Yeah, I made the assumption that when I wrote “collective” that in the context of this thread it would have been interpreted as “collective based on racial categorization.”
Of course, society as a whole needs to work on solving problems. I’d welcome that.
For a job that requires the trust of a potentially diverse community, like police officer, prior membership in a hate group should be disqualifying unless the individual has shown a very long track record of public contrition and demonstration that they’ve reversed that ideology. Otherwise, how is, say, a black or Jewish member of that community ever going to feel safe interacting with such an officer? Perception matters for that kind of job.
Well I apologize for going out-of-bounds in the conclusions I’ve drawn. I also must note that you failed to answer the question I directly posed to you. I consider your response a dodge, a non-answer. But it’s not worth the back and forth, i feel like we agree on enough points of substance.
Or we could just go with the single definition given by my favorite dictionary, American Heritage:
Maybe you missed the “or social group”. 
Or perhaps you’re a traditionalist who prefers Merriam-Webster. They feature two definitions:
But wait: they don’t mention states or nations at all, in either definition. Huh.
:dubious:
Agree 100%.
How would they know, unless he had a swastika tattooed on his forehead or something?
Regards,
Shodan
Or we could not not. Talk about predictable. And pathetic. Crowing over entirely the wrong gotchya.
I didn’t say it had to be a state to be a hegemony. But if it is a state - like your *own stupid examples *of India and Pakistan and Hitlerstan - then to be a hegemon, it has to exercise control over like but lesser polities. A state oppressing the people in itself is just an oppressive state, it’s not a hegemon. This is why you shouldn’t get political terms of art from dictionaries, you stupid boy.
Gods, you are *so *completely unaware of how deficient you are, SlackInBrain. Still Dunning-Krugering away.
I am doing my very best to avoid answering the question, because I don’t have such a kid, and I have not made up my mind on the subject. I have, at different times, convinced myself both ways. It’s a really, really hard question, and one I hope I never have to deal with.
What I am doing is saying that there is no consensus on this issue, and SlackerInc’s opinion agrees with a lot of the organizations for autistic people out there, including some actually run by autistic people. What’s more, I’ve encountered plenty of autistic people who flat out said that they hate that people, including their parents, were always trying to cure them, and consider it a form of good intentioned bigotry.
As such, even though I think SlackerInc is a shitty person in many other ways, I feel I need to defend his point of view on this particular subject. I don’t defend him because of him, but because of the idea.
It’s not like he attacked you for how you choose to raise your children. Then I would get your outrage. Hell, I’d join in.
But it isn’t just racial categorization. While that may be the most glaring, visible example (and therefore the best example to illustrate the topic), it is by no means the beginning and end for the necessity of collective responsibility. It also may be the most divisive and problematic example of where collective guilt is splintered and results in a stalling of unity of collective responsibility which is needed for collective action (geez im sick of typing that word!). All the more reason to force oneself to face it and acknowledge it. But we need some degree of collective guilt leading to collective responsibility on a host of issues, some more viscerally felt than others.
Certainly most of the -isms can ultimately only be rectified though action achieved through a unified sense of collective responsibility. Sexism can not be legislated to the dustbins of history. It must be exorcised to those dustbins, societally, through the collective force of individuals uniting to do what is “right” for others, rather than simply “good” for themselves. And that takes introspection and willingness to learn, which can be quite uncomfortable at times. For coming to terms with your unwitting complicity in a system that has been facilitating the inequities that your fellow neighbor, or classmate, or employee, or passing stranger on the street or even a completely unknown entity clear across the country has been living with and amidst for so long, can understandably engender feelings of defensive hostility. This is, I believe a somewhat human nature element to the process. An element that must be overcome. Because being unwittingly complicit to a system of, say, institutional racism does not mean ypu yourself are a racist. It simply means that you have benefited from and by the act of never having reason to think outside your comfort zone, aided in the perpetuation of that system.
What kind of society do you want to live in? Sure, you may be at or near the top of the priveleged pecking order now (general “you”) but societies change, cultures shift. What if one day you find yourself without a voice in the world you used to exist comfortably in? What if you felt the unbridled pain and injustice that comes with having your legitimate needs and issues marginalized by a seemingly uncaring dominant society that regarded you as invisible at best and a product of your own failures at worst? One that needed to be cordoned off from polite society? Empathy is bred through shared adversity. Those with no concept of adversity are those who have never needed to forge connections with their fellow man. These constitute the elements of our society that make striving for social change such a heartwrenching and at the same time heartwarming process. Because they represent just as integral an aspect of human nature as do those of us well steeped in adversity.
Tl;dr. Social responsibility (which is necessarily preceded by at least some level of social guilt) is needed for practically all examples of needed society-wide change. Its not by any means limited to racial injustices and inequities. Those are just the most pressing and viscerally felt. A prerequisite for inclusion and meaningful participation in such collective action is at least a second-hand internalized understanding of empathy, imho. This is where I believe the “line in the sand” is drawn between those who resist and attack notions of collective guilt/responsibility and those who ultimately realize it’s about everyone together and no one individually.
The mathematical concept, or the religious tenet?
I did not say you said that, oh Sir Good Faith.
I will happily go back to “Payback’s a bitch”.
But I’m not going to join you in slagging off a religion that’s done less harm than any other I know of, and it’s adherents.
