6 ms·

Disconnecting from people trying to push a so called 'culture war' on the general populous seems like a rational choice - as a white male, social media seems to

by Aloha 7y ago

Disconnecting from people trying to push a so called 'culture war' on the general populous seems like a rational choice - as a white male, social media seems to tell me emphatically that I am the problem. Similarly social media pundits from the other side are trying to blame all measure of economic and social ills on brown people/gay people/trans people. Both narratives are patently false. To touch very lightly on politics, we blame the poor for being poor, and the marginalized for being marginalized - the so called 'culture war' (and the outrage on both sides) is just another round of 'circuses and bread' to distract us from real issues and prevent any real change from happening.

FussyZeus 7y ago
Just as a minor correction: Nobody is telling you that you specifically are the problem. The problem is that as a white male, what is called "western society" was built with you as the presumed default, and that confers to you tons of small benefits that fall into one of two categories: 1) Unfair advantages that allow you certain freedoms other groups don't have, that one could argue no one should have 2) Advantages that everyone should have, but due to being ethnic or female, they don't. The best example I usually have for this is that when I'm pulled over by a cop for speeding, I'm annoyed to be sure and it's going to be a really bad inconvenience and probably a fair financial burden too. But I don't fear for my life. I'm not panicking on whether or not my vehicle will be searched or if the officer might plant something on me. That's not to say those things can't happen, but it's intrinsically not on my mind at all, even though it could. And those things happen to other groups all the time.
- dabbledash 7y ago
  “...ethnic or female.” It’s funny to me that you’re treating white here as the “presumed default.” White people have ethnicities, just like midwestern newscasters have accents.
- easymodex 7y ago
  Those things are on my mind as well, why are you just assuming they aren't?
- hyperdunc 7y ago
  If you're going to say that Western society was built with white males as the presumed default, you might want to also mention who the builders were. And as a broader point, it also might be worth considering how Western society stacks up against all other societies to ever exist.
  - istjohn 7y ago
    Slave labor built this country.
    - hyperdunc 7y ago
      I don't see how such sweeping statements about the nature of a country are useful. Slave labor was only one component of practically all great countries/empires. The West was the first to outlaw it. The US in particular was built upon the hard-earned lessons of the past, including the moral worth of individual liberty.
      - c0nducktr 7y ago
        How is the US in particular built upon the hard-earned lessons of the past. Because it is younger? This just sounds like more American exceptionalism that most of the world is tired of, and that includes many Americans.
        hyperdunc 7y ago
        The counterpoint to your second sentence is that most of the world would sacrifice much to migrate to the US.
        c0nducktr 7y ago
        Fine: USA, #1 when compared to developing nations. Got an answer to my first sentence?
        7y ago
- Aloha 7y ago
  If you're not at least mildly afraid of the cops when being pulled over, you're not paying attention. My whiteness (in my opinion) does very little for me in a situation with such a large power imbalance.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  > Nobody is telling you that you specifically are the problem. They very much are. I'm guessing you don't live in a coastal city or read the newspaper of record?
- dextralt 7y ago
  >Nobody is telling you that you specifically are the problem. You are either blissfully unaware of the existence of semi-mainstream news/gossip/propaganda sources like Vox, Salon, Huffington Post and countless others, or you conveniently pretending not to. >The problem is that as a white male, what is called "western society" was built with you as the presumed default, Do you have the same problem with Asian people being the presumed default in every Asian country, Latino people being the presumed default in every South American country, Black people being the presumed default in every African country, an so on and so forth? If you choose to answer this question, please refrain from cultural relativism.
