5 ms·
Counter to what? Minority groups are in charge of America so the majority traditional culture IS the counterculture.
by goodSteveramos 4y ago
Counter to what? Minority groups are in charge of America so the majority traditional culture IS the counterculture.
- standardUser 4y agoIf minority groups are "in charge", why is most of the wealth, corporate power and political power in the hands of majority groups? Obviously cultural norms change over time, and many ideas that were once fringe are now mainstream. But that doesn't mean that the majority white, straight, Christian(ish) majority in America doesn't still wield most of the power.
- alldayeveryday 4y ago> ... mean that the majority white, straight, Christian(ish) majority in America doesn't still wield most of the power. yeah, except for finance, media, academia and politics. I do agree that straight white christian(ish) males do wield the most power in the other intuitions that matter (thought I'm drawing a blank on which those might be).
- goodSteveramos 4y agoSports commentating.
- flangola7 4y ago>except for finance, media, academia and politics. But those are dominated by straight white men. A simple demographic survey of Congress and org executives will show that. What are you talking about?
- goodSteveramos 4y agoDid the janizary rule the ottomans or did the ottomans rule the janizary? The janizary held most if the powerful positions after all.
- flangola7 4y agoI'm not familiar enough with that part of world history to comment. Speak plainly.
- alldayeveryday 4y agoI think we have a diff definition of white.
- flangola7 4y agoWhat other definition would there be?
- BurningFrog 4y agoIn an equal society the majority population will have the majority of most things. To people even know that the US ethnic group with highest average income is Indian Americans?
- goodSteveramos 4y agoBut they explicitly don’t wield that power as a group and attack people who suggest that they do. Powerful white men are all liberals who defer to the group interests of minorities and attack the group interest of the majority.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago>If minority groups are "in charge", why is most of the wealth, corporate power and political power in the hands of majority groups? Because there is no one majority group. The only way you get a majority group is by drawing dumb lines around non-adjacent cultural groups because they happen to be of the same economic means or vote the same way.
- mywittyname 4y agoCultural power is different from political and capital power. The influence of an musician, a political candidate, and a wealthy CEO can all be different in their scope, message, and the audience that they reach. The WASPy power structure is still dominant in the corporate landscape and disproportionately high in the political one. But it has been losing ground on the cultural front for a while now. There's a reason WASPy individuals complain about "the culture war" - it's the one they are losing. The slogan, "get woke, go broke" suggests they have started losing ground on the corporate front as well.
- spacemadness 4y agoCase in point—-Name one recent president that didn’t need go pander to christians to get elected. I’ve always found this tiring being a non-christian myself. Christians are not oppressed no matter what the terminally online right-wing on HN seems to think.
- goodSteveramos 4y agoI couldn't agree more. Why do you think politicians never explicitly pander to white people?
- spacemadness 4y agoNice try, but Republicans are doing a good job of that.
- goodSteveramos 4y agoI have never heard a republican say something positive about white people. Can you give me an example? For the amount of dog whistling the GOP has done over the years the complete dearth of any explicit pandering to white Americans is actually shocking and deserving of a proper explanation. Great explanation. Very proper. Much explanation. Thanks for the example /s Arguments you cant argue against are not a “dishonest script” what does that even mean? Just give an example of what you say Republicans do a good job of.
- spacemadness 4y agoNo, I’m not engaging with the dishonest script you’re trying to run me through, and looking at your short post history it’s obvious what you’re trying to do. Have a nice day.
- LAC-Tech 4y agoA much more gracious way of answering this might have been "no, I can't, because I was wrong".
- colpabar 4y agoIf you are unsure of what he meant, try and explicitly advocate for "majority white, straight, Christian(ish)" people in the same way every other group gets to do in america and see how it goes. And if your knee jerk reaction is to say "well only a racist white nationalist would do that", you have proved my point, and you are using the same fallacious reasoning that leads to people thinking that all gay rights advocates are pedophiles or all criminal justice reform advocates are thugs.
- yamazakiwi 4y agoAdvocating for those in power doesn't carry the same reasoning as advocating for those who are not in power so it is not the same type of fallacious reasoning you claim. Edit: I removed my second sentence since it appears to be confusing others of my tone and intention.
- goodSteveramos 4y ago>Advocating for those in power doesn't carry the same reasoning as advocating for those who are not in power Anybody could be in power at any given time. If your argument for why your group should be in power depends on who is currently in power then it isn’t valid because it stops being true as soon as you win. No idea what you are saying about stupid people. > my argument [“Advocating for those in power”] has nothing to do with who should be in power Saying what kinds of arguments are acceptable in support of the group in power has a lot to do with who should be in power.
- yamazakiwi 4y agoMy argument has nothing to do with who should be in power.
- yamazakiwi 4y agoI'll say it again since you edited your previous message to reply to the message following it, I wasn't arguing about who should be in power, or placing my chips in any direction. I was plainly stating that people will have different reasons for supporting the class in power vs supporting outside of that class. Parent comment was stating that people who support the minority are using the same fallacious reasoning those who support the majority do and that is not true. In the event the power changes, the people who supported the previous majority class might be the same or use the same reasoning but that has nothing to do with how both groups reason separately. As an example, imagine it's The Great Depression, The Majority would say something like "Wow I really wish we had more food, I'm going to vote for this candidate who says that we'll get more food". In this instance the Majority is not tied to the ruling class, do you see how implying everyone is knee-jerk reacting is misleading?
- LAC-Tech 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_U... Whites are nowhere close to being the wealthiest group in the US.
- mahogany 4y agoMedian income is a very different measurement from "wealth, corporate power and political power" within a group, especially one so large.
- pkdpic 4y agoYeah this is all making me wonder why we're looking for a singular dominant culture to which there are one or more counter-cultures. Pretty sure one of the canonized characteristics of post-modernity (or the post-cold war era if you dont like pretentious art terms) is pluralism. This spicy thread seems to reinforce the feeling that the dominant culture has (and maybe always was) some horrifying unknowable ever-changing organic mass of competing counter-cultures. Paraphrasing some dead social philosopher, history and cultures aren't bedtime stories or cartoon characters and we create dangerous false narratives, policies and hierarchies when we indulge the impulse to reduce them into these.