Course not. I pointed to the story because while left-wing protests can get violent at times, vicious assaults on journalists are a little more unusual and beyond the pale. And of course this wasn’t isolated, two journalists were assaulted, not just one.
As for the Anti-fa side, Tapper’s source at the station says it’s full of lies, and it doesn’t look good that they don’t want to be interviewed.
Whoever assaulted this guy should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Period. I don’t need to hear what ideology they have to know that one. (Not that I’m telling you not to tell me, just that, honestly, as far as that person being charged with a crime, it is irrelevant. They committed a crime.)
Throw the book at him.
[QUOTE]
And Al Sharpton wants the Thomas Jefferson memorial to stop receiving taxpayer support:
I don’t exactly see Al Sharpton as the voice of mainstream liberalism, but yeah, I suppose I’m not surprised.
Al Sharpton is irrelevant. I don’t know why anyone bothers to report on what he thinks about anything.
Eh, Sharpton’s kinda in between, not mainstream but not quite fringe either. He still has a substantial following.
Of course, he didn’t help his case by being mealy-mouthed. Seems that he wants the Jefferson Memorial gone, but recognized that was an unpopular stance, so just called for taxpayer support to be withdrawn and it be privatized somehow.
They’re not being “agents of social change”, though. They’re trying to score social/internet brownie points, especially because there’s no benefit to their “sacrifice”.
Actual agents of change are writing letters to their MPs, running proper scientific research surveys, publishing peer-reviewed papers, actually doing things besides telling everyone how great they are.
Sure it would. It’d just happen a lot more reasonably and with less acrimony on both sides.
The other thing to bear in mind is that for a lot of people, social stuff is just fine the way it is and they’d be quite happy with it not changing. I think that point gets lots on a lot of people here, to be honest.
Ah yes, the age old “We like it just the way it is and people who don’t are just trouble makers” gambit.
Look, sometimes those people are wrong (gay marriage, for example) and sometimes they’re not - or at least not as wrong as people on the other side would like to make out that they are.
You call people a Nazi for advocating peaceful resolutions to issues dealing with speech or assembly yet you get hurt when someone calls you simple minded. You say I have abhorrent politics when I’m pro liberty and urge peaceful resolutions yet your ideological allies call for extra-judicial, mob violence and they are the decent ones.
Is this Bizarro world?
Scott Alexander wrote a rebuttal to this argument on Slate Star Codex:
Contra Grant on Exaggerated Differences
I read the whole thing, including Grant’s rebuttal and Alexander’s rebuttal to that. I’ll admit I got lost in some of the statistical minutiae, but assuming the data is accurate, what you’re saying appears to be false. Women used to be more heavily involved in programming than they are today. Alexander argues this is because women weren’t able to do much else back then. The thrust of his argument is that the ‘‘people’’ vs. ‘‘things’’ difference (as well as some others - overall risk, for example) between men and women largely explains the disproportionate number of women in not only the helping professions, but specializations within medicine (more female OBGYNs, fewer female surgeons, more male internists despite it being a lower paying job, etc.) He also points to evidence that as a society becomes more egalitarian, personality differences between men and women become more pronounced.
Which again, isn’t to say sexism and stereotyping aren’t things. In several traditionally female dominated fields, the sudden influx of men was associated with a higher pay rate, and vice-versa. The history of social work in this country is very much rooted in a strange intersection between sexism and privilege, basically a bunch of upper middle class white women in the late 1800s who had no serious career prospects decided they may as well try to make the world a better place. Even as the profession evolved (and I do mean ‘‘profession’’ in a rather strict sense, the dilution of the meaning of ‘‘social worker’’ is another issue altogether) it remained largely the domain of women. I think this can be explained in part through the ‘‘people’’ interest, but also I suspect it’s a re-enforcing profession for women because it takes seriously issues of gender discrimination, childbearing, and other matters of the workplace. Like, I never have to deal with discriminatory bullshit at my job, and that’s a major plus. However it also bears mentioning that despite the wild disproportionality of gender in the field, men are promoted faster and tend to hold higher paying management and administrative positions.
It’s not clear from your post if you actually care about data, but it’s unwarranted to call me a dummy simply for saying the evidence is inconclusive. It’s not exactly easy for me, as a woman who so often doesn’t jibe with these alleged gender differences, to look honestly at the evidence. My brain deviates from the norm in a lot of ways, and I have a thorough grounding in the sociological and environmental aspect of things, so I’m more skeptical of innate gender differences than the average person. And in my work we focus a lot on the outliers - people who are LGBTQ, non-gender conforming folks, which also constitute a good portion of my friends. Then there is the fact I was raised by a female engineer. Basically I’m surrounded by people who don’t fit the stereotype.
I am acknowledging that all of that makes me biased about innate differences between men and women, and trying to give a fair read.
I went into a female-dominated field but I don’t work with ‘‘people,’’ I’m essentially in business management for nonprofits. My life is full of program design, database management, budget analysis (an admitted ‘‘ugh’’), carefully structured written arguments, and making sure my org doesn’t go bankrupt. But I love the relationships I’ve forged with our program directors just as much as the systems stuff. I could have easily gone into engineering - my mother was an engineer, and I had the aptitude - but it doesn’t hold my interest. It seems in terms of aptitude and interest, I’m split down the middle between creativity and analytics, which might as easily be attributed to my left-handedness as it is to my gender.
