Huey uses whiteness and “white people” interchangeably. Is that also okay, iiandyiiii?
Are all those "i"s supposed to be a wall you are sitting on?
I can handle it too. I just reject your usage because it’s silly and redefining words to have non standard definitions is bad for communication.
When another poster insisted that “wetback” wasn’t racist, the board collectively rejected that, yourself included. This is only a difference of degree, not of kind.
I wouldn’t use them that way. Feel free to criticize him for it.
I don’t see it that way. I think my usage is already part of the definition (or an alternate definition).
Don’t be coy. I’m sure you have it memorized, bookmarked and a few key phrases written on post-it notes on your monitor.
I’ve seen this before, but I’m not sure I understand it.
Any one person’s failures should belong to them alone. Why be ashamed to be part of the right side, just because you see certain deficiencies in someone also on that side? It’s good to work for justice. It’s good to work against bigotry. The “right side” might actually be more vulnerable to thoughtless moral grandstanding, precisely because it is the right side.
If someone pats themselves furiously on the back for picking up the flag and waving it wildly in other people’s faces without actually considering the reasons for doing that, well, whatever. It’s still the right flag. The US still treats black people in some appalling ways. An incompetent cheerleader doesn’t change that fact.
I understand very well the frustration with people poorly equipped to make reasoned arguments. But if we get too frustrated with them, we might get “inoculated” even to future good arguments. We might write off the possibility that a good argument could even exist. And that would be a mistake. Maybe someone intelligent and honest will enter the thread in the future and engage these arguments against dehumanizing language. If a good argument finally one day shows up, or even if it’s already shown up and was just expressed in a piss-poor manner, we should be ready to accept it. And that becomes harder if we’re angry at the entire “side”, instead of focusing our contempt precisely where it belongs, on the individual who can’t be arsed to actually make a logical argument.
Once again, I’m using the term in a way that’s rather common among those who study the history of white supremacism in American history. You don’t have to like it. Whiteness studies - Wikipedia
I’m not sure why you quoted me to say this. I’ve never said otherwise.
Lots of technical fields fall readily into unhelpful jargon, or even dehumanizing jargon when the topic is human beings. I could write a book about why this happens. Statistics is often seen as coldly mathematical, but statistics itself can feed into this problem because summary statistics are summaries about groups, which can collapse our perspective of individual difference. Statistics can easily become dehumanizing, which is part of what makes social science so difficult. That a term is common does not make it good.
It’s not a matter of “liking” it, which might be the laziest possible gloss of my posts you could have chosen.
You’ve quite deliberately sidestepped my argument twice now, with nothing but a non-apology offered for it. Obviously, you’re under no obligation from the universe to put any effort into reading the posts of others, or into the writing of your own. But it doesn’t look so good, from my perspective, for someone to flippantly dismiss arguments against dehumanization. One can wildly wave around the right flag, for the wrong reasons.
I read your arguments, I just don’t agree with them. Dehumanization requires more than just a feeling, IMO. In this case, there’s no history of the term “whiteness” being used to take away any rights, or justify brutalization, or any other form if oppression. This is why it’s different than so many terms used against black people and other groups. I suppose it’s possible this could change, and the word could be used to justify such dehumanization in the future, but it doesn’t at this time.
Further, there’s no history at all of words in the English language being used to dehumanize white people as a group. Slurs like “cracker”, “white devil”, or “wypipo” are, at worst, a joke. I don’t use them, and I don’t advocate using them, but their usage is not helping to support a racist system, justifying any brutality, or doing anything worse than being an annoyance. This could change in the future, of course. I see no reason to believe it’s changing now.
I highly doubt there is universal agreement on this. Some of the people that use it, and some of the targets of the usage, almost certainly perceive it as something worse than a joke.
And assholes who want white people to believe that there’s a non-trivial contingent of liberals who want a race war will point to your posts and say, “We told you so.”
