Reverse racism/sexism

Sounds like regular ol' racism/sexism to me.

Reply to _db

Depends on the situation. "Reverse racism" is used as a political tool to obscure systemic racism, for sure, and accusations of sexism against women are often a cover for frustrated misogynists. But we don't want to give a licence to any form of racism or sexism. None of it is acceptable.

I always sense this dismissive nature about men's issues in particular - which we never really take seriously - after all, we don't really care if men get brutally beaten to death on screen, but for a women to get assaulted brutally on screen...that is jarring for all us. Historically, we simply don't value the lives of men as much as we do women. It was not so long ago that men were outcasted and called cowards or given the white feather for not voluntarily deciding to face the machine guns of the world wars.

For example, there are many more men in prison, many more men overdosing or strung out on drugs, many more men die prematurely because of preventable health issues, more men are prone to serious mental health issues, and yet we don't really seem to care very much about and of these issues, certainly not as much as we care about women's issues. This is not personal prejudice, as you say, it is systemic prejudice, only it is unpopular to defend men's issues, particularly because people on the internet dismiss them with name calling and mob mentality, as you have done here, OP.

It's the either or mentality that blows me away; it's perfectly possible for men's issues to coexist with women's issues and have them both be recognized as problematic. Dismissing white blue collar issues has become something of a hallmark of popular liberal politics. For educated, 'enlightened' (and probably socially indoctrinated) city-dwellers with decent jobs, a multicultural environment, and liberal friends it is practically impossible to understand the culture and unique problems that are currently plaguing the rust belt, where generationally poor and disadvantaged working class white people are facing an economic and manufacturing crisis as that is running hand in hand with an opioid epidemic. You dismiss these issues at your own peril, ie: enter Donald Trump.

Quoting _db

Chill out already you privileged [self-entitled, narcissistic] fucks.

:100: :up:

Reply to _db Most assuredly, we white men are not subjected to systemic pervasive reverse racism/sexism. However, it is entirely possible for non-whites and women to speak and behave in a racist, sexist manner, and it happens.

Quoting 64bithuman

there are many more men in prison, many more men overdosing or strung out on drugs, many more men die prematurely because of preventable health issues, more men are prone to serious mental health issues, and yet we don't really seem to care very much about and of these issues,

The demographics you cite are, to a significant degree, class linked. Most upward mobile, middle to upper class white men (or women) are NOT in prison, overdosing or strong out on drugs, suffering premature / preventable death, or having major mental health issues. A significant portion of the men that you reference are downward mobile (or bottomed out) working class men with few to no prospects.

The middle class establishment loathes downward mobile white men because they are an unpleasant reminder that social mobility works both ways, and the middle classes are not all that secure in their prosperity or status. Minority people in straitened circumstances, on the other hand, fulfill middle-class expectations, so the upwardly mobile are much less bothered by them.

Reply to _db

A racist and sexist diatribe, but it’s against white men so it’s cool and edgy. What difference does it make?

@NOS4A2 is still
Quoting _db

equivocating personal prejudice with systemic persecution, treating the former with the same level of seriousness as the latter.

Some rather spout alt-Right/MAGA "talking points" than reason about (their) uncomfortably unexamined bigotries. :brow:

No one is racist until they systemically persecute someone in @180 Proof‘s clown world.

Discriminating on the basis of race is a moral wrong that results in greater harm to some races more than others.

Was that so difficult to say without implying that every race suffers the same oppression and without implying that some racism is perfectly acceptable?

Quoting NOS4A2

No one is racist until they systemically persecute someone in 180 Proof‘s clown world.

You just made @_db's case, trumpt_rd. :clap:

Reply to Bitter Crank Yes I would agree that poverty is class-linked, obviously, but I do not believe that generationally poor people can so easily get themselves out of poverty. This is what makes them generationally poor. Peasants who fled Europe, like the Irish, fled from generational opression and poverty - many poor Europeans have fled literal genocide to arrive in North America. These people who arrived with nothing and no education are not the same as other white people who came from the aristocratic British ruling class. To ignore the class history of England is to make a critical error in judging all white people in America.

To large extent, class is determined by origin, as everybody knows, and the mistake occurs when primarily middle-class or upper-middle class people make racist sweeping judgments about all white people and refuse to acknowledge the diversity that lies within that label, or the poor white population among them who by no fault of their own are in poverty - or to forget about the many working-class people in America who made their living in factories that have left since the country.

