If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
However you feel about the alt-Right, this is way over the ****ing line. Fortunately police have video footage of the crimes and we'll get to see who is responsible for this act of domestic terrorism.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
All the Democrats need to do to put the Republican Party down like it was a rabid dog is be open to the idea people who are pro-life and/or against gay marriage can in fact also be nice people.
Then fails to add "We just don't believe everyone else should have the same rights as us. "
Please direct us to where they said this. Thanks.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
All the Democrats need to do to put the Republican Party down like it was a rabid dog is be open to the idea people who are pro-life and/or against gay marriage can in fact also be nice people.
They can't, they have too much invested in painting them as the enemy. What's so sad is, Hillary and the Dem establishment were so confrontational and negative with their campaign that they actually made Trump (of all people) appear to be the positive, unifying candidate. How do you **** that up? How?? (Mook and Benenson will be lucky if they can get jobs scraping-up gum from the sidewalk after this debacle.)
It reminds me of those plays in football where the runner ignorantly drops the ball right before crossing the goal line, and someone from the other team scoops it up and runs 99 yards the other way to score, with the time on the clock expiring.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
And I explicitly stated that they failed to come out and say it directly.
No, you said the article failed to add it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Like I say, tired of double standards where you lot can invent lies and I'm not allowed to infer obvious truths unless they are explicitly stated. We know all I'm right about this.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
No, you said the article failed to add it.
I actually meant the people being quoted.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Like I say, tired of double standards where you lot can invent lies and I'm not allowed to infer obvious truths unless they are explicitly stated. We know all I'm right about this.
No "we" don't, but I believe you think you are. Your poisoned views have done all kinds of nasty things to your mind, that's the true mallady at the heart of Regressivism, you automatically read in disgusting perspectives that don't exist. IMO, it's caused you to develop a bona fide disorder that needs professional attention.
I actually meant the people being quoted.
You failed to English and that was very unclear.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
No "we" don't, but I believe you think you are. Your poisoned views have done all kinds of nasty things to your mind, that's the true mallady at the heart of Regressivism, you automatically read in disgusting perspectives that don't exist. IMO, it's caused you to develop a bona fide disorder that needs professional attention.
Its not like Trump voters don't realise or understand the awful things he said, or the awful things Pence stands for. You can vote for predominantly economic reasons but you have to ignore the rest which is tantamount to condoning it. Essentially you are selling out the rights of your fellow citizens for the chance of a few extra bucks in your pocket. So yes, I'm right. At best these people just don't care about other people (which if we're being really really honest is essentially the defining thread of all walks of conservatism) at worst they fully endorse all the bigotry. Either way, I'm not the one being regressive.
As for those who voted Trump because they are sick of the safe space SJWs like you are, most of them are the same ones who spent 8 years making up lies about Obama and are now crying for liberals to stop being mean to Trump because "he won" and "its over". Its just another kind of safe space and another kind of conservative hypocrisy. Hypocrisy might be another key defining thread of conservatism.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
You failed to English and that was very unclear.
Not really. I quoted the people who were interviewed, not the text of the article. It looks pretty obvious to me, but as I mention with the double standards, you expect me to cite articles and research for every point I make while you blindly stumble about making blanket claims that everyone who doesn't agree with you is regressive.
(
Last edited by Waragainstsleep; Dec 13, 2016 at 08:30 PM.
)
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Not really. I quoted the people who were interviewed, not the text of the article. It looks pretty obvious to me, but as I mention with the double standards, you expect me to cite articles and research for every point I make while you blindly stumble about making blanket claims that everyone who doesn't agree with you is regressive.
"I find this behavior so obnoxious and bothersome... the clear recourse is to behave that way myself."
For someone who complains about lying politicians and lack of facts, you sure are proud of a candidate with a blatant disregard for the truth.
I would bet if we pressed him about global warming he would make a claim about lying scientists, lying global organizations, etc. Everybody lies except for whatever reinforces his concrete black and white version of the world.
the TEA Party came about as Obama raised and created lots of new taxes and regulations.
