FSTDT Forums
Community => Society and History => Topic started by: Smurfette Principle on November 15, 2012, 10:06:47 pm
-
Because I don't feel like wading through literal craploads of obvious Poe posts that are being heralded as "SJWs are so stupid" posts and because I think people don't really understand what goes down on Tumblr.
I run two blogs there, a sex positivity blog and a personal one, the former having +2000 followers and the latter being a mix of intersectional feminism, fandom, and random shit. I can answer questions on pretty much anything Tumblr-community-related, or you can just post screenshots and be all like, "IS THIS A POE?" or whatever.
-
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md34tpu9vT1r6smig.gif)
-
Dude.
-
In all honesty, are ideas such as "it's impossible to be racist towards white people" and "doing anything any non-western culture does is bad because 'cultural appropriation'" the norm in social justice circles on Tumblr?
Also, how many of them use the phrase "check your privilege" unironically?
-
In all honesty, are ideas such as "it's impossible to be racist towards white people" and "doing anything any non-western culture does is bad because 'cultural appropriation'" the norm in social justice circles on Tumblr?
I know this is Smurfette's thread, but since I'm in what is considered tumblr's social justice circle, I think I can answer this.
The short answer is yes to the first one and no to the second one.
This is the long answer.
Social justice bloggers operate off of the definition that racism = power + prejudice. Racism is simply bigotry and prejudice with the overwhelming institutional power to back it up. This does mean that, in Western society, only white people can be racist, but people of color can still be bigoted or prejudiced. In common usage, all these words mean the same thing, but in social justice circles, "racism" has different connotations.
There's a difference between simply one culture having something in common with another, and actively taking things important to one culture and devaluing them in another to enforce racist stereotypes. The problem with the vast majority of cultural appropriation is that it devalues a symbol important to a certain group (i.e., warbonnets for Native Americans) and turns it into a commodity. It also encourages stereotyping of that culture in the process and perpetuates racist stereotypes. For example, the warbonnets that hipsters wear encourage the stereotype that all Native American cultures are the same. Wearing "Chinese" or "Native American" Halloween costumes reinforces other people's stereotypes of what those groups are like. In the case of "Native American" Halloween costumes, they also (at least on women) have a strong tendency to sexualize, objectify, and exotify Native American women - a demographic group that is already especially prone to sexual violence.
-
In all honesty, are ideas such as "it's impossible to be racist towards white people" and "doing anything any non-western culture does is bad because 'cultural appropriation'" the norm in social justice circles on Tumblr?
I know this is Smurfette's thread, but since I'm in what is considered tumblr's social justice circle, I think I can answer this.
The short answer is yes to the first one and no to the second one.
This is the long answer.
Social justice bloggers operate off of the definition that racism = power + prejudice. Racism is simply bigotry and prejudice with the overwhelming institutional power to back it up. This does mean that, in Western society, only white people can be racist, but people of color can still be bigoted or prejudiced. In common usage, all these words mean the same thing, but in social justice circles, "racism" has different connotations.
While I see the point, and that it's mostly semantics, that's still a bit of a shitty double-standard. Not intentionally, mind, but I see it used a lot as a way of saying that hating white people is totally acceptable.
The idea of social justice is sound, really. It's just the loud, insane, and often violently racist (non-SJ definition) and cis/heterophobic minority that give it a bad name.
-
In all honesty, are ideas such as "it's impossible to be racist towards white people" and "doing anything any non-western culture does is bad because 'cultural appropriation'" the norm in social justice circles on Tumblr?
The first one, yes. Most sources that I've seen define racism as being a societal structure rather than just bullying, and that it's firmly ingrained in things like media and stereotypes rather than simply acts of violence. The way I've seen it put is this: a black kid can beat up a white kid for being white. That's bullying. But there isn't a system telling him that it's OK to do that. A system where "flesh toned" means "white" and everyone on TV is white and people still think it's OK to wear blackface is skewed in favor of white people. It's very Western-world centered because almost everyone on Tumblr lives in the west, but hypothetically, if there were a place where the same sort of system applied to white people, then it would also be racism. It's not so much "you can't be racist against white people" as it is "you can't be racist against white people in America considering our current societal structure."
The second, no. Cultural appropriation is only used (outside of parody blogs) against people who take traditional clothing or customs from other cultures and "try them on" without understanding the gravity behind them. For example, a lot of people got upset at Lana del Ray for being in some sort of music video or whatever while wearing war paint and a headdress. She is using something that is very personal and spiritual to play dress up (which happens quite a lot (http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/15/victorias-secret-apologizes-after-using-a-native-american-headdress-in-their-fashion-show/)). Same with white people who wear Muslim headscarves and talk about how difficult it was without realizing that actual Muslims can't take off their headscarves when they're done for the day and are always viewed with suspicion wherever they go. I've never seen things like "dressing as a cat is otherkin appropriation" or whatever.
Also, how many of them use the phrase "check your privilege" unironically?
The phrase was in vogue just before I joined Tumblr, and was well on the wane by the time I was more firmly entrenched in Tumblr politics. It's not really used so often because of fear of ridicule, but I have seen it. It's mostly a call to remind people that yes, they have some inherent benefits to being who they are. I "check my privilege" by snapping myself out of certain thought patterns, like (to use an example) being afraid of a group of black people who are not paying the slightest bit of attention to me. It's a reminder that you're exhibiting some form of bigotry.
-
I am moving this thread to Society as that forum was made to discuss things like social media and so forth. If it does get heated, it can be moved back to F&B.
-
Social justice bloggers operate off of the definition that racism = power + prejudice. Racism is simply bigotry and prejudice with the overwhelming institutional power to back it up. This does mean that, in Western society, only white people can be racist, but people of color can still be bigoted or prejudiced. In common usage, all these words mean the same thing, but in social justice circles, "racism" has different connotations.
Oh, I've heard that justification many-a time, and it never stops being a load of nonsense. Not to mention, even if that definition were accepted, it would not mean that racism is exclusive to white people, seeing as there are plenty of places in the world where some other, non-European ethnic group are the ones with the power.
There's a difference between simply one culture having something in common with another, and actively taking things important to one culture and devaluing them in another to enforce racist stereotypes. The problem with the vast majority of cultural appropriation is that it devalues a symbol important to a certain group (i.e., warbonnets for Native Americans) and turns it into a commodity. It also encourages stereotyping of that culture in the process and perpetuates racist stereotypes. For example, the warbonnets that hipsters wear encourage the stereotype that all Native American cultures are the same. Wearing "Chinese" or "Native American" Halloween costumes reinforces other people's stereotypes of what those groups are like. In the case of "Native American" Halloween costumes, they also (at least on women) have a strong tendency to sexualize, objectify, and exotify Native American women - a demographic group that is already especially prone to sexual violence.
I have to say, that argument seems to follow the same logic as "we need to ban violent movies/video games/TV shows because it encourages violence". Simply put, if someone's going to base their view of another culture around Halloween costumes and what hipsters wear, the fault does not lie with the Halloween costume and/or hipster (insufferable as these people may otherwise be).
Then of course there's the issue of whether or not culture itself is sacred. While there's certainly no objective answer to that particular question, it does follow that such subjective reasoning does not justify telling people what they can't wear.
The first one, yes. Most sources that I've seen define racism as being a societal structure rather than just bullying, and that it's firmly ingrained in things like media and stereotypes rather than simply acts of violence. The way I've seen it put is this: a black kid can beat up a white kid for being white. That's bullying. But there isn't a system telling him that it's OK to do that. A system where "flesh toned" means "white" and everyone on TV is white and people still think it's OK to wear blackface is skewed in favor of white people. It's very Western-world centered because almost everyone on Tumblr lives in the west, but hypothetically, if there were a place where the same sort of system applied to white people, then it would also be racism. It's not so much "you can't be racist against white people" as it is "you can't be racist against white people in America considering our current societal structure."
Yet you're pushing to re-define "racism" in such a way that heavily implies that minority-on-white violence is not as bad as white-on-minority.
Another thought; the stuff you describe as institutional "everyone on TV is white (obvious hyperbole aside for a moment)" is actually cultural, and not exclusively white either. By this logic, it would follow that any prevailing anti-white attitudes within black communities (and yes, they do very much exist) would qualify under your logic as "institutional" and as such any anti-white violence would indeed qualify as racism even by Tumblr definitions of the word.
-
I have to say, that argument seems to follow the same logic as "we need to ban violent movies/video games/TV shows because it encourages violence". Simply put, if someone's going to base their view of another culture around Halloween costumes and what hipsters wear, the fault does not lie with the Halloween costume and/or hipster (insufferable as these people may otherwise be).
Growing up with my mother, who's really big into media criticism, no, really, the media makes things seem more acceptable to you. (http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-you-dont-realize-movies-are-controlling-your-brain/)
Then of course there's the issue of whether or not culture itself is sacred. While there's certainly no objective answer to that particular question, it does follow that such subjective reasoning does not justify telling people what they can't wear.
Nobody's banning it, and freedom of speech also doesn't mean freedom from criticism, and it's perfectly justified for Native American peoples to protest the use of their culture in this way.
-
Social justice bloggers operate off of the definition that racism = power + prejudice. Racism is simply bigotry and prejudice with the overwhelming institutional power to back it up. This does mean that, in Western society, only white people can be racist, but people of color can still be bigoted or prejudiced. In common usage, all these words mean the same thing, but in social justice circles, "racism" has different connotations.
Oh, I've heard that justification many-a time, and it never stops being a load of nonsense. Not to mention, even if that definition were accepted, it would not mean that racism is exclusive to white people, seeing as there are plenty of places in the world where some other, non-European ethnic group are the ones with the power.
Did you notice the qualifier "Western society"?
Because what you said is not in disagreement with what Wykked and Smurfette are saying (other than calling it nonsense). You're right -- in another culture where another skin color is reigning high over another minority skin color, then it would be the minority skin color there that can't be racist.
It should be important to note that in these situations, they aren't necessarily using the same debate frame that we here use. In the specific context of social movements and such, racism is systemic prejudice against skin color or origin. Outside of this context, racism is simply prejudice for or against a group of people based on skin color.
It seems strange, but it's a phenomena that is hardly restricted to tumblr and other social justice movements. It should not be used to say that it's okay to be prejudiced against a dominant skin color. The fact that it is is a corruption and thus should only be laughed at and criticized.
-
Think about it this way: If, in some alternate universe, the Aztec Empire has conquered most of the world's territory, causing the Aztecs become the dominant group in society and begin oppressing other races and creating a system of institutionalized racism that favored their own group, then in that society only Aztec people could be racist.
I totally acknowledge that, outside of Western society, there are places where it is a people of color who are racist. Japan, for instance, is very xenophobic. But that's because they hold the institutional power there.
-
Growing up with my mother, who's really big into media criticism, no, really, the media makes things seem more acceptable to you. (http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-you-dont-realize-movies-are-controlling-your-brain/)
Really, Cracked? Are you sure you want to go with that particular source?
Nobody's banning it, and freedom of speech also doesn't mean freedom from criticism, and it's perfectly justified for Native American peoples to protest the use of their culture in this way.
Of course it doesn't. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but the consensus is more "I disagree with this, therefore nobody should get to do it" rather than "I disagree with this, therefore I personally won't do it".
Because what you said is not in disagreement with what Wykked and Smurfette are saying (other than calling it nonsense).
That and it's also simply an arbitrary redefinition of a word. I thought that much was obvious, hence "nonsense".
-
If I disagree with it, there's nothing that I can do to force the other person to stop. Even if I could, I probably wouldn't. But I can inform them about why what they are doing is harmful, and hopefully they will be receptive and realize that it isn't a good thing to do.
There's nothing I can do to force people to stop wearing "Chinese" Halloween costumes, but if I see someone wearing one or contemplating wearing one, I can tell them why I think it's a wrong thing to do.
And the redefinition is not "arbitrary." It's an accepted definition in critical race theory.
-
Think about it this way: If, in some alternate universe, the Aztec Empire has conquered most of the world's territory, causing the Aztecs become the dominant group in society and begin oppressing other races and creating a system of institutionalized racism that favored their own group, then in that society only Aztec people could be racist.
Except not. Racism is an ideal where your race is superior or more deserving of wealth and power than any others. That's what it actually means, no matter how hard Tumblr tries to redefine it. So yes, if in your scenario a non-Aztec decided that they hate all people of Aztec origin rather than the society they implemented, then yes, it's racism.
-
Think about it this way: If, in some alternate universe, the Aztec Empire has conquered most of the world's territory, causing the Aztecs become the dominant group in society and begin oppressing other races and creating a system of institutionalized racism that favored their own group, then in that society only Aztec people could be racist.
Except not. Racism is an ideal where your race is superior or more deserving of wealth and power than any others. That's what it actually means, no matter how hard Tumblr tries to redefine it. So yes, if in your scenario a non-Aztec decided that they hate all people of Aztec origin rather than the society they implemented, then yes, it's racism.
I've already explained to you that critical race theory uses a different definition of racism than is used in common language. (Also, not to be Captain Obvious or anything, but prejudice is a part of racism. A society completely without any prejudices or bigotry whatsoever is incapable of having a racist group.) It's like the difference between "theory" in a scientific context and "theory" in common usage. It's not arbitrary redefinition, it's a term coined from observation.
-
If I disagree with it, there's nothing that I can do to force the other person to stop. Even if I could, I probably wouldn't. But I can inform them about why what they are doing is harmful, and hopefully they will be receptive and realize that it isn't a good thing to do.
There's nothing I can do to force people to stop wearing "Chinese" Halloween costumes, but if I see someone wearing one or contemplating wearing one, I can tell them why I think it's a wrong thing to do.
I suppose I should've been clearer. My problem isn't that I think social justice bloggers are trying to force people to conform to their standards, it's that their standards come about through subjective reasoning (culture is sacred and needs to be respected) and patently false logic (Halloween costumes and hipsters enforce the idea that it's ok to objectify Native American women) and they believe that everyone should follow the same standards via the same faulty reasoning.
And the redefinition is not "arbitrary." It's an accepted definition in critical race theory.
Yeah, it's arbitrary, no matter who came up with it.
-
Yeah, it's arbitrary, no matter who came up with it.
By that standard all definitions are arbitrary.
-
Yeah, it's arbitrary, no matter who came up with it.
By that standard all definitions are arbitrary.
Pretty much. In fact, quite a few of them, like 'racism: Tumblr edition', also have fuck all merits to them.
-
I have a question,
Some of this discussion is about "culture appropriation." Some of you feel it is wrong is what I am getting.
So my question is: Do you think that I am being wrong for wearing African dresses, necklaces and outfits at times (which I get at an African specialty store run by a woman from Sierra Leone)? Am I appropriating on the Western African culture by wearing these outfits?
Ok that was two questions, still I want to know.
-
And the redefinition is not "arbitrary." It's an accepted definition in critical race theory.
>wellthere'syourproblem.jpg
Why simply accept that the critical race theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory) interpretation of racism (or any other social problem) is true and the others false? Why elevate their explanation above others?
