No it isn’t. It’s called out as this action is bad. If you get offended by someone saying the white majority is treating the black minority unfairly in a number of ways, that’s on you. You could just choose to recognize the truth of that statement and do your part to make sure you aren’t contributing to that problem yourself. This is the problem. You don’t want to believe that racial discrimination is as bad as the people being discriminated against tell you it is.
It's not that I'm offended. It has nothing to do with my feelings. It has everything to do with how correct or incorrect what you are saying is. Maybe that's it though, maybe you are using your feelings to guide you instead of logic or evidence, and you assume my position comes from the same place? I don't know that whites or blacks act as a group. I mean you are white, right? Do you act based on that? The fact that you are white makes you act a specific way? You are both a representative of, and represented by, the whites? Is that accurate? We, whites, like you and I, act as one group? And should be addressed and treated as one group, a collective? To that end, how responsible are you, personally, for the actions of your group? What you are defining as the problem that I am not seeing is something I've agreed with you on, numerous times. discrimination based on race, sex, religion, gender, etc. is bad. We agree. WE AGREE. The issue we have, that I'm not sure why you keep missing or ignoring, is how we work through every interaction and problem. If we, by default, call an interaction between a black and a white a racial interaction. or a straight person and a gay person an interaction based in sexual preference. or a man and a woman a gender-based interaction. If we first see the collective, or if we first see the individual.
White people run this country and have since its founding. That is undeniable. It is also undeniable that for the majority of its existence those white people in charge used that authority to explicitly ensure their continued power at the expense of black Americans. That the consequences of those explicitly racist actions continue to this Day is obvious to anyone that doesn’t want to diminish legitimacy of that complaint by insisting on assuming that we view such complaints as individuals acting badly and not as symptoms of a power structure that white people put in place to ensure white authority. Color blindness allows the oppression based on color to continue. It isn’t the decision of people of color to identify as such. It is the white power structure that still exists in this country that insists on identifying them so.
To ensure rich white authority. I doubt the upper crust wants to make sure Joe Redneck has control, he just sees Joe as a useful idiot who can duped into valuing the importance of the color narrative.
wow! that was very impressive! Did you copy that right off of the DNC's website or did you recite that from memory? So what are the specific examples of the white power structure that you are talking about, the systemic oppression that's baked into the system? I like how you keep shaping what I'm saying into what you want it to be, instead of what it is. I've used the same example, a black guy and a white guy have a disagreement, an argument, a fight. whatever. How is it beneficial to identify their races and deal with them based on that? To not identify them a Bob and Tim, but to specifically identify them as black Bob and white Tim? How is that beneficial? How is that progressive?
Rich White MALE authority. Rich White Male STRAIGHT authority. Rich White Male Straight CHRISTIAN authority. Do you know who is a rich, white, male, straight christian? (Alternative Facts Rule)
So you don’t see the potential for danger in valuing similar ideas from the left? To me, when I look at the landscape of the modern left, I see an uncomfortable amount of lower-class others being sicced on lower-class whites by an upper class that doesn’t really give a fuck about their problems, they just need their useful idiots, which in this modern age have become their pet victims, to keep everybody occupied while they go about counting their stacks. Maybe I’m imagining it.
What similar ideas? “The left” isn’t pushing for the enslavement of rich white people. “The left” is still just looking for an end to discrimination against minorities.
I don't think facts would ever deny that he's benefited from the structure of power in this country (assuming he's a straight white male which I have no confirmation of). How is that relevant?
Ah, yeah I see that as a differnce between “the left” and the current Democratic Party. There are signs that “the left” is forcing some changes to cut in the Party (Booker now refusing corporate campaign contributions is one example). Whether those changes will be as dramatic or as harmful for the county as what the Tea Party (activist rightism) morphed the Republican Party into is certainly debateable. I would still tend to separate activist leftism from the Democratic Party itself though.
Well a couple things, I think. First, he's a fucking rich, white, male doctor for fuck's sake. simply acknowledging his privilege seems woefully short of his responsibility, considering his lofty status. What exactly is he doing to make things right? What is he personally doing, you know? Sure, whining on a message board, probably from the comfort of a nice house or office, is noble, but what is he really doing? But secondly, he's a member of our group. He's a white. He's responsible for what we do and say and think. He contributes, via his whiteness, to the evil that we perpetuate. He is responsible for the wrongs we've committed and will undoubtedly commit. I think it woudl be good for him to really feel the weight of that. Like I said, the next time a white cop shoots a black person, Facts will become a little more racist.