Taxed Enough Already.
Thanks for the reminder. I had completely forgotten that it actually was an acronym.
Originally Posted by besson3c
I think of the tea party as largely economic, the alt-right as largely social.
Another good call. This thread has been quite helpful.
---
Using those baselines, I now see a decent difference among them. The Tea Party was an economic movement, with libertarian leanings (as sub ego mentioned) which believes is small government primarily. It seems to have a cross section of some of the more religious.
In contrast, the Alt-right is more of a nationalist movement, with a strong focus on the 'other'; Illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, muslims, ISIS, etc. They believe these people are ruining America, either economically by taking jobs or socially by not assimilating. It has a cross-section with white nationalists.
Thanks, NN, the answer was pretty simple once you pointed it out.
They're just labels the left uses to stereotype, discriminate, and practice their own flavor of bigotry & intolerance. It's easier to target people when they're perceived to belong to a group that has a negative connotation..
Oh give me a break. Are there any valid labels to you? As other people pointed out both terms were coined by the groups themselves.
Originally Posted by Laminar
The Tea Party had so much promise when it started - it was a liberitarian-esque departure from the Republican Party at the end of Ron Paul's political campaign. The Republican used to be the party of small government but from 2000-2008 proved that wasn't the case. It was supposed to be a return to those values, but then the movement go co-opted by every loud idiot with a complaint. Kind of like the Occupy movement.
I think that's somewhat charitable. Ron Paul was definitely an inspiration, but I always find it coincidental how they didn't show up until the democrat got in office. Or how bailing out the economy was more controversial than spending a couple tril on a war of luxury.
The occupy movement was a disaster. It was leaderless, didn't know what it wanted or how to do it, just who to blame. I liked their tenacity but it was utterly pointless and probably futile. Bernie is an interesting evolution of it, he knows what he wants to do, but I'm not sure he knows how to do it.
"I find this behavior so obnoxious and bothersome... the clear recourse is to behave that way myself."
If bothering people is all you can do, what choice is there? Besides, maybe they'll realise how obnoxious and bothersome it is when they are actually on the receiving end.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
If bothering people is all you can do, what choice is there? Besides, maybe they'll realise how obnoxious and bothersome it is when they are actually on the receiving end.
My record of being bothersome and obnoxious has triggered absolutely zero epiphanies. I wonder what I'm doing wrong.
If someone is only capable of being bothersome, there isn't really a reason to engage them other than to hear oneself talk. I understand that desire, but less so when the only result is to hear oneself be nasty.
To be clear however, none of the currently active posters are only capable of being bothersome. They have faults, but so do I. We're people. With hopes and dreams and all the rest of that touchy-feely shit.
My record of being bothersome and obnoxious has triggered absolutely zero epiphanies. I wonder what I'm doing wrong.
If someone is only capable of being bothersome, there isn't really a reason to engage them other than to hear oneself talk. I understand that desire, but less so when the only result is to hear oneself be nasty.
To be clear however, none of the currently active posters are only capable of being bothersome. They have faults, but so do I. We're people. With hopes and dreams and all the rest of that touchy-feely shit.
Its not like Trump voters don't realise or understand the awful things he said, or the awful things Pence stands for. You can vote for predominantly economic reasons but you have to ignore the rest which is tantamount to condoning it. Essentially you are selling out the rights of your fellow citizens for the chance of a few extra bucks in your pocket. So yes, I'm right. At best these people just don't care about other people (which if we're being really really honest is essentially the defining thread of all walks of conservatism) at worst they fully endorse all the bigotry. Either way, I'm not the one being regressive.
As for those who voted Trump because they are sick of the safe space SJWs like you are, most of them are the same ones who spent 8 years making up lies about Obama and are now crying for liberals to stop being mean to Trump because "he won" and "its over". Its just another kind of safe space and another kind of conservative hypocrisy. Hypocrisy might be another key defining thread of conservatism.
