The hidden attack on whiteness
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-11-2014, 09:35 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(02-11-2014 04:58 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(02-11-2014 04:49 AM)Cetaceaphile Wrote:  I did have one, but said racist deleted it when I brought it up. My own fault for not screencapping things. I suppose I'll have to start that habit again. I'm not used to dealing with people who judge others based on skin colour (or assumed skin colour), so forgive me while I learn the methods of screencapping everything.

You are making a rather nasty accusation old bean. I'm afraid I can't take it on faith. Plus I think if you're talking about Revs then you are most definitely mistaken - you maybe misinterpreted something he said.

I do actually find it charming that he's really, truly, and seriously going to take the "lol conspiracy" justification out of this, rather than back off with the absurd claims.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2014, 01:51 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(02-11-2014 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(02-11-2014 04:58 AM)morondog Wrote:  You are making a rather nasty accusation old bean. I'm afraid I can't take it on faith. Plus I think if you're talking about Revs then you are most definitely mistaken - you maybe misinterpreted something he said.

I do actually find it charming that he's really, truly, and seriously going to take the "lol conspiracy" justification out of this, rather than back off with the absurd claims.

Because when you're backed into a corner, it's either surrender or double-down on the crazy.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
03-11-2014, 02:17 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
I'm not sure how losing the evidence I quoted counts as being 'backed into a corner', or how saying that the evidence was lost is 'lol conspiracy!' reasoning. The person freely admitted that they'd made the comment, and other users saw it. I'm pretty sure Vosur remembers it too actually.
Like I said; next time I see it I'll just start screencapping things. I didn't think this was the sort of community where I would have to do that, but apparently it is, so I will.

If you're after a surrender then sure, I surrender. Check back next time when I've turned into a screencapping menace that records absolutely everything.

[Image: sigone_zps207cf92c.png]

Leonard Nimoy
1931-2015
Live long and prosper.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2014, 03:32 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(03-11-2014 02:17 PM)Cetaceaphile Wrote:  If you're after a surrender then sure, I surrender. Check back next time when I've turned into a screencapping menace that records absolutely everything.

Bro, your original quote sorta implied that it was a lot of people and the racism was easily evident. Now you're down to one quote that no longer exists... Forgive me for remaining sceptical. Dodgy

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2014, 03:39 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(30-10-2014 11:26 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I don't understand you at all.. I never said or indicated I think negative views of white people are a good thing. You seem to not want to take things on a face value and instead would rather input a subliminal agenda. like Cjlr has said, you seem to like arguing against things nobody has said. (Here's a little tip, if you don't want to think about it. When I said, "negative views of others can benefit people" is there any indication I'm talking about white people in that post? Hmm maybe it would be inaccurate for one to assume I was talking about white people...)

How about you read a point multiple times until you understand it, that's a better way to learn a point than assume it's something in opposition to your ideas. I understand you point, I disagree with it because it lacks justification. On what grounds do you base these stereotypes you see in society are merely/mainly based on skin color? A question asked at the start that you've avoided. Again, what is the best way to understand and deal with these stereotypes? What is the basis that they are overlooked? You have given a few links that doesn't really indicate this is the case. That data can be interpenetrated multiple ways and looking back in this thread, many don't agree they are overlooked the way you claim. You just keep reiterating it.

I think people are actually aware of white stereotypes existing. I don't think it's a "good thing."
I also don't think all the things you may see as other white stereotyping is based on "whiteness" or "race" at all but it's potentially other cultural/economical based stereotyping.

More sidestepping. If you weren't talking about negative views of white people benefitting society, then who were you talking about?... Whoever you were talking about, I still disagree with you. Negative views of anyone does NOT benefit society.

You change your argument every time it gets dismantled and then you get sour and attack me instead of discussing the issue.

Here is a reminder of your EXACT words.

"Hey there's a segment of of people in some areas that have been the dominant force for no rational reason. We should probably combat that because we desire more equality"

Try not to attack me if you choose to reply.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2014, 04:05 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(03-11-2014 03:32 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(03-11-2014 02:17 PM)Cetaceaphile Wrote:  If you're after a surrender then sure, I surrender. Check back next time when I've turned into a screencapping menace that records absolutely everything.

Bro, your original quote sorta implied that it was a lot of people and the racism was easily evident. Now you're down to one quote that no longer exists... Forgive me for remaining sceptical. Dodgy

Oh, please, now, morondog.

Let's review what Cetaceaphile here said:
(01-11-2014 05:44 AM)Cetaceaphile Wrote:  I disagree with anti-white racism being 'hidden' like OP suggests, actually said that in my first reply, but I don't expect anybody to go read 20 pages to find it when I can't be bothered xD

Although I think it's very obvious that it is very much disregarded, or even added upon with demonisation of victims. I mean, hell, there are a couple of racists on this forum who attack any white person who is a victim of racism, just because they think that skin colour excludes you from certain rights to safety.

