Sneering progressives are driving young white men into the arms of the GOP

[SlackerInc]

You’re missing the point, or at least my point–and based on earlier responses to that clip, you’re not the only one. I don’t care whether Schumer or the filmmakers are liberal. I would still consider these complaints about the movie to be ridiculous identity politics “representation policing” that threatens to turn off average white dudes to liberalism, if the people making the movie were of unknown political orientation. Maybe even more so.

(Although it’s not part of the point I’m after here, I do also wonder why Gal Godot gets such a pass. Is it as simple as the fact that she is a little “ethnic”, with dark hair and eyebrows? Yeesh.)

[Evil_Economist]

[quote=“SlackerInc, post:560, topic:813566”]

As a bonus, I’ll direct your attention to the NPR cite in the bottom half of post #25: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20939684&postcount=25[\quote]
Dude, I think ive found the problem: that’s not a cite. At best that’s an anecdote. Do i really have to explain the difference? I mean, I can if you’d like me to…

[quote]
Okay, at least you admit it, which reveals that your posts weren’t disingenuous so much as ignorant in the literal sense.[\quote]My response to this is in the following video: - YouTube
go watch it and all your questions will be answered.

[mikecurtis]

@Delayed_Reflex

. . . But many of the people who don’t like the term “white privilege” don’t think they are being treated specially - that they way they are treated is the default, normal condition. And isn’t that what we should be aiming towards - a society where everybody has “white privilege”?

@SlackerInc

. . .

This is a truly excellent point, and I hope (but don’t necessarily expect) that people here address it in a serious way.

This is exactly what we should be working towards as a society, and the term acknowledges that some have the privilege of already being there.

Further, maybe we should feel uncomfortable with the term, that we need to continue to be aware that the problems still exist.

From a white man about his own struggles with the term:

The truth: Many well-intentioned white people I know lose their minds when they hear about their “white privilege.” It’s not that we haven’t acknowledged our ancestors’ original sin. . . We have.

But fully accepting that the color of our skin benefits us today is often too much to unpack.

When we hear, “Check your privilege,” we feel ostracized from the people we thought shared the common purpose of equality with us. Further, if we are directly confronting racism in our online and physical worlds, we don’t want to hear, “Thanks, but there is no extra credit for doing what is right.”

We want an impossible validation: to be told that, unlike those Confederate-lovin’ nationalists in Charlottesville, Virginia, we don’t have white privilege.

And that gets to dissecting the meaning of privilege — separating the feelings of personal slight from a systemic inequity. Which is flat-out hard. We either a) don’t believe it; b) don’t think we are participants in it; or c) will engage to a point but ultimately decide, “I’m sorry, I don’t share this outlook on the world.”

. . . I realized that we who continue to bullheadedly think that way represent a real obstacle toward achieving this elusive better place we always talk about.
. . .

This is a difficult white-person-to-white-person conversation that has to happen between white men and women of all classes for any lasting change to occur. Black and brown people already know this. It’s not news to them that we have advantages bestowed at birth that they don’t.
. . .

We don’t need to feel good right now; we need to feel uncomfortable.

It’s a process. For one, hearing we have “white privilege” feels like it carries a stigma, as if we have been branded “racist” and don’t know why. It’s almost like a virus one needs to be inoculated from at a CVS pharmacy each fall.

But, of course, it doesn’t work like that. We don’t have a disease — society does.
. . .

In other words, hearing you have “white privilege” shouldn’t carry an ounce of baggage, even if the language feels accusatory. I know it took me a while to get there.

I have, for much of my life, failed to acknowledge that privilege. I rationalized that I did not have it . . .Given my own life circumstances, I reasoned it didn’t apply to me, that my own broken-home, abusive childhood didn’t involve any suburban cul-de-sacs or regular visits to the dentist, so what do I know about privilege?
. . .

“People want to hold their position. People want the status quo. People don’t want to give that up. And until it’s given up, it’s not going to be fixed.”

[SlackerInc]

You are purposely making your political project more difficult to swallow, in a way that provides no clear benefit. For every white man like Andy or the one quoted there, there are far more who simply lack the personality traits required to lie down and submissively expose their bellies like this. But they might be willing to support your actual, tangible agenda if you let them keep it framed in their heads as being magnanimous white benefactors—even if deep down that sticks in your craw a bit.

Remember, this is the Elections forum, not a sociology seminar.

[HurricaneDitka]

@SlackerInc

No offense, but I hope you lose this argument (even though I think you’re right), because my perception is that Dems continuing to bring up “white privilege” the way they have been is an electoral boon to the GOP.

[Chimera]

I don’t think we’re particularly worried about not winning the votes of people who regularly insult and belittle Liberals and Democrats, lie and distort the truth, regularly ‘joke’ about killing Liberals or Minorities and rely on media that contains less than 40% truth for their daily news.