In other words, there's no need to throw the baby out with the bath water and assume that because there is systemic racism against minorities in America there can't be poor white people who also face unique problems that must be addressed. Of course, there is the terrible history of slavery that America has yet to reckon with - which has left its mark on the country. Lawmakers and lawyers and the ruling class are still made up of wealthy white people, but that doesn't mean that all white people had an equal shot at becoming a member of that ruling class. Many of the wealthiest families in America have always been connected and generationally rich. George Washington, for example, came from a wealthy, well-connected family - his great Grandfather studied at Oxford, his great-great-Grandfather was High Church rector of the Church of England.

It's also not very common for the very rich to fall down the social ladder to the bottom. Mostly poor people struggle to get themselves out of the lower classes, generationally. Poor people face fewer prospects, lack of education, exposure to crime, or to violence, abuse, drugs, single mothers, etc. These things then limit their ability to be 'good citizens'. Poor people are poor people regardless of ethnic background. Which can exist as a statement along with the statement: minorities in America face systemic oppression that white people do not. Both can be true.

Reverse racism! Yeah, kinda like where an illness is used as treatment for the very same illness. You can't rectify discrimination with more discrimination; no, not even when the polarity has been flipped. There's got to be a better way, oui mes amies?

As fire drives out fire, so love love logic, eh?

Reply to 180 Proof

No where have I equivocated between personal prejudice and systemic persecution. You’ve got nothing, as usual.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543213

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543238

Before we get into prejudice, racism and oppression semantic discussions, please read the above two comments and perhaps we can at least agree on shared terminology.

Some short thoughts from me:
Oppressed people can be racist.
Not all racism leads to oppression.

Both oppression and racism are bad.
Personal racist opinions usually don't cause harm or are too particular to solve through political means.
Personal racism alone doesn't lead to oppression.
Oppression is "cumulative" personal racism borne out by social groups or (in)directly caused by the operation of systems.
Oppression is a social injustice.
Social injustice requires political (e.g. "group") solutions.

We don't police people's thoughts so we can't do much against personal racism other than education. If it directly causes damage courts are open for claims.

Oppression is a social injustice which requires political action beyond the ability to file claims and state "we're all equal". Why? Because culture eats rules before breakfast. Or in other words, it's not enough to punish behaviour, you need to take steps to change culture/system to end oppression.

Quoting _db

The same thing applies to white people crying over "reverse racism" whenever some random person on the Internet says something not nice about white people that hurts their fee-fees. Chill out already you privileged fucks.

The appeal to equal treatment is a common dodge indulged in by those obviously better off and better treated than others, who resent being reminded of this and who will do nothing to remedy the situation.

It's an egregious disregard of context. One of my favorite quotes about the law is this, attributed to Anatole France: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread." Ah, irony. How I love you.

Reply to Hanover Here’s a question … Is ‘race’ a ‘social construct’? :D

I have noticed that people are so quick to say how others are easily offended, ridicule them and then hammer home the argument of people being offended when openly trying to offend them.

Humans are funny creatures.

Reply to NOS4A2 :lol:

Quoting Tzeentch

Sounds like regular ol' racism/sexism to me.

No, it's personal prejudice, which is a psychological defense mechanism that is sometimes warranted, given the context of a situation.

Quoting Baden

But we don't want to give a licence to any form of racism or sexism. None of it is acceptable.

People who are oppressed have the right to be prejudiced against their oppressors.

Quoting 64bithuman

Historically, we simply don't value the lives of men as much as we do women.

Historically, we have valued the reproductive capabilities of women, which is not the same thing as valuing their lives.

Quoting 64bithuman

and yet we don't really seem to care very much about and of these issues, certainly not as much as we care about women's issues.

These issues hardly ever get mentioned except as ammunition against those who bring up the issues of minorities and women. wHaT AbOuT tHe MeN??!?

There aren't very many movements or organizations that address men's issues for the sake of these issues (and not to just spite feminists), and those that do exist only do so by piggy-backing on the success of the feminist waves.

Quoting _db

People who are oppressed have the right to be prejudiced against their oppressors.

Oppressors also tend to be prejudiced against the people they oppress. It is, briefly, hard to think positively about people you have screwed over, not just once but for a long time. If the people I oppress are good, deserving people, then what am I?

That is one of the damnable things about oppressors: forgiving them isn't going to help. Reverse oppression won't help either. As long as oppression serves the purposes of the oppressor (and it generally does) there is no good external reason to stop being an oppressor. People won't stop oppressing until it no longer 'works'. The civil war was an ultimately unsuccessful effort to make slavery (in the USA) stop working. What happened is that a new regime of oppression took the slave masters' place (in some cases they were the same people). Eventually the banks, government, real estate agents, etc. took over.

