That’s because it’s human nature to have a gut reaction to discrimination against you. It’s not as if African-Americans are going to hit the streets because a kid named Gonzalez got shot by the LAPD. It’s true that the right is primarily concerned with anti-white racism, but that’s because the only truly “intersectional” people out there are white progressives. Everyone else is looking out for their tribe first and foremost.
What makes you think that that’s “widespread and tolerated”? You just named three cases. OK, there are more that you didn’t name… but if you named a hundred times more, those cases would still be literally one in a million. In what sense is one in a million “widespread”?
Okay, fair enough. I’m just wondering why these cases didn’t involve someone close to the well intentioned but very wrong person getting told that maybe what they wanted to do wasn’t such a good idea? “You’re doing it wrong” seems to be the applicable argument there.
Every single black or Hispanic woman is an “intersectional” person. And if you’re counting “progressives” as an oppressed class, then so are the black or Hispanic progressives, and the progressive women. As for white progressives, I’m not even sure what you’re intersecting them with.
Maybe I’m just not understanding the meaning of the word: Isn’t intersectionality about understanding how everyone’s challenges in society matter? As in not just concentrating on your own problems?
And the left is blamed for identity politics…
The cynic in me thinks that it’s got little to do with “white people” looking out for their tribe, and a lot to do with “you’re under attack” being an effective political strategy.
But I agree with you, if we made more of an effort to stamp out anti-black racism, there’d probably be less anti-white racism. Dare I say, that’s probably the most effective strategy there is. Looking out for your own tribe first and foremost seems like a loser.
The Wikipedia article helpfully says this:
I don’t like the term “stamping out” though. IMO, racism should be addressed like any other social ill. If the goal is to “stamp out” or “eradicate” racism, then racism is always winning. What the goal should be is to make it so that economic and social outcomes are not significantly affected by racism.
The goal should be for us all to face the same low level of discrimination in our lives. Whites are discriminated against. But not enough to heavily impact our lives unless we’re really unlucky(such as if you are a victim of a hate crime). For most of us who are white, it’s just a “well, that sucks” moment, and that’s what it should be for everyone.
Until now, I admit I haven’t given a lot of thought to white folks suffering from hate crimes. I will send them my thoughts and prayers.
That’s why I said they were unlucky. It’s a pretty rare thing, but if it happens to you, it’s fair to say that racism has had a very significant impact on your life.
Bull. That’s only true to the extent that we white males can’t deny there’s an issue, or make condescending avoidance-tactic replies like “*All *lives matter”.
You may *believe *you’re thoughtful and right, but that doesn’t make it so. If your views get challenged, the real thoughtful and right response starts with considering that you may not have been quite as thoughtful and right as you have given yourself credit for.
“Intersectionality” just means that when someone’s a member of multiple oppressed groups, they face more problems than just those of the separate groups. For instance, blacks as a whole face problems, and women as a whole face problems, but a black woman (who’s in the intersection of those two groups) faces problems which are not faced by black men nor white women.
If that was so, someone close to that teaching assistant would have told her that avoiding calling on white students was not a good idea. Whenever something like this reaches the media, the SJW in question is bewildered that someone could think this was wrong. “I’m just trying to empower people of color!” they plead. But they are doing it wrong and no one said anything. You can also see the nervousness and caution every time a white liberal tries to expound on race and they aren’t just toeing the SJW line. “I really want to be a good ally, help me understand. I just don’t get it.”
Okay, let’s take “All Lives Matter.” If the only thing white folks heard in response was, “That’s whitesplaining” it would have done no good. It’s just a stupid way to debate. The reason most people except for Trump fans dropped that line was because it was EXPLAINED why it was clueless. And the only reason THAT happened was because progressives made the mistake of saying it and the SJWs didn’t want to sabotage their campaigns by accusing them of racism. Except for BLM, who at least has consistency and integrity on their side, if not good tactics.
It doesn’t seem to be that simple, but it is a closer definition than I had. It also seems to involve awareness of hierarchies.
So let me alter my statement: for the most part, only white progressives are good at looking beyond tribal affiliation. That’s not a criticism of progressive minorities so much as privilege(and most white progressives are quite privileged) enables you to look at the bigger picture. It’s harder to get poor people of any color to see beyond their own struggles.
I try to understand this, but I’m having trouble. Do you mean that if I as a white male try to speak on issues of race and gender, I find that my mouth won’t open, that my tongue is frozen, due to dark magic of social justice warriors? Do you mean that if I make such speech at noon, my disemboweled corpse will be found hanging from a tree by the next morning? Do you mean I face jail time? Fines? A bloody nose?
Or do you mean, “you can’t speak on issues of race and gender at all if you’re white and/or male, without facing criticism for doing so by other people”?
Because goddamn, that’s an important clarification if that’s what you mean.
Yet that matters to white people who want to be “allies”. Having their own thoughts is generally considered rude and inappropriate.
I don’t require approval, I am an ally. I commend the wisdom of people who agree with me, but am no more moved by their opinions than by my political enemies. Yes, I do know some pickle-up-the-butt self-righteous leftys, and they are as tiresome as all the self-righteous.
Bless their hearts, they mean well.
Nobody’s saying there isn’t any self-righteous self-delusion etc. on the part of any members of historically-screwed demographics. Many *are *saying that doesn’t excuse yours.
Psst: That’s a *good *thing to hear, and to say when true. Why would you not take it at face value and continue the conversation from there?
And that would be the fault of the white folks making the statement.
There is a good example of the dismissiveness and condescension that have already been brought up. The fault is not on the people patiently trying to break through your wall; it’s on you for having raised it.
That’s in the same category as being anti-science. As with science, there is a method to debate and dialogue and you’re defending throwing that method in the trash in favor of, “You must understand my experience! You can never understand my experience and I’m not going to bother to explain it to you!”
Basically what’s going on is that social justice is taking on aspects of religion. You accept certain premises on faith, you don’t question them, and it’s all about morals.
There’s a certain irony to this being said after 159 posts questioning those premises and not taking them on faith.