Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-18-2018, 08:26 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
You are either being purposefully obtuse or are stupid and I donít think itís the later.
Saying that a race is better or worse at something inherently is clearly racist. On the other hand, in the video I linked, a sports scientist stated that the Kalenjin ethnicity in Kenya is the best in the world at endurance running, because of evolutionary advantages. Thats not inherently racist, but certainly can be seen as that.
I use sports since ethnic and racial stereotypes have a long history in organised sports and still persist in many cases despite many having been disproved.
Assuming what the sports scientist said was true, why would a fact be racist? That and the tactic of labeling all manners of commentary as racism, or bigotry, or hate speech is what leads to a rejection of the notion.
  #52  
Old 09-18-2018, 08:29 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,356
Moderating

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
You are either being purposefully obtuse or are stupid and I donít think itís the later.
This is a warning for personal insults. Your points can be well made without this type of rhetoric. If you feel you must, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner.

[/moderating]
  #53  
Old 09-18-2018, 08:37 AM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Assuming what the sports scientist said was true, why would a fact be racist? That and the tactic of labeling all manners of commentary as racism, or bigotry, or hate speech is what leads to a rejection of the notion.
"The Kalenjin ethnicity in Kenya is the best [subgroup] in the world at endurance running," if indeed correct, is not a racist statement.

Extrapolated to "blacks are better runners" it becomes so.

We needn't go back over why this is, right?
  #54  
Old 09-18-2018, 08:51 AM
etasyde etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Assuming what the sports scientist said was true, why would a fact be racist?
It's true that a fact can't be racist, but it's entirely possible that a claim is, especially if the criterion used to accept that claim as fact is predicated on racist stereotypes. The basic "I already want to believe this, so I accept it as true without any justification" mindset.

People just accept that Kenyans are the best runners. When people just accept it without any evidence, study or reason, I'd say that's stereotyping, even though it may actually be true.

Quote:
That and the tactic of labeling all manners of commentary as racism, or bigotry, or hate speech is what leads to a rejection of the notion.
Well this is interesting. I don't recall agreeing with anything you've said 110% like this. You're spot on the money with this one, though. I can't agree more.
  #55  
Old 09-18-2018, 08:55 AM
Ambivalid's Avatar
Ambivalid Ambivalid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In my head
Posts: 13,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
why would a fact be racist?
This sounds like the tactics of our very own in-house racialist Chief Pedant.
  #56  
Old 09-18-2018, 09:39 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
IIUIC, he's saying there is evident racism (racism "on its face") and stuff that may or may not be racist, and that most arguments are about the stuff that may or may not be racist. Which frankly falls into "no shit Sherlock", but with some Latin.
Agreed, that's what I meant by that "circular argument" part. I wasn't sure because a quick google only turned up that phrase as legalese about documents you could reject out of hand, which seemed counter-intuitive.
  #57  
Old 09-18-2018, 12:33 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by etasyde View Post
It's true that a fact can't be racist, but it's entirely possible that a claim is, especially if the criterion used to accept that claim as fact is predicated on racist stereotypes. The basic "I already want to believe this, so I accept it as true without any justification" mindset.

People just accept that Kenyans are the best runners. When people just accept it without any evidence, study or reason, I'd say that's stereotyping, even though it may actually be true.


Well this is interesting. I don't recall agreeing with anything you've said 110% like this. You're spot on the money with this one, though. I can't agree more.
That sort of stereotype doesn’t just pop up. The so-called stereotype of Kenyan marathon runners being better than average is evidence based.

Last edited by octopus; 09-18-2018 at 12:34 PM.
  #58  
Old 09-18-2018, 03:55 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,492
Like the so-called stereotype of Jews being good at basketball...
  #59  
Old 09-18-2018, 05:13 PM
etasyde etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
That sort of stereotype doesnít just pop up. The so-called stereotype of Kenyan marathon runners being better than average is evidence based.
No, some people have evidence of the claim and therefore conclude the stereotype is true.

Others believe the stereotype is true and therefore conclude there is evidence somewhere out there for it.

I'm not accusing you of either, so please don't feel attacked, but even if I grant that you have done your due diligence and arrived logically at that conclusion, I know a lot of ignoramuses who fall in the later category.

In short, the racism (or lack there of) behind a claim cannot be ascertained by the objective truth of the claim, rather it can only be surmised through an understanding of how the individual came to believe the claim was true.

I don't think that's possible to do in Watchmaker fashion, though, so simply observing a possible belief in a stereotype is insufficient to establish how that belief was arrived upon.
  #60  
Old 09-18-2018, 06:10 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Like the so-called stereotype of Jews being good at basketball...
You know thatís an apple to cabbage comparison. Tsk!
  #61  
Old 09-18-2018, 06:28 PM
Ambivalid's Avatar
Ambivalid Ambivalid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In my head
Posts: 13,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by etasyde View Post
In short, the racism (or lack there of) behind a claim cannot be ascertained by the objective truth of the claim, rather it can only be surmised through an understanding of how the individual came to believe the claim was true.
What if the knowledge comes by a deference to authority and thru no true critical understanding on the part of the individual who comes to the same knowledge as that authority figure who did his/her due diligence? Sort of similar to laypeople's knowledge that there is an inverse relationship between space and time?
  #62  
Old 09-18-2018, 08:51 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post

You think a major part of the problem is that people such as your coworkers--for whom you have tremendous respect--never engage in real discussion with the kinds of people that frequent this board. In you opinion, mostly what we end up with is situations like this where mostly middle class white people, many if not most of whom have never had any legitimate interaction with minorities as a true equal, have conversations with other white people about how bad another class of white people are.
I think the word major is an overreach, I would replace it with significant.

I wouldn't say real discussion so much as immersion in african american culture. (I'm fine using African American in this context, but I prefer to use the term black when describing people). I think many people interact, get along with, and have minority friends and neighbors - but that is different than having a high level of daily interaction with a minority group on an equal footing.

I think many people have good intentions, yet these intentions lead them to demonize others too quickly over unsettled, vague, and rapidly changing social mores than are not agreed upon by even the offended demographic and often rely more on an individual's perspective than any agreed upon societal norms. A Tower of Babel if you will.

And there is all kinds of racism, that is something I believe. There is racism that is hateful, there is racism that is unconscious, there is racism born out of simple ignorance due to things such a geographic isolation. There is also racial bias which is different than racism. To get more specific, I think that not all these should be treated the same.

I have some other points, I'll get to them tomorrow and also include the cites, graphs, circumstantial political data etc. that you requested - if I have time.
  #63  
Old 09-18-2018, 10:06 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 39,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
You think a major part of the problem is that people such as your coworkers--for whom you have tremendous respect--never engage in real discussion with the kinds of people that frequent this board. In you opinion, mostly what we end up with is situations like this where mostly middle class white people, many if not most of whom have never had any legitimate interaction with minorities as a true equal, have conversations with other white people about how bad another class of white people are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
I think the word major is an overreach, I would replace it with significant.

I wouldn't say real discussion so much as immersion in african american culture. (I'm fine using African American in this context, but I prefer to use the term black when describing people). I think many people interact, get along with, and have minority friends and neighbors - but that is different than having a high level of daily interaction with a minority group on an equal footing.
Are you serious?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
I think a major part of the problem is that people such as my coworkers, whom I have tremendous respect for, never engage in real discussion with the kinds of people that frequent this board. Mostly what you end up with is situations like this where mostly middle class white people, many if not most of whom have never had any legitimate interaction with minorities as a true equal, have conversations with other white people about how bad another class of white people are.
(emphasis added).

I mean, I'm glad you're softening your statement; doing so makes it less absurd. But your eyerolling and moaning about how I misunderstood your point is pretty much at your feet in this case.
Quote:
I have some other points, I'll get to them tomorrow and also include the cites, graphs, circumstantial political data etc. that you requested - if I have time.
By all means do so. But if your point is that a significant problem is that some white people don't immerse themselves in African American culture, suddenly we're not so far apart in our views, and I no longer need cites for your claim.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 09-18-2018 at 10:08 PM.
  #64  
Old 09-19-2018, 12:02 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
You know thatís an apple to cabbage comparison. Tsk!
No, it's apples to apples. I get that you don't like them apples, though.
  #65  
Old 09-19-2018, 07:37 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Okay. Does it ever work? Has there ever been a thread where accusations of bigotry actually shut up the person being called a bigot? Or are people so thoroughly inured to it that even in cases where the accusation is entirely justified, the thread just keeps on chugging? Often for hundreds of posts, even when the racism is super fucking clear? I've never seen it actually work.

This is another thing. There's a huge fucking difference between "someone called me a bigot without reason (and I ignored it and kept talking about how the real problem is anti-white racism for 20+ pages or kept talking about how black people are dumber than white people for 35+ pages)" and "someone called me a bigot without reason, and this led to me being assaulted/deplatformed/etc.".