I don't say this out of approval: It just seems like that is the way it works.

Reply to Bitter Crank :brow: :up:

Did caucasians & asians flee Africa or did they just decide to explore and ended up where they are now? A lot rides on the answer to that question.

Quoting Agent Smith

Did caucasians & asians flee Africa or did they just decide to explore and ended up where they are now?

Africans left africa in migratory waves over hundreds to thousands of millennia and this primeval African diaspora adapted over hundreds-thousands of generations to environments different from Africa and subject to different evolutionary stressors (perhaps mating with non-African hominid "cousins"). Our mitochondrial DNA does not lie. :fire:

Quoting 180 Proof

Africans left africa in migratory waves over hundreds to thousands of millennia and this primeval African diaspora adapted over hundreds-thousands of generations to environments different from Africa and subject to different evolutionary stressors (perhaps mating with non-African hominid "cousins"). Our mitochondrial DNA does not lie. :fire:

You da best, mon ami, you da best!

So there were some non-African hominids in Europe (Neanderthals) and Asia (Denisovans). My knowledge of human evolution is limited to the out-of-Africa theory, our neanderthal and denisovan cousins which we probably assimilated and/or exterminated. :scream: That's one reason I don't feel "happy to be alive". My family tree is not something I would be proud of, soaked in the blood of so many my ancestors had to kill as it is. :sad: Survival of the [s]fittest[/s] nastiest.

Quoting _db

There is an aura of absurdity when crybabies moan and shout about reverse racism or reverse sexism (against white people and men, respectively).

It's only 'reverse' to them because they are white, on the other side of it, and they do not know what racism is to begin with!

:lol:

It is a perfect opportunity to help those out, should they be capable of being helped and there is someone capable of helping them. Sadly, there is no universal method applicable to everyone successfully. Getting through to some people requires much different approaches than others, and also requires certain kinds of people doing the approaching...

Quoting _db

There is an aura of absurdity when crybabies moan and shout about reverse racism or reverse sexism (against white people and men, respectively).

Taking pride in the negative effects/affects that racism can have upon another, regardless of their race, is rather racist in and of itself...

Racism = racism, no matter who it is pointed against and no matter how many abstractions you throw at it.

Just accept the fact that racism is an anti-homo-sapiens sentiment, a self-inflicted poison, the very same sadistic evil fuel to a fire we dont need.

Racism is the animus of 'racial prejudice' historically force multiplied by policies and practices of government, business and/or religion (re: socioeconomic scapegoating). Those who do not deliberately oppose – who advocate, administer and/or enjoy the benefits of the legacies of – racism are racists.

'Racial prejudice' is a mode of cultivated tribalism (i.e. zerosum anti-cosmopolitanism aka "us-or-themism"). Some Individuals outgrow this vice but most do not.

Corollary: Merely personal 'racial prejudice' by the oppressed against her oppressor, while it may be tribal, cannot be "racist" (re: the delusion (cui bono?) of "reverse racism"). Racism is the theory and practice – ideology – of the oppressor and his functionaries. Denying this (i.e. a simplified summation of more than a century of well-documented, cross-cultural social researches) is an unmistakable tell. :mask:

Note: Btw, substitute 'target categories' of sex, class, sect, color ... for race and the bureaucratic modalities of 'systemic discrimination' are as apparent as they are familiar.

Racial prejudice is what racism means.
Then there is scale:
Light prejudice against a race VS hatred and intolerance. (And everything in between)
Policy/oppression is another thing.

Hitler's racism didn't begin with his enactment of oppressing policies. Rather, the policies(and their consequence) were the end result.

A single vicious dog does not imply every dog to be vicious

Reply to Seeker

The inability to individuate is a key component to racism. It opens up a host of fallacies that the racist can never overcome, relegating his beliefs to a lower order of thought, and any action motivated by it to injustice.

To me, the very term "reverse racism" is in effect racist, in that it assumes that there is a 'normal' or 'regular' type of racism and then there is its reverse. The way I see it, all human groups tend to be fearful or hateful of other groups (but also fascinated by them, it's complicated). So racism cuts both ways -- there's no front or reverse.

Quoting NOS4A2

The inability to individuate is a key component to racism. It opens up a host of fallacies that the racist can never overcome, relegating his beliefs to a lower order of thought, and any action motivated by it to injustice.