CRT is based on postmodernism which most serious academics, including Noam Chomsky (http://masi.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html) (for whom I have a great deal of respect) thinks is bogus.
-
And the redefinition is not "arbitrary." It's an accepted definition in critical race theory.
>wellthere'syourproblem.jpg
Why simply accept that the critical race theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory) interpretation of racism (or any other social problem) is true and the others false? Why elevate their explanation above others?
I consider it to be a valid definition of racism because it can observed in societies. I don't "raise it above others" except when using it in a social justice context.
CRT is based on postmodernism which most serious academics,
Argumentum ad populum, appeal to authority, and citation needed.
including Noam Chomsky (http://masi.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html) (for whom I have a great deal of respect) thinks is bogus.
Appeal to authority and association fallacy/ad hominem. I love Noam Chomsky as a linguist, but I don't give two fucks what his opinion on anything else is.
-
Regardless of whether it's accepted in some academic circles, I've yet to see a compelling argument for why it's necessary to alter the definition of racism (and "power plus prejudice" is a fairly recent alteration of the original and still widely-accepted definition of the word). We already have terms to differentiate between its various forms, (internalized, systematic, institutional/ingrained, casual, etc.), so the "there needs to be a different term!" argument really doesn't wash.
And, quite frankly, I might be a little less skeptical of this definition if it wasn't used almost exclusively as a red herring when someone is called out on their bigotry and hypocrisy.
Edit: Also, I do realize language changes over time, but we're talking about a forced redefinition here -- and one that has some pretty drastic implications, at that.
-
I have a question,
Some of this discussion is about "culture appropriation." Some of you feel it is wrong is what I am getting.
So my question is: Do you think that I am being wrong for wearing African dresses, necklaces and outfits at times (which I get at an African specialty store run by a woman from Sierra Leone)? Am I appropriating on the Western African culture by wearing these outfits?
Ok that was two questions, still I want to know.
It depends on context. It doesn't have any spiritual significance, so that's out, and it's not perpetuating a stereotype, so that's out. I'm not sure how important clothing is to West African people so if there is some sort of deeper part to it then it would be. I know some people would consider it appropriation but those people, I think, would be considered extremists.
-
Argumentum ad populum, appeal to authority, and citation needed.
I gave you a citation, and it's not argumentum ad populum or appeal to authority if you are dealing with non-empirical subjects (such as philosophy, as we are doing here).
PROTIP: misapplying/throwing around Latin terms does not make you sound smarter.
I love Noam Chomsky as a linguist, but I don't give two fucks what his opinion on anything else is.
You do realize that Chomsky's expertise extends far beyond linguistics, right? And as far as "association fallacy" is concerned, you clearly didn't bother reading the link I gave you...
-
This thread is getting derailed. Can we go back to the topic, please?
-
If it's unclear, I was asking why it's necessary to redefine the term, which seems to be in line with the thread topic (being that this redefinition is common on Tumblr).
-
This thread is getting derailed. Can we go back to the topic, please?
Questioning the underlying assumptions of an ideology is hardly a "derail".
-
This thread is getting derailed. Can we go back to the topic, please?
How so? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the original purpose of the thread to try and prove that the Tumblr social justice scene isn't as batshit insane as we all seem to think? If that is indeed what you're trying to achieve, then justifying opinions that are commonplace on Tumblr as at least understandable, if not reasonable or logical, is pretty necessary if you want any hope of success.
-
This thread is getting derailed. Can we go back to the topic, please?
Questioning the underlying assumptions of an ideology is hardly a "derail".
This thread is getting derailed. Can we go back to the topic, please?
How so? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the original purpose of the thread to try and prove that the Tumblr social justice scene isn't as batshit insane as we all seem to think? If that is indeed what you're trying to achieve, then justifying opinions that are commonplace on Tumblr as at least understandable, if not reasonable or logical, is pretty necessary if you want any hope of success.
Smurfette, Zachski, and I have already answered your questions. Multiple times. The fact that you are stubbornly incapable of even understanding those answers and instead continue to set up completely irrelevant strawmen is not our problem.
-
No one has answered my question, though. :\
-
Art, Letters, back off.
This topic is not your personal shooting grounds. Your questions have been answered.
-
Regardless of whether it's accepted in some academic circles, I've yet to see a compelling argument for why it's necessary to alter the definition of racism (and "power plus prejudice" is a fairly recent alteration of the original and still widely-accepted definition of the word). We already have terms to differentiate between its various forms, (internalized, systematic, institutional/ingrained, casual, etc.), so the "there needs to be a different term!" argument really doesn't wash.
And, quite frankly, I might be a little less skeptical of this definition if it wasn't used almost exclusively as a red herring when someone is called out on their bigotry and hypocrisy.
Edit: Also, I do realize language changes over time, but we're talking about a forced redefinition here -- and one that has some pretty drastic implications, at that.
The way I've had it explained to me is as follows: racism needs to be defined the way it is to more aptly demonstrate the power differences: the fact that it is a structure rather than mere belief.
-
Regardless of whether it's accepted in some academic circles, I've yet to see a compelling argument for why it's necessary to alter the definition of racism (and "power plus prejudice" is a fairly recent alteration of the original and still widely-accepted definition of the word). We already have terms to differentiate between its various forms, (internalized, systematic, institutional/ingrained, casual, etc.), so the "there needs to be a different term!" argument really doesn't wash.
And, quite frankly, I might be a little less skeptical of this definition if it wasn't used almost exclusively as a red herring when someone is called out on their bigotry and hypocrisy.
Edit: Also, I do realize language changes over time, but we're talking about a forced redefinition here -- and one that has some pretty drastic implications, at that.
The way I've had it explained to me is as follows: racism needs to be defined the way it is to more aptly demonstrate the power differences: the fact that it is a structure rather than mere belief.
So... in other words, institutional racism, a systematic form of racism marked by a power differential, is best distinguished from the more general concept of racism, in which one holds that another race is intrinsically inferior, by referring to institutional racism as just racism. Got it. Yes, everything is nice and clear now.
-
Black people
I CONTRIBUTED.
-
Black people
I CONTRIBUTED.
RACISM IS OVER
EVERYBODY GO HOME
-
Smurfette, Zachski, and I have already answered your questions. Multiple times. The fact that you are stubbornly incapable of even understanding those answers and instead continue to set up completely irrelevant strawmen is not our problem.
Strawman huh? Mind pointing out where exactly I've used a strawman?
Really now, I'm genuinely curious.
-
Honest serious question about the SJW/racism thingy here. So, to use a harmless example, I would be wrong in assuming black people like fried chicken because they are black, right? I mean, that's the type of stereotyping that the Tumblr Army is trying to stamp out, right? Because by almost any definition, assuming black people like fried chicken is furthering the stereotype and blatantly racist. Is it equally bad in the Tumblrverse to assume that, being white, I like mayonnaise on my sandwiches? And if not, why? And if they are both wrong, is there a difference of degree?*
It looks silly, I'll be the first to admit. But I've seen a lot saying you can't be racist to white people. Maybe they're poes saying that, I don't know.
*ETA question.
-
Is it equally bad in the Tumblrverse to assume that, being white, I like mayonnaise on my sandwiches?
On another note, where the fuck does this stereotype come from?
Back on topic, what is up with the whole "Die Cis Scum" thing? Are the people saying it Poes, or is it meant seriously? Because if it is, then how the hell is that justified?
-
Honest serious question about the SJW/racism thingy here. So, to use a harmless example, I would be wrong in assuming black people like fried chicken because they are black, right? I mean, that's the type of stereotyping that the Tumblr Army is trying to stamp out, right? Because by almost any definition, assuming black people like fried chicken is furthering the stereotype and blatantly racist. Is it equally bad in the Tumblrverse to assume that, being white, I like mayonnaise on my sandwiches? And if not, why? And if they are both wrong, is there a difference of degree?*
It looks silly, I'll be the first to admit. But I've seen a lot saying you can't be racist to white people. Maybe they're poes saying that, I don't know.
*ETA question.
Honestly, I've never seen that sort of stereotyping of white people except as parody. The argument there would be that there aren't really stereotypes about white people (no one says "all white people are rednecks", for example, because that's a class stereotype, not a racial one) and so the impact isn't nearly the same.
Back on topic, what is up with the whole "Die Cis Scum" thing? Are the people saying it Poes, or is it meant seriously? Because if it is, then how the hell is that justified?
The "die cis scum" thing is a serious point of contention in the trans* and trans* ally community. Officially it is supposed to be read with the same sort of feeling as the words "die in a fire" or "go die in a hole" is - not an actual call for death, but as an expression of frustration to scummy (read: transphobic) cis people. I've also seen it used as "die, cis scum" - like, not the cis part of you, but the scumminess. It's not supposed to apply to all cis people.
Now, Poes and trolls use it as a death threat or against all cis people, and a lot of people interpret it as a death threat, and there's discussion over whether or not the phrase shouldn't be use because of its potential to trigger suicidal people. Currently, the consensus I've seen is, "Use it if you are trans and you want to as an expression of frustration, and allow trans people to use it if they want, but don't use it as a death threat."
-
Seems reasonable. I don't like it personally, but then I don't like "Die in a fire" either, and I don't rag on people for that. Thank you!
-
Seems reasonable. I don't like it personally, but then I don't like "Die in a fire" either, and I don't rag on people for that. Thank you!
Totally understandable. I myself don't use it either (neither do I use DIAF) because I follow the George Takei philosophy of life (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UACK93xF-FE&feature=player_detailpage#t=45s), but I understand why other people do.
-
Is there a goal for the SJW crowd? I mean like an achievable goal they can point to and say "This! Because of this, we have succeeded." Because what has been in F&B has been a bunch of people jumping on each other for seemingly random stuff.
-
Is there a goal for the SJW crowd? I mean like an achievable goal they can point to and say "This! Because of this, we have succeeded." Because what has been in F&B has been a bunch of people jumping on each other for seemingly random stuff.
Not really. While many SJAs are intersectional feminists (feminists who believe that true equality for women cannot be reached unless it also encompasses women of color, queer women, and trans* women), myself included, the goals for each individual issue are so numerous that one goal can't be sorted out over all the others. I suppose the ultimate goal is complete equality, but that is an ideal, not a tangible goal. There is a lot of disagreement over what issues should go first and what's actually accomplishable.
-
I got that impression. Thanks.
-
Just to tack onto that: a single movement is defined as a group of people with clear goals. The Tumblr SJA crowd is not a conglomerate, and there is a great deal of infighting (see: extremist otherkin activists vs. trans activists, anti-poverty people vs. hardcore vegans). Therefore painting anyone as a SJW is kind of silly because that can mean anything from thinking that we should do something about prison reform to thinking that the words "penis" and "vagina" don't do enough to encompass the full range of genitalia that is possible for intersex people to thinking that no one needs to or should drink milk. The only blanket statement you can make about the SJA scene is that it's diverse and comprised of people who feel strongly about something.
-
So... in other words, institutional racism, a systematic form of racism marked by a power differential, is best distinguished from the more general concept of racism, in which one holds that another race is intrinsically inferior, by referring to institutional racism as just racism. Got it. Yes, everything is nice and clear now.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. By insisting that institutional racism is the ONLY form of racism, you have completely muddied the waters and denied the existence of other forms of racism. This is intellectually dishonest equivocation on your part.
And then there's this (my own emphasis added)...
Regardless of whether it's accepted in some academic circles, I've yet to see a compelling argument for why it's necessary to alter the definition of racism (and "power plus prejudice" is a fairly recent alteration of the original and still widely-accepted definition of the word). We already have terms to differentiate between its various forms, (internalized, systematic, institutional/ingrained, casual, etc.), so the "there needs to be a different term!" argument really doesn't wash.
And, quite frankly, I might be a little less skeptical of this definition if it wasn't used almost exclusively as a red herring when someone is called out on their bigotry and hypocrisy.
Edit: Also, I do realize language changes over time, but we're talking about a forced redefinition here -- and one that has some pretty drastic implications, at that.
...which I agree with 100%. Fucking bang-on, Mlle Antéchrist. 8)
-
Just as a note, since this should be obvious, but the SJW thread in Flame and Burn is not to be taken as a representative sample of every social justice advocate on tumblr.
Just like FSTDT's main page is not meant to be taken as a representative sample of everyone who is religious ever.
-
The way I've had it explained to me is as follows: racism needs to be defined the way it is to more aptly demonstrate the power differences: the fact that it is a structure rather than mere belief.
Which blows my mind. Follow me here for a second, but haven't these people attempted to redefine racism in a rather blatantly racist way? Or does using 'power' as a euphamism for white exempt them somehow?
-
Just as a note, since this should be obvious, but the SJW thread in Flame and Burn is not to be taken as a representative sample of every social justice advocate on tumblr.
Just like FSTDT's main page is not meant to be taken as a representative sample of everyone who is religious ever.
Exactly. It's really no different than the "Things people say on Facebook", "Certain things about fandoms that annoy you", etc. threads. We're mocking the worst elements of the Tumblr SJ community, not every single SJ blogger on Tumblr, much less the planet.
-
Just as a note, since this should be obvious, but the SJW thread in Flame and Burn is not to be taken as a representative sample of every social justice advocate on tumblr.
Just like FSTDT's main page is not meant to be taken as a representative sample of everyone who is religious ever.
Exactly. It's really no different than the "Things people say on Facebook", "Certain things about fandoms that annoy you", etc. threads. We're mocking the worst elements of the Tumblr SJ community, not every single SJ blogger on Tumblr, much less the planet.
Right.
My point is, don't confuse the insane jack-off use of the talk of institutional racism vs. the proper use of it.
The people who use it as a defense for being prejudiced against white people is bad. This doesn't really apply to the people who are talking about.
As for why certain circles would simply shorten institutional racism to just racism, this actually makes good sense to me.
For one thing, the common lingo of racism is simply just talking about prejudice based on skin color. The definition of the common use of racism is basically redundant when there are other words that can express the same sentiment. (Racist towards black people and prejudiced towards black people mean the same thing). There's also bigoted.
Therefore, since common use basically means 'prejudiced', then 'institutional racism' can simply be shortened to 'racism' for better efficient discussion.
The problem is when the idiots try to force this contextual use of the word into contexts where it doesn't belong. These people are the ones that hijack "you can't be (institutionally) racist against (dominant skin color)" into being "You can't be prejudiced against (dominant skin color)" and think that this gives them free reign to act like bigoted fuckwits.
-
For one thing, the common lingo of racism is simply just talking about prejudice based on skin color. The definition of the common use of racism is basically redundant when there are other words that can express the same sentiment. (Racist towards black people and prejudiced towards black people mean the same thing). There's also bigoted.
Therefore, since common use basically means 'prejudiced', then 'institutional racism' can simply be shortened to 'racism' for better efficient discussion.
What if you're trying to discuss something other than institutional racism? Then you have to say "prejudice against [whichever race applies]" rather than simply racist. That's basically three extra words you have to say (or a minimum of four more syllables) when discussing any form of racism but institutional for a gain of removing one word (or five syllables) for just one form of racism.
