3 ms·

Just finished grad school at Big State University. Almost weekly both prior and after the election there were rallies and protests (some related to Trump, some

Just finished grad school at Big State University. Almost weekly both prior and after the election there were rallies and protests (some related to Trump, some not) where the demonstrators would wax on about “systemic white supremacy” and “cisheteropatriarchy”. White students would ceremoniously “acknowledge their privilege” by publicly declaring themselves an ally. They even had someone with an excel tracker to note who was declaring themselves an “ally” (probably collecting emails for future organizing, I would guess). At one of these things, a female student took the mic and talked about the pain she feels for being “white passing”, which I took to mean that people don’t see her as a minority but as White merely because of her skin color - a startling claim. Professors were starting to put “safe space” stickers on their office doors (I have pictures), and people were wearing safety pins after the election to signal that they are a “safe” person to interact with. This is absolutely a cult now, and an increasingly a mainstream one. It’s hard for me to gauge exactly how mainstream it was there but it was localized, it seems, to the undergrad institution.

forapurpose 9y ago
The comment lists several ideas, but doesn't really what the problems are. It just presumes that the problems are self-evident. > "systemic white supremacy” and “cisheteropatriarchy” For example, the idea that there is systemic white supremacy in the U.S. is hard to challenge - the evidence is overwhelming - nor is the proposition that many white people are unaware of it (the 'privilege'). Cisheteropatriarchy means, based just on reading the word here, merely the obvious fact that politics is dominated by heterosexuals whose gender identities are 'near' the stereotypes (i.e., they are not transexual, etc.). It's hard to name anyone in power who doesn't fit that description. I'd love it if we could talk about the ideas, and had some curiosity about them, rather than just dismissing it all as a "cult". > safe spaces That doesn't sound objectionable on its face, and in a society with a lot of racism and sexism, it might be a good idea. I've talked to black people who say they very often feel vulnerable - they never know what someone might do, and if something happens the black person often will get the blame (and be fired, arrested, kicked out of the restaurant, etc.). The Weinstein Company could have used some safe spaces. What harm is it doing?
- b6 9y ago
  > For example, the idea that there is systemic white supremacy in the U.S. is hard to challenge What is there to challenge? What is the claim, even? > politics is dominated by heterosexuals For years we fought against discrimination based on sexual orientation because it wasn't relevant. Were we wrong? Is sexual orientation an important aspect of a person's identity that should factor into our decisions? > safe spaces. What harm is it doing? You might as well ask what harm racial segregation does, since that is often the proposal, although they would never use the word segregation. But it is often suggested that we should set aside public space where people who claim membership in certain ethnic groups can be temporarily free from "Whiteness", under the assumption that they are persecuted. Or, what harm does it do when people equate criticism with violence, and try to be "safe" from it?
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    I'll assume that you are asking serious questions and want a serious conversation. No offense is intended, but I'm not interested in the sort of trolling conversation that often happens. It would be great to have an intelligent discussion about it! The fundamental answer is the issue is not discrimination, but power; discrimination is just one bad outcome of the problem of political power. Minorities naturally lack political power (being outnumbered) and therefore are politically vulnerable and subject to abuse, including discrimination. There is a long history of terrible abuse happening that I don't have to recount, but a conceptually perfect example is some U.S. state legislatures where the majority votes to restrict voting by minority citizens. Protecting minorities so they have the same liberty and opportunity as everyone else is the objective. It's philosophically and rhetorically interesting to call it all "discrimination" and debate the differences, but about theory of language - what meanings does a word have and to what extent does the using the same word mean that the things we describe are the same; the map is not the territory and that's still talking about the wrong word. The issue and the word, in practical reality, is power. >> politics is dominated by heterosexuals > For years we fought against discrimination based on sexual orientation because it wasn't relevant. Were we wrong? Is sexual orientation an important aspect of a person's identity that should factor into our decisions? Again, it's a power issue. People who don't have a seat at the table of power generally don't have their concerns addressed; that's a fundamental reason why democracy is important - it's the only way to address everyone's issues. They aren't addressed because hateful people can abuse the minority, who have no recourse without power; because others don't care about the minority; and because even good-willed people don't really understand what the minority needs or has experienced. I learned the same in IT - the system will be designed to meet the needs of the people at the table; if you exclude department X, their needs will be mostly ignored. Heterosexuals have plenty of seats at that table (almost all of them!); their needs and experiences will be addressed. The idea is to give others a voice too. One example that comes to mind is the AIDS crisis in the 1980s, where governments for years ignored an epidemic killing masses of people, but those were people without a seat at the table. Another is stop-and-frisk practices in some US cities, where African-Americans in poor neighborhoods are humiliated by law enforcement; if it happened to someone with access to power - if a banker on Wall Street was made to drop his pants for a search, the program would end before he or she zipped them back up. The same issue, the power issue, applies to the other points in the parent, so I'll stop here to avoid redundancy. > what harm does it do when people equate criticism with violence, and try to be "safe" from it? I don't see this happening too much. Could you cite some examples? I usually see it applied to hate speech and other actual discrimination. If it is happening more broadly, what do its practitioners say? I don't know enough to understand it.

