Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Discord Now Fully Linked With 420chan IRC


- Sun, 09 Oct 2016 04:49:29 EST 2PqYhULY No.206995
File: 1476002969182.jpg -(51829B / 50.61KB, 1200x739) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Privilege
In my sociology class last week, we all lined up and took steps forward or back based on whether or not our answer to a question was privileged or not. I took the most steps forward, being a tall white male of middle class origin.
What do you think of this exercise? Has your privilege ever been checked?
Priscilla Saddlewater - Sun, 09 Oct 2016 08:51:35 EST pFY4w8XI No.206996 Reply

damn did this really happen?
I'm a sociology graduate and there's no fuckin way i'd have ever participated in something like that. Are you in the states?
Eliza Gebberdock - Sun, 09 Oct 2016 15:22:25 EST 0aDGMcny No.206999 Reply
Why? As a sociology graduate you must recognize the purpose of the exercise. What's the problem?
Matilda Gibbleket - Sun, 09 Oct 2016 17:03:23 EST aEaeNBh+ No.207000 Reply
Nice fake story faggot.

You have to go back. Back to the cancerous shithole you came from.
James Harringwill - Sun, 09 Oct 2016 18:54:44 EST 2PqYhULY No.207001 Reply
It's not a fake story. It wasn't part of the curriculum, some black adopted ham-beast brought it up and the teacher decided to try it.
Hugh Grandwater - Mon, 10 Oct 2016 18:20:18 EST 7sJ/68Ak No.207004 Reply

The problem is that it singles people out and others them for being privileged. You can discuss these things without turning it into some creepy ritual.
Ernest Snodhood - Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:21:35 EST 54PBc7Id No.207013 Reply
The Number 1 problem with checking your privilege is that, in reality, it's more like 'checking your whiteness, masculinity and success'. Everybody has privileges unique to themselves, but god knows they'll never own up to it. Ask black people or women to own up to the privileges that come with being black or being a woman, the perks to the two that us white men will never know, and they go ape shit. It's impossible to compare privilege when only one section of privilege is up for discussion and not all sections of privilege.

Like most modern activism, this is just another way to undermine the white man and claim that us white men don't deserve what we've got, even though in reality people only get what they deserve, nothing more, nothing less, and what we deserve has nothing to do with who we are or what we do, but simply luck of the draw. We can't control the environment we're born into.
Ernest Snodhood - Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:22:43 EST 54PBc7Id No.207014 Reply
Humans are stupid, petty, selfish creatures who can't help but get jealous of what their neighbor has that they don't have, yet care nothing about the things they have that their neighbors don't.
Shitting Greengold - Fri, 14 Oct 2016 04:42:12 EST aEaeNBh+ No.207037 Reply
You have to go back. Back to the future. With your retarded faggot fake story.

Go back. You have to go back to the future.
Jenny Hassledock - Fri, 14 Oct 2016 20:00:17 EST 0SaDx0CI No.207046 Reply

You should say that in /pol/.

You'd get shitposted for months.
James Dartforth - Fri, 14 Oct 2016 23:27:01 EST KHIc212+ No.207048 Reply
1476502021168.jpg -(203759B / 198.98KB, 728x700) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Can confirm. They do shit like this at my school all the time.

I mean yeah, this society definitely favors whiteness over blackness in certain ways I won't deny that. I won't deny blacks live in poverty disproportionately to whites and a lot of that has to do with slavery, discrimination, etc.

But the more you listen to these facilitators the more you see the constant contradiction in their ideology. They know what they don't like about society, but they don't know how to get there and I think they have even less of a grasp on how things are the way things are. As a result I think they've just elected to shame 'the shamers' instead. Ie. middle-class, impressionable, white college kids with guilt complexes.
In their minds, all white folk are the perpetrators because (I believe) they have made little sense of the complex predicament of being black in America.

Some examples-
  1. They claim individualism is a racist ideology by nature, because it limits white folk to empathize with blacks and its an ideology favored in Europeon society. However, they also claim that all white folk, by nature, are inherently racist and therefor any action to change the status quo would result in unconscious perpetuation of white supremacy. So all white folk can do is educate other white folk. But isn't just merely educating others an act of individualism?
  2. They said they want black folk integrated completely into white society, but they don't want whiteness involved in their own cultures.
  3. They claim that having an either/or attitude is racist. However they claim that one is either racist or nonracist. They also claim being white makes you automatically a perpetrator of racism. But isn't racist/nonracist & white = racist an example of either/or?

So yeah, I don't put too much stock into these events when we have to go to them at school. Initially they made me kind of uncomfortable, but now it just seems like a big joke to me the more I hear these facilitators talk themselves constantly into holes.

Anyway, yeah. Sucks OP. I feel ya. Uncle Charlie was right. Heltker Skelters a comin'.
Nigel Goodworth - Sat, 15 Oct 2016 04:58:31 EST aEaeNBh+ No.207050 Reply
>They claim individualism is a racist ideology by nature, because it limits white folk to empathize with blacks and its an ideology favored in Europeon society. However, they also claim that all white folk, by nature, are inherently racist and therefor any action to change the status quo would result in unconscious perpetuation of white supremacy. So all white folk can do is educate other white folk. But isn't just merely educating others an act of individualism?

Only a fucking retard would claim white people are racist by nature. Because white people are just mutant africans. White people are racist by culture.

>They said they want black folk integrated completely into white society, but they don't want whiteness involved in their own cultures.

Sounds like retarded bullshit too. Multiculturalism will always cause a blending of cultures, which goes both ways.

>They claim that having an either/or attitude is racist. However they claim that one is either racist or nonracist. They also claim being white makes you automatically a perpetrator of racism. But isn't racist/nonracist & white = racist an example of either/or?

This doesn't even make sense. You should rewrite your post, or you're just full of contradictory retarded /pol/ shit. And you just made all your examples up.
James Dartforth - Sat, 15 Oct 2016 09:21:53 EST KHIc212+ No.207051 Reply
1476537713168.jpg -(30444B / 29.73KB, 356x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Lol I assure you, I don't frequent /pol/.

I don't know why your getting all buttmad at my post. I'm not really taking a side in the matter. I'm pretty indifferent to it all. I just went to a few 'building empathy' workshops and the stuff I wrote is literally all stuff they said.
Except the white people racist by nature. You're right, they meant white people are racist by culture. That was a mistype on my part.

I received some handouts with all this stuff written down. I'll take some pics and post them later if you really don't believe me.
James Dartforth - Sat, 15 Oct 2016 11:04:22 EST KHIc212+ No.207053 Reply
1476543862168.jpg -(1608060B / 1.53MB, 2448x3264) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Yeah, I wrote the Charlie shit sarcastically, but in hindsight I should of omitted it. Sarcasm doesn't translate well on imageboards. Clearly I don't believe Charles Manson had anything of real value to say or believe in.

So yeah, here is an example of what we were given in the workshops.
Shitting Hunnerchork - Sat, 15 Oct 2016 16:24:11 EST FSAozKjO No.207056 Reply

This is odd

A lot of these are generally good thoughts but I fail to see how race is relevant.
Nicholas Dullerville - Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:38:49 EST 54PBc7Id No.207066 Reply
What an utter crock of shit.
First of all, effort is worthless. If effort yields nothing, then the effort is worthless and cannot be appreciated. Whoever's effort yields little to no results needs to be fired because clearly they're not where they should be.
And fuck their anti-urgency bullshit. People have expectations. If you cannot finish something within the expected time-frame, then move the fuck over and let someone else who's faster do it, or learn to move faster. It's not rocket science.

What is this Marxist bullshit they're teaching you? These are not the philosophies of successful capitalists or successful people in general, these are the philosophies of the weak and the leeching.

Human life isn't valuable. Human effort isn't valuable. The only thing valuable is the outcome of either. And anyone who tells you otherwise is most likely a weak leech. Yet these retarded values are considered 'ethical' in academia. Fuck your ethics, academia, I want results, not a pat on the back. I want success, not acceptance of failure.
Nicholas Dullerville - Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:26:37 EST 54PBc7Id No.207068 Reply
Shouldn't you be using philosophy to argue a point?
If you think appreciating effort over results isn't Marxist, then you'd best explain why. Sarcastic remarks aren't going to help anybody's arguments here.
Nicholas Dullerville - Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:56:34 EST 54PBc7Id No.207070 Reply
>The burden of proof is on you.
I simply stated a fact. You don't have to go around proving facts are facts. You are simply unfamiliar with these subjects. If you were familiar with Marxism, you'd understand my statement.

Marx fought for people to be rewarded based on effort, not result. Marx thought that two people working the same hours of the same job deserve the same pay, even though it is inevitable that one of them is superior at their job than the other. Then you've got systems like Capitalism where effort means nothing and results mean everything; survival of the fittest reigns supreme.

I'm not a 'right-winger who discredits Marxism'. I'm simply pointing out that what that person was being taught was Marxist and was bullshit. Karl Marx may have saved the proletariat but the system he created was completely incapable of surviving/thriving and lead to many horrible events, such as the starvation of tens of millions of Russians and Chinese alike in the near future under the socialists Stalin and Mao. Therefore, I am not in favor of his philosophies being taught in Academia in this day and age; teaching people techniques that have been tried and failed seems pretty retarded.
Nicholas Dullerville - Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:21:23 EST 54PBc7Id No.207071 Reply
I mean, what you said is pretty funny, but the error is that not only did you assume I was just like everyone else you see using the word 'Marxist' (right-wing shitheads) but you also tried to invalidate what I said simply by accusing me of being one of these people.

But I'll tell you why Marxism is such a buzzword right now. Marxism has been infiltrating academia for decades now, and people are extremely unhappy about it. The reason Marxism keeps dominating academic thought is because Marxism is seen as the 'nice' and 'equal' philosophy where every life is valued, where as capitalism is seen as the 'mean' 'dog-eats-dog' and 'fair' philosophy where losers crash and burn and possibly starve to death. Shallow people always prefer the 'nice' and 'equal' option over the 'mean' and 'fair' option. And yes, equality and fairness are contradictory. Fairness means paying people for what they accomplish, where as equality means paying people what everyone else is paid.

Marxist theory wants no one starving to death if it is accomplishable, where as capitalist theory wants people to starve to death if they're incapable of being productive and don't have a valid reason for it. Sure, that makes Marxism look prettier, but the truth is that Marxism significantly sacrifices progress in favor of comfort, conservativism, and a unified responsibility of the nation amongst all it's members, where as capitalism is obsessed with progress and personal responsibility, even when that means allowing humans to die off.

So which do you prefer? Everyone being held back by the losers in society just so they can all live comfortably (compared to the winners of society) or progress and personal responsibility dominating society to the point where unsuccessful/irresponsible people die off in a survival of the fittest manner?
Both philosophies involve suffering, it's just that Marxism involves suffering on a macro scale in small amounts while capitalism involves suffering on a micro level in terminal amounts.

But that being said, look at it this way; Under Marxism in history and even today, millions upon millions of people starved to death, where as the USA, a capitalist country, doesn't have any starvation at all. People go hungry, but nobody dies from it. That's why we're all so afraid of Marxism being implemented in schools.
Ebenezer Mummerwure - Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:28:09 EST FSAozKjO No.207072 Reply

>The only thing valuable is the outcome of either.

Why should I believe this? Also, what sorts of outcomes should be prioritized? What do you even mean by "outcome?"
Nicholas Dullerville - Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:39:00 EST 54PBc7Id No.207073 Reply
Here's an example I think you'll understand.

Bob wants to run a successful farm. Bob spends every hour of his life on the farm, trying to make it successful. He's constantly laboring on the farm to try to get it to work. Yet every year, Bob has yields so low that he barely stays afloat.

Then there's Joe. Joe also has a farm. Joe not only labors on the farm, but he also runs a small lab where he studies his soil and crops. Joe is an intelligent agricultural scientist, and he has found a way to get great yields from his crops by being smart about how he farms. Every year Joe makes a lot of money, so much so that he can afford farm-hands to do the labor, and because of this he has plenty of free time to himself which he uses for other ventures, conducting science, and having fun.

Under Marxist/Leninist socialism, Joe and Bob would be valued the same and would be paid the same per hour of work. That would feel great for Bob because he's dedicated himself to tons of work, but horrible for Joe who wants to work quickly and efficiently. But under Capitalism, Joe would be valued significantly more than Bob, and he'd live a much nicer life because of it and be able to further pursue his science because it is profitable and worthwhile. Then, years down the road, Joe could start a seminar for agriculture and share his scientific findings with other people (such as Bob) to hopefully make their life easier.

That's just a sort of simple example I just came up with on the spot. But the point is, in capitalism, effort is insignificant compared to success, because success is real and worthwhile where as effort is something easily wasted. Marxism is about working hard, something people don't want to do, while Capitalism is about working smart and succeeding, something people (who aren't just societal leeches) love.
Molly Nimblemedging - Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:25:25 EST 7Jz0O/c2 No.207077 Reply

I recognise the purpose of the exercise, and I guess it might be helpful to explain and demonstrate privilege in a more visual way in an introductory level class but man, a better lecturer could have explained it without the theatrics and be able to captivate everyone listening at the same time.

After three years of sociology you end up with a very good picture of it all anyway, so i feel its a pointless exercise
Molly Nimblemedging - Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:31:25 EST 7Jz0O/c2 No.207078 Reply
Marxism is dominating academia but it won't last; the issue now is how we revitalise the left and the correct way forward is to read Badiou. Sociologies of emancipation over sociologies of domination- we do not need more narratives about how the system is fucking us, we need an emancipatory politics going forward, a passion for the real and a militant fidelity to a truth.

Whether that is anti-racism, anti-sexism or whatever else.

You learn Marx, you keep him in mind, and then you move forward.
Eliza Fallerbury - Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:47:36 EST 54PBc7Id No.207079 Reply
I totally agree.

