunday Times, Sun, Mail, Mail on Sunday, Express and Sunday Express: conservative/right wing). The BBC, unfortunately and unfairly I believe, has been somewhat intimidated by these kinds of accusations of liberal bias, however, so that they now often adhere to the kind of “evenhandedness” so well satirised by John Oliver in his piece about climate change: i.e. in studio discussions on the subject, they often have one exponent of climate change versus one climate change denier, rather than a properly evenhanded discussion, reflective of the views of actual scientific experts, which would have one climate change denier versus ninety nine supporters of it.
For those of you outside the US, is there a particular ideological makeup of the Academy in the “social sciences” in the Universities in your country? If so, in what direction?
The only serious academics I know these days are a) very right wing and b) in the humanities (literature, history etc) rather than the social sciences. They certainly claim that there is a strong liberal/left wing bias in a) the media, and b) their part of the academy (and presumably would say it was even worse in the social sciences). I cannot say to what extent it is true in the academy, but I believe (I wonder if Nigel or our other UK residents concur?) it is generally untrue about the media in this country, except in the case of newspapers, who make their allegiance explicit (Guardian, Independent, Mirror, Observer: liberal/lefty, all the rest, who have generally much higher circulations, the Times, Sunday Times, Sun, Mail, Mail on Sunday, Express and Sunday Express: conservative/right wing). The BBC, unfortunately and unfairly I believe, has been somewhat intimidated by these kinds of accusations of liberal bias, however, so that they now often adhere to the kind of “evenhandedness” so well satirised by John Oliver in his piece about climate change: i.e. in studio discussions on the subject, they often have one exponent of climate change versus one climate change denier, rather than a properly evenhanded discussion, reflective of the views of actual scientific experts, which would have one climate change denier versus ninety nine supporters of it.
“There is no meaningful intellectual/political/philosophical diversity in the academy”
if there wasn’t, academics would always agree on everything. they don’t.
“There is no meaningful intellectual/political/philosophical diversity in the academy”
if there wasn’t, academics would always agree on everything. they don’t.
“There is no meaningful intellectual/political/philosophical diversity in the academy”
if there wasn’t, academics would always agree on everything. they don’t.
“As russell has pointed out here on many occasions, it is not Adam Smith who is the problem. It is those who have perverted his writing, distilling it down to a simplistic, absolutist, rule-based system without context, nuance or conditionality.”
Actually, some conservatives admit that Smith provides context, nuance, and conditionality, but take him to task for those very qualities because it has provided fodder for those who criticize free market excesses, failures, and shortcomings.
Better that he was an absolutist:
Behind a subscription wall (see, there’s a failure right there; mere mortals can’t read it) but the opinion piece from a couple of issues ago can be had in the Barrons at your local socialist library.
http://www.barrons.com/articles/the-trouble-with-adam-smith-1471670360
Epstein, in the issue not a week or two later, cites Adam Smith in support of free trade, where Epstein concludes, I guess, that Smith is suitably absolutist, which I would have to go back and re-read Smith to confirm.
In other trivia, I’d be curious to know the conservative/liberal makeup of academia say, pre-1965, and people’s opinions about whether or not social science academia since then, was sort of the FOX News of the Left (We teach and research, you decide), as a severe reaction to what was perceived to have gone before, such as the strict (varying from here to there) adherence to religious affiliation and the segregationist/sexual/gender policies of so many private universities and colleges pre-1975.
I have a acquaintance who attended Baylor University, pretty darned Baptist back then) in the late 1970s and claims he was brainwashed … I say, brainwashed! by the liberal faculty and curriculum, (much later to be brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh). He is usually five sheets to the wind alcohol-wise when he vomits this stuff from his mouth, which I’m certain is against Baylor’s alcohol policy, then and now, but maybe alcoholism is a conservative value (I kid; it’s not. The alcohol content of conservative and liberal bloodstreams when I attended school was very well balanced at the high end of the scale).
I’d be more convinced if conservative (not McKinney – he says right above he wants a broad range of intellectual thought) social science departments in academia — George Mason University, Claremont etc, showed the way by opening their academia to more liberal thought as well, but they won’t, even if so-called liberal academia becomes more fair and balanced.
I demand that right-wing religious schools air out their strict academic biases as well, but see, that would be an attack on religious freedom.
“As russell has pointed out here on many occasions, it is not Adam Smith who is the problem. It is those who have perverted his writing, distilling it down to a simplistic, absolutist, rule-based system without context, nuance or conditionality.”
Actually, some conservatives admit that Smith provides context, nuance, and conditionality, but take him to task for those very qualities because it has provided fodder for those who criticize free market excesses, failures, and shortcomings.
Better that he was an absolutist:
Behind a subscription wall (see, there’s a failure right there; mere mortals can’t read it) but the opinion piece from a couple of issues ago can be had in the Barrons at your local socialist library.
http://www.barrons.com/articles/the-trouble-with-adam-smith-1471670360
Epstein, in the issue not a week or two later, cites Adam Smith in support of free trade, where Epstein concludes, I guess, that Smith is suitably absolutist, which I would have to go back and re-read Smith to confirm.
In other trivia, I’d be curious to know the conservative/liberal makeup of academia say, pre-1965, and people’s opinions about whether or not social science academia since then, was sort of the FOX News of the Left (We teach and research, you decide), as a severe reaction to what was perceived to have gone before, such as the strict (varying from here to there) adherence to religious affiliation and the segregationist/sexual/gender policies of so many private universities and colleges pre-1975.
I have a acquaintance who attended Baylor University, pretty darned Baptist back then) in the late 1970s and claims he was brainwashed … I say, brainwashed! by the liberal faculty and curriculum, (much later to be brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh). He is usually five sheets to the wind alcohol-wise when he vomits this stuff from his mouth, which I’m certain is against Baylor’s alcohol policy, then and now, but maybe alcoholism is a conservative value (I kid; it’s not. The alcohol content of conservative and liberal bloodstreams when I attended school was very well balanced at the high end of the scale).
I’d be more convinced if conservative (not McKinney – he says right above he wants a broad range of intellectual thought) social science departments in academia — George Mason University, Claremont etc, showed the way by opening their academia to more liberal thought as well, but they won’t, even if so-called liberal academia becomes more fair and balanced.
I demand that right-wing religious schools air out their strict academic biases as well, but see, that would be an attack on religious freedom.
“As russell has pointed out here on many occasions, it is not Adam Smith who is the problem. It is those who have perverted his writing, distilling it down to a simplistic, absolutist, rule-based system without context, nuance or conditionality.”
Actually, some conservatives admit that Smith provides context, nuance, and conditionality, but take him to task for those very qualities because it has provided fodder for those who criticize free market excesses, failures, and shortcomings.
Better that he was an absolutist:
Behind a subscription wall (see, there’s a failure right there; mere mortals can’t read it) but the opinion piece from a couple of issues ago can be had in the Barrons at your local socialist library.
http://www.barrons.com/articles/the-trouble-with-adam-smith-1471670360
Epstein, in the issue not a week or two later, cites Adam Smith in support of free trade, where Epstein concludes, I guess, that Smith is suitably absolutist, which I would have to go back and re-read Smith to confirm.
In other trivia, I’d be curious to know the conservative/liberal makeup of academia say, pre-1965, and people’s opinions about whether or not social science academia since then, was sort of the FOX News of the Left (We teach and research, you decide), as a severe reaction to what was perceived to have gone before, such as the strict (varying from here to there) adherence to religious affiliation and the segregationist/sexual/gender policies of so many private universities and colleges pre-1975.
I have a acquaintance who attended Baylor University, pretty darned Baptist back then) in the late 1970s and claims he was brainwashed … I say, brainwashed! by the liberal faculty and curriculum, (much later to be brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh). He is usually five sheets to the wind alcohol-wise when he vomits this stuff from his mouth, which I’m certain is against Baylor’s alcohol policy, then and now, but maybe alcoholism is a conservative value (I kid; it’s not. The alcohol content of conservative and liberal bloodstreams when I attended school was very well balanced at the high end of the scale).