I wouldn't presume to know the answers to any of these questions I honestly don't even know what you're getting at here.
Do you think your position is in opposition to Martin Luther King's? that we should judge people on the content of their character, not the color of their skin? Was King essentially advocating color blindness?
Only one of us really does How silly it is to feel responsible for what some backwards hilljack white supremecists thinks and feels just because we share skin color. or the President. Or anyone who is not you. How diverse the thoughts and actions can be within a group, especially a group as vast as "whites" or "blacks", and how treating everyone within those groups as the same person is unbelievably silly, and how that silliness emphasizes the ideal of the individual over the collective. I think Facts is a good guy, but he is the epitome of someone who talks a good game, but retreats into what he despises out of comfort. If you described Facts to Facts, he'd probably think that person is the exact problem he's talking about here. He's the king telling the commoners how awful the royalty is.
He also said it was a dream for a future date. He didn’t pose it as a solution to the problems black people face. He viewed white moderates as a greater obstacle to black justice than the KKK. And as for you Bob v Tim arguments, this is what MLK thought of them: “A state trooper pointed the gun, but he did not act alone. He was murdered by the brutality of every sheriff who practices lawlessness in the name of law. He was murdered by the irresponsibility of every politician, from governors on down, who has fed his constituents the stale bread of hatred and the spoiled meat of racism.”
so you would say yes, your position is in conflict with the idea that we should judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin, but that was not a here and now solution, it was more a some time in the future maybe we can try that out, kind of thing.
My friend had an extra tickets so I went to see DR. Jordan Peterson speak last night in philly. Was great. That’s all. God bless!
You should go read the entirety of that speech for context because it doesn’t support your argument at all.
Which argument? I was just asking if your position aligned with that portion of the speech. You said it does not. That's all.
You’re not advocating color blindness what you want is blindness period, don’t equate this nonsense to MLK’s words.
you used more words, but the thrust of your post was that A) your position did not match that part of the speech an B) King's own position did not match that part of the speech.
I was just asking if his position ran counter to that part of the speech. Judging individuals as individuals first might be nonsense to you, but i think it's a pretty fair and necessary way to approach things. lest we have....well what we have now.
you can't address inequality created by people along the lines outlined without acknowledging those lines exist and address it directly the elevation of "individualism" is done largely to knee cap group power by those benefitting from that original inequality
My contention is that you don’t know the rest of that speech and therefore are missing the context and actual meaning of the quote.
LOL why can't you just say if your position is in agreement with that part of the speech or not (the ACTUAL meaning of that part)?? For a white guy, you sure are a good dancer.
I was consistently arguing for appreciating the context in which the quote occurs in both of those cases. Thanks for noticing.
So you acknowledge that the current system is problematic but you believe that we should ignore them, so like I said total nonsense.
Facts has demonstrated the ideal approach to intellectual disagreements by his willingness to discuss and clarify. We need more of this.
But were you ever arguing hat your position is in agreement or opposition to that part of the speech? Is it tough to answer that? It's not a gotcha question, and I am not sure it really matters that much, but your tap dancing caught my attention.
I never did argue one way or the other. You said I disagreed with MLK. I pointed out that you don’t seem to actually understand MLK’s meaning.
yikes. The current system is problematic, but I believe that we should ignore them? What does that even mean?
arguing about the context of a statement within a larger statement at that time is very different from arguing about someones statement in comparison to the rest of their entire ideology
I don’t know how much anthro Facts has studied, but I mentioned a while back that Peterson, in his intellectual social awkwardness, still tends to use academic language without clarifying its academic meaning as opposed to its social one. Facts somewhat reasonably took his statement at face value and has since acknowledged he shouldn’t have.
The correct sequence of events is I ASKED if your position was in conflict with that quote. Remember? You matrixed the question, and told me about what he also said. I kinda took that to mean your position did not align with that pat of the speech. You deflected and said I should read the entire speech because you didn't think I was interpreting that part of the speech correctly. I then said well does your position agree with the actual meaning of that part of the speech then? And you said, hey, just go read the speech! So clearly there is something preventing you from answering what I thought was a pretty direct question. i don't know what that something is, but... Do you want another shot at it? Do you agree with the idea of judging people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin?
Go reread the argument. I consistently urged readers to remember that Peterson’s calling for “enforced monogamy” was not in isolation but offered as a solution in response to the incel attack in Toronto. I was arguing for posters to appreciate the importance of context the entire time - just as I am here with riner.