But I think it has almost nothing to do with anti-racism or anti-sexism. Racism and sexism are at an all-time low and these things hardly effect people anymore.
Self-victimization and self-fulfilling-prophecies rule the left at the moment. Paranoia and fear rule the left at the moment. They have no spirit. They think the USA, the greatest country in the world, is some sort of hell, because they've got affluenza up the wazoo. Silver Spoon Cool, yo.

The left is obsessed with bullshit. They're too busy trying to tax carbon and overthrow legitimate governments in the ME and rioting against the very few cases of police brutality in the USA to accomplish anything worthwhile.
Thomas Peddleman - Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:52:09 EST aEaeNBh+ No.207080 Reply
>i just stated a fact


Yeah. Facts. Fuck off back to the future, you don't belong here.
Eliza Fallerbury - Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:59:44 EST 54PBc7Id No.207081 Reply
Prove to me that the statement 'Effort-based reward is part of Marxism' is false or shut the fuck up.
Thomas Peddleman - Tue, 18 Oct 2016 17:46:23 EST aEaeNBh+ No.207082 Reply
Effort-based rewards is capitalist as fuck.

>wow dude you sold 120 units instead of your target of 100 units? you get a 20% bonus on your pay!
Hamilton Pezzlegold - Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:34:01 EST 0aDGMcny No.207090 Reply
Well, 'effort-based reward' is just a meritocracy. You could theoretically have a capitalist or communist meritocracy, but you would have to do all kinds of contortions to make it fit. More accurately:
Marxism is: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" so it's need-based reward, in exchange for available effort, which could be totally unequal to one another in one direction or the other.
Capitalism is: "From each according to what you can get from them, to each according to how much they can take" So it is not reward at all, it's merely a window-dressing for might-makes-right.
Angus Turveyway - Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:20:35 EST 54PBc7Id No.207093 Reply
That's not how effort-based rewards work. Meritocracy =/= effort-based. Your example is erroneous. Selling 20 units extra in the time it takes you to sell 100 units total is merit. Selling 20 less units in the time it takes you to make 100 but still being paid for the 100 is effort-based pay.

Might doesn't make right, but success makes right.
Hamilton Pezzlegold - Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:04:29 EST 0aDGMcny No.207098 Reply
What makes success? Might (not necessarily physical, could be social, conceptual, positional might.)
Charlotte Turveyridge - Thu, 20 Oct 2016 09:28:41 EST 54PBc7Id No.207100 Reply
Don't simplify success. Success is success. Success is progressive, and progressiveness is all opinion-based.
Augustus Trotshaw - Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:42:16 EST 0aDGMcny No.207105 Reply
You're an idiot. What causes success? Force (might.) You can't have an ounce of success without force. Saying we're going to reward success is saying we are going to reward people who have the force to take what they want, it literally can mean nothing else. You're trying to put success on this pedestal as some kind of pure quality. It's not. It's just a manifestation of other characteristics, a positional signifier, it's almost trivial in itself.
Beatrice Drorrylark - Sun, 23 Oct 2016 11:53:17 EST FSAozKjO No.207108 Reply

>success can only mean taking what you want


That's not even what most people mean when they use the word, nor is that true at all
Nicholas Habbertatch - Mon, 24 Oct 2016 12:48:17 EST 0aDGMcny No.207111 Reply
So for a blithely obvious source, I chose Webster's:
1: the fact of getting or achieving wealth, respect, or fame
2: the correct or desired result of an attempt

Let's break down this definition propositionally. For definition 1, success refers to 'the fact of getting or acheiving' meaning it refers to the actual condition of being in the state (rather than hypothetically or supposedly being in the state) of gaining or having gained 'wealth, respect, or fame.' Acquisition of any of these things requires the application of various kinds of forces, including physical, social, mental, economic, etc. So by definition 1, 'successfulness' is a measure of one's ability to a.) 'actually' b.) 'acquire' c.) 'things valued' (in the case of this definition the popular notions of success.) Since the degree to which condition 'a.' is met is directly porportional to the amount of force one is able to apply to condition 'b.' then success is an indirect (but still mostly direct) measure of that force by definition 1.
Definition 2 is just the generalization of the first definition. No change in reality occurs without the application of some force. However, changes are happening all the time. And only some of the things that happen are things that we want. Thus 'successful' actions are only those that fall in the category of both being a change that 'actually' occurs and a change that we 'desire.' Since we can only change reality to be the way we want it to by applying proportional force to reality, the degree to which we fulfill both conditions and are 'successful' is thus directly proportional to the degree of force we can apply, by definition 2.

So yeah, I don't see how you people can not get this. It's pretty foundational stuff. If success wasn't determined by force, do you think just magically some people happen to be successful and some aren't? Do you think magically some scientific experiments succeed and others fail, irrespective of the physical forces applied? What do you think evolution is measuring if not the kinds of effective forces particular genes apply to an organism? Why do you think market capitalism works? etc, etc. The connection between success and force is at the root of a rational conception of the world.
Lydia Drurryhedge - Mon, 24 Oct 2016 22:26:47 EST iAquTtgI No.207112 Reply
Privilege? I thought we were all equal?
Edwin Hozzleford - Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:37:54 EST 54PBc7Id No.207114 Reply
I'll explain to you your error. First of all, it's rude to call people names, which instantly makes them less likely to actually pay attention to your point. Second of all, you're preaching a super-simplistic view of capitalism; might makes right. Might makes right is only partially true, and cannot be considered the end-all of capitalism.

If meritocracy is just might makes right, then why did the mighty Enron get gutted?
Rhetorical question; their might was deemed 'unethical' by the justice department and society at large, and Enron was destroyed along with its executives.

Your proof isn't wrong, but your foundation is wrong via over-simplification. That's why people aren't agreeing with you.

You're just preaching what sounds like libertarianism, and people dislike libertarians because they don't integrate ideas like responsibility and ethics into their view of merit.

Edwin Hozzleford - Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:39:04 EST 54PBc7Id No.207115 Reply
Whoops, I meant meritocracy when I said capitalism in paragraph 1, I'm just so used to talking about capitalism at this point in my life.
Isabella Fobberforth - Tue, 25 Oct 2016 16:33:12 EST 0aDGMcny No.207116 Reply
A few comments above that you told another poster to 'shut the fuck up', so don't pretend you're all high-road or that I grievously injured you by calling you 'idiot' on a chan. And you are over-simplifying what I am saying to the point that it seems like I'm actually articulating a simplistic view, but you just are totally missing the point I'm trying to make.
Might makes right is absolutely true, that's just physics. You just keep failing to notice that I'm specifying that physical force is only one kind of might, and all kinds of might contribute to success.
I'm not claiming meritocracy = anything. I'm making a claim about capitalism, not meritocracy.
Enron got gutted because it used its might to encroach on others, and angered them, such that they put into motion a series of forces (social, leading to legal and political) that had a greater force trying to disintegrate it than the amount of force it was able to apply to keep itself together, and thus naturally failed to maintain its homeostasis. Might still made right, it's just that the might of the US legal system is > than the might of one company.
Moreover, I'm not advocating this as a good thing. In fact, I'm saying it's a horrible thing, the key flaw with capitalism! It goes back to my original statement; free market capitalism is little more than a window dressing for the natural state of affairs, and in the natural state of affairs the only thing that determines the flow of economic forces (or anything else) is the forces which actors within the field are able to apply upon the field. To whatever degree we have regulation of our economy, we try to minimize the damage this causes, but the basic message that capitalism sends is the same: you will have (money, wealth, fame, power, resources: success) if and only if you have the might (requisite physical, economic, mental, social, moral, etc. forces and powers) to acquire those things, and the degree to which you have them will be directly proportional to the degree which you possess those forces. Justice has little to do with it, since our politicians are so easily bought, the justice system therefore only nominally enforces some higher ideal of justice, it really is just a manifestation of the obscurant might of other parts of society.
Personally, I should think that a more elaborate restraint of the natural condition would be beneficial, such that a minimal level of reward is re-allocated by the state on a basis independent of one's means to directly obtain it, but my political beliefs are not the subject. I was merely backing up the proposition that capitalism is effort based, but not a meritocracy, by drilling down to the core ideological implications.
And I think all of that was fairly obvious if you read the line of my posts, but again, everyone wanted to look at them in an over-simplistic way and misunderstood them out of assuming I was using my points to arguing in a direction I disavowed from the outset, and there's little I can do to help that part.
Frederick Challybury - Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:36:37 EST 54PBc7Id No.207119 Reply
No, I fully understand what you're saying, probably more than anyone else on this board. I just whole-heartedly disagree with it. You view capitalism as if it's libertarian capitalism and you view justice as too-corrupt. I think you're letting the minor problems with capitalism and justice overshadow the glorious success of justice and capitalism. I get the feeling you don't know enough about the justice system or capitalism to have a well-educated opinion on them based on what you're saying. But I want to give you the chance to defend yourself and further explain yourself.

But really we were just arguing about whether might makes right. And I mean, at the end of the day, it's just a stupid quote that varies depending on your definition of might and right. What is your definition of 'right'? Because that could shed some light onto this subject. To me, 'right' is 'what's best for the over-all majority', and there are plenty of clear-cut examples where incredible might has done the opposite of what's best for the majority, therefore I will innately disagree with your might makes right claim.

But where do you stand on my meritocracy claim? That capitalism is based in merit, not effort? Can you argue that capitalism is more so based in effort, and can you offer an example?

I've got an academic background in both Economics and Law, which is why I see your statements as over-simplifications, the kind a philosopher would use to try to make sense of something they don't quite grasp.
Betsy Cundlehin - Thu, 27 Oct 2016 01:38:12 EST 0aDGMcny No.207120 Reply
I think if you read my statements about whether or not 'might makes right' is a good thing you would know what the 'right' in that phrase represents. 'Right' in 'might makes right' does not refer to what is already understood to be good. The key word in the phrase is *makes;* it's a more punchy way of saying 'history is written by the conquerors.' Those who have might use that might to vindicate what they already wanted to do anyway, the 'right' is mere justification, not indicative of any pure good. In a capitalist system, you are rewarded for your capacity to 'make right' i.e. your ability to make conditions the way you want them to be, the reward is not based on some objective standard of morality (what 'right' means outside of the context of this phrase.) It's not a good thing, and certainly not good for the majority, but it is intrinsic to an unregulated capitalist system. Can you tell me how one's ability to succeed in a capitalist society is in anyway disconnected from the forces one possesses to actualize one's goals? This is the core meaning of the phrase 'might makes right' and frankly, if you're going to puff your chest up about your degrees, all that demonstrates is that you are unable to analyze a pure logical proposition without bringing in extraneous information; your Law and Economics information is not particularly helpful (not that you actually brought in any information, your entire last post was just saying 'well I disagree' 'well if you want to use words that way' and 'well I know so much more about this so I'm not even going to bother defending my position and just reiterate it.')
Additionally, I'm not just saying the justice system is corrupt, or even pointing out the more blatant aspect of corruption. All the branches of government exist to reify and enforce the power of existing aspects of society, not to enforce some abstract ideal of justice (although that is of course what is claimed -- I'm sure you're familiar with the North Dakota pipeline situation? The government is not interested in enforcing abstract 'rightness' it is interested in protecting the interest of the mighty and 'making' that what is right.)
As for the meritocracy claim, which is where this all started, I'll again say that capitalism is more meritocratic than some other theoretical forms of government/economics, but it could not be called a meritocracy because reward is determined by effort (again, the 'might' in the equation) not strictly by who deserves that reward (which requires appealing to some abstract sense of justice.) For an example, take the financial industry. Simply because of their positioning, they are able to extract vast amounts of resources from the economy in exchange for an amount of effort that amounts to little more than shuffling paper around. If we were being perfectly meritocratic, financial industry professionals shouldn't make any more than someone else whose job is also only to shuffle papers around, like a secretary. Obviously, that's not the case. There are many more examples but that's the low hanging fruit and is a clear example.

In summary, your whole sequence of objections has boiled down to not liking the way I use my words (even when using a common, well understood idiom), and not wanting them to mean what they mean, with no real argument as to why that is not the case but chest-beating to reiterate 'no that's not how it is because you can't fathom my Economics and Law knowledge.' To hit you back: Can you offer me any proof that the ability to gain capital is not directly proportional to the ability to exercise force within the market? That's the meaning of my statement and you will have to prove that point to get me to back off from it.
Hugh Pobberridge - Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:20:38 EST 54PBc7Id No.207122 Reply
Betsy, I can tell you are somewhat upset by what I have said. I do not mean to offend you by bringing up my own credentials, I am simply pointing out the fact that I'm not unstudied on the subject at hand and that if I do disagree with you on a subject it is not from a place of ignorance like that of your basement-dwelling teenage stoner philosopher with not an ounce of real world experience. Betsy, we're having a civil discussion here and sharing information, there's no reason to be so defensive. I enjoy our talks. You have fine logic. But my last post was simply me asking you to clarify certain subjects because you're going off on tangents, as well as I know for a fact that every human being has their own unique vocabulary, and therefore I need to understand your vocabulary to understand your use of words. Your version of 'might makes right' is different form another's version of 'might makes right'. I believe it was Aristotle who opened all arguments by having both parties define their own vocabulary for clarity, was it not? A brilliant idea for lessening misunderstanding.

I just can't agree with the way you see capitalism. You say that reward is based on might makes right, yet I cannot agree.

How does a capitalist gain reward? They either do the job they are given by their superiors, or, they become entrepreneurs and find a way to profit off of people, more often than not by providing a service that is in high demand. But no matter how mighty you are, you cannot force a demand to appear. You can run marketing campaigns, but if these campaigns just don't appeal to people, then you're out of luck, unless, of course, you get government sponsorship, but that's few and far-between in economics, but we can see it existing in things like pharmaceuticals.

