4 ms·

The fact that you think racial equality or feminism are "done" illustrates clearly that the problem isn't solved.

lelanthran 3y ago
> The fact that you think racial equality or feminism are "done" illustrates clearly that the problem isn't solved. Where are you going with this? I mean, do any of those institutions formed solely for feminism (for example) actually have a metric for when they will be done? Did they actually draw a line in the sand, saying "When we reach this point, we will dismantle the institution because at this point we will, happily, no longer be necessary?" Because to all of us watching, they don't have a "done" metric. They don't have a goal, which when reached, will cause their existence to be unnecessary. Their primary goal isn't "fighting for $whatever", it's to ensure the continued existence of the institution. Sane people don't work that way - they have a goal in their mind, and once that is achieved they move on to a new goal.
- jjjjj55555 3y ago
  I totally agree with that. In the past they may have had manifestos and explicit demands. You were either on board or you weren't. Nowadays they seem to deal more in narratives.
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    seems to be related to continuous engagement versus living independently, somehow.. "crowded world" corollary?
- dpkirchner 3y ago
  I'm not sure what you think the goal should be. Do you imagine a world where racist policies end and never resume? We're a long, long, long ways from that so it seems premature to ask for organizations opposed to racism in government and business to close up shop, eh? Tbh this comes across as related to the typical conservative argument that racism is over because we elected a black man president. That's not really what you're talking about, is it?
  - lelanthran 3y ago
    > Do you imagine a world where racist policies end Yes. I don't, right now, see racist policies. > and never resume? Why does that matter? Can't a new institution form to fix the problem if it comes up again? If society goes through (for example) 100 years of a totally racist-policy-free existence, why on earth would you argue that the institutions founded to oppose racist policies continue existing for that 100 years?
- itchyouch 3y ago
  The challenge with metrics is Goodhart's law. The way it applies to companies, we can state that <whatever>-ism is solved because we reached some metric. So I'm not sure we can close up shop on an <ism> issue after winning some policy or reaching some type of measurable threshold. That said, what I'm really hearing in this conversation isn't actually that the -ism institutions need to go away. What I'm really hearing is that some folks are very fatigued and tired of being inundated with the -ism dialogue and the demand to spend any energy on it at all. This seems to be significantly true for the people not affected by a particular ism. And on the side of the -isms, folks are saying, "We absolutely do not feel heard, you're not hearing us about my particular -ism! You can't ignore the badness of the -ism. listen to me! I will step up my activism!" The reality of the matter is that the -isms aren't going to go away and change is going to be a generational process. For example, every significant founding woman of woman's suffrage died of natural causes (old age), and none of them got to see womens' voting rights pass in their lifetime. Now that women voting isn't even a question of debate and very obvious, no one is really debating in earnest whether women should be allowed to vote or not. That's just a ridiculous thing to consider. If you want a metric for a measurable threshold of when the ism-issue should go away, it's when we reach a point where the ism-issue has reached a point of saturation where it's plain and obvious and has enough societal inertia not to be challenged. And if people decide to revive something like whether women should be allowed to vote, trust that there will be an opposing force that rises up to fight that. The pandora's box of the internet and social media is that much of the learned-helplessness to accept that an -ism-issue is here to stay can actually be rallied against, and that change can come about from it. So I would expect that this is the new reality we live with. One can either fight for or against the ism, or ignore it and focus on their interest of choice.
jjjjj55555 3y ago
From the perspective of most people belonging to those groups, the major battles are all won and they have much bigger cocerns in their day to day lives. These groups know that, so they have to keep manufacturing outrage in order to stay relevant.
- jerojero 3y ago
  Really? I am a gay man and I see increasing homophobic speech that stems from transphobia which most definitely isn't a "solved issue". This worries me. Yes there was a battle in culture and politics that lasted decades for gay men, but as soon as you let go. You will see conservative groups pushing back. Because they're not gone, there is a long way for them to go as a lot of these ideas come from religious and conservative groups that will probably never go away. Sorry, but the fight is not over. You don't see it because you're not a part of it it's as simple as that. If you haven't taken the time to understand why people are still struggling then you can't come and say "well this is a done deal". Societies move forward but they so with a constant push back. That's just how it is. Even today there is so much homophobia, transphobia, misoginy and racism being touted by people in our most powerful sitting positions that it's silly to think this is "made up" struggle for these groups to "stay relevant". I mean, homosexuals, transpeople, women and racial minorities are never going to go away so they're always going to be relevant.
  - jjjjj55555 3y ago
    I'm not denying anyone's struggle or their right to organize against it. I'm saying that the groups in question are amplifying the problem 100x, with the goal of angering folks like yourself. They are the arms dealer in a never ending war.
    - sunshowers 3y ago
      The groups organizing against trans people are amplifying the problem 10000000000x. A recent example is [1]. Many anti-trans activists, including some that represent themselves as more polite, are actively engaged in a conspiracy to eliminate the notion of transgender experiences being a real part of humanity. This is obviously going to elicit a response from trans people like me, and our reaction is not just understandable but wholly legitimate. Why are you not focusing your attention on those people? [1] https://genderanalysis.net/2024/01/still-dreaming-of-running-over-the-trans-activists-sharon-beck-leader-of-anti-trans-parent-group-cardinal-support-network-and-wife-of-segms-cofounder-guided/ https://genderanalysis.net/2024/01/still-dreaming-of-running...

