The hidden attack on whiteness
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-10-2014, 11:10 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
Well that was embarrassing... I mean you cook up this scathing reply and oops, not directed at youBlush

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2014, 11:11 AM (This post was last modified: 23-10-2014 11:15 AM by cjlr.)
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(23-10-2014 09:06 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 08:20 AM)cjlr Wrote:  No one has denied that stereotypes exist for all groups. As such there appears to be no point in mentioning as much, unless you actually have some subsequent analysis to move on to. Do you?

After all, did you in fact know that water is wet?

On the contrary, I have been asked to produce evidence in the form of multiple studies and commentary to substantiate my claim. Perhaps you have not read through all the comments.

The "water is wet" comment is a false equivalence in trying to show the insignificance of my claim. White stereotypes (as I have argued) do have the potential to be dangerous. I provided you with a news report which I doubt you read properly showing that council workers cited "fear of being labelled a racist" as the reason they did not pursue complaints of rape by Asian & Pakistani men.

Yes. And since you're talking about stereotyping whites then you'd need to show how stereotypes of whites informed the actions of any of the people involved in the case.

You'd further have to demonstrate a great many more instances than one to suggest an actual trend or common problem.

(23-10-2014 09:06 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  Show me the difference between the following two fallacies:

1) "stereotyping is less consequential when directed against the privileged (whites)"
2) "stereotyping is less consequential when directed against the criminal [blacks]"

How is one right but the other not?

It's rare that I hope someone's being facetious, but I refuse to believe that you don't understand how this works.
(I also like how you skipped from the natural contrast - unprivileged - straight to "criminal"; not quite sure how that follows)

Whose prejudices are more likely to be acted upon in a way that affects others?
(hint: it's not black people)

(23-10-2014 09:06 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  Your claim that it is "fact" that whites are privileged is fallacious as well. Are all whites privileged? If not, then you are trying to make a claim about relative averages as they correlate to skin colour.

It's like you're not even trying.

Hint: go look up what "privileged" means.

Then go look at the post I already made:
(22-10-2014 01:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That white people are generally advantaged does not mean that they are never disadvantaged, and as far as I am aware nobody has ever made that claim.

And see for yourself that no, it is not "fallacious" to assert the existence of societal inequality. That a group possesses, as a group, advantages does not imply that all members of that group possess an advantage over all non-members. Which I would have thought to be a simple and non-controversial observation...

(23-10-2014 09:06 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  One could make the same claim about crime and skin colour and even try back it up with "facts" as you have. Both attempts at generalising are fallacious because there is no causal link between skin colour and the stereotype.... and certainly no justification for inclusion of a stereotype as some means of achieving moral equilibrium.

I don't think you quite understand what you're talking about.

"Black people are criminal" is a stereotype.

However, in (say) the United States crime rates are higher among black populations. The actual reason for this is that statistically speaking black people are poorer, and crime is highly correlated with poverty.

Now; why are black people poorer?

I'll give you a hint. It starts with 'r' and ends with 'acism'.

(23-10-2014 09:06 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 08:20 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I guess you could be so simplistically asinine as to deny that broad systemic advantages and disadvantages exist in our society (or, you know, "privilege"). That white people have it better than black people, or men better than women, or so on; those aren't stereotypes, though and if you think so, you don't know what that word means. Those happen to be facts. As such, please refer back to my #1, which you also don't seem to understand - you know, where I literally just stated that a privileged group does not imply uniformly privileged members?
I am not denying that tangible areas of inequality exist. But the point is that they are not caused by skin colour, they are caused by racism. It therefore is not rational to have contempt for skin colour - uncomfotable as that may be - it is only rational to have contempt for racism.

I honestly can't tell what non-point you're trying to make here.

If it's that racist prejudices are not based on empirical data, no shit.

That doesn't mean they don't affect people. Which you acknowledge.

Once again: so what?

(23-10-2014 09:06 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  Your simplistic approach runs the risk of vilifying white people because as you simplistically put it "white people have it better than black people". There is an incompatibility between your lazy acceptance of incomplete data in generalising whites as "privileged" and your certainty in all other matters on this topic.

Said "simplistic approach" consists of pointing out an elementary fact you are repeatedly glossing over.

Are you going to sit here and tell me with a straight face that whites as a group are not the privileged class?

Because that'd be something to see...

(23-10-2014 09:06 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 07:13 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  There have been other respondents who don't accept that white stereotypes exist at all.
(23-10-2014 08:20 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Wut?

Citation needed.

Go read through the entire thread.

That's not a citation, bro.

A citation is a specific direct quote, in its proper context. Got any? Got one?

(23-10-2014 09:06 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 08:20 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Remember when I offered you my response to this, ah, stunning revelation?

If you've forgotten, it was so what?, because, you know, literally no one has denied this. Thanks.

False, people have denied it, in this thread and elsewhere.

Citation needed.

("elsewhere" is not a citation)

(23-10-2014 09:06 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 07:13 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  - Stereotypes are not static. If (from your perspective) you don't see a significant detrimental effect of white stereotypes now, that does not preclude the potential for them to grow and intensify in the future. The same is true for all stereotypes.
(23-10-2014 08:20 AM)cjlr Wrote:  So what?
So, if they have the potential to grow, they are worthy of discussion.