The former just does not matter. Like, at all. It has literally no effect. I've had a former partner accuse me of racism when I criticized Islam; this was annoying but I pointed out how silly it was and it didn't stop the discussion. It's akin to any stupid rhetorical fallacy - you're going to run into it from time to time, best to just ignore it and move on, and not do what fuckwits like Sargon do and turn a tweet with two notes into something that represents the entire left.

The latter matters, but remains vanishingly rare. I can think of a small handful of examples, which the right brings up without fail every time the issue is mentioned (if this were a common thing, you'd think we'd hear about different, more recent events, rather than the same few cases every single time), but, again, this is not a common thing.

I feel like the OP is conflating the two things. "Shutting down debate" does sound pretty awful, and yeah, what happened to Milo, Murray, and that one Oberlin professor was shitty. But it's exceedingly rare. Meanwhile, someone in a debate calling the other person "racist" and being ignored by everyone else? That's pretty common. It just really doesn't matter.

And that's the typical right-wing gambit - act like the common, inconsequential occurrence of someone calling someone else "racist" and it having no actual fucking impact is the same as someone being assaulted by protesters for being a bigot, and waxing poetic about how scary it is that our free speech is under attack by those evil leftists. And it works. This is a horrifyingly huge part of modern right-wing discourse.
I don't think that "shutting down debate" is limited to situations where you are physically excluded from debating. These are only the most extreme examples.

Shutting down debate through accusations of racism is usually an exercise in thought policing. It doesn't really work, except against liberals. But liberals are starting to develop an immunity to this tactic and moderates have been rolling their eyes at it for years now.
  #66  
Old 09-19-2018, 07:42 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
You are either being purposefully obtuse or are stupid and I donít think itís the later.
Saying that a race is better or worse at something inherently is clearly racist. On the other hand, in the video I linked, a sports scientist stated that the Kalenjin ethnicity in Kenya is the best in the world at endurance running, because of evolutionary advantages. Thats not inherently racist, but certainly can be seen as that.
Some people would call that scientific racism.

Quote:
I use sports since ethnic and racial stereotypes have a long history in organised sports and still persist in many cases despite many having been disproved.
There is also a long history of ethnic and racial stereotypes in education and intelligence that persist, in many cases, despite being disproved.
  #67  
Old 09-19-2018, 07:57 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
You think a major part of the problem is that people such as your coworkers--for whom you have tremendous respect--never engage in real discussion with the kinds of people that frequent this board. In you opinion, mostly what we end up with is situations like this where mostly middle class white people, many if not most of whom have never had any legitimate interaction with minorities as a true equal, have conversations with other white people about how bad another class of white people are.
I don't think this is that far off.

Most white folks seem to understand racism in the abstract or from what they see in the news. Very few of them have had frank discussions about racism with minorities. It makes wypipo extremely uncomfortable. I had a discussion over the summer with a black friend about affirmative action where all the other guests were white, you could almost hear their buttholes constricting. The discussion was about politics and it meandered into a discussion about race for a few minutes and in those few minutes it became uncomfortable enough that we stopped almost mid-thought. Suburban minorities rarely speak frankly with their suburban white friends about race.

I'm pretty sure that you can shut those fairly liberal white people up with accusations of racism. And they resent it. Then some of them take that resentment into the voting booths with them.
  #68  
Old 09-19-2018, 08:08 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Some people "see" more of it than others, because of course individuals differ on what are valid and invalid claims of racism. If one approaches it from a perspective of "[Other person] said [X] is racist but I don't find [X] to be racist, therefore [Other person] is either hysterically oversensitive or a member of the uber-PC thought police trying to shut me down", then one will perceive a higher percentage of claims of racism to be invalid. That doesn't mean that [X] isn't racist (nor that it is); it merely demonstrates a rather narrow and self-centered approach to assessing these claims.
In the aggregate, one false claim of racism is not balanced by one correct accusation of racism.
  #69  
Old 09-19-2018, 09:03 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I don't think that "shutting down debate" is limited to situations where you are physically excluded from debating. These are only the most extreme examples.

Shutting down debate through accusations of racism is usually an exercise in thought policing. It doesn't really work, except against liberals. But liberals are starting to develop an immunity to this tactic and moderates have been rolling their eyes at it for years now.
... That's my point. It never works. To the degree that it's common, it doesn't matter at all. To the degree it matters, it's vanishingly rare. So why should we care about the former, or treat the latter as anything but a very rare breakdown of acceptable norms? It's a deepity.
__________________
Interested in recreational hypnosis? Ask me about my Patreon, where I go by "ToymakerHypnosis".

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 09-19-2018 at 09:05 AM.
  #70  
Old 09-19-2018, 11:08 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
... That's my point. It never works. To the degree that it's common, it doesn't matter at all. To the degree it matters, it's vanishingly rare. So why should we care about the former, or treat the latter as anything but a very rare breakdown of acceptable norms? It's a deepity.
To the degree that its common it can create resentment. Identity politics that demonize otherwise liberal people is a problem. Not all liberal male critics of Hillary are Bernie Bros, but this didn't stop people from hurling the label at any young men that criticized Hillary. This stifled criticism but probably hurt her at the polls.

People are cautious about criticizing Israel IRL because of accusations of anti-Semitism. This doesn't actually lead to more support for Israel.

Liberals have to be very careful about criticizing ANY form of Affirmative Action.

Liberalism used to be a principles based ideology. It is now turning into a narrative based ideology. This is driving away moderates and independents. This may not be enough to make YOU vote for Trump or stay home on election night but at the margins it makes difference and the critical race theorists do not have a large enough voting block to ignore those margins.
  #71  
Old 09-19-2018, 11:52 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
To the degree that its common it can create resentment. Identity politics that demonize otherwise liberal people is a problem. Not all liberal male critics of Hillary are Bernie Bros, but this didn't stop people from hurling the label at any young men that criticized Hillary.
Who hurled this label at any young men that criticized Hillary?
  #72  
Old 09-19-2018, 06:03 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Are you serious?



(emphasis added).

I mean, I'm glad you're softening your statement; doing so makes it less absurd. But your eyerolling and moaning about how I misunderstood your point is pretty much at your feet in this case.

By all means do so. But if your point is that a significant problem is that some white people don't immerse themselves in African American culture, suddenly we're not so far apart in our views, and I no longer need cites for your claim.
No, we are probably not so far in our views, we just have different ways in expressing ourselves.

Probably our real differences stem more from our opinions on what should be considered appropriate when interacting with people who have views further away from ours.
  #73  
Old 09-20-2018, 06:00 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 39,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
No, we are probably not so far in our views, we just have different ways in expressing ourselves.

Probably our real differences stem more from our opinions on what should be considered appropriate when interacting with people who have views further away from ours.
Not clear on what you mean by that last sentence. It may be that you're suggesting I don't value civil discourse as much as you do when engaging with folks we disagree with.

As for that, and I wanna be civil here, I see a different difference. Your initial contribution to this thread echoed a contribution to another thread: you dismissed ideas with an ad hominem. That is, rather than talking about the views held by those you disagree with, you imagined things about their personal lives that would render their views contemptible and ignorant.

You did the same to me awhile ago, as I stated before, and it's about the only thing I remember about you as a poster, given how shockingly wrong your assumptions in that ad hominem were.

I don't consider that sort of personal attack to be appropriate, FWIW.
  #74  
Old 09-20-2018, 10:09 AM
etasyde etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Who hurled this label at any young men that criticized Hillary?
This insult came up in almost every thread from the time period in the election forum, and almost every thread from Reddit on /r/politics and several other boards. It still comes up often enough if Hillary gets criticized in /r/politics. It was a common phenomenon across the Internet.

I'll spend maybe five minutes but google pops up the term (searching this site alone) frequently enough. I'm ignoring illusions to bernie bro and using only the exact phrase, or variants like "berniebro" or "bernie-bro."
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG1 View Post
The kind of Bernie Bro "purity" you are saying NO to, is exactly what we need to avoid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
And "far-left"? There are some Bernie Bros at SDMB, if that's what you mean, but I don't think they're a majority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Another part is the Bernie-Bros- they didnt know how to campaign for their candidate, so they bought Roves lies and kept using them against Hillary, even long after the Nomination was sealed up. I got a couple in my FB feed, they are still going on how the DNC stole the nomination from Bernie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
It doesn't really mean anything, but anything that'll shut up the Bernie Bros is a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
And unlike way too many Bernie Bros, I'd do what I could to stop Trump.
Thread Title: "Hey Bernie, go to hell and take all of your Bros with you"

I can easily dig out more.

OH, apparently, someone already had at the time:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shayna View Post
Someone asked how Bernie would accomplish anything.

"FUCK BERNIE VOTERS. FUCK THEM ALL. GO TO HELL."

Douche bags, twat, swamp donkey, retarded cunts.

"Lying fucking cunt."

"Didn't know you were special needs."

"We don't need your vote."