Lol mentioning the North Dakota pipeline, I mean that's something I'm too familiar with. Just the other day I had to deal with a town-hall full of moronic residents blaming my industry for their home-life problems; fly infestation. Just because the flies' main food source comes from my industry, these residents with a fly infestation blamed my industry for their problems, demanding we be held responsible. Well, I have no doubt in my mind that their problems are their own creation and not from my industry because their problems go well beyond anything we've ever dealt with, and we've never seen anything like what they're dealing with. Condemning us and shutting us down because they can't figure out how to do away with their own infestation is just a load of bullshit. Just like fending off a pipeline is just a load of bullshit. They expect the pipeline to ruin their land; well, it won't, and if it does, something will be done about it, especially if the townsfolk take action. But trying to forcibly stop a pipeline from being installed is illegal, and it is illegal because not enough people consider the idea 'too dangerous' to enact, and therefore support its erection because society as a whole sees it as more of a successful idea than a dangerous idea. Is building a pipeline intrinstically right? Not really. But is stopping someone from performing an action they've built up the power and influence to perform wrong? Yes, it is, I would say, unless people see it as dangerous enough to warrant it's stopping, like in the Enron case. But this is not that case, and people at large don't see what's happening as unethical; rather, they see the protesters as stupid and in-the-way. And they're not wrong.

But you see, you don't even understand the significance of financing. You say financing is nothing more than paper pushing, when in reality financing is a dangerous thing. Bad financing leads to serious losses for the financier, as well as major issues for the financed. Smart financing, however, increases both efficiency and productivity.

I mean, here's a simple example. I know a man who, many years ago, applied for a 150K loan. This loan allowed him to start a business instantly and, in time, he profited enough to pay back the loan and then was running his own business. Do you have any idea how long it would have taken that man to accrue 150K without a loan? The prime of his life would be over before he could start his venture. Not only that, what if he had been a bad choice for the 150K, and then sank himself into massive debt while also becoming unprofitable for the financier? That's literally what created the Great Recession back in 2007; unintelligent loans. Loans weren't taken seriously, they were given to tons of people who couldn't afford them, and then when 8% of them defaulted, it became a massive down-hill shit-slide, a domino effect of fuck. Yet you say financing shouldn't be so highly valued. Here's where meritocracy comes into play again; good financing ushers in success at a faster rate than no-financing, as well as it is profitable to the financier, depending on how smart they are about who they pick to finance and why, and that takes a lot of business-related intelligence/smarts. It's meritocracy, plain and simple, except for the part where bad financiers use their power to force the financial burden that's incoming to fall onto the heads of the people lower on the totem pole, the financed, the stock holders, rather than the financiers, themselves. But that only happens in incidents like the Great Recession where tons of big corporations were on their way down; smaller corporations could have never gotten away with such blatantly unethical actions. They don't have the might that these big guys have. Like, the burden of proof is on you here; how can you prove that capitalism isn't a meritocracy, and that it's instead effort-based?
Hugh Pobberridge - Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:29:27 EST 54PBc7Id No.207123 Reply
But even so, when we circle back to this whole meritocracy vs effort thing, it seems to me that you clearly agree that capitalism is a meritocracy and not effort-based.
>Can you offer me any proof that the ability to gain capital is not directly proportional to the ability to exercise force within the market? That's the meaning of my statement and you will have to prove that point to get me to back off from it.

Dude, the ability to exercise force within the market =/= effort .
If Effort = attempting to exercise force within the market
and Merit = successfully attempting to exercise force within the market
Then your statement is in agreement with my original statement that capitalism is a meritocracy.

The definition of merit: deserve or be worthy of (something, especially reward, punishment, or attention).
The definition of effort: a vigorous or determined attempt.

Here's a real-world example.
Samsung Note 7 vs iPhone 7.
iPhone 7 merited it's profit; for whatever reason, the iPhone 7 was highly demanded, and when it was put on sale it was bought by many people. Those people willingly gave their money to Apple for their newest phone, meriting a profit for Apple.

Samsung, on the other hand, merely put in the effort but did not merit success. Samsung did the same as Apple, except Samsung's final product was deemed too dangerous to be sold and then was recalled, leading to massive losses in Q3 for Samsung.

Samsung put in the effort and did not merit reward, while Apple did merit the reward. Therefore, Samsung's effort amounted to nothing but wasted time and lost money. Meritocracy.
Hugh Pobberridge - Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:31:18 EST 54PBc7Id No.207124 Reply
In summation, your version of 'might makes right' completely adheres to the statement 'capitalism is a meritocracy' because your definition of might has nothing to do with effort and everything to do with success/merit. So I don't know why you disagreed with me from the start.

If you want to prove that capitalism is based on effort, you give me a sound example.
Betsy Cundlehin - Thu, 27 Oct 2016 19:25:42 EST 0aDGMcny No.207126 Reply
1477610742859.jpg -(14367B / 14.03KB, 250x200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Nah, I'm not upset, I'm mostly amused at this point watching you talk yourself in circles. Clearly, it is you who has the rustled jimmies, with a three post spree and dropping lines like 'your basement-dwelling teenage stoner philosopher with not an ounce of real world experience' but that's cool man, you're still mostly arguing with what you think I'm saying and not what I'm actually saying, so how could my jimmies be rustled? I appreciate your careful use of logic, but I think you make too many assumptions about what you think I mean, and then go off to argue against that, but that's just chasing windmills homie.

Let me respond point for point:
>>no matter how mighty you are, you cannot force a demand to appear
A person who has a thousand plumbuses to sell perhaps would think he has might equivalent to a thousand plumbuses, yet if there is no demand for plumbuses, then that perception of might is merely a delusion, there was never any might to begin with. The government propping up a product, if it is doing so purely on the merits of that product, is an example of meritocracy. However, the products the government does prop up are those it is coerced into propping up because of the power of special interests (I'm referring mostly to wasteful spending in the military-industrial complex) which is a case of 'might making right.'

>>ND pipeline
Ugh, I didn't expect you to take that position, gross. But be that as it may, you furnished me with a lovely sentence to drive home my points:
>> is stopping someone from performing an action they've built up the power and influence to perform wrong? Yes, it is
So basically you are admitting that the force of the government is not used to enforce an abstract morality, but is instead used to enforce the interests of those in power (in this case, the people who want to benefit economically because of the pipeline vs the theoretically legal authority Native nations have to control what goes on in their own territory) the fact that they have built up the force to do it legitimizes their authority to do it under your argument, which is the classic definition of 'might makes right.' I think you're missing the forest for the trees here.

>>defending financiers
Ugh, double gross. Not going to argue with you about it since you clearly have a certain perspective you are beholden to defend, but I deeply disagree with your valuation of the worth of the financial industry -- have you considered that if those people did not have anything to personally gain, the Recession couldn't have happened in the first place, regardless of how big or small the companies involved were, because there would be no incentive to behave so riskily (inappropriately)? Anyway, that's a total tangent.
>>they don't have the might the big guys have
And those banks died off...and the big ones got propped up on the public's dime...sure sounds like might making right to me.

>>how can you prove that capitalism isn't a meritocracy, and that it's instead effort-based?
I'll unpack that by dealing with the next couple points you raise, because you reveal the root of the misunderstanding.

>>Dude, the ability to exercise force within the market =/= effort .
I didn't say it was, I said exercising force = the ability to gain capital.
>>If Effort = attempting to exercise force within the market
Okay, you're the only one interested in 'effort' conceptually so I take this for granted.
>>and Merit = successfully attempting to exercise force within the market
Nope, nope, nope, this is where I've got you. Successfully applying force is 'might making right' i.e. you had the resources to try to take what you wanted, and you succeeded in the attempt. Thus it means that you could take something (and did) not that you *deserved* to have something. Wikipedia defines meritocracy as: 'a political philosophy holding that power should be vested in individuals almost exclusively based on ability and talent.' Individuals in capitalism are rewarded based on their ability to enforce their desired conditions on the market. Individuals in a meritocracy are rewarded based on their ability and talent. What proves that these two aren't equivalent is any situation where someone gains not because of their pure talent, but because of their connections. As another easy example; surely the two people running for president right now are not the ones with the most ability or talent to fill that role, and yet all the more talented and able people aren't in consideration, and the ones that are are there solely because of the entrenched might of particular interests to put them there. If capitalism were a meritocracy, we should expect to only see the most able and talented politicians receiving their parties nominations. Is David Rockefeller one of the richest people in the world because he is one of the most talented and able people in the world? No, he is because he happened to squirt out of the right dick and was placed into power solely because of his positioning, not because of anything innate.
>>Then your statement is in agreement with my original statement that capitalism is a meritocracy.
Only under a definition of meritocracy which is inaccurate and non-sensical, as described above. Capitalism =/= meritocracy, for the reason cited above.

>>The definition of merit: deserve or be worthy of (something, especially reward, punishment, or attention).
Sure, but the caveat in the case of meritocracy is that who deserves something is determined by intrinsic qualities of ability and talent, not by position, authority, hereditarily, etc. which could be construed as 'merit' under this broad definition. In my mind merit: actually possessing intrinsic positive qualities (and thus, under a meritocracy, instrinically deserving reward.)
>>The definition of effort: a vigorous or determined attempt.
Yep, although I would suggest that simply adopting the thermodynamic definition of 'work' would more fully fill the category.

>>If you want to prove that capitalism is based on effort, you give me a sound example.
I have no interest in proving this, nor do I believe it. I believe that capitalism is mostly based on nepotism and chicanery between monied interests as a way of leveraging capital into a universal system of social control. I explicitly disagree that reward is meted out under capitalism based on effort, or talent or ability, but solely on the degree of force with which actors are able to manipulate the market, independently of how much effort they apply, how much talent they have, or how able they are, and as such it cannot be defined as a meritocracy.

In summary, again, I do disagree with you, and the fact that you think I'm actually not disagreeing with you demonstrates my point that you are consistently imagining I'm saying one thing and arguing against that, which is why you are talking yourself in circles. To get me to accept that capitalism is a meritocracy, you will have to prove that financial reward is meted out to people solely on the basis of their intrinsic abilities and talents, and not any other factor; that's where the line in the sand has been since the beginning, that's the meaning of my claim that 'capitalism is little more than a window dressing for the natural state of affairs, where reward is determined by might makes right.' Live long and prosper friend.
Phineas Greenworth - Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:38:59 EST 54PBc7Id No.207129 Reply
You know, I was about to be like, 'You went from cool to total faggot in the blink of an eye.' But then I realized we had yet another misunderstanding. You thought I was talking about you when I talked about those basement-dwelling teens, when really I wasn't directing that at you whatsoever, I have no idea who you are or what you're like so I'm not making assumptions here. Lol this conversation is too funny. Very fun stuff. I'm sorry I rustled your jimmies even harder, it was an honest mistake. But yeah, I've got a whole weekend of non-stop partying to start like right now, so I don't have time to really respond to you, but, I will say this. I read over what you said. I think our main issue is this concept of effort and merit. Merit means to earn something. In my opinion, your concept of might makes right totally adheres to my concept of capitalism being based in merit. You're not presenting me with any argument as to why capitalism isn't based on merit. You think the meritocracy aspect is moot just because people are born into vast wealth, but the way I see it this boils down to whether or not someone fails, and if you're born rich and become even richer then clearly you've got merit. Idk, we can get into it more next week.

But yeah, we seem to disagree on the word 'deserve'. See, I see 'deserve' as 'what you get' where as it seems like you see 'deserve' as some sort of moral abstract, like, 'Oh he deserves this or that for working hard and for being a good person' when in reality people get what they deserve and deserve what they get, the rest of the concept is just anthropomorphisations. I don't see 'deserving' as going any deeper than meriting. Reality isn't far, and people aren't going to get what they want, just what they deserve, based on reality, not based on human concepts of 'deserving'.

Also, maybe pick up a book on economics, or something Ayn Rand wrote. What's gross is your dislike of capitalism. You clearly only are familiar with the negative sides of capitalism; hell, you don't even understand the very real and obvious benefits to financing. I think you've got some unrealistic concepts as to how economics should work, but then again you haven't said much about your view on economics besides a disdain for progress that involves doing things people are nothing more than uncomfortable with, such as building a pipeline. I know what people are like, Betsy. People are stupid. People have no idea what's good or bad. People have no idea what the outcome of a new pipeline will be, because they're simply too stupid to do the investigating. Increased profits, more jobs, more efficient economy, at the cost of, what, little environmental risks? In this country that has such a pristine environment? Where companies are held accountable for their pollution unless they've got people on the inside of the local government, which happened with the DuPonts?

I'm a Cynic. I wonder if you're a cynic, too. Nah, I don't think you can quite bare the risks and negative aspects of life that are necessary for our civilization to keep progressing. Progress takes sacrifice, and thinking you can live in a world where sacrifice doesn't exist will only deter you from making the sacrifices you should be making in your own life for the success you crave.
Hannah Grimwill - Fri, 28 Oct 2016 17:02:59 EST 0aDGMcny No.207130 Reply
Well, enjoy your partying, I hope you can unrustle your jimmies. I also knew you weren't talking to me with that comment, it just in general sounds like a pretty rustled thing to say to lash out at people who aren't even in the conversation. I'm not investing much expectation in what comes next since every post now you deflect, the past three sets of replies haven't brought in any new information; you continue to reiterate your position, and have now redefined almost every word in the proposition to make your argument float. I was hoping you would actually argue with an interesting position we could dish over, instead of just redefining things and continuing to say 'erhm uh well you just don't understand because economics and Ayn Rand.'
Also I just have to keep you honest, since it almost seems like you're ignoring the content of my posts each time. You said:
>>You're not presenting me with any argument as to why capitalism isn't based on merit.
I did, in the last post, in the giant block of text under the heading:
>>and Merit = successfully attempting to exercise force within the market
I'm not going to repost it since it's so huge, but it is there in my last post. You can respond to my points, you can try to negate my premises, but please stop pretending that I'm not answering your questions. It's right there mane.