I’d be more convinced if conservative (not McKinney – he says right above he wants a broad range of intellectual thought) social science departments in academia — George Mason University, Claremont etc, showed the way by opening their academia to more liberal thought as well, but they won’t, even if so-called liberal academia becomes more fair and balanced.
I demand that right-wing religious schools air out their strict academic biases as well, but see, that would be an attack on religious freedom.
“a(n) acquaintance”
Never attend English Grammar 101 while shitfaced.
“a(n) acquaintance”
Never attend English Grammar 101 while shitfaced.
“a(n) acquaintance”
Never attend English Grammar 101 while shitfaced.
Even if there’s a lack of diversity in academia along the right-left political axis, particularly within the social sciences (other than economics, at least), that’s not the same thing as a general lack of diversity in other areas.
It seems that most engineering professors are fairly conservative based on my experience, but I don’t worry about that. Ohm’s Law applies, regardless.
Even if there’s a lack of diversity in academia along the right-left political axis, particularly within the social sciences (other than economics, at least), that’s not the same thing as a general lack of diversity in other areas.
It seems that most engineering professors are fairly conservative based on my experience, but I don’t worry about that. Ohm’s Law applies, regardless.
Even if there’s a lack of diversity in academia along the right-left political axis, particularly within the social sciences (other than economics, at least), that’s not the same thing as a general lack of diversity in other areas.
It seems that most engineering professors are fairly conservative based on my experience, but I don’t worry about that. Ohm’s Law applies, regardless.
I’m pretty sure that if the imbalance exists, it’s because facts have a liberal bias.
Of course they do.
I’m pretty sure that if the imbalance exists, it’s because facts have a liberal bias.
Of course they do.
I’m pretty sure that if the imbalance exists, it’s because facts have a liberal bias.
Of course they do.
“McTx’s diversity complaint seems to be that there isn’t enough ‘ideological’ diversity in the ‘academy’. specifically, he wants “conservative” ideas to have equal representation.”
So, affirmative action, then? What a shock. I guess the free market must be wrong.
“McTx’s diversity complaint seems to be that there isn’t enough ‘ideological’ diversity in the ‘academy’. specifically, he wants “conservative” ideas to have equal representation.”
So, affirmative action, then? What a shock. I guess the free market must be wrong.
“McTx’s diversity complaint seems to be that there isn’t enough ‘ideological’ diversity in the ‘academy’. specifically, he wants “conservative” ideas to have equal representation.”
So, affirmative action, then? What a shock. I guess the free market must be wrong.
Wanting something (respect) does not make it a “right”. Most have to do the work of earning what they want.
Wanting something (respect) does not make it a “right”. Most have to do the work of earning what they want.
Wanting something (respect) does not make it a “right”. Most have to do the work of earning what they want.
do you actually know any academics?
Not since law school. I don’t know any sitting senators or congressional representatives, either; however, I know a bunch of judges. So, am I only qualified to address the judiciary?
do you actually know any academics?
Not since law school. I don’t know any sitting senators or congressional representatives, either; however, I know a bunch of judges. So, am I only qualified to address the judiciary?
do you actually know any academics?
Not since law school. I don’t know any sitting senators or congressional representatives, either; however, I know a bunch of judges. So, am I only qualified to address the judiciary?
I’m concerned that some very prominent religious and very Republican colleges teach that man rode the dinosaurs to the stegosaurus rodeos not 5000 years ago, and no other “theory” is taught.
Actually, what really bothers me that it is taught that women were forced to ride sidesaddle to maintain their virginity.
See, I think we’re beyond the point in journalism and academia, and certainly in politics, where real balance, of the sort that never existed, even 5000 years ago, can be achieved.
We’re all gonna fight.
I’m concerned that some very prominent religious and very Republican colleges teach that man rode the dinosaurs to the stegosaurus rodeos not 5000 years ago, and no other “theory” is taught.
Actually, what really bothers me that it is taught that women were forced to ride sidesaddle to maintain their virginity.
See, I think we’re beyond the point in journalism and academia, and certainly in politics, where real balance, of the sort that never existed, even 5000 years ago, can be achieved.
We’re all gonna fight.
I’m concerned that some very prominent religious and very Republican colleges teach that man rode the dinosaurs to the stegosaurus rodeos not 5000 years ago, and no other “theory” is taught.
Actually, what really bothers me that it is taught that women were forced to ride sidesaddle to maintain their virginity.
See, I think we’re beyond the point in journalism and academia, and certainly in politics, where real balance, of the sort that never existed, even 5000 years ago, can be achieved.
We’re all gonna fight.
if there wasn’t, academics would always agree on everything. they don’t.
This is your proof?
You might want to rethink the name-calling. Seriously.
if there wasn’t, academics would always agree on everything. they don’t.
This is your proof?
You might want to rethink the name-calling. Seriously.
if there wasn’t, academics would always agree on everything. they don’t.
This is your proof?
You might want to rethink the name-calling. Seriously.
Let’s take the general leftward lean of academia as a given. How did it get to be that way? Is this the result of a conspiracy? Do conservatives, generally, think that a lot of what gets studied is bunk and not worth their time?
Let’s take the general leftward lean of academia as a given. How did it get to be that way? Is this the result of a conspiracy? Do conservatives, generally, think that a lot of what gets studied is bunk and not worth their time?
Let’s take the general leftward lean of academia as a given. How did it get to be that way? Is this the result of a conspiracy? Do conservatives, generally, think that a lot of what gets studied is bunk and not worth their time?
So, affirmative action, then? What a shock. I guess the free market must be wrong.
No, just the opposite–equality of opportunity, not outcome; although outcome is *some* evidence of inequality of opportunity (“some evidence” is a legal term of art applicable in reviewing a fact finding on appeal and it means, generally, ‘more than a scintilla of evidence’). You’re ok with that, yes? Across the board?
So, affirmative action, then? What a shock. I guess the free market must be wrong.
No, just the opposite–equality of opportunity, not outcome; although outcome is *some* evidence of inequality of opportunity (“some evidence” is a legal term of art applicable in reviewing a fact finding on appeal and it means, generally, ‘more than a scintilla of evidence’). You’re ok with that, yes? Across the board?
So, affirmative action, then? What a shock. I guess the free market must be wrong.
No, just the opposite–equality of opportunity, not outcome; although outcome is *some* evidence of inequality of opportunity (“some evidence” is a legal term of art applicable in reviewing a fact finding on appeal and it means, generally, ‘more than a scintilla of evidence’). You’re ok with that, yes? Across the board?
You’re ok with that, yes? Across the board?
With what? Equality of opportunity? If so, yes. But, if you look at the Count’s comment, would you consider it evidence of a lack of equal opportunity that the theory that the earth is 5000 years old hasn’t gained much traction in academic circles?
You’re ok with that, yes? Across the board?
With what? Equality of opportunity? If so, yes. But, if you look at the Count’s comment, would you consider it evidence of a lack of equal opportunity that the theory that the earth is 5000 years old hasn’t gained much traction in academic circles?
You’re ok with that, yes? Across the board?
With what? Equality of opportunity? If so, yes. But, if you look at the Count’s comment, would you consider it evidence of a lack of equal opportunity that the theory that the earth is 5000 years old hasn’t gained much traction in academic circles?
Donald Trump has brought diversity, in the person of real live white supremacists, to the fore in the debate over all of this stuff.
And, it looks from the latest polls, that this sort of racist diversity in the Republican Party is running neck and neck in support against its opponents.
I look forward to the Departments of and Chairs in Phrenology funded in our public universities under a Trump Administration.
David Duke could be on the fast track to academia.
Donald Trump has brought diversity, in the person of real live white supremacists, to the fore in the debate over all of this stuff.
And, it looks from the latest polls, that this sort of racist diversity in the Republican Party is running neck and neck in support against its opponents.