I asked followers to support Bernie delegates.

"Are you and your friend old enough to use the restroom?"

"We don't need you or Bernie."

"Bernie Bros go home!!!! We don't need you!!! #ImWithHer"

"We don't need you. We want REAL Democrats!"

And just know that this is an extremely small sampling of the constant barrage of filth Bernie supporters were subjected to on a daily basis for a year.

And this is in addition to the campaign and its surrogates insulting us at every turn. Deeply. Relegated to Hell.

If anyone wants to dismiss the damage this caused as "hurt feelings," then I contend you should expect to lose a lot more elections.
  #75  
Old 09-20-2018, 10:15 AM
etasyde etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
What if the knowledge comes by a deference to authority and thru no true critical understanding on the part of the individual who comes to the same knowledge as that authority figure who did his/her due diligence? Sort of similar to laypeople's knowledge that there is an inverse relationship between space and time?
I don't believe you can have an "authority" on racial stereotypes. It also depends on the nature of the stereotype being upheld by this "authority" and how this "authority" became such. Deference to the Grand Wizard of the KKK doesn't excuse racism, for instance. And how can an individual who did not do his due diligence identify an "authority" who did?

When dealing with people, deference to authority without critically examining the claims of said authority is not generally acceptable. Would you excuse a mother who poisoned her baby with mushrooms because her non-mycologist neighbor, the local "authority" on mushroom picking, gave her a mystery shroom and said it'd raise the baby's IQ?

Last edited by etasyde; 09-20-2018 at 10:16 AM.
  #76  
Old 09-20-2018, 10:15 AM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,170
Humans can pretty much abuse almost anything, but that doesn't negate the legitimacy of the problem itself.

That is, in fact, one of the favorite tactics of naysayers. For example, enemies of the "Black Lives Matter" movement will triumphantly point out a false claim of police abuse as if that negates the fact that Blacks have been the victims of police abuse throughout the history of this nation.

Sure, there are women who will make false claims to garner media attention or extort money, but that doesn't change the fact that sexual harassment has been prevalent in all facets of our society.
  #77  
Old 09-20-2018, 10:31 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 21,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by etasyde View Post
This insult came up in almost every thread from the time period in the election forum, and almost every thread from Reddit on /r/politics and several other boards. It still comes up often enough if Hillary gets criticized in /r/politics. It was a common phenomenon across the Internet.

I'll spend maybe five minutes but google pops up the term (searching this site alone) frequently enough. I'm ignoring illusions to bernie bro and using only the exact phrase, or variants like "berniebro" or "bernie-bro."
Nobody's disputing the fact that the phrase "Bernie Bros" (and variants) exists and was levelled at Sanders supporters. But that wasn't the assertion being questioned, which was that "any young men that criticized Hillary" were called such regardless of their views on Senator Sanders.
  #78  
Old 09-20-2018, 10:35 AM
AHunter3 AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 19,811
I'm not going to say "abused", or even "used when factually wrong", but I'll say "used when tactically a bad idea".

Pretend this is 1860. You could accuse Abraham Lincoln of having deplorably racist attitudes. You would not be factually in error to do so — if I recall correctly, he did not believe "the Negro" to be an equal in every way to "White".

As Avenue Q's song says, everyone is a little bit racist; and many activists say that every white person is a participant in racism, that every male is a participant in patriarchal oppression, and so on. They aren't factually wrong but tactically it's more useful (in my opinion) to reserve the terms "racist" and "sexist" for attitudes, intentions, and behaviors — things that a male or white (or etc) individual can modify or ameliorate — and not to use those terms to refer to the fact of institutional racism and patriarchy and the fact that as individuals we are woven into those systems as participants and structures as beneficiaries of it whether we like it or not.

"Racist" and "sexist" and so on should be a horrible thing to be called, something reprehensible, shameful. The terms can't really work that way socially if people are told that they are racists or sexists because they are white or male.
  #79  
Old 09-20-2018, 10:40 AM
etasyde etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Nobody's disputing the fact that the phrase "Bernie Bros" (and variants) exists and was levelled at Sanders supporters. But that wasn't the assertion being questioned, which was that "any young men that criticized Hillary" were called such regardless of their views on Senator Sanders.
If you read the context of the quotes (from this board), that's what's happening.

Quote:
Another part is the Bernie-Bros- they didnt know how to campaign for their candidate, so they bought Roves lies and kept using them against Hillary, even long after the Nomination was sealed up. I got a couple in my FB feed, they are still going on how the DNC stole the nomination from Bernie.
How did you read this as anything else?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3 View Post
that every male is a participant in patriarchal oppression, and so on. They aren't factually wrong
No, that's absolutely factually wrong.