Similarly, without admitting that my last argument forced you to, in this post you were forced to redefine 'meritocracy', 'merit', and 'deserves' away from the established accepted meanings into your own head-canon definitions, and it's starting to lose its charm. By your definitions 'merit deserves capital' now has exactly equivalent meaning to 'might makes right' I find it humorous how at each step you have been forced to maneuver your definitions back now to the point of complete circularity, but I digress.
To be recommending I read Ayn Rand (a conservative nutjob if there ever was one) demonstrates the ideological gap between us which I'm afraid no amount of desire to be civil on both our parts will be able to bridge. I'm a techno-utopian, which I suppose in a sense Rand was, but I am very much against social darwinism and laisezz-fair economics; I believe that societal regulation of the market is required to buffer us until such a time as technological advancement enables us to enter a post-scarcity state, any economics we adopt in the interim are merely temporary stop-gaps. Technological evolution is the engine of progress, not a shrewd abeyance to the natural order that capitalism represents. I am not really intrinsically opposed to capitalism no more than I am opposed to a predator-prey relationship in nature; it's just how things happen to fall together naturally. Still, I wouldn't myself like to be hunted by predators or have to hunt for prey, I think that society can change the natural state into something better, and likewise we can constrain the chaos of capitalism into a more useful force until such a time as it is no longer needed (a post-scarcity state.) I don't think it's worthwhile to prop up the generally deadly hydrocarbon industry by building pipelines or whatever, because it is a technological dead-end and a progress trap, and while I'm not prepared to actively prevent people from engaging in it, the bar of damage that progress in it does is very low before I am wont to say 'stop that.' (Which includes my belief in the sovereignty of Native nations.)

About fairness; yeah, capitalism doesn't include a concept of fairness, because it is just natural selection applied to the market. Humans, however, definitely have a concept of fairness, or else we wouldn't have a justice system. Else, if someone is able to get away with murdering someone without that person's family murdering them back, didn't they get what they deserved? In a natural order, that's perfectly 'fair,' yet that's not how we operate society. Clearly 'fairness' is a concept humans have and put in place in our societies, so merely being beholden to where the chaos of chance will bring us in the market is just the same as being beholden to whoever can get away with murder getting away with it.

I am an Optimist. I believe that enshrining capitalism as the font of human progress is a bit like a civilization of mice enshrining a mouse-trap with some really nice cheese as their god. Technology, science, and the human drive for self improvement are the fonts of progress, and when you give in to the kind of sacrifice you seem to be suggesting (in the case of the pipeline, of the environment, and in the case for capitalism, of fairness) then we have already been destroyed, because you cannot get a good tree from a bad seed, throwing our ideals under the bus will only lead to a corrupt future. So I think you cannot bear the confrontation of your subconscious id that is necessary for our civilization to keep progressing. Progress takes commitment to ideals, not justifying idic impulses by an appeal to some kind of pragmatism (which, I can see where you get this, was kind of the root of Rand's whole vision) and my own life has demonstrated that when you make the kind of 'sacrifices' you're talking about, the whole suffers, the only way to true success is tireless pursuit of the ideal, even if you can never get there.
Simon Crobberhall - Thu, 03 Nov 2016 14:37:41 EST 54PBc7Id No.207146 Reply
>Similarly, without admitting that my last argument forced you to, in this post you were forced to redefine 'meritocracy', 'merit', and 'deserves' away from the established accepted meanings into your own head-canon definitions, and it's starting to lose its charm.

If you understood language better, you'd know that everyone has their own definition for every complex word.

As a matter of fact, why don't you tell me your definition of the word 'deserved'. Because deserve essentially just means you have a quality that obtained you something. Your definition of 'deserved' seems to do with morality, which has nothing to do with the definition of the word, that's just a common misunderstanding that you're falling into. You act like one of those people who believe in karma or some shit; a philosophy purely for feeling better about things that has no practical application.

>To be recommending I read Ayn Rand (a conservative nutjob if there ever was one) demonstrates the ideological gap between us which I'm afraid no amount of desire to be civil on both our parts will be able to bridge.

You're the one being un-civil about this. I believe all gaps can be bridged, and I'm trying to bridge the gap between us, but you are clearly opposed to such a thing. You're not trying to understand my argument, you're trying to force your own argument to be correct by simply dispelling my arguments and calling them stupid.

Rand is a genius. She's the modern Aristotle.

But you know, I see where you and I disagree. You're an idealist. You truly believe morality is the source of success. And I whole-heartedly disagree with you.

>A good tree cannot grow from a bad seed.
That is 100% false.
You claim that making sacrifices such as sacrificing land for economic development is absolutely the path to destruction, which is just an absurd notion.

Let's talk about your techno-utopia. I hope you understand that, when we achieve this utopia, things like the Earth won't matter anymore. You cry about the sacrifices made in the name of progress, yet you don't understand that with enough progress those sacrifices become insignificant. If in 1000 years humanity is spanning across the galaxy, which we most likely will be, then the state of nature on the crust of the Earth will become insignificant, and this whole pipeline ordeal will seem like one big fucking joke.

But if we get back to this whole effort vs merit thing, I really don't see your argument whatsoever. You claimed effort is more significant to capitalism than merit, even though I've proven through use of the dictionary definitions of these words that, as a matter of fact, effort has nothing to do with merit even though merit involves effort, and if might makes right, then clearly a person of might is a person of great merit. A man of great might and a man of no might can exert the same levels of personal effort, and that man of great might will end up with meriting quite a lot for his effort while the man of no might will merit nothing and will have wasted his efforts.

I just don't see how or why you disagree with the basic fact that capitalism is based on merit. You tried to use a single definition of meritocracy to void that claim, but you misunderstood the word 'ability'. Meritocracy; holding power based on ability. Ability; possessions of means or skills to do something. In other words, a person born into a vast wealth has the ability to exert extreme might in capitalism via the ability of their inherited wealth. Ability doesn't just mean skills, it also means means, and being born into wealth is a means, therefore my meritocracy argument trumps yours where you used un-earned wealth as the key to voiding my argument, where as according to the definitions of the words we've been using, you're wrong and un-earned wealth counts as an innate ability.
Simon Crobberhall - Thu, 03 Nov 2016 14:51:11 EST 54PBc7Id No.207147 Reply
>then we have already been destroyed, because you cannot get a good tree from a bad seed, throwing our ideals under the bus will only lead to a corrupt future. So I think you cannot bear the confrontation of your subconscious id that is necessary for our civilization to keep progressing. Progress takes commitment to ideals, not justifying idic impulses by an appeal to some kind of pragmatism (which, I can see where you get this, was kind of the root of Rand's whole vision) and my own life has demonstrated that when you make the kind of 'sacrifices' you're talking about, the whole suffers, the only way to true success is tireless pursuit of the ideal, even if you can never get there.

Like, dude, you pulled this from the bible. I'm sorry, but the bible isn't a legit source. You're pushing a totally christian argument, not a philosophical one.

No matter what someone's intentions are, whether they're 'good' or 'evil', and no matter what they do, whether their actions are 'good' or 'evil', will produce effects, some of which are good, and others of which are bad. Reality isn't ideal and it isn't black and white. Good decisions with good intentions and good actions will inevitably lead to evil at some point, just as evil decisions with evil intentions and evil actions will inevitably lead to good at some point. But even then, good and evil are wholey subjective and there is nothing objective about it. That's how reality works.

And I can tell you from personal experience that unwillingness to make sacrifices, whether they apply to yourself or others, will almost never get you what you want. That's like wanting to buy a house and assuming that you can just buy the house without spending any money simply by moving into it. But then you deal with the consequences of your lack of sacrifice; people call the police on you, accuse you of being an illegal squatter, and then before you know it you're arguing with the land owner and the police about why you deserve to live in that house, and then they forcibly haul you away and possibly throw you into jail, all because you weren't willing to sacrifice your hard-earned money to get that house you wanted. It's almost impossible to gain anything without sacrifice.
Archie Fudgebanks - Thu, 03 Nov 2016 19:10:01 EST 0aDGMcny No.207148 Reply
I'm sorry, I was over this a week ago and now you come back with two posts full of ranting logical inconsistencies and I haven't the patience to drag the discussion down to the level you're trying to go to. You deny that words can have definitions and then claim my definitions are wrong, you say that because nothing about the earth in the future will matter stopping a pipeline doesn't matter while letting it continue *does* matter. You have now whittled down to the point where you feel the need to quibble over the meaning of 'deserves.' You claim that my use of deserves is a 'common misunderstanding' when it is the way most people use the term, and then replace it with a definition that already has your premise baked into it. It's the most childish kind of mental shell-game. You also claim that any kind of ethical philosophy is just 'christianity' which is nonsense; how are you able to make a case for this flavor of capitalism you are defending if all kinds of ethical philosophy are false and we can never know the true utility of an event?
>>un-earned wealth counts as an innate ability
I suppose you will now want to redefine the term 'innate' too? I thought you were being carefully intellectual, but now I realize you're full of shit and will say anything to justify the position you have already taken. I'm done with this, it truly is like arguing with a child who has decided to resort to 'but why does that mean that -- but why does that mean that?' endlessly. I'm going back to my original judgement on your response to my statement: you're an idiot, and worse, an idiot who likes to back up their misunderstandings with lots of flowery language that adds up to intrinsically misunderstanding anything because you won't even agree to understand the words people use, then cry foul when they don't adhere to your own idiosyncratic definitions. Grow up.
Caroline Deddlestone - Fri, 04 Nov 2016 11:35:30 EST 54PBc7Id No.207149 Reply
>I'm done with this...grow up.
Well, you gave up before I did, my friend. Better luck next time, for the both of us, I suppose. Next time you try to argue with someone, do it with an open-mind.

But also, yes, you are pushing purely Christian ethics. According to my schools of thought, a good seed can create a bad tree and vice versa, and that is based in philosophy, where as Christian thought is pretty much devoid of advanced philosophy. I mean, if you think good and evil objectively exist, you're pretty far-out there.
Sophie Hanningbury - Sat, 19 Nov 2016 14:51:44 EST TCWxLxYH No.207282 Reply
There's nothing wrong about learning about privilege. But there's something wrong with how it is taught. It's like some think it's an outright replacement for empathy. I read on a popular social justice-type blog once someone was talking how their friend was going through some trouble but the only thing they were thinking that they "at least they had privilege" which I thought was just insane. Even if they were talking about something minor to be thinking so vindictively can't contribute to any good, and it hasn't no matter what Tim Wise says.

In practice it comes off as nothing more as a way to attack people for things they have no control over, and it's just far too easy to manipulate in your favor for smug superiority.
Priscilla Finderdodge - Sun, 20 Nov 2016 17:29:55 EST BKJX7E+7 No.207283 Reply
1479680995204.png -(816255B / 797.12KB, 727x629) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

For me, the way some people use 'privilege' is way too close to the concept of sin for comfort.
David Hirringhare - Sun, 20 Nov 2016 22:11:06 EST c4WpEt4/ No.207284 Reply
At least you can pray to Jesus to forgive you of your sins.

But when it comes to privelege you're up shit's creek. Jesus ain't gonna help you with that.
Nathaniel Clongerstock - Tue, 22 Nov 2016 00:35:11 EST iAquTtgI No.207287 Reply
When you think about it, it's actually white men who are the least privileged.
Fanny Drimmleheck - Tue, 22 Nov 2016 00:51:31 EST 0aDGMcny No.207288 Reply
>>actually white men who are the least privileged
Aww, you feel bad? Do you need a safe space?
I see a lot of equivalation, not a lot of reasoning. Are you sure it's not your knee-jerk response to any kind of criticism that's the brainwashing?
Shit Moshshit - Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:05:36 EST 54PBc7Id No.207291 Reply
Privilege is a necessary conversation, but it has 2 epic, massive, horrifying downfalls.
>The privileges of people considered 'underprivileged' are completely ignored compared to the privileges of successful people.
>People use the concept of privilege to dehumanize people and their opinions/feelings. Like, anyone perceived as 'highly privileged' has all their problems and successes downplayed to an extreme level.
Fanny Drimmleheck - Tue, 22 Nov 2016 17:39:14 EST 0aDGMcny No.207295 Reply
I think that's a cherry-picking way to look at it. Underprivileged people have their problems and successes ignored and over-written altogether. They're not agitating for special consideration, just equal consideration; but the reactionaries have characterized the demand for equality as a bid for superiority. That's really just projecting.
Moreover, there isn't anything wrong with being privileged. In fact, it's usually great. Underprivileged people just are asking those with privilege to recognize that their having it is a real thing that gives them tangible benefits that are inaccessible to the underprivileged, and therefore to give consideration to understanding how much that lack of privilege colors and affects their lives.
People want to demonize the simple fact about what the discussion about privilege is with such extreme examples 'uh it's like sin' 'uh it's a brainwashing tactic' when the basic concept is very reasonable if you don't over-react to it, and I've never seen anyone make a compelling argument against the basic concept, so the rest really seems to be to just be over-reaction.
Archie Grandwater - Tue, 22 Nov 2016 21:49:47 EST TCWxLxYH No.207296 Reply
It is an easy to understand concept, but it starts to fall apart when you try to apply an intersectional lens to it. It can be understood that whites are more privileged than blacks in general, but can you say a neurotypical black man in a middle class home who still lives with his parents has less privilege than a white man suffering with various mental disorders living by himself in a lower class apartment? Sure you can say that the white man is more privileged than the black man in the sense that they may less likely to be racially profiled. But how much of a privilege is that to him when he can barely afford the medicine he needs to get through the day?