And what if, in the same discussion, the matter of other forms of prejudice come up? Then suddenly you can no longer assume "prejudice=racial prejudice" and therefore have to qualify the kind of prejudice you're referring to every single time you use the word.
Though of course, this is all besides the point, since the Tumblr social justice crowd wants to redefine racism as institutional racism in all cases, including common usage, including the (supposed) sane majority.
-
My point is, don't confuse the insane jack-off use of the talk of institutional racism vs. the proper use of it.
Thing is, some of us disagree with the "proper" use of it as well, and happen to feel that treating "racism" as an umbrella term for all racial prejudice and inequality is preferable for a variety of reasons (not confusing the crap out of people, not implying that incidental racism is a non-issue, etc.)
-
Though of course, this is all besides the point, since the Tumblr social justice crowd wants to redefine racism as institutional racism in all cases, including common usage, including the (supposed) sane majority.
Again, the SJW thread is not representative of the social justice advocates as a whole. So stop acting like it is.
My point is, don't confuse the insane jack-off use of the talk of institutional racism vs. the proper use of it.
Thing is, some of us disagree with the "proper" use of it as well, and happen to feel that treating "racism" is an umbrella term for all racial prejudice and inequality is preferable for a variety of reasons (not confusing the crap out of people, not implying that incidental racism is a non-issue, etc.)
Disagreement is perfectly okay. Holding your own opinion is perfectly okay.
Being a dick about it is not okay. Dismissing something because you decided beforehand that it was bullshit is also not okay. Not saying you're doing this (you've actually been quite reasonable) but just stating something.
Hell, I'm not sure I agree with it. But I think I understand why they do it. That's all I'm asking from others.
-
Though of course, this is all besides the point, since the Tumblr social justice crowd wants to redefine racism as institutional racism in all cases, including common usage, including the (supposed) sane majority.
Again, the SJW thread is not representative of the social justice advocates as a whole. So stop acting like it is.
And where, pray tell, did I ever say that thread is my source? If you check the first page of this thread, you'll see that both Smurfette and Wykked stated quite plainly that it's the general consensus in the internet social justice scene.
-
Though of course, this is all besides the point, since the Tumblr social justice crowd wants to redefine racism as institutional racism in all cases, including common usage, including the (supposed) sane majority.
Again, the SJW thread is not representative of the social justice advocates as a whole. So stop acting like it is.
And where, pray tell, did I ever say that thread is my source? If you check the first page of this thread, you'll see that both Smurfette and Wykked stated quite plainly that it's the general consensus in the internet social justice scene.
No, that's a case of you reading what you want to read. Of course, you more or less proved this when you skimmed past "Western society" in the very same post you were touting as proof of your perception.
They were explaining what it was for the context of social justice advocate discussions. Nothing more, nothing less.
-
No, that's a case of you reading what you want to read. Of course, you more or less proved this when you skimmed past "Western society" in the very same post you were touting as proof of your perception.
They were explaining what it was for the context of social justice advocate discussions. Nothing more, nothing less.
You want to find a quote that says they accept the common definition of racism everywhere but their social justice blogs? Assuming you know what you're talking about, there should be several in this very thread.
-
No, that's a case of you reading what you want to read. Of course, you more or less proved this when you skimmed past "Western society" in the very same post you were touting as proof of your perception.
They were explaining what it was for the context of social justice advocate discussions. Nothing more, nothing less.
You want to find a quote that says they accept the common definition of racism everywhere but their social justice blogs? Assuming you know what you're talking about, there should be several in this very thread.
I've actually talked with them. You know, made an effort to understand where they're coming from.
For that matter, the fact that your "proof" is based off of an erroneous interpretation of a post means that the burden of proof is still on you.
This topic is not your personal shooting grounds. The topic is outside of Flame and Burn to encourage discussion and discourage verbal poaching.
Now then, can we get back to discussing the topic at hand, without being a dick about it?
-
No, that's a case of you reading what you want to read. Of course, you more or less proved this when you skimmed past "Western society" in the very same post you were touting as proof of your perception.
They were explaining what it was for the context of social justice advocate discussions. Nothing more, nothing less.
You want to find a quote that says they accept the common definition of racism everywhere but their social justice blogs? Assuming you know what you're talking about, there should be several in this very thread.
I've actually talked with them. You know, made an effort to understand where they're coming from.
In other words, "no". Though I feel I should mention that just because the whole "racism = power + prejudice" idea applies to other races when they dominate society, it does not make it any less flawed, or does it mean that it's in face not the widely accepted definition in the internet social justice crowd.
-
For one thing, the common lingo of racism is simply just talking about prejudice based on skin color. The definition of the common use of racism is basically redundant when there are other words that can express the same sentiment. (Racist towards black people and prejudiced towards black people mean the same thing). There's also bigoted.
Therefore, since common use basically means 'prejudiced', then 'institutional racism' can simply be shortened to 'racism' for better efficient discussion.
What if you're trying to discuss something other than institutional racism? Then you have to say "prejudice against [whichever race applies]" rather than simply racist. That's basically three extra words you have to say (or a minimum of four more syllables) when discussing any form of racism but institutional for a gain of removing one word (or five syllables) for just one form of racism.
And what if, in the same discussion, the matter of other forms of prejudice come up? Then suddenly you can no longer assume "prejudice=racial prejudice" and therefore have to qualify the kind of prejudice you're referring to every single time you use the word.
Though of course, this is all besides the point, since the Tumblr social justice crowd wants to redefine racism as institutional racism in all cases, including common usage, including the (supposed) sane majority.
See, this is why I posted that Chomsky link before.
Chomsky was right on the money about how postmodernism does absolutely nothing to bring clarity or greater understanding to any subject, but only serves to obscure it (and in the process, secure careers for certain corrupt academics).
Critical race theory, as a postmodernism-based theory, does exactly this.
You can go ahead and call that a fallacy, and throw around all the fancy Law Latin terms you can think of, but it doesn't change the fact that it is true.
-
No, that's a case of you reading what you want to read. Of course, you more or less proved this when you skimmed past "Western society" in the very same post you were touting as proof of your perception.
They were explaining what it was for the context of social justice advocate discussions. Nothing more, nothing less.
You want to find a quote that says they accept the common definition of racism everywhere but their social justice blogs? Assuming you know what you're talking about, there should be several in this very thread.
I've actually talked with them. You know, made an effort to understand where they're coming from.
In other words, "no". Though I feel I should mention that just because the whole "racism = power + prejudice" idea applies to other races when they dominate society, it does not make it any less flawed, or does it mean that it's in face not the widely accepted definition in the internet social justice crowd.
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma0feaG2111qi00ie.jpg)
The burden of proof lies with you, not me.
In other words, you don't have any evidence that the social justice crowd is trying to redefine all racism as institutional racism.
Take your own advice and provide me with some evidence that isn't simply you reading what you want to read out of something.
@Fpqxz
Fallacy: Argument by Authority.
-
@Fpqxz
Fallacy: Argument by Authority.
Nope. Chomsky is, in fact, a legitimate authority on this issue.
-
@Fpqxz
Fallacy: Argument by Authority.
Nope. Chomsky is, in fact, a legitimate authority on this issue.
By whose standards? Yours, obviously. But who else's?
Just because someone has authority doesn't make them always right or free from prejudice. You can't just say "This person is legitimate authority therefore what he says is TRUEFACTS!" because that doesn't work.
And quite honestly, I doubt you are unbiased about this whole thing.
-
@Fpqxz
Fallacy: Argument by Authority.
Nope. Chomsky is, in fact, a legitimate authority on this issue.
By whose standards? Yours, obviously. But who else's?
Just because someone has authority doesn't make them always right or free from prejudice. You can't just say "This person is legitimate authority therefore what he says is TRUEFACTS!" because that doesn't work.
And quite honestly, I doubt you are unbiased about this whole thing.
Chomsky is a public intellectual who has studied many fields, including the one we are discussing. In fact, I highly recommend his works. Bear in mind that I don't agree with everything he says, but he is damn good at explaining himself plainly.
Again, if you read my previous posts in this thread, you would understand that the fallacies which you and Wykked invoked are simply inapplicable here.
-
Take your own advice and provide me with some evidence that isn't simply you reading what you want to read out of something.
As you wish.
Social justice bloggers operate off of the definition that racism = power + prejudice. Racism is simply bigotry and prejudice with the overwhelming institutional power to back it up. This does mean that, in Western society, only white people can be racist, but people of color can still be bigoted or prejudiced. In common usage, all these words mean the same thing, but in social justice circles, "racism" has different connotations.
There's one.
The first one, yes. Most sources that I've seen define racism as being a societal structure rather than just bullying, and that it's firmly ingrained in things like media and stereotypes rather than simply acts of violence. The way I've seen it put is this: a black kid can beat up a white kid for being white. That's bullying. But there isn't a system telling him that it's OK to do that. A system where "flesh toned" means "white" and everyone on TV is white and people still think it's OK to wear blackface is skewed in favor of white people. It's very Western-world centered because almost everyone on Tumblr lives in the west, but hypothetically, if there were a place where the same sort of system applied to white people, then it would also be racism. It's not so much "you can't be racist against white people" as it is "you can't be racist against white people in America considering our current societal structure."
And two.
Both of these quotes from the first page of this thread and both confirm that yes, the "racism = power + prejudice" definition is the commonly accepted definition with internet social justice circles (as in, accepted by the majority, not just some insane minority). While one simply acknowledges that it's different to the common definition (as well as rather erroneously equating "racism", "prejudice" and "bigotry" and synonyms), it does not actually say that they agree with and support the common use of the term outside their social justice blogs rather than their own redefinition.
-
While one simply acknowledges that it's different to the common definition (as well as rather erroneously equating "racism", "prejudice" and "bigotry" and synonyms), it does not actually say that they agree with and support the common use of the term outside their social justice blogs rather than their own redefinition.
And it doesn't say that they don't, either. So it's still not proof supporting your cause.
@Fpqxz
Fallacy: Argument by Authority.
Nope. Chomsky is, in fact, a legitimate authority on this issue.
By whose standards? Yours, obviously. But who else's?
Just because someone has authority doesn't make them always right or free from prejudice. You can't just say "This person is legitimate authority therefore what he says is TRUEFACTS!" because that doesn't work.
And quite honestly, I doubt you are unbiased about this whole thing.
Chomsky is a public intellectual who has studied many fields, including the one we are discussing. In fact, I highly recommend his works. Bear in mind that I don't agree with everything he says, but he is damn good at explaining himself plainly.
Again, if you read my previous posts in this thread, you would understand that the fallacies which you and Wykked invoked are simply inapplicable here.
Ah, so there's room to disagree with him after all. I guess what he says isn't necessarily truefacts then.
That's my point. Touting something he says as true simply because you agree with it is fallacious.
And if you agree with him, good for you! It's great to come to your own conclusions about things. However, here's the thing.
This topic is about information. Clearing up misconceptions about social justice advocates as well as answering questions. However, both you and Art came into this thread for your own agendas. That's pretty obvious right from the very first posts. As such, forgive me for saying this, but I really am not inclined to think of you two are anything more than troublemakers in this instance.
This topic is not here for you to prove a point. This topic is here for information and clearing up misconceptions. The forum members are not targets for your personal shooting grounds. You don't have to agree with Smurfette or Wykked. But if you are not here to learn, and are instead here to grandstand about how all social justice advocates are inferior to you personally, then you have come here for the wrong reason.
Back off.
-
While one simply acknowledges that it's different to the common definition (as well as rather erroneously equating "racism", "prejudice" and "bigotry" and synonyms), it does not actually say that they agree with and support the common use of the term outside their social justice blogs rather than their own redefinition.
And it doesn't say that they don't, either. So it's still not proof supporting your cause.
If you tout your own personal redefinition of a word, it follows that you don't have a second definition that you adhere to in other instances unless stated otherwise. This is pretty basic stuff Zach, why exactly does this need to be explained to you in such great detail?
This topic is about information. Clearing up misconceptions about social justice advocates as well as answering questions. However, both you and Art came into this thread for your own agendas. That's pretty obvious right from the very first posts. As such, forgive me for saying this, but I really am not inclined to think of you two are anything more than troublemakers in this instance.
Nice ad hom you have there. Simply brilliant.
-
You know Zach, I admire your attempts at even-handed moderation, and your attempt at playing devil's advocate, but I think you are being a bit unfair to Art and myself. We may have come in here with our own opinions, but you are speaking as if we have come in here solely to stir up shit and done nothing but flame people in this thread. We have not done so, and you will understand if we feel as passionate about the topic at hand as Smurfette and Wykked do.
You want to know the real reason I dislike the SJW culture so much? Because it is my belief that these people are ruining the political Left. Their rhetoric serves to do nothing but divide the working class (by race, by sexual orientation, etc.). They are the best friends the Republicans/Tea Partiers/Tories have right now, but neither side realizes it (yet). Keeping us fighting each other is exactly what they want us to do. Divide and conquer, a tactic as old as Empire itself.
I'm all for racial equality, gay marriage, and so forth, but going around alienating the white working class is the worst possible way to accomplish such ends. Not only does it accomplish absolutely zilch in the way of solving actual street-level problems, but it also pushes away the very people whose support you would need to do so.
You're not going to win hearts and minds by telling or even insinuating that white people that they are oppressors solely because they are white, or shouting things like "die cis scum". If you want to call that "tone policing", so be it, but half of politics is about tailoring your message and forging coalitions. That's why Clinton was so successful as a Democratic president, despite his political and personal foibles.
Furthermore, going around hating yourself for what you are is a guaranteed way to make sure that nobody respects you. Again, telling/insinuating that people should be ashamed of their ethnic heritage isn't going to win you any friends, and it will only bring a hearty laugh of derision from people who actually do have some level of self-respect. It's no better than suggesting that the son of a criminal receive a taste of the lash.
</rant>
-
While one simply acknowledges that it's different to the common definition (as well as rather erroneously equating "racism", "prejudice" and "bigotry" and synonyms), it does not actually say that they agree with and support the common use of the term outside their social justice blogs rather than their own redefinition.
And it doesn't say that they don't, either. So it's still not proof supporting your cause.
If you tout your own personal redefinition of a word, it follows that you don't have a second definition that you adhere to in other instances unless stated otherwise. This is pretty basic stuff Zach, why exactly does this need to be explained to you in such great detail?
No, it doesn't follow. I'm quite frankly sick and tired of you touting your assumptions as fact.
@Fpqxz
Oh for crying out loud.
Again, this is why I keep repeating myself -- the people who are shown in the SJW thread are not indicative of the SJA movement as a whole. Most of them are not like that.
I don't feel alienated. I've actually listened to what's being said. And the fact is, yes, privilege exists, and it's something that should be made aware of and compensated for when possible.
This doesn't mean I hate myself for it. Hell no. The fact that you assume I would hate myself for that is presumptuous as hell on your part.