You literally just included embryos and newborns in the blame for patriarchy. I reject the notion that it even exists, but even if you accept it, casually blaming it on babies is pretty sick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3 View Post
"Racist" and "sexist" and so on should be a horrible thing to be called, something reprehensible, shameful. The terms can't really work that way socially if people are told that they are racists or sexists because they are white or male.
Yes! This is correct.

Last edited by etasyde; 09-20-2018 at 10:43 AM.
  #80  
Old 09-20-2018, 10:53 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by etasyde View Post
If you read the context of the quotes (from this board), that's what's happening
So, when dalej42 said:

Quote:
It doesn't really mean anything, but anything that'll shut up the Bernie Bros is a good thing
he really meant all young men who criticized Hillary? He didn't mean actual supporters of Bernie?
  #81  
Old 09-20-2018, 11:39 AM
nelliebly nelliebly is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 788
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3 View Post
I'm not going to say "abused", or even "used when factually wrong", but I'll say "used when tactically a bad idea".

Pretend this is 1860. You could accuse Abraham Lincoln of having deplorably racist attitudes. You would not be factually in error to do so ó if I recall correctly, he did not believe "the Negro" to be an equal in every way to "White".
Lincoln had racist attitudes that were not seen as racist back then due to the racism of the time. Calling Lincoln's attitudes racist doesn't diminish or dismiss his achievements.

Quote:
As Avenue Q's song says, everyone is a little bit racist; and many activists say that every white person is a participant in racism, that every male is a participant in patriarchal oppression, and so on. They aren't factually wrong but tactically it's more useful (in my opinion) to reserve the terms "racist" and "sexist" for attitudes, intentions, and behaviors ó things that a male or white (or etc) individual can modify or ameliorate ó and not to use those terms to refer to the fact of institutional racism and patriarchy and the fact that as individuals we are woven into those systems as participants and structures as beneficiaries of it whether we like it or not.
What term do you propose to use in place of "institutional racism"?

Quote:
"Racist" and "sexist" and so on should be a horrible thing to be called, something reprehensible, shameful. The terms can't really work that way socially if people are told that they are racists or sexists because they are white or male.
Respectfully, you have it backward. Racist is already perceived as such a horrible insult that it's nearly impossible to have frank conversations about its subtle and pervasive forms, and the bar for what constitutes racism has been set ridiculously high.
  #82  
Old 09-20-2018, 12:37 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
Respectfully, you have it backward. Racist is already perceived as such a horrible insult that it's nearly impossible to have frank conversations about its subtle and pervasive forms, and the bar for what constitutes racism has been set ridiculously high.
Well, it's certainly meant to be a horrible insult, but I disagree about the height of the bar. "You're white and male and part of the system therefore you are racist whether you think so or not" isn't a particularly high bar IMO.

Regards,
Shodan
  #83  
Old 09-20-2018, 01:41 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 30,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
"You're white and male and part of the system therefore you are racist whether you think so or not" isn't a particularly high bar IMO.
Thankfully, the bar is much higher. Unfortunately, there are still lots of people who still say or do racist things (like, say, characterizing some black people as the n-word based on their behavior).
  #84  
Old 09-20-2018, 02:00 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 39,123
I disagree. I don't think "racist" and "sexist" are horrible things to be called. I mean, it sucks that we have a world in which racism and sexism are so ingrained into our culture, but given their ubiquity, if someone calls you out for doing something racist or sexist, instead of treating it like they just accused you of being a serial puppy rapist, just frickin pay attention to what they're talking about. Maybe they have a point, and you need to adjust behavior; maybe they don't. Either way isn't the end of the world.
  #85  
Old Yesterday, 06:04 AM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post

I don't consider that sort of personal attack to be appropriate, FWIW.
Given your manner of posting in these threads, what you consider to be appropriate is worth very little in my opinion.
  #86  
Old Yesterday, 07:00 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
Humans can pretty much abuse almost anything, but that doesn't negate the legitimacy of the problem itself.
Noone is saying that racism/sexism/bigotry doesn't exist. That's not the debate.

Quote:
That is, in fact, one of the favorite tactics of naysayers. For example, enemies of the "Black Lives Matter" movement will triumphantly point out a false claim of police abuse as if that negates the fact that Blacks have been the victims of police abuse throughout the history of this nation.
As a critic of BLM (or what it had become at one point), I point out the scientific study conducted by a prize winning economist that shows that cops do not shoot blacks more frequently than whites after you take reasonable variables into account. I point out that blacks get shot about 3 times more frequently than whites and that the poverty rate is about three times higher in the black community than the white community.

