|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The war of atheism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But did he know here desires and wishes before he made his advance? Simply yes or no would sufice. Yes, because she had told him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If a homosexual man propositions another man in a way that "completely disregards his individual desires and wishes" is he being sexist? He's objectifying. When women are objectified by men, it's sexist.
I'm still very unclear as to what elevates an unwanted (and quite possibly unpleasant) sexual advance into an act of sexism. I don't understand how it can be unclear, as it's been explained at least four times, now. Can you elaborate on the nature of your lack of understanding? I keep asking you that and you keep repeating that "it's not clear." Well, ok, but in what way is it not clear? Which words do you require definitions for? What concepts are you unfamiliar with? I can't help you understand if you're not willing to explain the problem.
Are all sexual propositions that "completely disregard the individual desires and wishes" of the other party acts of sexism? The ones where a privileged gender do it to an unprivileged gender are the ones that are sexist. Similarly, the ones where a privileged race does it to an unprivileged race are the ones that are racist, the ones where a privileged religion does it to an unprivileged religion are religious discrimination, etc. In general, when members of a privileged category completely disregard the individual desires and wishes of members of the unprivileged category, that's discriminatory to the members of the unprivileged category. When the discrimination happens along racial lines, it's called "racist." When it happens along gender lines, it's called "sexist." So what's the issue, here? The concept of privilege? We can unpack that, if you like.
Being a selfish dick and acting in a sexist manner are not necessarily the same thing. In situations where "being a selfish dick" seems to break such that it's usually men being selfish dicks to women, and not so much men to men, women to women, or women to men, we should suspect sexism. I'm always surprised by the people who don't see this as immediately obvious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I remain entirely unconvinced that elevator guy was exhibiting "misogynistic thoughts" or being sexist rather than being a bit of a dick. What's the source of your quote "misogynistic thoughts", specifically?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So basically people are "completely disregarding the individual desires and wishes" of others much of the time but only when men do it to women does it qualify as sexism. Well, no. Not of "others." Of unprivileged others. Almost by definition the privileged don't usually get their individual desires and wishes completely disregarded. That's what the privilege is.
Why? What do you mean, "why"? Because that's probably what has happened, is why.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So racism is only racism when white discriminates against black, but not when black discriminates against white? If, in a situation where blacks were privileged and whites were unprivileged, a black person discriminated against a white person, yes, that would be racism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
A message I wrote in reply to youir assertion that no-one but Roxrcool had used the term "misogynist". To refer to Elevator Guy. You quoted Watson referring to a different person as "parroting... misogynistic thought" in reference to a false accusation that what Watson was objecting to was having been found sexually attractive by someone. Did you think that in doing so, you had somehow contradicted me? As I said, you quoted... somebody... as suggesting that Elevator Guy had been
quote: I'm asking you for the source of your quote. Who do you believe has tried to convince you that Elevator Guy had "misogynistic thoughts"? When you say that you remain "entirely unconvinced" that he did, in what is that reference to? You're responding, apparently, to a number of arguments that I can't find in this thread. Nobody's used "misogynist" to refer to the Elevator Guy except for Roxrkool, as I said. It's not anybody's contention that he "exhibited 'misogynistic thoughts.'"
Again - Can you link to a source the provides the basis for this conclusion? I just provided two such sources. What's the issue, here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Since when does privilege dictate what is considered racism? Since always. What a stupid question. What did you think "racism" meant.
You are basically saying that it would not be racism for you to tell the king of Rwanda to go eat some fried chicken and watermelon simply because he is privileged. I don't see how that's discriminating, exactly. It's evocative of a stereotype that doesn't apply to Rwandans. The "fried chicken and watermelon" stereotype is about southern American black people. In order for me to be racist to the king of Rwanda, I'd have to be able to discriminate against him by virtue of privilege I had that he lacked. Being white in a culture where whites have privilege would be such a privilege.
Racism is racism no matter the race. I never said that it wasn't. Racism is about privilege and the way it breaks down according to race.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So, in the current cultural landscape of the US, it's racist if a white man drops the n-bomb, but not racist if a black man calls a white man a "cracker?" It's sexist if a man says that all women are gold-digging whores, but not sexist if a woman calls all men wife-beating rapists? Yes. Does any of that seem inaccurate, or inconsistent with observation? Inconsistent with your own decision to self-censor your first remark but not your second? Isn't the reaction to a white man using the n-word towards a black man much, much greater than the reaction to a black man using the "c-word" towards a white man? Wouldn't everyone you know basically laugh off the second (even as the target of the remark!) but get extremely angry about the first (even if they heard about it third-hand)? Why did you think that was, exactly, if not for the fact that the first is racist but the second isn't?
I'm pretty sure that racism and sexism are about discrimination based on race and gender, respectively, and that they have nothing to do with whether one race/gender has "privilege." How can it have nothing to do with privilege, when without the difference in privilege, discrimination isn't even possible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Judging someone based on race. Well, that can't be right. If I find out you're a white person, and I judge that your skin will not, without exposure to sunlight, produce much melanin, would that be racist? Obviously some judgements based on race - for instance, someone's race! - can't be racially discriminatory.
