|
thechosenone posted:Okay. Do you agree with me? No.
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:10 |
|
|
You can cry and rant to elicit sympathy from someone who already knows you personally or already supports your cause, but the nature of politics means that often you'll have neither.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Those uppity activists need to stop making a fuss and inconveniencing people with their appeals to empathy and shared humanity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
He's talking about white moderates who opposed direct action in support of the civil rights movement. The modern day equivalent is people who oppose BLM protests, not people who want to facilitate cross-ideological discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
But would you disagree with the notion that African American's have the ability to contribute to our nation and that racism stifles their ability to do so?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
rudatron posted:We don't have any statistics! We've got to deal with the information we have, and the information we have is that America, as a whole, is strongly reacting against what they see as people who are out of touch with them. We are losing, not winning, losing. Strategy must be reassessed. Here's a hypothesis: activists practices are backfiring. Is it 100% true, beyond any reasonable doubt? No. Should it be dismissed totally? No. While activist call out culture does seem to drive away potential allies in some cases I think its real liability isn't that it hurts people's feelings but rather the attitudes and worldviews it tends to cultivate. I think Frosted Flake was onto something when he suggested there's a lot of social climbing happening here. I might go a step further and say in many cases the activist left slips into a pseudo-religious moral tone where discussions of concrete strategic or organizational goals become secondary to establishing and policing political purity. Quite often political organizing seems to play second fiddle to cultural criticism. The result is that a bunch of people with middle class educations and a strong command of esoteric social justice vocabularies are able to advance their own positions without actually building up organizations that would be politically strong enough to challenge the status quo. I mean, any successful anti-establishment movement is going to upset people and step on toes. Saying mean words to your enemies on twitter or in a university department meeting isn't necessarily the end of the world, it's not even necessarily a tactical mistake. But interacting with a lot of leftist activists these days you start to get the sense that they have cultivated a worldview so far removed from achieving material political victories, and so focused on winning basically pointless arguments within their own limited (and typically very academic) sphere of personal daily life, that the result is a movement of priestly scolds rather than real political activists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I don't agree that "purpose" or "community" are "easily quantifiable" and I challenge you to actually quantify them in a way that isn't completely vague and tautological. Your 'innate capacity' is an assumption you've made, not truth. It doesn't have to be innate to be the 'degenerate/dominant/nash-equilibrium' outcome, but you've no grounds to argue it's eternal. I'm also purposefully not reducing my opponents to irrational caricatures, it's not possible for anyone to have the kind of perfect self-awareness that total rationality implies, nor is saying that their behavior is being guided by a faulty judgement necessarily mean that they're being 'irrational', which has other connotations to it. All I'm suggesting is that there is a reason people construct identities, you're correct in saying that it's not just economic-self-interest-several-steps-removed, but that does not necessarily mean that such construction is not being pushed by other desires (security, community, etc).
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Those uppity activists need to stop making a fuss and inconveniencing people with their appeals to empathy and shared humanity. Is that what I said? How persuasive do you think this behaviour is? Do you think it's winning over voters? Helsing posted:While activist call out culture does seem to drive away potential allies in some cases I think its real liability isn't that it hurts people's feelings but rather the attitudes and worldviews it tends to cultivate. I think Frosted Flake was onto something when he suggested there's a lot of social climbing happening here. I might go a step further and say in many cases the activist left slips into a pseudo-religious moral tone where discussions of concrete strategic or organizational goals become secondary to establishing and policing political purity. Exactly. In and of itself, being abrasive or aggressive isn't always a bad thing and with the right direction can be really useful. When you direct it towards not only your own side but your own organization so that you reach the top, or build a clique around you, or look good is not good policy. I suppose that calling people out probably feels good, but just like the workplace is full of people that have read How To Win Friends and Influence People or The 48 Laws of Power, activism is full of people that have turned call outs into a strategy to gain and keep power and influence. Frosted Flake fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Jan 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:But would you disagree with the notion that African American's have the ability to contribute to our nation and that racism stifles their ability to do so? Ok you're playing the maieutics game. Well, I'm game, Socrates! Be aware so that I've got a trap card up my sleeve... To answer your question, no. I do not disagree with your latest statement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Those uppity activists need to stop making a fuss and inconveniencing people with their appeals to empathy and shared humanity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Is that what I said? How persuasive do you think this behaviour is? Do you think it's winning over voters? If you think politics begins and ends with the ballot box then I'm somewhat unsurprised you find activism so unpalatable. edit: the trump tutelage posted:I am completely convinced that the angrier and less pragmatic an activist is, the more interested they are in punishing power than elevating the powerless. Popular anger publicly expressed is a means of both elevating the powerless and punishing the powerful and thus is also the most pragmatic course of bringing about radical change. TomViolence fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Jan 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Alright, so then how do you convince someone in a group you are not a part of? Cultural force and demographic shifts. And for the worst examples, deployment of the 101st Airborne. As in, there is no convincing them. You have to go around the social conservatives of the day*, every time. Every major instance of social progress, from abolition to gay marriage, has