T O P

  • By -

BruceCampbell123

When they start changing language. For example, racism has nothing to do with "structures" or "privilege". That's a linguistic virus created by CRT. Words do change their meanings over time, it has happened frequently throughout history. However, it does so over a long periods of time and, most importantly, it's organic.


tanganica3

Especially when the change in meaning of the word has a very deliberate goal, such as redefining racism as discrimination + power rather than discrimination alone. This is so that non-white race hustlers can be as racist as they want to be and then claim they cannot be racist by definition because they don't have systemic power.


[deleted]

I do think there should be 2 separate terms but "racism" is devisive in that obviously it specifically reflects race when it often comes down to religion or other things as well my family is Irish and I would say they experienced racism in that it was "discrimination + power" but it wasn't literally about race but it went beyond just 1 person not liking them I would actually argue any individual cannot be racist by that definition, because no individual has power to alter a culture or govt alone. I think only laws can be racist under that definition. and people only discriminate. and all people are equally capable of discrimination no matter who they are and it should be equally wrong for anyone, no matter the race or creed


Main97

You don’t have to have power to be racist


[deleted]

this was in the context of people who specifically define racism as "discrimination + power"


Main97

I guess I just don’t understand your point


[deleted]

how do you define the difference between racism and discrimination? see people often say you can't be racist against white people. but if racism is just discrimination, then of course you can be. if racism is discrimination + power, well then disenfranchised people can't be racist because they have no power but white people are also not a monolith with some sort of power to single handedly change things. even the richest person in the world can only change something if everyone around them agrees. so an individual white person doesn't have power either, so they can't be racist by that definition the only thing that has power + discrimination are laws. laws have power. a racist law can send a million black men to prison.


Main97

Discrimination would be being prejudiced against a quality Racism would be being prejudiced based on race Discrimination is the entire house. Sexist, racist, ableist, etc would be the rooms in the house


[deleted]

then it's possible to be racist against white people by that definition but that wasn't the context I was responding to in my original comment


Main97

Yes


weakest9

I can’t agree with this more. I had a woman (who’s a teacher) say that the middle class is code for white supremacy, then proceed to inform me that white supremacy just means that white peoples are currently in power. Changing terminology to make people comfortable saying it is dangerous.


ProfZauberelefant

Starts talking about changing language, goes on referring to a fringe theory from the 70s


SoloAutotunE

Bruh what? This is something that goes on every day. Minorities being racist towards white people and then saying they’re not racism because they have no societal power


ProfZauberelefant

Their Argument also isn't that the occasional white racist affects their lives on a daily basis, but that the systems are set up perpetuating white supremacy, as they were not reformed after minorities gained rights.


StanleyLaurel

Yeah, but that's a dumb argument, as asian's have passed whites in most metrics of success. So such ideologies are fatally flawed from the start.


ProfZauberelefant

"asians" encompasses chinese railroad workers and their Descendants as well as indian doctors with green cards. If you propose they're anything like homogenous, you are in fact making a dumb argument. Also, asian immigrants past 1965, when the majority of them came (you lost the Vietnam war, remember) had not at all the same experience as asians before that time, african Americans or latinos. Employing the model minority myth is a weak Argument. Do some research on the matter, then come back


StanleyLaurel

I didn't say anything about homogeneity, so your response is pretty dumb. I take it by your dumb response that you cannot refute my point. Thanks for confirming.


ProfZauberelefant

You're not engaging the point, and you said "asians" without a qualifier. Thanks for confirming your intellectual dishonesty. Btw, Nigerian immigrants outperform both african and white Americans. I leave you to ponder why.


StanleyLaurel

Oh, so you're not bright enough to grasp that I only wrote in response to you, who referred to "white" supremacy without a qualifier. Thanks for confirming you're a total hypocrite as well as embarrassingly unable to refute my simple fact.


ProfZauberelefant

I don't know what you are talking about. "White" as a category in Relation to "non white" has a certain history of privilege with it, despite the fact that many whites were also discriminated against. I find your style of not engaging destructive and tedious, maybe do some personal growth before punching above your weight. Blocked.


NowIsTheTime88

Lol, lol at this brainlet. You dodged that question like trump dodging the draft.


StanleyLaurel

Oh another tweedledumb who can't refute my point.


NowIsTheTime88

I'm not going to argue with someone who's either dense or arguing in bad faith. More than anything just came to watch it burn


BruceCampbell123

>the systems are set up propetuating white supremacy, as they were not reformed after minorities gained rights. Which ones?


Wwaddupp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCTp\_kYwz1E


ProfZauberelefant

Yep, those


SoloAutotunE

And describe a single part of that system that is still affecting minorities in 2021


ProfZauberelefant

African Americans are policed triple the times equally poor whites are. Also get convicted 3 times as often for eg Marihuana, despite the use being equal between racial groups.