Hypocrisy is an identifying trait in ideologues, like yourself. The largest bigots in all of this are the Left. From their bigotry of low expectations all the way to their views on religion and the white working poor. It's why your side is losing in every election lately, it's all part of the elitist bullshit being served "for their own good". I'm only aware of a couple instances where anyone has complained about the Left "being mean" to Trump, most are too busy laughing at the tantrums over him being elected in the first place.
There's a reason the Right donates so much to charity over the Left, and it sure isn't because they're lacking for empathy. You can't just march in with that kind of BS, with no proof whatsoever, and expect me to do anything other than laugh at you. Your kind only cares about rights when you can gain, while at the same time you keep your hands firmly in your pockets when it's time to give to help anyone. Sure, you're good at giving other people's $$ away, but that's hardly the same thing, is it? While you may rail on about the values of the "poor white trash" you vilify, those are the people who give the highest percentage of their income to help those in need, consistently, year after year.
Not really.
Yeah, really.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Hypocrisy is an identifying trait in ideologues, like yourself. The largest bigots in all of this are the Left. From their bigotry of low expectations all the way to their views on religion and the white working poor. It's why your side is losing in every election lately, it's all part of the elitist bullshit being served "for their own good". I'm only aware of a couple instances where anyone has complained about the Left "being mean" to Trump, most are too busy laughing at the tantrums over him being elected in the first place.
There's a reason the Right donates so much to charity over the Left, and it sure isn't because they're lacking for empathy. You can't just march in with that kind of BS, with no proof whatsoever, and expect me to do anything other than laugh at you. Your kind only cares about rights when you can gain, while at the same time you keep your hands firmly in your pockets when it's time to give to help anyone. Sure, you're good at giving other people's $$ away, but that's hardly the same thing, is it? While you may rail on about the values of the "poor white trash" you vilify, those are the people who give the highest percentage of their income to help those in need, consistently, year after year.
Hypocrisy is an identifying trait in ideologues, like yourself. The largest bigots in all of this are the Left.
The old 'accuse them of what you are first so that when they point it out they look childish and silly' trick only works when you get in first.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
From their bigotry of low expectations all the way to their views on religion and the white working poor.
The same vague BS that you go on in this very post to try to ban me from using. I'm not having this double standard any more.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
It's why your side is losing in every election lately, it's all part of the elitist bullshit being served "for their own good".
There will always be elements on either side of the elite skewing things to their own advantage. Its basically unavoidable but its not an excuse to elect someone who is obviously even worse than the establishment elites. Thats just idiocy.
And the elections are lost because of the increasing list of established double standards and a few nifty psychological tricks, courtesy of the RW elites. Facts Vs. Fear, fear always wins with the people who still believe in fairies and unicorns.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
I'm only aware of a couple instances where anyone has complained about the Left "being mean" to Trump, most are too busy laughing at the tantrums over him being elected in the first place.
Your selective awareness is no more useful than mine I'm afraid. And the "laughter" you speak of is often quite "complainy" in nature. When it isn't downright vitriolic.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
There's a reason the Right donates so much to charity over the Left, and it sure isn't because they're lacking for empathy. You can't just march in with that kind of BS, with no proof whatsoever, and expect me to do anything other than laugh at you.
Proof that the right are selfish? Other than the fact they just elected a textbook corrupt, elitist, crude, classless, disrespectful, ignorant, Russiaphilic crybaby as POTUS in the insane hope he will honour any of his campaign promises having lied 71% of the time throughout, or do the impossible and resurrect jobs in industries and towns that are dying for reasons that were not Obama's fault? And all because they think Trump will let them afford an extra holiday or a new car. All that stuff they haven't been able to buy since the conservatives crashed the world economy for their own financial gain. And thats what won Trump the election btw, not the poor, starving jobless without enough to eat. It was the middle class rural white people who can't afford to live lives quite as cushy as they are used to. And if they also get to go back to using the N word in public and throwing stones at the gays, all the better eh?
