[Politics] What matters more? My Sex or my Race? (Interesting MCU conversation explored)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Dreiko:
In my eyes, saying to someone "you're a man so you have to take a step back and let women's opinions rule the discourse" is no different than saying to someone "95% of people are not gay so you by definition can't be gay cause you're a person".

This all looks to me like a straw man.

There are obviously parts of the discourse where one demographic group (as per the example you supplied, women) must have priority. Imagine we want to discuss harassment of women on the street. One part of this must be asking women what their experiences are, and this really is a point men should take a baseline stance of shutting the fuck up.

That's not to say men aren't going to have interesting and important things to add somewhere in the process of discussing street harassment. But you can guarantee, and I've seen it a million times, some women will be discussing what it's like to be sexually pestered as they go about their business, and some man is going to interject and explain their experiences to them and how they should feel about it.

In fact, it's exactly this sort of thing that generated concepts like "safe spaces": because people who wanted to discuss things found it too difficult. Obviously the same big I ams intent on imposing their arrogant, spouting bullshit then started complaining about safe spaces, because they would resent not being able to impose their spouting bullshit on the general convesation.

Agema:
But you can guarantee, and I've seen it a million times, some women will be discussing what it's like to be sexually pestered as they go about their business, and some man is going to interject and explain their experiences to them and how they should feel about it.

Can someone explain why people do this? Sexual pestering someone they don't know. Or even doing it in general.

I always thought it was because I am introvert why I don't do this, but I can't believe it's a successful action. No woman I know speaks of this favorably. To me, it's like trying to bully an owner of a company to get a job and being surprised that it didn't work.

ObsidianJones:

Agema:
But you can guarantee, and I've seen it a million times, some women will be discussing what it's like to be sexually pestered as they go about their business, and some man is going to interject and explain their experiences to them and how they should feel about it.

Can someone explain why people do this? Sexual pestering someone they don't know. Or even doing it in general.

I always thought it was because I am introvert why I don't do this, but I can't believe it's a successful action. No woman I know speaks of this favorably. To me, it's like trying to bully an owner of a company to get a job and being surprised that it didn't work.

Same reason one might harass someone in another way, I'd think. It's supposed to be amusing more than actually achieve a specific result.

ObsidianJones:

This is all to say that the situation has been laid out that there are a lot of injustices in the world with a really slim finite amount of empathy. And it seems like we all as Minorities, LGBTQ, and Women.... and any iteration that comes from those groups, we're all fighting for that spotlight to make things a little more livable. It feels like a lot more would be done for the world if we stop trying to get the spotlight to focus on one of our iterations, and just widen the beam to humanity in order to figure out how we can just be together.

As I said recently in another thread, I don't think empathy is a finite resource. Rather, I believe empathy is the exact opposite. The more empathy you give and show, the more empathy you will have. It is when we withhold, ration or make our empathy conditional that we also throttle our own ability for empathy. When we say stuff like "maybe a black man shouldn't be looking threatening in the streets if he doesn't want the police to notice him", "she had a rape coming with a skirt that short" or "he has only himself to blame with that drug addiction, he could have just never started", that's when stymie our own ability to understand the realities of other people.

I think you're totally right in that we need to try and see all of it, to understand the many and diverse structural problems society has that prevents peoples of all genders, ethnicities and classes from living a full and happy life. The problem is that people who suffer, for whatever reason, are seldom very good at being balanced and reasonable in regards to their own suffering. It is all natural and not something you can be faulted for, we have evolved to prioritize removing threats to ourselves after all, but it creates this big problem where you can see that someone else is suffering but still feel that your own suffering is much more important. It obviously is, to you, but perhaps not to everyone else. At the same time, people who don't suffer often have a hard time understanding why all these suffering people are so insistent, rude or obnoxious and fail to really understand the extent of the problem. Shit, just look at this thread to see a few guys with privilege try to tell others that their problems are not really problems.

It is the Gordian knot of social justice really, that everyone needs to work together to create a just and equal society, yet no one wants to stand back and let others have their issues resolved before their own. And then there are a bunch of assholes around the world who just doesn't care about anyone who isn't them or theirs.

Specter Von Baren:

Agema:

Specter Von Baren:

I've noticed more and more of my fellow aspies acting... snobbish in regards to talking about NT's on forums which I feel is another sign of us having more power in the public sphere that they feel they can act that way.

That and the usual self-important narcissism so many forms of activism tend to develop.

Mm... it certainly depresses me to see them do it but I suppose it is just a fact of life.

Saelune:
It stuns me that people who support Trump complain I am uncivil. Oh wait, its because they don't actually care about civility, they just care about keeping people like me oppressed.

You agree with Dreiko. Thats the problem. Because you should not agree with Dreiko on this topic.

I'm not sure why Trump is suddenly a part of this topic. The rest of your point just proves what I just said.

Edit: It occurs to me that you may misunderstand what I meant when I said Dreiko made my point already. I was referring to their first post in this thread, anything else they've said I have no strong opinion about as of yet.

I brought Trump up because when Trump supporters criticize me for being uncivil, it is hypocritical because they and Trump are uncivil. Thus I am saying that your condemning of me is hypocritical.

And again, you agree with Dreiko, you should not agree with Dreiko, because Dreiko is wrong. He was wrong with his first post, he was wrong with every post after. Dreiko wants to simultaneously pretend bigotry doesn't exist at all, while claiming that it is straight white men who are actually persecuted.

Satinavian:

Saelune:
Too many men think equality with women means that women get to get away with not paying for dinner while getting as much money as men.

Is this really a thing in America ? It certainly is not here. Not even when on a date.

I think the problem with equality between men and women is how to measure it. The pay gap is a prime example. Sure, it exists, but why exactly and is it really a proof of discrimination ? That is not the only thing, but it is a pretty typical example.

Yes this is really a thing. It is probably a thing where you are too, you just probably ignore it. Maybe intentionally, maybe unintentionally, but it exists.

Just because you do not personally see or experience a problem, does not mean it does not exist. I myself have fallen folly to that by the way.

Saelune:
Yes this is really a thing. It is probably a thing where you are too, you just probably ignore it. Maybe intentionally, maybe unintentionally, but it exists.

No, it is not. People pay for themself, if it is not some kind of special celebration and gender is irrelevant for that.

Just because you do not personally see or experience a problem, does not mean it does not exist. I myself have fallen folly to that by the way.

Yes, there are thse kinds of problems that i don't experience and thus might underestimate. "Who is expected to pay the bills when eating out" is no such thing. I have been occasionally eating out basically my whole life and with a huge number of different people and can quite confident say "The man pays" is not actually a thing in this country. I also have read travel guides that mentioned everyone paying on his own as the proper local etiquette. Why do you think you know that better ?