I look forward to the Departments of and Chairs in Phrenology funded in our public universities under a Trump Administration.
David Duke could be on the fast track to academia.
Donald Trump has brought diversity, in the person of real live white supremacists, to the fore in the debate over all of this stuff.
And, it looks from the latest polls, that this sort of racist diversity in the Republican Party is running neck and neck in support against its opponents.
I look forward to the Departments of and Chairs in Phrenology funded in our public universities under a Trump Administration.
David Duke could be on the fast track to academia.
“So, affirmative action, then? What a shock. I guess the free market must be wrong.”
Or just good makeup:
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/white-like-me/n9308
“So, affirmative action, then? What a shock. I guess the free market must be wrong.”
Or just good makeup:
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/white-like-me/n9308
“So, affirmative action, then? What a shock. I guess the free market must be wrong.”
Or just good makeup:
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/white-like-me/n9308
Even if there’s a lack of diversity in academia along the right-left political axis, particularly within the social sciences (other than economics, at least), that’s not the same thing as a general lack of diversity in other areas.
It seems that most engineering professors are fairly conservative based on my experience, but I don’t worry about that. Ohm’s Law applies, regardless.
I agree for the most part, and this is not inconsistent with my point regarding LJ’s reference to *the academy*, which is not inclusive of the Business School or the Econ Faculty, which do not make the study of intersectionality or privilege a part of the curriculum, at least in any meaningful way.
Further, traditional engineering is, compared to *social engineering*, a completely objective undertaking.
Cleek et al–my use of the phrase *social engineering* is a play on words.
Even if there’s a lack of diversity in academia along the right-left political axis, particularly within the social sciences (other than economics, at least), that’s not the same thing as a general lack of diversity in other areas.
It seems that most engineering professors are fairly conservative based on my experience, but I don’t worry about that. Ohm’s Law applies, regardless.
I agree for the most part, and this is not inconsistent with my point regarding LJ’s reference to *the academy*, which is not inclusive of the Business School or the Econ Faculty, which do not make the study of intersectionality or privilege a part of the curriculum, at least in any meaningful way.
Further, traditional engineering is, compared to *social engineering*, a completely objective undertaking.
Cleek et al–my use of the phrase *social engineering* is a play on words.
Even if there’s a lack of diversity in academia along the right-left political axis, particularly within the social sciences (other than economics, at least), that’s not the same thing as a general lack of diversity in other areas.
It seems that most engineering professors are fairly conservative based on my experience, but I don’t worry about that. Ohm’s Law applies, regardless.
I agree for the most part, and this is not inconsistent with my point regarding LJ’s reference to *the academy*, which is not inclusive of the Business School or the Econ Faculty, which do not make the study of intersectionality or privilege a part of the curriculum, at least in any meaningful way.
Further, traditional engineering is, compared to *social engineering*, a completely objective undertaking.
Cleek et al–my use of the phrase *social engineering* is a play on words.
While we’re debating the left/right bias (if any) of academia, we might want to spend a few minutes on what we are taking to be the center.
It’s pretty clear that the political “center” has shifted to the right over the past few decades. (Not, clearly, relative to opinions on homosexuality. But overall.) Does that mean that the definition should change everywhere — so even if there is no change in the specific opinions of an academic, he becomes more liberal over time because the center has moved?
While we’re debating the left/right bias (if any) of academia, we might want to spend a few minutes on what we are taking to be the center.
It’s pretty clear that the political “center” has shifted to the right over the past few decades. (Not, clearly, relative to opinions on homosexuality. But overall.) Does that mean that the definition should change everywhere — so even if there is no change in the specific opinions of an academic, he becomes more liberal over time because the center has moved?
While we’re debating the left/right bias (if any) of academia, we might want to spend a few minutes on what we are taking to be the center.
It’s pretty clear that the political “center” has shifted to the right over the past few decades. (Not, clearly, relative to opinions on homosexuality. But overall.) Does that mean that the definition should change everywhere — so even if there is no change in the specific opinions of an academic, he becomes more liberal over time because the center has moved?
This is your proof?
indeed it is.
but, go ahead and give us your definitions of: diversity, meaningful, and academy.
This is your proof?
indeed it is.
but, go ahead and give us your definitions of: diversity, meaningful, and academy.
This is your proof?
indeed it is.
but, go ahead and give us your definitions of: diversity, meaningful, and academy.
But, even within the non-economics social sciences, where there may be a lack of left-right political diversity, that’s not the same thing as there being a general lack of diversity. Even within the realm of politics, there may be diversity of opinion among faculty who could be considered entirely on the left. Then there are however many other areas of thought in which academics could still be very diverse.
It seems you are making a particular case for some sort of regime targeting not just political diversity, but left-right political diversity. Why? What particular societal benefit do you propose there is to promoting left-right political diversity in particular subsets of university faculties?
But, even within the non-economics social sciences, where there may be a lack of left-right political diversity, that’s not the same thing as there being a general lack of diversity. Even within the realm of politics, there may be diversity of opinion among faculty who could be considered entirely on the left. Then there are however many other areas of thought in which academics could still be very diverse.
It seems you are making a particular case for some sort of regime targeting not just political diversity, but left-right political diversity. Why? What particular societal benefit do you propose there is to promoting left-right political diversity in particular subsets of university faculties?
But, even within the non-economics social sciences, where there may be a lack of left-right political diversity, that’s not the same thing as there being a general lack of diversity. Even within the realm of politics, there may be diversity of opinion among faculty who could be considered entirely on the left. Then there are however many other areas of thought in which academics could still be very diverse.
It seems you are making a particular case for some sort of regime targeting not just political diversity, but left-right political diversity. Why? What particular societal benefit do you propose there is to promoting left-right political diversity in particular subsets of university faculties?
we just need to “teach the controversy” and let students sort it out.
we just need to “teach the controversy” and let students sort it out.
we just need to “teach the controversy” and let students sort it out.
Let’s take the general leftward lean of academia as a given. How did it get to be that way? Is this the result of a conspiracy? Do conservatives, generally, think that a lot of what gets studied is bunk and not worth their time?
There is some evidence–not a proven fact–of bias in who is admitted for graduate and post graduate positions. A vague form of ‘promoting from within’.
Another school of thought is that the liberal dominance in academia is because because liberals are intellectually more advanced (to put it nicely). Kind of like Sapient’s remark above.
I think it’s a matter of disinclination.
The social sciences–as opposed to STEM, law and business (where it is less clear)–are left wing dominated. It isn’t intellectual heft that produces this result. Law is not easier than history or poli sci or, God help me, sociology. And practicing law as an adversary going up against people who know their stuff every day is not a walk in the park either. It is at least as challenging as giving 3 lectures a week and writing a couple of papers a year.
And, for sure, STEM and medicine require at least as much intellectual horsepower as any of the social sciences.
So, my sense is that *soft* academia attracts the kind of person who is smart, often somewhat introverted, not interested or predisposed to the rough and tumble of practicing law or business or private sector competition *and* who *may* either resent or be somewhat jealous (or both) of those who do well in life outside academia. As in most other callings, the higher up the food chain one goes, the larger the egos. Make of that what you will.
IOW, it isn’t that all the the really smart people are hiding out in sociology and history departments around the country. Most are out making a living without the tenure safety net.
Let’s take the general leftward lean of academia as a given. How did it get to be that way? Is this the result of a conspiracy? Do conservatives, generally, think that a lot of what gets studied is bunk and not worth their time?
There is some evidence–not a proven fact–of bias in who is admitted for graduate and post graduate positions. A vague form of ‘promoting from within’.
Another school of thought is that the liberal dominance in academia is because because liberals are intellectually more advanced (to put it nicely). Kind of like Sapient’s remark above.
I think it’s a matter of disinclination.
The social sciences–as opposed to STEM, law and business (where it is less clear)–are left wing dominated. It isn’t intellectual heft that produces this result. Law is not easier than history or poli sci or, God help me, sociology. And practicing law as an adversary going up against people who know their stuff every day is not a walk in the park either. It is at least as challenging as giving 3 lectures a week and writing a couple of papers a year.