been using the force of law, backed up by the legitimate threat of enforcing said law. The people to convince are those in the center. The moderate and the unafilliated are the people you need to convince. *This changes with generation. An abolitionist from the 1800's would be horribly conservative to our eyes. Tomorrow, it might be us. We will also deserve the boot in the rear end to get with the program, as our grandchildren define their boundries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Popular anger publicly expressed is a means of both elevating the powerless and punishing the powerful and thus is also the most pragmatic course of bringing about radical change. Intent matters. Nobody who is primarily motivated by resentment and a need to punish can be trusted with the power that they're seeking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Pinch Me Im Meming posted:Ok you're playing the maieutics game. Well, I'm game, Socrates! Be aware so that I've got a trap card up my sleeve... So Would you say that, from a stand point limited to practicality alone, that there would be no reason for a white person to not be racist? to say nothing of morality or anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Cultural force and demographic shifts. And for the worst examples, deployment of the 101st Airborne. But where do you get cultural force? How do you get opinions to change from generation to generation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
But ideally social climbing shouldn't be the problem. Any organization worth its salt is going to try and channel ambitious individuals into serving the goals of the group as a whole. Such people are going to exist, so why not use them? The problem is that the 'method' for actualizing that ambition, right now, consists entirely of saying the right words and guilt-tripping as many people as possible. The more you can display how much of a victim you are, or conversely, how the person you dislike is secretly victimizing others, the greater your own voice. The whole thing has to come down to a flaw in the philosophy, not simply the lack of a desire to build organizations - no one ever really wants to build organizations for their own sake.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:So Would you say that, from a stand point limited to practicality alone, that there would be no reason for a white person to not be racist? to say nothing of morality or anything else. No, I would not. I would say however that the elusive "average American" would indeed benefit form a racism free utopia, but that the white people subset would not necessarily benefit from such a situation. In more mathematicals terms, a higher average doesn't mean higher values overall. Also I would point out that limiting our discussion to practicality alone distance ourselves from the real world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
rudatron posted:But ideally social climbing shouldn't be the problem. Any organization worth its salt is going to try and channel ambitious individuals into serving the goals of the group as a whole. Such people are going to exist, so why not use them? The problem is that the 'method' for actualizing that ambition, right now, consists entirely of saying the right words and guilt-tripping as many people as possible. The more you can display how much of a victim you are, or conversely, how the person you dislike is secretly victimizing others, the greater your own voice. I agree that trying to tear others down doesn't really help, calling in the state guard to desegregate a last few schools during the civil rights movement did not end segregation (as an example), It occurred as a result of the civil rights movement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
rudatron posted:'easily observable', not easily quantifiable. In principle they must be quantifiable, emotions are just chemicals after all. In this context what's the operational difference between 'extremely likely in any scenario we'll encounter in our lifetimes' and 'innate / eternal'? I'll concede the terminology if you can point out some concrete way in which this distinction actually makes a difference. Beyond that I'm not entirely sure how much we really disagree on and how much we're just applying different descriptions to the same underlying phenomena. If we agree that there's more than just economic interest at play and that racism can't be entirely reduced to irrationality then I have no problem agreeing that material considerations such as security and prosperity play a significant role in how we construct and propagate identities. However, what I've found is that when you adhere to strongly to the "racism is just false consciousness" argument you can end up with a dangerously simplified perspective. Have you ever read David Harvey's "Short History of Neoliberalism"? It has some useful information in it but its coverage of how political consent for neoliberal policies was established in the United States spend almost zero time describing race relations. I think Harvey actually goes so far as to literally refer to racism as a button that the ruling class can press whenever it wants to in order to win concessions from the white working class. That kind of analysis is reductive to the point of stupidity and it seriously damages the rest of Harvey's analysis and presently a falsely simplified picture of social relations in the United States.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
rudatron posted:But ideally social climbing shouldn't be the problem. Any organization worth its salt is going to try and channel ambitious individuals into serving the goals of the group as a whole. Such people are going to exist, so why not use them? The problem is that the 'method' for actualizing that ambition, right now, consists entirely of saying the right words and guilt-tripping as many people as possible. The more you can display how much of a victim you are, or conversely, how the person you dislike is secretly victimizing others, the greater your own voice. That's exactly my point though. The tactics and broader mindset being cultivated here are inimical to the movement's success. I'm not sure that's entirely a philosophical flaw though, I also think it reflects the middle class and pedagogical orientation of much of the activist movement. People get their activist training in academic institutions or narrowly focused internet communities and I think their attitudes and behaviours often reflect that, whereas past generations of leftists often emerged from a very different context.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Intent matters. Nobody who is primarily motivated by resentment and a need to punish can be trusted with the power that they're seeking. So, the problem is that people are engaging in wrongthink, and best of all, one that's vague enough that any expression of anger or frustration can earn you a trip to a reeducation camp where you will be taught to like injustice by Director Trump Tutelage. I see.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Pinch Me Im Meming posted:No, I would not. I would say however that the elusive "average American" would indeed benefit form a racism free utopia, but that the white people subset would not necessarily benefit from such a situation. So, to confirm, your answer to " from a stand point limited to practicality alone, that there would be no reason for a white person to not be racist?' is no? So, would you say that from a stand point limited to practicality alone, that there would be a reason for a white person to not be racist? thechosenone fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Jan 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