Satinavian:

Saelune:
Yes this is really a thing. It is probably a thing where you are too, you just probably ignore it. Maybe intentionally, maybe unintentionally, but it exists.

No, it is not. People pay for themself, if it is not some kind of special celebration and gender is irrelevant for that.

Just because you do not personally see or experience a problem, does not mean it does not exist. I myself have fallen folly to that by the way.

Yes, there are thse kinds of problems that i don't experience and thus might underestimate. "Who is expected to pay the bills when eating out" is no such thing. I have been occasionally eating out basically my whole life and with a huge number of different people and can quite confident say "The man pays" is not actually a thing in this country. I also have read travel guides that mentioned everyone paying on his own as the proper local etiquette. Why do you think you know that better ?

Universally? No. But we gotta keep in mind just how flipping massive the United States is. Culture changes a lot when you move around, particularly in the Bible Belt.

erttheking:
You just more or less say that it should be discarded because it hasn't fixed all of those problems yet.

No, I'm not saying "it hasn't fixed all those problems yet". I'm saying it's incapable of generating policy proposals and directing activism in a meaningful way to translate proposals into policy. You can't expect results from a theory incapable of generating results to begin with.

Also, from my research on Kyriarchy, I see no real difference between it and intersectionality.

The key difference is that within kyriarchy, vectors of privilege and oppression can be ordered and means of doing so are offered, while acknowledging that as society and policy changes so do the relations between those vectors. This provides a toolkit for prioritizing action and policy proposals, because higher-order and shared struggles can be identified and selectively targeted for mutual benefit of all parties in turn. Again, my issue is with applicability, the capacity of theories to shape policy, and ultimately the ability of the theory to organize and direct action to effect policy.

Oh, BTW, has Kyriarchy "yielded solid policy proposals, or prioritized activism or direct action to achieve forthcoming policy goals."

You challenge this statement, yet you keep bringing up MLK. Funny thing about MLK, he didn't stop with the passage of the Civil Rights Act; afterwards he challenged racial discrimination in housing in the North (funny how people forget that), and after he pivoted to a whole different major civil rights issue. No, it wasn't Vietnam; his opposition to Vietnam was in service to it. What was it?

Now, apply this to the civil rights movement in sum. They identified key issues, appealed to shared struggles to build consensus and direct action, and leveraged policy successes based upon that action (and the political capital earned by it) to tackle higher-order issues in turn. Needless to say the strategy yielded the greatest civil rights successes seen in the US, period.

Well, that is until taking aim at one civil rights issue in particular. What was MLK planning to speak about the day he was shot, again?

Compare that to today, after thirty years' of intersectionality being the dominant paradigm in civil rights and activist discourse. Where are we now? Because last I checked, Roe's overturned in all but name and cops are still blowing away black people in the streets for vacation time.

Gethsemani:
As I said recently in another thread, I don't think empathy is a finite resource. Rather, I believe empathy is the exact opposite. The more empathy you give and show, the more empathy you will have. It is when we withhold, ration or make our empathy conditional that we also throttle our own ability for empathy. When we say stuff like "maybe a black man shouldn't be looking threatening in the streets if he doesn't want the police to notice him", "she had a rape coming with a skirt that short" or "he has only himself to blame with that drug addiction, he could have just never started", that's when stymie our own ability to understand the realities of other people.

I think you're totally right in that we need to try and see all of it, to understand the many and diverse structural problems society has that prevents peoples of all genders, ethnicities and classes from living a full and happy life. The problem is that people who suffer, for whatever reason, are seldom very good at being balanced and reasonable in regards to their own suffering. It is all natural and not something you can be faulted for, we have evolved to prioritize removing threats to ourselves after all, but it creates this big problem where you can see that someone else is suffering but still feel that your own suffering is much more important. It obviously is, to you, but perhaps not to everyone else. At the same time, people who don't suffer often have a hard time understanding why all these suffering people are so insistent, rude or obnoxious and fail to really understand the extent of the problem. Shit, just look at this thread to see a few guys with privilege try to tell others that their problems are not really problems.

It is the Gordian knot of social justice really, that everyone needs to work together to create a just and equal society, yet no one wants to stand back and let others have their issues resolved before their own. And then there are a bunch of assholes around the world who just doesn't care about anyone who isn't them or theirs.

You have no idea how much I wish to agree with you. But in this very thread, we've had someone claim that it is unfair to think about others because everyone is so used to one segment of the population being focused on, that those previously focused on people will have their happiness stripped away at that point.

We all have capability of Empathy. Kindness, Warmth, A unifying strength that could make Humanity undefeatable. I truly know that. Not believe, know.

But people need to choose to be that way. Just like no one is truly evil, but there are evil people out there. There has to be a choice in what you're doing.

I do not see people choosing Empathy. I sadly see people choose self-centered goals, and short sighted ideals. Our planet is dying, and we still have a segment of people who are concerned that if we just stop doing the things we're doing that is destroying our only world, how will that affect their ability to get their iphones?

I see that in Politics. Greece's Golden Dawn is is the third major political party, complete with actual Neo-Nazis holding office. AfD is still alarming people all over Germany, even though it's rose to being again, the third major party in the polls. Matteo Salvini and Lega has taken Italy by storm. Rassemblement National, France's Far-right party, is now seeing a bit of a lead in front of Macron.

"Not you, but Me" is at the heart of all these parties. And they are gaining support every day.

That's why I say there's a slim amount of Empathy to go around. Everyone's fighting a political war. And people have to admit to themselves if someone is equal to them, then that means they do have a seat at the table with resources and focus is divided up. The way politics is going now, I doubt more than half of the world's population really do want that.

But I'd be ever so glad to be wrong in this case.

ObsidianJones:
I do not see people choosing Empathy.

Well, some people are very low on empathy: like, sociopaths and narcissists, etc.

But empathy has to compete with lots of things. Take the boss of a company: would you rather have $1M or refuse to fire workers? Well, I guess a lot of people will take the $1M. The fired workers then might have envy and resentment, even vengeance contesting against empathy. Then there's plain old hatred. There's also defensiveness: if you see others suffering, it potentially generates guilt (that you might be partially contributing to it), or anxiety (fear that it might happen to you), and it can be easier to erase that psychological discomfort by blaming others.

But I think Gethsemani is right that empathy is not a limited resource or a zero sum game. It needs to be worked on, encouraged. The far right, however, is all about playing on fear, hate, disgust and so on to make everyone less empathetic. One might say they perhaps encourage in-group empathy at the expense of out-group, but I'm not sure that's really true either.

Agema:

ObsidianJones:
I do not see people choosing Empathy.

Well, some people are very low on empathy: like, sociopaths and narcissists, etc.