In fact its not the critics of BLM that are using anecdotal evidence, it is in fact BLM that is doing so. The entire critical race theory movement uses anecdote and narrative rather than data and analysis.

Anecdote and narrative can be useful in some things. It can prove that cops do in fact seem to get cleared for shootings that almost any civilian would go to jail for but they have not proven that the justice system is more lenient towards cops that kill white men versus cops that kill black men. That would require logic, analysis and data.

Anecdote can also prove that BLM has instigated riots. You only need to instigate one riot to be a violent organization. Just like you only need to beat your wife once to be a wifebeater. Anecdote is sufficient in that case. no study needs to be conducted to see if BLM is violent or that someone is a wifebeater, one data point is all you need.

Quote:
Sure, there are women who will make false claims to garner media attention or extort money, but that doesn't change the fact that sexual harassment has been prevalent in all facets of our society.
The questions isn't whether there are false claims of sexism (not sexual harassment), the question is whether accusations of sexism are being abused. It6 loses its stigma. People sprain their eyes rolling them at people accusing others of sexism when they criticize Hillary. This turns into people rolling their eyes (somewhat less) when people call out mild forms of sexism that COULD be overlooked (but probably shouldn't).
  #87  
Old Yesterday, 07:03 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
So, when dalej42 said:



he really meant all young men who criticized Hillary? He didn't mean actual supporters of Bernie?
Let me revise my statement because this is going to get into a tedious discussion about whether an absolute statement is correct.

Young liberal men that criticized Hillary were derisively called Bernie bros. This occurred frequently enough that you can say it was a common practice. It was basically accusing young liberal men of being sexist in large part to dismiss them and shut them up. Turns out they could still vote.
  #88  
Old Yesterday, 07:08 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I disagree. I don't think "racist" and "sexist" are horrible things to be called. I mean, it sucks that we have a world in which racism and sexism are so ingrained into our culture, but given their ubiquity, if someone calls you out for doing something racist or sexist, instead of treating it like they just accused you of being a serial puppy rapist, just frickin pay attention to what they're talking about. Maybe they have a point, and you need to adjust behavior; maybe they don't. Either way isn't the end of the world.
Or they will just shut up and vote for the other guy come election day.

Its not effective to tell other people how to react to your insults.

You can certainly talk to them about why you think their statements or behavior is racist but simply calling them a racist (in many cases simply for disagreeing with the PC version of the facts) and dismissing them is extremely ineffective in a democracy.
  #89  
Old Yesterday, 07:33 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 30,438
With regards to BLM, Damuri Ajashi, I've referenced statistics that dispute your 3x number -- specifically, the Pro Publica report (linked multiple times -- I can find it again if someone needs it) that found that young black men were 21 times more likely to be shot by police than young white men, though the criminal differences were far, far smaller, and you ignored it. So it's not a question of data vs anecdotes -- it's different data and different understandings of the facts.
  #90  
Old Yesterday, 08:27 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Thankfully, the bar is much higher. Unfortunately, there are still lots of people who still say or do racist things (like, say, characterizing some black people as the n-word based on their behavior).
I've heard people claim they weren't going to engage with those that they think said something like that, but unfortunately it didn't turn out to be true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I disagree. I don't think "racist" and "sexist" are horrible things to be called. I mean, it sucks that we have a world in which racism and sexism are so ingrained into our culture, but given their ubiquity, if someone calls you out for doing something racist or sexist, instead of treating it like they just accused you of being a serial puppy rapist, just frickin pay attention to what they're talking about. Maybe they have a point, and you need to adjust behavior; maybe they don't. Either way isn't the end of the world.
The specific instance that I mentioned was the "you didn't do anything racist, but you are part of the system/white privilege/whiteness/white supremacism". Calling that "racist" is counter-productive, mostly because they don't IMO have a point. Collective guilt != burning crosses, IOW.

Regards,
Shodan
  #91  
Old Yesterday, 08:33 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 21,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Let me revise my statement because this is going to get into a tedious discussion about whether an absolute statement is correct.
This is not "tedious discussion about whether an absolute statement is correct". This is "asking for some evidence for a questionable assertion".

Quote:
Young liberal men that criticized Hillary were derisively called Bernie bros. This occurred frequently enough that you can say it was a common practice.
So you keep asserting. Still waiting for the evidence.