Not particularly. I was responding to the ignorance of the original post to which I was replying, which made explicit reference to antiquity by use of the phrase “over the millennia”:
I apologize for drawing you in to this as well, it was not my intention. Still, at least you replied, unlike SlackerInc.
Because someone might find out, inform the local media, and it ends up as a news story (quite reasonably - it would be just as concerning as hiring a former member of Al Qaeda as a cop) with his face on it.
He did answer. He said “no.” He doesn’t agree with your generalization. He doesn’t think there is enough data to lead to your conclusion.
What do you mean? Such criminals already can find legitimate employment. You familiar with White Boy Rick? The real life story and/or the movie? Detroit PD, a true equal opportunity employer!
The problem is that, when you quoted Huey’s post, you left off the important portion. You just quoted
But you left out the rest of his post (with my highlighting):
So the response is not to the example of one bad egg. It is to Huey Freedman choosing, once again, to attack all white people.
The fact that some of us choose to call him on his racism (including you) does not prove him right about white people. If someone brought up an example of a single racist black person and said that was how all black people were, and we told them that not all black people were like that, then we wouldn’t be confirming what they said about black people, either.
Huey may have other things of value to say, but he keeps on throwing in these racist comments. And, as long as he does, he’s gonna get pushback.
In fact, after seeing that he’s still not given this racist bullshit up, I’m putting him on ignore. I wanted to be okay with it, since this thread is a good thing. But I can’t keep on listening to a racist who complains about racists.
Fair enough, no worries.
Above is the question I posed to Andy. Immediately below that is his response. I see that as equivocation. I was asking him for his opinion, not any sort of documented factual answer that could stand up to the scrutiny of rigorous analysis. I’ve seen Andy give his opinion countless times before. Here he equivocates, saying he agrees “everyone is affected by that culture” (the culture that I describe as conditioning men to be attracted to specfic and arbitrary notions of female beauty) but he “can’t extrapolate that knowledge to draw conclusions as to what most men are attracted to”.
So what exactly was he originally agreeing with me about anyway, in re to the influence of our culture that puts arbitrary notions of female beauty and youth on a pedestal? By saying that he thinks that just about “everyone” is influenced by this culture, he is necessarily including just about all men. So he’s agreeing that just about all men are influenced by this culture that conditions men to an arbitrary standard of female beauty, yet he is unwilling to say that he thinks most men are more attracted to these arbitrary traits than a lack of or even an active rejection of these idealized feminine traits? How is that not pure equivocation and double-speak?
Yeah, you kinda did. And now that this was proven to be a stupid and indefensible assertion, you are madly deflecting and trying to rewrite very recent history. Feel free to insist otherwise, with lots of hostile verbiage sprinkled in for good measure. Anyone is free to scroll up the screen a few posts if they even care.
Did you really forget what I actually said, or are you desperately spinning to try to avoid looking stupid? (Psst: it’s not working.) Just in case it’s the former, I’ll refresh your memory:
You may want to bone up on the concept of prepositional phrases. Don’t they diagram sentences in South Africa? Anyway, those are references to dominant religious or ethnic groups within countries (or within a region in the case of the Middle East), not to the countries themselves as nation-state actors. And the hegemony I was referring to was that exerted over the non-dominant religious or ethnic groups within those countries. (Kinda like the hegemony exerted over nonwhites by whites in the U.S., that being the original point of comparison.). Not to hegemony over other states. That should have been crystal clear to anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension.
It continues to amaze me that you not only get such basic points wrong, but that you are so aggressive and even boisterous in your trash-talking, like you think you just dunked on me—when the reality is that I swatted your weak-ass shot into the fifth row like finger-wagging Dikembe Mutombo in his prime. 
Yes, everyone is influenced. How that influence translates into what qualifies as “attractive” and “unattractive” undoubtedly varies, and based on my experience talking to people about who’s attractive, varies so widely that there are very few features that I think can be reasonably said to be attractive or unattractive for “most” people of any category. And I don’t think any of the features you criticized Serena’s attractiveness for would qualify.
“kinda” is weak tea. Quote me saying it *had *to be a state, or fuck off.
Did *you *forget you made more than one post? The ones where you undoubtedly were referring to states, not ethnicities. Ethnicities don’t have nuclear weapons, states do. Hell, in the Hitler one, you used the fucking word “state”? You don’t get to freely jump from one form of hegemony to another when it’s convenient for your - for lack of a better word - “argument” and then try and pretend you meant another.
One of us is trying to backpedal, you tedious and obvious asshole, but it’s not me.
Pedal, pedal, pedal…
Pakistani Muslims and Indian Hindus exercise internal hegemony with nuclear weapons? Are you *reading * what you’ve typed before you hit send, you simp?
Obviously not, or you wouldn’t have posted such a laughable attempt at covering your ass.
As you like to point out, everyone can see what we both wrote.
I brought up states because you were referring to state hegemony with your nuclear weapon bullshit. It’s too late to walk that back now.
Your stupidity, and your misplaced conviction of your own cleverness, however, is no surprise. Like I intimated earlier, a Dunning-Kruger turd in human form.
Sorry, don’t speak American “sports”, but it sounds like you’re saying you’re… Winning? because of your … let me get this clear …Tiger Blood and Adonis DNA? Sure, man, whatever you say.