SJW, their Politically Correct (PC) game explained - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14743201
Conscript wrote:There is no past context to make one group's discrimination different than another in a liberal democracy where all individuals have legal equality. You want to reference past history to justify actions in the now ad infinitum


Again, I am not trying to justify anything or otherwise make a moral argument.

Regardless of what you or I think is justified, US history is very clear that the significant acts of racism that have shaped US society are targeted towards of people in colour, and very often black people were specifically targeted.

Now, are you arguing that this history has no effect on the present?

Also you said they were white, I just suggested your use of a racial term like that was a tacit admission social justice movements of the 90s onwards were middle class. To you the only thing that distinguished them from the past was white people getting on board, which is objectively false but I felt it was an irrelevant point to make.


I am openly saying that many social justice movements achieved widespread support and acceptance at that time, or became trendy among some of the youth. You seem to agree.

There is also the fact that these movemnts existed before the 90s. I do not see how anyone could disagree with this fact.

Thus, I fail to see what your criticism is.

Black student radicals are also middle class. Regardless of race a student radical is probably petit bourgeois.


I am not certain that the above claim is true, but even if it were, that does not contradict anything I have said.

Nor does it imply that anti-racism movements are "petit bourgeois".

To me, this seems more like a generalisation about black students rather than argument. Perhaps you could clarify your point here.

Also it's a false dilemma. Your movement is going to come off as lumpenproles and middle class students. The only thing that mattered to the organizer though was white faces on camera. This is racism, not to mention your dilemma screams first world problems.


I have no idea what you mean by "your movement" as no one has discussed my movement.

If you mean BLM, then you seem to be predicting the reaction of people to this movement. I fail to see how this has anything to do with anything I have said.

And as I said, BLM is in a scenario where they are going to be accused of racism against whites, and they will simultaneously be accused of being nothing more than a movement of middle class white kids doing virtue signalling. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you have accused BLM of both of these things.
#14743218
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, I am not trying to justify anything or otherwise make a moral argument.

Regardless of what you or I think is justified, US history is very clear that the significant acts of racism that have shaped US society are targeted towards of people in colour, and very often black people were specifically targeted.

Now, are you arguing that this history has no effect on the present?


You're speaking in absolutes for a reason. You have no idea when things change, how, or have any sort of goalposts for people to look forward to as the end of grievance politics. Your argument is things happened in the past and this justifies attributing all disparities in demographics to systemic racism, rather than looking at things like culture and the breakdown of the family. Asian, jewish, and African immigrants do pretty well in things like household income compared to whites. This is an argument that america is a meritocracy, whereas your only argument is context and history, but you can not (and have no incentive to) give us details as to how far this context lingers, how it holds people back, and in what measurements does it show up.

The problem with your argument about context is nebulous, which is why you resort to the strawman of asking me if it has no relevance at all. The only degree of certainty you have is that it probably has some effect, and this is supposed to justify all the excesses of social justice and political correctness, from affirmative action and diversity quotas, to enforced diversity training specifically targeted at white people and elevating speech and 'implicit bias' (thought crime) to violence, or 'microaggressions'.

These non-solutions will be around indefinitely because of how nebulous that argument of yours is, serving to only worsen race relations and institute illiberal, race based policies as we try to change things from the top down, and because of globalization there is a monetary incentive.


I am openly saying that many social justice movements achieved widespread support and acceptance at that time, or became trendy among some of the youth. You seem to agree.

There is also the fact that these movemnts existed before the 90s. I do not see how anyone could disagree with this fact.

Thus, I fail to see what your criticism is.


The point was these movements consist of middle class liberals, and by saying they're something picked up by white people in the 90s you basically agreed with me in your own, race focused way.

I am not certain that the above claim is true, but even if it were, that does not contradict anything I have said.


The only reason a college student in the first world wouldn't be middle class is because of affirmative action, ironically.

Nor does it imply that anti-racism movements are "petit bourgeois".


The recent phenomenon of SJWs is not an anti racism movement, at least not what that phrase has meant for the rest of its history.

I have no idea what you mean by "your movement" as no one has discussed my movement.


You're a Canadian left liberal. If not you, then I'll use Trudeau as representative.