(I hate myself for other reasons but that's another story for another topic)
Fact of the matter is, your post is pretty clear that you have a seriously warped view of SJAs. You've only been exposed to the bad elements and haven't seen the message that they're actually trying to show.
Open your mind a bit. Allow yourself to be wrong about something. Ask questions.
Remember. The SJWs are no more indicative of SJAs as a whole than fundies are indicative of religion as a whole.
As far as agendas go... honestly, you've given me plenty of reason to believe that you and Art are prejudiced about this issue and won't listen to anything that disagrees with you. I've seen a lot of bullying on these forums directed towards Smurfette on this fact alone. That's not good.
Stating your opinion is fine. Being a dick about it is not. You both are pretty much dicks about this. It is quite possible to disagree with someone without being a dick about it.
-
No, it doesn't follow. I'm quite frankly sick and tired of you touting your assumptions as fact.
So If I were to redefine a word, you would assume that I have other definitions that I use in other circumstances unless stated otherwise?
Makes perfect sense.
As far as agendas go... honestly, you've given me plenty of reason to believe that you and Art are prejudiced about this issue and won't listen to anything that disagrees with you. I've seen a lot of bullying on these forums directed towards Smurfette on this fact alone. That's not good.
When the fuck has Smurfette ever been bullied on this forum over her social justice activities? I want links and solid reasoning that what you're linking to is actual bullying, not just a "it totally happens, for reals".
-
No, it doesn't follow. I'm quite frankly sick and tired of you touting your assumptions as fact.
So If I were to redefine a word, you would assume that I have other definitions that I use in other circumstances unless stated otherwise?
Makes perfect sense.
If you were to say "In this context, this is how I use this word", I would assume that outside of that context, you would use the word in other ways.
Kinda like how male and female mean different things when it comes to electronics than when it comes to gender or sex.
-
If you were to say "In this context, this is how I use this word", I would assume that outside of that context, you would use the word in other ways.
Kinda like how male and female mean different things when it comes to electronics than when it comes to gender or sex.
But if I said "as a [ideology], I define [y] as [z], even though it deviates from the common definition", you would not assume I adhere to any other definition unless specifically stated otherwise, no?
-
Getting back to the "Ask me Anything" bit:
1) What's your take on the whole "white dreadlocks = misappropriation" thing that's been going around on Tumblr lately? How about bindis?
2) Are there any trends that have come up in the general SJ community on Tumblr that you disagree with? Popular opinions that you don't share, memes/catchphrases you find questionable, popular SJ bloggers you're not fond of, etc.
3) What is it that draws you to the community?
4) Any SJ blogs you'd recommend checking out?
-
When the fuck has Smurfette ever been bullied on this forum over her social justice activities? I want links and solid reasoning that what you're linking to is actual bullying, not just a "it totally happens, for reals".
Going to pop in and say that I haven't felt very comfortable here for a while. I've stayed on because I have friends here, and I don't want to ragequit and be mocked, but there have been times when I've felt ganged up on. The reason I started this thread was to help with that, but it's gotten derailed over and over again. This is not a thread for me to justify my beliefs, this is a thread to explain how social justice activism on Tumblr is, and I am really sick of people disparaging "Tumblr social justice activism" when I'm a social justice activist on Tumblr, especially because, seeing these sorts of things on my dash all the time, I know that a lot of what people are posting are Poes, except they're not aware of that because, hey, guess what, you're not on Tumblr.
When people say "Tumblr social justice," and don't bother to clarify that they are talking about the assholes, they're attacking me, they're attacking Wykked, and they're attacking Gyeonghwa, and it's not very cool, to be perfectly honest.
Getting back to the "Ask me Anything" bit:
1) What's your take on the whole "white dreadlocks = misappropriation" thing that's been going around on Tumblr lately? How about bindis?
2) Are there any trends that have come up in the general SJ community on Tumblr that you disagree with? Popular opinions that you don't share, memes/catchphrases you find questionable, etc.
3) What is it that draws you to the community?
4) Any SJ blogs you'd recommend checking out?
1. Since both dreadlocks and bindis have religious significance, I'm uncomfortable with it. I feel similarly uncomfortable with wearing crosses as fashion statements.
2. Quite a lot of people say that they don't like identifying as feminists because, according to them, feminism is solely about straight white cis women. I personally think that while different organizations run it that way, feminism the ideal is about all women and everyone who cares about women should identify as feminists.
3. I've cared about social activism since before I was out of middle school. My parents are feminists (growing up, I was the only kid whose mom worked and whose dad voluntarily stayed at home to take care of the kids), I started getting into gay rights when I was thirteen, and slowly over time I've gotten to the point where I don't want to be really, truly mean to anyone unless they are actively hurting other people. Then I want to kick their asses. It's part of why I want to be a civil rights lawyer.
4. Oh, gosh. Let's see. There's this one (http://reagan-was-a-horrible-president.tumblr.com/) and this one (http://fuckyeahsexeducation.tumblr.com/) and this one (http://bustygirlcomics.com/). That last one isn't strictly about social justice, but when people talk about wanting more diversity and representation in body positive art? This person does that really fucking well.
-
4. Oh, gosh. Let's see. There's this one (http://reagan-was-a-horrible-president.tumblr.com/)
This is a really good blog. Social justice to all, and to all a good night.
-
This is not a thread for me to justify my beliefs, this is a thread to explain how social justice activism on Tumblr is, and I am really sick of people disparaging "Tumblr social justice activism" when I'm a social justice activist on Tumblr, especially because, seeing these sorts of things on my dash all the time, I know that a lot of what people are posting are Poes, except they're not aware of that because, hey, guess what, you're not on Tumblr.
If you want people to stop disparaging your community of choice, you're going to have to justify the common beliefs of that community as reasonable. That's how it is for everyone, Tumblr social justice is no different. While the shitloads of poes being touted as the genuine article is a valid criticism, it still doesn't change the fact that ideals that you've plainly stated are the norm within the Tumblr social justice crowd (such as on race and cultural appropriation) are illogical. Saying that we have to respect the Tumblr social justice community even in the face of such flawed ideals is no different to saying we can't badmouth religion because it offends people who're emotionally invested in it. It's simply not going to fly around here.
When people say "Tumblr social justice," and don't bother to clarify that they are talking about the assholes, they're attacking me, they're attacking Wykked, and they're attacking Gyeonghwa, and it's not very cool, to be perfectly honest.
Argument from popularity. Just because people you know are part of something doesn't mean what they're part of is suddenly needs to be respected.
-
This is not a thread for me to justify my beliefs, this is a thread to explain how social justice activism on Tumblr is, and I am really sick of people disparaging "Tumblr social justice activism" when I'm a social justice activist on Tumblr, especially because, seeing these sorts of things on my dash all the time, I know that a lot of what people are posting are Poes, except they're not aware of that because, hey, guess what, you're not on Tumblr.
If you want people to stop disparaging your community of choice, you're going to have to justify the common beliefs of that community as reasonable. That's how it is for everyone, Tumblr social justice is no different. While the shitloads of poes being touted as the genuine article is a valid criticism, it still doesn't change the fact that ideals that you've plainly stated are the norm within the Tumblr social justice crowd (such as on race and cultural appropriation) are illogical. Saying that we have to respect the Tumblr social justice community even in the face of such flawed ideals is no different to saying we can't badmouth religion because it offends people who're emotionally invested in it. It's simply not going to fly around here.
I'm not saying you have to respect the entire community. I'm saying that you have to critique it using actual criticisms instead of using strawmen. And Poes are strawmen. The question of "does racism need a redefinition or not?" is a valid one. The question of "is someone's culture sacred and should it be respected?" is also a valid question. But they're also highly subjective and ultimately it falls along beliefs rather than logic.
When people say "Tumblr social justice," and don't bother to clarify that they are talking about the assholes, they're attacking me, they're attacking Wykked, and they're attacking Gyeonghwa, and it's not very cool, to be perfectly honest.
Argument from popularity. Just because people you know are part of something doesn't mean what they're part of is suddenly needs to be respected.
The point is that I'm not part of the ridiculously extremist movement, and lumping everyone in with them is like saying all Christians are fundies. We don't judge Rinella by the beliefs of Mel Gibson, so people shouldn't criticize all of Tumblr social justice based on the worst posts.
-
When people say "Tumblr social justice," and don't bother to clarify that they are talking about the assholes, they're attacking me, they're attacking Wykked, and they're attacking Gyeonghwa, and it's not very cool, to be perfectly honest.
I apologize if it ever came across as if I was attacking everyone involved in the Tumblr SJ community. I actually follow several of the more moderate SJ-type blogs on Tumblr, and while I don't always agree with the popular opinions (like the aforementioned definition of racism), I recognize that most of it isn't like the stuff showcased in the SJW thread. I've tried sticking to terms like "Social Justice Extremists", "Social Justice Fundie" or just "Social Justice Warrior", but I've probably slipped up and used overly generalized language. For what it's worth, it's merely the radicals and hypocrites I take issue with.
Likewise, I'm sorry if it ever appeared that I was bullying you. I know I've disagreed with you on a lot of stuff, but, well, that's just because I disagreed on the subject at hand, and I have a tendency to get a bit passionate about these issues (leading to occasional frustration and pushiness when I felt like you were avoiding points or questions I'd raise, or simply had a nerve touched; please call me out if it ever seems like I'm behaving this way). I have absolutely nothing against you personally -- you're actually quite likable, and I think it's admirable that you care about social issues -- so I hope you don't think I've been targeting you.
Our of curiosity, is G's absence due to feeling bullied? 'cause I really miss having him around. It would be a shame if he's been made to feel that he's not welcome here. :(
Thank you for answering my questions. I do have some follow-ups, but I'll hold off on those until tomorrow. My brain is fried from lack of sleep.
-
We don't judge Rinella by the beliefs of Mel Gibson
I do, particularly his belief that Rinella is awesome. But that's really neither here nor there.
-
When people say "Tumblr social justice," and don't bother to clarify that they are talking about the assholes, they're attacking me, they're attacking Wykked, and they're attacking Gyeonghwa, and it's not very cool, to be perfectly honest.
I apologize if it ever came across as if I was attacking everyone involved in the Tumblr SJ community. I actually follow several of the more moderate SJ-type blogs on Tumblr, and while I don't always agree with the popular opinions (like the aforementioned definition of racism), I recognize that most of it isn't like the stuff showcased in the SJW thread. I've tried sticking to terms like "Social Justice Extremists", "Social Justice Fundie" or just "Social Justice Warrior", but I've probably slipped up and used overly generalized language. For what it's worth, it's merely the radicals and hypocrites I take issue with.
Likewise, I'm sorry if it ever appeared that I was bullying you. I know I've disagreed with you on a lot of stuff, but, well, that's just because I disagreed on the subject at hand, and I have a tendency to get a bit passionate about these issues (leading to occasional frustration and pushiness when I felt like you were avoiding points or questions I'd raise, or simply had a nerve touched; please call me out if it ever seems like I'm behaving this way). I have absolutely nothing against you personally -- you're actually quite likable, and I think it's admirable that you care about social issues -- so I hope you don't think I've been targeting you.
Our of curiosity, is G's absence due to feeling bullied? 'cause I really miss having him around. It would be a shame if he's been made to feel that he's not welcome here. :(
Thank you for answering my questions. I do have some follow-ups, but I'll hold off on those until tomorrow. My brain is fried from lack of sleep.
Yeah, thanks. I just. I've been sitting on that for a while (at least since the thread that specifically says social justice advocates, not extremists or anything, if not before) and then I just got really frustrated and EXPLODEY EMOTIONS EVERYWHERE. Re: G: I wouldn't be surprised, considering how active he is on Tumblr, especially in the anti-racist community.
-
I'm not saying you have to respect the entire community. I'm saying that you have to critique it using actual criticisms instead of using strawmen. And Poes are strawmen. The question of "does racism need a redefinition or not?" is a valid one. The question of "is someone's culture sacred and should it be respected?" is also a valid question. But they're also highly subjective and ultimately it falls along beliefs rather than logic.
Well, I am. Namely the criticism that you seek to promote such views in others despite the lack of an objective basis to do so (as you just stated). At least, I assume that's why you call yourself a social justice activist. If that's false, do correct me.
The point is that I'm not part of the ridiculously extremist movement, and lumping everyone in with them is like saying all Christians are fundies. We don't judge Rinella by the beliefs of Mel Gibson, so people shouldn't criticize all of Tumblr social justice based on the worst posts.
I can't speak for the rest of the forum, but the issues I take with the movement as a whole also apply to you three (as you're no doubt aware by this point). I know the transethnic demihyperrhinosexual FTMTFTMTF cheese-grater-kin are a different kettle of fish entirely and I don't put them in the same category of the people who blog about social issues. Again, I can speak only for myself on this one, so take it for what it's worth.
-
When people say "Tumblr social justice," and don't bother to clarify that they are talking about the assholes, they're attacking me, they're attacking Wykked, and they're attacking Gyeonghwa, and it's not very cool, to be perfectly honest.
I apologize if it ever came across as if I was attacking everyone involved in the Tumblr SJ community. I actually follow several of the more moderate SJ-type blogs on Tumblr, and while I don't always agree with the popular opinions (like the aforementioned definition of racism), I recognize that most of it isn't like the stuff showcased in the SJW thread. I've tried sticking to terms like "Social Justice Extremists", "Social Justice Fundie" or just "Social Justice Warrior", but I've probably slipped up and used overly generalized language. For what it's worth, it's merely the radicals and hypocrites I take issue with.
Likewise, I'm sorry if it ever appeared that I was bullying you. I know I've disagreed with you on a lot of stuff, but, well, that's just because I disagreed on the subject at hand, and I have a tendency to get a bit passionate about these issues (leading to occasional frustration and pushiness when I felt like you were avoiding points or questions I'd raise, or simply had a nerve touched; please call me out if it ever seems like I'm behaving this way). I have absolutely nothing against you personally -- you're actually quite likable, and I think it's admirable that you care about social issues -- so I hope you don't think I've been targeting you.
Our of curiosity, is G's absence due to feeling bullied? 'cause I really miss having him around. It would be a shame if he's been made to feel that he's not welcome here. :(
Thank you for answering my questions. I do have some follow-ups, but I'll hold off on those until tomorrow. My brain is fried from lack of sleep.
Yeah, thanks. I just. I've been sitting on that for a while (at least since the thread that specifically says social justice advocates, not extremists or anything, if not before) and then I just got really frustrated and EXPLODEY EMOTIONS EVERYWHERE. Re: G: I wouldn't be surprised, considering how active he is on Tumblr, especially in the anti-racist community.
I have corresponded with gyeonghwa and he has said to me that the anti-SJ stuff is the reason he no longer comes around here that much anymore.
-
I have corresponded with gyeonghwa and he has said to me that the anti-SJ stuff is the reason he no longer comes around here that much anymore.
:( Now I feel really shitty. Especially since there were times when I felt people got carried away, but didn't say anything.
Whenever you next get a chance to talk to him, please let him know that Mlle Antechrist misses having him around, and hopes he'll come back.