> The fact that you think racial equality or feminism are "done" illustrates clearly that the problem isn't solved. Where are you going with this? I mean, do any of those institutions formed solely for feminism (for example) actually have a metric for when they will be done? Did they actually draw a line in the sand, saying "When we reach this point, we will dismantle the institution because at this point we will, happily, no longer be necessary?" Because to all of us watching, they don't have a "done" metric. They don't have a goal, which when reached, will cause their existence to be unnecessary. Their primary goal isn't "fighting for $whatever", it's to ensure the continued existence of the institution. Sane people don't work that way - they have a goal in their mind, and once that is achieved they move on to a new goal.

jjjjj55555 3y ago
I totally agree with that. In the past they may have had manifestos and explicit demands. You were either on board or you weren't. Nowadays they seem to deal more in narratives.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  seems to be related to continuous engagement versus living independently, somehow.. "crowded world" corollary?
dpkirchner 3y ago
I'm not sure what you think the goal should be. Do you imagine a world where racist policies end and never resume? We're a long, long, long ways from that so it seems premature to ask for organizations opposed to racism in government and business to close up shop, eh? Tbh this comes across as related to the typical conservative argument that racism is over because we elected a black man president. That's not really what you're talking about, is it?
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > Do you imagine a world where racist policies end Yes. I don't, right now, see racist policies. > and never resume? Why does that matter? Can't a new institution form to fix the problem if it comes up again? If society goes through (for example) 100 years of a totally racist-policy-free existence, why on earth would you argue that the institutions founded to oppose racist policies continue existing for that 100 years?
itchyouch 3y ago
The challenge with metrics is Goodhart's law. The way it applies to companies, we can state that <whatever>-ism is solved because we reached some metric. So I'm not sure we can close up shop on an <ism> issue after winning some policy or reaching some type of measurable threshold. That said, what I'm really hearing in this conversation isn't actually that the -ism institutions need to go away. What I'm really hearing is that some folks are very fatigued and tired of being inundated with the -ism dialogue and the demand to spend any energy on it at all. This seems to be significantly true for the people not affected by a particular ism. And on the side of the -isms, folks are saying, "We absolutely do not feel heard, you're not hearing us about my particular -ism! You can't ignore the badness of the -ism. listen to me! I will step up my activism!" The reality of the matter is that the -isms aren't going to go away and change is going to be a generational process. For example, every significant founding woman of woman's suffrage died of natural causes (old age), and none of them got to see womens' voting rights pass in their lifetime. Now that women voting isn't even a question of debate and very obvious, no one is really debating in earnest whether women should be allowed to vote or not. That's just a ridiculous thing to consider. If you want a metric for a measurable threshold of when the ism-issue should go away, it's when we reach a point where the ism-issue has reached a point of saturation where it's plain and obvious and has enough societal inertia not to be challenged. And if people decide to revive something like whether women should be allowed to vote, trust that there will be an opposing force that rises up to fight that. The pandora's box of the internet and social media is that much of the learned-helplessness to accept that an -ism-issue is here to stay can actually be rallied against, and that change can come about from it. So I would expect that this is the new reality we live with. One can either fight for or against the ism, or ignore it and focus on their interest of choice.

jjjjj55555 3y ago

From the perspective of most people belonging to those groups, the major battles are all won and they have much bigger cocerns in their day to day lives. These groups know that, so they have to keep manufacturing outrage in order to stay relevant.

jerojero 3y ago
Really? I am a gay man and I see increasing homophobic speech that stems from transphobia which most definitely isn't a "solved issue". This worries me. Yes there was a battle in culture and politics that lasted decades for gay men, but as soon as you let go. You will see conservative groups pushing back. Because they're not gone, there is a long way for them to go as a lot of these ideas come from religious and conservative groups that will probably never go away. Sorry, but the fight is not over. You don't see it because you're not a part of it it's as simple as that. If you haven't taken the time to understand why people are still struggling then you can't come and say "well this is a done deal". Societies move forward but they so with a constant push back. That's just how it is. Even today there is so much homophobia, transphobia, misoginy and racism being touted by people in our most powerful sitting positions that it's silly to think this is "made up" struggle for these groups to "stay relevant". I mean, homosexuals, transpeople, women and racial minorities are never going to go away so they're always going to be relevant.
- jjjjj55555 3y ago
  I'm not denying anyone's struggle or their right to organize against it. I'm saying that the groups in question are amplifying the problem 100x, with the goal of angering folks like yourself. They are the arms dealer in a never ending war.
  - sunshowers 3y ago
    The groups organizing against trans people are amplifying the problem 10000000000x. A recent example is [1]. Many anti-trans activists, including some that represent themselves as more polite, are actively engaged in a conspiracy to eliminate the notion of transgender experiences being a real part of humanity. This is obviously going to elicit a response from trans people like me, and our reaction is not just understandable but wholly legitimate. Why are you not focusing your attention on those people? [1] https://genderanalysis.net/2024/01/still-dreaming-of-running-over-the-trans-activists-sharon-beck-leader-of-anti-trans-parent-group-cardinal-support-network-and-wife-of-segms-cofounder-guided/ https://genderanalysis.net/2024/01/still-dreaming-of-running...