Racism is not synonymous with discrimination. Yes, it is.
Only in crashfrog land, but not reality. I'm sorry but that's just nonsense. There's no coherent explication of racism, sexism, or other forms of discrimination without the notion of privilege. For instance, here's the UCLA School of Public Affairs explaining the field of Critical Race Theory:
quote: There can be no discrimination without privilege. The notion of privilege is central to identifying what is discrimination and what is not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
A black supremacist is just as racist as a white supremacist, regardless of their "privileged" status or lack thereof. No, they're substantially less racist, specifically because of privilege, and the different reaction our society has to one vs the other is proof of that.
Racism can exist where no actual privilege exists - the Asian father who tells his daughter that she cannot marry a black man is just as racist as the white father who does the same. But that's privilege! Why on Earth do you think there's no privilege in that example? It's full of privilege differential. The privilege of an older adult over a younger one. The privilege of a parent over their adult child. The privilege of a man over a woman. And the privilege of a person of Asian descent over a person of African descent. It's crammed with privilege, which is why it's racist. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You do realize that black people can be racist against black people, right? Yes, for instance, as a result of the privilege afforded, in the black community, to those individuals who have light skin compared to those who have dark skin. Once that was known as the "paper bag test"; if your skin was a lighter shade of brown than a paper bag, you were afforded the privilege of being considered "light-skinned":
quote: In other words, privilege.
My neighbor, a Mexican, doesn't want her daughter to marry a Mexican. Class privilege, probably. My guess, anyway.
Racism actually exists and is perpetuated by all races, not just white people. I never said that it is only ever perpetuated by white people. Where do you think I said that? The point is that racism is only that which occurs because a privileged race discriminates against a less privileged one. When a less privileged race "discriminates" against a more privileged one, it's not really racist because it can't really be racial discrimination. It's like how "Black History Month" doesn't discriminate against white people, but "White History Month", if it existed, would discriminate against everybody else. I'm surprised, I guess, that anybody who lives in the real world is surprised by this. Isn't this how it works? Does any part of this seem unfamiliar? Didn't you all notice that we have Black History Month but not White History Month, and why? Jesus, why on Earth did you think that was?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Are you really that dense that you really have no clue what racism is? It's RACIST because it is based on RACE. Yes. Racial privilege.
You know, the color of someones skin. And the difference in privilege thereof. Why do you think there even is discrimination associated with race, Hooah, but not with (for instance) shoe size? It's because privilege broadly accrues more to members of some races than among others, but there are no privileges associated with shoe size (beyond, I suppose, shoe manufacturers making shoes in your size.) Man, things must be all kinds of mysterious to you, if you don't know how to think about privilege. Like you have no fucking idea why there's a BET, but not a WET.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Are you being ignorant on purpose? Where did I say anything about light skinned black people? You didn't. I did. I was giving you an example of what you were talking about - racism within black communities.
Now there is privilege in being a poor Mexican? No, there's privilege in not being a poor Mexican.
You said a black supremacist is less racist than the KKK. Yes, because of the privilege. Not because of the whiteness qua whiteness, but the whiteness qua privilege. In an alternate Earth, where it was more privileged to be black than to be white, if a black person discriminated against a white person, that would be racism. Here it's not, because the privilege situation is reversed. In a yet alternate-alternate Earth, where no privilege accrued to anyone because of their race, nothing would be racist, in the same way that nothing in our world is "shoe-size-ist" because no privilege accrues according to your shoe size. I just can't understand, Hooah, how you possibly make sense of when discrimination happens and when it doesn't without some notion of privilege. It's central to the very idea of "discrimination."
You said it would NOT be racist for a black man to call you a cracker. Of course it wouldn't. Do you genuinely know even a single white person who would be upset by that? Do you know why that is? Because it's not racist. Do you know why so-called "anti-white racism" just isn't something that people take seriously? Because it's almost impossible for it to happen. It requires such a bizzarre and unlikely turn of events for any white person to be the one who is less privileged because of his race that it's just not something anybody cares about. Did you just not notice any of that? That nobody gives a shit when you try to complain about "racism" against white people? And you're calling me out of touch with reality?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Do you realize that we are talking about racism? Just racism. Yes. Aka "discrimination that happens because of racial privilege."
Ahh, so YOU think Asians are more privileged than Blacks. Asians are afforded more racial privilege than black people, yes. That seems relatively obvious.
What do you think CMT is, jackass? Or MTV, for that matter. Do you understand the point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Is "sexual objectification" misogynistic, yes or no? The fact that you're asking implies that you know that neither Watson nor I have yet said that it was, thus proving my contention that we're talking about things Watson did not say as though she's said them. Can we please restrict the discussion to what people have actually said, please?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024