We know you’re never going to vote for us, so we won’t waste our breath.

Go ahead, whine more about how mean we are and complain that this somehow stops you from voting for our side. It isn’t at all ironic to have the people who throw around the word ‘snowflake’ being the biggest snowflakes in all of history.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Chimera,

and I hope you win, for the same reason.

[SlackerInc]

@HurricaneDitka

@SlackerInc

No offense, but I hope you lose this argument (even though I think you’re right), because my perception is that Dems continuing to bring up “white privilege” the way they have been is an electoral boon to the GOP.

None taken. Yeah, it’s a real unforced error. Steve Bannon is a loathsome sleazebag, but he is sharp in some (evil) ways—such as seeing the opportunity liberals have needlessly left open to be outflanked among the majority of the electorate that is still white. It’s frustrating, because we could be crushing the GOP if we could just all represent a united center-left front.

Even scarier, if the GOP ever gets its shit together and presents a consistent, bland center-right image, while liberals continue to obsessively hector whites to check their privilege and representation-police TV and movies, it’s the GOP that could actually become dominant. Fortunately there’s no sign of that, so both sides are shooting themselves in the foot and laboriously trying to out-limp each other to the electoral finish line. :smack:

[iiandyiiii]

@SlackerInc

You are purposely making your political project more difficult to swallow, in a way that provides no clear benefit. For every white man like Andy or the one quoted there, there are far more who simply lack the personality traits required to lie down and submissively expose their bellies like this. But they might be willing to support your actual, tangible agenda if you let them keep it framed in their heads as being magnanimous white benefactors—even if deep down that sticks in your craw a bit.

Remember, this is the Elections forum, not a sociology seminar.

Speaking openly and truthfully about difficult topics is “lying down and exposing my belly”?

[iiandyiiii]

I wish the national Democratic party shared my views and rhetoric on race and social justice. I’m just grateful that, finally, they’ve stopped tolerating sexual assault and harassment. As an American, I wish both parties would actually stand against sexual assault and harassment, but as a Democrat, I hope the Republicans remain the party of sexual assault (Trump, Roy Moore, etc.) for as long as possible.

[mikecurtis]

First of all, the last thing America needs is “magnanimous white benefactors.”

Second: I realize this is an elections forum, but I have a personal problem with the attitude of “do whatever it takes to get elected.” We live in a democracy. I have some ideas of how the govt can best take care of it’s citizens. I’m not OG, I don’t know everything. If more people than not are offended by the term white privilege and and that causes my side to lose authority then that’s how it works. I dont think we should pander, obfuscate, or lure voters to our side. I think thats a big part of why the Republican Party is in seeming disarray.

Third: Progressives stand for so much more than just and end to “racial injustice.” There’s the environment, fair wages, public education, universal health care, etc. None of which are racially charged issues. Unless you note that the same people who complain about verbiage are the same people who would benefit the most if the Democratic platform were adopted.

I think most American’s are smart enough to decide for themselves what they really want. You may be able to temporarily dazzle them with your talking points and spurious attacks, but they’ll soon see through the smoke and mirrors and decide whether or not they made the right move.

mc

[k9bfriender]

@mikecurtis

I think most American’s are smart enough to decide for themselves what they really want. You may be able to temporarily dazzle them with your talking points and spurious attacks, but they’ll soon see through the smoke and mirrors and decide whether or not they made the right move.

mc

That’s what we are betting on anyway. Some may think that it is optimistic, but I’d rather live in a world where people decide to live in a better world than one where people have to be fooled into it.

[Bone]

@Airbeck

Do you think substance is important? Do you think the choice of words used have an effect on the underlying concept? If someone describes a problem in a way that you don’t like does that make the problem not exist?

Of course substance is important. I don’t think choice of words has an effect on the underlying concept per se, but it could lose fellow travelers that may otherwise be on your side. Describing a problem poorly doesn’t make the problem go away, but it makes the speaker less effective. Again, do you think messaging is important? I do.

For example, I tend to agree with the ideas behind the phrase “white privilege”. But I also think the term is dumb. It’s dumb because it’s not accurate linguistically and it’s dumb because it isn’t good at bringing people along and persuading them of the idea.
With my non-white friends I can have conversations about privilege, societal impacts, social commentary etc. no problem. But when we talk about the word itself"privilege", it’s mostly mockery because the word usage is so silly. These are people who agree with the idea, experience day to day what it’s like being a minority, and the word usage is a joke to them.

@Chimera

Because in this case I don’t see a difference between;

'You can protest, just not like that"

and

“You can talk about it, just not like that”

Well, you’re free to express ideas in the manner you see fit of course. In my experience, that message mostly resonates with people that already share the viewpoint and doesn’t do a very good job of persuading people who may not share the viewpoint. YMMV of course and if you think it’s more effective your way, castigation, sneering, hostility, etc. then good luck I guess.