But empathy has to compete with lots of things. Take the boss of a company: would you rather have $1M or refuse to fire workers? Well, I guess a lot of people will take the $1M. The fired workers then might have envy and resentment, even vengeance contesting against empathy. Then there's plain old hatred. There's also defensiveness: if you see others suffering, it potentially generates guilt (that you might be partially contributing to it), or anxiety (fear that it might happen to you), and it can be easier to erase that psychological discomfort by blaming others.

But I think Gethsemani is right that empathy is not a limited resource or a zero sum game. It needs to be worked on, encouraged. The far right, however, is all about playing on fear, hate, disgust and so on to make everyone less empathetic. One might say they perhaps encourage in-group empathy at the expense of out-group, but I'm not sure that's really true either.

Empathy will be a limited resource due to how much people want to give out. I think we are capable of infinite Empathy. But we choose not to be. What we're capable of versus how we are is an interesting debate, but it sadly becomes academic when we're presented with what's actually happening in the world.

I'll say again. I want people to be more Empathetic. I think I hold myself in a manner that... well, that's my thing. I want to be there for others because I believe it in my soul to be the right thing to do. However, I have to sadly deal with how people actually are. And that is the mess we're all in now.

To the far right thing, I think that sums up how I see the world. Fear and hatred is a far amount easier to spread compassion and Empathy. This wounds me, because I know we're all capable of it. But I have to deal with what's really here.

Don't get me wrong. We obviously have bright spots. But they are the exception.

Satinavian:

Saelune:
Yes this is really a thing. It is probably a thing where you are too, you just probably ignore it. Maybe intentionally, maybe unintentionally, but it exists.

No, it is not. People pay for themself, if it is not some kind of special celebration and gender is irrelevant for that.

Just because you do not personally see or experience a problem, does not mean it does not exist. I myself have fallen folly to that by the way.

Yes, there are thse kinds of problems that i don't experience and thus might underestimate. "Who is expected to pay the bills when eating out" is no such thing. I have been occasionally eating out basically my whole life and with a huge number of different people and can quite confident say "The man pays" is not actually a thing in this country. I also have read travel guides that mentioned everyone paying on his own as the proper local etiquette. Why do you think you know that better ?

Why do YOU think YOU know that better? You seem damn well sure of yourself.

Look, if your country is so damn enlightened, then good for you. No really. But that hardly makes you an expert of the US, now does it? But go on, tell me I know my country less than you do.

Eacaraxe:
Snip

Incapable of directing activism. Hm. Let me do something magical. "The Republican party is racist and homophobic. The LGBT community and feminists should stand together." EGAGS! I just proposed a form of activism using intersectionality. Madness I tell you, madness. If you're looking for specific issues, we can look at, oh just off of the top of my head, abuse, sexual harassment, abortion rights, I'm just spitballing here. Also, we can direct it at feminism to point out that feminism can have a problem with being mainly for white women.

You know, the only real difference you've actually given me to have a difference between Intersectionality and Kyriarchy is apparently Kyriarchy has a list that depicts the winners and losers of the oppression Olympics that I thought you hated so much. Vectors of oppression can be ordered. Oh, ok. Would you like to share the results of that ordering?

Roe's been overturned in all but name (A gross oversimplification but whatever) and cops are still blowing away black people. So, in other words, Kyriarchy hasn't" yielded solid policy proposals, or prioritized activism or direct action to achieve forthcoming policy goals." Same, you were talking up such a big game about it, it's a bit disappointing to hear it's done so little. Also, I feel like you shot your own argument in the foot there, talking about how successful MLK was before going on to talk about how black people are still getting killed. Can you get your narrative straight, please?

Then again, this all relies on the fact that apparently, intersectionality can't get common goals organized, ignoring things like the 2017 Women's March being about LGBT rights and racial equality in addition to feminism. And it being the biggest single-day march in American history And tell me, what would your precious Kyriarchy have done differently?

Saelune:
I brought Trump up because when Trump supporters criticize me for being uncivil, it is hypocritical because they and Trump are uncivil. Thus I am saying that your condemning of me is hypocritical.

And again, you agree with Dreiko, you should not agree with Dreiko, because Dreiko is wrong. He was wrong with his first post, he was wrong with every post after. Dreiko wants to simultaneously pretend bigotry doesn't exist at all, while claiming that it is straight white men who are actually persecuted.

Saelune, it doesn't matter that you act like that because of how Trump supporters act. If a drunk driver runs over a girl, it doesn't matter of the drunk driver was drunk because she just lost her job after 10 years of hard work at the company, it doesn't change that what they did was wrong.

This is why your petulant attitude bugs me so much. I've never wanted people to just give me free reign to act however I want because of my autism, I have always just wanted them to know that I'm not doing it deliberately and that I can CHANGE if they work with me to do so. You refuse to better yourself and instead take the hardships and pain you feel to mean you get carte blanche to act like you do. You revel in the fact that you act as bad as the people you hate so it naturally rings hollow when you start saying how bad acting like that is.

Hawki:

trunkage:
It's the same problem with Racism. Their definition of civility is not in line with yours, and generally they make it up on the spot instead of having to deal with an argument.

Racism: "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Civility: "Formal politeness and courtesy in behaviour or speech."

It isn't hard.

Well, fuck. If only we had you a few months ago when we did those 10 page threads on Racism and Civility in R&P. Because those definition you provided definitely aren't in any possible way ambiguous, nor could they be interpreted differently by different people.

Eg. I think calling homosexuals abominable, evil, sinful and that they destroying society is uncivil. Christian Conservatives (or Muslims, for that matter) think that is civil

Those same people think calling people who have abortions baby murders. I would say that's uncivil.

I think saying that African Americans being enslaved was eventually beneficial for them is a racist statement. People like Sam Harris and Richard Spencer do not think its racist.

But please, go on about how your definition cures all the world problems.

The same issues arises with Captain America. Him being white man makes it hard for some people to connect with him, just like Black Panther is harder for some white people to connect with, or Danvers is hard for some men to connect with.

...and?

I don't doubt there might be some people whose ability to connect to fictional characters is dependent on their skin colour or gender. That said, I'd raise an eyebrow at the notion. If someone says "I can't connect with Carol Danvers because I'm not a white woman," that says far more about the person than the character.

I'm white and male. I have trouble connecting to Cap because I've never been patriotic, or served in the military, and generally I'm wary of "boyscout characters" in fiction (least in the MCU, I'll take Tony's snark before Cap's best you can be thing).* In contrast, I can connect to Carol more easily because I've often felt/feel isolated in part of a group (Starforce), and rarely been the most confident person in said group, so as cheesy as it is, the "I'm Just a Girl" sequence is fun, if nothing else. Can't comment on T'Challa since I haven't seen Black Panther, but point being, when I think of the character traits, skin colour and gender are rarely the things that come to mind.

