3 ms·

>These attitudes SEEM like they are non-judgemental and egalitarian, but they tend to miss all the implicit ways in which the dominant society does NOT treat pe

>These attitudes SEEM like they are non-judgemental and egalitarian, but they tend to miss all the implicit ways in which the dominant society does NOT treat people equally in these circumstances. So, what would you have us do? I treat each individual as an individual and interact with them based on their individual actions, not based on any immutable characteristics. I fully support inclusion, diversity, honesty and good citizenship and speak out when I see bigotry, hatred and abuse. It seems like you're implying that doing so is somehow disingenuous or posturing and that I need to do more. Do I understand you correctly? Should I, as a middle-aged, heterosexual, "white" male, carry around lots of cash so I can give every woman, POC, differently-abled and LGBTQ+ person I encounter US$20? As "reparations" for the white male privilege that I never asked for, don't want and actively argue against? This may seem like some sort of anti-progressive rant, but it's not. So, other than trying hard to be a decent human being and interacting with and about others based on their actions rather than some immutable characteristics, calling out hatred and bigotry when I see it and supporting political candidates who do the same, what exactly do you propose that I do?

foldr 5y ago
>It seems like you're implying that doing so is somehow disingenuous or posturing and that I need to do more. Do I understand you correctly? I don't see anything in the OP's post to suggest that. I think their point is that being merely indifferent to (e.g.) gay people isn't actually a neutral stance in the context of a homophobic society. But you state in your post that you're not merely indifferent, so I don't think anything OP says applies to you.
- dgfitz 5y ago
  If everyone get the way GP did, the issues would cease to exist. Not only is it at WORST neutral, it’s exactly what everyone SHOULD be doing.
  - foldr 5y ago
    Sure, but no-one was actually criticizing GP for not doing enough, or doing the wrong thing.
  - deanCommie 5y ago
    Getting everyone to neutral won't fix society because it requires MORE than Neutrality to undo the past damage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiSiHRNQlQo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiSiHRNQlQo
beaconstudios 5y ago
You're taking a very individualist stance on the issue - nobody reasonable thinks you should literally give your money to oppressed people to assuage privilege guilt. Hell, you shouldn't feel guilt at all for privilege; it's just something you're meant to be aware of when looking at things outside your frame of reference. All anybody wants is for you to support the movement for their rights in whatever ways you feel willing to. Often times the "I don't see colour" people are just sticking their heads in the sand about ongoing racial issues, and won't do anything to help combat racism (even voting, the literal smallest political action you can take) because they believe that it's good enough that they personally don't mistreat people for their race. Sometimes these types of people will actively oppose progressive movements in the style of "I'm against racism but affirmative action/BLM protests/Black girls code is political correctness gone mad" stances. What people are generally asking for is for you to argue their case if it comes up with friends, vote for politicians that want to rectify institutional problems, and even join in protests or rallies or voice your support publicly if you're willing to do so.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >You're taking a very individualist stance on the issue - nobody reasonable thinks you should literally give your money to oppressed people to assuage privilege guilt. I have no control over what other people do, think or say. What other stance can I take? I know. I was being hyperbolic with the US$20 bit. Upon reflection, I interpreted GP's comment as moralistic and condescending, which colored my response in a bad way. My error was I did not attempt to see their comment in the best possible light and that's not fair to them. Others who've read my comment appear to agree. >Often times the "I don't see colour" people are just sticking their heads in the sand about ongoing racial issues, Sadly, those who pile that sand on these folks' heads are never held to account. I suspect that many of those with their "heads in the sand" would be less inclined to ignore the intolerance if the sand shovelers (dump truck operators?) were shown for the venal, cynical scum they are. More's the pity.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    > I have no control over what other people do, think or say. What other stance can I take? Of course - individualism in a political sense means the rejection of collective action. It usually boils down to the belief that people's political actions should be limited to financial transactions - solving climate change by individuals recycling, solving food insecurity by individuals donating, that sort of thing. I knew you were being hyperbolic, but a lack of familiarity with institutional or systemic change made me think you might be missing that option. That's not a criticism; it's really common in the US. > Sadly, those who pile that sand on these folks' heads are never held to account. Yeah, I was considering saying in my original comment that targeting those types of people has been a conservative strategy for years now, but figured it was political enough already. It seems its easy to switch people over from "nominally anti racism but also anti change" to "nominally anti racist but practically anti anti racist, ie pro racist" by getting them to support counter protest movements escalating in extreme from "all lives matter" and "its OK to be white" up to believing in the white genocide conspiracy theory. > I suspect that many of those with their "heads in the sand" would be less inclined to ignore the intolerance if the sand shovelers (dump truck operators?) were shown for the venal, cynical scum they are. Unfortunately people aren't very easy to reason out of positions they've dug themselves into. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, as they say.
deanCommie 5y ago