All this time I thought social activism was necessary for society to function and evolve but it turns out it's all motivated by an untrustworthy and pathological resentment and accompanying need to punish.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Stop strawmanning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
It's literally what you said though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
The only good thing about reactionaries is that they're really not very good at concealing their desire to destroy justice and impose injustice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:It's literally what you said though. I figure if it is literally what he said, you would have quoted him. If he literally said it, you should have just quoted him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:I figure if it is literally what he said, you would have quoted him. If he literally said it, you should have just quoted him. the trump tutelage posted:Intent matters. Nobody who is primarily motivated by resentment and a need to punish can be trusted with the power that they're seeking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
No, I said that the angrier and less pragmatic an activist is, the more interested they are in punishing power than elevating the powerless. I did not say that any and all outbursts of anger are indicative of pathological resentment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:So, to confirm, your answer to " from a stand point limited to practicality alone, that there would be no reason for a white person to not be racist?' is no? It must be because English is my second language, I'll try again. A white person can rationally have reasons to be racist, because they can rationnally expect that elevating the status of POC will lower theirs. And, but evidently not guaranteed, they can be right! Meaning that from an average standpoint, like GDP per capita or incarcerations rates, crime, etc, society as a whole might be better off but white people might not necessarily be. To which I added in a paraphrase that they can also have irrationnal, emotional and/or cultural beliefs&traditions to oppose to elevate the status of POCs. This however was previously excluded from our conversation by the use of the word "practical".
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The only good thing about reactionaries is that they're really not very good at concealing their desire to destroy justice and impose injustice. Do they really want to destroy justice and impose injustice, or are you saying that is what they are doing from your perspective? It might sound facetious to ask, but I will be honest I am not confidant enough to assume what you mean.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:No, I said that the angrier and less pragmatic an activist is, the more interested they are in punishing power than elevating the powerless. Wouldn't it be fair to say that all activists are angry about the status quo on some level? And what do you consider a pragmatic way to protest, if not through publicly expressing this discontent with the way things are?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Pinch Me Im Meming posted:It must be because English is my second language, I'll try again. So, to specify more, would you say that the average white person has more reason to be racist, or not racist? From a practical standpoint of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Wouldn't it be fair to say that all activists are angry about the status quo on some level? And what do you consider a pragmatic way to protest, if not through publicly expressing this discontent with the way things are? I personally think protest, though risky is a valid option for dissent. I personally just think that if others come to my conclusions, that I would prefer to band together with them, since they agree with me, as I think most people on this forum do (about the conclusion, not the way to it of course). Not singling you out for anything, just saying that coalition building works with republicans, and they still seem pretty good a forming a phalanx when they need to. I think rather than focusing on what we disagree with, we should focus on what we do agree with first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:So, to specify more, would you say that the average white person has more reason to be racist, or not racist? From a practical standpoint of course. From a practical standpoint, a white person can make the case that, hypothetically speaking, he could either benefit or not from the perpetuation of racism. From which he can lean to being more or less racist himself. What I'm hinting at is that the general welfare argument is not a good angle of attack to tackle racism in America or anywhere else, IMHO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Pinch Me Im Meming posted:From a practical standpoint, a white person can make the case that, hypothetically speaking, he could either benefit or not from the perpetuation of racism. From which he can lean to being more or less racist himself. so would you say that the benefit to white people as a whole would be positive, negative, or that you do not know? thechosenone fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jan 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:so would you say that the benefit to white people as a whole would be positive, negative, or that you do not know? I would say that I do not know. I would also add that noone can reasonably know, so it holds very little convincing power. To conclude, and since we're talking about positive or negative benefits, that is to say a change in status, I would posit that whatever hypothetical negative shift in white people welfare and material living conditions would plateau at some point in the future, of course. Not crash down. However this last belief of mine I'm wary of having it ring true to a non-negligible part of the white population.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Pinch Me Im Meming posted:I would say that I do not know. I would also add that noone can reasonably know, so it holds very little convincing power. I would agree it is rather hard to tell exactly what would happen. So then, what reason would you give to white people for not being racist? thechosenone fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jan 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
The same reason you wouldn't beat and rob someone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:10 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The same reason you wouldn't beat and rob someone. What would that be? thechosenone fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Jan 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 21:03
|
|