My vocabulary concerning English is very limited still, thank you for the eloquence with which you have replied.

Reply to Bitter Crank Good points, as usual :clap:

Reply to 180 Proof :strong: :100:

Reply to Agent Smith Quoting Agent Smith

So there were some non-African hominids in Europe (Neanderthals) and Asia (Denisovans). My knowledge of human evolution is limited to the out-of-Africa theory, our neanderthal and denisovan cousins which we probably assimilated and/or exterminated. :scream: That's one reason I don't feel "happy to be alive". My family tree is not something I would be proud of, soaked in the blood of so many my ancestors had to kill as it is

There isn't a lot of evidence to support the idea that we either assimilated or exterminated our cousins. There was never a large population of Neanderthals in Europe, or so I understand. Small populations self-extinguish more easily than large ones. (That said, they survived as a species longer than we have.)

There is a great book on Neanderthals, out in 2020: Kindred: Neanderthal Life, Love, Death and Art by Rebecca Wragg Sykes. She not only brings the Neanderthals to life, she utilizes and explains a lot of very impressive science stuff applied to ancient archeology. Very informative and enjoyable.

Reply to Bitter Crank :up:

Merci for the book recommendation.

Quoting Olivier5

The way I see it, all human groups tend to be fearful or hateful of other groups (but also fascinated by them, it's complicated).

Been thinking about this; maybe I was a bit hasty. Xenophobia might be nearly universal, as I pointed out, but xenophobia is not the same thing as racism, which as @180 Proof reminds us, is more than just a psychological trait: racism is an ideology.

Quoting 180 Proof

Racism is the theory and practice – ideology – of the oppressor and his functionaries.

And when understood as an ideology, racism is definitely Western, ie European and American, and a recent phenomenon ie dating from the 19th century onward.

Some Africans have developed a racist ideology too, eg Hutus vs Tutsis, but it seems that such were based upon the racist theories of European colonialists. In Asia there's plenty of ethnic prejudice as well, including some that is institutional (eg the treatment of non Siamese folks in Thailand) but to my knowledge it hasn't been made into an ideology yet.

Quoting Olivier5

Xenophobia

What then explains SETI? :chin: Peoples (hate) fear each other but then they're oh so eager to contact aliens. Something doesn't add up now does it?

Reply to Agent Smith That is true: there is such a thing as near universal xenophobia, and there is also such a thing as a near universal desire or attraction for the exotic -- which I like to call the "Pocahontas effect", or simply "xenophilia": sexual or intellectual attraction for other folks.

Quoting Olivier5

That is true: there is such a thing as near universal xenophobia, and there is also such a thing as a near universal desire or attraction for the exotic -- which I like to call the "Pocahontas effect", or simply "xenophilia": sexual or intellectual attraction for other folks.

Xenophilia?!

[quote=Ms. Marple]Most interesting.[/quote]

I should've known. Which is the rule and which is the exception? Beats me!

Quoting Olivier5

n Asia there's plenty of ethnic prejudice as well, including some that is institutional (eg the treatment of non Siamese folks in Thailand) but to my knowledge it hasn't been made into an ideology yet.

It's not uncommon for Asians to believe that Westerners/whites are inherently incapable of spiritual advancement. I've encountered this attitude among Buddhists and Hindus.

(Whites are also banned from visiting some Hindu temples.)

Quoting 64bithuman

Historically, we simply don't value the lives of men as much as we do women.

Quoting 64bithuman

it's perfectly possible for men's issues to coexist with women's issues and have them both be recognized as problematic. Dismissing white blue collar issues has become something of a hallmark of popular liberal politics.

Really good post, by which I mean I agree. I see no one has really responded to the substance of your comment.

Quoting Agent Smith

... xenophobia, and ... xenophilia
— Olivier5

Which is the rule and which is the exception?

In my experience, heterosexual males tend to be attracted to females of another ethnicity, while being fearful of, or antagonistic to men from another ethnicity. Vice versa for hetero females. It makes sense from a Darwinian standpoint, given hybrid vigor.

E.g. even the worst "frog basher" wouldn't mind a French girlfriend...

Reply to Olivier5 :up:

Reply to Olivier5

So Darwin! Are races/ethnicities proto-species? We were treated as distinct species in the sense that once upon a time, when racism was at its peak, interracial unions were forbidden, punishable by death since even consensual marriages/sex were/was taken to be rape/beastiality or something like that. A species is defined as being able to breed, biologically speaking.