[iiandyiiii]

@Bone

Of course substance is important. I don’t think choice of words has an effect on the underlying concept per se, but it could lose fellow travelers that may otherwise be on your side. Describing a problem poorly doesn’t make the problem go away, but it makes the speaker less effective. Again, do you think messaging is important? I do.

For example, I tend to agree with the ideas behind the phrase “white privilege”. But I also think the term is dumb. It’s dumb because it’s not accurate linguistically and it’s dumb because it isn’t good at bringing people along and persuading them of the idea.
With my non-white friends I can have conversations about privilege, societal impacts, social commentary etc. no problem. But when we talk about the word itself"privilege", it’s mostly mockery because the word usage is so silly. These are people who agree with the idea, experience day to day what it’s like being a minority, and the word usage is a joke to them.

Well, you’re free to express ideas in the manner you see fit of course. In my experience, that message mostly resonates with people that already share the viewpoint and doesn’t do a very good job of persuading people who may not share the viewpoint. YMMV of course and if you think it’s more effective your way, castigation, sneering, hostility, etc. then good luck I guess.

It’s an activist term, and very few, if any, mainstream politicians use it regularly. It’s only known as widely as it is because some right wing entertainers have routinely brought it up to slander liberals (since they inevitably blunder the definition) and manipulate their listeners and readers.

It doesn’t make sense for activists to change their language because of the shenanigans of radio and internet buffoons. Whatever terminology liberal activists use will be slandered, or attempted to be slandered, by right wing entertainers. And there will never be a perfect word and a perfect phrase.

Best, IMO, to try and explain the actual usage and definition, for those open to reasonable exchange, and ignore the entertainers and ignorant who aren’t.

[SlackerInc]

I would call post 570 hopelessly naïve, and 571 only somewhat less so. That kind of naïveté has electoral consequences. And those electoral consequences have RL effects: destruction of the environment, diminished public education, injustice in the criminal justice system, increases in income inequality, loss of health coverage, and yes: civil rights setbacks.

Also, what Bone said.

@iiandyiiii

Speaking openly and truthfully about difficult topics is “lying down and exposing my belly”?

I don’t accept your premise.

[iiandyiiii]

@SlackerInc

I would call post 570 hopelessly naïve, and 571 only somewhat less so. That kind of naïveté has electoral consequences. And those electoral consequences have RL effects: destruction of the environment, diminished public education, injustice in the criminal justice system, increases in income inequality, loss of health coverage, and yes: civil rights setbacks.

Also, what Bone said.

We either fight for justice or we lose young and minority voters. Considering that’s also the right thing to do, I’m inclined to fight for them rather than worry about the white voters who, the data suggests, chose Trump mostly due to ethnic identity and status anxiety. When we motivate young and minority voters, we win, full stop.

I don’t accept your premise.

Okay, so not only do you think I’m lying, but I’m a cowardly belly exposing liar, then?

[Johnny_Ace]

So I suppose we should be talking about “nonwhite underpivilege” instead? Feh.

Snowflakier and snowflakier…

[SlackerInc]

@iiandyiiii

We either fight for justice or we lose young and minority voters. Considering that’s also the right thing to do, I’m inclined to fight for them rather than worry about the white voters who, the data suggests, chose Trump mostly due to ethnic identity and status anxiety. When we motivate young and minority voters, we win, full stop.

Okay, so not only do you think I’m lying, but I’m a cowardly belly exposing liar, then?

I just don’t believe “speaking openly and truthfully about difficult topics” is a very accurate summary of your style, although I know why you would prefer to characterize it that way.

And if we lose young and minority voters by being the Democratic Party of 2008, given the alternative, they really are snowflakes. But I don’t believe that.

[CarnalK]

@Bone

Well, you’re free to express ideas in the manner you see fit of course. In my experience, that message mostly resonates with people that already share the viewpoint and doesn’t do a very good job of persuading people who may not share the viewpoint. YMMV of course and if you think it’s more effective your way, castigation, sneering, hostility, etc. then good luck I guess.

This point will fall on deaf ears. People like Chimera, Evil Economist and Johnny Ace think anyone who quibbles because of the terminology is lying or deluded about their real motives. Either overt or covert white supremacists.

Anyway, off the top of my head “Justice gap” or “race gap” would be snappier and more palatable terms.

[Johnny_Ace]

I’m sure there are quite a number of overt or covert white supremacists out there who do exactly that. I’m also sure that there are other people who simply want to maintain the status quo because it’s good for them. And they’re all using quibbling with the terminology to avoid having to deal with the actual issue.