*Though according to a "which Avenger are you?" quiz I'm actually most like Cap, so...yay?

I thought Captain Marvel was way better, but I seem to be in the minority, at least on this forum

Well, I'll second at least that I liked Captain Marvel. It's average, but still, enjoyable. Of the MCU films I've seen, it takes the #10 spot.

Hey, I'm all for well written LBGT characters. LBGT is not a character trait. Just don't expect that to connect with some audience who've never experienced anything like thier world view, especially when they automatically find it deplorable or evil. No amount of writing will ever get over that hurdle

Boy Erased.

Saw that last year, where a teen comes out as gay in his Christian family, which results in family breakdown, and he's forced to attend gay conversion therapy. Believe it or not, despite being not gay, and not Christian, I was able to empathize with the character because the writing/acting/context sold me on the emotional trauma. The ability to empathize in fiction and reality isn't dependent on shared experience.

Really not buying the idea that you need to be the same as a fictional character to connect with them. Like, if that was the case, I'd have never grown up reading Sonic comics because a) I'm not a hedgehog, and b) never been a good runner (flat feet, little bastards).

I actually don't understand why people feel connected to race or gender and it sounds exactly the same for you. But, clearly, many people do.

So, your choice is to... what... say they are idiots for feeling this way? Take it away from people?

Me personally, if I don't understand why people connect like that, I say good for them. It's important to them and it doesn't hurt anybody, certainly not me.

Lastly, as you pointed out, many characters are great becuase they speak to a certain feeling you've had in your life - your Boy Erased and Captain Marvel examples for example. But not everyone has had your experience. Cap for me was way to patriotic for the first movie. Was pretty good in the second, as he felt used by, and chose the hard choice. Which is ruined by the third movie, by hiding a fugitive and betraying Stark. His distaste for government intervention, or even willing to deal with that situation let Thanos win in Infinity War, and Stark calling him out for it in Endgame was exactly how I felt about Cap. Captain America keeps changing personalities. But, for some reason, everyone still loves him and I would deny it has anything to do with his character. He screwed up just as much as Stark and he ran away from problems on multiple occasion. That doesnt sound like a hero to me

erttheking:
EGAGS! I just proposed a form of activism using intersectionality.

No you didn't, you just stated the obvious. You're listing off problems and bitching about Republicans without actually proposing anything of real weight, or anything really but a half-hearted, half-assed, vague critique which actually is in agreement with what I have to say.

Which is really the heart of contemporary "activism": for-profit, brand-name bitching about problems without any real effort to solve them, because the "for profit" part means there is a vested financial interest in perpetuating social issues. In the rare case there is actual effort, it is quickly and efficiently silenced and discredited by infighting while profiteers laugh all the way to the bank. And, in the rare case "movements" survive this step, the come out they other side so broadly-focused and rhetorically arcane in an effort to appeal to as many groups as possible in fear of treading on anyone's shoes, organization to yield policy results is impossible.

It's funny you brought up Women's March, because last I checked it's suffered that exact fate. A handful of people made a killing on the speaking circuit and selling merch, record and ticket sales of celebrities who participated went up, and not a whole lot of anything else other than clickbaiting on the op-ed/pundit circuit about how transphobic, homophobic, and antisemitic the movement, its founders, and leaders may or may not be. The estimate for participation in the 2018 Women's March was 5% what it was in 2017, and so few individuals participated this year there aren't even available estimates.

Congratulations for citing a movement even less successful than Occupy. And just like Occupy, this can be directly attributed (in my opinion) to how unfocused and milquetoast the platform of the movement ended up being. "If you try to please everyone, you please no one".

Also, we can direct it at feminism to point out that feminism can have a problem with being mainly for white women.

White, upper-class, educated women with first-world problems, and profiteers.

Can you get your narrative straight, please?

I know you're desperate to change the subject and poke holes in my argument, but there's nothing awry about this and everything I have said has been completely consistent. But, since you're either genuinely not getting where I'm going or simply playing dense, here.

Due to structural and organizational incompetence wrought by chasing the dragon of a philosophically DOA social theory, which enables the dubious leadership of an emergent profiteer/activist class, civil rights activism has weakened to a point we have regressed as a society, in some cases a century or further.

Happy?

Specter Von Baren:

Saelune:
I brought Trump up because when Trump supporters criticize me for being uncivil, it is hypocritical because they and Trump are uncivil. Thus I am saying that your condemning of me is hypocritical.

And again, you agree with Dreiko, you should not agree with Dreiko, because Dreiko is wrong. He was wrong with his first post, he was wrong with every post after. Dreiko wants to simultaneously pretend bigotry doesn't exist at all, while claiming that it is straight white men who are actually persecuted.

Saelune, it doesn't matter that you act like that because of how Trump supporters act. If a drunk driver runs over a girl, it doesn't matter of the drunk driver was drunk because she just lost her job after 10 years of hard work at the company, it doesn't change that what they did was wrong.

This is why your petulant attitude bugs me so much. I've never wanted people to just give me free reign to act however I want because of my autism, I have always just wanted them to know that I'm not doing it deliberately and that I can CHANGE if they work with me to do so. You refuse to better yourself and instead take the hardships and pain you feel to mean you get carte blanche to act like you do. You revel in the fact that you act as bad as the people you hate so it naturally rings hollow when you start saying how bad acting like that is.

I say mean things about people who commit hate crimes, so according to you I am worse than people who commit hate crimes.

This is literally my point, that I am criticized more than the actual bad people.

I am saying drunk driving is terrible, and you are saying I am as bad as people who kill innocent girls with cars.

Or actually it is like saying people who condemn Nazis are 'equal' to actual Nazis who literally murdered Heather Heyer with their car. Ya know, like Trump said.

I am tired of being told I am wrong for standing up to bullies.

Eacaraxe:
Snip

Hey, I'm just going by the standards that you set when you were talking about how good Kyriarchy was. Also, I asked you to share the supposed ordering that Kyriarchy has. You failed to do so. Why am I not surprised. Maybe people in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks about bitching. I think you have a bit of an issue in that you suffer from extreme tunnel vision and use it to vent about things you don't like. Complaining about for-profit activism is all fine and dandy, but you act like it's the only form of protest available. And if that's all you see, you aren't looking very hard. I've seen students do walk out protests in favor of gun control to fixing climate change. And before you get all rose-tinted glasses, exactly how many MLK level protests actually happened in the past. How many reached your standards? I doubt there's many.