And, for sure, STEM and medicine require at least as much intellectual horsepower as any of the social sciences.
So, my sense is that *soft* academia attracts the kind of person who is smart, often somewhat introverted, not interested or predisposed to the rough and tumble of practicing law or business or private sector competition *and* who *may* either resent or be somewhat jealous (or both) of those who do well in life outside academia. As in most other callings, the higher up the food chain one goes, the larger the egos. Make of that what you will.
IOW, it isn’t that all the the really smart people are hiding out in sociology and history departments around the country. Most are out making a living without the tenure safety net.
Let’s take the general leftward lean of academia as a given. How did it get to be that way? Is this the result of a conspiracy? Do conservatives, generally, think that a lot of what gets studied is bunk and not worth their time?
There is some evidence–not a proven fact–of bias in who is admitted for graduate and post graduate positions. A vague form of ‘promoting from within’.
Another school of thought is that the liberal dominance in academia is because because liberals are intellectually more advanced (to put it nicely). Kind of like Sapient’s remark above.
I think it’s a matter of disinclination.
The social sciences–as opposed to STEM, law and business (where it is less clear)–are left wing dominated. It isn’t intellectual heft that produces this result. Law is not easier than history or poli sci or, God help me, sociology. And practicing law as an adversary going up against people who know their stuff every day is not a walk in the park either. It is at least as challenging as giving 3 lectures a week and writing a couple of papers a year.
And, for sure, STEM and medicine require at least as much intellectual horsepower as any of the social sciences.
So, my sense is that *soft* academia attracts the kind of person who is smart, often somewhat introverted, not interested or predisposed to the rough and tumble of practicing law or business or private sector competition *and* who *may* either resent or be somewhat jealous (or both) of those who do well in life outside academia. As in most other callings, the higher up the food chain one goes, the larger the egos. Make of that what you will.
IOW, it isn’t that all the the really smart people are hiding out in sociology and history departments around the country. Most are out making a living without the tenure safety net.
FFS
FFS
FFS
IOW, it isn’t that all the the really smart people are hiding out in sociology and history departments around the country. Most are out making a living without the tenure safety net.
So liberals retreat to the safety of “soft academia” because they’re p*ssies?
IOW, it isn’t that all the the really smart people are hiding out in sociology and history departments around the country. Most are out making a living without the tenure safety net.
So liberals retreat to the safety of “soft academia” because they’re p*ssies?
IOW, it isn’t that all the the really smart people are hiding out in sociology and history departments around the country. Most are out making a living without the tenure safety net.
So liberals retreat to the safety of “soft academia” because they’re p*ssies?
There is some evidence–not a proven fact–of bias in who is admitted for graduate and post graduate positions.
I would mention, strictly informationally, that the social sciences already had a serious left-wing reputation when I was in school (late 1960s). But there I was, a conservative with a newly-minted commission in the US Air Force, admitted to the graduate program in Anthropology in that famously conservative bastion, UC Berkeley.
Strictly anectdotal, I admit. And a single data point at that. But it does seem interesting.
There is some evidence–not a proven fact–of bias in who is admitted for graduate and post graduate positions.
I would mention, strictly informationally, that the social sciences already had a serious left-wing reputation when I was in school (late 1960s). But there I was, a conservative with a newly-minted commission in the US Air Force, admitted to the graduate program in Anthropology in that famously conservative bastion, UC Berkeley.
Strictly anectdotal, I admit. And a single data point at that. But it does seem interesting.
There is some evidence–not a proven fact–of bias in who is admitted for graduate and post graduate positions.
I would mention, strictly informationally, that the social sciences already had a serious left-wing reputation when I was in school (late 1960s). But there I was, a conservative with a newly-minted commission in the US Air Force, admitted to the graduate program in Anthropology in that famously conservative bastion, UC Berkeley.
Strictly anectdotal, I admit. And a single data point at that. But it does seem interesting.
“*may* either resent or be somewhat jealous (or both) of those who do well in life outside academia.”
Sounds like it goes the other way sometimes, too:
“Most are out making a living without the tenure safety net.”
GFTNC wrote:
“they often have one exponent of climate change versus one climate change denier, rather than a properly evenhanded discussion, reflective of the views of actual scientific experts, which would have one climate change denier versus ninety nine supporters of it.”
Excellent point.
“*may* either resent or be somewhat jealous (or both) of those who do well in life outside academia.”
Sounds like it goes the other way sometimes, too:
“Most are out making a living without the tenure safety net.”
GFTNC wrote:
“they often have one exponent of climate change versus one climate change denier, rather than a properly evenhanded discussion, reflective of the views of actual scientific experts, which would have one climate change denier versus ninety nine supporters of it.”
Excellent point.
“*may* either resent or be somewhat jealous (or both) of those who do well in life outside academia.”
Sounds like it goes the other way sometimes, too:
“Most are out making a living without the tenure safety net.”
GFTNC wrote:
“they often have one exponent of climate change versus one climate change denier, rather than a properly evenhanded discussion, reflective of the views of actual scientific experts, which would have one climate change denier versus ninety nine supporters of it.”
Excellent point.
“IOW, it isn’t that all the the really smart people are hiding out in sociology and history departments around the country. Most are out making a living without the tenure safety net.”
Are the “most” out making that living, to their credit, evenly divided between liberals and conservatives pretty much. If so, what would account for that balance given the liberal predilections of half of them, that they are out there?
I wonder if a politically conservative professional civil engineer or attorney is jealous or critical is jealous of the tenure of his or her (there’s some sociological guacamole shoved down our throats) civil engineering professors who taught them to build bridges that don’t collapse, or if a successful attorney is resentful of the tenure granted to the successful professor who taught the former tort law?
Or is it just the soft subjects that just so much finger painting? Not that I’m a big fan of the social sciences.
How much softer is a course in Women’s Studies in 2016 that speaks to achievement by women than a course named A Survey of Executive Power in Western Civilization that speaks only to we guys and our achievements in 1907.
“IOW, it isn’t that all the the really smart people are hiding out in sociology and history departments around the country. Most are out making a living without the tenure safety net.”
Are the “most” out making that living, to their credit, evenly divided between liberals and conservatives pretty much. If so, what would account for that balance given the liberal predilections of half of them, that they are out there?
I wonder if a politically conservative professional civil engineer or attorney is jealous or critical is jealous of the tenure of his or her (there’s some sociological guacamole shoved down our throats) civil engineering professors who taught them to build bridges that don’t collapse, or if a successful attorney is resentful of the tenure granted to the successful professor who taught the former tort law?
Or is it just the soft subjects that just so much finger painting? Not that I’m a big fan of the social sciences.
How much softer is a course in Women’s Studies in 2016 that speaks to achievement by women than a course named A Survey of Executive Power in Western Civilization that speaks only to we guys and our achievements in 1907.
“IOW, it isn’t that all the the really smart people are hiding out in sociology and history departments around the country. Most are out making a living without the tenure safety net.”
Are the “most” out making that living, to their credit, evenly divided between liberals and conservatives pretty much. If so, what would account for that balance given the liberal predilections of half of them, that they are out there?
I wonder if a politically conservative professional civil engineer or attorney is jealous or critical is jealous of the tenure of his or her (there’s some sociological guacamole shoved down our throats) civil engineering professors who taught them to build bridges that don’t collapse, or if a successful attorney is resentful of the tenure granted to the successful professor who taught the former tort law?
Or is it just the soft subjects that just so much finger painting? Not that I’m a big fan of the social sciences.
How much softer is a course in Women’s Studies in 2016 that speaks to achievement by women than a course named A Survey of Executive Power in Western Civilization that speaks only to we guys and our achievements in 1907.
Interesting link, bobby, but I do wish left of centre critics would actually read a bit of Adam Smith…
Hi Nigel,
I get the impression that most of them haven’t read Marx, either, but in all fairness, they are mostly responding to the intellectual perversion commonly referred to as social Darwinism, not the moralism of The Theory of Moral Sentiments (which I haven’t read either).
