3 ms·

> In the UC system, it is now considered a 'micro aggression' to make the statement 'America is a Meritocracy'. Why? Because it doesn't necessarily reflect the

> In the UC system, it is now considered a 'micro aggression' to make the statement 'America is a Meritocracy'. Why? Because it doesn't necessarily reflect the fact that for some people it's harder than others Alternate character interpretation: the phrase "meritocracy" has turned into a dogwhistle for white supremacists and as such its use effectively reifies a white-supremacist position whether you mean to do so or not. As another example: I do not think that the overwheming majority of folks who use the term "gypped" have a problem with Romani, nut there is history and context to that too and you can't ignore it. Or, if you'd like a more amplified example, consider what the phrase "blood and soil" actually refers to. It's not "Orwellian" to say "hey, that shit hurts people, be conscious of how your actions affect other people." It's polite.

vonmoltke 8y ago
> It's not "Orwellian" to say "hey, that shit hurts people, be conscious of how your actions affect other people." It's polite. I think it is Orwellian to declare certain words or phrases "dog whistles" and suppress their usage based on that.
- eropple 8y ago
  Please explain why identifying the work of white supremacists and similar pustules as their work, and suggesting that decent people should not help them make that work A Thing, is "Orwellian". And to be clear: we know that white supremacists insert these phrases into the public discourse to help strengthen their position through normalization. We know that because they say so. We have the receipts, from Lee Atwater to 4chan galaxy-brain chatter. If you don't want to be thought of as a white supremacist, it's remarkably easy not to parrot their phrases. And nobody's even saying you can't do it if you want to die on that hill. But actions have consequences, don't they?
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    "Please explain why identifying the work of white supremacists and similar pustules as their work, and suggesting that decent people should not help them make that work " That's really easy. The statement 'America is a meritocracy' is not remotely a phrase or statement supporting White Supremacy. The fact any reasonable person would try to put such an innocuous statement in the camp of 'White Supremacy' makes me afraid.
    - zimpenfish 8y ago
      > The statement 'America is a meritocracy' is not remotely a phrase or statement supporting White Supremacy. It could be if you insist that it's a meritocracy in the face of all the evidence that it is overwhelmingly biased towards white people. (It could equally just be an ignorant statement from a blistering ignorant fool who hasn't done any thinking, mind.)
      - manfredo 8y ago
        > It could be if you insist that it's a meritocracy in the face of all the evidence that it is overwhelmingly biased towards white people Last time I checked, Asian Americans were the wealthiest racial demographic in the US. Does it follow that meritocracy is even more biased towards Asians than it is towards Whites? Or, perhaps there's more to it than blanket claims that, "it is overwhelmingly biased towards white people."? This is what is so insidious about accusations of dog-whistling. It's a cheap and effective way of simplifying reality and portraying the target as a straw man. I wonder if the right will adopt this tactic and start calling things like "diversity initiatives" as a dog-whistling for the exclusion of conservatives.
        zimpenfish 8y ago
        Perhaps I should have said "overwhelmingly biased against people of colour" to be more accurate. Thanks for highlighting that.
    - flagfeedingusa 8y ago
      The funny part to me is the more the left pushes to be thought police, the more regular people will be pushed to the right. Keep it up libs! Yall are signing your own death certificates.
  - refurb 8y ago
    Maybe because we don't let a fringe group unilaterally redefine key English words? And maybe because when people use a word we don't automatically assume the worst intent unless there is evidence to support it?
  - mooseburger 8y ago
    I have been addicted to 4chan for 10 years now, /pol/ since inception, and this is the first I hear of meritocracy being white supremacy. /pol/ in particular gets a lot of fun from getting progressives to jump at shadows ("It's ok to be white", and that unsuccessful campaign to turn a lone black dot into a symbol of white supremacy). The "O.K. symbol as white supremacist" also came from them I think, and the intent was to get progressives to seem crazy for flipping out at something so innocuous.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
Intellectually, I see your point. But pragmatically, it is Orwellian to suggest the phrase 'America is a Meritocracy' is tantamount to 'White Supremacism' or even that it is remotely an 'impolite' term. ", be conscious of how your actions affect other people." No, it's not our job to not ever say anything that might possibly offend someone somewhere, because someone will always be offended. This is not about 'being polite'. It is 'polite' to not use foul language, to make assumptions about people, or to not say things that would offend most people, or are definitely going to offend a small groups. It is not reasonable to control language to a point wherein speech is restricted because of the mere possibility that someone, somewhere, might be mildly offended. I think you've made my case for me, because if it is 'not polite' to say 'America is a meritocracy' - then most speech is literally not polite and subject to the arbitrary whims of authoritarian overlords. Just yesterday the CBC, Rogers and Bell (Canadian Gov. Broadcaster and equivalent of AT&T and Verizon) just banned the #1 most popular Christmas song 'Baby it's cold outside' - because of the innuendo about a man pressing a woman to stay with him. Contrast that with the fact that there are zillions of songs with overt, vicious, bigoted, violent and sexist terminology played all day long and you can see immediately the arbitrary and ideological nature to which these things apply. A small, totalitarian group of 'thought nannies' decided that a very popular, and frankly innocuous song, might possibly suggest or offend someone, somewhere - and so it was banned. Yes - let's be polite ... but utterly arbitrary and normative speech that might be contentious in intellectual circles ... does not constitute racism, insensitivity, or 'impolite' speech.
wu-ikkyu 8y ago
We cannot have open/honest discussion or make progress if we are too concerned with making sure no one gets their feelings hurt. There has never been a successful human rights movement that was polite and didn't offend. The truth can be very painful to accept, which is why we often subconsciously avoid it and shun such discussions

vonmoltke 8y ago

> It's not "Orwellian" to say "hey, that shit hurts people, be conscious of how your actions affect other people." It's polite. I think it is Orwellian to declare certain words or phrases "dog whistles" and suppress their usage based on that.