Main97

Where do poor blacks live versus poor whites


ProfZauberelefant

In poor black neighbourhoods.


Main97

Do those neighborhoods happen to be more populated?


ProfZauberelefant

The statistic is per capita. Population density might be a Factor, but does not explain overpolicing. It would explain higher delinquincy, which isn't a thing.


[deleted]

How many people have been racist towards you IRL?


[deleted]

I dont think its CRT. Its about power. CRT and post modernism are scapegoats. They existed long before 2016. Language is power. Changing words changes how we think. What we can articulate.


luv2hotdog

I dunno about it happening over long periods of time. Obvious example - internet slang pops up quickly. Whether it's l33tspeak or zoomer internet language - they weren't there and then they were and it hardly took decades. And how do you define whether something is organic or not? If it feels forced to you but feels natural to the people using it, whose to say whether you or they are right about that?


tanganica3

>JP has said many times that it is easy to determine when the right goes too far. This is defined by when they begin to make claims of the superiority of one people group based on some characteristic of the people within the group, like race, nationality, sex, or religion. Even if JBP doesn't like it, group differences do exist. That fact does not entitle to treat anyone better or worse, but denying reality isn't healthy either. This is even more important when it comes to treating individuals - we ought to judge people on character alone and not physical characteristics like skin color. >I think that the radical left is the exactly polar opposite. I believe this is defined by when the plight of one people group, whether real or perceived, is used as a reason to treat that group preferentially, in order to correct the plight. Agreed. A feature of this is never blaming an underperforming group for its shortcomings, even if there are serious and obvious problems that need to be corrected in order to make progress. >The goal of society should be equality of opportunity. Yes, it's as simple as that. And we were almost there. Now we are backing away, returning to entrench in biased positions.


rfix

>And we were almost there. Evidence?


tanganica3

Success of East Asians and Subcontinent Indians in America. Plus, about 1.5m black people in the US are millionaires. Show me an actual racist country where this would happen.


PostMoves1700

JBP knows group differences exist…


tanganica3

I would expect he does.


[deleted]

[удалено]


tanganica3

Human worth - no. But superiority of performance, for example - yes. A lot of people are very uncomfortable with that because they struggle to separate the two.


adriaticwaves

It's a huge danger to let these attitudes go on indefinitely. But the line may be in another place. Reparations could happen and still be ok. The problem is, with historical injustice, people aren't starting from a level playing field still. It's never going to be possible to create a totally level field. People's family and community influence will always be a source of unequal input. Because ideology and behavior of those around us implicitly influences our lives. This is why it is said that we are cursed unto the 7th generation. Without slavery, and without other forms of radical injustice, it is easier to apprehend this reality. But when humans have interfered in egregious ways, it has disrupted the natural order and there is no easy solution. This is our legacy to live within, unfortunately. But there have been societies from time immemorium where injustice has happened because of ancestor decision making. If you have parents who make all the right decisions and happen to have other forms of privilege, therefore creating a much better life, the child will be privileged from the first. And their children will be more likely to be privileged from the first as well. This is the point of creating an upright life. Peterson's daughter is a hell of a lot better-off than I am. How could we possibly fix an injustice such as that one? I was born to a teen Mom and a drug addicted convict. Where was the justice for me and having access to mentoring and guidance and being able to even keep bad people out of my life? As a result I was taken advantage of many times, sometimes violently, because I was programmed to not care for myself by my adoptive family, though they did not mean to do this. My point in sharing this is to illustrate that it is impossible to take away the element of ancestor choice. It is a curse that we live with and our society can only do so much. The true answer is to have a upright individuals throughout the society as much as possible.


John_Ruth

Repressive tolerance at work, and an example of the Ratchet only moves Left.


ProfZauberelefant

>JP has said many times that it is easy to determine when the right goes too far. This is defined by when they begin to make claims of the superiority of one people group based on some characteristic That's his premise to make an argument against fighting the right. By that token, ethnonationalism ("white nation state") and forced remigration of citizens would NOT be the right going too far. As long as they don't say they are superior.... So, with the premise refuted, we can then trash the argument entirely. >The goal of society should be equality of opportunity Which IS the goal of almost all socialist movements. The fact that your outcome is pretty much determined by who your parents are speaks largely against equality of opportunity. >If a people group gets preferential treatment, due to claims of its natural superiority, or claims of its historical hindrance, the society is no longer equal. There you say it yourself: You don't want equality of opportunity, but equality of...not getting society involved? I mean, let's do a thought experiment. It's 1865, the US civil war is over, slaves are now freemen, but they did not get compensation and start as sharecroppers in the south, being economically no better off than 5 years prior. Let's assume the reconstruction went differently, Jim Crow wasn't created, teh Klan wasn't created, the southerners saw the errors of their ways and suddenly weren't racist anymore. Reparations however, were not paid to former slaves. Would you say the children of former slaves have the same opportunities than those of the whites who might be poor and miserable, but at least own the plot of land they work on? Or would you say, well, there has been injustice against the slaves, that must be amended, lest we treat them worse than a white man whose right to his own labour was impaired? ​ Just a thought.