Yes, people were called Bernie Bros derisively... but thus far all those people we have seen discussed were actually Sanders supporters. That they also criticized Clinton remains correlation, not remotely causation.

Quote:
It was basically accusing young liberal men of being sexist in large part to dismiss them and shut them up.
An even more questionable and evidence-free assertion. Of course, one could also argue that accusing anyone daring to challenge broad and baseless criticism of Clinton as doing so to "dismiss them and shut them up" is itself a ploy to dismiss them and shut them up.
  #92  
Old Yesterday, 08:46 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 30,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I've heard people claim they weren't going to engage with those that they think said something like that, but unfortunately it didn't turn out to be true.
D'ohh! Thanks for reminding me. I'm still hopeful that this individual might change.
  #93  
Old Yesterday, 10:25 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Young liberal men that criticized Hillary were derisively called Bernie bros. This occurred frequently enough that you can say it was a common practice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
So you keep asserting. Still waiting for the evidence
Yes, this. I'm also waiting for some evidence. Showing that people called supporters of Bernie "Bernie Bros" is not evidence that young white men who criticized Hillary were called "Bernie Bros"
  #94  
Old Yesterday, 12:41 PM
etasyde etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Yes, this. I'm also waiting for some evidence. Showing that people called supporters of Bernie "Bernie Bros" is not evidence that young white men who criticized Hillary were called "Bernie Bros"
I'm hoping this is sarcasm, but these days its impossible to tell. You're either directly parodying the guy, in which case kudos, or you're mirroring him and in which case

Also, you invented the "white men" thing whole cloth, the original claim had nothing to do with race. Shifting the goalposts is natural, but when you try to shift that far I'll call you out on it.
  #95  
Old Yesterday, 12:46 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by etasyde View Post
Also, you invented the "white men" thing whole cloth, the original claim had nothing to do with race. Shifting the goalposts is natural, but when you try to shift that far I'll call you out on it.
My fault, I didn't add "white" into it to move goal posts. Just a posting mistake.
  #96  
Old Yesterday, 01:09 PM
Ambivalid's Avatar
Ambivalid Ambivalid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In my head
Posts: 13,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Or they will just shut up and vote for the other guy come election day.

Its not effective to tell other people how to react to your insults.

You can certainly talk to them about why you think their statements or behavior is racist but simply calling them a racist (in many cases simply for disagreeing with the PC version of the facts) and dismissing them is extremely ineffective in a democracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The specific instance that I mentioned was the "you didn't do anything racist, but you are part of the system/white privilege/whiteness/white supremacism". Calling that "racist" is counter-productive, mostly because they don't IMO have a point. Collective guilt != burning crosses, IOW.
These posts bring up an important point. It involves asking what the ultimate goals are of those who bandy about such terms and phrases as "if you are white you are racist" or "white fragility" or for the sake of this discussion, even "white privilege". Ostensibly, the goal is to spread awareness of widespread, systematic and institutional racism, from which every single white American derives some level of benefit. So if the goal is to raise awareness which leads to personal introspection and ultimately, hopefully, long-term change, it seems to me these rhetorical devices are an extremely ineffecient, even self-sabotaging means to achieving those goals.

This is because the people most in need of enlightenment in re to these issues are not going to be receptive to a message that from the outset labels them as a racist. Or even of having some sort of "privilege" not granted to minorities. The reality is, if you are genuinely interested in reaching those people who are most in the dark-and not just trying to shame them and thus elevate yourself, you need to approach and frame the issues in a decidely not-so-hostile, accusatory manner. I mean, how well has the current method been at affecting anything but closing minds?

ETA: I want to be clear, I do not dispute the validity of the terms or phrases I mentioned. I meant that in the context of spreading awareness and sparking introspection, they seem decidely wrong-headed.

Last edited by Ambivalid; Yesterday at 01:11 PM.
  #97  
Old Yesterday, 02:27 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
I mean, how well has the current method been at affecting anything but closing minds?
Compared to...?
  #98  
Old Yesterday, 03:31 PM
Ambivalid's Avatar
Ambivalid Ambivalid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In my head
Posts: 13,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Compared to...?
Compared to what I'm suggesting should be employed instead; namely a less accusatory or divisive rhetorical strategy that doesn't cut off the nose to spite the face. One that doesnt engender an immediate shutting down of minds, the very minds that are ostensibly trying to be reached and opened. We can discuss/debate what the particulars of that revised strategy could be, my point in the post you quoted was to say that the current one seems designed to fail.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017