Okay. So where are you going with them?

(23-10-2014 09:06 AM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  The point is that the (white) council workers cited "fear of being labelled a racist" as being the reason they failed to pursue the crimes committed by South Asian men. Get it? White council workers stifled by the stereotype of white racism... Sinking in yet?

Thanks for getting around to an actual point.
(eventually...)

It does not seem to follow. You are claiming that stereotypes of white racism exist (pervasively!) and that specific awareness of them informed the actions of the Rotherham authorities. That's just so much unsubstantiated conjecture on your part so far.

Nor does one data point a trend make.

Of course I grant the possibility that some nebulous "stereotype" consciously informed their actions. I submit to you that "not appearing racist" would exist as a motivation regardless.

Allow me to make what I'm sure will be a fun-filled analogy:
Consider the topic of gender inequality. That men as a group are the privileged class does not mean that all men are always advantaged and all women always disadvantaged; that is at best a straw man. There are in fact (some few) issues where men are generally disadvantaged. Which problem does it make more sense to focus on? The greater, or the lesser?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
23-10-2014, 11:56 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(23-10-2014 11:09 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  In this case I was not talking about him but rather the neg rep I got from Cetaceaphile

You're getting a lot of fans nowadays. How do you do it, Rev? Consider

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2014, 12:02 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(23-10-2014 11:56 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 11:09 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  In this case I was not talking about him but rather the neg rep I got from Cetaceaphile

You're getting a lot of fans nowadays. How do you do it, Rev? Consider

He's tied me in neutrals (2) and negatives (5). Thumbsup

He must be doing something right. Big Grin

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
23-10-2014, 12:08 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(23-10-2014 12:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  He's tied me in neutrals (2) and negatives (5). Thumbsup

He must be doing something right. Big Grin

I'll soon be up there with you. I got 5 negatives and 0 neutrals.

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
23-10-2014, 01:57 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(23-10-2014 12:08 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 12:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  He's tied me in neutrals (2) and negatives (5). Thumbsup

He must be doing something right. Big Grin

I'll soon be up there with you. I got 5 negatives and 0 neutrals.

Yeah, but your minuses aren't as fun.

I mean...

For Chas:
Quote:Elder Cunningham (9) - Last updated 06-06-2014, 11:36 AM
Negative (-1): For such utterly disgraceful misogyny...

Or for Rev:
Quote:Cetaceaphile (12) - Last updated 13-10-2014, 10:31 PM
Negative (-1): Barely closeted racist...

The things you learn about people!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2014, 02:01 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(23-10-2014 01:57 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 12:08 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I'll soon be up there with you. I got 5 negatives and 0 neutrals.

Yeah, but your minuses aren't as fun.

I mean...

For Chas:
Quote:Elder Cunningham (9) - Last updated 06-06-2014, 11:36 AM
Negative (-1): For such utterly disgraceful misogyny...

Or for Rev:
Quote:Cetaceaphile (12) - Last updated 13-10-2014, 10:31 PM
Negative (-1): Barely closeted racist...

The things you learn about people!

While equally untrue, I say mine is funnier. Yes

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2014, 02:11 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(23-10-2014 02:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  While equally untrue, I say mine is funnier. Yes

When it comes to funny, you def have my all-time favourite:
Quote:The Theist (-10) - Last updated 20-11-2012, 11:34 PM
Negative (-1): Effeminate non existent entity to an idealism both anti-intellectual and without the sack his duplicitous ignorance craves. Like a homosexual warrior. Fuck, eat and fight on a bloody battle that no one sees. Ignominious.

If that's not the exemplar definition for "glittering gem of hatred", I don't know what is.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2014, 02:18 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(23-10-2014 02:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 02:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  While equally untrue, I say mine is funnier. Yes

When it comes to funny, you def have my all-time favourite:
Quote:The Theist (-10) - Last updated 20-11-2012, 11:34 PM
Negative (-1): Effeminate non existent entity to an idealism both anti-intellectual and without the sack his duplicitous ignorance craves. Like a homosexual warrior. Fuck, eat and fight on a bloody battle that no one sees. Ignominious.

If that's not the exemplar definition for "glittering gem of hatred", I don't know what is.

I was quite impressed with that one. It reads so well and makes so little sense that it becomes surreal poetry.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2014, 02:26 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(23-10-2014 01:57 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 12:08 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I'll soon be up there with you. I got 5 negatives and 0 neutrals.

Yeah, but your minuses aren't as fun.

I mean...

For Chas:
Quote:Elder Cunningham (9) - Last updated 06-06-2014, 11:36 AM
Negative (-1): For such utterly disgraceful misogyny...

Or for Rev:
Quote:Cetaceaphile (12) - Last updated 13-10-2014, 10:31 PM
Negative (-1): Barely closeted racist...

The things you learn about people!

That reminds me - I was going to create a poll, for ladies only, asking if they thought me a misogynist. Dodgy

The comedy value alone might be worthwhile. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: