This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
A friend's partner is transgender, which probably made my ears prick up when I saw this. It's hard to think of a better example of privilege than somebody being looked over or assumed to not know things after transitioning,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-41502661/100-women-i-transitioned-and-lo...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-41502661/100-women-i-transitioned-and-lo...
5
13
In reply to Timmd:
$250,000 dollars to break even with a male colleague. Wow! I'd be interested to see how that's calculated (not that I'm implying there's anything wrong with her maths!)
Thanks for the link, it's certainly thought-provoking.
$250,000 dollars to break even with a male colleague. Wow! I'd be interested to see how that's calculated (not that I'm implying there's anything wrong with her maths!)
Thanks for the link, it's certainly thought-provoking.
Post edited at 15:31
3
In reply to Timmd:
Perhaps its nothing to do with her no longer being a female.
Maybe instead people stopped "asking her math questions" because, having just declared herself no longer male, they were skeptical of her judgment?
There's a school of thought that transgenderism is no less a mental disorder than body integrity identity, or a host of other, disorders. Rightly or wrongly, one's colleagues may be wary of the congnitive function of someone in the midst of a serious psychological anomaly.
The rest of her statements can easily be put down to issues other than privilege. In fact, is it even a privilege that men can't be mothers and are instead relegated to being income earners?
Perhaps its nothing to do with her no longer being a female.
Maybe instead people stopped "asking her math questions" because, having just declared herself no longer male, they were skeptical of her judgment?
There's a school of thought that transgenderism is no less a mental disorder than body integrity identity, or a host of other, disorders. Rightly or wrongly, one's colleagues may be wary of the congnitive function of someone in the midst of a serious psychological anomaly.
The rest of her statements can easily be put down to issues other than privilege. In fact, is it even a privilege that men can't be mothers and are instead relegated to being income earners?
33
27
In reply to Trevers:
It would be interesting indeed. Always good to look behind the headline.
It reminds me of a similar report in 2016. A study by Cal Poly and U.North Carolina State analysed Github submissions for gender bias - which they duly found. Of course the study was not yet peer reviewed when the BBC took it up, despite a headline of "Women write better code, study suggests", which itself was subsequently changed after complaints. Turned out the study was, for want of a better phrase, utter carp.
It would be interesting indeed. Always good to look behind the headline.
It reminds me of a similar report in 2016. A study by Cal Poly and U.North Carolina State analysed Github submissions for gender bias - which they duly found. Of course the study was not yet peer reviewed when the BBC took it up, despite a headline of "Women write better code, study suggests", which itself was subsequently changed after complaints. Turned out the study was, for want of a better phrase, utter carp.
3
In reply to David Martin:
I have a friend with PTSD who can tend to block out aspects of her life a little bit, but I still know that she's much better than me at maths, even with her mental health problems. You're assuming that it's the same people she is working with after transitioning, too.
In saying there's 'a school of thought', how much scientific credibility does it have, exactly? There's a school of thought that crystals have medical properties, and that homosexuality can be cured - so without any details, it says nothing at all just to say there's a school of thought.
What would they be, from your perspective? You might want to look up what Bjork has said, on moving from Iceland to other countries, in finding that in Iceland she was given equal merit to men, which contrasted to her experiences in (for example) the UK. Don't forget that being a man in the first place, it's pretty understandable and logical that you won't be so aware of male privilege. Straight people can't know what it is to be gay for example, or women know what it's like to be kicked in the balls.
My uncle has always fulfilled the role traditionally occupied by men, in being a stay at home dad teaching music and art around his children, while his wife worked hard as a head teacher. So that's a straw man if ever there was one, if you're talking about biology.
If you're just talking about tradition roles, then it's a neat example of why it can harm both sexes, if things are unbalanced. In more macho societies than ours, the pressure to 'be the man' and go out and earn and look after one's family, can be pretty bad for men's mental health. Everything is interconnected in a society.
> Perhaps its nothing to do with her no longer being a female.
> Maybe instead people stopped "asking her math questions" because, having just declared herself no longer male, they were skeptical of her judgment?
> There's a school of thought that transgenderism is no less a mental disorder than body integrity identity, or a host of other, disorders. Rightly or wrongly, one's colleagues may be wary of the congnitive function of someone in the midst of a serious psychological anomaly.
I have a friend with PTSD who can tend to block out aspects of her life a little bit, but I still know that she's much better than me at maths, even with her mental health problems. You're assuming that it's the same people she is working with after transitioning, too.
In saying there's 'a school of thought', how much scientific credibility does it have, exactly? There's a school of thought that crystals have medical properties, and that homosexuality can be cured - so without any details, it says nothing at all just to say there's a school of thought.
> The rest of her statements can easily be put down to issues other than privilege.
What would they be, from your perspective? You might want to look up what Bjork has said, on moving from Iceland to other countries, in finding that in Iceland she was given equal merit to men, which contrasted to her experiences in (for example) the UK. Don't forget that being a man in the first place, it's pretty understandable and logical that you won't be so aware of male privilege. Straight people can't know what it is to be gay for example, or women know what it's like to be kicked in the balls.
> In fact, is it even a privilege that men can't be mothers and are instead relegated to being income earners?
My uncle has always fulfilled the role traditionally occupied by men, in being a stay at home dad teaching music and art around his children, while his wife worked hard as a head teacher. So that's a straw man if ever there was one, if you're talking about biology.
If you're just talking about tradition roles, then it's a neat example of why it can harm both sexes, if things are unbalanced. In more macho societies than ours, the pressure to 'be the man' and go out and earn and look after one's family, can be pretty bad for men's mental health. Everything is interconnected in a society.
Post edited at 18:12
23
6
In reply to Timmd:
Couldn't this just be an example of someone looking to reinforce their new status, by finding ways they are now being "looked over or assumed to not know things after transitioning."
Couldn't this just be an example of someone looking to reinforce their new status, by finding ways they are now being "looked over or assumed to not know things after transitioning."
12
4
In reply to Timmd:
I'm not making that assumption. The woman in question is extrapolating observations (her students apparently asked her fewer questions after her transition) to mean something they very likely do not. There could be all sorts of reasons for their changed behavior - that she has transitioned from male to female (and not in the other direction) is one of the less likely ones. Some, feminists included, even question the validity of her female-identity.
Until last year it was a disorder in the DSM-5 and remains as such outside of the US. Just because being trans might be considered a disorder doesn't in any way imply homosexuality should be too - that is a strawman argument if ever I heard one. Unfortunately, it is such a emotive issue, and because "acceptance" is seen as such an important corrective measure to lessen stigma, it is hard to have a rational debate on the issue. In fact, the criterion of "distress and dysfunction" that allowed it to be excluded from the DSM-5 may even be a result of relative stigmatisation - i.e. as stigmatisation reduces, the relative distress from internal factors might rise, with a high likelihood of it returning to the DSM-5. But as I've heard it said by trans people themselves, its not exactly a novel idea.
Considering we label anything from body dysmorphia to trichotillomania to anorexia as psychological disorders, I don't find it a stretch to consider someone feeling their body is wrong (most of us simply do not consider our gender right or wrong) to the point it requires dramatic surgical correction, as suffering a psychological disorder either.
We're supposed to be living in times where mental health issues are accepted. Doing everything possible to pretend transgenderism isn't a mental illness seems odd and may actually be counter-productive.
Its impossible to say with any certainty because I can't find her study detailed anywhere. But the number of ways these sorts of claims can be flawed are surely obvious?
Without any evidence, I refuse to accept these sorts of headlines on face value. Why should I? Similar claims have been exposed as nothing other than clickbaity garbage before and the article itself provides zero detail to tease out the study itself.
GIven they are essentially saying any woman I work with in the same role is likely to be more highly skilled and capable than I am, unless you enjoy being a self-flagellating male, I don't see why it should be accepted without evidence. Reverse the genders in question, make the same claim, and its unlikely such an article would even see the light of day. At the least it would elicit howls of derision. In fact, you may just have a glowing example of "female privilege" right there!
Women likely have no conceptualization of the privilege they carry, one that goes beyond immunity to a kick in the groin. The constant quest for victimhood or externalising differences or perceived inequality is tiresome.
I don't follow your response to my "is it even a privilege that men can't be mothers and are instead relegated to being income earners?"
> I have a friend with PTSD who can tend to block out aspects of her life a little bit, but I still know that she's much better than me at maths, even with her mental health problems. You're assuming that it's the same people she is working with after transitioning, too.
I'm not making that assumption. The woman in question is extrapolating observations (her students apparently asked her fewer questions after her transition) to mean something they very likely do not. There could be all sorts of reasons for their changed behavior - that she has transitioned from male to female (and not in the other direction) is one of the less likely ones. Some, feminists included, even question the validity of her female-identity.
> In saying there's 'a school of thought', how much scientific credibility does it have, exactly? There's a school of thought that crystals have medical properties, and that homosexuality can be cured - so without any details, it says nothing at all just to say there's a school of thought.
Until last year it was a disorder in the DSM-5 and remains as such outside of the US. Just because being trans might be considered a disorder doesn't in any way imply homosexuality should be too - that is a strawman argument if ever I heard one. Unfortunately, it is such a emotive issue, and because "acceptance" is seen as such an important corrective measure to lessen stigma, it is hard to have a rational debate on the issue. In fact, the criterion of "distress and dysfunction" that allowed it to be excluded from the DSM-5 may even be a result of relative stigmatisation - i.e. as stigmatisation reduces, the relative distress from internal factors might rise, with a high likelihood of it returning to the DSM-5. But as I've heard it said by trans people themselves, its not exactly a novel idea.
Considering we label anything from body dysmorphia to trichotillomania to anorexia as psychological disorders, I don't find it a stretch to consider someone feeling their body is wrong (most of us simply do not consider our gender right or wrong) to the point it requires dramatic surgical correction, as suffering a psychological disorder either.
We're supposed to be living in times where mental health issues are accepted. Doing everything possible to pretend transgenderism isn't a mental illness seems odd and may actually be counter-productive.
> What would they be, from your perspective?
Its impossible to say with any certainty because I can't find her study detailed anywhere. But the number of ways these sorts of claims can be flawed are surely obvious?
Without any evidence, I refuse to accept these sorts of headlines on face value. Why should I? Similar claims have been exposed as nothing other than clickbaity garbage before and the article itself provides zero detail to tease out the study itself.
GIven they are essentially saying any woman I work with in the same role is likely to be more highly skilled and capable than I am, unless you enjoy being a self-flagellating male, I don't see why it should be accepted without evidence. Reverse the genders in question, make the same claim, and its unlikely such an article would even see the light of day. At the least it would elicit howls of derision. In fact, you may just have a glowing example of "female privilege" right there!
> Don't forget that being a man in the first place, it's pretty understandable and logical that you won't be so aware of male privilege. Straight people can't know what it is to be gay for example, or women know what it's like to be kicked in the balls.
Women likely have no conceptualization of the privilege they carry, one that goes beyond immunity to a kick in the groin. The constant quest for victimhood or externalising differences or perceived inequality is tiresome.
I don't follow your response to my "is it even a privilege that men can't be mothers and are instead relegated to being income earners?"