Just because he literally and explicitly referred to multiple occurrences doesn't mean he actually meant more than one. What kind of unreasonable assumption would that be?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2014, 04:40 PM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2014 04:44 PM by Spade=Spade.)
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(30-10-2014 04:20 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I fail to see how it's an unfounded assertion to "conclude" from a statistical statement that, hmm, the statement itself is true.

What "unfounded assertion" have I drawn from the statements I've made?

You claim:
1) Stereotyping is less consequential when the affected group is white people
2) This is because white people are privileged

The above claims which you have been arguing for are fallacious even if you can provide statistics showing a correlation between whiteness and privilege.

(30-10-2014 04:20 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(30-10-2014 03:37 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  The only way to validate the statement would be to caveat it with the statistics. For example, "X percentage of white people in the USA are privileged"

I am not entirely sure you understand the statement. This nonsensical example would certainly suggest as much.

Or: what percentage of tall people are tall?

No, it is you who seems not to understand.

You can not simply say "white people are privileged" and expect the statement to be valid. Your statement must go through the same rigorous scrutiny that similar statements concerning other races go through. In this case, you claim to have the stats on your side, but then refuse to caveat your statement with those very stats.

Saying "white people are privileged" is NOT the same as saying "tall people are tall". For the statement to be valid, you must caveat it with stats. Instead of "white people are privileged", you would have to say "X percentage of white people in X part of the world are privileged (definition required)". If you fail to do this, you have made the same fallacy that someone saying "Muslims are terrorists" has made.

(30-10-2014 04:20 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(30-10-2014 03:37 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  And even then you run into trouble as you would need to define "white people" (Does Barack Obama count for example?)... And you would also need to define "privilege".... And finally, your statement would only be geographically valid. (i.e what's true for one town in the US, might not be true for another town in some other part of the world.)

This is quite at odds with a general, overarching culture of simplistically stereotyping white people.

The level of detail I have highlighted above has not been met by you at any point.

I don't see how whining for that level of hypercorrective detail is anything but a tedious evasion on your part.
(I could be just as fatuous in response, and ask you to define all the keywords you've used this whole time - say, beginning with "stereotype", "white", etc; to define your political, geographical, and demographical areas of concern, and so forth... but I fail to see where that would be productive)

This is precisely the point my dear man!

I have argued over and over again that the OP is NOT a criticism of PEOPLE, but rather it is a criticism of CULTURE.

If I were arguing that non-white people are exercising racism against whites, then you would be completely within your rights to ask for the same level of detail I have asked for of you. I would need to define the people I am targeting and supply the statistics, geographical caveats etc. And even then, the criticism would be misplaced because there can be no causal link between the skin colour and the action.

The crucial thing you seem to be misunderstanding is that I am criticising CULTURE. Are there components to our culture (affecting EVERYONE) which are objectively negative against whiteness? Do these components get less airtime than equivalent components affecting other races? I argue yes.

Your response has been consistently that white people are privileged and therefore, the issue I have raised somehow is no longer significant. So it is YOU who has made claims about PEOPLE, and those claims about an entire group of people (who share a common skin colour) must rigorously refined until an accurate conclusion is drawn.

My claims about CULTURE are as follows:

1) White stereotypes exist in our CULTURE
2) These stereotypes are relatively overlooked in comparison to other stereotypes

Regarding point 1, I have provided multiple studies supporting the existence of white stereotypes; You have acknowledged that they exist and; you have even gone as far as claiming that no one has denied their existence.

Regarding point 2, I have discussed at length my reasons for making this claim. Your initial response to my OP was "So what?" which is consistent with point 2.

(30-10-2014 04:20 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(30-10-2014 03:37 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  The laziness to ignore those criteria is no different from the laziness of ignoring the real reasons for crime.

Yes. No different. Except for the differences, naturally.

Just to be clear - are you arguing that intellectual laziness is ok when the claim is "white people are privileged"?

(30-10-2014 04:20 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(30-10-2014 03:37 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  You might end up with a statement like "White people (definition needed) in this region of the USA are X% more likely to be privileged (definition needed) than black people (definition need)."

And even then, you would need to consider and define other race groups beyond just black and white.

This again. Okay - you first.

When have I made any claims about any race of people?

My claims are about CULTURE and its effects on "whiteness" which is a mental construct.

(30-10-2014 04:20 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(30-10-2014 03:37 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  Hmmmm, so on one hand, you claim that this is "the entire position I claim to be arguing against"... and now you constrain your argument to only "this thread".

Because you literally said it had occured in this thread.

So, you know. Citation still needed. Have you forgotten so soon?
I never promised you a citation. Have you forgotten so soon?

