Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Member Since 26 Jun 2000
Offline Last Active May 25 2016 01:19 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: USC Canceled Video Game Panel For Too Many Men

24 May 2016 - 07:12 PM

It's time to retake Western Civilization from the mentally ill people in authority who pander to the Feminist mentally ill.

How do you propose to retake that which is not solely yours in the first place, but rather the collective synthesis of millions of minds and hundreds of ideas arising over centuries? This sentiment is pablum, a slogan to comfort defeated culture warriors who lost because they didn't even understand the terms of the fight.

Ideologies don't arise in a vacuum, they arise to meet deficiencies with then existing ideologies. Any civilization powered by ideologies which cannot guarantee the rights of all of its people or which tolerates gross inequities is BEGGING for new ideologies to sweep in. The robber baron abuses of the Gilded Age were the kindling for unions. The unfulfilled promise of "all men created equal" was the kindling for Civil Rights. Taking civilization back to some lofty place in the past would just be asking to recreate the initial conditions which gave rise to the ideologies you oppose in the first place.

If we want something better, it will have to look like something that moves all of us forward. And that definitely won't happen by declaring people mentally ill. They'll simply label you the same and dismiss you into oblivion because your ideas reek of the failures of the past.

In Topic: USC Canceled Video Game Panel For Too Many Men

24 May 2016 - 06:39 PM

The fact that there are only 14 people on that list, doesn't give you pause for thought?

The pause for thought it gives me is, "wow, given the odds against them they must have really kicked a** to have made such an impression. Let's hold them up as inspiring examples so we can get more!"

I think there's something to the idea that we will achieve that which we are focused on. If we become solely focused on history as a series of injustices that demand atonement, I suspect we won't be able to help create more injustice. And we will rationalize it as balancing the scales until we generate enough resistance that the pendulum swings back. That would be catastrophic. (Look only to the forces unravelling the 1965 Voter's Rights Act if you think this is hyperbolic conjecture. The pendulum CAN swing back.)

If we, however, use history as a guide for how to be better people, not shying away from the harsh realities of the past but also not wallowing in them in reactive shame, we have a much better chance to get to a much better place.

In Topic: USC Canceled Video Game Panel For Too Many Men

07 May 2016 - 11:25 AM

Seems the USC made a good decision after all.  Getting industry people talking about the problem is the first step to solving it.

We need to talk about this, sure, but to what degree do you think progress is blocked by the loss of support of those who would otherwise agree with you but find the means by which this was done immoral?

Because I am one of them. Watching those who I would consider on my own side blasé about punishing others to achieve ideal social goals makes me oppose both THEM and those who are truly against diversity. I admit the reason for this is wholly self-serving: There is every possibility that those who do not care about achieving universal, blind justice will one day turn their tender mercies on ME once they dispense with my enemies. I don't have to wait or theorize. This is already being done to gay men, who some have declared as too 'privileged' to enjoy LGBT protection and support. It is by no stretch of the imagination that I may be next on the ideological chopping block.

The philosophy that excuses and backs this behavior is the philosophy of the Red Queen. It is arbitrary and illogical. It uses real injustices to invent injustices out of thin air (microagressions, invisible, unverifiable privileges). Dissenters are ensnared in ever more elaborate Kafkatraps which see the act of objecting as a sign of irrefutable sin. And proponents are distressingly comfortable with all of this because they have been told that yes, the ends DO justify the means because they are, without question, on the "right side of history."

Is it forgetting history that makes us ignore that this has also been the reasoning of despots and tyrants? They were wrong but you are right? How do you test that?

In Topic: USC Canceled Video Game Panel For Too Many Men

07 May 2016 - 10:56 AM

Define W, w1, w2, and N as sets of visibly different people.
Suppose all people in w1 are in W.
Suppose all people in w2 are in W.
Suppose all people in W are privileged over all people in N.
Suppose all people in w1 are privileged over w2.