Post edited at 03:31
31
11
In reply to David Martin:
It'd be interesting to compare the experiences of a female-to-male transitioner to see if there was a corresponding gain in 'male privilege' - might make more of a case for its existence, or otherwise.
Isn't the point that there's actual, demonstrable inequality? I should think that those who are subjected to it find this equally tiresome
> Women likely have no conceptualization of the privilege they carry, one that goes beyond immunity to a kick in the groin.
It'd be interesting to compare the experiences of a female-to-male transitioner to see if there was a corresponding gain in 'male privilege' - might make more of a case for its existence, or otherwise.
> The constant quest for victimhood or externalising differences or perceived inequality is tiresome.
Isn't the point that there's actual, demonstrable inequality? I should think that those who are subjected to it find this equally tiresome
5
In reply to David Martin:
I think that what we do and don't categorise as mental disorders is a fascinating question. I think the heavily-caveated definition used by DSM is well-meaning and as sensible as one can probably get, but it knowingly leaves a lot of open questions. I can't see that it's any more than a matter of opinion whether it is 'right', i.e. helpful, leads to better outcomes rather than 'wrong', i.e. unhelpful to classify transgenderism as such. I would be open to hear arguments from both sides and come to my own view on which I found to be backed by the most compelling evidence (although I don't have a background in clinical psychology and so my view would be utterly irrelevant anyway).
Given this, if you are going to take a view on whether transgenderism is or isn't a mental disorder, I think you *do* need to be able to answer the question as how homosexuality is different. You can say if you like that homosexuality doesn't cause the same distress, but to try to untangle the cause of distress in either case from "deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual)...conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society" is not trivial. To ask "so why not homosexuality?" is categorically *not* a strawman argument. Tim did not say "you said homosexuality was a mental disorder, therefore you are wrong" (this is the strawman formulation), in fact the opposite, he assumed you *didn't* think this was the case.
I'm not demanding that you answer the question "how is homosexuality different" because you never came down on the side that transgenderism *is* a mental disorder by the way, just pointing out that Tim did not strawman you, he's probing your view in a completely valid manner.
I do understand the argument that once society has shifted from being totally unfair to a minority to being much more fair, as has been the case with homosexuality, that the best path forward is to move on rather than to devote energy to trying to even out differences that can just be accepted as facts of life. If you're part of a minority you do have to accept that society isn't, and never will be, geared up especially for you the way it is geared up for able-bodied white heterosexuals from wealthy backgrounds. Life isn't the same from everyone, and some people are born into extremely priveleged positions while others are born into places where they're basically f*cked from the word go. This is what life is like, and it's not going to change.
The question is, when do you draw the line and say, "you've got your equal rights now, the rest is just your lot, so shut up and deal with it"? It's very fashionable, since the PC-backlash gathered momentum, to give this line without considering whether any given situation is fair, or whether it should be made better. If the discussion has anything to do with the treatment of a minority, the fashionable view seems to be "I don't even want to think about whether there is injustice here, I'll just say 'shut up and stop moaning' because I like this PC-backlash bandwagon". And I find it tiresome.
> Until last year it was a disorder in the DSM-5 and remains as such outside of the US. Just because being trans might be considered a disorder doesn't in any way imply homosexuality should be too - that is a strawman argument if ever I heard one.
I think that what we do and don't categorise as mental disorders is a fascinating question. I think the heavily-caveated definition used by DSM is well-meaning and as sensible as one can probably get, but it knowingly leaves a lot of open questions. I can't see that it's any more than a matter of opinion whether it is 'right', i.e. helpful, leads to better outcomes rather than 'wrong', i.e. unhelpful to classify transgenderism as such. I would be open to hear arguments from both sides and come to my own view on which I found to be backed by the most compelling evidence (although I don't have a background in clinical psychology and so my view would be utterly irrelevant anyway).
Given this, if you are going to take a view on whether transgenderism is or isn't a mental disorder, I think you *do* need to be able to answer the question as how homosexuality is different. You can say if you like that homosexuality doesn't cause the same distress, but to try to untangle the cause of distress in either case from "deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual)...conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society" is not trivial. To ask "so why not homosexuality?" is categorically *not* a strawman argument. Tim did not say "you said homosexuality was a mental disorder, therefore you are wrong" (this is the strawman formulation), in fact the opposite, he assumed you *didn't* think this was the case.
I'm not demanding that you answer the question "how is homosexuality different" because you never came down on the side that transgenderism *is* a mental disorder by the way, just pointing out that Tim did not strawman you, he's probing your view in a completely valid manner.
> The constant quest for victimhood or externalising differences or perceived inequality is tiresome.
I do understand the argument that once society has shifted from being totally unfair to a minority to being much more fair, as has been the case with homosexuality, that the best path forward is to move on rather than to devote energy to trying to even out differences that can just be accepted as facts of life. If you're part of a minority you do have to accept that society isn't, and never will be, geared up especially for you the way it is geared up for able-bodied white heterosexuals from wealthy backgrounds. Life isn't the same from everyone, and some people are born into extremely priveleged positions while others are born into places where they're basically f*cked from the word go. This is what life is like, and it's not going to change.
The question is, when do you draw the line and say, "you've got your equal rights now, the rest is just your lot, so shut up and deal with it"? It's very fashionable, since the PC-backlash gathered momentum, to give this line without considering whether any given situation is fair, or whether it should be made better. If the discussion has anything to do with the treatment of a minority, the fashionable view seems to be "I don't even want to think about whether there is injustice here, I'll just say 'shut up and stop moaning' because I like this PC-backlash bandwagon". And I find it tiresome.
11
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I suppose as a homosexual you can just crack on with it. If you want to change gender you need surgical intervention and drugs. That’s a big difference.
I suppose as a homosexual you can just crack on with it. If you want to change gender you need surgical intervention and drugs. That’s a big difference.
3
1
In reply to Timmd:
I am not suprised her colleagues have some doubts about her understanding of the details. Her "research" is just balls to support her attitude
I am not suprised her colleagues have some doubts about her understanding of the details. Her "research" is just balls to support her attitude
5
1
In reply to pavelk:
Pun intended?
> I am not suprised her colleagues have some doubts about her understanding of the details. Her "research" is just balls to support her attitude
Pun intended?
1
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
I think that's a good point. It's a massive trauma to go through. Is wanting gender reassignment different to anorexia, to the steroid abusing bodybuilders, to the people addicted to plastic surgery? 'Things will be so much better if I get rid of this horrible body?'
> I suppose as a homosexual you can just crack on with it. If you want to change gender you need surgical intervention and drugs. That’s a big difference.
I think that's a good point. It's a massive trauma to go through. Is wanting gender reassignment different to anorexia, to the steroid abusing bodybuilders, to the people addicted to plastic surgery? 'Things will be so much better if I get rid of this horrible body?'
Post edited at 22:23
4
3
In reply to Ridge:
Maybe anorexia and other "I hate my body" mental disorders come and go with treatment, but the psychological gender not matching birth sex generally stays stable over a lifetime? This wouldn't necessarily make it *not* a mental disorder, but it may be a significant difference.
Maybe anorexia and other "I hate my body" mental disorders come and go with treatment, but the psychological gender not matching birth sex generally stays stable over a lifetime? This wouldn't necessarily make it *not* a mental disorder, but it may be a significant difference.
2
9
In reply to Timmd: Sorry to pull you up on this but for some reason I feel compelled to mention it after this post.... you always seem to reference "friends" in your posts that are labelled by you either by nationality, damaged by a terrible event, or persecuted due them being "different" to make your points . Some examples below
"I have a friend with PTSD who can tend to block out aspects of her life a little bit.."
"A friend's partner is transgender, which probably made my ears prick up when I saw this"
"I knew a boy (now a young man) who was sexually abused as a kid." (from Ted Heath thread)
and it reminded me of two of my favourite posts ever about your bisexual (and) Turkish friend (same person?) ....
"My bisexual friend was very funny over the weekend, recounting sitting playing poker in the casino we were eating in, and having a 'blonde bond girl' sitting next to her, whom she'd snog every so often to distract the men she was playing against."
"A bisexual friend on Saturday was going through a tough time in a related way. Being Turkish, she was raped there 5 years ago by her husband"
Anyway, not important. Just an observation. If you mention this to any of your friends tonight, you can describe me as a farmer who accepted a wife who was pregnant by another man and destroyed my family in the search for financial independence, oh... and being Icelandic , am obsessed with sheep
"I have a friend with PTSD who can tend to block out aspects of her life a little bit.."
"A friend's partner is transgender, which probably made my ears prick up when I saw this"
"I knew a boy (now a young man) who was sexually abused as a kid." (from Ted Heath thread)
and it reminded me of two of my favourite posts ever about your bisexual (and) Turkish friend (same person?) ....
"My bisexual friend was very funny over the weekend, recounting sitting playing poker in the casino we were eating in, and having a 'blonde bond girl' sitting next to her, whom she'd snog every so often to distract the men she was playing against."
"A bisexual friend on Saturday was going through a tough time in a related way. Being Turkish, she was raped there 5 years ago by her husband"
Anyway, not important. Just an observation. If you mention this to any of your friends tonight, you can describe me as a farmer who accepted a wife who was pregnant by another man and destroyed my family in the search for financial independence, oh... and being Icelandic , am obsessed with sheep
24
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Just reading about you just now... quite a life you’ve led- that episode with the reindeer would have finished off a lesser man...!
Just reading about you just now... quite a life you’ve led- that episode with the reindeer would have finished off a lesser man...!
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
You need to get in touch with Film4 right away.
(Please PM details of my finders fee).
You need to get in touch with Film4 right away.
(Please PM details of my finders fee).
Post edited at 18:26
1
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Indeed I have! and I highly recommend reading about me, (persistence is rewarded as the prose takes a while to adjust to from the translation), and as a Scot (?) you should resonate with the harshness of a crofters bleak existence on a wind and rain swept rocky outpost in the North Atlantic.... i'm sure that's just like home
Indeed I have! and I highly recommend reading about me, (persistence is rewarded as the prose takes a while to adjust to from the translation), and as a Scot (?) you should resonate with the harshness of a crofters bleak existence on a wind and rain swept rocky outpost in the North Atlantic.... i'm sure that's just like home
3
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Just googled ‘you’ and now I feel even more stupid than usual.
However, it is something of a testament to ukc that such a character fits right in with assorted other oddballs and reprobates on here.
Just googled ‘you’ and now I feel even more stupid than usual.
However, it is something of a testament to ukc that such a character fits right in with assorted other oddballs and reprobates on here.
2
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
For reasons that I cannot explain I've always thought of you as South Indian or possibly Sri Lankan, and that will not change......
For reasons that I cannot explain I've always thought of you as South Indian or possibly Sri Lankan, and that will not change......
5
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Home is the moors of West Yorkshire these days- so it certainly does resonate!
> ... bleak existence on a wind and rain swept rocky outpost in the North Atlantic.... i'm sure that's just like home
Home is the moors of West Yorkshire these days- so it certainly does resonate!
1
In reply to Stichtplate:
I did the same, and ended up buying the book...
That’s what I love about ukc- where else can you get brilliant book recommendations just from people’s user names!
> Just googled ‘you’ and now I feel even more stupid than usual.
> However, it is something of a testament to ukc that such a character fits right in with assorted other oddballs and reprobates on here.