-
Smurefette and Wykked, if I've ever made you guys feel uncomfortable I'm truly sorry. All my vitriol is reserved for the assholes and extremists, and I'm not against social justice advocacy when it's performed by non-extremist non-assholes. You guys are great, and my friends. Pass that along to G too.
We don't judge Rinella by the beliefs of Mel Gibson
I am having all the warm fuzzies right now.
-
Mile, Rinella, thank you. :) I think that even though we disagree on some SJ things, you still ask questions that are valid and polite.
-
By whose standards? Yours, obviously. But who else's?
Just because someone has authority doesn't make them always right or free from prejudice. You can't just say "This person is legitimate authority therefore what he says is TRUEFACTS!" because that doesn't work.
And quite honestly, I doubt you are unbiased about this whole thing.
I think you're mistaken on appeal to authority fallacy. Saying "My international relations professor says international realism has a huge anomaly with its theory because of the peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union." is NOT an appeal to authority. Correct, it mentions an authority figure and it mentions a statement of fact, but it provides evidence to support its conclusion independent of the professor. That is what FPQXZ did; he posted a link to Chomsky's argument. Therefore, you could've found and refuted that argument. He never said "Chomsky says X so it must be true." The closest he got was pointing out Chomsky's expertise in the field, which was brought up because of your erroneous accusation of appeal to authority. In this instance FPQXZ's mention of Chomsky was more an attribution of the point to its original source.
A true appeal to authority says "My international relations professor says international realism has a huge anomaly with its theory. So, therefore, it must have an anomaly with its theory." Here is a conclusion with no premise, whose only truth is the person who said it.
Further, please refrain from telling FPQXZ and Art to "Back off" and "stop!" The title is "Ask me ANYthing." Just saying, from my point of view, it looks like your trying to quiet dissenting opinions.
One thing I've noticed from some SJW's is the term "demisexual." To my understanding it is someone who is sexually attracted to someone only after getting to know them. If this understanding is correct, why do people identify as such? Just asking cause something like 90% of people are sexually attracted in such a way and using a label like this just screams "special snowflake" to me.
-
One thing I've noticed from some SJW's is the term "demisexual." To my understanding it is someone who is sexually attracted to someone only after getting to know them. If this understanding is correct, why do people identify as such? Just asking cause something like 90% of people are sexually attracted in such a way and using a label like this just screams "special snowflake" to me.
Currently I identify as demisexual, actually, so I'll take this. Demisexuality is sexual attraction based on emotional connection, not on physical attributes. Meaning that while I may find certain people physically attractive in a very detached sort of way, the idea of actually having sex with them is completely foreign to me. I cannot understand people who just instantly know someone's attractive in a I'd-do-them way - for me, emotion feelings have to come first. This doesn't mean that I don't have crushes or anything, it's just the idea of having sex with a real life person actually squicks me out unless it's someone I've made an emotional connection with. I don't understand RPF with real-life actors or having sexual fantasies about a superficial crush - if we haven't talked about something I consider deep, I'm not going to ever want to have sex with you.
-
Hugs Smurfette. This is why I didn't check out the SJ F&B thread.
-
One thing I've noticed from some SJW's is the term "demisexual." To my understanding it is someone who is sexually attracted to someone only after getting to know them. If this understanding is correct, why do people identify as such? Just asking cause something like 90% of people are sexually attracted in such a way and using a label like this just screams "special snowflake" to me.
Currently I identify as demisexual, actually, so I'll take this. Demisexuality is sexual attraction based on emotional connection, not on physical attributes. Meaning that while I may find certain people physically attractive in a very detached sort of way, the idea of actually having sex with them is completely foreign to me. I cannot understand people who just instantly know someone's attractive in a I'd-do-them way - for me, emotion feelings have to come first. This doesn't mean that I don't have crushes or anything, it's just the idea of having sex with a real life person actually squicks me out unless it's someone I've made an emotional connection with. I don't understand RPF with real-life actors or having sexual fantasies about a superficial crush - if we haven't talked about something I consider deep, I'm not going to ever want to have sex with you.
I actually follow what you're saying, which is nice. I've never understood the difference before.
You're not a social justice warrior, Smurfette. You're a social justice educator, and that's a good thing.
-
I find it odd that gyeonghwa would leave because of that thread, considering most (if not all) people realize that those are posts from the fundies of the SJW community.
-
I find it odd that gyeonghwa would leave because of that thread, considering most (if not all) people realize that those are posts from the fundies of the SJW community.
I've talked to him, too. It's not just that one thread; there was the trigger warning thread and the thread that was Lexi vs. gyeonghwa regarding racism... it's been building for a while.
-
I'm not saying you have to respect the entire community. I'm saying that you have to critique it using actual criticisms instead of using strawmen. And Poes are strawmen. The question of "does racism need a redefinition or not?" is a valid one. The question of "is someone's culture sacred and should it be respected?" is also a valid question. But they're also highly subjective and ultimately it falls along beliefs rather than logic.
Well, I am. Namely the criticism that you seek to promote such views in others despite the lack of an objective basis to do so (as you just stated). At least, I assume that's why you call yourself a social justice activist. If that's false, do correct me.
The point is that I'm not part of the ridiculously extremist movement, and lumping everyone in with them is like saying all Christians are fundies. We don't judge Rinella by the beliefs of Mel Gibson, so people shouldn't criticize all of Tumblr social justice based on the worst posts.
I can't speak for the rest of the forum, but the issues I take with the movement as a whole also apply to you three (as you're no doubt aware by this point). I know the transethnic demihyperrhinosexual FTMTFTMTF cheese-grater-kin are a different kettle of fish entirely and I don't put them in the same category of the people who blog about social issues. Again, I can speak only for myself on this one, so take it for what it's worth.
Um, Smurfette has not tried to get anyone here to think or feel any way whatsoever, at least on these boards. She has voiced her opinions on various issues as everyone here has done, but that's not the same. On this thread, she hasn't tried to redefine anything. She hasn't tried to force her opinions. She has only tried to answer questions about and on behalf of the mainstream social justice activists on Tumblr. If she has said something in one of her blogs on Tumblr that you take issue with, I would suggest Tumblr is a better place to bring them up.
The issues you have with Tumblr you have with Smurfette and WW. Fair enough. And what they are trying to do is wade through the confusion and misconceptions and present what Social Justice Activists (not Social Justice Warriors) are about. Don't like what they're about? Cool. Don't like what they stand for? OK. There's a thread in F&B about that. You've made known you don't like the racism redefinition going on in the Tumblrverse. Neither do I. Now, are you asking Smurfette, WW, and anyone else with blogs on Tumblr to change that? Because I really don't see what belaboring the point will accomplish. Or even has to do with a thread dedicated to answering legitimate questions about non fringe (or extreme if you prefer) social justice blogs.
For what it's worth, I'm glad you said you see the difference between our friends here and the extremekins in the F&B thread. For a while there it looked like you wanted Smurfette and WW to answer for them.
-
He told me why cant remember
-
I find it odd that gyeonghwa would leave because of that thread, considering most (if not all) people realize that those are posts from the fundies of the SJW community.
I've talked to him, too. It's not just that one thread; there was the trigger warning thread and the thread that was Lexi vs. gyeonghwa regarding racism... it's been building for a while.
Got named drop. >.>
'T'was a lot of things that build up like Smurf said, some of which was from before I even remembered I had a tumblr account. And it just got aggravating after awhile. Plus I had supplemented the normal conversations with some regular through the IRC.
First, I've said time and time again I'm not a "social justice blog" nor do I think myself as a "sjw". That is a label I didn't chose for myself. Now, I've asked people this and they never given a concrete answer: What is Social Justice? As far as I can tell, most people who label themselves social justice are "allies" (there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself). Look, if you don't want to be associated with so-called social justice, fine. But if you're not going to make a conscious effort to distance yourself from tumblr's anti-social justice (a crowd of racists, homophobes and MRA's with token PoC suck ups), I'm gonna assume you're just like them, they same way some people on tumblr have assume I'm just like those special snowflakes or whatever they call themselves.
Re: G: I wouldn't be surprised, considering how active he is on Tumblr, especially in the anti-racist community.
I'm also part of another community. One that you blog occasionally.
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc8eco4zeJ1qc0cqv.gif)
-
Re: G: I wouldn't be surprised, considering how active he is on Tumblr, especially in the anti-racist community.
I'm also part of another community. One that you blog occasionally.
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc8eco4zeJ1qc0cqv.gif)
I know, but I wasn't sure that it was relevant. (hug)
-
Re: G: I wouldn't be surprised, considering how active he is on Tumblr, especially in the anti-racist community.
I'm also part of another community. One that you blog occasionally.
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc8eco4zeJ1qc0cqv.gif)
I know, but I wasn't sure that it was relevant. (hug)
It wasn't relevant. I'm just still laughing at that comment.
-
Sorry to break up the coffee klatch/animated GIF exchange, but ITT you said you were supposedly answering our questions.
-
Sorry to break up the coffee klatch/animated GIF exchange, but ITT you said you were supposedly answering our questions.
Wow, that's not rude at all.
I'm a bit disoriented from traveling today, d'ya mind quoting any questions I haven't answered?
-
Sorry to break up the coffee klatch/animated GIF exchange, but ITT you said you were supposedly answering our questions.
/mod-horns on
Don't be a dick.
/mod-horns off
-
Sorry to break up the coffee klatch/animated GIF exchange, but ITT you said you were supposedly answering our questions.
Wow, that's not rude at all.
I'm a bit disoriented from traveling today, d'ya mind quoting any questions I haven't answered?
If you could oblige, a cogent response to my previous post would be in order.
-
If you could oblige, a cogent response to my previous post would be in order.
Hmm... Where was his previous post? Going back a few pages... Odd that he couldn't be bothered to add a link...
You know Zach, I admire your attempts at even-handed moderation, and your attempt at playing devil's advocate, but I think you are being a bit unfair to Art and myself. We may have come in here with our own opinions, but you are speaking as if we have come in here solely to stir up shit and done nothing but flame people in this thread. We have not done so, and you will understand if we feel as passionate about the topic at hand as Smurfette and Wykked do.
You want to know the real reason I dislike the SJW culture so much? Because it is my belief that these people are ruining the political Left. Their rhetoric serves to do nothing but divide the working class (by race, by sexual orientation, etc.). They are the best friends the Republicans/Tea Partiers/Tories have right now, but neither side realizes it (yet). Keeping us fighting each other is exactly what they want us to do. Divide and conquer, a tactic as old as Empire itself.
I'm all for racial equality, gay marriage, and so forth, but going around alienating the white working class is the worst possible way to accomplish such ends. Not only does it accomplish absolutely zilch in the way of solving actual street-level problems, but it also pushes away the very people whose support you would need to do so.
You're not going to win hearts and minds by telling or even insinuating that white people that they are oppressors solely because they are white, or shouting things like "die cis scum". If you want to call that "tone policing", so be it, but half of politics is about tailoring your message and forging coalitions. That's why Clinton was so successful as a Democratic president, despite his political and personal foibles.
Furthermore, going around hating yourself for what you are is a guaranteed way to make sure that nobody respects you. Again, telling/insinuating that people should be ashamed of their ethnic heritage isn't going to win you any friends, and it will only bring a hearty laugh of derision from people who actually do have some level of self-respect. It's no better than suggesting that the son of a criminal receive a taste of the lash.
</rant>
THERE IS NO QUESTION IN THIS ONE! This is just a rant.
Quite coherent though and I admit that I agree with some of the things you said.
-
Sorry to break up the coffee klatch/animated GIF exchange, but ITT you said you were supposedly answering our questions.
Wow, that's not rude at all.
I'm a bit disoriented from traveling today, d'ya mind quoting any questions I haven't answered?
If you could oblige, a cogent response to my previous post would be in order.
Judging from what was linked, you didn't ask a question.
Ironbite-also who the fuck are you again?
-
I've been reading over this and I don't see much but some ranting and argument over the last few pages, so I'm going to toss a question out there to smurf and ask that people relax a bit today.
Question:
What justification, utility or purpose is there in assuming the word racism means institutional racism?
I think some of us may be able to handle it better if there was any apparent point to it, but I don't see one myself. Well I do see one, but it's quite negative and probably the source of a fair deal of the conflict over the matter.
-
The "die cis scum" thing is a serious point of contention in the trans* and trans* ally community. Officially it is supposed to be read with the same sort of feeling as the words "die in a fire" or "go die in a hole" is - not an actual call for death, but as an expression of frustration to scummy (read: transphobic) cis people. I've also seen it used as "die, cis scum" - like, not the cis part of you, but the scumminess. It's not supposed to apply to all cis people.
Now, Poes and trolls use it as a death threat or against all cis people, and a lot of people interpret it as a death threat, and there's discussion over whether or not the phrase shouldn't be use because of its potential to trigger suicidal people. Currently, the consensus I've seen is, "Use it if you are trans and you want to as an expression of frustration, and allow trans people to use it if they want, but don't use it as a death threat."
Genuine question, not trying to be rude, but what is the difference between "die cis scum" and, say "die white scum" or "die black scum", etc?
I mean the way that I see it is that if you insult someone based upon a feature of them, "being cis" in this case, then you are therefore implying that they are scum because of that feature. In the sense that calling a black man a "cunt" is not racist, but calling them a "black cunt" is racist, because the implication is that they are scum because of their race, even if the word "black" is not racist in of itself, just a description? I guess what I'm saying is the insult inherently draws attention to the cis part of the person, in the same way the black example I gave inherently draws attention to the person's colour.The difference between "Die cis scum" and "die in a fire" is die in a fire is not mentioning any uncontrollable aspect of the person as a reason why they are scum.
All I'm saying is, if someone said "die white scum" to me, I wouldn't be too convinced by the point that "oh! It's not meant to apply to all white people! Just the scummy part of you!" I would assume they were insulting my "race"/heritage/whatever.
-
Question:
What justification, utility or purpose is there in assuming the word racism means institutional racism?
I think some of us may be able to handle it better if there was any apparent point to it, but I don't see one myself. Well I do see one, but it's quite negative and probably the source of a fair deal of the conflict over the matter.
You know, I've been thinking about this. And I think I see what's going on,m part of it anyways. So I want to give it a try. Smurfette, WW, and others, if I missed the mark, please let me know.
Every group has their own lingo. Every group has a word or phrase that they have co-opted for the context of the group. For example, with the forums I am in about saltwater fish and coral reef keeping, someone might they are fragging a large stony polyp. Everyone in the group of reef keeping would know exactly what ze's talking about, maybe ask what they're going to do with the frag. Meanwhile, people who don't keep reefs might not know fragging means cutting off a part of a coral for asexual propagation. Video gamers might see the word frag and wonder why someone would kill a coral because they see the word frag in the video game concept of killing people. And others might see large stony polyp as a medical condition rather than a certain class of coral. But it all makes sense to reef keepers because we understand the concept and context of the phrases and words meant for us.