Therefore, because w2 is in W, all people in w2 are privileged over people in N, irrespective of the fact that w1 is privileged over w2.

I don't see any epicycle-level faffing around here.

I'm trying to make this work:

Let W = white people
Let w1 = middle class white people (including police officers, college professors, geeks etc)
Let w2 = poor white people (including homeless, struggling students, unemployed & newly poor)
Let N = all non-white people (including homeless, poor, police, professors, investors, technology professionals, millionaires & billionaires)

So maybe we reason that w1 is oppressing w2, possibly directly using police and government resources or indirectly through economic policies. But do you actually believe that the homeless, struggling students and the unemployed & newly poor who are white are oppressing the non-white investor class, non-white technology professionals and non-white millionaires and billionaires?

Forget epicycles. We're gonna need phlogiston, luminous ether, homunculi and turtles all the way down to explain this stuff!!!

In Topic: USC Canceled Video Game Panel For Too Many Men

06 May 2016 - 09:37 AM

So would black privilege exist in the black community?

Is the black community the dominant culture?

This is a very good question. I'm not sure there's a way to answer it. We might be tempted to view culture as easily separable, stratified layers but culture in nations with a history of diverse populations seems to be more like ink mixing with water. Take music. The innovative, transformative (even dare I say culturally appropriative) work of early hip-hop/rap has gone from isolated cells within the black community to explode into a dominant cultural juggernaut on the global stage. Clearly this would have been impossible without input, marketing and financing the black community itself lacked, but the cost of success has been diffusion and transformation of this cultural artifact. Would it be one narrow example of cultural dominance? Given how mixed it is, I don't know.

Even growing up in a predominately black city I'd have to say yes and no. Schools, mass media (esp. popular tv & movies) and law enforcement acted like pipelines into what was, in my experience, a very insular culture (fun fact, at the risk of dating myself Dukes of Hazzard was popular when I was a kid and I LOVED all the crazy stunts done by the General Lee-- with ZERO understanding of what the flag on the car actually meant! Made for chagrin years later.)

Does the black community value white people less than non-white people?

It's impossible to give a general answer. Again in my experience and understanding (West Coast US) it's always been a love / hate relationship, with strains valuing integration ever in conflict with those valuing cultural integrity. Children in a poor black community can be pilloried, for instance, for trying to develop a good vocabulary, but whereas this might be derided as bookishness or nerdiness in a poor white neighborhood, it's long been criticized as 'trying to act white' in a poor black neighborhood. Now compare that to developing business acumen, which carries no stigma in either community (and certainly not the stigma of being a cultural traitor).

So in certain instances and situations the answer is clearly yes, there is contempt, devaluation and even outright bigotry-- and not just directed at whites, but also Jewish and Asian culture. (Unsurprising if you believe all human communities equally capable of the flaw of bigotry, of course.)

I think this variability is yet one more thing that calls into question the value of the very notion of privilege.

Yes, but don't you see that white people oppressing other white people obviates the notion of white privilege and requires us to invent the idea that it only started happening after the 1940s?

No, that's a fallacious argument. Again: privilege is not a binary concept, it's a relative one. It's possible to be white, oppressed by other white people, and still be more privileged than someone who isn't white.

Is it not then silly to label a phenomenon using a categorical boundary which may or may not apply? The title itself suggests group boundaries ("white") but proponents now have to scurry around defending myriad exceptions. Isn't this undermining?


And why would only coming into effect after the 1940s obviate the concept? We're talking about today. If some groups started being more privileged than others after a certain time, it makes sense to refer to them as such after that time?

So then it's Post-1940s-Some-White-People-But-Not-All-White-People-Some-Exclusions-Apply-Void-Where-Prohibited-Privilege?

I think we should be looking very careful at how this concept deals with logical inconsistencies. It's starting to look like the heliocentric model of social science, requiring adding more and more epicycles just to make it match reality. Clearly this suggests that it is wrong.