(30-10-2014 04:20 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yeah. You're never going to provide that citation I asked for, are you?

Oh, well.

I never promised you one... And as a reminder of who made the initial claim chronologically...
(30-10-2014 04:20 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.

This was your first direct response to me. It was made without prior claim or prompt. It is therefore incumbent on you to substantiate the claim.

By the way - my favourite part of this quote of yours is the bit where you say "has ever"... "Nobody has ever made that claim"... I like how you later change that to "in this thread".

;-)


(30-10-2014 04:20 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(30-10-2014 03:37 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  True, but society is made up of more than just one person isn't it. So whilst it may be true that if one person was being robbed and murdered at the same time, that person would be advised to give his or her sole focus to evading the murder, it is NOT also true that if a society has problems with both murder and theft, they should only focus on the murder problems and allow thefts to happen.

Two points:
"All problems deserve exactly equal attention" is clearly absurd.
"Some problems deserve no attention" is not a thing anyone has advocated.

You, uh... you really like arguing against things people haven't said, huh?
Ok so we agree on something then. Great.

So lets sum up. We agree that:

1) White stereotypes exist
2) They warrant some level of attention/ acknowledgment.

(30-10-2014 04:20 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(30-10-2014 03:37 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  Agreed. The reason I feel the OP is worthy of discussion is only because I believe it is comparatively overlooked in relation to other stereotypes. I agree that not all stereotypes are equal and that priorities should be arranged to alleviate greatest suffering most, but acknowledgement of the uniquely "taboo/ overlooked" nature of this particular issue is what I am trying to bring to the surface.

Thank you for granting all that. Why did it take so long? Most of the responses you seemed to disagree with said nothing more than what you have just granted.

I am once again quite perplexed by just what you think you've been arguing against over these 200+ posts.
As a reminder - I made the OP and you responded to me. So if we agree on certain points, the question is not why did it take me so long, but rather why did it take you so long. My OP stands.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2014, 05:22 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(03-11-2014 04:40 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(30-10-2014 04:20 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I fail to see how it's an unfounded assertion to "conclude" from a statistical statement that, hmm, the statement itself is true.

What "unfounded assertion" have I drawn from the statements I've made?

You claim:
1) Stereotyping is less consequential when the affected group is white people
2) This is because white people are privileged

The above claims which you have been arguing for are fallacious even if you can provide statistics showing a correlation between whiteness and privilege.

I see no point in reiterating my explanation of how thoroughly you've (deliberately?) misunderstood me.

See here for a remedial introduction to the topic, which you apparently still need.
(but no, "privilege" - to say nothing of "statistics" or "fallacy" - does not appear to be a concept you've quite thoroughly grasped)

(03-11-2014 04:40 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  You can not simply say "white people are privileged" and expect the statement to be valid.

I can accept that you began ignorant of common sociological observations, but I am less willing to credit your refusal to learn about them.

(03-11-2014 04:40 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  Your statement must go through the same rigorous scrutiny that similar statements concerning other races go through. In this case, you claim to have the stats on your side, but then refuse to caveat your statement with those very stats.

Saying "white people are privileged" is NOT the same as saying "tall people are tall". For the statement to be valid, you must caveat it with stats. Instead of "white people are privileged", you would have to say "X percentage of white people in X part of the world are privileged (definition required)". If you fail to do this, you have made the same fallacy that someone saying "Muslims are terrorists" has made.

And here we see that no, you do not understand what whiteness is as a cultural phenomenon.
(as your dogshit analogy plainly demonstrates)

(03-11-2014 04:40 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  I have argued over and over again that the OP is NOT a criticism of PEOPLE, but rather it is a criticism of CULTURE.

So what?

Others have pointed out that your "criticism" is a combination of the irrelevant and the obvious, and you've apparently addressed it to the non-existent.

(03-11-2014 04:40 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  My claims about CULTURE are as follows:

1) White stereotypes exist in our CULTURE
2) These stereotypes are relatively overlooked in comparison to other stereotypes

Regarding point 1, I have provided multiple studies supporting the existence of white stereotypes; You have acknowledged that they exist and; you have even gone as far as claiming that no one has denied their existence.

Regarding point 2, I have discussed at length my reasons for making this claim. Your initial response to my OP was "So what?" which is consistent with point 2.

Indeed; you've gone nowhere, so my original responses still stand.

If you are arguing against something, you must substantiate that something.

(03-11-2014 04:40 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(30-10-2014 04:20 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Because you literally said it had occured in this thread.

So, you know. Citation still needed. Have you forgotten so soon?
I never promised you a citation. Have you forgotten so soon?

Indeed you did not; I had not forgotten, which was why I kept asking for one.

Your refusal to provide does not exactly convey honesty here, friend.