Similarly, it probably stands to reason that when a Tumbl-blog uses the word "racism", they are using it in the context of their own group. They know it means institutional racism, with people of European decent historically being the perpetrators. Because in the Tumblr group, that's how the word is used in the context of their group. It doesn't seem right to me because I'm trying to fit the word as I understand it to be, not as the context it was meant. Kind of similar to being outside looking in.
But again, I might be way off base with that.
-
That is true. Like I do complain about Japanaese racism frequently becaue they are racist in their home country. If say Japanese Americans are mistreated then that's also racism
-
Question:
What justification, utility or purpose is there in assuming the word racism means institutional racism?
The main reason I've seen is that, whenever people talk about "racism" as just "not liking certain people because of their race" or whatever, it gives way, way too much wiggle room for racist things. Like, "I shot him because he looked dangerous!" or "it's just following statistics and statistically black people commit more crimes." Conversely, it makes things that aren't racist (say, teaching Hispanic children about their roots) appear "racist" according to the definition - "teaching Hispanic people about Columbus is racist because they won't like white people!" "teaching African-Americans about slavery is racist because they won't like white people!". If it's merely dislike based on skin color, then it doesn't address the actual problem, which is the social structure. It also makes a sort of false equivalency: if all racism is merely hatred based on skin color, then racism by a black person must be just as bad as racism from a white person, never mind that "reverse racism" or whatever isn't even as close to pervasive as racism by white people for people of color is.
Genuine question, not trying to be rude, but what is the difference between "die cis scum" and, say "die white scum" or "die black scum", etc?
[snippy]
This is one of the points of contention about the phrase, yes. It's hard to explain, really, I'll have to come back to this one.
-
Question:
What justification, utility or purpose is there in assuming the word racism means institutional racism?
The main reason I've seen is that, whenever people talk about "racism" as just "not liking certain people because of their race" or whatever, it gives way, way too much wiggle room for racist things. Like, "I shot him because he looked dangerous!" or "it's just following statistics and statistically black people commit more crimes." Conversely, it makes things that aren't racist (say, teaching Hispanic children about their roots) appear "racist" according to the definition - "teaching Hispanic people about Columbus is racist because they won't like white people!" "teaching African-Americans about slavery is racist because they won't like white people!".
I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense.
How does defining racism more broadly necessarily give people, in your words, "too much wiggle room for racist things"? Logically, one would expect the exact opposite to occur.
As for teaching Latin Americans about Columbus and black people about slavery, I've never heard anyone make the argument that it would be "racist" to do so. That's a serious ass-pull right there.
If it's merely dislike based on skin color, then it doesn't address the actual problem, which is the social structure. It also makes a sort of false equivalency: if all racism is merely hatred based on skin color, then racism by a black person must be just as bad as racism from a white person, never mind that "reverse racism" or whatever isn't even as close to pervasive as racism by white people for people of color is.
I will certainly concede that there is a definite cultural element to racism, because I highly doubt that most people (including even your Stormfront types) hate people solely because of their skin color. But it does not automatically follow that all racism is institutional, nor that institutional racism is the only kind that "matters". Institutional racism is a subset of the broader category of "racism", and to define it otherwise is disingenuous.
Furthermore, who are you to say that racism by a black person against a white is somehow "less bad" than the other way around? You do realize that hate crime laws in the USA can (and often are) applied against anyone who is proven to have committed a racially-motivated crime, right? And that it is completely constitutional for the courts to do so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Mitchell)?
-
Question:
What justification, utility or purpose is there in assuming the word racism means institutional racism?
The main reason I've seen is that, whenever people talk about "racism" as just "not liking certain people because of their race" or whatever, it gives way, way too much wiggle room for racist things. Like, "I shot him because he looked dangerous!" or "it's just following statistics and statistically black people commit more crimes." Conversely, it makes things that aren't racist (say, teaching Hispanic children about their roots) appear "racist" according to the definition - "teaching Hispanic people about Columbus is racist because they won't like white people!" "teaching African-Americans about slavery is racist because they won't like white people!".
I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense.
How does defining racism more broadly necessarily give people, in your words, "too much wiggle room for racist things"? Logically, one would expect the exact opposite to occur.
As for teaching Latin Americans about Columbus and black people about slavery, I've never heard anyone make the argument that it would be "racist" to do so. That's a serious ass-pull right there.
Right, that came right out of my ass (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/20/opinion/la-oe-rodriguez-ethnic-studies-20120220):
Arizona's ethnic studies ban targets classes that "promote the overthrow of the U.S. government" or "resentment toward a race or class of people." Since nobody has uncovered a single teacher instructing students to overthrow so much as a hall monitor, it's safe to assume that what's really irking the ban's supporters is the part about resentment. And resentment toward whom? Well, white people.
And I fail to see how narrowing a definition - from racism to institutional racism, in this case - is making it more broad.
I will certainly concede that there is a definite cultural element to racism, because I highly doubt that most people (including even your Stormfront types) hate people solely because of their skin color. But it does not automatically follow that all racism is institutional, nor that institutional racism is the only kind that "matters". Institutional racism is a subset of the broader category of "racism", and to define it otherwise is disingenuous.
Furthermore, who are you to say that racism by a black person against a white is somehow "less bad" than the other way around? You do realize that hate crime laws in the USA can (and often are) applied against anyone who is proven to have committed a racially-motivated crime, right? And that it is completely constitutional for the courts to do so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Mitchell)?
I am aware of how hate crime laws are applied. But you can't tell me that Western culture isn't significantly skewed towards white people, or that we don't have all sorts of slurs and stereotypes that just don't exist in reverse, or that most hate crimes aren't perpetrated by white people (http://www.fbi.gov/sandiego/press-releases/2011/fbi-releases-2010-hate-crime-statistics), or that a black person shooting a white person isn't treated differently than a white person shooting a black person (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/22/1076889/-Black-Shooter-of-White-Victim-in-Florida-Claimed-Stand-Your-Ground-still-went-to-Court).
I'm not saying that killing or bullying or otherwise hurting people can be sorted into "more bad" and "less bad." Obviously killing people is bad regardless of who does it. I'm just saying that the motivation is different and the difference is what makes some things racist and other things prejudiced, hateful, or bigoted.
-
Fpqxz can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he was calling your post an ass-pull, but the reasoning people have behind not teaching people about times when their people were oppressed and/or dickheads.
-
Fpqxz can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he was calling your post an ass-pull, but the reasoning people have behind not teaching people about times when their people were oppressed and/or dickheads.
As for teaching Latin Americans about Columbus and black people about slavery, I've never heard anyone make the argument that it would be "racist" to do so. That's a serious ass-pull right there.
I dunno, it sure sounds like he thinks that I'm making shit up by saying that he's never heard that line of reasoning, therefore it doesn't exist.
-
Eeh, could be, could not be. Tis up to him to illuminate us on his meaning, only sayin that he might not be, for once, making an ass of himself.
-
Smurfette, I really have to thank you for making this thread.
I mean I still disagree with you on some points (racism vs institutional racism) but getting the reasoning behind them explained in a peaceful manner makes it much easier to understand WHY someone feels that way than trying to decipher meaning from angry rants.
-
Smurfette, I really have to thank you for making this thread.
I mean I still disagree with you on some points (racism vs institutional racism) but getting the reasoning behind them explained in a peaceful manner makes it much easier to understand WHY someone feels that way than trying to decipher meaning from angry rants.
That's good, thank you. That's exactly what this thread is supposed to do. I'm not trying to Convert You to the Cult of Tumblr or anything, just trying to explain the reasoning so that people aren't all like RAWR TUMBLR SJAs without knowing what they're talking about and coming from a limited pool of reference (and that pool being the cesspit, not the swimming pool).
-
Beware of massive block of text, it may attack if approached.
Question:
What justification, utility or purpose is there in assuming the word racism means institutional racism?
The main reason I've seen is that, whenever people talk about "racism" as just "not liking certain people because of their race" or whatever, it gives way, way too much wiggle room for racist things. Like, "I shot him because he looked dangerous!" or "it's just following statistics and statistically black people commit more crimes." Conversely, it makes things that aren't racist (say, teaching Hispanic children about their roots) appear "racist" according to the definition - "teaching Hispanic people about Columbus is racist because they won't like white people!" "teaching African-Americans about slavery is racist because they won't like white people!". If it's merely dislike based on skin color, then it doesn't address the actual problem, which is the social structure. It also makes a sort of false equivalency: if all racism is merely hatred based on skin color, then racism by a black person must be just as bad as racism from a white person, never mind that "reverse racism" or whatever isn't even as close to pervasive as racism by white people for people of color is.
I almost see where you're going, but I'm going to jump on the point about racism being worse depending on the skin color of the person committing it, and the abuse of language to get to a point where people of a given range of skin colors are not considered as racist.
That said, either those are some of the weakest straw men I've ever seen or some truly stupid residents of Arizona you've got propped up with the racial studies bit. I may be in a odd place having had both Fredrick Douglas and Susan B Anthony more or less buried in my back yard, but rather than 'minority studies' or whathave, they were just worked into the history once they were truly significant. Those two dealt with things which should upset anyone, not just black people or women. But more notably they over came them and that was noted in our standard history class.
They're local history, it's covered. I'd be somewhat surprised if they aren't elsewhere as they were pivotal in both their respective movements. If there's enough interest for a further delve into their respective movements, why not have another class for it(though I'll bet you a big hunk of change there isn't'). It's not racist or sexist to study abolition, women's rights, or the civil rights movements. Any of which could easily fill a course. But then I'm not terribly familiar with what the racial studies courses teach, but given how people would react to a white racial studies course I'm not that surprised when people object to other races getting one.
Education concerns aside, this sounds like well meaning white people managing to be racist by trying not to be really really hard. A racist who isn't white is most likely just going to wind up feeding the stupidity that fuels white racists. It really is just as much of a problem, maybe not as effective in harming others, but giving justification to stupidity is just as much of a crime as the stupidity in my book.
I think your real problem is that Racism is Racism. It is, no matter what differences in it's adherents or their beliefs it's still racism and still a problem. Claiming it to be a lesser issue because of someone's race is... well... racist. I'm not sure how it could be considered much else. If you're going to claim racism is anything but racism because of someone's race, you're not going to be able to make sense to someone who likes the definition of words, and you'll probably get accused of social engineering through the manipulation of language. Probably get some 1984 references tossed in because it was a running theme(one I don't buy into much myself, but this would fit).
That said, I'm not opposed to attempting to deal with the racist elements of society. But you're not gonna do that by giving the racists perfectly legitimate complaints about your use of terminology. You have to make it perfectly clear to those who they associate with, the racists themselves, or even just the otherwise apathetic public that what is being done is wrong. Every niggling hole you leave for them to work at will undermine any efforts you make towards that. Look at the pricks who peg on MLK's personal life, that's pretty minor in comparison to the movement itself, but if you base your entire movement on an assumption that can be easily undermined, well, you're fucked.
Been trying to trim this down for a while, and it rambles, but there's a lot covered in that paragraph of yours.
I think in short, I'd rather treat a racist by the shit between his ears than his skin color or even position. A prick's still a prick after all.
-
And in case any one thinks absolutely nothing worthwhile has occurred on tumblr, there's now proof to the contrary:
http://georgetakei.tumblr.com/
-
-snip-
I'm from Tucson, where the specific minorities studies classes that Smurfette referred to were being taught. Basically, they covered Mexican-American heritage, the colonization of North America, and America's acquisition of Mexican territory. Among other things. There was concern over them potentially fueling an uprising (of high school-aged kids?) with the goal to reclaim Arizona for Mexico. One particular right-wing radio station loved to go on about them.
EDIT: My point being that they were in-depth classes covering hugely significant local and racial history. When I went to high school/middle school our standard history classes barely touched on these. Personally, I do think the removal of the Mexican-American studies classes were fueled by racism.
-
I'm from Tucson, where the specific minorities studies classes that Smurfette referred to were being taught. Basically, they covered Mexican-American heritage, the colonization of North America, and America's acquisition of Mexican territory. Among other things. There was concern over them potentially fueling an uprising (of high school-aged kids?) with the goal to reclaim Arizona for Mexico. One particular right-wing radio station loved to go on about them.
EDIT: My point being that they were in-depth classes covering hugely significant local and racial history. When I went to high school/middle school our standard history classes barely touched on these. Personally, I do think the removal of the Mexican-American studies classes were fueled by racism.
There's a reason I tossed Arizona into that bit about strawmen. I'm kinda stunned anyone would be that stupid or that local history wouldn't be covered in class. I wanted them to shut the bloody hell up about the glorified ditch we call a canal, but noo, every damn year... That said, Arpaio still has supporters out there, so I'm guessing a bit distant from the mindset. If they covered the settlement and history of the area I'll just go along with the racist retards theory. Particularly with that argument against it.
But really? No significant coverage of local history? Even assuming we drop the hispanic heritage set, just going back to the claiming and conflict over the land? Shit, we covered that here, and I'm on the eastern seaboard.
Edit: And for giggles, did Susan B or Frederick Douglass show up in your classes either? Figure I may as well ask since my expectations of history education seem to be a tad off the mark.
-
Would your "intersectional feminist" circle also be known as "libfems"? I ask this because I'm aware of the split between "radical feminists" and "liberal feminists" that occurred, and how radical feminists are generally disliked by the trans* community for having many transphobic tendencies, and I don't exactly remember why my radfem friend didn't like libfems. So yeah, I just want to know if I'm ignorant of a certain circle on Tumblr or not, because I've paid somewhat close attention to SJA-related things during the past year, but not too much because I like to be mainly a fandom blog.
-
I'm from Tucson, where the specific minorities studies classes that Smurfette referred to were being taught. Basically, they covered Mexican-American heritage, the colonization of North America, and America's acquisition of Mexican territory. Among other things. There was concern over them potentially fueling an uprising (of high school-aged kids?) with the goal to reclaim Arizona for Mexico. One particular right-wing radio station loved to go on about them.
EDIT: My point being that they were in-depth classes covering hugely significant local and racial history. When I went to high school/middle school our standard history classes barely touched on these. Personally, I do think the removal of the Mexican-American studies classes were fueled by racism.
There's a reason I tossed Arizona into that bit about strawmen. I'm kinda stunned anyone would be that stupid or that local history wouldn't be covered in class. I wanted them to shut the bloody hell up about the glorified ditch we call a canal, but noo, every damn year... That said, Arpaio still has supporters out there, so I'm guessing a bit distant from the mindset. If they covered the settlement and history of the area I'll just go along with the racist retards theory. Particularly with that argument against it.
But really? No significant coverage of local history? Even assuming we drop the hispanic heritage set, just going back to the claiming and conflict over the land? Shit, we covered that here, and I'm on the eastern seaboard.
Edit: And for giggles, did Susan B or Frederick Douglass show up in your classes either? Figure I may as well ask since my expectations of history education seem to be a tad off the mark.
Susan B Anthony probably got a combined three sentences of coverage in high school and Frederick Douglass wasn't ever mentioned as far as I can recall. Content-wise, our lessons were probably 30% Greek and Roman history, 30% American Revolution, 30% World War 2, 10% other.