🙂
Interesting link, bobby, but I do wish left of centre critics would actually read a bit of Adam Smith…
Hi Nigel,
I get the impression that most of them haven’t read Marx, either, but in all fairness, they are mostly responding to the intellectual perversion commonly referred to as social Darwinism, not the moralism of The Theory of Moral Sentiments (which I haven’t read either).
🙂
Interesting link, bobby, but I do wish left of centre critics would actually read a bit of Adam Smith…
Hi Nigel,
I get the impression that most of them haven’t read Marx, either, but in all fairness, they are mostly responding to the intellectual perversion commonly referred to as social Darwinism, not the moralism of The Theory of Moral Sentiments (which I haven’t read either).
🙂
“There is no meaningful intellectual/political/philosophical diversity in the academy”
“Meaningful” is carrying a lot of weight there, tex. But all in all, it would appear that “conservative” ideas have lost out in this marketplace, one of the really freest there is.
Win some. Lose some. Pack the hanky, staunch the tears, suck it up, and move on.
Rest assured that revanchist, reactionary, racist, and idolatrous free market fundamentalism still hold sway in may other idea marketplaces.
“There is no meaningful intellectual/political/philosophical diversity in the academy”
“Meaningful” is carrying a lot of weight there, tex. But all in all, it would appear that “conservative” ideas have lost out in this marketplace, one of the really freest there is.
Win some. Lose some. Pack the hanky, staunch the tears, suck it up, and move on.
Rest assured that revanchist, reactionary, racist, and idolatrous free market fundamentalism still hold sway in may other idea marketplaces.
“There is no meaningful intellectual/political/philosophical diversity in the academy”
“Meaningful” is carrying a lot of weight there, tex. But all in all, it would appear that “conservative” ideas have lost out in this marketplace, one of the really freest there is.
Win some. Lose some. Pack the hanky, staunch the tears, suck it up, and move on.
Rest assured that revanchist, reactionary, racist, and idolatrous free market fundamentalism still hold sway in may other idea marketplaces.
What is this “tenure” of which McT speaks? 60% of college classes are taught by non-tenure track faculty. Many of those contingent faculty are also researching and publishing. Only about 8% of people with graduate degrees in a non-professional field end up as tenured faculty.
And as far as academia goes, are you including the think tanks, policy institutes, and such in your discussion? My experience is that a lot of conservative thinkers end up working for those, rather than opting to play tenure roulette. And they publish in peer-reviewed journals as well and have their work cited as part of the general give-and-take.
And what are the tenets of ideological purity that you imagine drive the academic departments in the social sciences and the humanities? I will admit to a general low opinion of the rigor and explanatory power of the Moynihan Report, which may strike you as ideological, but most of what counts as diversity of approach and opinion does not map well onto simplistic political binaries of US politics. Where might, say, a communitarian like Amitai Etzioni fall on your spectrum? What about Walter Benn Michaels?
What is this “tenure” of which McT speaks? 60% of college classes are taught by non-tenure track faculty. Many of those contingent faculty are also researching and publishing. Only about 8% of people with graduate degrees in a non-professional field end up as tenured faculty.
And as far as academia goes, are you including the think tanks, policy institutes, and such in your discussion? My experience is that a lot of conservative thinkers end up working for those, rather than opting to play tenure roulette. And they publish in peer-reviewed journals as well and have their work cited as part of the general give-and-take.
And what are the tenets of ideological purity that you imagine drive the academic departments in the social sciences and the humanities? I will admit to a general low opinion of the rigor and explanatory power of the Moynihan Report, which may strike you as ideological, but most of what counts as diversity of approach and opinion does not map well onto simplistic political binaries of US politics. Where might, say, a communitarian like Amitai Etzioni fall on your spectrum? What about Walter Benn Michaels?
What is this “tenure” of which McT speaks? 60% of college classes are taught by non-tenure track faculty. Many of those contingent faculty are also researching and publishing. Only about 8% of people with graduate degrees in a non-professional field end up as tenured faculty.
And as far as academia goes, are you including the think tanks, policy institutes, and such in your discussion? My experience is that a lot of conservative thinkers end up working for those, rather than opting to play tenure roulette. And they publish in peer-reviewed journals as well and have their work cited as part of the general give-and-take.
And what are the tenets of ideological purity that you imagine drive the academic departments in the social sciences and the humanities? I will admit to a general low opinion of the rigor and explanatory power of the Moynihan Report, which may strike you as ideological, but most of what counts as diversity of approach and opinion does not map well onto simplistic political binaries of US politics. Where might, say, a communitarian like Amitai Etzioni fall on your spectrum? What about Walter Benn Michaels?
I’m not planning on generalizing from the particular about conservative politicians regarding the weird rape-wish fantasies/denials that so many seem to harbor for their enemies, but I do think this hard guy needs some serious time cooped up with some female and LGBT for the year-long softy gender studies brainwashing, and then his face punched in:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mike-krawitz-new-jersey-gop-rape-threat-journalist
I’m not planning on generalizing from the particular about conservative politicians regarding the weird rape-wish fantasies/denials that so many seem to harbor for their enemies, but I do think this hard guy needs some serious time cooped up with some female and LGBT for the year-long softy gender studies brainwashing, and then his face punched in:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mike-krawitz-new-jersey-gop-rape-threat-journalist
I’m not planning on generalizing from the particular about conservative politicians regarding the weird rape-wish fantasies/denials that so many seem to harbor for their enemies, but I do think this hard guy needs some serious time cooped up with some female and LGBT for the year-long softy gender studies brainwashing, and then his face punched in:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mike-krawitz-new-jersey-gop-rape-threat-journalist
Wonderfully enough, the charming Mr. Krawitz is running in my town. He had a snowball’s chance in hell, anyway, but still….
Wonderfully enough, the charming Mr. Krawitz is running in my town. He had a snowball’s chance in hell, anyway, but still….
Wonderfully enough, the charming Mr. Krawitz is running in my town. He had a snowball’s chance in hell, anyway, but still….
“this is not inconsistent with my point regarding LJ’s reference to *the academy*, which is not inclusive of the Business School or the Econ Faculty,”
as long as you define “the academy” to be JUST the fraction that you can use to support your thesis, then your thesis is proven. QED.
But it’s a near-textbook definition of disingenuous.
“this is not inconsistent with my point regarding LJ’s reference to *the academy*, which is not inclusive of the Business School or the Econ Faculty,”
as long as you define “the academy” to be JUST the fraction that you can use to support your thesis, then your thesis is proven. QED.
But it’s a near-textbook definition of disingenuous.
“this is not inconsistent with my point regarding LJ’s reference to *the academy*, which is not inclusive of the Business School or the Econ Faculty,”
as long as you define “the academy” to be JUST the fraction that you can use to support your thesis, then your thesis is proven. QED.
But it’s a near-textbook definition of disingenuous.
There are liberal engineers. I happen to work for one. Even though we disagree on politics, we rarely disagree on things more concrete. And if we do? One of us is going to turn out to be wrong, or one (or both) of us will turn out to be bullshitting. That’s the nature of reality. It’s neither leftist nor rightist; it just is.
Politics is kind of perpendicular to engineering, though. It’s composed mostly of opinion, and although people tend to keep a firm grip on their opinions, they’re by and large not provably right or wrong.
Whether social sciences are or are not largely infiltrated and staunchly defended by liberals isn’t of much interest to me. People will study what interests them. What interests me is optics and inertial sensors and the math behind it, and how to make fairly complex optomechanical systems work, so that’s what I study.
Some people have secondary careers such as writing about their opinions in exchange for money. To the extent that their ideas have a receptive market, bully for them.
Doesn’t make their opinions correct, though, just because they sell well.
Popular != correct. Or good. Let’s take Donald Trump as a for-instance.
On second thought, you take him.