The concept of privilege only works on a generalized level, it's impossible to take into account individual situations. However, as you can probably tell I'm an individualist at heart, an individualist that is from a minority group that highly prizes collectivism. Maybe that's why I never could buy how it can work to improve the life of minorities beyond a superficial level.
Phoebe Trotville - Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:30:41 EST 0aDGMcny No.207299 Reply
Well I think intersectionality is a core component of any thoughtful theory on privilege, like you're pointing out the combination of health and financial privileges or lack thereof could combine to cancel out any racial privilege, or vice versa. Also, everyone's assessment of what constitutes privilege, and how to weigh those different categories will be by definition a subjective measurement, but that doesn't invalidate the whole concept as a useful term for thinking about the interactions of different social and personal benefits and burdens.

I think it's inherent that you have to take into account individual situations if you're trying to assess privilege, it doesn't make sense in a vacuum. But that doesn't mean that if something affects you as a group, whatever groups or categories anyone happens to belong to, that it's reasonable to work together as a group. That doesn't deny the individuality of the people in that group, some people think that in order to work together everyone has to be the same as each other. That's not true, in fact we're stronger as a collective when each of us are stronger as unique individuals.
Phoebe Wossleway - Wed, 23 Nov 2016 08:44:05 EST iAquTtgI No.207302 Reply
I remember taking a class where they gave us an upside down map and asked us what was wrong with it, the "correct" answer was nothing, but there was something wrong with it. All maps have America in the top left corner. And it's actually racist to put Africa there instead.
Phoebe Trotville - Wed, 23 Nov 2016 17:11:28 EST 0aDGMcny No.207303 Reply
>>it's actually racist to put Africa there instead
I'm afraid to ask, but why?
Frederick Bledgedure - Thu, 24 Nov 2016 16:57:47 EST 0aDGMcny No.207312 Reply
Do you not know that the orientation of things on a map is totally arbitrary and according to cultural convention, and that a version of the world with the US in the bottom right corner and Africa in the top middle is exactly as accurate as the one that is commonly used. The one that is commonly used is so used because it puts the American and Western world on top.

If you lived in Europe, you would be used to seeing map with Eurasia on the left side, and the Americas on the right.

Map layout is an arbitrary convention fueled by cultural priorities, so again I say, why would it be racist to use the South at the top map layout I described, where Africa would be near where the US now is?
Nicholas Pingersack - Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:32:42 EST 54PBc7Id No.207313 Reply
Wanting special privileges and expecting society to lift you up without you working your ass off isn't equality, that's superiority. Activists rationalize their desire for superiority by coming up with reasons as to why they 'deserve' more. For instance, black people 'deserve' to be favored over white people in both academia and the economy because they used to be slaves; that's what 'equality' means to a liberal. 'Equality' to a liberal means 'situational equality' where as equality to a reasonable person means 'equal opportunity', which exists aside for the fact that obviously the more well-off you are the more opportunity you have, and trying to equalize the opportunities of both well-off and poor people is oppression of the well-off in favor of the poor.

And while some activists just want people to acknowledge their privilege, tons of activists, dare I say most vocal activists, use the topic of privilege to shut down conversations about whites and males and straights and their opinions and feelings and situations. I've never seen someone reference privilege and not be using it to silence someone. "You're white; your opinion on me (a black person) is invalid due to your privilege." "You're straight; your opinion on anything regarding gay people is invalid." "You have to understand that you're a straight white male, and is minorities know more about you than yourself because we deal with you and we experience you outside of yourself."

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I am saying that you don't seem to know what it's like talking about privilege with minorities and being openly discredited by your peers purely on the basis of your skin color and family income.

God it must be nice to be a liberal and live in Wonderland 24/7.
Lillian Fanderwell - Fri, 25 Nov 2016 16:42:24 EST 0aDGMcny No.207316 Reply
You don't seem to understand that the way minorities talk to you about privilege is the result of things which happened to them, which hurt them, which you continue to benefit from. If you were in the same situation as them, you would be just as if not more incendiary in discussing the power imbalance between you.
The breakdown in communication between people at different levels of privilege isn't because of the concept of privilege, it's because of the difference in power. As the old saw goes, there can be no true communication between un-equals. The inequality is the source of the breakdown in communication, privilege is merely a tool for describing it, that was actually invented to help us move forward, rather than remain stuck at the impasse.

Moreover, if you can't separate your emotional response to interacting with an activist on any subject from your actual logical evaluation of their claims, you can't claim any political beliefs you hold are based on rational reflection -- you are instead merely reacting to your emotions on the interactions. So your 'don't know what it's like' is a special kind of circular argument, where you have set up your initial emotional response to an argument against your beliefs as so important that you're not willing to analyze if what they're saying has any logical validity. So I'm going to discount that bit outright (it must be very hard to know what you think about the world, I admit, if you think that people talking about privilege are actively discrediting you personally -- that's a bit of a persecution complex, isn't it? -- unless of course you are one of the ones actively opposing them, but then in that case what would you expect? Have you never been in an ideological debate before?)

Moving to the actual meat of your post: Show me how the 'opportunity' in 'equal opportunity' is not determined by 'situational equality'? You've already admitted that the wealthy have more opportunity than the poor, so let's just focus on that and ignore other kinds of privilege since it will serve the purpose. If wealth determines opportunity, and not everyone has equal wealth, then by definition there is no equal opportunity. Also, your present amount of wealth is not all there is. Who has wealth now versus who doesn't have wealth now has been determined by historical forces which granted more opportunity and thus more wealth to certain groups over others. Thus 'opportunity' is intrinsically situational, and since your argument rests on the distinction between 'situational equality' and 'equal opportunity' you will have to demonstrate that they are in fact distinct for your argument to hold water.

Lastly, oppression exists, and it has a net negative effect on the utility of the world. Taking for granted your claim that either poor people or rich people must be oppressed (i.e. assuming the world is a zero sum game, which it's not, but I will accept for the sake of this argument) wealthy people, by the fact of their wealth, are intrinsically more resilient to oppression, whereas the poor have no recourse when oppressed. (Moreover, the number of poor vastly outstrips the wealthy, so the amount of utility belonging to each group is not balanced.) Thus, if someone must be oppressed, oppressing the rich will have less of a negative impact on the world's utility than oppressing the poor, both because they already have the resources to adapt and there are far fewer of them, and thus we must favor oppressing the rich over the poor in this zero-sum scenario from a utilitarian perspective (of course, the reality is much more complex because the world is far from a zero sum game, but if you cannot accept this minimal logic, I must assume you have other reasons for wanting to put the wealthy first.)
Frederick Bunwill - Wed, 30 Nov 2016 09:21:03 EST iAquTtgI No.207343 Reply
It's like President Trump said, PC culture is literally killing us. You should be able to put America in the right place on a map.
Hamilton Sosslemore - Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:43:31 EST 0aDGMcny No.207347 Reply
There is no right place on a map.
Map layout is an arbitrary convention.
Which you would understand if you had read the post you replied to and understand the English language.
If you think that the relatively benign science of cartography is 'PC culture' then you are too irretrievably brain-washed to bother with.
Brain dead, anti-science fascists like you are literally killing us.
Simon Hammersted - Fri, 02 Dec 2016 09:50:52 EST 54PBc7Id No.207361 Reply
I'm finally back from my sick leave. Ok, let's jump back into this.

Yeah, I've got privileges that hurt minorities. Minorities also have privileges that hurt me. There is a power imbalance, and the government has tried to balance that imbalance, and I think they've done a terrible job. And there's social movements trying to balance that imbalance, and I also think they're doing a terrible job.

I would say privilege is like IQ; you can summarize it into one final number, but the truth is it's broken down into many smaller parts. I may have more privilege in some areas than a minority, but they have more privileges than myself in some areas, as well. I couldn't tell you which of us has more, and besides that, it seems that just about every race in the USA is moving up at about the same rate, financially, at least, which is a great sign.

I do actively oppose them, I just do it with rationality and research instead of emotion, where as they come at me with bullshit sociology propped up by the liberal media that's clearly skewed and meant to create a rift between the races. Like, I'll say this with absolute certainty; the liberal media and all of the pro-Democrat anti-Republican media profits heavily from creating hysteria amongst minorities, so they constantly run news stories to scare minorities into thinking their lot in life is significantly worse than it is, and significantly worse than rich/white peoples' lots. Their lots are worse, no doubt, but not nearly as bad as they think. Minorities are being brainwashed heavily by their news sources; that's why I'm always stuck fighting against them. I'm always dropping truth on them and they just get upset. They get upset when I tell them that most of their stories about police brutality aren't brutal, and that their stories about racism aren't racist. The problem is, they see the outcome and they make-up the intention, when really several different intentions can create the same outcome, meaning that the assumption of one uniform intention is absolutely wrong. Sure, some of their cases of racism are about racism, but then some cases are just not about racism and they're just assuming it is because they've seen the same outcome happen in racist situations. Like just the other day I saw a woman and a black man arguing because the black man called it racism for a woman to clutch her bag near him, while the white woman he was arguing with was saying that she clutches her bag around every man regardless of race. Racism becomes more of an assumption than anything, and that divides the races, and that's all thanks to liberal media posting daily stories of 'racism'.

Equal opportunity is supposed to mean that the person most fit for the job gets it. That being said, rich people are almost always more fit than poor people due to circumstance. This leads us to a big question; do we give an advantage to poor people who are less fit for the job? My answer; never. My answer would be to enforce much better education and do away with public schooling. If poor kids got educated just as well as rich kids, equal opportunity would reign true amongst everyone, and until that is the case, I don't think anything can create equality. Pissing on the rich might make things a bit better for the poor, but in my opinion, not doing that and instead making sure every child gets a great education no matter what, and I do mean no matter what, will create what everyone wants; an equal future regardless of the differences in income.
Simon Hammersted - Fri, 02 Dec 2016 09:56:14 EST 54PBc7Id No.207362 Reply
I'm actually really excited about Trump's education secretary who wants to take down public education and replace it with private education. I love her ideas about taking public school funding and turning it into grants for less-fortunate families to send their kids to private school.

>But private school is expensive!
Not if there's no public school. Almost all private schools currently cater to the wealthy. Do away with public education and suddenly there will be a massive market for private education to cater to the poor. And I'm sure the private education centers will do much better than the public ever have. I despise pretty much everything that's government run because the government never does a good job, but when you've got people competing for profits, suddenly everything improves. Plus, federal education laws and standards are retarded and are catered to retards. I went to the best public high school in all of PA and I got a horrible education. I had a way better education in fucking middle school, which was private for me, and that's absolutely disgusting to me. It really hits home to me how bad public education is. I can't even imagine how poorly educated black inner-city kids are. No wonder they feel hopeless.

I care about the kids, man. That's all I care about. If we make sure they succeed no matter what, then our future will be bright. Yet sadly, the stupid fucking government thinks of 'make sure they succeed' as 'make sure they graduate' which is entirely fucking different from succeeding. They'd rather lower the standards and push retards into getting a diploma than raising the standards and making kids learn more and work harder at a young age when it really matters. As for the kids that can't hack it, I'm sure there will be many private institutions with the kind of staff that can cater to them and help them learn best, so long as it's not fucking public.
Nathaniel Criffingshaw - Fri, 02 Dec 2016 16:53:55 EST 0aDGMcny No.207366 Reply
The fact that sometimes people make an issue about privilege when it's not doesn't absolve you of responsibility for doing something about situations where your personal utilization of privilege harms others. That's all that is being requested. The fact that you are trying to draw in politics and politicize the issue, delegitimizing it in the process by claiming it's not real and just made up to support the left, poisons the well on a genuinely rational response to any given situation.

>>get rid of public education
Fuck no. Jesus I can't believe how you could think this makes sense. 'I want everyone to be well educated so I'm going to make sure only those who can pay are educated' private schools are fucking bullshit, you are guilty of a 'grass is greener' fallacy. I went to private school, it was nonsense, the education wasn't really any better and it came with a heavy dose of religious and cultural indoctrination that probably took up a good 25% of total class time. Nevermind that there simply aren't private schools in many jurisdictions, and those that are can refuse anyone if they don't match their religious, cultural, whatever requirements. Eliminating public education would leave a huge number of children without even a school to go to, would prevent more from getting accepted into any of the schools available to him, and at the end of the day the education isn't of any better quality and also usually comes with indoctrinatin. Fuck - that - shit.
Basil Nommledock - Sat, 03 Dec 2016 11:32:51 EST NVy0l6tC No.207374 Reply
1480782771583.png -(142927B / 139.58KB, 500x412) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>The fact that sometimes people make an issue about privilege when it's not doesn't absolve you of responsibility for doing something about situations where your personal utilization of privilege harms others.

Unless you decide to become a hermit this is going to be impossible. Or you could become a loner, shut-in NEET where the only people you are harming are you own parents via leeching. That's what I did in order to completely avoid having to potentially "harm" anybody due to my privilege.
Jarvis Fimblemore - Sat, 03 Dec 2016 16:15:54 EST 0aDGMcny No.207375 Reply
Well that was your choice, but don't pretend you did it or had to do it because of privilege. All you have to do to not hurt people with privilege is to civil, have an open mind, and be enough of an adult to accept responsibility for your actions. It's not that hard people, and the fact that everyone just wants to whine about it or take an over-exaggerated stance like this says more about their level of maturity than anything about the concept of 'privilege.'
Basil Nommledock - Sat, 03 Dec 2016 16:58:28 EST NVy0l6tC No.207376 Reply
1480802308583.png -(137248B / 134.03KB, 300x377) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
But how exactly do you NOT hurt people with privilege? If you combine it with the concept of microaggressions, where merely saying the wrong thing can be seen as an act of oppression? Do you have any idea what sort of thing can do to a person who has severe anxiety AND crippling OCD?

It'd be one thing if I was just a freak outlier, but I've seen the discourse over the years who felt like they can't do anything around someone they think is underprivileged in fear of oppressing them to the point where they simply decide it's not worth interacting and them and encouraging segregation. And these are the type of people who could probably benefit them by being kind. The real bigots aren't going to give a shit if their inconveniencing the underprivileged will hurt them. Or even worse, we'll get people who think they are Hitler incarnate and end up spamming image boards with Trump memes.