And as I said, BLM is in a scenario where they are going to be accused of racism against whites, and they will simultaneously be accused of being nothing more than a movement of middle class white kids doing virtue signalling. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you have accused BLM of both of these things.


I corrected you numerous times, I didn't say the latter. I said your naming of modern social justice movements as something picked up by white college kids in the 90s is a tacit admission that my analysis of them as postmodern, petty bourgeois, left liberal movements is correct.

I don't even see the argument here. You're basically saying I'm forcing BLM to be racist or something by accusing them of being liberals, which carries a middle class (and therefore white, as you concluded for me) character. Even if I was saying that, boo hoo? It exposes the movement's own contradictions.
#14743234
Conscript wrote:You're speaking in absolutes for a reason. You have no idea when things change, how, or have any sort of goalposts for people to look forward to as the end of grievance politics. Your argument is things happened in the past and this justifies attributing all disparities in demographics to systemic racism, rather than looking at things like culture and the breakdown of the family. Asian, jewish, and African immigrants do pretty well in things like household income compared to whites. This is an argument that america is a meritocracy, whereas your only argument is context and history, but you can not (and have no incentive to) give us details as to how far this context lingers, how it holds people back, and in what measurements does it show up.


Again, I am not trying to justify anything or otherwise make a moral argument.

I have also bever argued that racism is the only significant factor. Ther factors undoubtedly exist, but that does not mean that there is no tradition of racism against blacks in US history, and that this history effects the present day.

The fact that immigrants do better than non-immigrant people of colour is partly due to this history. Immigrants do not share this history and thus the effects of said history are far less significant. Thank you for bringing this up.

The problem with your argument about context is nebulous, which is why you resort to the strawman of asking me if it has no relevance at all. The only degree of certainty you have is that it probably has some effect, and this is supposed to justify all the excesses of social justice and political correctness, from affirmative action and diversity quotas, to enforced diversity training specifically targeted at white people and elevating speech and 'implicit bias' (thought crime) to violence, or 'microaggressions'.


Well, I think we can agree that it has a non-zero effect and that it also is not the only factor ever to have any significance. We will undoubtedly have some disagreement about the extent of the effect, but for the saie of the argument I am making, it suffices to point out that the tradition of racism against blacks exists in US history and it has some effect in modern politics, and that no such tradition exists for whites.

Again, I am not trying to justify anything or otherwise make a moral argument.

These non-solutions will be around indefinitely because of how nebulous that argument of yours is, serving to only worsen race relations and institute illiberal, race based policies.


My argument is that we have to know and understand the history of race relations in the US to have a correct understanding of the present day. Please explain what is nebulous about that claim.

The point was these movements consist of middle class liberals, and by saying they're something picked up by white people in the 90s you basically agreed with me in your own, race focused way.


Not really. If someone starts doing something in the 90s, it does not magically negate all the people who began doing it long before that.

To again use the anti-racism movement, black people from all walks of life (and please note that black people have disproportionately been poor, and that this is true in the present as well as in the past) were part of this movement before it became popular among white middle class students, and these black people are still the majority of this movement, regardless of the presence of middle class college kids.

The only reason a college student in the first world wouldn't be middle class is because of affirmative action, ironically.


Or because they received scholarships, or because their community raised funds to pay for their education (as is common for indigenous youth). While being able to afford university is a good indicator that the person is not working class, it is not a hard and fast rule. Every person who has ever been the first in their family to attend university is a good example of these exceptions.

The recent phenomenon of SJWs is not an anti racism movement, at least not what that phrase has meant for the rest of its history.


I have not argued that the SJW phenomenon (whatever that is) is an anti-racist movement. In fact, it would make more sense to see these two things as related, but separate, things.

You're a Canadian left liberal. If not you, then I'll use Trudeau as representative.


Seeing as how I do not share many (perhaps most) of Trudeau's positions, I am still confused about what you mean by "your movement".

To repeat a previous point I (and others) made, the term SJW is so vague as to be useless. If you think Trudeau is an SJW and you think I am one too, then you believe that a Latin American socialist and a North American capitalist have the same platform, which is incorrect.

I corrected you numerous times, I didn't say the latter. I said your naming of modern social justice movements as something picked up by white college kids in the 90s is a tacit admission that my analysis of them as postmodern, petty bourgeois, left liberal movements is correct.