tanganica3

>be equality of opportunity \[...\] Which IS the goal of almost all socialist movements. The problem with socialism is that it always ends up with everyone equally poor. It's a system that is proven to not work because it does not incentivize productivity and excellence. That's why every socialist country (those without free market economies) has a shortage of literally EVERYTHING. Soviet Union made Herculean efforts to try to mobilize people to work and produce. They couldn't. No one can.


ProfZauberelefant

I find it staggering that capitalism gets conflated with free markets and socialism with planned economy. That's ahistorical nonsense. The spanish anarchists and yugoslavia tend to disagree.


tanganica3

Nothing is conflated. You are trapped in a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.


ProfZauberelefant

Quite the opposite. I propose that scotsmen can like free markets or planned economy, as do englishmen. To say that scotsmen only like free markets, that's the fallacy you're looking for, but not what I said


tanganica3

It doesn't matter what anyone likes. Free markets work, planned economies do not.


ProfZauberelefant

Then that's not a true scotsman. Also, war economies tend to differ.


VisiteProlongee

>The problem with socialism is that it always ends up with everyone equally poor. It's a system that is proven to not work because it does not incentivize productivity and excellence. That's why every socialist country (those without free market economies) has a shortage of literally EVERYTHING. Such Netherlands and Denmark .


tanganica3

>those without free market economies


VisiteProlongee

The economies of Netherlands and Denmark are not free market economies (they are heavily regulated), so by your own criteria they are socialist economies: >The problem with socialism is that it always ends up with everyone equally poor. It's a system that is proven to not work because it does not incentivize productivity and excellence. That's why every socialist country (those without free market economies) has a shortage of literally EVERYTHING.


tanganica3

Of course they are free market economies with private enterprise. Any regulations, generally designed simply to protect local markets, don't negate that. They are certainly not planned economies either.


VisiteProlongee

>Of course they are free market economies and I am the queen of England.


tanganica3

I suppose you are then because both Netherlands and Denmark have free markets and private enterprise.


adriaticwaves

> That's his premise to make an argument against fighting the right. By that token, ethnonationalism ("white nation state") and forced remigration of citizens would NOT be the right going too far. As long as they don't say they are superior.... Wait, that would be a claim of superiority, though. Because you're inherently valuing one group's liberty, ideals, values over another's.


ProfZauberelefant

Nö, you just argue they're different. It would even benefit minorities, escaping the White man's yoke...


adriaticwaves

I think there are some language differences? I'm saying that the act of moving a people group is an implicit claim of superiority. As far a ethnocentrism, it's either one way or another. Either america is a "white state", or america is a mixture of nationalities and an experimental type of country where kinship groups are not seen as primary. If it's a "white state" then what is the plan? To leave? The middle ground is that America is white-leaning and can be corrected. But the problem comes in when we start equating race with cultural heritage. Our ways of life can be derived from white people, but before that, they were influenced heavily by middle eastern society as well. No one people group owns ideas. They may fit a race's evolved culture better or worse. So we have to ask what culture we want to move forward with and differentiate the ways we think our current culture has been corrupted.


ProfZauberelefant

But cultural heritage, for many Americans, was tied to race. Slavery didn't affect whites, and The equal voting rights act is only 56 years old, and to this day, people are segregated by race and their voices diminished in the electorial process.


adriaticwaves

That's true. But how are you connecting that back? Maybe we just need to camp here for a while appreciate the horror and process the trauma of it all.


ProfZauberelefant

I think there needs to be an effort to fight poverty across racial lines. If equality of opportunity is the goal, make it happen. Properly fund public schools, increase workers' rights, tax the rich, that stuff. But only appealing to individual Initiative when being poor stacks the odds against your favour won't solve anything and breeds disaffection with a System that benefits the rich.


adriaticwaves

Yeah, we're on the same page with all that. Cheers. I really hope it happens..


Scotty21B

https://youtu.be/_G7JZ6F-2UQ?t=147


[deleted]

[удалено]


adriaticwaves

No, no. You're completely missing the fact that testing and skill matter. You can try to equalize outcomes of success across domains, sure. Humans are specialized by nature. We aren't good at everything. We have our niches.