- rjf72 7y ago
  Doesn't it strike you as odd to suggest that society was built for "white" males when such classification, as a meaningful indicator, didn't even exist until extremely recently? Irish, German, Italian, and many more are all groups today you'd just often just refer to as "white males." In times past? People who were very much second class citizens. And it went well beyond just national origin. Protestant vs Catholic was a huge deal and this also persisted until extremely recently. For instance something lost to history is how monumental JFK's election was because of the fact that he was a Catholic - the Obama of his time. Incidentally the first and last Catholic elected, even though more than 20% of America is Catholic. Even when you get into things like slavery, Africans were not enslaved because they were black. Slavery was global and of course always began as in group - whites enslaving whites, browns enslaving browns, blacks enslaving blacks, etc. The big reason that "white" on "white" slavery ended was because of a shared religion and Christian church declaring it illegal for any Christian to enslave another Christian (in times before the schisms, such as 'Christian' was reasonably encompassing). The "problem" this posed for those seeking slaves is that tremendous empires were starting to form around the world. For instance in the ~18th century you're looking at the Qing dynasty in China, the Mughal Empire in South Asia, the Ottoman empire in the Mideast, etc.. The world was rapidly unifying under incredibly powerful empires who were more than capable of protecting their borders and people. But Africa was a major exception. It not only lacked both meaningful unification and technology, but also had a thriving domestic slave trade. This made them a prime target. It had nothing to do with the color of their skin. Had Africans happened to have had a bit less melanin, but the situation remained otherwise identical, it's extremely improbable that things would have changed in any way whatsoever.
SolaceQuantum 7y ago
I’m LGBTQ, and I am not a federally protected class. It is legal to fire me for my identity in many states, and the current republicans in power are continuing to make it legal and condoned to discriminate against LGBTQ people at the federal level- rolling back several policies that benefited marginalized folks along this umbrella. These changes happen with very little fanfare or any notification safe for observant reporters and the spread of social media. I find this comment overtly dismissing that there might be very real, legitimate reasons to be keyed into social media and the news.
- dabbledash 7y ago
  I find that catching up on what’s going on once every week or so provides enough information to make the decisions I can. Social media, in contrast, serves up a sub 24 hour news cycle that prevents focus and produces emotional exhaustion and constant anxiety. I’m sure there are people for whom it’s valuable (e.g. if immigration raids could affect you directly), but for members of most groups, being plugged in all time probably does more harm than good.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    And I am simply arguing that that is not always the case and the original statement, that it is a privilege to be able to unplug from news and social media, may be true given that I as an LGBTQ person often feel the need to keep abreast of new and rarely-covered updates to local and federal policy that are associated with LGBTQ issues. For example, the department of labor moving through fairly recently to make it legal for federal contractors to fire LGBTQ or unmarried pregnant women on the grounds of religious beliefs.
    - dabbledash 7y ago
      Did you change anything about your behavior immediately when you found that out? I’m saying the high proportion of button-pushing click-bait and the low probability that I need any particular info in real time means i’ll be better off getting news through other sources. You don’t win a war by maximizing fear, outrage, and low quality info on your own side (which, IMO, social media does). YMMV, obviously. What do I know?