Quoting Agent Smith

when racism was at its peak, interracial unions were forbidden, punishable by death since even consensual marriages/sex were/was taken to be rape/beastiality or something like that.

Even in the antebellum American South, people were having much biracial sex, from what historians can tell. Slave owners were the first one to do so, due to their power over their victims, but there were also instances of consensual biracial sex, eg through prostitution. So even such a thoroughly racist society could not eradicate it. That's how powerful the sexual pull is between different ethnicities.

And for good (Darwinian) reasons: hybrids tend to be stronger than their parents. In a state of nature, biracial sex would give one's genes a greater chance of future survival and propagation than 'monoracial' sex.

Quoting Olivier5

Even in the antebellum American South, people were having much biracial sex, from what historians can tell. Slave owners were the first one to do so, due to their power over their victims, but there were also instances of consensual biracial sex, eg through prostitution. So even such a thoroughly racist society could not eradicate it. That's how powerful the sexual pull is between different ethnicities.

Tempus fugit.

Reply to Olivier5 Anecdotal evidence is just that.

Reply to I like sushi Anecdotal evidence is often all there is, and I find its discarding rather facile, most of times.

Beside, there is ample historical evidence that the antebellum American South was both 1) adhering formally to a totally racist ideology justifying slavery and separating the 'races' in a form of apartheid; 2) having quite a lot of sex going on across the colour divide, as testified by the large mulatto population in the US. This contradiction cannot be explained other than by some strong sexual desire happening between 'races'.

Reply to Olivier5 You are using this alongside something posed as ‘Darwinian’ though - ie. Scientific. Optimal procreation is not simply about mating with someone more different than you are (note: the actual genetic differences within ‘races’ is far broader than between said ‘races’). The optimal last heard was to mate with your 3rd or 4th cousin I believe.

Reply to I like sushi There is a natural desire between 'races'. This desire is strong enough to beat any apartheid law. That's all I wanted to point out.

I also said it made sense from a Darwinian standpoint, and I still think it does.

There can be no such thing as a scientifically optimal mate, because we cannot predict the kind of traits that will be beneficial in the future. We do know however that inbreeding and incest are risky strategies, and that maintaining some degree of genetic diversity minimizes risks.

E.g. if the ozone layer is depleted, only black people will have a chance to survive the resulting UV influx. Under such circumstances, a white skin would become a grave handicap.

Reply to Olivier5 I was stating fact not opinion. Scientifically speaking what I said was correct I dudn’t day it because it ‘makes sense’ it is just simply what experts in the field have stated.

These experts know more than you clearly. Too much genetic variation is too much. Too little is too little. There actually is an optimal range for procreation and this optimal range is regarded to be (by experts in the field) with breeding between 3rd and 4th cousins if I recall correctly.

I actually did just check. I was correct.

Just gonna leave this here:



I fucking love Shaun & Jen

Quoting I like sushi

Too much genetic variation is too much. Too little is too little. There actually is an optimal range for procreation and this optimal range is regarded to be (by experts in the field) with breeding between 3rd and 4th cousins if I recall correctly.

Please quote those experts of yours, then. That notion does not mix well with what I know of genetics, and I believe I know far more than you do.

Reply to Olivier5 Try googling it maybe before putting your foot in your mouth.

Bye bye.

You are in my sin bin again. See you in 2 months maybe.

Quoting I like sushi

Try googling it maybe before putting your foot in your mouth.

So you are unable or unwilling to provide any evidence for your claim that "There actually is an optimal range for procreation and this optimal range is regarded to be (by experts in the field) with breeding between 3rd and 4th cousins". I wonder why. It should be easy, if you just checked the info as you pretend.

I also wonder why your reaction is so defensive and angry. We are just having different views here. Where's the offence, pray tell?

Quoting I like sushi

Try googling it

Since Sushi's apparently gone, I did google it out of curiosity. Here is one source:

An association between the kinship and fertility of human couples
Authors
Agnar Helgason 1, Saebjörn Pálsson, Daníel F Gudbjartsson, Thornórdur Kristjánsson, Kári Stefánsson
Affiliation
1deCODE Genetics, Sturlugata 8, 101 Reykjavik, Iceland. agnar@decode.is
Science. 2008.