There's no way you can't convince me that there isn't something wrong with how the discourse of privilege is handled. There are flaws that the bigger voices who are talking about it simply refused to acknowledge over the years, and the real bigots are taking full advantage of that to get people to join their ranks, even if they had no intention of ever actually helping them. HINT, HINT.
Emma Wattingstone - Sat, 03 Dec 2016 21:00:38 EST hvs4h/ox No.207377 Reply
yes but eventually your anxiety and ocd is going to work itself out of that concept.

It may take years, but eventually you may call those years...your twenties.

You'll probably get into some even weirder thoughts.

If your mind eventually wanders to abstract matters that same anxiety can be seen in logics and concepts such as the butterfly effect.

Like every little move is going to make a difference. You're specifically attuned to the fact that whatever part of people's psychology buys into and expresses such concepts exerts this fact.

But with anxiety and ocd you are hoping to behave in such a way. To put your actions in accord with what was once a peaceful whole to you.

You'll be fine, but you will come to realize, that alot of your dread is actually a valid reflection and that society is not as rational and reward and punish feedback is actually able to be existant in irrational oppressive means.

The reason that is is because of unfairness rather than an exceptional intuitionalism.

You just won't have that effecting you because your functions both expressive and conceptual and actioned and ethic will be aligned by an abstract meter.

don't hate on being a neet and don't hate on the conceptual pattern of the leech or the parasite, he's designed to flip behavioral scripts and create views that exist like loops or feedback patterns. If you have a job there is nothing wrong with being a neet at this stage even in your routinely self critical appraisal of self through identiy. Which if you will notice is usually antithetical or leeching of your own view.
Hamilton Wockledale - Sun, 04 Dec 2016 01:21:52 EST ySNjg48e No.207378 Reply
The issue with this argument stream, as it has always been, that this is completely subjective and at times is not as logical as 'being civil.' Because the argument is assumed to be so 'easy' and 'simple' people take this as a license to shut down things like creative works, lest you oppress a minority by drawing a caricature of their religious motifs. My issue with this argument is that it's exceptionally lazy.

The only line in the sand for when someone of a localized majority to be oppressing another is when the oppressed has internet access and says 'you are oppressing me'. We have some legal issues which are struggling which dance around the same general concept, examples being sexual harassment or regular harassment (bullying). It's a case by case stance and it is not as simple as you are pretending it is. This topic is massive and an example is the inherent complexity of cultural ownership.

Can North American/European people to use the religious symbolism of non white people's in their own creative works? The answer is no as that is cultural misappropriation.

By this definition, a disney movie using hawaiian religious history is cultural misappropriation and within the framework of this argument is an example of one privileged group oppressing another. So we have to ask, when is it acceptable for anyone to use anyone elses religious beliefs in the form of a creative work without generating this oppression? Well you need permission, per the article above

"Taking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artifacts from someone else’s culture without permission. "

But permission by who? If I want to write a book which has a religious theme based on the Noth American Lakota, do I need the entire Lakota tribe to get together and approve of my representation? If I get 99% of the Lakota tribe to agree is that acceptable? What about 51%. Even within the Lakota themselves they do not all agree on the same perception of their religious system, and yet, they are allowed the power to shut down creative works based on it merely by their racial make up. At what point and by which authority and method do we ascribe to the definitive stance that one act is a case of a privileged group oppressing another, cultural ownership just being one small facet of this overarching framework.

With the exception of some very rare, uber isolated communities, there is no racial or ethnic group on this planet which has not culturally misappropriated another group in order to generate its own religious belief system. The likelihood of native americans generating their own belief system uniquely is only considered to be higher due to the fact that we have so little data about them. The ancient Maya stole from the Olmec people, the Bantu Africans from the Pgymy (who they continue to subjugate), the Arab from the Berber peoples, etc. etc. etc. Yet now we attempt to ascribe this standard which is worded very broadly in a deceptive attempt to get people to think it's 'color' neutral but it is not.

"Use common sense, don't be a jerk" is exactly what the problem is with this argument. There is a very weak logical framework upon which this entire edifice is based and people seem completely unwilling to do much about it other than to say you are a terrible person and should feel bad for challenging this world view because we care more about the oppressed than you do. I can wrap up any bigoted and self-serving philosophical framework under the sun and serve it fresh to you with the same wrapper, it is no shield.
Caroline Furrymick - Sun, 04 Dec 2016 03:40:28 EST fLMg/czs No.207379 Reply
1480840828570.jpg -(9728B / 9.50KB, 283x178) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Orthodox Marxism 101 - Class is above race throughout all of history.

This identity politics craze forgets that entirely. So you're telling me a meth junkie living out of a trailer has the same status as a black woman who went to Cornell? Get the fuck out of here.
Edward Cellerforth - Sun, 04 Dec 2016 16:29:26 EST iAquTtgI No.207380 Reply
Was the concept of privlidge invented for the sole purpose of attacking straight white men?
Isabella Wabbleletch - Sun, 04 Dec 2016 16:45:44 EST NVy0l6tC No.207381 Reply
Even if it was I'm geniunely convinced that it truly wasn't but it became that way because it was the most marketable and certain types caught on to it and exploited it to the fullest extent., the concept is malleable enough for anybody to use it as a weapon for moral leverage. A female can claim male privilege for males not having to worry about being raped, a male can claim female privilege for female victims of rape having more places of support, and it can go on and on and on in an endless cycle that gets absolutely nothing done, while the "fighters" of privilege continued to get paid.
Hamilton Wockledale - Sun, 04 Dec 2016 18:14:29 EST ySNjg48e No.207382 Reply
To have privilege assumes that another has less of it. Some well-to-do intellectuals see the inherent contradictions which unfold if they attempt to define a set 'pyramid' of privilege so they invented the concept of intersectionality as a way of skirting the issue and hand waving through the analysis. As has been pointed out, how do we discern who is the privileged one between

A. Well educated, black female in upper income
B. low educated, white male in bottom tier income

Intersectionalism attempts to say that the distinction between who is more privileged than the other is not the issue, but rather that it exists. Yet on the exact same sentence they will turn around and say that the poor white male should not be marginalizing native american culture by wearing a halloween costume with headfeathers. How can that be defensible without saying that one group has privilege over another? Because certainly a young, rich black child can wear a viking helmet. The entire concept of privilege cannot be given this fake presupposition that it's racially neutral, it falls apart.

Privilege requires the definition of a hierarchy and intersectionalism (in my opinion) does not fix this issue, it only muddies the waters. But the whole point of my post here is that once you define this strict hierarchy then you are forced to run it through the logical course. Let's take an example

White americans cannot oppress and 'steal' from black culture
Given the historical relationship between whites and blacks in the US, the argument is at least defensible. But this falls into a difficult trap, who represents black american culture? Are they they low income, inner city blacks who write rap music and talk about subjugating women and beating gay people?

Because I can assure you that none of those blacks are going on the internet and writing in white-american english on blog posts complaining about it. Or is it instead the white-washed suburban middle income black culture which got a language arts degree from a state school which is assimilating to mainstream US culture anyway. Ascribing cultural ownership is an entirely separate debate but their voice is no more accurate than the white american one they rally against so often. They live in two completely different worlds yet claim to speak for groups they aren't even affiliated with other than by their skin color.

I don't go on blogs and claim to speak for poor white americans in New York, they are in a completely separate cultural group from myself; yet the other side gets a free pass when attempting to represent groups they hardly know which, by their own definition, is either cultural misappropiration or a form of oppression. Bigotry is colorblind
Henry Bunforth - Sun, 04 Dec 2016 18:51:32 EST 0aDGMcny No.207383 Reply
You didn't give a reason why we shouldn't try to be civil though. The fact that civility is subjective and relative isn't at issue. Your intent is what is significant, if you can control your intent then that's all you really have power over, how people interpret your intent is beyond your control.

The fact that 'cultural appropriation' is a nonsensical topic isn't an argument against privilege. Privilege is separate from cultural appropriation, although a lot of people lump them in together nowadays. I agree that cultural appropriation is angry agitation over a concept arising from a basic misunderstanding about the purpose of that concept (culture) and the causes of problems surrounding it (power imbalance, not culture itself) which is the case with privilege too, but inverted (while cultural appropriation is not a real thing that people get butthurt on others failing to recognize, privilege is a real thing that people get butthurt over being asked to acknowledge, mostly because both of them are treated as genuine problems in themselves when they are really just symptoms of power imbalances.)
Eugene Penningstone - Sun, 04 Dec 2016 19:20:34 EST ySNjg48e No.207384 Reply
I think the civility argument is reasonable but look, it's impossible to win here and that's been mentioned before in an earlier post. I can control my intent, yes, but my intent to not bully someone is irrelevant if the objective outcome is actual bullying; which is how I interpret this oppression cycle to boil down to. In all reality, white rich people can do whatever the fuck they want and people will just cry about it later. What i'm attempting to do is take their arguments at face value and say okay, fabricate a world where this method for determining oppression was actionable (you can silence the oppressors or do -something- about it other than write long blog posts), is that even justified? I say no because the basis of the argument is so flimsy and their methods for how you determine how someone ISNT doing the oppression either
A. doesnt exist OR
B. is utter nonsense (ask for permission? really? from WHO)

I do agree in a minor sense that the cultural appropriation argument is somewhat separate from privilege, but I think it shares the same base axioms as its core privilege parent. That is, certain cultural groups are oppressing others due to their inherent status; you say I haven't given a reason to not be civil, one mans civility is another barbarism.

I haven't heard an argument for how its even possible to NOT exert oppression against another ethnic group if you are white and male, either in the cultural appropriation framework or in its parent, privilege framework. So if you take the argument at its face and say look, i agree completely that this is oppression and its terrible, lets stop it using your own ideas and axioms. I don't think the left even knows where to begin, this entire theory is in its extreme infancy, they are just barely formulating how to identify it let alone telling us how I can not oppress people in my day to day life. And that is what i'm criticizing at a macro level, that the identification is fundamentally flawed and it needs to be re-worked.
Eugene Penningstone - Sun, 04 Dec 2016 19:34:28 EST ySNjg48e No.207385 Reply
Just a quick follow up to this comment. I think the fact that white males cannot 'win' under any thus far given 'solutions' to the oppression cycle is evidence to the fact that it's really a politically-racially charged framework to attempt to get one group to willingly give up power and live in perpetual 'original sin' without the possibility of absolution. That's OKAY, i have no problem with political groups targeting other groups and trying to convince people to take from group A to give to group B, but don't turn around and tell me that this is on some higher ethical plane and that i'm a terrible person for arguing against it. That doesn't fly
Simon Mabbleville - Sun, 04 Dec 2016 21:12:36 EST 0aDGMcny No.207386 Reply
I think your criticism is reasonable, but I think that the breakdown in communication over this issue results from a misunderstanding of intent of the other side, exacerbated by a misunderstanding of intent and will to hop onto a hate-train within each side. I get that you feel powerless to control the fact that you are a beneficiary of privilege, which is why you equate it with a concept like original sin. That's ok, only a lunatic would attack you personally over something you don't have control over. People who are asking you to do that you can discount automatically because they are asking you to do something that's logically impossible.
You say you haven't heard an argument on how it's possible to NOT exert oppression if you're white and/or male. This is where there is a misunderstanding of intent. There isn't! It's not possible to be white and male and not exert oppression, because whether you act or don't act you are the beneficiary of those privileges. And no one (who isn't a lunatic) is asking you to do otherwise; how could they, there is no 'otherwise' you could do.
Privilege is what is exerting the oppression, not you personally, and reasonable commentators on the subject recognize that. What you do have control over, and what they are asking you to look at, is whether you exert that privilege voluntarily or involuntarily, with or without knowledge about the origins and impacts of that privilege, and whether you look to minimize your utilization of it or exploit it to maximum effect. From that people can indirectly infer your 'intent' which is again, not the root of the sin, but the privilege itself.
Privilege traps and oppresses the people in the 'privileged' category just as much as it traps the oppressed, and that's why it itself is a useful concept because it allows us to attack that category itself and dismantle it for the benefit of people of privilege as well as the un-privileged (and pretty much everyone falls into both categories in some regard.)
Nell Hazzlekat - Sun, 04 Dec 2016 21:38:20 EST NVy0l6tC No.207387 Reply
>But this falls into a difficult trap, who represents black american culture?

See, this is what I've always had an issue with too. Can you claim a black person who has felt like an outcast from black American culture their entire life can be an accurate representation as much as a black person who, for lack of a better term, has had the privilege of being "accepted" into black American culture their entire life? Does the outcast have as much of a say on what represents their culture just as much as the normie, even though their experience maybe skewed?

It is extremely easy for any group to call the experiences of the outcast as the exemption and not the rule. And yet it is expected by both the outcast and normie alike to have as much voice of representation both by minorites and majority alike. But in practice, it's always the normie voice that is put on a higher priority.

This gets even more complicated when take into account things like crab mentality and you get a sort of regressive attitude when it comes to progress and you get something messed up where people who improve their lives are seen as outcasts and encouraging victim mentality.

To put in another way, who is it that represents women more--Sarah Palin or Anita Sarkeesian? Who is it that gets to decide? Is it men or women?

More importantly, should any member of any group have to bear the responsibility of being representative of their belonging group? The answer I see is that they don't, and yet I often see people doing so anyway. Like they want to have their cake and eat it too.