>
I did the same, and ended up buying the book...
That’s what I love about ukc- where else can you get brilliant book recommendations just from people’s user names!
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
That doesn't explain why there are so many gay Tory MPs, or why like the person in the OP, people can appear to be part of minorities and still be very successful.
> If you're part of a minority you do have to accept that society isn't, and never will be, geared up especially for you the way it is geared up for able-bodied white heterosexuals from wealthy backgrounds.
That doesn't explain why there are so many gay Tory MPs, or why like the person in the OP, people can appear to be part of minorities and still be very successful.
1
In reply to winhill:
Oh come on, do I really have to explain this?
I didn't imply that you can't be successful if you're part of a minority, I said that society isn't geared up in your favour. Their homosexuality hasn't stopped those MPs being elected - but it would stop them being PM. Being gay isn't much of a problem in the modern Tory party (this is a recent change), but there are lots of environment where it would be a problem (I would think for example in a lot of the army, being gay is going to harm your chances of success). This isn't to say that life is terrible for all gay people and that they are doomed to be trodden to the bottom of society, since is this is patently false. They just face a particular set of issues peculiar to belonging to that minority which don't apply to straight people. For other minorities, particularly disability, the issues are different.
My point is that you have to level the playing field to a reasonable degree, not completely. If you're a wheelchair user for example, society isn't going to be set up for you since almost everyone can walk. You can expect reasonable adjustments in most important circs, but you have to live with the fact that life is going to be more difficult. To pretend that if you're born into a wealthy family, are able bodied (and to a much lesser degree now thanks to the fight for equal rights) white and heterosexual then you've not got a hugely easy ride is just stupid, because it's so obviously the case.
Oh come on, do I really have to explain this?
I didn't imply that you can't be successful if you're part of a minority, I said that society isn't geared up in your favour. Their homosexuality hasn't stopped those MPs being elected - but it would stop them being PM. Being gay isn't much of a problem in the modern Tory party (this is a recent change), but there are lots of environment where it would be a problem (I would think for example in a lot of the army, being gay is going to harm your chances of success). This isn't to say that life is terrible for all gay people and that they are doomed to be trodden to the bottom of society, since is this is patently false. They just face a particular set of issues peculiar to belonging to that minority which don't apply to straight people. For other minorities, particularly disability, the issues are different.
My point is that you have to level the playing field to a reasonable degree, not completely. If you're a wheelchair user for example, society isn't going to be set up for you since almost everyone can walk. You can expect reasonable adjustments in most important circs, but you have to live with the fact that life is going to be more difficult. To pretend that if you're born into a wealthy family, are able bodied (and to a much lesser degree now thanks to the fight for equal rights) white and heterosexual then you've not got a hugely easy ride is just stupid, because it's so obviously the case.
8
1
In reply to Timmd:
Just cut off your nuts and get on it. Why does every media celebrated transgender person these days have to be steeped in victimhood? Plenty of examples in the not too distant past who are heroic and successful - heroes of mine. Bravery. Theres a transgender woman who has been turning up at the local chippy for thirty years on a friday night, in deepest darkest Lancashire, no one in there ever seems to give a f*ck. Maybe its a working class thing?
D
Just cut off your nuts and get on it. Why does every media celebrated transgender person these days have to be steeped in victimhood? Plenty of examples in the not too distant past who are heroic and successful - heroes of mine. Bravery. Theres a transgender woman who has been turning up at the local chippy for thirty years on a friday night, in deepest darkest Lancashire, no one in there ever seems to give a f*ck. Maybe its a working class thing?
D
15
1
1
In reply to Dauphin:
Fortunately there are some in the media who aren't selling the victimhood rhetoric...and on the receiving end of a lot of hatred as a result.
https://youtu.be/1bjMsnplID4?t=1m26s
> Why does every media celebrated transgender person these days have to be steeped in victimhood?
Fortunately there are some in the media who aren't selling the victimhood rhetoric...and on the receiving end of a lot of hatred as a result.
https://youtu.be/1bjMsnplID4?t=1m26s
1
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
That's awesome! In my experience recommending IP is a risky business. I really hope you enjoy it and are not disappointed. A couple of points ; if your copy has an introduction , I would advise avoiding it as it inexplicably contains large spoilers. Also, I found it a tough start (I knew nothing about it, just picked it up in a Reykjavik bookstore on the first day of a holiday), but persevere as it soon settles and is good acclimatization for the rich text that follows.
> I did the same, and ended up buying the book...
That's awesome! In my experience recommending IP is a risky business. I really hope you enjoy it and are not disappointed. A couple of points ; if your copy has an introduction , I would advise avoiding it as it inexplicably contains large spoilers. Also, I found it a tough start (I knew nothing about it, just picked it up in a Reykjavik bookstore on the first day of a holiday), but persevere as it soon settles and is good acclimatization for the rich text that follows.
1
In reply to Dauphin:
Thinking about it briefly - probably lots to do with feminist gendered discourse being so prevalent - women are victims, it's the basis of the their social currency these days - makes sense for for transgender women to exaggerate their victim status in order to join the sisterhood.
Not dismissing real abuse and phobia of trans persons, but the above 'priveledge discourse: drivel in the O.P.
D
Thinking about it briefly - probably lots to do with feminist gendered discourse being so prevalent - women are victims, it's the basis of the their social currency these days - makes sense for for transgender women to exaggerate their victim status in order to join the sisterhood.
Not dismissing real abuse and phobia of trans persons, but the above 'priveledge discourse: drivel in the O.P.
D
4
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
I’m about 200 pages in- it’s a funny one, a bit of an effort to get back into it after a few days, but once I start it’s such a vividly realised world l don’t want to put it down.
Never in the field of human literature have discussions about parasitic infections in sheep been so entertaining!
I’m about 200 pages in- it’s a funny one, a bit of an effort to get back into it after a few days, but once I start it’s such a vividly realised world l don’t want to put it down.
Never in the field of human literature have discussions about parasitic infections in sheep been so entertaining!
1
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Crikey, good work! I assumed you had bought it yesterday. Glad you're enjoying it.
Crikey, good work! I assumed you had bought it yesterday. Glad you're enjoying it.
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Yes, obviously people who fit this description never have any problems and drift through life on a cloud of unfettered bliss. They're never mocked for their physical appearance or dress sense, never have parents who make their life hell, never suffer spousal abuse, never experience workplace harassment, and never have to worry about paying the mortgage. Let's kill them - they're just parasites anyway - and divide up the cash between us.
> To pretend that if you're born into a wealthy family, are able bodied (and to a much lesser degree now thanks to the fight for equal rights) white and heterosexual then you've not got a hugely easy ride is just stupid, because it's so obviously the case.
Yes, obviously people who fit this description never have any problems and drift through life on a cloud of unfettered bliss. They're never mocked for their physical appearance or dress sense, never have parents who make their life hell, never suffer spousal abuse, never experience workplace harassment, and never have to worry about paying the mortgage. Let's kill them - they're just parasites anyway - and divide up the cash between us.
6
1
5
1
In reply to Thrudge:
Oh for god's sake.
When will people grasp the idea of statistics?
Obviously within any group there's huge variation.
I don't normally take this view, but I am starting to think that the school system has indeed failed.
Oh for god's sake.
When will people grasp the idea of statistics?
Obviously within any group there's huge variation.
I don't normally take this view, but I am starting to think that the school system has indeed failed.
4
2
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
I was responding to the idea that the people Mr Stewart described have "got a hugely easy ride". Some of them may well have, but I doubt it's many of them. My point, which I admittedly didn't really spell out, is that just being human is damned hard work. We've all got multiple problems, often quite big ones, and the totally unaffected are more of a concept than a reality. Rich, white and straight does not equal an awesome life.
What I'm opposing is the common idea (which I don't necessarily ascribe to Mr Stewart) of the politics of oppression, whereby everyone is either an oppressor or oppressed. It's divisive, anti-humanistic, and demonstrably false.
I was responding to the idea that the people Mr Stewart described have "got a hugely easy ride". Some of them may well have, but I doubt it's many of them. My point, which I admittedly didn't really spell out, is that just being human is damned hard work. We've all got multiple problems, often quite big ones, and the totally unaffected are more of a concept than a reality. Rich, white and straight does not equal an awesome life.
What I'm opposing is the common idea (which I don't necessarily ascribe to Mr Stewart) of the politics of oppression, whereby everyone is either an oppressor or oppressed. It's divisive, anti-humanistic, and demonstrably false.
11
1
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Bought it back in the summer- finding time to read anything is hard work so it’s getting done in ‘bursts’ during holidays/long train journeys- half term coming up should make some real progress then....
Bought it back in the summer- finding time to read anything is hard work so it’s getting done in ‘bursts’ during holidays/long train journeys- half term coming up should make some real progress then....
1
1
In reply to Dauphin:
Do a YouTube search for "Blair White and Dave rubin" - same link.
Do a YouTube search for "Blair White and Dave rubin" - same link.
Post edited at 11:36
1
In reply to Thrudge:
Is the "politics of oppression" always demonstrably false? Is is valid for gays in Uganda to feel oppressed? Or is this backlash against minorities for their awful screeching about their victiomhood so widely hated these days only applicable in the West? And all of the West? If I'm from a conservative Muslim family in Rochdale and get kicked out of home for being gay, get beaten up by my peers and my life goes utterly down then pan, is my bitterness and feeling of oppression still divisive and false? What if I'm white and the same thing happens?
I don't think these calls for people in minorities to "stop playing the victim" have any value. OK, if you hear someone who you think hasn't actually had a rough time moaning about nothing, challenge them and get them to justify their perceived victimhood.
But nobodies on the internet saying to all trans people, etc, "shut up moaning, you're full of shit" is nothing but abysmal arrogance.
> What I'm opposing is the common idea (which I don't necessarily ascribe to Mr Stewart) of the politics of oppression, whereby everyone is either an oppressor or oppressed. It's divisive, anti-humanistic, and demonstrably false.
Is the "politics of oppression" always demonstrably false? Is is valid for gays in Uganda to feel oppressed? Or is this backlash against minorities for their awful screeching about their victiomhood so widely hated these days only applicable in the West? And all of the West? If I'm from a conservative Muslim family in Rochdale and get kicked out of home for being gay, get beaten up by my peers and my life goes utterly down then pan, is my bitterness and feeling of oppression still divisive and false? What if I'm white and the same thing happens?
I don't think these calls for people in minorities to "stop playing the victim" have any value. OK, if you hear someone who you think hasn't actually had a rough time moaning about nothing, challenge them and get them to justify their perceived victimhood.
But nobodies on the internet saying to all trans people, etc, "shut up moaning, you're full of shit" is nothing but abysmal arrogance.
4
3
In reply to David Martin:
F*cks sake, I'm not sure I can bring myself to watch that. Given how much I despise that insipid wanker Dave Rubin, and having only heard of Blair White as "the trans girl wheeled out by Alex Jones to justify his bigotry" I don't think I'm going to feel a whole lotta love.
F*cks sake, I'm not sure I can bring myself to watch that. Given how much I despise that insipid wanker Dave Rubin, and having only heard of Blair White as "the trans girl wheeled out by Alex Jones to justify his bigotry" I don't think I'm going to feel a whole lotta love.