eropple 8y ago
Please explain why identifying the work of white supremacists and similar pustules as their work, and suggesting that decent people should not help them make that work A Thing, is "Orwellian". And to be clear: we know that white supremacists insert these phrases into the public discourse to help strengthen their position through normalization. We know that because they say so. We have the receipts, from Lee Atwater to 4chan galaxy-brain chatter. If you don't want to be thought of as a white supremacist, it's remarkably easy not to parrot their phrases. And nobody's even saying you can't do it if you want to die on that hill. But actions have consequences, don't they?
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "Please explain why identifying the work of white supremacists and similar pustules as their work, and suggesting that decent people should not help them make that work " That's really easy. The statement 'America is a meritocracy' is not remotely a phrase or statement supporting White Supremacy. The fact any reasonable person would try to put such an innocuous statement in the camp of 'White Supremacy' makes me afraid.
  - zimpenfish 8y ago
    > The statement 'America is a meritocracy' is not remotely a phrase or statement supporting White Supremacy. It could be if you insist that it's a meritocracy in the face of all the evidence that it is overwhelmingly biased towards white people. (It could equally just be an ignorant statement from a blistering ignorant fool who hasn't done any thinking, mind.)
    - manfredo 8y ago
      > It could be if you insist that it's a meritocracy in the face of all the evidence that it is overwhelmingly biased towards white people Last time I checked, Asian Americans were the wealthiest racial demographic in the US. Does it follow that meritocracy is even more biased towards Asians than it is towards Whites? Or, perhaps there's more to it than blanket claims that, "it is overwhelmingly biased towards white people."? This is what is so insidious about accusations of dog-whistling. It's a cheap and effective way of simplifying reality and portraying the target as a straw man. I wonder if the right will adopt this tactic and start calling things like "diversity initiatives" as a dog-whistling for the exclusion of conservatives.
      - zimpenfish 8y ago
        Perhaps I should have said "overwhelmingly biased against people of colour" to be more accurate. Thanks for highlighting that.
  - flagfeedingusa 8y ago
    The funny part to me is the more the left pushes to be thought police, the more regular people will be pushed to the right. Keep it up libs! Yall are signing your own death certificates.
- refurb 8y ago
  Maybe because we don't let a fringe group unilaterally redefine key English words? And maybe because when people use a word we don't automatically assume the worst intent unless there is evidence to support it?
- mooseburger 8y ago
  I have been addicted to 4chan for 10 years now, /pol/ since inception, and this is the first I hear of meritocracy being white supremacy. /pol/ in particular gets a lot of fun from getting progressives to jump at shadows ("It's ok to be white", and that unsuccessful campaign to turn a lone black dot into a symbol of white supremacy). The "O.K. symbol as white supremacist" also came from them I think, and the intent was to get progressives to seem crazy for flipping out at something so innocuous.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

Intellectually, I see your point. But pragmatically, it is Orwellian to suggest the phrase 'America is a Meritocracy' is tantamount to 'White Supremacism' or even that it is remotely an 'impolite' term. ", be conscious of how your actions affect other people." No, it's not our job to not ever say anything that might possibly offend someone somewhere, because someone will always be offended. This is not about 'being polite'. It is 'polite' to not use foul language, to make assumptions about people, or to not say things that would offend most people, or are definitely going to offend a small groups. It is not reasonable to control language to a point wherein speech is restricted because of the mere possibility that someone, somewhere, might be mildly offended. I think you've made my case for me, because if it is 'not polite' to say 'America is a meritocracy' - then most speech is literally not polite and subject to the arbitrary whims of authoritarian overlords. Just yesterday the CBC, Rogers and Bell (Canadian Gov. Broadcaster and equivalent of AT&T and Verizon) just banned the #1 most popular Christmas song 'Baby it's cold outside' - because of the innuendo about a man pressing a woman to stay with him. Contrast that with the fact that there are zillions of songs with overt, vicious, bigoted, violent and sexist terminology played all day long and you can see immediately the arbitrary and ideological nature to which these things apply. A small, totalitarian group of 'thought nannies' decided that a very popular, and frankly innocuous song, might possibly suggest or offend someone, somewhere - and so it was banned. Yes - let's be polite ... but utterly arbitrary and normative speech that might be contentious in intellectual circles ... does not constitute racism, insensitivity, or 'impolite' speech.

wu-ikkyu 8y ago

We cannot have open/honest discussion or make progress if we are too concerned with making sure no one gets their feelings hurt. There has never been a successful human rights movement that was polite and didn't offend. The truth can be very painful to accept, which is why we often subconsciously avoid it and shun such discussions