by Aloha 7y ago

FussyZeus 7y ago

Just as a minor correction: Nobody is telling you that you specifically are the problem. The problem is that as a white male, what is called "western society" was built with you as the presumed default, and that confers to you tons of small benefits that fall into one of two categories: 1) Unfair advantages that allow you certain freedoms other groups don't have, that one could argue no one should have 2) Advantages that everyone should have, but due to being ethnic or female, they don't. The best example I usually have for this is that when I'm pulled over by a cop for speeding, I'm annoyed to be sure and it's going to be a really bad inconvenience and probably a fair financial burden too. But I don't fear for my life. I'm not panicking on whether or not my vehicle will be searched or if the officer might plant something on me. That's not to say those things can't happen, but it's intrinsically not on my mind at all, even though it could. And those things happen to other groups all the time.

dabbledash 7y ago
“...ethnic or female.” It’s funny to me that you’re treating white here as the “presumed default.” White people have ethnicities, just like midwestern newscasters have accents.
easymodex 7y ago
Those things are on my mind as well, why are you just assuming they aren't?
hyperdunc 7y ago
If you're going to say that Western society was built with white males as the presumed default, you might want to also mention who the builders were. And as a broader point, it also might be worth considering how Western society stacks up against all other societies to ever exist.
- istjohn 7y ago
  Slave labor built this country.
  - hyperdunc 7y ago
    I don't see how such sweeping statements about the nature of a country are useful. Slave labor was only one component of practically all great countries/empires. The West was the first to outlaw it. The US in particular was built upon the hard-earned lessons of the past, including the moral worth of individual liberty.
    - c0nducktr 7y ago
      How is the US in particular built upon the hard-earned lessons of the past. Because it is younger? This just sounds like more American exceptionalism that most of the world is tired of, and that includes many Americans.
      - hyperdunc 7y ago
        The counterpoint to your second sentence is that most of the world would sacrifice much to migrate to the US.
        c0nducktr 7y ago
        Fine: USA, #1 when compared to developing nations. Got an answer to my first sentence?
        7y ago
Aloha 7y ago
If you're not at least mildly afraid of the cops when being pulled over, you're not paying attention. My whiteness (in my opinion) does very little for me in a situation with such a large power imbalance.
toasterlovin 7y ago
> Nobody is telling you that you specifically are the problem. They very much are. I'm guessing you don't live in a coastal city or read the newspaper of record?
dextralt 7y ago
>Nobody is telling you that you specifically are the problem. You are either blissfully unaware of the existence of semi-mainstream news/gossip/propaganda sources like Vox, Salon, Huffington Post and countless others, or you conveniently pretending not to. >The problem is that as a white male, what is called "western society" was built with you as the presumed default, Do you have the same problem with Asian people being the presumed default in every Asian country, Latino people being the presumed default in every South American country, Black people being the presumed default in every African country, an so on and so forth? If you choose to answer this question, please refrain from cultural relativism.
rjf72 7y ago
Doesn't it strike you as odd to suggest that society was built for "white" males when such classification, as a meaningful indicator, didn't even exist until extremely recently? Irish, German, Italian, and many more are all groups today you'd just often just refer to as "white males." In times past? People who were very much second class citizens. And it went well beyond just national origin. Protestant vs Catholic was a huge deal and this also persisted until extremely recently. For instance something lost to history is how monumental JFK's election was because of the fact that he was a Catholic - the Obama of his time. Incidentally the first and last Catholic elected, even though more than 20% of America is Catholic. Even when you get into things like slavery, Africans were not enslaved because they were black. Slavery was global and of course always began as in group - whites enslaving whites, browns enslaving browns, blacks enslaving blacks, etc. The big reason that "white" on "white" slavery ended was because of a shared religion and Christian church declaring it illegal for any Christian to enslave another Christian (in times before the schisms, such as 'Christian' was reasonably encompassing). The "problem" this posed for those seeking slaves is that tremendous empires were starting to form around the world. For instance in the ~18th century you're looking at the Qing dynasty in China, the Mughal Empire in South Asia, the Ottoman empire in the Mideast, etc.. The world was rapidly unifying under incredibly powerful empires who were more than capable of protecting their borders and people. But Africa was a major exception. It not only lacked both meaningful unification and technology, but also had a thriving domestic slave trade. This made them a prime target. It had nothing to do with the color of their skin. Had Africans happened to have had a bit less melanin, but the situation remained otherwise identical, it's extremely improbable that things would have changed in any way whatsoever.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago

I’m LGBTQ, and I am not a federally protected class. It is legal to fire me for my identity in many states, and the current republicans in power are continuing to make it legal and condoned to discriminate against LGBTQ people at the federal level- rolling back several policies that benefited marginalized folks along this umbrella. These changes happen with very little fanfare or any notification safe for observant reporters and the spread of social media. I find this comment overtly dismissing that there might be very real, legitimate reasons to be keyed into social media and the news.

dabbledash 7y ago
I find that catching up on what’s going on once every week or so provides enough information to make the decisions I can. Social media, in contrast, serves up a sub 24 hour news cycle that prevents focus and produces emotional exhaustion and constant anxiety. I’m sure there are people for whom it’s valuable (e.g. if immigration raids could affect you directly), but for members of most groups, being plugged in all time probably does more harm than good.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  And I am simply arguing that that is not always the case and the original statement, that it is a privilege to be able to unplug from news and social media, may be true given that I as an LGBTQ person often feel the need to keep abreast of new and rarely-covered updates to local and federal policy that are associated with LGBTQ issues. For example, the department of labor moving through fairly recently to make it legal for federal contractors to fire LGBTQ or unmarried pregnant women on the grounds of religious beliefs.
  - dabbledash 7y ago
    Did you change anything about your behavior immediately when you found that out? I’m saying the high proportion of button-pushing click-bait and the low probability that I need any particular info in real time means i’ll be better off getting news through other sources. You don’t win a war by maximizing fear, outrage, and low quality info on your own side (which, IMO, social media does). YMMV, obviously. What do I know?