3
In reply to David Martin:
I just watched a couple of Blair White videos and I didn't disagree with her too much actually! Not sure I could watch DR sycophantically agree with everything she says however, it just makes me feel ill when I watch him interview anyone.
I just watched a couple of Blair White videos and I didn't disagree with her too much actually! Not sure I could watch DR sycophantically agree with everything she says however, it just makes me feel ill when I watch him interview anyone.
Post edited at 13:02
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
>Is the "politics of oppression" always demonstrably false?
It depends what you mean by that phrase. (It would clearly be foolish to argue that oppression based on innate characteristics does not exist - your example of gays in Uganda is a good one).
What I mean by the phrase, is a political view which divides everyone into one of two camps: the oppressors and the oppressed. This is what I'm saying is demonstrably false. It's important to note the corollary of this view, which is that anyone who's been designated an 'oppressor' is automatically evil and wrong in every way on every conceivable topic; and 'the oppressed' are the pinnacle of human virtue, the blameless angels who can not only do no wrong but whom it is the height of evil to question or doubt.
I'm also arguing three other things:
1) That being a member of a minority does not automatically make you a 'victim' of anything unless you're in clearly extreme general circumstances, such as the Ugandans you mentioned, or specific circumstances like your hypothetical example.
2) That the west is not the rabid right-wing hellhole of oppression that the SJW and associated leftist movements pretend it is.
3) That automatically labeling someone as a victim based on their being a minority is disabling for them, not to mention an assault on their dignity and worth. This labeling is at the core of identity politics.
>Is the "politics of oppression" always demonstrably false?
It depends what you mean by that phrase. (It would clearly be foolish to argue that oppression based on innate characteristics does not exist - your example of gays in Uganda is a good one).
What I mean by the phrase, is a political view which divides everyone into one of two camps: the oppressors and the oppressed. This is what I'm saying is demonstrably false. It's important to note the corollary of this view, which is that anyone who's been designated an 'oppressor' is automatically evil and wrong in every way on every conceivable topic; and 'the oppressed' are the pinnacle of human virtue, the blameless angels who can not only do no wrong but whom it is the height of evil to question or doubt.
I'm also arguing three other things:
1) That being a member of a minority does not automatically make you a 'victim' of anything unless you're in clearly extreme general circumstances, such as the Ugandans you mentioned, or specific circumstances like your hypothetical example.
2) That the west is not the rabid right-wing hellhole of oppression that the SJW and associated leftist movements pretend it is.
3) That automatically labeling someone as a victim based on their being a minority is disabling for them, not to mention an assault on their dignity and worth. This labeling is at the core of identity politics.
5
I just stumbled across this, Sam Harris on further problems with identity politics and how it clouds thinking:
youtube.com/watch?v=KPRhJeFNico&
youtube.com/watch?v=KPRhJeFNico&
1
In reply to Thrudge:
I mean, are there minorities whose claims to being oppressed are valid?
Can you show me an example of someone arguing this?
Back to the basic point about statistics. Being a member of a minority that is badly treated *in general* makes it *likely* that you have received bad treatment. For example, I grew up as a gay kid in the 90s. It is likely that I suffered some degree of psychological harm from growing up in a society that hated gays. As it happens, I did, but it is also possible that I could have been lucky and avoided it. Does that makes me a 'victim'? That's one word with a negative connotation you could use if you want. But the fact is, I suffered harm because society treated me unfairly because I belong to that minority. That's a neutral, factual way to put it. Is it helpful or interesting for me to go on about that all the time now, 25 years later? That's a different question to which the answer IMO is not really, but there you go. That doesn't mean that I haven't suffered harm because of unfair treatment.
And?
So you say. Can you give an example where labelling someone a victim has done harm? I'm not arguing in favour of excessive shows of victimhood here, I'm trying to guard against what I see as a fashionable backlash which involves nobodies on the internet saying to all trans people, etc, "shut up moaning, you're full of shit". I'm not quite clear on how what you're saying is different.
I was actually going to post the Sam Harris link here myself, because he explains with clarity *how* identity politics, sensibly defined, is flawed. It is the idea that *because you belong to a minority* your view has more validity - and I agree that that is wrong. But what is the example of identity politics which conforms to this structure that you are arguing against?
Do you think I am arguing in favour of flawed identity politics?
It seems to me that rather than the Sam Harris definition, "identity politics" is used commonly to mean "stuff about minorities" and sensible arguments are then hijacked to justify instead "anything in support of these minorities is bollocks" or "I hate the screeching victimhood of minorities". It isn't Sam Harris' view that I take issue with, it's the latter.
> It depends what you mean by that phrase.
I mean, are there minorities whose claims to being oppressed are valid?
> What I mean by the phrase, is a political view which divides everyone into one of two camps: the oppressors and the oppressed. This is what I'm saying is demonstrably false. It's important to note the corollary of this view, which is that anyone who's been designated an 'oppressor' is automatically evil and wrong in every way on every conceivable topic; and 'the oppressed' are the pinnacle of human virtue, the blameless angels who can not only do no wrong but whom it is the height of evil to question or doubt.
Can you show me an example of someone arguing this?
> I'm also arguing three other things:
> 1) That being a member of a minority does not automatically make you a 'victim' of anything unless you're in clearly extreme general circumstances, such as the Ugandans you mentioned, or specific circumstances like your hypothetical example.
Back to the basic point about statistics. Being a member of a minority that is badly treated *in general* makes it *likely* that you have received bad treatment. For example, I grew up as a gay kid in the 90s. It is likely that I suffered some degree of psychological harm from growing up in a society that hated gays. As it happens, I did, but it is also possible that I could have been lucky and avoided it. Does that makes me a 'victim'? That's one word with a negative connotation you could use if you want. But the fact is, I suffered harm because society treated me unfairly because I belong to that minority. That's a neutral, factual way to put it. Is it helpful or interesting for me to go on about that all the time now, 25 years later? That's a different question to which the answer IMO is not really, but there you go. That doesn't mean that I haven't suffered harm because of unfair treatment.
> 2) That the west is not the rabid right-wing hellhole of oppression that the SJW and associated leftist movements pretend it is.
And?
> 3) That automatically labeling someone as a victim based on their being a minority is disabling for them, not to mention an assault on their dignity and worth. This labeling is at the core of identity politics.
So you say. Can you give an example where labelling someone a victim has done harm? I'm not arguing in favour of excessive shows of victimhood here, I'm trying to guard against what I see as a fashionable backlash which involves nobodies on the internet saying to all trans people, etc, "shut up moaning, you're full of shit". I'm not quite clear on how what you're saying is different.
I was actually going to post the Sam Harris link here myself, because he explains with clarity *how* identity politics, sensibly defined, is flawed. It is the idea that *because you belong to a minority* your view has more validity - and I agree that that is wrong. But what is the example of identity politics which conforms to this structure that you are arguing against?
Do you think I am arguing in favour of flawed identity politics?
It seems to me that rather than the Sam Harris definition, "identity politics" is used commonly to mean "stuff about minorities" and sensible arguments are then hijacked to justify instead "anything in support of these minorities is bollocks" or "I hate the screeching victimhood of minorities". It isn't Sam Harris' view that I take issue with, it's the latter.
Post edited at 14:36
5
1
In reply to Thrudge:
The issue being that the "SJW" movement doesn't exist as any kind of a meaningful force outside of some American colleges which have collectively lost their minds. Unfortunately, this provides an ideal strawman to kick whenever anyone wants to talk in sensible terms about any inequality that exists in Western society. No one I can readily think of on this forum has attempted to shut down debate in the way that is characterised of "SJWs" and yet their existence seems to be used as a counter-factual whenever social equality is discussed here. Argue with the people here, not the idiots over there.
The issue being that the "SJW" movement doesn't exist as any kind of a meaningful force outside of some American colleges which have collectively lost their minds. Unfortunately, this provides an ideal strawman to kick whenever anyone wants to talk in sensible terms about any inequality that exists in Western society. No one I can readily think of on this forum has attempted to shut down debate in the way that is characterised of "SJWs" and yet their existence seems to be used as a counter-factual whenever social equality is discussed here. Argue with the people here, not the idiots over there.
4
3
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Sure. Just off the top of my head, there's Christians in Egypt, gays in Saudi Arabia, and atheists in Afghanistan. In the west, I'd need to think longer and harder.
In general, yes. Have a look on Youtube for "You're a f**king white male" and associated videos. On this thread, no.
Everybody has received bad treatment. It's part of life.
And I find it disturbing that this movement, having seeped out of American campuses and onto the streets, is now seeping into UK universities and streets.
No, because the question misunderstands 'harm' as I described it. I was referring to the way in which such *automatic* labeling denigrates both the person being labelled and the entire group to which they supposedly belong. They're black, therefore they're a victim, they're trans therefore they're a victim. It's pigeon-holing and it's inaccurate.
Again, it's worth pointing out that I'm discussing a general political situation and not trying to ascribe these views to you.
That is indeed silly and unjustified, although I think the backlash is a result of the radical left/cultural Marxists/SJWs drastically overplaying their hand.
Three examples would be the Black Lives Matter movement, the By Any Means Necessary movement, and Antifa.
No, I'm saying that individuals are more important and massively more variable than their supposed group membership would suggest.
I agree. The only thing I would add is that when I use the term 'identity politics' I'm not using it as a synonym for 'minorities'.
> I mean, are there minorities whose claims to being oppressed are valid?
Sure. Just off the top of my head, there's Christians in Egypt, gays in Saudi Arabia, and atheists in Afghanistan. In the west, I'd need to think longer and harder.
> Can you show me an example of someone arguing this?
In general, yes. Have a look on Youtube for "You're a f**king white male" and associated videos. On this thread, no.
> Being a member of a minority that is badly treated *in general* makes it *likely* that you have received bad treatment.
Everybody has received bad treatment. It's part of life.
> And?
And I find it disturbing that this movement, having seeped out of American campuses and onto the streets, is now seeping into UK universities and streets.
> So you say. Can you give an example where labelling someone a victim has done harm?
No, because the question misunderstands 'harm' as I described it. I was referring to the way in which such *automatic* labeling denigrates both the person being labelled and the entire group to which they supposedly belong. They're black, therefore they're a victim, they're trans therefore they're a victim. It's pigeon-holing and it's inaccurate.
Again, it's worth pointing out that I'm discussing a general political situation and not trying to ascribe these views to you.
> saying to all trans people, etc, "shut up moaning, you're full of shit".
That is indeed silly and unjustified, although I think the backlash is a result of the radical left/cultural Marxists/SJWs drastically overplaying their hand.
> But what is the example of identity politics which conforms to this structure that you are arguing against?
Three examples would be the Black Lives Matter movement, the By Any Means Necessary movement, and Antifa.
> Do you think I am arguing in favour of flawed identity politics?
No, I'm saying that individuals are more important and massively more variable than their supposed group membership would suggest.
> It seems to me that rather than the Sam Harris definition, "identity politics" is used commonly to mean "stuff about minorities" and sensible arguments are then hijacked to justify instead "anything in support of these minorities is bollocks" or "I hate the screeching victimhood of minorities". It isn't Sam Harris' view that I take issue with, it's the latter.
I agree. The only thing I would add is that when I use the term 'identity politics' I'm not using it as a synonym for 'minorities'.