Abstract
Previous studies have reported that related human couples tend to produce more children than unrelated couples but have been unable to determine whether this difference is biological or stems from socioeconomic variables. Our results, drawn from all known couples of the Icelandic population born between 1800 and 1965, show a significant positive association between kinship and fertility, with the greatest reproductive success observed for couples related at the level of third and fourth cousins. Owing to the relative socioeconomic homogeneity of Icelanders, and the observation of highly significant differences in the fertility of couples separated by very fine intervals of kinship, we conclude that this association is likely to have a biological basis.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18258915/

I don't have full text access, but here is another article quoting the above study in greater detail:

When Incest Is Best: Kissing Cousins Have More Kin
Study analyzing more than 200 years of data finds that couples consisting of third cousins have the highest reproductive success

By Nikhil Swaminathan on February 8, 2008

... The results of the exhaustive study are constant throughout the generations analyzed. Women born between 1800 and 1824 who mated with a third cousin had significantly more children and grandchildren (4.04 and 9.17, respectively) than women who hooked up with someone no closer than an eighth cousin (3.34 and 7.31). Those proportions held up among women born more than a century later when couples were, on average, having fewer children. ...

Interestingly, one evolutionary argument for mating with a relative is that it might reduce a woman's chance of having a miscarriage caused by immunological incompatibility between a mother and her child. Some individuals have an antigen (a protein that can launch an immune response) on the surface of their red blood cells called a rhesus factor—commonly abbreviated "Rh." In some cases—typically during a second pregnancy—when a woman gets pregnant, she and her fetus may have incompatible blood cells, which could trigger the mother's immune system to treat the fetus as a foreign intruder, causing a miscarriage. This occurrence is less probable if the parents are closely related, because their blood makeup is more likely to match. ...

"It may well be that the enhanced reproductive success observed in the Iceland study at the level of third [and] fourth cousins, who on average would be expected to have inherited 0.8 percent to 0.2 percent of their genes from a common ancestor," Bittles says, "represents this point of balance between the competing advantages and disadvantages of inbreeding and outbreeding."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-incest-is-best-kissi/

The people who complain about reverse racism or reverse sexism are usually white, straight, cisgender men, and one of the kernels of their complaints tends to be what they perceive to be a double standard in the way society treats them.

They feel as if everyone but themselves is allowed a social narrative that they can identify with and can be proud about. Why can't white people have White Lives Matter? Why can't men have a men's rights movement? Why can't heterosexual people have straight pride events?

All of this is actually just a jealousy of class solidarity and a fear of losing privileges. Straight white men feel "left out" and isolated, as if nobody cares about them. The thinking goes: "if I really am so privileged as everyone else is saying I am, then why am I not happy? And if the gay snowflakes get what they want, I'll lose what little I have!"

In reality, the vast majority of them belong to the same class as everyone else: the working class. If straight white men developed class consciousness, this jealousy of other people different from them would dissolve, because they would have a support group and a meaningful social narrative in which they could place themselves. The fear of other people different from them would also dissolve, as they would identity with these folk as fellows of the working class. There would be an understanding that other people different from them, while belonging to the working class, also experience further forms of oppression that straight white men do not.

[quote=Homeopathy]Similia similibus curantur (like cures like).[/quote]

Remember the dilution level is crucial - one molecule of the therapeutic agent in a volume the size of the solar system. In other words, nanoscale reverse racism is the cure, homeopathically speaking.

Watch the late great The Amazing (James) Randi video on the subject.

Quoting _db

In reality, the vast majority of them belong to the same class as everyone else: the working class. If straight white men developed class consciousness, this jealousy of other people different from them would dissolve, because they would have a support group and a meaningful social narrative in which they could place themselves. The fear of other people different from them would also dissolve, as they would identity with these folk as fellows of the working class.

Why would it be on the white, male, working class to bring about this solidarity? Are other members of the working class exempt from such a duty? Or are the white males the only ones holding out?

As those "woke" Romans used to say: cui bono? In the US, for instance, do whites or non-whites benefit more from the historical legacies – persistance – of racism and therefore have more of a vested interest in institutionally perpetuating racism than the other? Stop lying to yourself. :mask:

Reply to Isaac I did not mean to imply that straight white males should be the vanguard of a new class consciousness for the working class. The class consciousness already exists and has been developed by people of all backgrounds. Straight white men merely need to wake up and join.

Reply to _db :fire:

Quoting _db

Straight white men merely need to wake up and join.

Join what?

Race struggle is primarily of economic origin. Oppression was class oppression, literally about an economic transaction (slavery), at first, then about a supply of cheap labour, justification for colonialism...

Feminism likewise. The oppression of women being largely about the control of inheritance through sexual oppression and marriage inequality, control of offspring...