Selfish is built into conservatism. Welfare? No thanks. Socialised healthcare? I only get the odd cold, why should I pay for your cancer treatment? Its in the blueprint. All the proof you need.
As for your laughable charity study, the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on everything. Because they have less income. Someone earning $100k a month doesn't need to spend $50k of it on rent. Someone earning $2k, might need to spend $1k.
Its far from everything that scales with income. I suppose you think all poor people must be fat because they spend 30% of their cash on food while you spend less than 1%?
This is dumb, even for you.
And then there is the bigoted, selective nature of conservative giving. Buying Joel Osteen a newer, shinier private jet isn't really that great when it comes to charitable acts. Even a church performing real charity works is almost certainly looking after itself first before it feeds any homeless people or puts them up for the odd night. Of course, occasional meals and accommodation can be easily framed as the sort of bigotry you accuse the left of. Keeps the ultra-poor dependent on the church instead of giving them back independence or dignity right? Most importantly, a church can choose who it helps based on whatever criteria it or its ministers see fit. I'm sure that your church would never do such a thing, nor any church you've ever been to, driven past, read about or heard of. But I'm equally certain that there are churches who aren't too keen on certain demographics of people.
So to sum up, the right have yet again indulged in hypocrisy, by accusing the left of doing all the things they are doing, exaggerated the quality of their own actions, and managed to sprinkle in a good dose of bigotry and stupid. No-one will be shocked by this.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Your kind only cares about rights when you can gain, while at the same time you keep your hands firmly in your pockets when it's time to give to help anyone.
Please explain to me how I benefit from women having abortions or gay people getting married. I'll wait.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Sure, you're good at giving other people's $$ away, but that's hardly the same thing, is it? While you may rail on about the values of the "poor white trash" you vilify, those are the people who give the highest percentage of their income to help those in need, consistently, year after year.
Well firstly as much as you won't like to hear it, liberals pay taxes too. So its not just other people's money they are happy to spend helping out those who need it. They selflessly vote for politicians, parties and policies that will on paper at least, distribute the money to where it is most needed without discrimination based on race, or any kind of religious nonsense getting in the way. And thats the bit conservatives really hate, its the fact that people who don't live according to their rules might get helped by their tax dollars isn't it?
As for the vilified white trash, the fact that the churches to which they are enslaved guilts or dupes them out of their hard earned/welfare money is more about stupidity than generosity. Giving away your last £5 because a televangelist told you Jesus' money tree will send it back tenfold isn't generosity either.
I'm also certain that these percentages don't take into account the extra money spent by liberals on fair trade products, sustainable products, and various other goods and services where they pay a premium to protect the well being of people, animals, the environment etc, which is every bit as charitable as the new roof for the megachurch. Oh wait, its actually way better than that isn't it? Sally Strutters can pay for her own space cruiser with plasma cannons.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Dec 16, 2016, 12:55 PM
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
There's a reason the Right donates so much to charity over the Left, and it sure isn't because they're lacking for empathy. You can't just march in with that kind of BS, with no proof whatsoever,
Right? So to be so confident in the outcome is ridiculous.
I'm not surprised it isn't necessarily true. I can't prove this, but i say that culturally the republicans are less empathetic based on the fact that they elected Trump. I think that Trump's lack of empathy is pretty self evident.
The article is from 2008, two years before Beau was diagnosed.
I missed that, there is no date next to the byline. Nevertheless, Biden has never been particularly wealthy (upper middle class for sure), and dedicated his entire life in service to the state.
Originally Posted by Chongo
So, the author is taking exception to this book?
Have you read the article? It criticizes the book for not properly distinguishing groups, and links to a more in-depth analysis by conservative Jim Lindgren. Lindgren claims that the actual data doesn't show a significant discrepancy between conservatives and liberals, but between conservatives and liberals on the one hand and political moderates on the other, and Lindgren claims it is moderates that donate significantly less.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Dec 22, 2016, 03:24 PM
Originally Posted by besson3c
I'm not surprised it isn't necessarily true. I can't prove this, but i say that culturally the republicans are less empathetic based on the fact that they elected Trump. I think that Trump's lack of empathy is pretty self evident.