Oh, people made killings? Cite your sources kindly. Yeah, I kind of notice you're severely lacking there. Making all of these claims and not providing any sources to back it up. Just getting more and more pissed. Also, hate to break it to you, a protest that causes instant change, right now? Those are extremely rare. Most of the time, protesting is constant pressure against vile policies and acts, and you have to keep pushing. MLK and what he did is borderline impossible to recreate. The Women's March was another thrust in the right direction, and you have to keep thrusting, constantly, to make it clear that there is opposition and to provide a voice for the opposition, otherwise things get a lot worse, particularly in a heavily partisan world. Also, this is ignoring what internet activism can do as well. Frankly, let's take a quick look at recent victories Change.org has to offer. Paid maternity leave, cheaper insulin in Colorado, Google removing an app encouraging conversion therapy. And you're also ignoring activism done by non-profit groups such as the ACLU.

https://www.change.org/p/michael-mulgrew-help-nyc-teachers-fight-for-paid-maternity-leave

https://www.change.org/p/colorado-general-assembly-fight-excessively-high-insulin-costs-by-passing-hb19-1216

https://www.change.org/p/demand-google-stop-peddling-dangerous-pray-away-the-gay-app-targeting-lgbt-youth

Poking holes in your argument? Don't really need to do that, it's already doing a good impersonation of a screen door. Except screen doors aren't overly aggressive and sweary at the expense of their arguments. But sure, call me dense to cover up your argument's failings. Also, we've regressed by a century. Riiiiiight. Women lost the right to vote and all the Jim Crow laws came back. Yeah, that sounds about right. The only thing where that's even close to relevant is the fact that we are approaching Gilded Age era wealth disparity, but that's about it.

Happy? Not really. I'm more underwhelmed. You failed to defense your precious Kyriarchy and more just ranted about rich people. Hey, can you actually answer my questions about Kyriarchy? I find it kind of bad faith that you didn't.

Eacaraxe:

erttheking:
EGAGS! I just proposed a form of activism using intersectionality.

No you didn't, you just stated the obvious. You're listing off problems and bitching about Republicans without actually proposing anything of real weight, or anything really but a half-hearted, half-assed, vague critique which actually is in agreement with what I have to say.

Which is really the heart of contemporary "activism": for-profit, brand-name bitching about problems without any real effort to solve them, because the "for profit" part means there is a vested financial interest in perpetuating social issues. In the rare case there is actual effort, it is quickly and efficiently silenced and discredited by infighting while profiteers laugh all the way to the bank. And, in the rare case "movements" survive this step, the come out they other side so broadly-focused and rhetorically arcane in an effort to appeal to as many groups as possible in fear of treading on anyone's shoes, organization to yield policy results is impossible.

It's funny you brought up Women's March, because last I checked it's suffered that exact fate. A handful of people made a killing on the speaking circuit and selling merch, record and ticket sales of celebrities who participated went up, and not a whole lot of anything else other than clickbaiting on the op-ed/pundit circuit about how transphobic, homophobic, and antisemitic the movement, its founders, and leaders may or may not be. The estimate for participation in the 2018 Women's March was 5% what it was in 2017, and so few individuals participated this year there aren't even available estimates.

Congratulations for citing a movement even less successful than Occupy. And just like Occupy, this can be directly attributed (in my opinion) to how unfocused and milquetoast the platform of the movement ended up being. "If you try to please everyone, you please no one".

Also, we can direct it at feminism to point out that feminism can have a problem with being mainly for white women.

White, upper-class, educated women with first-world problems, and profiteers.

Can you get your narrative straight, please?

I know you're desperate to change the subject and poke holes in my argument, but there's nothing awry about this and everything I have said has been completely consistent. But, since you're either genuinely not getting where I'm going or simply playing dense, here.

Due to structural and organizational incompetence wrought by chasing the dragon of a philosophically DOA social theory, which enables the dubious leadership of an emergent profiteer/activist class, civil rights activism has weakened to a point we have regressed as a society, in some cases a century or further.

Happy?

I've also become a bit cynical after encountering many supposed activist movements that seem more geared towards advancing the careers of the movement's faces and creating spectacle rather than actually working to solve any problems. One of the dead give aways is the word "Awareness". While certainly not always the case, events and fundraisers for "Raising Awareness" generally just serve to put money into the pockets of organizers in order to fund further events and fundraisers in a never ending cycle while not actually contributing anything to the problem they are "raising awareness" about. While some problems are obscure and underrepresented enough that "raising awareness" actually has some merit, usually this isn't the case and organizers are taking advantage of a well know problem to profit off of, because the more people who know about and care about said problem the more money there is to be made. The most egregious example of this is breast cancer. You know all those pink products with the little pink ribbons on them that are absolutely everywhere, even on freaking yogurt? Odds are that money doesn't go to breast cancer research or toward helping the victims of breast cancer, but to "Awareness". Meaning, that money goes toward making more pink things and to paying staff to approach companies and convince them they will see a sales boost and some good PR if they put their little pink ribbon on some of their packaging.

erttheking:

Dreiko:
Snip

You gave me no reason to suspect otherwise. Also. Ally...subservient. Where do you get these notions? Exactly? Only lunatics care about being referred to the gender they identify as, allies are subservient and lack initiative. Tell me, do I strike you as someone who lacks initiative or is subservient? Being an ally to the LGBT community requires you to have a fire in your belly. Also you don't give a damn about any community in general terms. With all due respect Dreiko, that's a highly unproductive mindset. Maybe in a better time we can afford to not care about communities and just see a mass of individuals. But that is not a time we live in now, nor is it a time we will live in anytime soon. Equality requires a level playing field, which we don't have. Ignoring that and pretending that you're being equal by not paying attention to the struggles of individual communities gets nothing done and is just giving yourself a pat on the back.

I detect a bit of false dilemma here. You seem to be implying that trans people are divided into people who either don't care at all about being referred do by the correct gender and those who freak out at the drop of a hat. If this is accurate, I can tell you, it's a shallow take on the trans community. Gotta say though, I find it telling how critical you are about trans people, only having nice things to say about the ones that let you call them whatever you prefer. It doesn't say good things.

Any conversation I've seen where "marginalized" people discussed their concept of an "ally" they were talking about what some on the right would describe as a cucked white dude who is there to lend support because their whiteness lends credibility to their voices but someone who is not to be a leader or offer foundational contributions to the effort because that is by definition not his place. I don't know what else you call that but subservient.

And we had the level playing field, that's what it was when everyone was a caveman. You don't fix inequality by applying more inequality to someone else. Who it's applied to isn't the issue, inequality itself is the issue. What you're doing is trying to fix the problem of someone having lost an arm by amputating their other arm too and pretending they were just not supposed to have arms all along. No, society is better having even just one arm as opposed to no arms.