There are liberal engineers. I happen to work for one. Even though we disagree on politics, we rarely disagree on things more concrete. And if we do? One of us is going to turn out to be wrong, or one (or both) of us will turn out to be bullshitting. That’s the nature of reality. It’s neither leftist nor rightist; it just is.
Politics is kind of perpendicular to engineering, though. It’s composed mostly of opinion, and although people tend to keep a firm grip on their opinions, they’re by and large not provably right or wrong.
Whether social sciences are or are not largely infiltrated and staunchly defended by liberals isn’t of much interest to me. People will study what interests them. What interests me is optics and inertial sensors and the math behind it, and how to make fairly complex optomechanical systems work, so that’s what I study.
Some people have secondary careers such as writing about their opinions in exchange for money. To the extent that their ideas have a receptive market, bully for them.
Doesn’t make their opinions correct, though, just because they sell well.
Popular != correct. Or good. Let’s take Donald Trump as a for-instance.
On second thought, you take him.
There are liberal engineers. I happen to work for one. Even though we disagree on politics, we rarely disagree on things more concrete. And if we do? One of us is going to turn out to be wrong, or one (or both) of us will turn out to be bullshitting. That’s the nature of reality. It’s neither leftist nor rightist; it just is.
Politics is kind of perpendicular to engineering, though. It’s composed mostly of opinion, and although people tend to keep a firm grip on their opinions, they’re by and large not provably right or wrong.
Whether social sciences are or are not largely infiltrated and staunchly defended by liberals isn’t of much interest to me. People will study what interests them. What interests me is optics and inertial sensors and the math behind it, and how to make fairly complex optomechanical systems work, so that’s what I study.
Some people have secondary careers such as writing about their opinions in exchange for money. To the extent that their ideas have a receptive market, bully for them.
Doesn’t make their opinions correct, though, just because they sell well.
Popular != correct. Or good. Let’s take Donald Trump as a for-instance.
On second thought, you take him.
Already claimed by the GOP, thanks.
Already claimed by the GOP, thanks.
Already claimed by the GOP, thanks.
Hugh O’Brien, the actor who played Wyatt Earp, the gay, gun-grabbing gummint regulator and well known sociologist, on TV when I was a kid, died today at age 91.
The NRA is going to hold a week-long celebration to besmirch his memory by secretly designating a dozen of their members across the nation to randomly (so it can’t be counted against the Second Amendment) either shoot themselves in the groin, let their toddlers shoot them in the groin, shoot up a saloon to protest cheating at cards, or accidentally shoot their toddler while aiming at Hillary Clinton.
Hugh O’Brien, the actor who played Wyatt Earp, the gay, gun-grabbing gummint regulator and well known sociologist, on TV when I was a kid, died today at age 91.
The NRA is going to hold a week-long celebration to besmirch his memory by secretly designating a dozen of their members across the nation to randomly (so it can’t be counted against the Second Amendment) either shoot themselves in the groin, let their toddlers shoot them in the groin, shoot up a saloon to protest cheating at cards, or accidentally shoot their toddler while aiming at Hillary Clinton.
Hugh O’Brien, the actor who played Wyatt Earp, the gay, gun-grabbing gummint regulator and well known sociologist, on TV when I was a kid, died today at age 91.
The NRA is going to hold a week-long celebration to besmirch his memory by secretly designating a dozen of their members across the nation to randomly (so it can’t be counted against the Second Amendment) either shoot themselves in the groin, let their toddlers shoot them in the groin, shoot up a saloon to protest cheating at cards, or accidentally shoot their toddler while aiming at Hillary Clinton.
This thread needs more limericks:
https://sofarfromheaven.com/category/limericks/
This thread needs more limericks:
https://sofarfromheaven.com/category/limericks/
This thread needs more limericks:
https://sofarfromheaven.com/category/limericks/
Anything but puns….
Anything but puns….
Anything but puns….
Also, McT, consider that most academics are quite capable of looking at the decisions handed down from governors in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Arizona and of deciding which political party to support based entirely on the principle of economic and academic self-preservation. Brewer, Walker, and Rauner are all playing their own version of identity politics based on their own favorite version (Carl Schmitt’s political theology, not that any of them likely know who Schmitt was).
Also, McT, consider that most academics are quite capable of looking at the decisions handed down from governors in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Arizona and of deciding which political party to support based entirely on the principle of economic and academic self-preservation. Brewer, Walker, and Rauner are all playing their own version of identity politics based on their own favorite version (Carl Schmitt’s political theology, not that any of them likely know who Schmitt was).
Also, McT, consider that most academics are quite capable of looking at the decisions handed down from governors in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Arizona and of deciding which political party to support based entirely on the principle of economic and academic self-preservation. Brewer, Walker, and Rauner are all playing their own version of identity politics based on their own favorite version (Carl Schmitt’s political theology, not that any of them likely know who Schmitt was).
a ratty old man named Trump
treats the press like a bunch of chumps
though his statements, racist
and his politics, basest
when he claps, the reporters all jump
a ratty old man named Trump
treats the press like a bunch of chumps
though his statements, racist
and his politics, basest
when he claps, the reporters all jump
a ratty old man named Trump
treats the press like a bunch of chumps
though his statements, racist
and his politics, basest
when he claps, the reporters all jump
Politics is kind of perpendicular to engineering, though. It’s composed mostly of opinion
Politics is all about who gets what. Now one might say who gets what is “just a matter of opinion”, but you cannot deny that it is a contest that is just about always conducted with a degree of deadly (and all too frequently literal) earnestness that far surpasses any that might come up in any field of engineering.
To write it off as so much “chatter” is simply not being realistic.
Politics is kind of perpendicular to engineering, though. It’s composed mostly of opinion
Politics is all about who gets what. Now one might say who gets what is “just a matter of opinion”, but you cannot deny that it is a contest that is just about always conducted with a degree of deadly (and all too frequently literal) earnestness that far surpasses any that might come up in any field of engineering.
To write it off as so much “chatter” is simply not being realistic.
Politics is kind of perpendicular to engineering, though. It’s composed mostly of opinion
Politics is all about who gets what. Now one might say who gets what is “just a matter of opinion”, but you cannot deny that it is a contest that is just about always conducted with a degree of deadly (and all too frequently literal) earnestness that far surpasses any that might come up in any field of engineering.
To write it off as so much “chatter” is simply not being realistic.
oops….parens should be prior to “deadly”. I blame my editor.
oops….parens should be prior to “deadly”. I blame my editor.
oops….parens should be prior to “deadly”. I blame my editor.
McT, a lot of water under this particular bridge, and a lot of others address your questions to me, but if you want to re-ask them so I know what is what, go ahead. I still don’t think you understand anything about intersectionality, but when you go into Wikipedia carrying the burden of your own prejudices, it’s not really a surprise.
I would point out that by inverting what I write in terms of time, you are implying that you are being called a racist*. At least you put a time and a date so it’s pretty clear, but if it gets jumbled in your head, that’s not my fault you get butthurt.
*I’ve said several times here that we are _all_ racist to some extent, but I’m going to have to make this to cut and paste here because it doesn’t seem to get across.
McT, a lot of water under this particular bridge, and a lot of others address your questions to me, but if you want to re-ask them so I know what is what, go ahead. I still don’t think you understand anything about intersectionality, but when you go into Wikipedia carrying the burden of your own prejudices, it’s not really a surprise.
I would point out that by inverting what I write in terms of time, you are implying that you are being called a racist*. At least you put a time and a date so it’s pretty clear, but if it gets jumbled in your head, that’s not my fault you get butthurt.
*I’ve said several times here that we are _all_ racist to some extent, but I’m going to have to make this to cut and paste here because it doesn’t seem to get across.
McT, a lot of water under this particular bridge, and a lot of others address your questions to me, but if you want to re-ask them so I know what is what, go ahead. I still don’t think you understand anything about intersectionality, but when you go into Wikipedia carrying the burden of your own prejudices, it’s not really a surprise.