forapurpose 9y ago

The comment lists several ideas, but doesn't really what the problems are. It just presumes that the problems are self-evident. > "systemic white supremacy” and “cisheteropatriarchy” For example, the idea that there is systemic white supremacy in the U.S. is hard to challenge - the evidence is overwhelming - nor is the proposition that many white people are unaware of it (the 'privilege'). Cisheteropatriarchy means, based just on reading the word here, merely the obvious fact that politics is dominated by heterosexuals whose gender identities are 'near' the stereotypes (i.e., they are not transexual, etc.). It's hard to name anyone in power who doesn't fit that description. I'd love it if we could talk about the ideas, and had some curiosity about them, rather than just dismissing it all as a "cult". > safe spaces That doesn't sound objectionable on its face, and in a society with a lot of racism and sexism, it might be a good idea. I've talked to black people who say they very often feel vulnerable - they never know what someone might do, and if something happens the black person often will get the blame (and be fired, arrested, kicked out of the restaurant, etc.). The Weinstein Company could have used some safe spaces. What harm is it doing?

b6 9y ago
> For example, the idea that there is systemic white supremacy in the U.S. is hard to challenge What is there to challenge? What is the claim, even? > politics is dominated by heterosexuals For years we fought against discrimination based on sexual orientation because it wasn't relevant. Were we wrong? Is sexual orientation an important aspect of a person's identity that should factor into our decisions? > safe spaces. What harm is it doing? You might as well ask what harm racial segregation does, since that is often the proposal, although they would never use the word segregation. But it is often suggested that we should set aside public space where people who claim membership in certain ethnic groups can be temporarily free from "Whiteness", under the assumption that they are persecuted. Or, what harm does it do when people equate criticism with violence, and try to be "safe" from it?
- forapurpose 9y ago
  I'll assume that you are asking serious questions and want a serious conversation. No offense is intended, but I'm not interested in the sort of trolling conversation that often happens. It would be great to have an intelligent discussion about it! The fundamental answer is the issue is not discrimination, but power; discrimination is just one bad outcome of the problem of political power. Minorities naturally lack political power (being outnumbered) and therefore are politically vulnerable and subject to abuse, including discrimination. There is a long history of terrible abuse happening that I don't have to recount, but a conceptually perfect example is some U.S. state legislatures where the majority votes to restrict voting by minority citizens. Protecting minorities so they have the same liberty and opportunity as everyone else is the objective. It's philosophically and rhetorically interesting to call it all "discrimination" and debate the differences, but about theory of language - what meanings does a word have and to what extent does the using the same word mean that the things we describe are the same; the map is not the territory and that's still talking about the wrong word. The issue and the word, in practical reality, is power. >> politics is dominated by heterosexuals > For years we fought against discrimination based on sexual orientation because it wasn't relevant. Were we wrong? Is sexual orientation an important aspect of a person's identity that should factor into our decisions? Again, it's a power issue. People who don't have a seat at the table of power generally don't have their concerns addressed; that's a fundamental reason why democracy is important - it's the only way to address everyone's issues. They aren't addressed because hateful people can abuse the minority, who have no recourse without power; because others don't care about the minority; and because even good-willed people don't really understand what the minority needs or has experienced. I learned the same in IT - the system will be designed to meet the needs of the people at the table; if you exclude department X, their needs will be mostly ignored. Heterosexuals have plenty of seats at that table (almost all of them!); their needs and experiences will be addressed. The idea is to give others a voice too. One example that comes to mind is the AIDS crisis in the 1980s, where governments for years ignored an epidemic killing masses of people, but those were people without a seat at the table. Another is stop-and-frisk practices in some US cities, where African-Americans in poor neighborhoods are humiliated by law enforcement; if it happened to someone with access to power - if a banker on Wall Street was made to drop his pants for a search, the program would end before he or she zipped them back up. The same issue, the power issue, applies to the other points in the parent, so I'll stop here to avoid redundancy. > what harm does it do when people equate criticism with violence, and try to be "safe" from it? I don't see this happening too much. Could you cite some examples? I usually see it applied to hate speech and other actual discrimination. If it is happening more broadly, what do its practitioners say? I don't know enough to understand it.