People are all too often judged as part of a group rather than as an individual, and group membership reflects on members of the group no matter why they’re members or what their beliefs are. And each individual member, in their own little way, reflects on the group. Like it or not, you are, in some way, judged by the groups you associate with. I know for a fact that many here will think less of someone just because they’re republicans. Where does this negative affect come from? Countless actions of individual republicans. The SRIOTD thread is a great example of that, but the SLIOTD thread is honestly much better. We laugh about the ridiculous examples of liberal wrongdoing from Clothy’s neighbors, but that’s what he’s trying to do. “A liberal did something stupid, therefore liberals are stupid.”
This article is quite relevant, by the by: Ethnic Tension and Meaningless Arguments. Like most SSC articles, it is very long and very worth reading - Scott tends not to post about politics unless he feels he has something important and valuable to say.
One useful excerpt:
This sort of conflation between a cause and its supporters really only makes sense in the emotivist model of arguing. I mean, this shouldn’t even get dignified with the name ad hominem fallacy. Ad hominem fallacy is “McCain had sex with a goat, therefore whatever he says about taxes is invalid.” At least it’s still the same guy. This is something the philosophy textbooks can’t bring themselves to believe really exists, even as a fallacy.
But if there’s a General Factor Of McCain, then anything bad remotely connected to the guy – goat sex, lying campaigners, whatever – reflects on everything else about him.
This is the same pattern we see in Israel and Palestine. How many times have you seen a news story like this one: “Israeli speaker hounded off college campus by pro-Palestinian partisans throwing fruit. Look at the intellectual bankruptcy of the pro-Palestinian cause!” It’s clearly intended as an argument for something other than just not throwing fruit at people. The causation seems to go something like “These particular partisans are violating the usual norms of civil discussion, therefore they are bad, therefore something associated with Palestine is bad, therefore your General Factor of Pro-Israeliness should become more strongly positive, therefore it’s okay for Israel to bomb Gaza.” Not usually said in those exact words, but the thread can be traced.
If, for some reason, hypnotists start to look really stupid in the public consciousness, then I, as a hypnotist, will look stupid. If I, as a hypnotist, do something really stupid in the public eye, people will look at me, notice my group, and notice that people from my group look stupid. Push this far enough, and I may be shunned for choosing to be a part of that group - not because I said or did anything stupid, but because others within my group did.
Hence, I have a good reason to call out people in hypnosis circles - my ingroup - when they do something stupid. Because if they keep doing stupid or bad things, then I end up looking dumb and stupid through my association with them.
Now let’s add the whole “fuck one sheep” factor - if you know someone who used to be a republican, and bailed in 2016 because they hated Trump, do you still, to some degree or another, think of them as republicans? Probably, right? Group affiliations, particularly negative group affiliations, can be sticky. If I disavow hypnosis after some big international incident involving NeuralNets and the emergency broadcast system, there’s still gonna be a lot of people who know me as a hypnotist and will judge me as one. (This is also why I generally don’t like it when people point out that Scott Adams does erotic hypnosis. Fuck that guy.)
And all of these same tricks work just as well with groups you don’t choose to be a part of. That’s how dehumanization works. Why do you think Drudge Report and Breitbart news, allegedly international news outlets with huge reaches, keep on dedicating headline space to individual crimes? No points for guessing that those crimes are almost always performed by black people, generally on white people. 
But seriously. The people you ally yourself with matter. Nutpicking is unfair and dickish, but it’s done because it works.
I’m totally on board with steelmanning. The steelman of iiandyiiii’s argument is still bad.
Those assholes will be dishonest and spread lies no matter what I do.
Maybe you should consider listening to your allies that are begging you not to make it so easy for them.
I’m not particularly interested in political advice from those that tolerate sexual assault and harassment. Especially ones with such incredible contempt for Democrats and liberals.
You’re terribly off-topic here, but setting that’s aside for a moment, I know you’re not interested in my advice, but you should be interested in theirs.
Glad to see that you don’t try to deny it. Good for you!
Most of the time, straight-up making shit up is frowned upon. The good news is, they don’t have to! Instead, they can point to any given democrat who did or said something stupid that day. Have you heard of that one teen magazine editor who tweeted something like “Kill all white men”? No? I have! Exclusively from right-wingers who are reaching for an example of a left-aligned person saying something exactly along those lines.
What I’m saying is, stop being that example.
Because white people, amirght?