Dreiko:
Snip

Well of course the right would describe them as a cuck, the right describe anyone who challenges their world view as cucks. And if you're taking them seriously, you're playing right into their hands. Because. *Points at self* I'm an ally. A welcome ally. I've been in and out of safe places for LGBT. You wanna call me subservient? Go ahead. Try it.

Dreiko, did you think that inequality just magically sprang up when agriculture happened? No. Women were not seen as equal to men in the stone age, ergo we did not have a level playing field. What high-school did you go to? And you compare someone wanting to be referred to as their preferred gender with amputating? I will repeat what I said earlier. Get some real problems. If you think the strife that trans people face (someone having lost an arm) is just as bad as having to refer to people by their preferred gender (amputating their other arm) then you must have the thinnest skin in the world. Maybe it's for the best you're not an ally. You want everything to be brought to a screeching halt the second it inconveniences you. I'm going to leave you a quote.

image

Dreiko? You are showing shallow understanding and lukewarm acceptance.

Saelune:
Why do YOU think YOU know that better? You seem damn well sure of yourself.

Look, if your country is so damn enlightened, then good for you. No really. But that hardly makes you an expert of the US, now does it? But go on, tell me I know my country less than you do.

Good thing then that i was talking about MY culture and MY country and not the US.

Which is a topic where i am absolutely certain that I do know better than YOU. And i never claimed i know the US better than you do. Just the opposite. YOU are claiming you know MY reality better than me and that i was probably delusional if my experience does not fit your US-centric worldview :

Saelune:
Yes this is really a thing. It is probably a thing where you are too, you just probably ignore it. Maybe intentionally, maybe unintentionally, but it exists.

I did not make a single statement about the US situation in this thread. It is you insisting it must be the same in places you have never been. This kind of hypocricy is hard to believe.

As for it being enlightened, well, i couldn't say because i am not really familiar with the realities in other countries. But considering how YOU describe the US, that might very well be true in comparison. I have never been to the US. But since visiting this forum, my opinion of it has dropped significantly. Because i am willing to listen instead of assuming that it would probably be more or less the same over there anyway.
Yes, still anecdotical evidence, but what Americans post here does not paint a pretty picture at all.

Dreiko:

Any conversation I've seen where "marginalized" people discussed their concept of an "ally" they were talking about what some on the right would describe as a cucked white dude who is there to lend support because their whiteness lends credibility to their voices but someone who is not to be a leader or offer foundational contributions to the effort because that is by definition not his place. I don't know what else you call that but subservient.

Sure you could call it subservient. But imagine a corporation if you will, one that operates in a really sensitive market and under some serious constraints, say healthcare. Imagine that this corporation has to pick out a new board of directors, do you think they'd want to choose those guys with business degrees, a literature major and someone who focused on sports psychology or would they want doctors, nurses, healthcare administrators and other people who know the workings of healthcare?

The same applies to marginalized groups. Feminists generally don't want men to be their figureheads by the simple virtue that men don't quite understand the challenges facing women. Black people don't want white people to be the greatest proponents of BLM because white people can't get the particular kind of problems black people face, even if said white person is from the same socioeconomic strata.

You can call it subservience, if you want to be melodramatic. You probably should call it a desire to ensure that the best suited people get to be at the front. The best suited for social movements will always be those who suffer oppression, discrimination or injustice, not the people on the sidelines who might empathize but haven't suffered it themselves. That's not to say that white men (to be really typical) can't make important contributions to feminism or ending racism, but they shouldn't expect to be at the front of a movement that's not about them. To do so is, if you will allow me to be really Tumblrina SJW, a really good definition of White Male Privilege.

Satinavian:

Saelune:
Why do YOU think YOU know that better? You seem damn well sure of yourself.

Look, if your country is so damn enlightened, then good for you. No really. But that hardly makes you an expert of the US, now does it? But go on, tell me I know my country less than you do.

Good thing then that i was talking about MY culture and MY country and not the US.

Which is a topic where i am absolutely certain that I do know better than YOU. And i never claimed i know the US better than you do. Just the opposite. YOU are claiming you know MY reality better than me and that i was probably delusional if my experience does not fit your US-centric worldview :

Saelune:
Yes this is really a thing. It is probably a thing where you are too, you just probably ignore it. Maybe intentionally, maybe unintentionally, but it exists.

I did not make a single statement about the US situation in this thread. It is you insisting it must be the same in places you have never been. This kind of hypocricy is hard to believe.

As for it being enlightened, well, i couldn't say because i am not really familiar with the realities in other countries. But considering how YOU describe the US, that might very well be true in comparison. I have never been to the US. But since visiting this forum, my opinion of it has dropped significantly. Because i am willing to listen instead of assuming that it would probably be more or less the same over there anyway.
Yes, still anecdotical evidence, but what Americans post here does not paint a pretty picture at all.

image

Dreiko:

erttheking:

Dreiko:
Snip

You gave me no reason to suspect otherwise. Also. Ally...subservient. Where do you get these notions? Exactly? Only lunatics care about being referred to the gender they identify as, allies are subservient and lack initiative. Tell me, do I strike you as someone who lacks initiative or is subservient? Being an ally to the LGBT community requires you to have a fire in your belly. Also you don't give a damn about any community in general terms. With all due respect Dreiko, that's a highly unproductive mindset. Maybe in a better time we can afford to not care about communities and just see a mass of individuals. But that is not a time we live in now, nor is it a time we will live in anytime soon. Equality requires a level playing field, which we don't have. Ignoring that and pretending that you're being equal by not paying attention to the struggles of individual communities gets nothing done and is just giving yourself a pat on the back.

I detect a bit of false dilemma here. You seem to be implying that trans people are divided into people who either don't care at all about being referred do by the correct gender and those who freak out at the drop of a hat. If this is accurate, I can tell you, it's a shallow take on the trans community. Gotta say though, I find it telling how critical you are about trans people, only having nice things to say about the ones that let you call them whatever you prefer. It doesn't say good things.

Any conversation I've seen where "marginalized" people discussed their concept of an "ally" they were talking about what some on the right would describe as a cucked white dude who is there to lend support because their whiteness lends credibility to their voices but someone who is not to be a leader or offer foundational contributions to the effort because that is by definition not his place. I don't know what else you call that but subservient.

And we had the level playing field, that's what it was when everyone was a caveman. You don't fix inequality by applying more inequality to someone else. Who it's applied to isn't the issue, inequality itself is the issue. What you're doing is trying to fix the problem of someone having lost an arm by amputating their other arm too and pretending they were just not supposed to have arms all along. No, society is better having even just one arm as opposed to no arms.

And yet you wonder why I have the opinion of you that I do.

To use your analogy, you are mad that people with real medical problems want to get medical help before you and your paper cuts.