2
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I hope that rings a few alarm bells. Essentially writing someone off on account of them appearing in right-of-centre media.
This is part of the left-right debate we've been having. It's a repeated claim from people like her that they're only welcome for interviews on the right - the left-wing media considers them untouchable, for the crime of having views which range across the political spectrum and being outspoken about them.
You shouldn't have to agree with everything she has to say. She's entirely middle of the road with her outlier views tending only somewhat conservative or liberal. Hardly contentious as a personality, or in her delivery, and both thoughtful and accepting.
The fact that she is the "enemy of the left" should illustrate you don't need SJW extremes to shut down debate. The mainstream's casting aside of the non-doctrinal is sufficient to create a back-patting, horrified at the outside-world, echo-chamber.
I suggest listening to the Rubin episode. So what if he doesn't go for the jugular? He spends 90 minutes encouraging guests to speak freely. As with Louis Theroux, that's ample time to cut enough rope to hang yourself. And avoiding the confrontational, Paxman-esque approach, that just has everyone battening down the hatches, repeated safe rehearsed lines, is refreshing. Besides, good luck finding the people Rubin interviews being interviewed anywhere further left-of-centre...Damore himself complained that he offered himself up for interviews outside of the right-wing channels. They weren't interested.
I hope that rings a few alarm bells. Essentially writing someone off on account of them appearing in right-of-centre media.
This is part of the left-right debate we've been having. It's a repeated claim from people like her that they're only welcome for interviews on the right - the left-wing media considers them untouchable, for the crime of having views which range across the political spectrum and being outspoken about them.
You shouldn't have to agree with everything she has to say. She's entirely middle of the road with her outlier views tending only somewhat conservative or liberal. Hardly contentious as a personality, or in her delivery, and both thoughtful and accepting.
The fact that she is the "enemy of the left" should illustrate you don't need SJW extremes to shut down debate. The mainstream's casting aside of the non-doctrinal is sufficient to create a back-patting, horrified at the outside-world, echo-chamber.
I suggest listening to the Rubin episode. So what if he doesn't go for the jugular? He spends 90 minutes encouraging guests to speak freely. As with Louis Theroux, that's ample time to cut enough rope to hang yourself. And avoiding the confrontational, Paxman-esque approach, that just has everyone battening down the hatches, repeated safe rehearsed lines, is refreshing. Besides, good luck finding the people Rubin interviews being interviewed anywhere further left-of-centre...Damore himself complained that he offered himself up for interviews outside of the right-wing channels. They weren't interested.
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
One of my favourite books, by one of my favourite authors
> Anyway, not important. Just an observation. If you mention this to any of your friends tonight, you can describe me as a farmer who accepted a wife who was pregnant by another man and destroyed my family in the search for financial independence, oh... and being Icelandic , am obsessed with sheep
One of my favourite books, by one of my favourite authors
1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Much of the problem, if that's what it is, is that the supposed sense of grievance and victimhood held by certain minorites is often not a cause pursued by them but by oh so politically correct self apponted spokespeople purporting to pursue their causes on their behalf. Just open the pages of the Guardian/Independent these days and read the endless confected indignation penned by sixth formers (sorry- insult to schoolkids) which demean the very concept of a so called quality press. This I think is what people are fed up with rather than issues surrounding genuine discrimination.
Much of the problem, if that's what it is, is that the supposed sense of grievance and victimhood held by certain minorites is often not a cause pursued by them but by oh so politically correct self apponted spokespeople purporting to pursue their causes on their behalf. Just open the pages of the Guardian/Independent these days and read the endless confected indignation penned by sixth formers (sorry- insult to schoolkids) which demean the very concept of a so called quality press. This I think is what people are fed up with rather than issues surrounding genuine discrimination.
5
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
The SJW movement doesn't have to be large. When you encounter them, if you are smart you stop talking. If you are dumb, and don't you become a Nazi, an extremist, so on and so forth.
The bigger problem is that they are in step with the mainstream. It's like the 1950s, where mainstream right-wing opinion could be openly racist (without even realising it) while claiming (correctly) they weren't white supremicists. At least they now know better.
You have no idea the degree to which people moderate their speech on a daily basis, on here or elsewhere, for fear of the reaction.
I can assure you from personal experience, the exact same SJW-ism is alive and thriving on UK campuses. I saw it every week for the better part of 12 years. There's just few outlets to carry it as news, and I can assure you the left-wing channels (from outright communist rags and student papers, to the Guardian and the Indy) utterly under-report or mis-report what is going on on campuses - its as if their journalists are the students themselves.
The SJW movement doesn't have to be large. When you encounter them, if you are smart you stop talking. If you are dumb, and don't you become a Nazi, an extremist, so on and so forth.
The bigger problem is that they are in step with the mainstream. It's like the 1950s, where mainstream right-wing opinion could be openly racist (without even realising it) while claiming (correctly) they weren't white supremicists. At least they now know better.
You have no idea the degree to which people moderate their speech on a daily basis, on here or elsewhere, for fear of the reaction.
I can assure you from personal experience, the exact same SJW-ism is alive and thriving on UK campuses. I saw it every week for the better part of 12 years. There's just few outlets to carry it as news, and I can assure you the left-wing channels (from outright communist rags and student papers, to the Guardian and the Indy) utterly under-report or mis-report what is going on on campuses - its as if their journalists are the students themselves.
1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
I wish you were right about this, but I'm afraid the situation is rather worse than that. It's not just colleges, it's major universities. And the problem is not physically confined to campuses or demographically confined to students. There's been a substantial over spill into the streets in the form of violent mass protests and even riots (for example in Berkley and Portland). SJW/Antifa mobs turn out en masse, punching and kicking anyone they deem to be 'Nazis' (in practice this includes anyone who disagrees with them on any point). They destroy shop fronts, block roads, and commit arson.
Nor me, although I'm uncomfortable with Mr Stewart's ad hominem against Dave Rubin. It's a tactic that's common in identity politics - "I'll smear your character and, hey presto, I've dealt with your arguments". I'm not a fan of Mr Rubin's, I'm rather indifferent to him, but it wouldn't matter whether I adored or despised him - on any given topic, he's either got a good point or he hasn't, and my feelings about him are worthless.
Two points here. Firstly, I am arguing with people here - mostly Mr Stewart, so far, although there are areas where he and I agree. Secondly, the idiots are not just over there. They're gaining momentum here, too.
Rewriting history, no platforming speakers, and banning sombreros:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01/18/free-speech-university-rankings-...
Attempting to silence the notorious fascist Peter Tatchell (hang on a minute...):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/12158352/The-intol...
And trying to shut down a gift shop for selling British-themed souvenir shop:
youtube.com/watch?v=MdXhb4qU8co&
> The issue being that the "SJW" movement doesn't exist as any kind of a meaningful force outside of some American colleges
I wish you were right about this, but I'm afraid the situation is rather worse than that. It's not just colleges, it's major universities. And the problem is not physically confined to campuses or demographically confined to students. There's been a substantial over spill into the streets in the form of violent mass protests and even riots (for example in Berkley and Portland). SJW/Antifa mobs turn out en masse, punching and kicking anyone they deem to be 'Nazis' (in practice this includes anyone who disagrees with them on any point). They destroy shop fronts, block roads, and commit arson.
> No one I can readily think of on this forum has attempted to shut down debate in the way that is characterised of "SJWs"
Nor me, although I'm uncomfortable with Mr Stewart's ad hominem against Dave Rubin. It's a tactic that's common in identity politics - "I'll smear your character and, hey presto, I've dealt with your arguments". I'm not a fan of Mr Rubin's, I'm rather indifferent to him, but it wouldn't matter whether I adored or despised him - on any given topic, he's either got a good point or he hasn't, and my feelings about him are worthless.
> Argue with the people here, not the idiots over there.
Two points here. Firstly, I am arguing with people here - mostly Mr Stewart, so far, although there are areas where he and I agree. Secondly, the idiots are not just over there. They're gaining momentum here, too.
Rewriting history, no platforming speakers, and banning sombreros:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01/18/free-speech-university-rankings-...
Attempting to silence the notorious fascist Peter Tatchell (hang on a minute...):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/12158352/The-intol...
And trying to shut down a gift shop for selling British-themed souvenir shop:
youtube.com/watch?v=MdXhb4qU8co&
3
In reply to Siward:
Agreed on all points, nicely put.
Agreed on all points, nicely put.
1
In reply to Siward:
I agree. And those shrill and ever more extreme voices are used to generate clicks on both sides of the political spectrum. Do we accept Katie Hopkins and Jan Moir as the spokespeople of all social conservatives?
I agree. And those shrill and ever more extreme voices are used to generate clicks on both sides of the political spectrum. Do we accept Katie Hopkins and Jan Moir as the spokespeople of all social conservatives?
1
In reply to Thrudge:
I don't deem you to be a Nazi, but I do think that actual Nazis would appreciate the sterling work that you're doing on their behalf here.
> SJW/Antifa mobs turn out en masse, punching and kicking anyone they deem to be 'Nazis' (in practice this includes anyone who disagrees with them on any point). They destroy shop fronts, block roads, and commit arson.
I don't deem you to be a Nazi, but I do think that actual Nazis would appreciate the sterling work that you're doing on their behalf here.
1
7
In reply to Thrudge:
There are, of course, complexed and nuanced arguments to be had on either side around celebration of colonialism, no-platforming of extremists, and cultural appropriation.
But of course as a champion of intellectual freedom you'd rather just dismiss them all as idiocy.
> . Secondly, the idiots are not just over there. They're gaining momentum here, too.
> Rewriting history, no platforming speakers, and banning sombreros:
There are, of course, complexed and nuanced arguments to be had on either side around celebration of colonialism, no-platforming of extremists, and cultural appropriation.
But of course as a champion of intellectual freedom you'd rather just dismiss them all as idiocy.
1
6
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Hum. I wouldn't say that because you belong to a minority your view has more validity in general. I would say that because you belong to a minority your experience of what it's like to belong to that minority has more validity than someone who doesn't belong to that minority and is telling you that, for instance, growing up gay in the 90s was absolutely fine, that anything that you might think you've experienced was just a bit of joshing and that you should get over yourself.
> I was actually going to post the Sam Harris link here myself, because he explains with clarity *how* identity politics, sensibly defined, is flawed. It is the idea that *because you belong to a minority* your view has more validity - and I agree that that is wrong. But what is the example of identity politics which conforms to this structure that you are arguing against?
Hum. I wouldn't say that because you belong to a minority your view has more validity in general. I would say that because you belong to a minority your experience of what it's like to belong to that minority has more validity than someone who doesn't belong to that minority and is telling you that, for instance, growing up gay in the 90s was absolutely fine, that anything that you might think you've experienced was just a bit of joshing and that you should get over yourself.
2
In reply to Ramblin dave:
You've quoted me accurately. Rather than an implied slur, would you care to point out which parts of that quotation are factually incorrect?
You've quoted me accurately. Rather than an implied slur, would you care to point out which parts of that quotation are factually incorrect?
4
In reply to Ramblin dave:
There certainly are for the first two. But no-platforming the likes of Germaine Greer and Richard Dawkins does not come under the heading of 'combating extremism'. As for 'cultural appropriation', that concept actually is idiocy.