Republicans are more likely to donate to their church, and church offerings count as charity, even if the majority of the donations go to support internal staff and programs that directly benefit the donor.
even if the majority of the donations go to support internal staff and programs that directly benefit the donor.
Speaking of BS.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Oh give me a break. Are there any valid labels to you? As other people pointed out both terms were coined by the groups themselves.
Labels, by definition, are discriminatory. A sort of "data compression" for far more complex analyses and a way of organizing (ranking?) people and things based on common attributes (though importantly, wholly ignoring differences between them) Labels are a way to project a sentiment without analyzing the specifics. IMO, the only valid labels refer to specific actions and not to people as a whole or broadly to policy.
"That person is racist" or "That person is from the alt-right gives the audience of the statement no information other than the bias of the speaker. Whether or not the label has any measure of objective truth is irrelevant. When you place people in societal groups it is simply human nature that these groups will have conflict.
If you truly want to end discrimination, misogyny, xenophobia, racism, or more precisely the underlying behaviors ascribed to any label that's been bandied about the only way to do so is to get rid of the labels all together. The minute you start labeling people is the minute you get the "us vs them" mentality which is a base component of social psychology. Eradictating (or at least mitigating) their use as a social construct will eventually eradicate (or mitigate) their use as an individual thought process.
Labels, by definition, are discriminatory. A sort of "data compression" for far more complex analyses and a way of organizing (ranking?) people and things based on common attributes (though importantly, wholly ignoring differences between them) Labels are a way to project a sentiment without analyzing the specifics.
Labels aren't discriminatory, at least not in the way discrimination is used here. The difference between labels such as “alt right” or “tea party” and, say, “regressive left” is that there are people who say of themselves to be members of the alt right and it is fair to call members of the Tea Party Caucus as being tea parties. However, I have yet to meet someone who calls him- or herself a “regressive leftist”. The difference here is obvious: the labels “alt right” and “tea party” were created by the groups that now bear their names while the latter was imposed by an outside group to belittle people you disagree with.
Just to be clear: I agree with you that it is often more accurate and easier to argue that what you said or did is racist as opposed to saying that you are a racist.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
If you truly want to end discrimination, misogyny, xenophobia, racism, or more precisely the underlying behaviors ascribed to any label that's been bandied about the only way to do so is to get rid of the labels all together. The minute you start labeling people is the minute you get the "us vs them" mentality which is a base component of social psychology. Eradictating (or at least mitigating) their use as a social construct will eventually eradicate (or mitigate) their use as an individual thought process.
You don't end discrimination by pretending everyone is equal, “labels” are part of your identity, be the fact that you (impersonal you) are American, from a small town, a white guy, gay and you are a big fan of Bayern Munich. Labels are problematic if your idea of that label doesn't match well with reality. For example, if you (impersonal you) think of the words “rapist” you probably don't think of people who look like you or your family members and friends, because you know that these people are good natured people. Or your associations with “drug addict” might be poor people, perhaps those of color rather than your aunt who is taking too much pain medication. This dissonance can be made smaller by exposure.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Labels aren't discriminatory, at least not in the way discrimination is used here.
Please elaborate.
The difference between labels such as “alt right” or “tea party” and, say, “regressive left” is that there are people who say of themselves to be members of the alt right and it is fair to call members of the Tea Party Caucus as being tea parties. However, I have yet to meet someone who calls him- or herself a “regressive leftist”. The difference here is obvious: the labels “alt right” and “tea party” were created by the groups that now bear their names while the latter was imposed by an outside group to belittle people you disagree with.
You haven't disproven my point - the origin of the label may impact one's intepretation of it, but if I were to call you "alt-right" e.g. "OreoCookie is part of the alt-right" what have I really said?