foldr 5y ago

>It seems like you're implying that doing so is somehow disingenuous or posturing and that I need to do more. Do I understand you correctly? I don't see anything in the OP's post to suggest that. I think their point is that being merely indifferent to (e.g.) gay people isn't actually a neutral stance in the context of a homophobic society. But you state in your post that you're not merely indifferent, so I don't think anything OP says applies to you.

dgfitz 5y ago
If everyone get the way GP did, the issues would cease to exist. Not only is it at WORST neutral, it’s exactly what everyone SHOULD be doing.
- foldr 5y ago
  Sure, but no-one was actually criticizing GP for not doing enough, or doing the wrong thing.
- deanCommie 5y ago
  Getting everyone to neutral won't fix society because it requires MORE than Neutrality to undo the past damage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiSiHRNQlQo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiSiHRNQlQo

beaconstudios 5y ago

You're taking a very individualist stance on the issue - nobody reasonable thinks you should literally give your money to oppressed people to assuage privilege guilt. Hell, you shouldn't feel guilt at all for privilege; it's just something you're meant to be aware of when looking at things outside your frame of reference. All anybody wants is for you to support the movement for their rights in whatever ways you feel willing to. Often times the "I don't see colour" people are just sticking their heads in the sand about ongoing racial issues, and won't do anything to help combat racism (even voting, the literal smallest political action you can take) because they believe that it's good enough that they personally don't mistreat people for their race. Sometimes these types of people will actively oppose progressive movements in the style of "I'm against racism but affirmative action/BLM protests/Black girls code is political correctness gone mad" stances. What people are generally asking for is for you to argue their case if it comes up with friends, vote for politicians that want to rectify institutional problems, and even join in protests or rallies or voice your support publicly if you're willing to do so.

nobody9999 5y ago
>You're taking a very individualist stance on the issue - nobody reasonable thinks you should literally give your money to oppressed people to assuage privilege guilt. I have no control over what other people do, think or say. What other stance can I take? I know. I was being hyperbolic with the US$20 bit. Upon reflection, I interpreted GP's comment as moralistic and condescending, which colored my response in a bad way. My error was I did not attempt to see their comment in the best possible light and that's not fair to them. Others who've read my comment appear to agree. >Often times the "I don't see colour" people are just sticking their heads in the sand about ongoing racial issues, Sadly, those who pile that sand on these folks' heads are never held to account. I suspect that many of those with their "heads in the sand" would be less inclined to ignore the intolerance if the sand shovelers (dump truck operators?) were shown for the venal, cynical scum they are. More's the pity.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  > I have no control over what other people do, think or say. What other stance can I take? Of course - individualism in a political sense means the rejection of collective action. It usually boils down to the belief that people's political actions should be limited to financial transactions - solving climate change by individuals recycling, solving food insecurity by individuals donating, that sort of thing. I knew you were being hyperbolic, but a lack of familiarity with institutional or systemic change made me think you might be missing that option. That's not a criticism; it's really common in the US. > Sadly, those who pile that sand on these folks' heads are never held to account. Yeah, I was considering saying in my original comment that targeting those types of people has been a conservative strategy for years now, but figured it was political enough already. It seems its easy to switch people over from "nominally anti racism but also anti change" to "nominally anti racist but practically anti anti racist, ie pro racist" by getting them to support counter protest movements escalating in extreme from "all lives matter" and "its OK to be white" up to believing in the white genocide conspiracy theory. > I suspect that many of those with their "heads in the sand" would be less inclined to ignore the intolerance if the sand shovelers (dump truck operators?) were shown for the venal, cynical scum they are. Unfortunately people aren't very easy to reason out of positions they've dug themselves into. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, as they say.

deanCommie 5y ago