Saelune:
image

Thank you, but i already know you are great at moving goalposts. No need to demonstrate it again

Satinavian:

Saelune:
image

Thank you, but i already know you are great at moving goalposts. No need to demonstrate it again

And you wonder why I have the opinion of you that I do.

Saelune:
And you wonder why I have the opinion of you that I do.

Actually i don't care anymore what your opinion of me is.

But just because you openly declared that you are not willing to behave in a civil manner, doesn't mean everyone else has to accommodate it.

I did cite the relevant parts of your statements. Everyone can read how the conversation went and that it certainly was not me making statements about foreign countries.

Satinavian:

Saelune:
And you wonder why I have the opinion of you that I do.

Actually i don't care anymore what your opinion of me is.

But just because you openly declared that you are not willing to behave in a civil manner, doesn't mean everyone else has to accommodate it.

I did cite the relevant parts of your statements. Everyone can read how the conversation went and that it certainly was not me making statements about foreign countries.

I am not willing to engage in submissive behavior just to appease bigoted and uncaring people who are perfectly fine with oppression as usual.

I am even more so unwilling to submit to uncivil people who call me uncivil while defending the first President to regularly swear and insult anyone and everyone.

I refuse to submit to hypocrites.

When I refuse to lie in the mud so people can walk on my back, you call me uncivil. I call it standing up for myself.

Your definition of civility is uncivil.

erttheking:
Also, I asked you to share the supposed ordering that Kyriarchy has. You failed to do so. Why am I not surprised.

Or, you ignored, or failed to understand, how I outlined the civil rights movements' (proto-)kyriarchal structure and organizational strategies. The civil rights movement recognized that with the existence of Jim Crow in the South, and inequity in property in the North, race was the primary position of privilege and directed its efforts towards policy results to fix that. Having achieved its policy goals for the most part and realizing income and wealth inequity was the next step towards racial justice, but also acknowledging classism was a shared struggle regardless of race, the movement revised its position to acknowledge class as the primary position of privilege and begun directing its efforts towards policy results to fix that. Then civil rights leaders started getting plugged, and that was the end of that for the time being.

Because you don't like my answer, or don't understand it, doesn't mean I failed to provide one. That's on you.

Complaining about for-profit activism is all fine and dandy, but you act like it's the only form of protest available.

Most prevalent form of protest with an hegemonic grip on activism in sum, and being inherently capitalist it is by definition anti-competitive, so indeed I feel quite justified in arguing it's monopolistic. Thank you very much.

Oh, people made killings? Cite your sources kindly.

I need to cite Sarsour, Mallory, et. al. have leveraged their position as founders and organizers of Women's March to work the paid lecture circuit? Or that Women's March merch has been a hot sales item for two years? Or, that celebrities such as Lauper, MILCK, and Springsteen have enjoyed renewed (or new) success in the wake of their support for Women's March?

Also, hate to break it to you, a protest that causes instant change, right now? Those are extremely rare.

Ah, the "we changed the conversation!" canard. No sale. Like "right side of history", this is a self-comforting mantra of failure designed to preclude introspection and the potential realization that maybe someone fucked up. Activists either incorporate and organize to direct action, or they fail, and the overwhelming preference of the past few decades is to self-destruct.

Frankly, let's take a quick look at recent victories Change.org has to offer. Paid maternity leave, cheaper insulin in Colorado, Google removing an app encouraging conversion therapy. And you're also ignoring activism done by non-profit groups such as the ACLU.

Oh for God's sake. As a former dues-paying member of the ACLU and activist on its behalf on the local, state, and national level for the better part of a decade, let me explain something to you.

The ACLU is an incorporated, not-for-profit, interest group. The ACLU fundraises and engages in campaign financing and ad-buys on the behalf of supported candidates, lobbies, organizes ballot referenda when applicable, liaises with other non-profs on shared issues, litigates, and supports court cases within its realm of interest but not argued by attorneys on behalf of the organization through amici. In other words, it actually does shit to directly influence policy-craft, and "awareness raising" is actually a minority of what it does. But at the same time, despite taking on a wide array of social issues, the ACLU remains laser-focused on a narrow set of interests: crafting a legal landscape that maximizes and preserves civil liberties as enumerated within, and emanating from, the Constitution and its amendments.

Which is what an interest group does. Interest groups are not social movements. Interest groups are formal institutions incorporated to effect public policy within a single interest, or a narrowly-focused set of interconnected interests. Interest groups may voice support for social movements when that movement's activities fall within that group's purview, and interest groups may incorporate out of social movements, but they are not the same (social movements are, at best, informal institutions).

Likewise, change.org is a tool. It is a petition aggregator. It isn't even a non-profit, in fact; it's a paid service administered and provided by Change.org, Inc. Non-profs, and activists, may use the services it provides, but it is not in and of itself a movement. Of the three links you shared, two petitions were posted by non-prof organizations and the third was by an individual, which was used by her teachers' union to build support for benefits already in negotiation.

Try not providing counter-examples to your own argument, please.

The only thing where that's even close to relevant is the fact that we are approaching Gilded Age era wealth disparity, but that's about it.

Okay, what part of "in some cases" do you not understand? That's exactly the case I have been alluding to for only the...what, last three posts? If it were only wealth disparity, you might have a point, but we're not just talking about wealth and income disparity. We're talking about food, water, drug, and air safety regulations; the rights of workers to organize, and occupational health and safety regulations; antitrust and anti-cartel regulations; trading and banking regulations; campaign finance and political corruption regulations; and those are just key salient social issues which I can name off the top of my head.

And if you believe for a nanosecond that we're not approaching Gilded Age levels of deregulation in any and all of the above-stated issues, you need to stop watching talking heads bitching about Russia and Trump tweets, and instead actually start paying attention to alphabet agencies' agendas since the Trump inauguration.

All of which, by the way, disproportionally impact historically-disadvantaged groups. Just in case you forgot Flint still has polluted water, or DAPL didn't get built. You might say "well there's your intersectionality! LOL!", but no: all intersectionality provides is a framework for identifying how institutional poverty, for example, impacts disparate groups of historically-disadvantaged peoples, such that even though it is a shared struggle different groups with different interests condemn themselves to infighting and failure. Which, as I've bent backwards to point out, is exactly what happens and why contemporary social movements fail.

Kyriarchy, on the other hand, at least provides a framework for identifying shared struggles and root causes, and targeting individual vectors of privilege to ameliorate those struggles. From there, organization and support-building can occur, and direct action to effect policy undertaken.

Saelune:
I am not willing to engage in submissive behavior just to appease bigoted and uncaring people who are perfectly fine with oppression as usual.

I am even more so unwilling to submit to uncivil people who call me uncivil while defending the first President to regularly swear and insult anyone and everyone.