-
Susan B Anthony probably got a combined three sentences of coverage in high school and Frederick Douglass wasn't ever mentioned as far as I can recall. Content-wise, our lessons were probably 30% Greek and Roman history, 30% American Revolution, 30% World War 2, 10% other.
... we had an entire year covering the last 75 years. Modern American history they called it, was in the book title and everything. Before that they had an entire year covering the civil war and everything up to end of WW 1. Everything from colonization to civil war covered before that... and that's just highschool.
-
Would your "intersectional feminist" circle also be known as "libfems"? I ask this because I'm aware of the split between "radical feminists" and "liberal feminists" that occurred, and how radical feminists are generally disliked by the trans* community for having many transphobic tendencies, and I don't exactly remember why my radfem friend didn't like libfems. So yeah, I just want to know if I'm ignorant of a certain circle on Tumblr or not, because I've paid somewhat close attention to SJA-related things during the past year, but not too much because I like to be mainly a fandom blog.
I've never heard the term "libfem," but yes, intersectional feminists by definition are not the radfem crazies, because radfems aren't accepting of trans* issues. I find the major difference is that radfems tend to be either a) really anal about biology (i.e. all women have vaginas, all men have penises) or b) believe that gender is a social construct to the extent that they believe that a trans person enforces gender roles because trans women supposedly act like stereotypical women and trans men act like stereotypical men.
Incidentally, radfems tend to also be against porn, BDSM, and prostitution as constructs of the patriarchy designed to subjugate women, so they are also disliked by sex positive feminists who support feminist porn, healthy BDSM relationships, and legalized and regulated prostitution (not to mention that sex positive feminists support - or should support, you get the odd crazy - trans* rights as well).
Basically, radfems think that certain acts can uphold the patriarchy, while libfems think that women should have complete autonomy and any check on that is wrong. Therefore a female submissive, to a radfem, is upholding the patriarchy, while to a libfem she is exercising her right to her own body and is therefore being feminist.
-
I've never heard the term "libfem," but yes, intersectional feminists by definition are not the radfem crazies, because radfems aren't accepting of trans* issues. I find the major difference is that radfems tend to be either a) really anal about biology (i.e. all women have vaginas, all men have penises) or b) believe that gender is a social construct to the extent that they believe that a trans person enforces gender roles because trans women supposedly act like stereotypical women and trans men act like stereotypical men.
Incidentally, radfems tend to also be against porn, BDSM, and prostitution as constructs of the patriarchy designed to subjugate women, so they are also disliked by sex positive feminists who support feminist porn, healthy BDSM relationships, and legalized and regulated prostitution (not to mention that sex positive feminists support - or should support, you get the odd crazy - trans* rights as well).
Basically, radfems think that certain acts can uphold the patriarchy, while libfems think that women should have complete autonomy and any check on that is wrong. Therefore a female submissive, to a radfem, is upholding the patriarchy, while to a libfem she is exercising her right to her own body and is therefore being feminist.
Ah. That is weird, considering I know people who identify as radfems but don't necessarily believe things like porn, prostitution, or female submission is wrong and upholds patriarchy. I have, however, seen them call transwomen who just want to use the fucking bathroom "perverts" and outright misgender transwomen on purpose. Naturally we're not friends anymore.
Unfortunately, radfems have the loudest voice and are the prime examples everyone uses when they want to bash feminism as a whole.
-
believe that gender is a social construct to the extent that they believe that a trans person enforces gender roles because trans women supposedly act like stereotypical women and trans men act like stereotypical men.
But doesn't this go along with the concept of passing as one sex or another? A certain level of conforming to the expected gender image so that your sex isn't questioned? I know there are plenty of people who don't give a rats ass what others think(and more power to them for it), but the topic still floats around from what I've seen. I hate to side with people who consider my penis a doomsday weapon, but sometimes even the strawmen have a point.
Though some of the beliefs would belong to radical feminists of differing waves of feminism(go women's history class), so it could make perfect sense that some wouldn't hold all of these beliefs.
-
Susan B Anthony probably got a combined three sentences of coverage in high school and Frederick Douglass wasn't ever mentioned as far as I can recall. Content-wise, our lessons were probably 30% Greek and Roman history, 30% American Revolution, 30% World War 2, 10% other.
... we had an entire year covering the last 75 years. Modern American history they called it, was in the book title and everything. Before that they had an entire year covering the civil war and everything up to end of WW 1. Everything from colonization to civil war covered before that... and that's just highschool.
We only had to take one history class every year. There were no choices, you were either in the "History" or "Advanced History" (based on standardized testing scores) for your grade. There wasn't much organization between the classes, so a lot of the time you were going over things you went over last year.
It's also worth mentioning that, relative to Arizona schools as a whole, the district I went to was pretty well funded. Arizona's just super special.
-
Is every act a political, racial or feminist act?
Just with the example of the female submissive, can't an act simply be because you derive pleasure from it? Do our sex lives really affect our politics or the sex lives of other people?
-
Is every act a political, racial or feminist act?
Just with the example of the female submissive, can't an act simply be because you derive pleasure from it? Do our sex lives really affect our politics or the sex lives of other people?
Depends on who you talk to. Personally I think it's a matter of intent. A woman giving a blowjob because she thinks that's what women are supposed to do is not feminist. A woman giving a blowjob because she enjoys it is neutral. A woman giving a blowjob because she's choosing to do it for her own pleasure and the pleasure of her partner and is aware of the potential backlash (try blogging about your sex life sometimes, shit happens) is making it a feminist act/it can be interpreted as feminist.
As to whether or not a sex act can control others, that's also a matter of opinion. Some would say that all of our actions happen in a vacuum, completely separate from each other, which I don't think is true - I mean, unless I'd seen it already in porn, my first thought upon seeing a penis would not be "hmm, I should put my tongue on it." And some people think that all acts are inherently feeding into the patriarchy or being transgressive, which I also don't think is true. I think that the mindset you have surrounding certain sex acts (which you learn through experience, media depictions, education, whatever) is what makes some things feminist and others not, and so those things that change the mindset are what affects other people's sex lives, not the act itself. If that makes any sense.
-
Question:
What justification, utility or purpose is there in assuming the word racism means institutional racism?
The main reason I've seen is that, whenever people talk about "racism" as just "not liking certain people because of their race" or whatever, it gives way, way too much wiggle room for racist things. Like, "I shot him because he looked dangerous!" or "it's just following statistics and statistically black people commit more crimes." Conversely, it makes things that aren't racist (say, teaching Hispanic children about their roots) appear "racist" according to the definition - "teaching Hispanic people about Columbus is racist because they won't like white people!" "teaching African-Americans about slavery is racist because they won't like white people!".
I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense.
How does defining racism more broadly necessarily give people, in your words, "too much wiggle room for racist things"? Logically, one would expect the exact opposite to occur.
And I fail to see how narrowing a definition - from racism to institutional racism, in this case - is making it more broad.
When you say stuff like...
I'm not saying that killing or bullying or otherwise hurting people can be sorted into "more bad" and "less bad." Obviously killing people is bad regardless of who does it. I'm just saying that the motivation is different and the difference is what makes some things racist and other things prejudiced, hateful, or bigoted.
...it's pretty obvious to me that it is you who are narrowing the definition, to get the word "racism" to mean what you want it to mean.
As for teaching Latin Americans about Columbus and black people about slavery, I've never heard anyone make the argument that it would be "racist" to do so. That's a serious ass-pull right there.
Right, that came right out of my ass (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/20/opinion/la-oe-rodriguez-ethnic-studies-20120220):
Arizona's ethnic studies ban targets classes that "promote the overthrow of the U.S. government" or "resentment toward a race or class of people." Since nobody has uncovered a single teacher instructing students to overthrow so much as a hall monitor, it's safe to assume that what's really irking the ban's supporters is the part about resentment. And resentment toward whom? Well, white people.
The law you are discussing, as least as I understand it (and yes, I am familiar with it) bans "ethnic studies" classes, and does not preclude the discussion of the subjects I mentioned above. If it did, I'm pretty sure there would be some serious 1st Amendment concerns with it. I have my misgivings about the law (and its motivations) as well, but I will say that I don't think that undergraduate-style ethnic studies courses have a place in high-school curricula.
Perhaps what you are saying was not an "ass-pull", but it is something of a misrepresentation. And if nothing else, I agree with Distind and the others here that most history/social studies classes taught in the U.S. leave out far too much, both about other countries' histories and our own.
I am aware of how hate crime laws are applied. But you can't tell me that Western culture isn't significantly skewed towards white people,
Well, seeing as how Western culture is the product of European societies and the descendants thereof, I don't see how that's a problem. What's next, are you going to complain that Eastern culture is too Chinese-dominated, or that Middle-Eastern culture is too Arab-dominated?
or that most hate crimes aren't perpetrated by white people (http://www.fbi.gov/sandiego/press-releases/2011/fbi-releases-2010-hate-crime-statistics),
That same report states that:
Of the 6,008 known offenders, 58.6 percent were white and 18.4 percent were black. For 12.0 percent, the race was unknown, and the remaining known offenders were of other races.
Seeing as how African-Americans constitute somewhere between 12 and 13 percent of the U.S. population, I could just as easily make the opposite argument--that blacks commit hate crimes out of proportion to their population. So that doesn't really help your case.
or that a black person shooting a white person isn't treated differently than a white person shooting a black person (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/22/1076889/-Black-Shooter-of-White-Victim-in-Florida-Claimed-Stand-Your-Ground-still-went-to-Court).
Trevor Dooley was indeed convicted of manslaughter (http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/article/283139/8/Jury-reaches-verdict-in-Dooley-case). The verdict in the Zimmerman trial hasn't been delivered yet; I wouldn't be surprised if he too got convicted, but I won't speculate as to the outcome just yet. But given that none of us has any familiarity with the facts of each case and the fairness of each trial beyond what the media has told us, I think it's a bit to early to simply chalk it up to racism. Every case is different, and while again, I will concede that there is a significant amount prejudice in the proceedings against many defendants, we as a society have made great strides to change that over the past 50 years.
-
Education concerns aside, this sounds like well meaning white people managing to be racist by trying not to be really really hard.
I think that's more or less the crux of the issue. In response to the flaws highlighted in the absolute colourblind approach to battling racism, a growing portion of the SJ community is heading way too far in the opposite direction, to the point where it's starting to feel somewhat reminiscent of segregation.
-
The fringe elements are already banging the drum for cultural segregation. That whole appropriation business getting out of hand and all. It's one thing to respect a group's traditions and expect the same from others, it's something else entirely to say no one but that group can embrace them.
But Smurfette, what am I missing with the Rad Fem view on 'passing'? When someone's beliefs are heavily rooted in their sex and breaking free of the roles assigned based on it, it's certain that they'll find someone embracing them for acceptance to be frustrating. I'd bet the same people take ill view of house wives and such as well. The idea of a man(the enemy), acting like a stereotypical house wife(the quisling) would be among the most offensive things to their ideology that I can think of that doesn't involve violence.
-
Would your "intersectional feminist" circle also be known as "libfems"? I ask this because I'm aware of the split between "radical feminists" and "liberal feminists" that occurred, and how radical feminists are generally disliked by the trans* community for having many transphobic tendencies, and I don't exactly remember why my radfem friend didn't like libfems. So yeah, I just want to know if I'm ignorant of a certain circle on Tumblr or not, because I've paid somewhat close attention to SJA-related things during the past year, but not too much because I like to be mainly a fandom blog.
I find the major difference is that radfems tend to believe that gender is a social construct to the extent that they believe that a trans person enforces gender roles because trans women supposedly act like stereotypical women and trans men act like stereotypical men.
Do Radfems hate ciswomen who act like stereotypical women? Because that would be really hypocritical if they didn't.
-
Basically, radfems think that certain acts can uphold the patriarchy, while libfems think that women should have complete autonomy and any check on that is wrong. Therefore a female submissive, to a radfem, is upholding the patriarchy, while to a libfem she is exercising her right to her own body and is therefore being feminist.
To add a liitle bit I would also say that:
Liberals and Socialist&Marxist feminists go together on this model of looking at things (for once ;)), as they don't believe that there is a fundamental conflict of interest between men and women. Either men and women can be individuals under capitalism with the protection of rights by the state (Including women in previously male rights such as Voting etc), or (if they are w/c) can fight together for socialism (& achieve equality under socialism). also neither privelidges Patriarchy in societal analysis as such. Liberalism focusses on individuals and marxism on class analysis obviously.
Radical feminism believes that on issues like Porn, prostitution etc. there is a conflict of interest between men and women. Men want to use porn&prostitution to have control and dominance over women, porn is men possessing women (Dworkin). Porn is usually used as a tactic to silence and objectify women, such as porn teaching that "women want it really" so thus when woman says no its registered by the man as yes. it would focus on Patriarchy over other forms of oppression as more fundamental. Male power & man's power over women is the key issue.
@ Cataclysm: I'm guessing that they would say that they could be forced by dependence on a husband & fear of male violence to act submissive & meek out of lack of other options.
-
Semi-philosophical question.
So since we have the whole "black people can't be racist" trope going around, this crossed my mind. My boss refuses to hire African Americans, referring to them as either lazy or drug dealers. However, my boss himself is black. So would it be racism because he's buying into and perpetuating a power structure that holds black people back or is it not racist because he himself is black?
-
Semi-philosophical question.
So since we have the whole "black people can't be racist" trope going around, this crossed my mind. My boss refuses to hire African Americans, referring to them as either lazy or drug dealers. However, my boss himself is black. So would it be racism because he's buying into and perpetuating a power structure that holds black people back or is it not racist because he himself is black?
I already have my popcorn popped in anticipation for the answer to this question. I think I have already went through three bags on this thread alone so far.
-
Semi-philosophical question.
So since we have the whole "black people can't be racist" trope going around, this crossed my mind. My boss refuses to hire African Americans, referring to them as either lazy or drug dealers. However, my boss himself is black. So would it be racism because he's buying into and perpetuating a power structure that holds black people back or is it not racist because he himself is black?
Well, on a similar subject, there are certain minority groups who don't get along with each other. For example, African-Americans and Mexican-Americans in the USA, Muslim and Christian ethno-religious groups in India, etc. The SJW definition of racism says that we shouldn't call that "racism", because that word is exclusively reserved for the evil white devil.
What I find interesting about this whole line of reasoning is that it holds white people to a different moral standard than everyone else--which, if you stop to think about it, is far more racist than what you hear out of even most white supremacists these days.
-
Well, if you take the definition at it's wording rather than the implied meaning, any of those people in places of significant power could be considered racist. As the church is often a reasonably powerful force in a community regardless of it's racial makeup.
That said, I'd love to see what someone who actually believes in the definition thinks about it. Personally I don't think it works even then, as it's still an institution forcing through racism based on the racist beliefs of those who make it up. It takes the actions of individuals to create institutional racism, as such no individual racist should be dismissed from concern.
-
What I find interesting about this whole line of reasoning is that it holds white people to a different moral standard than everyone else--which, if you stop to think about it, is far more racist than what you hear out of even most white supremacists these days.
This has always bugged me as well. It's like you shouldn't expect the same standards of behaviour from non-whites, because the poor dears just don't know any better.
It reminds me of the time some Christian twit held a "Burn a Koran Day" and some Muslim nutters shot and/or blew some people up in response. It seems every liberal-leaning person was blaming the Koran-burner for the actions of the terrorists. It's a rather patronising attitude if you ask me.
-
Semi-philosophical question.
So since we have the whole "black people can't be racist" trope going around, this crossed my mind. My boss refuses to hire African Americans, referring to them as either lazy or drug dealers. However, my boss himself is black. So would it be racism because he's buying into and perpetuating a power structure that holds black people back or is it not racist because he himself is black?
Actually the claim is blacks can't be racist to whites (in a white privileged nation) but they can be racist to blacks.
-
Semi-philosophical question.
So since we have the whole "black people can't be racist" trope going around, this crossed my mind. My boss refuses to hire African Americans, referring to them as either lazy or drug dealers. However, my boss himself is black. So would it be racism because he's buying into and perpetuating a power structure that holds black people back or is it not racist because he himself is black?
Actually the claim is blacks can't be racist to whites (in a white privileged nation) but they can be racist to blacks.
The situation mentioned falls under what is called 'self-loathing/internalized racism'. If you can forgive the horrid use of Godwin, it would be like when a Jewish person would work for the Nazis and 'tell on' their fellow Jews. That's not a hypothetical, by the way. It's documented.
-
What I find interesting about this whole line of reasoning is that it holds white people to a different moral standard than everyone else--which, if you stop to think about it, is far more racist than what you hear out of even most white supremacists these days.
This has always bugged me as well. It's like you shouldn't expect the same standards of behaviour from non-whites, because the poor dears just don't know any better.
It reminds me of the time some Christian twit held a "Burn a Koran Day" and some Muslim nutters shot and/or blew some people up in response. It seems every liberal-leaning person was blaming the Koran-burner for the actions of the terrorists. It's a rather patronising attitude if you ask me.
Well, that same "patronising attitude" is part and parcel of the disingenuous form of liberalism preached by the Tumblrites. Rather than behaving like normal, rational people and trying to "take each man/woman and s/he comes", they try to put on a show of how totally non-racist/non-homophobic/etc. they are...and they end up getting mocked on forums like this one (and 4chan of course).
It's been my experience that people who have grown up in relatively non-privileged backgrounds (in the economic sense, anyway) generally tend to appreciate authenticity, honesty, and realness. They can tell when someone is lying or putting up a front to cover their true feelings--in such environments, it is a useful survival skill. As W.C. Fields once said, you can't cheat an honest man, but never give a sucker an even break.
White people who make a show out of being "like, totally multicultural" will get scoffed at by people who actually do have to interact with people from many different backgrounds--even more so if they act that way around people who aren't white. Literally no one of any intellect or self-worth takes such people seriously. It's really easy to read ethnic studies/feminist textbooks and think you "get" people of different backgrounds. But in the real world, you find out really quickly that what some ivory-tower academic has to say doesn't quite jibe with ground-level reality.
-
Okay the burn the Koran day was special. IE it was made with the idea of causing violence in an area without law.
-
I think the burn the koran dick was more that we already expected the violent pricks, just not that people would intentionally provoke them. They're all poor excuses for humanity.
-
So I've been thinking about this thread and I kind of realized that many of us are confused as to what parts of the social justice beliefs you agree with (general you that are answering questions). Since the title of the thread is to ask you (again, general, since it evolved into such) anything related to tumblr, we have to assume you agree with all the craziness or have no idea where you stand and what to ask you. The problem is, when this happens, it sounds like we are trying to play these "gotcha" games with you (and I'm sure some people are) because we really don't know the more reasonable stuff you agree with. So, I don't know if this will help, but I'll post the difference I see between reasonable social justice tumblr accounts and the lunatics. Now, I haven't read anyone's blog (except Gyeonghwa's, but it wasn't lunatic) so if I say "X idea is lunatic" and you believe in X, please don't get upset. I think this could be a good way to explain things you find more reasonable to people who find it less reasonable without people ascribing radically stupid theories to you or trying to play gotcha games.
The first sign that someone's is a lunatic to me is whether or not they see trans-species, otherkins, or transethnics (in addition to all the new trans fat & abled, etc.) on par with being transgendered. This goes from championing things like the wolf picture in the F&B thread, about how wearing a wolf hoodie is species appropriation, to answering a blog questionnaire "I identify as human." The latter being because I find it a tacit acceptance of such lunacy. Now, these groups are generally a bunch of middle class hipsters who want to be so different that they try to shoe horn a trans moniker on themselves. I think someone who is legitimately concerned with social justice should tell these nut jobs to shut up or leave whatever they want to call their internet movement. I believe when people start championing these causes, its not done because it's "the right thing to do" but because individuals want to be more openminded than thou. Further, I think the quiet social justice people who let these people pass themselves off as legitimate need to speak up. Until then, I will continue to laugh at a group of people (and their movement) who want the emotional pain and suffering I've endured over the first 20 years of my life or consider their religious beliefs on par with such. I will again re-state, people meditating as a unicorn in their garage do not constitute a marginalized group nor do they have struggles on par with marginalized groups.
Second, headmates. The social justice group as a whole needs to tell these people to get serious help. I'm tempted to offer this advice for the prior group too. Again, quietness in this area only leads to a tacit acceptance. Further, it's easy to choose many of these "headmates." Many people weigh pros and cons on things and have reservations about doing something. This doesn't mean there are two or more entities in your mind, it means you're normal and need to stop finding problems.
The third thing I see is using privilege as a weapon. I've seen over the blogs "check your privilege" or "your privileged opinion doesn't count here." Now, I agree with the concept of privilege, heck I see it in my day to day life. However, I've always felt that patience is a great virtue in trying to win people to agree with or accept you. I.E. don't use it as a weapon. When I try to explain such things to people in real life, I start with my own experiences. I explain how I have to work harder because people see me and think (directly or covertly) that I'm a sexual deviant, a freak, or crazy. I've seen so many people that when they find out I'm trans, they look, roll their eyes, and make a smirk thinking "Oh, you're one of those people." (including the dean of admissions for Washington & Lee Law). I thinking telling FPQXZ or Distind "you're white and straight, you have privilege, shut up" puts them on the defensive and less likely to understand how privilege mainly relates to the hardship or injustices various marginalized groups have to face that they don't.
I also don't take the sapiosexuals or demi-sexuals seriously. It's difficult to when 80 percent of people have such properties that would make them either of the two. Which leads me to...
Special snowflakes. The people who put so much of their life on tumblr that nobody could possible list the same characteristics. The people who identify as a demi-sexual, genderqueer, bobcat kin who worship the planet Omicron Persei 8 and are triggered by the word "water," need to get their head checked. Not to mention the various people who make up their own sexualities, genders, or desired pronouns. Reading many of the tumblr blogs that list all these (and much more longer/bizarre traits), it makes me feel this movement isn't about helping various groups who need it (such as LGBT-folk, the poor, handicapped, or racial/cultural minorities) but about the individuals in the movement themselves.
Finally, radical feminists. That's a given. We all know why.
Now, if you do buy into this, I don't think either of you three (Gyeong, Smurfy, or Wykked) are bad or horrible people. I, also, won't be so crass and say "you're young and malleable and will grow out of it" or something like that. While I may disagree with somethings, I do believe your hearts in the right place when you defend various tumblr things on here, even if I do disagree. Last thing I want is Gyeong to stay exiled from this board, I've always enjoyed him as a poster. Again, I think you have your hearts in the right places, which is far more than I could say for various people on tumblr who use a platform of acceptance-to-an-absurd-degree as a weapon so as to accuse others of bigotry.
Finally, I list these aspects of the tumblr community, again, not to say "its crazy, you must agree with it" but to open myself up so that you can springboard into explaining either 1) your views on such and how, if at all, they relate to the SJ community or 2) how I'm wrong in viewing such things as lunacy. Also, if you could explain the more reasonable things (than this) that the SJ community does discuss, things we would agree with, what would those things be? I've said its hard to take a movement with these lunatics seriously, it's even harder when the rational voices aren't being heard.
TL;DR, I'm on a mid-afternoon rant and IDK. Maybe in a Rousseauian way, by putting myself out there with all my views, other people can explain theirs a bit better.
-
1. Transethnic, transabled, and transspecies are all appropriative of actual trans* struggles. I obviously don't approve of them, and I can't think of any social justice blog that I personally follow that does.
2. Headmates are a sign of mental illness or desperate attention-seeking to me. Again, not something I commonly encounter (or, heck, have ever encountered) in the SJ blogosphere.
3. I find it a bit rude too TBH, but the intended message is that someone should be aware that they come from a position in society where they don't have to put up with the same struggles that marginalized groups do, so they don't have the same level of authority to speak on those topics when there are real people with real-life experiences who can do that for themselves.
4. I don't take sapiosexuals seriously, but I don't have an opinion on self-proclaimed demisexuals. I think that some of them are legit, some are just speshul snowflakes.
5. I do believe that genderqueer people exist and should be considered part of the LGBT* movement. (I believe that gender, like a lot of other things, exist on a spectrum and should not be considered absolute.) A lot of the speshul snowflakes, however, want nothing to do with the SJ blogosphere beyond the extent to which they can play the victim card on everything, especially when they ignore real struggles in favor of their made-up ones. A lot of them are simply trying to make believe that there are ways in which they are not privileged, as if that mitigates the real privileges they already have. (Hence all the white middle-class teenagers saying that they are "trans-ethnic", "trans-species," and so on.) These people are very easy to spot and I avoid them, but I don't think they're very common either from my experience.
6. Radscums should be killed with fire. I know for a fact that neither I, gyeonghwa, or Smurfette Principle support them in any way.
-
Can I just say that QueenOfHearts is possibly the most reasonable poster on Earth? Well done.
-
I dont support radscums either. Add me on the list
-
I dont support radscums either. Add me on the list
I don't think anyone supports radscum except other radscum.
-
I dont support radscums either. Add me on the list
I don't think anyone supports radscum except other radscum.
Occasionally the religious right who also hate transsexuals and sex workers
-
Something I've been wondering about (putting it in this thread, since I don't know where else to ask it): What's the difference between transphobia and cissexism?
-
...I'm not sure myself, actually. I usually just go with transphobia, myself.
-
I wonder if cissexism is meant to be more inclusive, since transphobia is traditionally used to refer to prejudice against binary transgender people. Could also be that whole "*phobia is ableist" thing.
-
If I had to guess, the difference might be the reasoning behind the two.
Transphobia might refer to the "fear of being 'deceived' by someone who was not born the gender you thought they were". A transphobic would oppose transsexuality on these grounds.
Cissexism might refer to "Opposing transsexuality on the basis that the sex you were born is your gender, and to go against this is wrong." See: Radfems.
In practice, I've seen both words slung around for both meanings so I'm not entirely sure myself.
-
I wonder if cissexism is meant to be more inclusive, since transphobia is traditionally used to refer to prejudice against binary transgender people. Could also be that whole "*phobia is ableist" thing.
That's possible. As I said, I use transphobia and I don't think I've ever used the term cissexist when I'm reblogging something or making a post about trans* stuff. But, I'm just one person.
-
What do you think the relationship between the old left (redistribution focussed) and the focus upon identity politics is in your opinion or the opinion of the other people on tumbler?
How far is the concept of class mentioned in this focus orIs it just primarily about race and other cultures/multiculturalismband women and gays? Is class considered important or not?
Do you/others on tumblr consider redistribution vs recognition to be compatible?
This one might be off topic, so you can ignore it if you want, but what do you think of the idea/argument that our cultural identities, while becoming more important to us, become increasingly less important. Ie the idea that say Quebecois identity becomes more importantto Quebecois but they are increasingly like Canadians?
-
What do you think the relationship between the old left (redistribution focussed) and the focus upon identity politics is in your opinion or the opinion of the other people on tumbler?
Well personally, I identify with the Old Left, and I've made my position on this subject (http://forums.fstdt.net/society/tumblr-ask-me-anything/msg108592/#msg108592) as clear as possible.
-
From what little I know, most Tumblrites:
A) probably wouldn't really call themselves political or left-wing or care about socialist/working class politics
and/or
B) fit into the 'new left', identity-politics, and so on*.
*To what extent these people can be described as left-wing is debatable.
-
Serious legit question. What's the point of the social justice blogs?
-
Another question: What happened to Smurfette Principle? Did we scare her off from this forum?
-
Another question: What happened to Smurfette Principle? Did we scare her off from this forum?
I doubt it. I think she's just been hectic with Thanksgiving & Family, as a lot of students are this time of year. Not to mention studying for finals.
-
Serious legit question. What's the point of the social justice blogs?
I would guess that
If you consider education to be incredibly important in changing the way things work than I guess you could make the case for them that they educate people into having a more tolerant outlook.
Another question: What happened to Smurfette Principle? Did we scare her off from this forum?
I hope not as that really wasn't my intention.
-
I would guess that
If you consider education to be incredibly important in changing the way things work than I guess you could make the case for them that they educate people into having a more tolerant outlook.
Though the only people who'd have any inclination to read these blogs are people who already agree with them. Those who are looking to educate themselves on any given topic, social issues included, will seek out better sources than just some random person on the internet
-
I hope not as that really wasn't my intention.
Same here, I've honestly only been hitting on the questions I see as being self destructive to their own arugments.
Hopefully she's just busy with school, it is definitely more important than screwing around with the lot of us.
-
You make us sound like a dirty sex orgy or something.
-
I would guess that
If you consider education to be incredibly important in changing the way things work than I guess you could make the case for them that they educate people into having a more tolerant outlook.
That would make more sense if 1) the crowd were more in agreement about a few things, 2) they find a way to deal with the massive amounts of trolls and poes, 3) as Art said, Tumblr blogs seem to be for Tumblr bloggers.
Maybe it's just something that's fun for some people to do.
And I too hope that Smurfette is just busy.
-
You make us sound like a dirty sex orgy or something.
You guys do your best.
-
To be fair, I get some real social justice news from the bloggers. It usually hits faster than if I were to look here or try to wade through various sites. Then it's just a matter of fact-checking that news ["Oh, so-and-so has said this about same-sex marriage? Lemme check..."] and then it's off to the races.
Also, with the way tumblr is set up you can make it like your own website with different links to their own contained pages, etc., So you have a place to point to and archive your experiences.
-
Also, with the way tumblr is set up you can make it like your own website with different links to their own contained pages, etc., So you have a place to point to and archive your experiences.
Oh. I didn't know that. Cool. Thanks.
-
Bumping this thread to let you know that even the Guardian, the UK's bastion of left-wing political media, doesn't much care for SJWs (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/18/online-bullying-ugly-sport-liberal-commenters).
-
That's not the point of this thread. You want the other one.