> There are, of course, complexed and nuanced arguments to be had on either side around celebration of colonialism, no-platforming of extremists, and cultural appropriation.
There certainly are for the first two. But no-platforming the likes of Germaine Greer and Richard Dawkins does not come under the heading of 'combating extremism'. As for 'cultural appropriation', that concept actually is idiocy.
8
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Perhaps I've missed some context here, but that reads as if you can't quite bring yourself to call him a Nazi but have no problem putting him in to the "follower of Nazi ideology" or a "Nazi sympathiser" camps.
Pointing out left-wing extremism means you are aiding and abetting Nazis?
> I don't deem you to be a Nazi, but I do think that actual Nazis would appreciate the sterling work that you're doing on their behalf here.
Perhaps I've missed some context here, but that reads as if you can't quite bring yourself to call him a Nazi but have no problem putting him in to the "follower of Nazi ideology" or a "Nazi sympathiser" camps.
Pointing out left-wing extremism means you are aiding and abetting Nazis?
6
In reply to David Martin:
I took a rather more generous view - I thought I was being accused of inadvertently supporting the Nazi cause, but being too dim to see it
On the far left, yes, it often does. I'm not suggesting that Ramblin' Dave is on the far left, BTW. And it's not me disliking his posts.
I took a rather more generous view - I thought I was being accused of inadvertently supporting the Nazi cause, but being too dim to see it
> Pointing out left-wing extremism means you are aiding and abetting Nazis?
On the far left, yes, it often does. I'm not suggesting that Ramblin' Dave is on the far left, BTW. And it's not me disliking his posts.
1
In reply to Thrudge:
That has rather been my point on other threads and further above: while the mainstream Left might not see itself as in alliance with the far-left or SJWs, it resorts to the same opinion silencing actions with the same outcomes.
It is regular mainstream behaviour to take one-off quotes conflicting with one's own opinions as justification to pigeon-hole the speaker as a reprehensible, one who should not be listened to at all (i.e. a Nazi, alt-right, racist, sexist, etc.).
> On the far left, yes, it often does. I'm not suggesting that Ramblin' Dave is on the far left
That has rather been my point on other threads and further above: while the mainstream Left might not see itself as in alliance with the far-left or SJWs, it resorts to the same opinion silencing actions with the same outcomes.
It is regular mainstream behaviour to take one-off quotes conflicting with one's own opinions as justification to pigeon-hole the speaker as a reprehensible, one who should not be listened to at all (i.e. a Nazi, alt-right, racist, sexist, etc.).
2
In reply to Thrudge:
It doesn't surprise me that this kind of stuff has emerged out of universities.
It's an environment where you are supposed to go down rabbit-holes of thought, seeking out as many as possible. But just because your mind takes you there, doesn't mean what you experience is valid.
Unfortunately, that realisation of validity can be quite difficult without having your views challenged, and that is getting more difficult; speech is heavily regulated, some ideas really are no-go areas, and perfectly valid counter-views can be dismissed on account of the holder's membership of some hegemonic group ("white", "male", "not having first-hand experience of the lived experience" etc).
Cultural appropriation, like the view that ethnic minorities can't be racist, was a fantastic rabbit hole to go down and a brilliant idea to be explored. But, like witch-dunking, it shouldn't have taken long to realise it had no validity in the end. Now, having endured, it has become another tool used in dismissing worthy arguments.
That is a compounding effect of silencing dissent. Each individual case in itself might not amount to much. But progressively it can head you off in a very bad direction.
> As for 'cultural appropriation', that concept actually is idiocy.
It doesn't surprise me that this kind of stuff has emerged out of universities.
It's an environment where you are supposed to go down rabbit-holes of thought, seeking out as many as possible. But just because your mind takes you there, doesn't mean what you experience is valid.
Unfortunately, that realisation of validity can be quite difficult without having your views challenged, and that is getting more difficult; speech is heavily regulated, some ideas really are no-go areas, and perfectly valid counter-views can be dismissed on account of the holder's membership of some hegemonic group ("white", "male", "not having first-hand experience of the lived experience" etc).
Cultural appropriation, like the view that ethnic minorities can't be racist, was a fantastic rabbit hole to go down and a brilliant idea to be explored. But, like witch-dunking, it shouldn't have taken long to realise it had no validity in the end. Now, having endured, it has become another tool used in dismissing worthy arguments.
That is a compounding effect of silencing dissent. Each individual case in itself might not amount to much. But progressively it can head you off in a very bad direction.
2
In reply to David Martin:
I agree, and I find it not only a poisonous but a deliberately dishonest form of discourse. It's highly attractive (particularly to the young, with their lack of experience and rampaging hormones) because it's a) very simple, and b) it appeals almost entirely to the emotions. And it's attractive to those older and wiser for exactly the same reasons, although their motivations are more along the lines of exerting control over a political army as a stepping stone to ruling the country with a rod of ideological iron.
As a contrast, I'd offer the exchange between me and Mr Stewart. We agree in some instances and are clearly at odds on some fundamental points in others, and this is to some extent an emotional issue for both of us. But I have yet to unjustly characterise him as Stalin, or he to do the same by comparing me to Hitler. Our exchange has been spirited, but it has been neither unreasonable nor uncivil. This is a form of discourse fiercely resisted by the far left.
> It is regular mainstream behaviour to take one-off quotes conflicting with one's own opinions as justification to pigeon-hole the speaker as a reprehensible, one who should not be listened to at all (i.e. a Nazi, alt-right, racist, sexist, etc.).
I agree, and I find it not only a poisonous but a deliberately dishonest form of discourse. It's highly attractive (particularly to the young, with their lack of experience and rampaging hormones) because it's a) very simple, and b) it appeals almost entirely to the emotions. And it's attractive to those older and wiser for exactly the same reasons, although their motivations are more along the lines of exerting control over a political army as a stepping stone to ruling the country with a rod of ideological iron.
As a contrast, I'd offer the exchange between me and Mr Stewart. We agree in some instances and are clearly at odds on some fundamental points in others, and this is to some extent an emotional issue for both of us. But I have yet to unjustly characterise him as Stalin, or he to do the same by comparing me to Hitler. Our exchange has been spirited, but it has been neither unreasonable nor uncivil. This is a form of discourse fiercely resisted by the far left.
5
1
In reply to Thrudge:
This is exactly the problem with the "anti-SJW" position as it is expressed here on UKC. The subject of "SJWs" is shoe-horned into any debate for no reason other than that it's very fashionable at the moment to publicly declare ones hatred for these people. Whenever I ask for an example of what the problem is, it always comes back to some immature US student who's of absolutely no relevance to anyone's life here in the UK. What an idiot, I agree, but how is an immature protester in the states causing any problem of any significance or relevance to this thread?
I don't think that's an argument you follow through and remain committed to. Taking gay rights in the UK as an example, those who advocated on my behalf and got homophobic legislation repealed and got Civil Partnerships on the statute said "there is a problem with the way gay people are treated and it needs to be changed". Had everyone agreed, "everybody receives bad treatment, it's part of life" then we would have seen no change. Apply the same to race and we would be living in a backward society. Your point sounds superficially reasonable, but what it implies in practice is "f*ck minorities". And thankfully, people have fought that view and in many cases won, and society has changed. That could never have happened had we followed your lead and said "everybody receives bad treatment".
We have had OTT protesters on our streets since time immemorial. The SJW students in the UK do not represent mainstream political discourse. Occasionally you see someone like that being interviewed on Newsnight, and far from successfully "shutting down debate" they're just making a fool of themselves. Which is completely fair.
From my perspective, I just don't see what the problem is. I'm a member of a minority and while I might not agree with much of what LGBT activists do, I've never felt denigrated or dehumanised by them.
I don't know exactly what arguments these groups articulate, so can't comment. But I would expect that that they're probably a bit on the extreme/ranty/not entirely coherent side of things. To which I say, "what do you expect?". I imagine these movements are made up of mainly young, angry/disenfranchised people who feel at odds with the political mainstream, and that's what these kind of people are like. Same as always.
> In general, yes. Have a look on Youtube for "You're a f**king white male" and associated videos. On this thread, no.
This is exactly the problem with the "anti-SJW" position as it is expressed here on UKC. The subject of "SJWs" is shoe-horned into any debate for no reason other than that it's very fashionable at the moment to publicly declare ones hatred for these people. Whenever I ask for an example of what the problem is, it always comes back to some immature US student who's of absolutely no relevance to anyone's life here in the UK. What an idiot, I agree, but how is an immature protester in the states causing any problem of any significance or relevance to this thread?
> Everybody has received bad treatment. It's part of life.
I don't think that's an argument you follow through and remain committed to. Taking gay rights in the UK as an example, those who advocated on my behalf and got homophobic legislation repealed and got Civil Partnerships on the statute said "there is a problem with the way gay people are treated and it needs to be changed". Had everyone agreed, "everybody receives bad treatment, it's part of life" then we would have seen no change. Apply the same to race and we would be living in a backward society. Your point sounds superficially reasonable, but what it implies in practice is "f*ck minorities". And thankfully, people have fought that view and in many cases won, and society has changed. That could never have happened had we followed your lead and said "everybody receives bad treatment".
> And I find it disturbing that this movement, having seeped out of American campuses and onto the streets, is now seeping into UK universities and streets.
We have had OTT protesters on our streets since time immemorial. The SJW students in the UK do not represent mainstream political discourse. Occasionally you see someone like that being interviewed on Newsnight, and far from successfully "shutting down debate" they're just making a fool of themselves. Which is completely fair.
> No, because the question misunderstands 'harm' as I described it. I was referring to the way in which such *automatic* labeling denigrates both the person being labelled and the entire group to which they supposedly belong...individuals are more important and massively more variable than their supposed group membership would suggest.
From my perspective, I just don't see what the problem is. I'm a member of a minority and while I might not agree with much of what LGBT activists do, I've never felt denigrated or dehumanised by them.
> Three examples would be the Black Lives Matter movement, the By Any Means Necessary movement, and Antifa.
I don't know exactly what arguments these groups articulate, so can't comment. But I would expect that that they're probably a bit on the extreme/ranty/not entirely coherent side of things. To which I say, "what do you expect?". I imagine these movements are made up of mainly young, angry/disenfranchised people who feel at odds with the political mainstream, and that's what these kind of people are like. Same as always.
5
1
In reply to Thrudge:
Well yes, I have to admit that that felt like the more charitable explanation for someone singing pretty directly from the alt-right hymn book.
> I took a rather more generous view - I thought I was being accused of inadvertently supporting the Nazi cause, but being too dim to see it
Well yes, I have to admit that that felt like the more charitable explanation for someone singing pretty directly from the alt-right hymn book.
3
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Some of them have also been known to punch - not always in self-defence - people who advocate ethnic cleansing and the establishment of white ethnostates in the US and Europe. Which apparently makes them the greatest threat to western civilization since the Mongol Hordes or something.
> I don't know exactly what arguments these groups articulate, so can't comment. But I would expect that that they're probably a bit on the extreme/ranty/not entirely coherent side of things.
Some of them have also been known to punch - not always in self-defence - people who advocate ethnic cleansing and the establishment of white ethnostates in the US and Europe. Which apparently makes them the greatest threat to western civilization since the Mongol Hordes or something.