Just because those two minority struggles were parallel to class struggle in their goal of unshackling said minorities from their economic ostracism, doesn't mean we can just subsume any other minority struggle in class struggle.

I see nothing in the mistreatment of transgender people or homosexuals, for example, which plays an economic role. It's just prejudice.

Class struggle is intimately tied to race and sex struggles. I see very little connection with most of the issues on the modern white cisgender male's hate list.

Reply to Isaac Interesting perspective. Just speculating, but I think we can see the mistreatment of homosexuals in economic terms as well, as they would not produce heirs to a lineage.

Quoting Isaac

Just because those two minority struggles were parallel to class struggle in their goal of unshackling said minorities from their economic ostracism, doesn't mean we can just subsume any other minority struggle in class struggle.

Sure, I agree with that. Not every form of oppression is based on class struggle.

If the straight white man experiences oppression, it is not because he is white, straight and a man, but because he is part of the working class in the capitalist system. That is the only form of oppression that the straight white man can legitimately claim to be suffering from.

The straight white men that complain about reverse racism or reverse sexism need an explanation for why their lives suck, and they incorrectly and stupidly attribute it to the social justice movements of women and minorities, rather than capitalism. The privileges they have (as straight white men) are a crutch (that come at the expense of other people), and they despise anyone who threatens to take that crutch away from them, rather than questioning why they even need a crutch to begin with.

Quoting _db

I think we can see the mistreatment of homosexuals in economic terms as well, as they would not produce heirs to a lineage.

That's an interesting idea. I'm not sure how it would flesh out, but might be fruitful line line of thought...

Quoting _db

The straight white men that complain about reverse racism or reverse sexism need an explanation for why their lives suck, and they incorrectly and stupidly attribute it to the social justice movements of women and minorities, rather than capitalism.

But this a feature, not a bug.

As Reply to 180 Proof said (though I'm sure for different reasons) cui bono?

Who benefits from the fact that the white working class cisgender males (the vast majority of the working class) have such a convenient, and unending supply of alternative sumps for their anger?

Who benefits from the fact that the oppressed are never just 'the poor' and the oppressors never just 'the capitalists'?

What I'm saying is that getting white cisgender males to think about class struggle rather than race/gender/sexuality is really, really easy...stop feeding them a non-stop diet of news about race/gender/sexuality so that they can actually think about other issues for five minutes.

What's a lot harder is getting the wealthy black, the wealthy women, the wealthy homosexuals and the wealthy transgeneder to realise the oppression they suffer (which is genuine) pales into insignificance compared to the thousands of children dying from poverty on a daily basis, the homeless, the ones that can't afford to heat their homes this winter... The issues that should fill entirely the front page of every newspaper to the exclusion of all other stories until they're solved. The problems that should absorb every ounce of campaigning fervour.

With regards to the poor white male's grievance or the rich black trans lesbian's, I have little sympathy for either. Both are clutching at exculpatory narratives, both are looking to distract attention from the fact that their very lifestyles are an act of oppression against the actual poor - the sweatshop worker, the peasant farmer, the modern slave.

Quoting _db

They feel as if everyone but themselves is allowed a social narrative that they can identify with and can be proud about. Why can't white people have White Lives Matter? Why can't men have a men's rights movement? Why can't heterosexual people have straight pride events?

You might be into something here: narrative envy. But it seems to me that such envy is easily satisfied: there are men's right movements, including progressive ones, and they do develop alternative narratives about men in society that are more positive than run-off-the-mill men bashing, and more progressive than standard machismo.

I actually lived under reverse racism for a period time. That was back in elementary school. I lived in a culture that was about 99% white. There was one black girl of my age in the entire municipal entity, and perhaps a handful of schoolchildren of other races altogether. The authorities back then uncritically adopted American theories of racism and so pushed on us the view that we're all white supremacists who are repressing blacks. This resulted in this girl getting away with all kinds of shit (things that other children would be disciplined for if they did them). We had to stand back and let her be that way because any criticism of her was automatically interpreted as "racist". All sense of justice and fairness was gone.

I notice this trend of anti-racist overcompensation sometimes now as well. Not in regard to all races and all socio-economic classes, of course. In our culture, it's generally acceptable to be viciously racist against the Romas and people from former Yugoslav republics. Also against poor immigrants and refugees from poor countries, regardless of their actual skin color. But being critical (or saying anything that can be interpreted as critical) of anything that an educated enough/well-off enough black person does is likely going to be interpreted as "racist". It makes for uneven, unfair interactions. And this in a country that has no history in the trade of black slaves or any history of systemic repression of blacks.