Just to be clear: I agree with you that it is often more accurate and easier to argue that what you said or did is racist as opposed to saying that you are a racist.
Let's say I am labeled a racist, and you put me into a room with another person labeled racist. Do we share the same beliefs? Do we have the same views on skin color?
You don't end discrimination by pretending everyone is equal, “labels” are part of your identity, be the fact that you (impersonal you) are American, from a small town, a white guy, gay and you are a big fan of Bayern Munich.
Self-identifying with social groups that label themselves are exactly what I mean. What information have you gleaned about that white person from a small town other than what you think you already know about other people labeled that way? This is my point, it's data compression that only identifies ones similarities with others who share that label - they say nothing about those person's differences. How can we accept one another's differences if we're only focused on grouping (ranking?) people based on their similarities?
Labels are problematic if your idea of that label doesn't match well with reality.
But what if it does? American is a label, but what does that really say about somebody? Many people around the world think certain things about Americans - how can they know anything about us except through the label and their predisposed biases against those groups? Again this is my point about it being data compression.
For example, if you (impersonal you) think of the words “rapist” you probably don't think of people who look like you or your family members and friends, because you know that these people are good natured people. Or your associations with “drug addict” might be poor people, perhaps those of color rather than your aunt who is taking too much pain medication. This dissonance can be made smaller by exposure.
My point is - why do I think of anything when i hear the labels? Because I'm biased into believing people that belong to that group have certain tendencies - this is simply how we think as humans. That rapist could have been forced into it during war time or through organized crime, and that drug addict might be the valedictorian of their high school who came up with a cure for cancer while abusing aderal. My point is that we all have preconceived notions of what those people would look like, and the fact that it takes any exposure at all to remedy these biases means the labels themselves are invalid - they are simply data compression that describes similarities in groups of people - they say nothing, nothing at all about how those people are different which is the more important part in achieving our collective aims. If they were wholly valid (or more accurately humans were capable of using them in that manner) I wouldn't think of anything when you said drug addict, except that this person actively has an addiction to a drug (which 80% of the US would qualify for, including me, since caffeine is a drug and I am a dead person walking until my first cup of coffee).
If anything, the internet is proof that more exposure has only increased dissonance AND the use of labels (hashtags anyone? No? Ok, the election then ).
Discriminate has the rarer meaning of to distinguish, but in this context it is to disadvantage someone based on certain traits or opinions.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
You haven't disproven my point - the origin of the label may impact one's intepretation of it, but if I were to call you "alt-right" e.g. "OreoCookie is part of the alt-right" what have I really said?
Then you would have falsely claimed I'm a member of the alt right, nothing else. In principle that's no different than claiming I'm an American football fan (although I'd rather be mistaken to be a football fan than a member of the alt right): labels can make a lot of sense if they are specific enough and don't vary too wildly in meaning. When Bannon says he wants Breitbart to be the platform of the alt right, then it makes sense to claim he is part of the community.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Let's say I am labeled a racist, and you put me into a room with another person labeled racist. Do we share the same beliefs? Do we have the same views on skin color?
No, but you could still both be racists. Case in point: during WW2 the Japanese thought they are the superior race in Asia whereas the Nazis thought white people are. Both were racists, even if they didn't agree which race is superior.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Self-identifying with social groups that label themselves are exactly what I mean. What information have you gleaned about that white person from a small town other than what you think you already know about other people labeled that way?
Humans need these “labels” to function in society, for otherwise we could not have a harmonious interaction with each other. Humans are pattern recognition machines, and we categorize by our very own nature. It is neither good nor bad, it just is — and it is something we cannot change.
The way you write implies I look down on you because you are from a small town or gay, but that isn't the case. What you call data compression (good analogy, by the way) is of course “lossy”, but if your system of categories is rich enough you can still approximate well enough — think of a jpg with a high quality factor.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
But what if it does? American is a label, but what does that really say about somebody? Many people around the world think certain things about Americans - how can they know anything about us except through the label and their predisposed biases against those groups? Again this is my point about it being data compression.