2
1
In reply to David Martin:
It was Alex Jones that got the alarm bells ringing for me. I don't know much about Blair, but I understand she's a Trump supporting men's rights activist? Sorry, I think there's good grounds to be wary of this individual, but all the same I would like to know what she has to say before making any calls about her views.
Do you watch David Pakman? I think he's great. Here's a list of people he's interviewed, I'm sure he'd be delighted to have a chat with this woman, if indeed she has anything interesting to say.
https://davidpakman.com/interviews/
SJWs do genuinely "shut down debate" by the no-platforming and idiotic protesting about people whose views they disagree with (or assume they disagree with). But in the media, particularly on the internet, the idea that there is any danger of only left-wing views being published, and there being no plurality of opinion, is absolutely farcical. We've never lived in such a time of total unrestricted freedom to just publish what you think in a youtube video and gather hundreds of thousands of subscribers if you have the wherewithal. I haven't heard anything as preposterous as claiming that "free speech is under threat because of the left shutting down debate". How does Katie Hopkins manage it then? Or someone like Douglas Murray, who we might actually be interested in? How are they so able to capture our attention if "the left" have seized control of all media channels (like Fox News?). It's fantasy.
It's very generous of you to compare Rubin to Theroux, but that sounds to me like an enormous error of judgement. The problems I have with Rubin (christ, where to start) revolve mainly around the fact that he's brainless, which Theroux is not. Theroux has an individual, honed journalistic style which is *full* of intention. Rubin appears to have absolutely no intentions whatsoever, he is vapid. So what, if he's not saying anything why get upset?, you may well ask. The problem is that he gets real public intellectuals like Sam Harris on and lets them speak for 90mins, and he never challenges the utter garbage they say about, say US ME policy. Oh well, you might think, that's a rather disappointing, bland interview with someone who might have been more interesting had they had to defend what they were saying rather than just being given free reign to say whatever they like in an authoritative tone and allow their reputation to provide a convenient cover for presenting weak arguments with no evidence and a heap of political bias. Oh well. But then he gets f*cking Katie Hopkins on and gives her the same treatment. So he's lending credibility to the pointless, attention-seeking, venal likes of Milo, who probably by even his own admission doesn't have anything to say that's remotely worth listening to. And it's not as if anyone gets the "I get to sit in the same chair as Yanis Varoufakis and Richard Dawkins and tell people whatever I like and have it endorsed as if it's all obviously completely true" Rubin treatment. No, you get straight to the front of the queue if you've ever been criticised by "SJWs" (which might be because you actually *are* a racist, Milo, being criticised by "SJWs" doesn't mean you're right, although it might indicate that you're right-wing) - and it doesn't make any difference whether you're a maligned figure whose views we probably *should* hear like Tommy Robinson, or whether you're Katie f*cking Hopkins. I think Dave Rubin is responsible for pretty much the most dreadful journalism on the planet. I hate the guy. But that doesn't make it an ad hom. I hate what he does, and I hate the utter garbage he comes out with. "The threat from the regressive left is more serious than that from the Trump presidency". Only a complete f*cking moron would say anything as transparently thick. Rubin, F*ck Off.
> I hope that rings a few alarm bells.
It was Alex Jones that got the alarm bells ringing for me. I don't know much about Blair, but I understand she's a Trump supporting men's rights activist? Sorry, I think there's good grounds to be wary of this individual, but all the same I would like to know what she has to say before making any calls about her views.
> This is part of the left-right debate we've been having. It's a repeated claim from people like her that they're only welcome for interviews on the right - the left-wing media considers them untouchable, for the crime of having views which range across the political spectrum and being outspoken about them.
Do you watch David Pakman? I think he's great. Here's a list of people he's interviewed, I'm sure he'd be delighted to have a chat with this woman, if indeed she has anything interesting to say.
https://davidpakman.com/interviews/
> The fact that she is the "enemy of the left" should illustrate you don't need SJW extremes to shut down debate.
SJWs do genuinely "shut down debate" by the no-platforming and idiotic protesting about people whose views they disagree with (or assume they disagree with). But in the media, particularly on the internet, the idea that there is any danger of only left-wing views being published, and there being no plurality of opinion, is absolutely farcical. We've never lived in such a time of total unrestricted freedom to just publish what you think in a youtube video and gather hundreds of thousands of subscribers if you have the wherewithal. I haven't heard anything as preposterous as claiming that "free speech is under threat because of the left shutting down debate". How does Katie Hopkins manage it then? Or someone like Douglas Murray, who we might actually be interested in? How are they so able to capture our attention if "the left" have seized control of all media channels (like Fox News?). It's fantasy.
> I suggest listening to the Rubin episode. So what if he doesn't go for the jugular? He spends 90 minutes encouraging guests to speak freely...
It's very generous of you to compare Rubin to Theroux, but that sounds to me like an enormous error of judgement. The problems I have with Rubin (christ, where to start) revolve mainly around the fact that he's brainless, which Theroux is not. Theroux has an individual, honed journalistic style which is *full* of intention. Rubin appears to have absolutely no intentions whatsoever, he is vapid. So what, if he's not saying anything why get upset?, you may well ask. The problem is that he gets real public intellectuals like Sam Harris on and lets them speak for 90mins, and he never challenges the utter garbage they say about, say US ME policy. Oh well, you might think, that's a rather disappointing, bland interview with someone who might have been more interesting had they had to defend what they were saying rather than just being given free reign to say whatever they like in an authoritative tone and allow their reputation to provide a convenient cover for presenting weak arguments with no evidence and a heap of political bias. Oh well. But then he gets f*cking Katie Hopkins on and gives her the same treatment. So he's lending credibility to the pointless, attention-seeking, venal likes of Milo, who probably by even his own admission doesn't have anything to say that's remotely worth listening to. And it's not as if anyone gets the "I get to sit in the same chair as Yanis Varoufakis and Richard Dawkins and tell people whatever I like and have it endorsed as if it's all obviously completely true" Rubin treatment. No, you get straight to the front of the queue if you've ever been criticised by "SJWs" (which might be because you actually *are* a racist, Milo, being criticised by "SJWs" doesn't mean you're right, although it might indicate that you're right-wing) - and it doesn't make any difference whether you're a maligned figure whose views we probably *should* hear like Tommy Robinson, or whether you're Katie f*cking Hopkins. I think Dave Rubin is responsible for pretty much the most dreadful journalism on the planet. I hate the guy. But that doesn't make it an ad hom. I hate what he does, and I hate the utter garbage he comes out with. "The threat from the regressive left is more serious than that from the Trump presidency". Only a complete f*cking moron would say anything as transparently thick. Rubin, F*ck Off.
4
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I thought I'd addressed this point adequately in my post at 15:48.
Hands up, I was in a hurry and was at best sloppy and negligent here. For clarity: I am opposing the often expressed (not by you) idea that the 'the problem defines the person', or that 'the group membership defines the person'. I am also opposing the idea that minorities are always oppressed and that anyone not a member of a minority is automatically an oppressor. My apologies for a lazy and inadequate first response on this point.
Not an implication I intended.
Thankfully indeed.
Of course.
Agreed, but they do influence it. Not for the good, IMHO.
I'd go along with all of that, with a few qualifications:
1) Although mainly young, they are by no means exclusively so - the age demographic is very broad and includes plenty of middle-aged and older people.
2) I don't think it's same as always. On the face of it, it is - Moseley's fascists in the 30s, for example - but what differentiates the modern movements is mass media and the internet. Movements like Antifa have far more influence on national politics, on political and social discourse, and on the running of educational establishments simply because they are 'bigger' than Mosley's mobs in terms of media exposure and the entirely new phenomena of social media.
> Whenever I ask for an example of what the problem is, it always comes back to some immature US student who's of absolutely no relevance to anyone's life here in the UK. What an idiot, I agree, but how is an immature protester in the states causing any problem of any significance or relevance to this thread?
I thought I'd addressed this point adequately in my post at 15:48.
> I don't think that's an argument you follow through and remain committed to.
Hands up, I was in a hurry and was at best sloppy and negligent here. For clarity: I am opposing the often expressed (not by you) idea that the 'the problem defines the person', or that 'the group membership defines the person'. I am also opposing the idea that minorities are always oppressed and that anyone not a member of a minority is automatically an oppressor. My apologies for a lazy and inadequate first response on this point.
> Your point sounds superficially reasonable, but what it implies in practice is "f*ck minorities".
Not an implication I intended.
> And thankfully, people have fought that view and in many cases won, and society has changed.
Thankfully indeed.
> We have had OTT protesters on our streets since time immemorial.
Of course.
> The SJW students in the UK do not represent mainstream political discourse.
Agreed, but they do influence it. Not for the good, IMHO.
> I imagine these movements are made up of mainly young, angry/disenfranchised people who feel at odds with the political mainstream, and that's what these kind of people are like. Same as always.
I'd go along with all of that, with a few qualifications:
1) Although mainly young, they are by no means exclusively so - the age demographic is very broad and includes plenty of middle-aged and older people.
2) I don't think it's same as always. On the face of it, it is - Moseley's fascists in the 30s, for example - but what differentiates the modern movements is mass media and the internet. Movements like Antifa have far more influence on national politics, on political and social discourse, and on the running of educational establishments simply because they are 'bigger' than Mosley's mobs in terms of media exposure and the entirely new phenomena of social media.
1
In reply to Ramblin dave:
So I'm not a Nazi sympathiser any more, but I am alt-right. Your insults are getting milder, and your arguments are still notable by their absence.
> Well yes, I have to admit that that felt like the more charitable explanation for someone singing pretty directly from the alt-right hymn book.
So I'm not a Nazi sympathiser any more, but I am alt-right. Your insults are getting milder, and your arguments are still notable by their absence.
5
In reply to Thrudge:
As you say, I don't think we're terribly far apart here. The underlying issue for me is one of proportionality. The problems of discrimination suffered by minorities are serious: we're talking about lack of life opportunities for no reason other than, e.g. the colour of someone's skin. There's a legacy that is handed down the generations.
On the hand we have the "SJW" problem, which apparently is a threat to the very fabric of our society (not ascribing this view to you, but to, e.g. Dave Rubin). It's nonsense. In the context of a debate about the treatment of minorities, the "SJW" problem is an irrelevance - it's not actually threatening anyone, it's just a bit embarrassing.
As you say, I don't think we're terribly far apart here. The underlying issue for me is one of proportionality. The problems of discrimination suffered by minorities are serious: we're talking about lack of life opportunities for no reason other than, e.g. the colour of someone's skin. There's a legacy that is handed down the generations.
On the hand we have the "SJW" problem, which apparently is a threat to the very fabric of our society (not ascribing this view to you, but to, e.g. Dave Rubin). It's nonsense. In the context of a debate about the treatment of minorities, the "SJW" problem is an irrelevance - it's not actually threatening anyone, it's just a bit embarrassing.
2
1
In reply to Thrudge:
Again, I'm not saying that you are neo-nazi, alt-right or anything else, just that for whatever reason you seem to have bought into a lot of the scaremongering crap that they use to draw flak from themselves.
To be honest, I can't be bothered arguing properly because I'd mostly just be repeating what Jon's saying.