Reply to Isaac Is there a broader ideological system that you ascribe to? I have some guesses but I don't want to make any assumptions.

Quoting Isaac

With regards to the poor white male's grievance or the rich black trans lesbian's, I have little sympathy for either. Both are clutching at exculpatory narratives, both are looking to distract attention from the fact that their very lifestyles are an act of oppression against the actual poor - the sweatshop worker, the peasant farmer, the modern slave.

It seems to me that in order to help other people, you have to take care of yourself first. Devoting a significant amount of time and energy to aiding the modern slaves of the world requires that certain conditions be met in your own life. But I can't define what the threshold is between justified self-care and gratuitous self-care, it seems fuzzy.

I think that if there is anything to criticize about the social justice movements in developed countries, it's the way they have been commodified and turned into just another avenue for consumption.

Quoting _db

Is there a broader ideological system that you ascribe to?

Difficult to answer simply (as I suspect is the case for most people) broadly old-school socialist probably fits the bill best.

Quoting _db

It seems to me that in order to help other people, you have to take care of yourself first. Devoting a significant amount of time and energy to aiding the modern slaves of the world requires that certain conditions be met in your own life. But I can't define what the threshold is between justified self-care and gratuitous self-care, it seems fuzzy.

Yeah, I agree with that. I suppose that other people's position on where that threshold is would be my point of argument. Is it something that's just a personal matter, or does society get to have a discussion about where it is.

Quoting _db

I think that if there is anything to criticize about the social justice movements in developed countries, it's the way they have been commodified and turned into just another avenue for consumption.

I think this is true too, but does that mean you don't see them playing any obfuscatory role at all? Is it just coincidence that resolving these modern issues, even to the complete satisfaction of the complainants, would have absolutely no impact on the capitalist class at all? Have they just got lucky with what's bothering the modern youth?

Quoting Isaac

Is it just coincidence that resolving these modern issues, even to the complete satisfaction of the complainants, would have absolutely no impact on the capitalist class at all?

Yeah I think this is a common criticism leftists make of liberals. They want to reform the system, make it "nicer", but don't want to fundamentally change the way it works. It's all surface-level, appearance-based, superficial and totally impotent. There's so much energy wasted on crap that ends up just improving the capitalist system.

This is something that seems to have happened across social justice movements. Like, second-wave feminists were hard-core. People were scared of them. And there was a heavy current of socialist thought involved in it as well, it really was a revolutionary-minded wave.

Nowadays it's mostly lukewarm, apathetic "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" slacktivism that is more of a corporate HR propaganda tool than anything else and ends up produces mind-numbingly stupid shit like this.

We acknowledge that TikTok dances may not have been the greatest tactic to get the SCOTUS draft rejected, but please understand that this was part of a greater awareness campaign.

What the fuck??

"Common topics discussed within the men's rights movement include family law (such as child custody, alimony and marital property distribution), reproduction, suicides, domestic violence against men, circumcision, education, conscription, social safety nets, and health policies."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement

I found this interesting. It is true that certain issues do in fact overly impact men that might require addressing, and it's also likely true few men would advocate that they be addressed because such a demand for help is contrary to masculinity.

I also realize that many would join men's right groups for misogynistic and chauvinistic reasons, making such discussions challenging.

Looking at this from a most generous, good faith, academic perspective, I can see some merit in stepping back and asking if there is male discrimination that should be addressed. I'm not advocating any particular political solution to whatever is discovered, but it seems a relevant sociological study to at least understand what dysfunctional standards we might unknowingly be enforcing.

Quoting 180 Proof

historical legacies

:up: It takes more the one generation for a family to find its niche in society. Any mishaps along the way and it's back to square one. That said it isn't such a good idea to constantly harp on the "historical legacies" of the races - that white folks had it good and the other races didn't. Sapiens qui prospicit (wise is he who looks ahead). That doesn't mean blacks & other races weren't dealt a bad hand - to think so would be akin to denying the holocaust.

Quoting _db

What the fuck??

...is, I think the only appropriate response!

But maybe I'm just getting old and curmudgeonly. I eagerly await the new era of social justice heralded in by some half-grown twenty somethings doing a dance... If only Martin Luther King had got a bit of a shuffle on, popped a few disco moves, who knows where we'd be...

Reply to Agent Smith
You stopped making sense at " :up: " ...

Quoting 180 Proof

You stopped making sense at " :up: " ...

:blush: One can't be always right! Oh well!