Personally, as an outcast, I have no problem absolving any responsibility of being a representation of my group. I've accepted a long time ago that my values and the ones of my supposed group will never match up. I'm just frustrated that I've seen no big time social justice advocate try to tackle the issue.
Charlotte Siddlehall - Mon, 05 Dec 2016 09:58:24 EST 54PBc7Id No.207395 Reply
I like you, I like your arguments, but you just don't seem to understand the other side of the story, the side of the story of those of us who feel objectively wronged by certain 'civil rights discussions' because it makes people view us as lesser/undeserving/at-fault for things we never even did. People of privilege are tired of the narrative that they're the ongoing problem and that they're the ones who need to be hit/hurt just for being born geared for success and often capitalizing on that success. Privileged people are tired of being blamed for the things they cannot control just because they profit off of them. Privileged people are tired of the less-privilege looking down on them and dehumanizing them just for how they were born.

All anyone rational in this world wants is to be treated like an equal regardless of race/sex/sexuality/wealth/privilege.
Simon Mabbleville - Mon, 05 Dec 2016 17:52:33 EST 0aDGMcny No.207398 Reply
I appreciate that you think I don't understand the other side of the issue. I am trying my best to understand where this stream of thought comes from, but I can't help but thinking much of the issue arises from a mis-understanding of what is being put across by this side as well, as I said in my previous post and will rehash here:
>>All anyone rational in this world wants is to be treated like an equal regardless of race/sex/sexuality/wealth/privilege.
That's true, and that's all the under-privileged are asking for. They have to ask it from the people of privilege, rather than being able to simply take it themselves, because we still live in a condition of scarcity where much of our resources are still held solely by the privileged.

No one wants people of privilege to be hurt. They just want them to play fair.
That you feel like people are personally trying to make you feel less, or being personally blamed for things beyond your control is your own problem for mis-interpreting what is trying to be communicated to you. No one is attacking you personally (unless you are agitating against attempts at equalization, but that's not because of who you are but what you are doing; see below)

The past is the past, the only issue is going forward. What's at issue is how actively you participate in the 'ongoing problem.' If you work to make it worse or are seen making it worse and are thus derided, if you work to make it better you are praised. Thus, can you not see how the criticism has nothing to do with unchangeable facts about who you are or how you were born, and everything to do with the very salient issue of how you continue to react to those facts?

There's nothing wrong with being German. There's nothing wrong even with being a German in 1939. There is something wrong with being all those things and then choosing to join the Nazi Party.

Just like there's nothing wrong with being a white Southerner. There's nothing wrong even with being a white Southerner in 1860. There is something wrong with being all those things and then choosing to own slaves.

No one is attacking your identity for you simply having it, they're attacking you over what you do/don't do about it.
Rebecca Gallerhood - Tue, 06 Dec 2016 00:50:05 EST ySNjg48e No.207403 Reply

Alright so, privilege exerts oppression. Can I get some examples on how this mechanically occurs? I looked around the internet and found a source which links it up

Physical Characteristic => Oppression Outcome

As a preface, I agree with some of what's on this site but that's for later.

White => Racism
Male => Sexism/Transphobia (I was with them on point 1 but point 2...whut?)
Middle-Upper Class => Classism (marx would like a word)
Able Bodied => Ableism
Heterosexual => Homophobia, etc. etc.
Adults => Agism

I also want to highlight a very important quote from this page,
>Privilege implies that wherever there is a system of oppression (such as capitalism, patriarchy, or white supremacy) there is an oppressed group and also a privileged group

What you may be agreeing with (correct me if i'm wrong) is a point I want to make here, in that, every political-economic system ever devised on this planet generates oppression. There is no, and has been no society, no ethnic group, and no alliance of individuals which has not exerted oppression on another group. I feel like this axiom has to be stated because people ignore it as if there has existed some Utopia. There hasn't, you bring up the case and i'll tell you about how said society brutally suppressed and shit on everyone around them.

The argument I want to hear from people is a philosophical and decent logical defense for an alternative society which is less oppressive. Very few go this far to say system X is less oppressive than system Y. Some do though and good on them, I respect those people who take the time to tie this racism dialogue to a ideological framework. Instead they say you are racist, please stop. The question is HOW. And the answer to the HOW is to build a society and system of social interaction which needs to be generated above.

So to begin, this reasoning isn't about devising a utopian society, most who pitch the argument are too lazy to go that far. Even though they awkwardly hint toward some more moral arrangement (the anti-capitalist sentiment being particularly prominent) without defending it. But, if the purpose of this entire string of reasoning is to mitigate oppression (not remove it) then they need to get more specific because the definitions are simply too broad.

My point about how a white/male cant win wasn't to whine and cry about how angry I am for being targeted by leftists, it's to point out that I can flip the tables very easily on any other ethnic group in this country and talk about how they equally oppress another. They want to target who they view as being the worst perpetrators of oppression (male/white/wealthy/healthy/heterosexual) in the USA, but spin the globe and let your finger drop on anything other than ocean and you'll find a new evil to target. Where is the argument that targeting white oppression is more fruitful than Bantu African oppression toward Pygmy people?

Where is the argument that targeting whites is more fruitful than going after Arab oppression toward just about any minority which is unfortunate enough to exist in the middle east?

The answer is that it's politically expedient. Getting blacks and mexicans and native americans to live in this fantasy where they can pretend like they generate less oppression tokens than whites allows them to unify and exert more oppression via governmental violence over another race. so they commit an equally terrible sin of omission, to ignore the oppression and slaughter and rape and slavery of millions of people (pick any piece of africa or south america) so they can get some political advantage on reasoning which is questionable at the best of times. More of the same. This isn't people ascending the ethical pyramid to finally realize Plato's higher forms, it's people staying that an eye for an eye is morally justified and It's bull shit.

I need some quotes from my source, here are some things which outline privilege and oppression.

>I can go shopping alone most of the time and be fairly certain that I will not be followed or harassed by security or shop clerks.
This is overt racism, this is definable and there are quantifiable ways to determine if it has stopped. Actions of others based solely on the color of one's skin. I am okay with outlining this as oppression.

>I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see my race or ethnicity widely represented in a positive light.
>I can easily buy posters, postcards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys and children’s magazines featuring people of my race.

I look at these examples of evils in the same way I see people bring up the evils of capitalism. Compared to what alternative? If you want to minimize oppression then you have to have an alternative which you claim is less oppressive. I'm sick of identifying the problem, I want to hear the alternative, how do we get less oppression tokens in our society. And the reason leftists are so scared of proposing the solutions is that they realize how ridiculous and flimsy the arguments become. Hence leftist separatism, no one can agree on the alternatives so they try to stick to the message and want to figure out the rest later. But it's easy, anyone can tear them apart, piece by piece until it's clear or at least cast into serious doubt if said alternative has fewer +1 oppression tokens in a given society. Ignoring for a second the sheer physical impossibility the first bullet has, (there are more races and ethnicities than there are major newspapers and television media networks in any country other than maybe North Korea so it's impossible for anyone to satisfy this condition).

Arabs and Blacks in the USA can still oppress each other, the definitions are too broad to exclude these cases. Be it a wealthy black and a poor arab, or a ghetto black where an arab walks into the wrong neighborhood; we want to stop racism and have everyone live in a world where people are literally color blind, media only reports positive stories (or operates on some bizarre statistical governmental regulation where they have to proportionally report news based on either ethnic statistics or crimes data provided by local police departments), and people stop acting like dick heads. How do you get people to stop being dick heads? And what's more, how do people actually stop being assholes without doubling back and oppressing someone else in the process? That question still remains unanswered to me and is outlined below.

Being a dick head is oppression, racially motivated or no. Bullying is oppression too they try to wrap that up into the 'ableism' blanket but it's bullying.

From yourself,
>What you do have control over, and what they are asking you to look at, is whether you exert that privilege voluntarily or involuntarily, with or without knowledge about the origins and impacts of that privilege, and whether you look to minimize your utilization of it or exploit it to maximum effect. From that people can indirectly infer your 'intent' which is again, not the root of the sin, but the privilege itself.

I'll make this easy,

  1. I know i exert oppression over others, the argument for if i do it voluntarily is based on the ideology and political perspective of the individual judging me. The fact that i refuse to give $1 to the hobo on my way to work can be seen by some as voluntarily oppressing a homeless person (I refuse to give him food which he so desperately needs), or, I can argue that by me giving him this $1 it merely satiates and enslaves him to a world where his only method for survival is now to suck my dick for charity rather than rising up and protesting the government for what he deserves.
Rebecca Gallerhood - Tue, 06 Dec 2016 00:50:31 EST ySNjg48e No.207404 Reply
The fact that I would even consider giving to charity would be such a serious ideological inconsistency that I would need to stop working and fight for his rights lest I become a serious hypocrite. Because by giving the dollar I would be forced to agree that political action delayed tomorrow is not enough to curb the injustice that exists today. By giving a dollar I admit fully that my society is flawed and that this man is a member of the deserving poor, I now must act to fix this, society isn't fair, if it isn't fair then i must know an alternative which is MORE fair. It's my moral obligation to express this opinion. Therefore the real assholes are the people who give the dollar and don't give a political solution to the problem, because not only did they perpetuate this mans slavery to your charity (my view of YOUR oppression), they also failed in fixing their morally bankrupt society at the same time but didnt care enough about this mans life to inconvenience their own. God forbid you protest or expend some of your privilege tokens (land in jail) to help save the deserving poor's life. Oppression of another name. This can go on forever

2. I attempt to minimize my innate, overt racism by not being a dick head to people of the opposite race even though i'd be an equal dick head to people of the same race as me. This is again oppression of another kind, being a dick is oppression and it doesn't matter if its a japanese person frowning on his child marrying a Korean or two white guys beating the shit out of each other.

This has gone on for too long but I'll say this last piece.
I know how to not be racist, most of the time. I see someone who is not white and I act nicer to them; poof, racism eliminated. Because if I act like my normal dick-ish self then well, other people perceive me to be a racist asshole and I've lost social chess. What i'm not okay with is the privilege game, it's too ambiguous, I am thankful I have a healthy body, that doesn't make it my duty to get on my knees so people in a wheel chair don't have to 'look up' to me when I'm talking. If the alternative is just as oppressive as the initial state (now tall people have to look DOWN on me and I've just received +2 oppression tokens) then what the fuck is the point of any of this?
Cornelius Blecklenudge - Tue, 06 Dec 2016 16:49:07 EST 0aDGMcny No.207414 Reply
That's quite an imposing wall-o-text my friend! I will try to respond as concisely as possible. Thankfully, you cut to the core of the argument with a number of your points, so I will be able to offer clear replies.

First, I want you to look at a number of your arguments that have similar characteristics:
>> to point out that I can flip the tables very easily on any other ethnic group in this country and talk about how they equally oppress another.
>>This isn't people ascending the ethical pyramid to finally realize Plato's higher forms
>>The fact that i refuse to give $1 to the hobo on my way to work can be seen by some as voluntarily oppressing a homeless person ... or, I can argue that by me giving him this $1 [I am also oppressing him]
>>This is again oppression of another kind, being a dick is oppression and it doesn't matter if its a japanese person frowning on his child marrying a Korean or two white guys beating the shit out of each other.

I want you to recognize that reason is a whore. Reason can be used to justify anything, arguments can be construed in such a way that while they are rationally consistent, they are utterly meaningless. So it's quite possible to cherry-pick and create these kinds of extreme charicatures of positions, or say that 'this position logically implies X outcome if you take every single aspect of it to the most extreme degree possible, therefore this position is saying the same thing as X.'
So yes, you *can* flip the tables and make the argument that white people are more oppressed (in fact, that is the basic tactic at this stage in the game.) But just because you can make that argument by citing specific cases isn't a good argument over the global state of oppression.

Yes, you can say that the people arguing against privilege haven't come through a rational understanding of the nature of oppression and are merely looking for an excuse to oppress others. Certainly that is true in some cases, but to dismiss the whole argument because of that is relying on an assumption and a caricature and leads to a straw-man.

You can make an argument that to focus on the oppression between races rather than oppression within races is it's own kind of oppression. You can credibly make an argument that doing or not doing the exact same act (giving the hobo $1) is oppression. Those aren't valid criticism against oppression, or privilege, really that's a criticism of reason itself. You can make an argument for anything, and if you carry on about it long enough, people will start to believe it regardless of how true it is, and if you carry it on for longer enough after that, people will begin to develop logical theories about it, people will eventually even come to see it as inevitable. So in general I'm not going to focus on your arguments that rely on assuming that 'if someone says this then my logic says that leads to that and so they're saying they want that and that's horrible!' or 'well you could make an argument that X is actually Y so all talk of X and Y is invalid' because they are more criticisms of the nature of rational discourse than the concept of privilege.
Cornelius Blecklenudge - Tue, 06 Dec 2016 16:49:40 EST 0aDGMcny No.207415 Reply

The meat I'm more interested in is your talk of 'utopia.' I will grant that the fundamental problem in most cases is that people are pointing out a problem without offering a solution. That's a natural thing, however, it's hard to notice a problem, especially when it's in something so nuanced and subtle as society, so merely noticing the problem and being able to talk about it is an intellectual achievement for probably the vast majority of people.

Coming up with a solution to a problem is always an intellectual feat beyond even noticing that it's there, and moreover, while everyone can agree that a pipe is leaking, three different plumbers may have three different ideas on how to fix it, so in the communication of solutions we introduce an additional layer of problems in semiotics; once I figure out a solution, I have to communicate it loudly enough for people to hear it over other proposed solutions, and I have to engage in politics -- I need to get people to agree with my solution, especially if the solution has to do with society at large. So because of both the temporal and intellectual drag between these components, you can see that for any problem, of the people talking about it, most of the people are going to be aware of its existence and nothing more, a small subset will have solutions of any kind, and only a subset of those subsets will be in agreement (at least until the phase where consensus begins to build.)
All of that to say that there are proposals for ways out of oppression, it's just you're never going to hear about them as loudly or as often as people merely complaining of its existence (in the case of oppression, this is particularly acute, because everyday, common people encounter oppression on pretty much a daily basis, whereas only very few have the intellectual resources to come up with new ideas -- and many of them are in positions that insulate them from oppression.)