I would point out that by inverting what I write in terms of time, you are implying that you are being called a racist*. At least you put a time and a date so it’s pretty clear, but if it gets jumbled in your head, that’s not my fault you get butthurt.
*I’ve said several times here that we are _all_ racist to some extent, but I’m going to have to make this to cut and paste here because it doesn’t seem to get across.
Hey, McKinney,
Refer to this current academic debate found in the American Journal of Sociology.
Is it liberals vs. conservatives? Liberals playing pattycake? Meaningful? Meaningless?
If only there were as much meaningful debate in corporate boardrooms instead of discussions amongst rich people about how to screw others or screw each other.
Hey, McKinney,
Refer to this current academic debate found in the American Journal of Sociology.
Is it liberals vs. conservatives? Liberals playing pattycake? Meaningful? Meaningless?
If only there were as much meaningful debate in corporate boardrooms instead of discussions amongst rich people about how to screw others or screw each other.
Hey, McKinney,
Refer to this current academic debate found in the American Journal of Sociology.
Is it liberals vs. conservatives? Liberals playing pattycake? Meaningful? Meaningless?
If only there were as much meaningful debate in corporate boardrooms instead of discussions amongst rich people about how to screw others or screw each other.
looks like another open tag fine coming my way.
looks like another open tag fine coming my way.
looks like another open tag fine coming my way.
corporate boardrooms are all about merit.
“the academy” is a giant conspiracy to silence “conservative” voices at the altar of po-mo intersectional love-seat machine privilege plantation politics.
that’s what Anne Coulter told me anyway. before she got ripped to shred by people who don’t live in the wingnut bubble.
corporate boardrooms are all about merit.
“the academy” is a giant conspiracy to silence “conservative” voices at the altar of po-mo intersectional love-seat machine privilege plantation politics.
that’s what Anne Coulter told me anyway. before she got ripped to shred by people who don’t live in the wingnut bubble.
corporate boardrooms are all about merit.
“the academy” is a giant conspiracy to silence “conservative” voices at the altar of po-mo intersectional love-seat machine privilege plantation politics.
that’s what Anne Coulter told me anyway. before she got ripped to shred by people who don’t live in the wingnut bubble.
BOLD!
BOLD!
BOLD!
shred. just one shred. there’s not enough intellectual meat there for more than one shred.
shred. just one shred. there’s not enough intellectual meat there for more than one shred.
shred. just one shred. there’s not enough intellectual meat there for more than one shred.
I must be a really bad liberal or something, since I *still* have no idea what intersectionality is.
Something to do with traffic engineering? If so, can we make left turn arrows (right turn for you, GFTNC) either twice as long, so that there’s enough time to lean on the horn to wake up the idiot in front of you, so you can BOTH make it through, or MUCH shorter, so that said idiot wakes up to late, tries to make it through, and gets T-boned or ticketed or both.
I must be a really bad liberal or something, since I *still* have no idea what intersectionality is.
Something to do with traffic engineering? If so, can we make left turn arrows (right turn for you, GFTNC) either twice as long, so that there’s enough time to lean on the horn to wake up the idiot in front of you, so you can BOTH make it through, or MUCH shorter, so that said idiot wakes up to late, tries to make it through, and gets T-boned or ticketed or both.
I must be a really bad liberal or something, since I *still* have no idea what intersectionality is.
Something to do with traffic engineering? If so, can we make left turn arrows (right turn for you, GFTNC) either twice as long, so that there’s enough time to lean on the horn to wake up the idiot in front of you, so you can BOTH make it through, or MUCH shorter, so that said idiot wakes up to late, tries to make it through, and gets T-boned or ticketed or both.
“In summary, the word Doc S is looking for is advantage. ”
i think that’s about right.
I’m not sure people need more justification than that to be angry.
I have no opinion about the academy or the social sciences. it’s been a long time since university days, things may have changed.
what i do remember, ca. 1980, is that all of the newly minted graduates couldn’t wait to put all that hippy sh*t behind them and go make some lovely green money.
it was morning in america, damn it!
i also kind of remember that the professional academics were the most astute bureaucratic infighters i’d ever seen.
“rough and tumble” doesn’t even come close.
it actually put me off of academia as a career.
anyway, the social jihadis just don’t keep me up at night. people grow up and their perspectives broaden and change. mine did, probably yours did too.
“In summary, the word Doc S is looking for is advantage. ”
i think that’s about right.
I’m not sure people need more justification than that to be angry.
I have no opinion about the academy or the social sciences. it’s been a long time since university days, things may have changed.
what i do remember, ca. 1980, is that all of the newly minted graduates couldn’t wait to put all that hippy sh*t behind them and go make some lovely green money.
it was morning in america, damn it!
i also kind of remember that the professional academics were the most astute bureaucratic infighters i’d ever seen.
“rough and tumble” doesn’t even come close.
it actually put me off of academia as a career.
anyway, the social jihadis just don’t keep me up at night. people grow up and their perspectives broaden and change. mine did, probably yours did too.
“In summary, the word Doc S is looking for is advantage. ”
i think that’s about right.
I’m not sure people need more justification than that to be angry.
I have no opinion about the academy or the social sciences. it’s been a long time since university days, things may have changed.
what i do remember, ca. 1980, is that all of the newly minted graduates couldn’t wait to put all that hippy sh*t behind them and go make some lovely green money.
it was morning in america, damn it!
i also kind of remember that the professional academics were the most astute bureaucratic infighters i’d ever seen.
“rough and tumble” doesn’t even come close.
it actually put me off of academia as a career.
anyway, the social jihadis just don’t keep me up at night. people grow up and their perspectives broaden and change. mine did, probably yours did too.
I *still* have no idea what intersectionality is.
me either. it’s fun to type, though.
I *still* have no idea what intersectionality is.
me either. it’s fun to type, though.
I *still* have no idea what intersectionality is.
me either. it’s fun to type, though.
“I *still* have no idea what intersectionality is.”
I always get a random view of hovering over a frog with a dull scalpel when I read it.
“I *still* have no idea what intersectionality is.”
I always get a random view of hovering over a frog with a dull scalpel when I read it.
“I *still* have no idea what intersectionality is.”
I always get a random view of hovering over a frog with a dull scalpel when I read it.
It’s all about who gets what issues.
Who actually gets what is territory that the government should be minimally involved in, is my preference.
Because once you give government the power to decide that, they may start making choices you are no longer quite so happy with.
Which has already happened, I would wager.
It’s all about who gets what issues.
Who actually gets what is territory that the government should be minimally involved in, is my preference.
Because once you give government the power to decide that, they may start making choices you are no longer quite so happy with.
Which has already happened, I would wager.
It’s all about who gets what issues.
Who actually gets what is territory that the government should be minimally involved in, is my preference.
Because once you give government the power to decide that, they may start making choices you are no longer quite so happy with.
Which has already happened, I would wager.
It’s all about who gets what issues.
What’s the point of issues? Politics may not be the only thing that determines who gets what, but that doesn’t mean it’s not about that.
It’s all about who gets what issues.
What’s the point of issues? Politics may not be the only thing that determines who gets what, but that doesn’t mean it’s not about that.
It’s all about who gets what issues.
What’s the point of issues? Politics may not be the only thing that determines who gets what, but that doesn’t mean it’s not about that.
Politics isn’t the only thing that determines who gets what. And who gets what isn’t the only thing that politics is about (see arguments about prayer in schools, for just one example).
Do we really need to go down this particular rabbit hole?
Politics isn’t the only thing that determines who gets what. And who gets what isn’t the only thing that politics is about (see arguments about prayer in schools, for just one example).
Do we really need to go down this particular rabbit hole?
Politics isn’t the only thing that determines who gets what. And who gets what isn’t the only thing that politics is about (see arguments about prayer in schools, for just one example).
Do we really need to go down this particular rabbit hole?
“Because once you give government the power to decide that, they may start making choices you are no longer quite so happy with.”