And so? Asking Germans, Iranians, Israelis and Chileans what they think about America will yield wildly different answers, based on different experiences. Germans may be thankful for how the US rebuilt the country after WW2 while Chileans may still be angry for supporting the coup that brought them the Pinochet regime. Are these two points contradictory? Are they biases? I think the answer to both is no.
And furthermore, need the points of views be accurate? No, of course not! But that just means my jpg quality factor is quite low and the algorithm inaccurate: if the only thing I see of you is the fact that you are American, then this is a very one-dimensional representation. Perceiving people only in terms of very few aspects and making value judgements based on that is dangerous. Things such as “the majority of Trump voters are members of the alt right” are just simplistic and inaccurate.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
My point is - why do I think of anything when i hear the labels? Because I'm biased into believing people that belong to that group have certain tendencies - this is simply how we think as humans. That rapist could have been forced into it during war time or through organized crime, and that drug addict might be the valedictorian of their high school who came up with a cure for cancer while abusing aderal.
What you are describing here is what it means to me to be human, to see nuances.
And there is a real danger to see people only through the lens of a few, especially a few inaccurate labels. You cannot escape labels nor can you escape what you call “biases” (I'd add perspectives to that). And they are not the problem, that's black and white thinking.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
If anything, the internet is proof that more exposure has only increased dissonance AND the use of labels (hashtags anyone? No? Ok, the election then ).
What went wrong during the election was that interests of different groups were seen as mutually exclusive, e. g. one of the stories was that rural whites saw their interests not sufficiently represented, and that other minorities were gaining at their expense. Some people coined this “identity politics”, and view the recent changes through this lens, including Black Lives Matter. (Of course, that's just one of many different ways to understand why the election went the way it did. Let's not discuss the validity here, just take it as an example for the sake of argument.)
Personally, I don't subscribe to the use of the word “identity politics” the way it is commonly used. In my mind the concept is ill-suited to understand what is going on and how we should act in the future. Erasing labels is neither feasible nor useful.
I'd say that where we need to work is to combat two misconceptions:
(1) We need to stop believing that for the in-group to win the out-group has to lose.
(2) We need to stop underestimating the differences within our in-group and overestimating the differences between our in-group and the out-group.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Labels, by definition, are discriminatory. A sort of "data compression" for far more complex analyses and a way of organizing (ranking?) people and things based on common attributes (though importantly, wholly ignoring differences between them) Labels are a way to project a sentiment without analyzing the specifics. IMO, the only valid labels refer to specific actions and not to people as a whole or broadly to policy.
"That person is racist" or "That person is from the alt-right gives the audience of the statement no information other than the bias of the speaker. Whether or not the label has any measure of objective truth is irrelevant. When you place people in societal groups it is simply human nature that these groups will have conflict.
If you truly want to end discrimination, misogyny, xenophobia, racism, or more precisely the underlying behaviors ascribed to any label that's been bandied about the only way to do so is to get rid of the labels all together. The minute you start labeling people is the minute you get the "us vs them" mentality which is a base component of social psychology. Eradictating (or at least mitigating) their use as a social construct will eventually eradicate (or mitigate) their use as an individual thought process.
This is absurd. It's discriminatory to use labels groups themselves use? I'm discriminatory for noting the difference between evangelical christians and episcopalians or protestants or baptists?
Labels can be discriminatory but they also serve an important purpose - they can convey a lot of information. That's why they're used in everyday life. To remove such a practice would mean researching each individual in depth. Not only is that ludicrous, that's inefficient. The problem arises when they are leaned upon too heavily – like, say, when creating a blanket muslim ban because that sector promotes a lot of terrorism.
Fortunately police have video footage of the crimes and we'll get to see who is responsible for this act of domestic terrorism.
(Mook and Benenson will be lucky if they can get jobs scraping-up gum from the sidewalk after this debacle.)
Top