> So I'm not a Nazi sympathiser any more, but I am alt-right. Your insults are getting milder, and your arguments are still notable by their absence.
Again, I'm not saying that you are neo-nazi, alt-right or anything else, just that for whatever reason you seem to have bought into a lot of the scaremongering crap that they use to draw flak from themselves.
To be honest, I can't be bothered arguing properly because I'd mostly just be repeating what Jon's saying.
2
1
In reply to Thrudge:
I think you have to balance the benefits of having someone speak against the cost of sending out a message to the world (and, in the case of a university, your student body) that you think their opinion is interesting and worth listening to. And that also depends somewhat on what sort of invite you're extending to someone - inviting them as a guest lecturer is more of an endorsement than inviting them to a head-to-head debate with someone with opposing views, for instance.
And I don't think it's always obvious where the balance lies, and I think that an entirely reasonable way to figure out where it is is for some people to stick their heads up and say, possibly in no uncertain terms, "hey, given this person's views on X, do we really want to be endorsing them?" And other people can put forward counterarguments, and whoever extended the invite can consider it and decide whether they want to go ahead or not.
But the key thing is that you actually have the argument and counterargument and engage and think about it rather than just going "oh look, the SJWs are at it again", and wrapping any objections up with a convenient little slur so you can safely ignore it.
I'd say that a minstrel show is an example of "cultural appropriation" and is definitely not okay, so again not inherently idiotic. Banning sombreros for being an example of cultural appropriation, at least in the UK, would seem idiotic to me. It might be different in the US where Mexican immigrants have to deal with a bit more of a daily struggle to start off with, but I don't know.
> There certainly are for the first two. But no-platforming the likes of Germaine Greer and Richard Dawkins does not come under the heading of 'combating extremism'.
I think you have to balance the benefits of having someone speak against the cost of sending out a message to the world (and, in the case of a university, your student body) that you think their opinion is interesting and worth listening to. And that also depends somewhat on what sort of invite you're extending to someone - inviting them as a guest lecturer is more of an endorsement than inviting them to a head-to-head debate with someone with opposing views, for instance.
And I don't think it's always obvious where the balance lies, and I think that an entirely reasonable way to figure out where it is is for some people to stick their heads up and say, possibly in no uncertain terms, "hey, given this person's views on X, do we really want to be endorsing them?" And other people can put forward counterarguments, and whoever extended the invite can consider it and decide whether they want to go ahead or not.
But the key thing is that you actually have the argument and counterargument and engage and think about it rather than just going "oh look, the SJWs are at it again", and wrapping any objections up with a convenient little slur so you can safely ignore it.
> As for 'cultural appropriation', that concept actually is idiocy.
I'd say that a minstrel show is an example of "cultural appropriation" and is definitely not okay, so again not inherently idiotic. Banning sombreros for being an example of cultural appropriation, at least in the UK, would seem idiotic to me. It might be different in the US where Mexican immigrants have to deal with a bit more of a daily struggle to start off with, but I don't know.
Post edited at 22:23
1
1
In reply to Thrudge:
It's probably within the bounds of propriety to call him 'Jon' now
> the exchange between me and Mr Stewart
It's probably within the bounds of propriety to call him 'Jon' now
1
5In reply to Jon Stewart:
You can give it a go if you want, what are you going to explain?
Gayness doesn't stop you being a Tory PM, I think it would be easier to believe that some constitutional cock-up meant that Ted Heath wasn't PM than it would be to believe he wasn't gay.
In 2015 the Gay Vote was supposedly equally split Tory/ Labour, although polls now suggest Labour has a small lead (5%) and Gays are voting less on LGBT issues.
Similarly 2010 was the first time since WWII that a Tory government was elected by a Tory vote that was more male than female (38-36%) but 2015 it was 38% of men and 37% of women, so pretty close to going back.
This suggests that the lack of privilege is not the deciding factor when people have a free vote. That they are Conservative and conservative and are either happy with the status quo, or happy with the rate of change or that the effect of their minority status is not the most important thing in their lives.
Contrast that with the US where 96% of black women vote Democrat, because they see that as the only route to change.
Of course you can be like Michelle Obama and shout and scream at the minorities that 'It's Not Your Voice' but she can't explain why white women voted for Trump against a much better qualified female candidate.
> Oh come on, do I really have to explain this?
You can give it a go if you want, what are you going to explain?
> I didn't imply that you can't be successful if you're part of a minority, I said that society isn't geared up in your favour. Their homosexuality hasn't stopped those MPs being elected - but it would stop them being PM. Being gay isn't much of a problem in the modern Tory party (this is a recent change),
Gayness doesn't stop you being a Tory PM, I think it would be easier to believe that some constitutional cock-up meant that Ted Heath wasn't PM than it would be to believe he wasn't gay.
In 2015 the Gay Vote was supposedly equally split Tory/ Labour, although polls now suggest Labour has a small lead (5%) and Gays are voting less on LGBT issues.
Similarly 2010 was the first time since WWII that a Tory government was elected by a Tory vote that was more male than female (38-36%) but 2015 it was 38% of men and 37% of women, so pretty close to going back.
This suggests that the lack of privilege is not the deciding factor when people have a free vote. That they are Conservative and conservative and are either happy with the status quo, or happy with the rate of change or that the effect of their minority status is not the most important thing in their lives.
Contrast that with the US where 96% of black women vote Democrat, because they see that as the only route to change.
Of course you can be like Michelle Obama and shout and scream at the minorities that 'It's Not Your Voice' but she can't explain why white women voted for Trump against a much better qualified female candidate.
1
In reply to winhill:
I said something about society in general terms as it applies to people in statistical trends. Your response gave individual cases (gay Tory MPs) as a rebuttal to a statistical statement. If you really need an explanation of why your response does not rebut my statement, then think about this example: "The Lakes is a very rainy area of the country" "How does that explain it being sunny in Ulverston on 23rd June, 14th and 17th July, and 6th August?". Do you require any further explanation, or is that sufficient.
What? Do you honestly think that pointing to a closeted gay man in an era when homosexuality was unacceptable in public life (and when the media took far less interest in the personal life of public figures, it seems) supports an argument that being gay doesn't diminish ones chances of becoming PM? Ludicrous!
Sorry for being thick, but I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
> You can give it a go if you want, what are you going to explain?
I said something about society in general terms as it applies to people in statistical trends. Your response gave individual cases (gay Tory MPs) as a rebuttal to a statistical statement. If you really need an explanation of why your response does not rebut my statement, then think about this example: "The Lakes is a very rainy area of the country" "How does that explain it being sunny in Ulverston on 23rd June, 14th and 17th July, and 6th August?". Do you require any further explanation, or is that sufficient.
> Gayness doesn't stop you being a Tory PM, I think it would be easier to believe that some constitutional cock-up meant that Ted Heath wasn't PM than it would be to believe he wasn't gay.
What? Do you honestly think that pointing to a closeted gay man in an era when homosexuality was unacceptable in public life (and when the media took far less interest in the personal life of public figures, it seems) supports an argument that being gay doesn't diminish ones chances of becoming PM? Ludicrous!
> In 2015 the Gay Vote was supposedly equally split Tory/ Labour, although polls now suggest Labour has a small lead (5%) and Gays are voting less on LGBT issues...
> Contrast that with the US where 96% of black women vote Democrat, because they see that as the only route to change.
> Of course you can be like Michelle Obama and shout and scream at the minorities that 'It's Not Your Voice' but she can't explain why white women voted for Trump against a much better qualified female candidate.
Sorry for being thick, but I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
1
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Not at all you said
I'm just pointing out that it didn't stop a gay Tory MP being elected party leader in 1965, not recent or modern but 2 generations ago.
You can't claim that 'it would stop them' really means 'very slightly diminish their chances'.
> What? Do you honestly think that pointing to a closeted gay man in an era when homosexuality was unacceptable in public life (and when the media took far less interest in the personal life of public figures, it seems) supports an argument that being gay doesn't diminish ones chances of becoming PM? Ludicrous!
Not at all you said
> Their homosexuality hasn't stopped those MPs being elected - but it would stop them being PM. Being gay isn't much of a problem in the modern Tory party (this is a recent change)
I'm just pointing out that it didn't stop a gay Tory MP being elected party leader in 1965, not recent or modern but 2 generations ago.
You can't claim that 'it would stop them' really means 'very slightly diminish their chances'.
1
In reply to winhill:
No. I stick to my point that being gay would stop you being PM.
An example of being closeted gay in an era when homosexuality was unacceptable does not refute this in any way!
No. I stick to my point that being gay would stop you being PM.
An example of being closeted gay in an era when homosexuality was unacceptable does not refute this in any way!
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Ah, bless.
> No. I stick to my point that being gay would stop you being PM.
Ah, bless.
1
In reply to winhill:
Haha.
I quite liked that joke, but I don't think you've really got the point of this strand of the debate, have you?
Haha.
I quite liked that joke, but I don't think you've really got the point of this strand of the debate, have you?
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I'd put money on it not. The Irish have one already.
> No. I stick to my point that being gay would stop you being PM.
I'd put money on it not. The Irish have one already.
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Good point. Seems crazy that. I still couldn't imagine it in the UK and don't think either main party would elect a gay leader for that reason. It would be a vote loser.
> I'd put money on it not. The Irish have one already.
Good point. Seems crazy that. I still couldn't imagine it in the UK and don't think either main party would elect a gay leader for that reason. It would be a vote loser.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Do you think Ruth Davidson is a vote loser? Her sexuality doesn't seem to have done her much harm in Scotland.
I think you do have a valid point though that parts of the Tory party and parts of the voting public would definitely have a problem with a gay leader. I think this is rapidly diminishing though.
Do you think Ruth Davidson is a vote loser? Her sexuality doesn't seem to have done her much harm in Scotland.
I think you do have a valid point though that parts of the Tory party and parts of the voting public would definitely have a problem with a gay leader. I think this is rapidly diminishing though.
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
There hasn't been an election in which she's been the focus and the press have made a mission of trashing her personally.
Incidentally, can you imagine Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces being a gay?
> Do you think Ruth Davidson is a vote loser? Her sexuality doesn't seem to have done her much harm in Scotland.
There hasn't been an election in which she's been the focus and the press have made a mission of trashing her personally.
Incidentally, can you imagine Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces being a gay?
Post edited at 14:28
1
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I think Miguel Portaloo could have been PM, and he was a woofter.
> Good point. Seems crazy that. I still couldn't imagine it in the UK and don't think either main party would elect a gay leader for that reason. It would be a vote loser.
I think Miguel Portaloo could have been PM, and he was a woofter.
Post edited at 02:06
1
3
In reply to Jon Stewart:
What are we up to now - forty-five, is it? Chances are one of them has been, maybe back when it didn't exist. Mind you, in all that time exactly none have been women, so maybe statistical norms don't apply
> can you imagine Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces being a gay?
What are we up to now - forty-five, is it? Chances are one of them has been, maybe back when it didn't exist. Mind you, in all that time exactly none have been women, so maybe statistical norms don't apply
In reply to nufkin:
Buchanan, apparently.
> What are we up to now - forty-five, is it? Chances are one of them has been, maybe back when it didn't exist. Mind you, in all that time exactly none have been women, so maybe statistical norms don't apply
Buchanan, apparently.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...