That goes for whatever societal institution is left, in the absence of government, to decide who gets what. Once you remove the power of government from the process, for example property rights, the choices made by whomever is left may not be so satisfying either.
Given their druthers, without government intervention (in other words, our intervention), hospitals, or most of them, would leave uninsured and underinsured patients lying on the lawn outside the emergency room doors.
True, the entire mess is hit and miss, trial and error.
Regarding intersectionality, I think one of Diane Keaton’s characters proposed the practice to one of Woody Allen’s characters in one of their early movies together. Maybe it was spelled differently, but whatever followed looked like fun.
However, I’m going to put aside some time to do my due diligence on the real item cited here to learn what’s up.
But I’m a little like the Three Stooges, whenever I hear someone come forth with specialized jargon, no matter the field or discipline (“Doctors, let us now resection the medulla oblongata”, or “Counselors, can we agree that this is a case of actio non datur non damnificato”, I go into an embarrassed display of pointless repetition of the jargon at hand and desperate gesticulation, some snapping of the fingers and the shaking of whomever’s hand is available, as if I’m getting down to the task at hand, then I rush off to read the handbook.
When Barney Fife was asked if he could sing a cappella, he said, “Sure, I know that one, and launched into a finger-snapping version of “a cappela, a cappela” to the tune of “La Cucuracha”.
“Because once you give government the power to decide that, they may start making choices you are no longer quite so happy with.”
That goes for whatever societal institution is left, in the absence of government, to decide who gets what. Once you remove the power of government from the process, for example property rights, the choices made by whomever is left may not be so satisfying either.
Given their druthers, without government intervention (in other words, our intervention), hospitals, or most of them, would leave uninsured and underinsured patients lying on the lawn outside the emergency room doors.
True, the entire mess is hit and miss, trial and error.
Regarding intersectionality, I think one of Diane Keaton’s characters proposed the practice to one of Woody Allen’s characters in one of their early movies together. Maybe it was spelled differently, but whatever followed looked like fun.
However, I’m going to put aside some time to do my due diligence on the real item cited here to learn what’s up.
But I’m a little like the Three Stooges, whenever I hear someone come forth with specialized jargon, no matter the field or discipline (“Doctors, let us now resection the medulla oblongata”, or “Counselors, can we agree that this is a case of actio non datur non damnificato”, I go into an embarrassed display of pointless repetition of the jargon at hand and desperate gesticulation, some snapping of the fingers and the shaking of whomever’s hand is available, as if I’m getting down to the task at hand, then I rush off to read the handbook.
When Barney Fife was asked if he could sing a cappella, he said, “Sure, I know that one, and launched into a finger-snapping version of “a cappela, a cappela” to the tune of “La Cucuracha”.
“Because once you give government the power to decide that, they may start making choices you are no longer quite so happy with.”
That goes for whatever societal institution is left, in the absence of government, to decide who gets what. Once you remove the power of government from the process, for example property rights, the choices made by whomever is left may not be so satisfying either.
Given their druthers, without government intervention (in other words, our intervention), hospitals, or most of them, would leave uninsured and underinsured patients lying on the lawn outside the emergency room doors.
True, the entire mess is hit and miss, trial and error.
Regarding intersectionality, I think one of Diane Keaton’s characters proposed the practice to one of Woody Allen’s characters in one of their early movies together. Maybe it was spelled differently, but whatever followed looked like fun.
However, I’m going to put aside some time to do my due diligence on the real item cited here to learn what’s up.
But I’m a little like the Three Stooges, whenever I hear someone come forth with specialized jargon, no matter the field or discipline (“Doctors, let us now resection the medulla oblongata”, or “Counselors, can we agree that this is a case of actio non datur non damnificato”, I go into an embarrassed display of pointless repetition of the jargon at hand and desperate gesticulation, some snapping of the fingers and the shaking of whomever’s hand is available, as if I’m getting down to the task at hand, then I rush off to read the handbook.
When Barney Fife was asked if he could sing a cappella, he said, “Sure, I know that one, and launched into a finger-snapping version of “a cappela, a cappela” to the tune of “La Cucuracha”.
“Do we really need to go down this particular rabbit hole?”
Lewis Carroll has already been invoked, so take this little pill and have at it.
“Do we really need to go down this particular rabbit hole?”
Lewis Carroll has already been invoked, so take this little pill and have at it.
“Do we really need to go down this particular rabbit hole?”
Lewis Carroll has already been invoked, so take this little pill and have at it.
(see arguments about prayer in schools, for just one example)
Rabbit holes aside, who gets to do what and where and in what manner and whether officially sanctioned or not is part of who gets what. “What” isn’t just stuff or money.
(see arguments about prayer in schools, for just one example)
Rabbit holes aside, who gets to do what and where and in what manner and whether officially sanctioned or not is part of who gets what. “What” isn’t just stuff or money.
(see arguments about prayer in schools, for just one example)
Rabbit holes aside, who gets to do what and where and in what manner and whether officially sanctioned or not is part of who gets what. “What” isn’t just stuff or money.
Regarding intersectionality, I think one of Diane Keaton’s characters proposed the practice to one of Woody Allen’s characters in one of their early movies together. Maybe it was spelled differently, but whatever followed looked like fun.
Did they go into that little phone-booth thingy after playing with the orb? The intersectionalitron, was it?
Regarding intersectionality, I think one of Diane Keaton’s characters proposed the practice to one of Woody Allen’s characters in one of their early movies together. Maybe it was spelled differently, but whatever followed looked like fun.
Did they go into that little phone-booth thingy after playing with the orb? The intersectionalitron, was it?
Regarding intersectionality, I think one of Diane Keaton’s characters proposed the practice to one of Woody Allen’s characters in one of their early movies together. Maybe it was spelled differently, but whatever followed looked like fun.
Did they go into that little phone-booth thingy after playing with the orb? The intersectionalitron, was it?
Politics is about who gets to decide the rules of the game.
Of course, it often boils down to the golden rule – he who has the gold makes the rules.
Politics is about who gets to decide the rules of the game.
Of course, it often boils down to the golden rule – he who has the gold makes the rules.
Politics is about who gets to decide the rules of the game.
Of course, it often boils down to the golden rule – he who has the gold makes the rules.
They’re hills to defend.
They’re hills to defend.
They’re hills to defend.
Hey if our RW friends want more prayer in school, I have a cunning plan:
MORE AND HARDER MATH EXAMS
Guaranteed to work. But no, with few exceptions they’re too chickens!t and ideologically PC to go along with it.
Hey if our RW friends want more prayer in school, I have a cunning plan:
MORE AND HARDER MATH EXAMS
Guaranteed to work. But no, with few exceptions they’re too chickens!t and ideologically PC to go along with it.
Hey if our RW friends want more prayer in school, I have a cunning plan:
MORE AND HARDER MATH EXAMS
Guaranteed to work. But no, with few exceptions they’re too chickens!t and ideologically PC to go along with it.
Intersectionality: My wife asked me if it was true that blacks were left behind to fend for themselves after Katrina because they were black?
I claimed they were left behind because they were poor.
Intersectionality: My wife asked me if it was true that blacks were left behind to fend for themselves after Katrina because they were black?
I claimed they were left behind because they were poor.
Intersectionality: My wife asked me if it was true that blacks were left behind to fend for themselves after Katrina because they were black?
I claimed they were left behind because they were poor.
The poor were left to fend for themselves. The poor blacks were shot for fending.
The poor were left to fend for themselves. The poor blacks were shot for fending.
The poor were left to fend for themselves. The poor blacks were shot for fending.
actually i think pretty much everyone was left to fend for themselves. some folks just had more resources to bring to the table than others.
and, the blacks were shot for fending.
actually i think pretty much everyone was left to fend for themselves. some folks just had more resources to bring to the table than others.
and, the blacks were shot for fending.
actually i think pretty much everyone was left to fend for themselves. some folks just had more resources to bring to the table than others.
and, the blacks were shot for fending.