(That’s not a joke. Left-handed people have a wider variation in brain structure than right-handed people, and there is a lot of evidence in how I approach problems that I’m neither left-brain dominant nor right-brain dominant. The result is sometimes ridiculous but in all honesty I think it’s a cognitive advantage.)
My directionless rambling you can blame on the ADHD.
This is exactly what I mean by intersectionality. No person is only their gender, their race, their sexual orientation. We are a mishmash of a bunch of identities thrown together, which we (liberals) pay lip service to but don’t fully embrace strategically. We need a more evolved kind of identity politics.
It is my view that those people lack empathy. We have tons of people living under incredibly oppressive circumstances and it’s pretty sad that so few people are taking their word for it.
That’s quite likely, but so what if they are? Calling them names isn’t going to help and will likely be counterproductive, IME.
That’s basically been my response to BigT every time he harps on me in this thread.
I had a guy like that on Facebook, who would eviscerate anyone who came close to disagreeing with him on any sort of social justice issue (except women, because feminism). He was way more full of rage than BigT, but the same general concept in that he couldn’t stand my propensity to try to understand alternative points of view. Not immediately dismissing conservatives out of hand was, in his view, a betrayal of my principles.
I said, ''You know, I’m trying to have a constructive dialog, here, and I don’t think the vitriol strategy works very well. If you’re so concerned about these issues, why not use that privilege of yours to work on systemic problems within your own workplace or community?"
He said, ‘‘I’m a white guy living in Silicon Valley. This is all I’ve got.’’
I said, ‘‘Look. If you’re so het up about your own privilege, do something with it. Have these difficult conversations in a way that doesn’t alienate people.’’
He said, ‘‘I can’t do that.’’
Whatevs. You know, I can’t change people like that. I can only do my own thing. I tried very hard to fit in with that culture, but I was miserable that way. I blamed myself for not being disruptive enough. It’s not my nature to think in such stark terms about things. My head is full of the complexity of reality and I can’t shake it out. I used to be utterly tormented by the mentality of that culture, their insistence that I had to be certain about everything, and if I wasn’t, I should keep my mouth shut. I’m full of doubt, and I’ve finally come around to the fact that’s a strength.
I get that not everybody thinks like me about how to approach the same issues. But I am pretty resentful when people imply I’m being harmful just for being honest about my doubts and frustrations. It’s totally dismissive of my life’s work. I just get that sense of tribalism in more positive ways. Like staff training today, with the satisfaction of knowing I was in a room full of people who shared my values, who validated the injustice of my trauma, and who were all working to improve our little corner of the world. We didn’t spend five hours excoriating the right, we spent five hours focused on pretty concrete issues pertaining to LGBTQ folks accessing services at our organization. If for some reason those folks don’t feel comfortable accessing our services, it isn’t the bigoted conservatives that failed them – it’s us. We are the ones tasked with inclusivity and acceptance.
Shit can go totally off the rails, policy-wise, and it shouldn’t change who we are. When trauma psychologist Viktor Frankl was in the concentration camps, he noted that the most resilient people were the ones who stuck to their values and found meaning in their suffering. One example he gave was a starving man sharing bread with another starving man. Because… because…
[QUOTE=Viktor Frankl]
“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”
[/QUOTE]
Things aren’t nearly that bad in this country, yet so many of us are rolling over and abandoning who we are because these are ‘‘desperate times.’’ No, I won’t do it.
My job always gives me perspective. We aren’t as helpless as we think to make real and lasting change, and I do think the outrage on social media comes from a sense of helplessness. I’m beginning to get the sense that the people who totally fly off the handle are trying to overcompensate for their lack of action in their daily lives, because they do feel helpless. I don’t need to yell at people on the internet to be secure in my values. I mean, it happens because sometimes I’m cranky and sometimes people are being assholes. But I’m so much happier just being me.
You know, this is my favorite thread on the boards these days? I avoided it for a long time due to the inflammatory title, and people keep wandering in here apparently assuming it’s a bunch of conservatives and one-sided bitching about liberals. But it’s actually been one of the most interesting and thought-provoking places on the boards, full of plenty of disagreement and lively discussion and (for me, at least) learning. I think some people are on this board to fight ignorance, and some people are on this board to fight their own ignorance, and some of us recognize that for everything, there is a season.
This is an excellent point, and the other thing which I think needs to be mentioned to people is just because (generic) you is ashamed of your privilege doesn’t mean everyone else is.
Lots and lots and lots of people like being “privileged” and so far the socially aware crowd haven’t come up with a compelling reason for those people to make their own lives worse to benefit a nebulous group they don’t know any members of and/or never interact with.
That’s a good way to look at it - you’re making a service available and if people aren’t using it, look for ways to help them access it without blaming another group.
You are ascribing motives to people. Why? What makes you think that the only reason that they care about the rights of others is to score brownie points? Isn’t it possible that they actually just care about the rights of others?