I refuse to submit to hypocrites.

None of that does justify your behavior towards me in this thread.

"But Trump!" is a shallow argument even for shitty behavior against your local rightwingers but might work somewhat considering the absurd bipartisanship of the US. But it really falls flat as excuse for uncivil behavior when discussing with Nonamericans with an unfavorable opinion about Trump.

Eacaraxe:

erttheking:
Also, I asked you to share the supposed ordering that Kyriarchy has. You failed to do so. Why am I not surprised.

Or, you ignored, or failed to understand, how I outlined the civil rights movements' (proto-)kyriarchal structure and organizational strategies. The civil rights movement recognized that with the existence of Jim Crow in the South, and inequity in property in the North, race was the primary position of privilege and directed its efforts towards policy results to fix that. Having achieved its policy goals for the most part and realizing income and wealth inequity was the next step towards racial justice, but also acknowledging classism was a shared struggle regardless of race, the movement revised its position to acknowledge class as the primary position of privilege and begun directing its efforts towards policy results to fix that. Then civil rights leaders started getting plugged, and that was the end of that for the time being.

Because you don't like my answer, or don't understand it, doesn't mean I failed to provide one. That's on you.

Complaining about for-profit activism is all fine and dandy, but you act like it's the only form of protest available.

Most prevalent form of protest with an hegemonic grip on activism in sum, and being inherently capitalist it is by definition anti-competitive, so indeed I feel quite justified in arguing it's monopolistic. Thank you very much.

Oh, people made killings? Cite your sources kindly.

I need to cite Sarsour, Mallory, et. al. have leveraged their position as founders and organizers of Women's March to work the paid lecture circuit? Or that Women's March merch has been a hot sales item for two years? Or, that celebrities such as Lauper, MILCK, and Springsteen have enjoyed renewed (or new) success in the wake of their support for Women's March?

Also, hate to break it to you, a protest that causes instant change, right now? Those are extremely rare.

Ah, the "we changed the conversation!" canard. No sale. Like "right side of history", this is a self-comforting mantra of failure designed to preclude introspection and the potential realization that maybe someone fucked up. Activists either incorporate and organize to direct action, or they fail, and the overwhelming preference of the past few decades is to self-destruct.

Frankly, let's take a quick look at recent victories Change.org has to offer. Paid maternity leave, cheaper insulin in Colorado, Google removing an app encouraging conversion therapy. And you're also ignoring activism done by non-profit groups such as the ACLU.

Oh for God's sake. As a former dues-paying member of the ACLU and activist on its behalf on the local, state, and national level for the better part of a decade, let me explain something to you.

The ACLU is an incorporated, not-for-profit, interest group. The ACLU fundraises and engages in campaign financing and ad-buys on the behalf of supported candidates, lobbies, organizes ballot referenda when applicable, liaises with other non-profs on shared issues, litigates, and supports court cases within its realm of interest but not argued by attorneys on behalf of the organization through amici. In other words, it actually does shit to directly influence policy-craft, and "awareness raising" is actually a minority of what it does. But at the same time, despite taking on a wide array of social issues, the ACLU remains laser-focused on a narrow set of interests: crafting a legal landscape that maximizes and preserves civil liberties as enumerated within, and emanating from, the Constitution and its amendments.

Which is what an interest group does. Interest groups are not social movements. Interest groups are formal institutions incorporated to effect public policy within a single interest, or a narrowly-focused set of interconnected interests. Interest groups may voice support for social movements when that movement's activities fall within that group's purview, and interest groups may incorporate out of social movements, but they are not the same (social movements are, at best, informal institutions).

Likewise, change.org is a tool. It is a petition aggregator. It isn't even a non-profit, in fact; it's a paid service administered and provided by Change.org, Inc. Non-profs, and activists, may use the services it provides, but it is not in and of itself a movement. Of the three links you shared, two petitions were posted by non-prof organizations and the third was by an individual, which was used by her teachers' union to build support for benefits already in negotiation.

Try not providing counter-examples to your own argument, please.

The only thing where that's even close to relevant is the fact that we are approaching Gilded Age era wealth disparity, but that's about it.

Okay, what part of "in some cases" do you not understand? That's exactly the case I have been alluding to for only the...what, last three posts? If it were only wealth disparity, you might have a point, but we're not just talking about wealth and income disparity. We're talking about food, water, drug, and air safety regulations; the rights of workers to organize, and occupational health and safety regulations; antitrust and anti-cartel regulations; trading and banking regulations; campaign finance and political corruption regulations; and those are just key salient social issues which I can name off the top of my head.

And if you believe for a nanosecond that we're not approaching Gilded Age levels of deregulation in any and all of the above-stated issues, you need to stop watching talking heads bitching about Russia and Trump tweets, and instead actually start paying attention to alphabet agencies' agendas since the Trump inauguration.

All of which, by the way, disproportionally impact historically-disadvantaged groups. Just in case you forgot Flint still has polluted water, or DAPL didn't get built. You might say "well there's your intersectionality! LOL!", but no: all intersectionality provides is a framework for identifying how institutional poverty, for example, impacts disparate groups of historically-disadvantaged peoples, such that even though it is a shared struggle different groups with different interests condemn themselves to infighting and failure. Which, as I've bent backwards to point out, is exactly what happens and why contemporary social movements fail.

Kyriarchy, on the other hand, at least provides a framework for identifying shared struggles and root causes, and targeting individual vectors of privilege to ameliorate those struggles. From there, organization and support-building can occur, and direct action to effect policy undertaken.

Kyriarchy is to Intersectionality as All Lives Matter is to Black Lives Matter. As in a bunch of bullshit meant to silence people speaking up about injustice while trying to pretend to be 'better' than the people pointing out the injustice.

All Lives Matter is nice on paper, but it is used by racists who don't want to care about the problems black people face. You are using Kyriarchy as an excuse to deny the sexism of powerful men against women.

Anyways, a bunch of men in Alabama just made abortion illegal there.

Satinavian:

Saelune:
I am not willing to engage in submissive behavior just to appease bigoted and uncaring people who are perfectly fine with oppression as usual.

I am even more so unwilling to submit to uncivil people who call me uncivil while defending the first President to regularly swear and insult anyone and everyone.

I refuse to submit to hypocrites.

None of that does justify your behavior towards me in this thread.

"But Trump!" is a shallow argument even for shitty behavior against your local rightwingers but might work somewhat considering the absurd bipartisanship of the US. But it really falls flat as excuse for uncivil behavior when discussing with Nonamericans with an unfavorable opinion about Trump.

So what you're saying is, you're allowed to be uncivil to me for being uncivil to you, but I am not allowed to be uncivil to people who are uncivil to me?

I believe the term is 'hypocrite'.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here