>>all socio-economic systems ever devised generate oppression
Ding ding ding! We have a winner! You are ABSOLUTELY right. There has never been an oppression-less society in the history of the world, they all just shuffle around the oppression between different factors in society. Thankfully, society not being a zero-sum game, some of this shuffling actually decreases the net oppression, but there is no possible social framework, drawing from the sack of ones we've already tried, that doesn't impose some kind of oppression to some degree.
Most people on the left wouldn't acknowledge this fact. They are mostly content in the idea of solidarity, and the idea that we have to minimize it as much as possible, even if it always exists, and that if we can stick together moving forward maybe it will just all wash out (there is a lot of hoping for changes in human nature, that people will just naturally or generationally become less and less willing to oppress. Which is partially true, people are becoming kinder on the whole, but not because human nature is changing, but because to a greater degree than before their bellies are full and their homes are safe and their brains gently massaged by a continuous stream of media.)

Of course, this does not adequately answer the question nor forms a complete ideology -- like many other ideologies, the modern US right for example, it relies in a large degree on hope that just fate and belief in change will suss out the parts of their system that the logic of their system leaves unresolved.

The real underlying reason, however, that we can't get away from shuffling around basically the same amount of oppression that there always has been, is actually much simpler. Oppression and privilege are signifiers of power. Power in the world is generated by access to resources both tangible and immaterial, but even immaterial powers arise from access to basic resources. Because there are only a finite number of resources to shuffle around, and who gets those resources determines who plays what role in the privileged/oppressed melodrama, the 'tokens of oppression' also only get shuffled around.

Oppression is scarcity, and scarcity is oppression. If everyone had more than enough, and no one could take from them their ability to have what they need, then it would be impossible to oppress them. The reason people are able to be oppressed at all now is because some people are able to hold positions of power over them and thus demand they behave in a certain way or not in order for them to survive. Take the cap off that, once society reaches a post-scarcity state of economics, then it goes from being impossible to not oppress everyone to some degree to it being virtually impossible to oppress anyone in any way.

So that's my answer to your charge. The reason that no actionable alternative has been put forth is because the problem is just a basic characteristic of the human condition, and while you can presently work to minimize or exacerbate it, it will never go away until we reach a level of technology where this fundamental flaw in the human condition becomes moot.
Rebecca Dartspear - Sat, 10 Dec 2016 00:44:29 EST kunpsrz1 No.207436 Reply

>>Certainly that is true in some cases, but to dismiss the whole argument because of that is relying on an assumption and a caricature and leads to a straw-man.

That's fair

>>You can make an argument that to focus on the oppression between races rather than oppression within races is it's own kind of oppression. You can credibly make an argument that doing or not doing the exact same act (giving the hobo $1) is oppression. Those aren't valid criticism against oppression, or privilege, really that's a criticism of reason itself.

I'm not sold that the argument isn't valid. My point being that to even identify the issue (deserving poor on the streets) implies the answer (wealth redistribution). The argument being that the alternative to the initial state is just as bad as the initial state itself (or possibly even worse). Deserving poor have existed in human society for literally thousands of years and yet we have no solution. Societal oppression also has existed for thousands of years as well.

My issue is that the implied solution (via identifying the problem) is just as bigoted as the initial state (the sons should pay for the sins of the father, leading to affirmative action. original sin of white heterosexual males that by merely breathing they are oppressing everyone else, leading to the political argument that these people should 'step aside' to make up for past sins).

Now, it is not fair for me to say your arguments are these, they clearly are not. Your argument has remained consistent, identifying privilege and oppression is a great first step. I say that this has been identified for a very long time and there are many political ideologies (communism in particular) which builds out a framework to do something about it. Classical liberalism was also focused on governmental oppression against the 'natural rights' of (white heterosexual...) human beings in the 1800s, but the logic extends easily to the 21st century, we mainly have sexist/racist people, not sexist/racist laws.

So what is the purpose of this new privilege framework? Some use it to generate new forms of racially charged oppression. But i'll concede that others use it legitimately to say that transexuals (for example) are being discriminated and targeted for harassment which is not ok as bullying is not ok.

>>Oppression and privilege are signifiers of power. Power in the world is generated by access to resources both tangible and immaterial, but even immaterial powers arise from access to basic resources.

This is generally my annoyance with the argument at its core, because it had staunchly anti-capitalist sentiments; and that's mainly why I waste my time bitching about the privilege argument. People find it very, very difficult to construct the argument in a way which doesn't immediately critique capitalism. Look, critiquing capitalism has been going on for a very long time and yet it's still here, chugging along. It's mentioned, but we live in a resource scarce world, never before have people existed in such an abundance of material wealth in the West but also in the third world. People talk about the oppression of the third world, that's absolutely true, but the fact remains that life expectancy in nations like Nigeria are on the rise; you can't have that without a greater access to food and social services.

Unprecedented amounts of money are being thrown at Africa to 'fix' it, all in the guise of the privilege framework where people feel guilty about the suffering caused by others who you have no control over. This is predicated on a nearly racist assumption that it's up to white westerners to fix the poor, idiotic slobs in Africa. As a result they circumvent governments and toss money at complicated problems. So sure, let the west feed an African dictator's starving people, dig their wells, educate their people for him, that way he can continue to burn countless millions paying off his military and building palaces. The oppression tokens haven't left the table, they just got concentrated in the urban centers.
Basil Neddlepag - Sat, 10 Dec 2016 10:23:52 EST iAquTtgI No.207438 Reply
Leave white men alone, we're trying to help everyone.
Frederick Toothall - Sun, 11 Dec 2016 01:35:34 EST 0aDGMcny No.207444 Reply
I see where you're coming from, and it does make sense in a certain way. I also am glad one thing we've removed from the discussion is the issue of the way people utilize the privilege concept. Some progressives take it too far, drink their own kool-aid and generate new oppression, some conservatives use fear of the concept, drink their own kool-aid, and generate new oppression, but neither of those facts bear on the concept which we can analyze separately. But here are some additional things I'd like you to consider:

Since we've kind of drilled past privilege into looking at social stratification itself, I have to ask: do you believe that the world is a zero-sum game? By that I mean do you think that there is always only a set amount of 'goodness,' value, utility, whatever you want to call it about the world, and that all possible social conditions merely re-arrange the location of those values in a way that doesn't change the total?
Alternatively, do you think it's possible that some arrangements of society have more or less total value than others?

Your hobo $1 scenario makes sense if the world is a zero-sum game. If being poor is bad, and having wealth is bad, then gaining or losing wealth does not alter the value of one's experience so it's credible to argue that there is no reason to do it.

Personally, I don't see the world as a zero-sum game. The value of society is epi-phenomenal, it is something that is more than the sum of its parts. Moving wealth from the wealthy to the poor doesn't merely switch who plays the role of wealthy and poor. If done correctly it can actually lift up the part of the equation that was down before while the other remains up, and thus the whole is improved.

This has actually happened across time, if you look at the growth of the total GDP of the whole planet across history. At any moment in history, there is definite and constraining scarcity, so little can be done but shift around the existing oppression tokens, perhaps improving the whole incrementally. But the long term consequences of value shifting around between different actors actually leads to gross improvements in conditions. Even assuming all the technological advances that could've happened otherwise still happened, if only the people who had money and power in 1066 (or an equivalent proportion per capita) were the ones to have money and power now, the total GDP of the world would be a tithe of what it is now, because the mere friction of that value changing hands, both in the direct form of capital and the subtle form of power and privilege spreads the 'heat' of value throughout the medium.

To get out of the abstract into the specific; yeah, if someone ham-fistedly tries to call someone out on privilege and is an ass and just makes a scene, probably all they've done is increase the total oppression in the world, because they made the other person feel oppressed and did nothing to minimize the initial offense. Zero-sum game (actually potentially negative-sum.) But if it is done with finesse, the 'offending' person might actually come to understand how not to be as oppressive while not feeling personally slighted themselves, and then the whole actually benefits -- positive-sum game.

As for the particular of Africa, that's a bit of a different ball of wax. Trying to 'fix' people by forcing them to become a mirror of yourself is of course the classic 'White Man's Burden.' It is particularly disastrous in Africa, where merely trying to copy Western style civilization onto African civilization is fraught with problems (as a simple example, Western style ultra-concentrated urban planning is a really fucking bad idea in a continent ravaged by malaria.)

So by all means we shouldn't be doing that, or worse, holding out help on the condition that they become more like us. But I think part of what you're forgetting is it's not like we are occupying uncontacted wilderness and forcing them to accept our aid. Most of the aid we give we are directly asked for by the legitimate (mostly) governments of the nations in question, or by statutory obligations to international aid programs.
It's one thing and would be wrong to force someone to accept our aid or our vision of a 'fixed' them, because then we are really just being crypto-colonialists. It's another thing to deny a nation help that is asking for our material assistance and cultural guidance.
In the same way, it's wrong to assume that someone you meet on the street who looks homeless needs a dollar, or to go all 'The Soloist' and assume you have the right to 'fix' somebody and put them on the right track just because they are currently down on their luck -- then you're just being a crypto-bully. But if someone is directly asking you for help, not helping them has little to do with philosophical arguments about whether or not their lives would really be better with that help -- it's about the personal consequences of refusing someone directly asking you for help, which really can only be sussed in your own soul.
Ian Gevingman - Wed, 14 Dec 2016 23:06:29 EST kunpsrz1 No.207456 Reply

We'll we've been chugging along at this for a while and I have enjoyed it. I'll try to cut to the root of where i'm coming from.

Is the world zero-sum?

For me I think it is subjectively zero-sum, and it is in the subjective world that people live. A poor hobo in today's world would be quite well off in 2000 BCE, yet they don't carry themselves around like kings. They are downtrodden, why? Because their relative wealth is terrible. So I think the world is generally zero-sum until we fix the resource scarcity problem, because otherwise we are just moving relative wealth around. Objectively speaking America's poor is in decent shape compared to Zambia's poor, etc. I'm also not sold (yet) that the world would be better off without suffering, as suffering seems to serve as a great inventive/creative impetuous. But that's for another time.

To the end point you made about people 'asking' for money, I think there needs to be a distinction made here between the deserving poor and undeserving poor. People can ask for money without needing money, are people morally obligated to give cash to any obnoxious child who wants to spend $7 on pokemon cards? This can circle down the drain of the 'argument against reason' thing we did earlier so i'll stop there.

But more importantly, how much money is 'enough?' And to bring it back to the oppression framework, what state of non-societal oppression is enough to say we're done? Where is the objective standard? There really isn't one, the left is satisfied with just saying its there, not enough to say there is an end game, we can double back here to my point earlier about their end game sucking but like you say, different people have different arguments. Even though I believe other political ideologies (communists; workers controlling the means of production and run around 'crushing' bourgeoisie sympathizers) do have objective, reasonable end games. I have an end game with respect to the privilege/oppression framework, and its just based on the bullying/harassment relationship so I don't need to introduce this added layer (as heinous as it is).

The problem with charity in a resource scarce world is that even if I agree it's worth fixing (something I won't agree with yet) you have to define some standard of life that we all think is acceptable. Otherwise, where does it end? Is a sack of beans and rice and a tent the minimum bar? A night out, a small house, and a computer? I don't like the ambiguity, if society is broken then fix it. If your fix generates more oppression and is detrimental to humanities goals, then I say fk that.
Thomas Crunkinstire - Thu, 15 Dec 2016 22:23:53 EST 0aDGMcny No.207462 Reply
I don't think there is an end-game to politics and society, in general. I think any seemingly stable-state social structure is just biding its time to death. That merely to the point of saying there is no objective standard for saying when we are done futzing with society. Like you point out, even after a great advancement, eventually everyone settles down to seeing what is as the status quo and coming up with new things to gripe about. So every kind of societal process, whether it's managing oppression and privilege, cultural attitudes, political attitudes, whatever, will always be constantly in a state of flux, because even if it reaches what on the surface might be a stable state, human nature will cause it to destabilize again into new polarities.

So there is no end game. We will always be dealing with all the shit we are dealing with now, much like how the shit we are dealing with now is just a fancy re-hash of the same shit we have always been dealing with. But, that doesn't mean we can stop working on it (it is that suffering that drives us forward as you mention, which we carry within ourselves as much as comes at us from outside) or that we have to agree on what is a good final state to work toward some state.

We will never all agree on a single standard of life as good, that's blatantly impossible, but even so we can't throw up our hands and give up the social experiment. This is not just applying to charity, but to all kinds of social change.

Lastly, on the subject of the 'minimum bar' of standard of life, I don't think it's such an unusual concept that as technology advances, and the total of possible goods people can experience increases, the median and therefore also the minimum amount of necessary goods shifted with it. In Ancient Greece a bed was considered a luxury item. Fifteen years ago cell phones were considered luxury items, and now they are considered a necessity. That's just a feature of technological advancement, you can't get away from the rising bar, and it has nothing to do with people becoming unreasonable in their demands and everything to do with technology's impact on society.
In ancient greece, a bolt of cloth and jar of olives may well have qualified as a basic income. 100 years ago, having a place to sleep, food, decent clothing, and a few personal grooming and cooking accessories would've been considered meeting basic needs. 1000 years from now, being an immortal cyborg god with your own self-replicating spaceship that can at least get you to the outer colonies will be considered a modest level of existence. That's just how it goes mang, it doesn't mean, nor will it get us out of, constantly having to struggle over these issues.
Shit Gimmerwell - Fri, 23 Dec 2016 04:50:49 EST U1j3ZEZp No.207498 Reply
I liked it better when it was called guilt-tripping
I wonder what'll happen when they realize it's fruitless. Riots?
Shit Gecklekit - Fri, 13 Jan 2017 06:49:37 EST XOqZWzTC No.207577 Reply
I bet all the girls in class thought about having your baby that day. Seriously.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.