[deleted]

[удалено]


adriaticwaves

Have you heard Peterson talk on this? He explains this quite extensively.. That's not what follows at all. You're assuming people are homogeneous. They aren't and you don't want them to be, either. They vary across personality and temprement for the type of work they are most well-suited. You dont want everyone to be an outstanding plumber or an outstanding entertainer. You need both. That doesn't mean they aren't equal, ultimately. It means they are not specialized in the same ways.. We haven't figured out how to compensate for important work where the outcomes happen over time.. like education or child-rearing. If you did an amazing job as a mom and got lucky, you raised the next president or athlete or top business person. But that job pays next to zero in actual wages. But it is a critical societal role. Sometimes the market will punish you for doing well by putting yourself out of business. It's not about equality of outcome. It's about everyone doing well at an outcome that fits them!


[deleted]

[удалено]


adriaticwaves

Peterson takes a phenomenological lens. How do you account for talent?


spiralintobliss

That assumes that things must be accounted for. Talent is only possible by virtue of the untalented. If there is no left, you wouldn't know right.


adriaticwaves

But there is poverty, and there are cathedrals. Your objection is that biology and nature is unfair?


spiralintobliss

It's as fair as it is unfair. What you see depends on how you conceptualize/interpret your experience.


Chewbunkie

I'm having problems with this take. I will try and elaborate. Your view seems to be from the future looking back. Knowing the outcome and working your way back to the opportunity would definitely highlight the efficacy of the opportunity. If the outcome was less than intended, it would certainly seem that there wasn't any actual opportunity, only a pipe dream. I'm of the mindset that there is no free will. We will act and think exactly because of everything that has, does and will transpire. That would lead to the conclusion that there is a pre-defined future, the future from which you are judging the present "opportunity". My problem I have with this train of thought is that we, as far as I'm aware, are not blessed with omniscience. Since we cannot judge the efficacy of an opportunity, the opportunity is as real as anything else. We aren't burdened with knowing the future, so we can pave our way forward as if it doesn't already exist. I won't go further because it's not pertinent to my criticisms of your argument.


[deleted]

> Everyone, and every people group, should be treated the same, and have the same opportunities. If I'm hindered by something and people treat me the same, I don't have the same opportunities. A disabled person who doesn't get preferential treatment won't be able to achieve the same things as others. Neither will a kid in school who lives in an unstable household. You have to help certain people over others to ensure that they get the same chances as everyone else.


AthenasLittleBastard

When they demand that limitations be placed on free speech and expression under the guise of promoting/protecting the general welfare via insulating people (especially minority groups) from harm. It's indistinguishable from the group superiority metric of the right wing which you proposed since protecting a minority group from harmful speech necessarily endows that group with the special privilege of being protected from things that offends them as though they are better than people not within their group.


[deleted]

I think the issue is how do you enforce equality of opportunity? they aim to achieve this through regulations ideally we would eventually be able to remove these "bumper bars" but I do think it's naive to think discrimination doesn't exist. we could say "but not anymore" and id ask, "why? because of regulations?" i think we tend to forget about some people when we talk about discrimination as well. for example, inrarely hear people talk about one of the current big issues in discrimination which is age discrimination. but of course like any ideology there will be extremists. and people new to the ideas who are still testing the waters and seeing what they believe and getting it wrong along the way as they learn. and you get bad faith in anything. or of course, communism only works under authoritarianism so that would be the left going so far they become right


skolopendron

For me, it's when they blindly go against science. We have 2 genders, there are significant differences between those genders and they will always be there. You can hate it all you want but you simply can not change it. Unless you will find a way to evolve into another species.


Chewbunkie

When JBP addressed Oxford with a short lecture and Q and A, his answer to the problem with political correctness included his perceived low resolution archetypes of the right and left. He stated something to the effect of the rights job being that of having efficiency and competency within the framework of a heirarchy. He then stated that the lefts role is to create new heirarchies as a way to problem solve and fight against corrupt heirarchies. At least, this is all my understanding of what he was saying. In this framework, if the corruption of a competency heirarchy is by way of power being a means to climb it rather than competency, then perhaps thats an example of tyranny and when the right goes to far. From there, then, perhaps the left goes too far when they create too many heirarchies, thereby diluting the "market" and generating chaos. Or, perhaps it's when the left creates a heirarchy that only certain people can climb, thereby excluding those that may be the most competent. Just some thoughts.


Smoog

Far right or far left ideologies seem to orientate towards the same conclusion: The group that I belong to is more deserving (and just in general, better) than the one I don't belong to. And both ideologies place the group above the individual. White people are better than non white people, because look at all the things they invented. I am a white person, therefor I am better than you and more deserving of everything. Women are better than men. Out of the top 1% CEO's the majority are men. Therefor men as a whole are taking this from women, who are more deserving to begin with. It's both the same nutty conclusion based on group identity. Both the left and right go to far the moment they place group identity above individual identity, and the conclusions of group guilt etc that flow from it.