Are you arguing that BLM is a "postmodern, petty bourgeois, left liberal movement"?

Your analysis is incorrect in that it assumes that these movements became all about white college kids as soon as white college kids became interested in them.

That would be akin to arguing that socialism is also a "postmodern, petty bourgeois, left liberal movement" as college kids also embraced socialism long after the working class did.

I don't even see the argument here. You're basically saying I'm forcing BLM to be racist or something by accusing them of being liberals, which carries a middle class (and therefore white, as you concluded for me) character. Even if I was saying that, boo hoo? It exposes the movement's own contradictions.


No. I am saying you are accusing them of racism. This is true. You have been very clear about that.

I am also saying that BLM is also accused of being a movement run by SJWs, and that SJWs are often described as middle class white university students.

As far as I can tell, you are also accusing BLM of being run by middle class university students.

And finally, I am pointing out that if they send white people to the back, they would be accused of racism. And if they do not, they will be accused of being a movement run by white middle class university students.

Please note that the only difference between what I claim and your accusations is that you are not claiming that the BLM SJWs are white.
#14743376
Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure. Please note this contradicts nothing that I have said.

This thread is all about SJWs, which seem to be defined as white middle class college kids with a shallow understanding of social issues who are more interested in looking cool than actuall creating important change.

Almost everyone in this thread has shown contempt for such people. I find it odd thatbwe would then judge this woman for doing the same thing.


Who says that SJWs are only white middle class college students? They can come from any sort of background.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I never claimed that Anglo-Saxons have a monopoly on racism.

Racism is a tradition in that it is a set of behaviours and beliefs that have existed for long stretches of history and have been passed down from one generation to the next.


Which behaviours and beliefs?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Does it somehow creae a situation where the white people must do what she said? No, as she does not have the power to make then do anything. She has no leverage, and so her immoral racism is not a significant factor in any relationship.


No but a lot of the behaviour of white people that is perceived to be racist also does not create a similar situation where non-whites must do something. And it does not effect them in any significant way, just as this woman's command does not really effect the white people at the rally.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And because BLM is a social justice movemnet, it will be accused of being merely a vehicle for the self-importance of white middle class college kids. To counter this accusation, it would make sense to prefer people who are part of the affected group to be seen in the spotlight. But if they do that, they are seen as racist. This is the exact dilemma I pointed out earlier, and it would seem that my prediction was correct.


We all know that BLM is a predominantly black movement. None of us are under the illusion that it is a white middle class group.

While we find the white middle class SJWs ridiculous that does not mean we think they are the only demographic who represent these ideas.
#14743464
Political Interest wrote:Who says that SJWs are only white middle class college students? They can come from any sort of background.


It is mostly the people complaining about them or otherwise criticising social justice movements who make these claims.

But my point is that if contempt is such a bad thing, then please note that people who fight for social justice are often treated with contempt. In fact, SJW is now used as a slur against people.

Which behaviours and beliefs?


Racist traditions in the US include, but are not limited to, slavery, segregation, forcing blacks to the back of the bus, redlining, burning crosses, lynching, exclusion from employment, and exclusion from education.

No but a lot of the behaviour of white people that is perceived to be racist also does not create a similar situation where non-whites must do something. And it does not effect them in any significant way, just as this woman's command does not really effect the white people at the rally.


I think when unarmed black people get shot by police and the police officer gets paid time off as a "punishment" (if I made decisions at work that resulted in the deaths of innocents, I would not be awarded vacation time), it is not insignificant.

And you are once again assuming a level playing field where history did not happen. Because racism by whites perpetuates racist traditions, when white people do these "insignificant" actions, it has more of sn effect than when a black person does the same action.

We all know that BLM is a predominantly black movement. None of us are under the illusion that it is a white middle class group.

While we find the white middle class SJWs ridiculous that does not mean we think they are the only demographic who represent these ideas.


I suggest telling that to the people who criticise social justice movements, as I am already aware of that, while these critics do not seem to be.

@annatar1914 do not despair. Again, el amor pu[…]

I think we really have to ask ourselves what t[…]

I dont know if you recall, but la loca MTG at one[…]

How about Russia uses a battle field nuclear we[…]