3 ms·

>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

>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.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  Taking a single thing I said without context is quite disingenuous. I suggest you re-read the comment to which you replied. Perhaps you'd like to revise your barely concealed and completely unfounded attack on the straw man you created around my comment.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    Huh? I was just expanding on your comment about not knowing what people were expecting you to do about systemic problems - I wasn't attacking you. Do you mean the bit about conservative talking heads? I assumed that's who you meant when you were talking about the sand shovelers. From your reaction I'm guessing the sand shovelers you think are scum are the "woke" people but I hope I'm wrong.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >Huh? I was just expanding on your comment about not knowing what people were expecting you to do about systemic problems - I wasn't attacking you. That's as may be, but you focused on a single sentence ("I have no control over what other people do, think or say. What other stance can I take?") in my comment and ignored everything else I wrote. You then deigned to forgive me (and 300+ million other people) my ignorance. ...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. How gracious of you. I'll wait with bated breath for your next brilliant missive.
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        I'm sorry if I offended you - I didn't mean for that to come across as patronising or as some kind of sanctimonious forgiving of sin, I was just wary that a lot of people tend to get their backs up around the topic of systemic problems and wanted to be clear that I wasn't attacking you. You did also literally say "what other stance could I take?" which I interpreted as meaning you didn't know your options for helping combat systemic problems. > you focused on a single sentence [...] in my comment and ignored everything else I wrote. I did address you saying the $20 thing was hyperbole, but I guess I'm not sure what you wanted me to add to the rest? You said you misinterpreted GP's comment - okay? What am I to add to that? It's not much of a prompt for discussion.

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.

nobody9999 5y ago
Taking a single thing I said without context is quite disingenuous. I suggest you re-read the comment to which you replied. Perhaps you'd like to revise your barely concealed and completely unfounded attack on the straw man you created around my comment.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  Huh? I was just expanding on your comment about not knowing what people were expecting you to do about systemic problems - I wasn't attacking you. Do you mean the bit about conservative talking heads? I assumed that's who you meant when you were talking about the sand shovelers. From your reaction I'm guessing the sand shovelers you think are scum are the "woke" people but I hope I'm wrong.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >Huh? I was just expanding on your comment about not knowing what people were expecting you to do about systemic problems - I wasn't attacking you. That's as may be, but you focused on a single sentence ("I have no control over what other people do, think or say. What other stance can I take?") in my comment and ignored everything else I wrote. You then deigned to forgive me (and 300+ million other people) my ignorance. ...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. How gracious of you. I'll wait with bated breath for your next brilliant missive.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      I'm sorry if I offended you - I didn't mean for that to come across as patronising or as some kind of sanctimonious forgiving of sin, I was just wary that a lot of people tend to get their backs up around the topic of systemic problems and wanted to be clear that I wasn't attacking you. You did also literally say "what other stance could I take?" which I interpreted as meaning you didn't know your options for helping combat systemic problems. > you focused on a single sentence [...] in my comment and ignored everything else I wrote. I did address you saying the $20 thing was hyperbole, but I guess I'm not sure what you wanted me to add to the rest? You said you misinterpreted GP's comment - okay? What am I to add to that? It's not much of a prompt for discussion.