And how do you know that they are not writing letters to their “MP’s”? I’ve written a couple letters to my congress critters about my views on controversial subjects, even called my senator a couple of times this year. That has nothing to do with other actions I may take to advocate for the social change I’d like to see.
As far as the rest, that’s great if you are in that sort of field, but most people just have regular jobs that they go to and work and get paid. They don’t have the option of writing papers or whatever.
Or are you saying that you won’t take anyone seriously unless they quit their jobs and go full time academic social worker?
If someone makes the sacrifice of not getting married until SSM is legalized, that sacrifice has absolutely no meaning unless people know about it.
So, you get unreasonable and acrimonious if someone tells you that they have held off on getting married until SSM is legalized?
That’s on you. There is no acrimony or unreasonableness to be had in the “not getting married until ssm is legalized” stance, so any acrimony in the situation is brought entirely by you.
It doesn’t get lots [sic] on me. I just don’t care that for a lot of people, latent racism and bigtory is fine.
It is easy to think that things are just fine, when things are just fine for you. Lift your eyes from your navel for a moment, though, and see that things are not just fine for quite a number of people. Now try caring about that.
It’s no defense whatsoever to say, “Oh, well - maybe white people like being the oppressors. Did you ever think of that?”
I’m sure some of them do. That doesn’t mean it’s acceptable.
If Nazis and Klansmen (and Trump supporters) were open to reasoned discourse about the flaws in their thinking, they would have died out decades ago. Being a Nazi or a white supremacist is not about rational thinking. It’s a fundamentally warped view of life that appeals to their emotions - their fear of being surpassed, their insecurity about their place in society, their resistance to examining their self-identity, and so on.
Historically, being polite and kind and welcoming to Nazis or Klansmen has not caused them to reconsider their position. Being nice to the Confederacy - Lincoln’s approach - didn’t cause them to abandon their racism. Appeasing the Nazis and refusing to confront them didn’t stop their poison.
Being social outcasts is the only thing that reaches them. Inevitably, that outcast status has to be reinforced by government action. The fact that the US government is currently led by a Nazi sympathizer means that the US is in danger of falling into outright Fascism. This is not a situation that can go on unresisted.
Calling people names on the internet is not the same thing as fighting oppression. But it is important for all people of rational thought and good will to stand up to the oppressors. Insisting that we be kind to Nazis in the face of their resurgence is giving them aid and comfort.
Actually, I think we need a LESS evolved kind of identity politics. Granted, identity is a very complicated issue, but discrimination is not. That’s what we should be focused on, like a laser beam, with a concentration on groups that are historically discriminated against.
As I’ve said before, the whole point of the Civil Rights Act was to enable minorities, especially African-Americans, to participate in the social and economic life of the country in the same way whites can. It was never meant to protect people from being offended, nor was it even meant to cure bigotry except in areas of life where that could prevent someone from thriving. Of course we don’t limit our social change to what’s written down in the US federal code, but it seems to me that the goals of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have not been met sufficiently to spend a lot of effort worrying about whether it’s okay to call people a certain term, or whether it’s a microaggression to ask people where they are from. And now we’re talking about whether it’s okay to be colorblind or believe in “one human family” and it just takes all the focus away from what really matters.
It’s possible but I think there’s also a large “wanting to score brownie points” factor to. Like I said, if you care about a cause/others, great - get involved and help, but don’t go around loudly telling everyone you’re doing it.
No, I’m saying I won’t take people seriously when they’re just posting shit on social media about how tolerant and right-on they are.
So maybe they shouldn’t make that sacrifice, or if they do, then it’s a private matter for their immediate circle of friends, not everyone they know on social media.
No, I most likely think they’re a virtue signalling tosser.
I honestly don’t think we’re on the same wavelength here at all. I’m aware things aren’t perfect for everyone. That’s unfortunate and I wish it wasn’t the case. Sadly, however, it is.
I don’t care about Scott Alexander at all. I am glad you enjoyed reading it. I think you are misunderstanding my argument. I am talking about a political opinion and more generally, a preference. After all, this debate is entirely a political one. If a company or university or any organization perceives a problem with the demographics of their organization and they wish to address it, then that’s their business. Google and other IT companies perceive a problem and wish to address it. It’s a rational choice they make for the good of their company. It is rational and based on the weight of our scientific evidence. It’s totally unimportant if they happen to have read that evidence. It is as rational a choice as any other business decision.
The help that they are providing is specifically that of bringing the issue to the forefront of public consciousness. How is that possible by keeping it to themselves?
That’s bit acrimonious reply. Not very reasonable either.
But you think that anyone at all that expresses any sort of opinion of tolerance is a virtue signaler. Is there any place or time that someone can express that they are not a racist or bigot that you don’t consider to be virtue signalling?
I agree that that is what you think, but I think that in most of those cases, your prejudices have already made up your mind before you give the actual issue a chance.
You “wish” it wasn’t the case. Talk about virtue signalling. What does your wish accomplish, other than to indicate that you have some level of virtue?
You “wish” for social improvement, while chastising those who are working towards it.