(03-11-2014 04:40 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(30-10-2014 04:20 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yeah. You're never going to provide that citation I asked for, are you?

Oh, well.

I never promised you one... And as a reminder of who made the initial claim chronologically...
(30-10-2014 04:20 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.

This was your first direct response to me. It was made without prior claim or prompt. It is therefore incumbent on you to substantiate the claim.

You don't seem to understand how this works.

By explicitly referring to others' disagreement with you, you are evidently and necessarily making the claim that those arguments exist.
(you then elaborated by claiming that respondents in this thread had done so)

If they actually did exist - in this thread no less! - wouldn't it be very easy indeed to simply provide a couple quotes? Even post numbers, I'm not picky. I think that would come across better than a complete failure to dodge the burden of proof, wouldn't it?

(03-11-2014 04:40 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  By the way - my favourite part of this quote of yours is the bit where you say "has ever"... "Nobody has ever made that claim"... I like how you later change that to "in this thread".

I asked for substantiation of the apparent straw man and/or phantasm you apparently think you're arguing against. This is not making a claim; it is questioning yours. To refuse to acknowledge the difference seems either dishonest or stupid; which would you rather I concluded of you?

Your response was to specify, explicitly, that it had occurred in this thread - even though I saw (and see) no such thing. Hence, I limited my follow-up to what had purportedly occurred in this thread.
(thus constituting - and I can hardly believe I need to make this clear to you, but apparently I do - a response to the claim you made)

So, no. I am not making the claim here. You were, and continue to do so. You refuse to substantiate or justify this claim; so be it.

(03-11-2014 04:40 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  So lets sum up. We agree that:

1) White stereotypes exist
2) They warrant some level of attention/ acknowledgment.

That's still going to earn a big ol' so what from me. But yes, I agree with your provided 1 and 2.

Recall, however, that your continued stance has involved a third premise:
3) Some people deny 1 and/or 2.
(with the corollary: some people in this thread deny 1 and/or 2)

This is the one I find very difficult to credit, particularly in light of the disingenuous evasion demonstrated above.

(03-11-2014 04:40 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(30-10-2014 04:20 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Thank you for granting all that. Why did it take so long? Most of the responses you seemed to disagree with said nothing more than what you have just granted.

I am once again quite perplexed by just what you think you've been arguing against over these 200+ posts.
As a reminder - I made the OP and you responded to me. So if we agree on certain points, the question is not why did it take me so long, but rather why did it take you so long. My OP stands.

I made no response to you until late in the, ah, discussion. As such I was addressing the discussion then in existence and not your OP considered in a vacuum.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
04-11-2014, 01:45 AM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2014 04:02 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(03-11-2014 03:39 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(30-10-2014 11:26 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I don't understand you at all.. I never said or indicated I think negative views of white people are a good thing. You seem to not want to take things on a face value and instead would rather input a subliminal agenda. like Cjlr has said, you seem to like arguing against things nobody has said. (Here's a little tip, if you don't want to think about it. When I said, "negative views of others can benefit people" is there any indication I'm talking about white people in that post? Hmm maybe it would be inaccurate for one to assume I was talking about white people...)

How about you read a point multiple times until you understand it, that's a better way to learn a point than assume it's something in opposition to your ideas. I understand you point, I disagree with it because it lacks justification. On what grounds do you base these stereotypes you see in society are merely/mainly based on skin color? A question asked at the start that you've avoided. Again, what is the best way to understand and deal with these stereotypes? What is the basis that they are overlooked? You have given a few links that doesn't really indicate this is the case. That data can be interpenetrated multiple ways and looking back in this thread, many don't agree they are overlooked the way you claim. You just keep reiterating it.

I think people are actually aware of white stereotypes existing. I don't think it's a "good thing."
I also don't think all the things you may see as other white stereotyping is based on "whiteness" or "race" at all but it's potentially other cultural/economical based stereotyping.

More sidestepping. If you weren't talking about negative views of white people benefitting society, then who were you talking about?... Whoever you were talking about, I still disagree with you. Negative views of anyone does NOT benefit society.

You change your argument every time it gets dismantled and then you get sour and attack me instead of discussing the issue.

Here is a reminder of your EXACT words.

"Hey there's a segment of of people in some areas that have been the dominant force for no rational reason. We should probably combat that because we desire more equality"

Try not to attack me if you choose to reply.

What was I talking about? Are you really this one-minded? I've been saying this from early on in my posts on this topic. Many stereotypes are more frequently about class and wealth than it is about race. You're asserting these things about race without large cultural proofs that it's mainly race and not other factors. I've repeatedly brought that up and you've frequently just ignored that point for whatever. You can pick apart a quote to make a point if you want.. it's clearly either a misunderstanding or showing an immaturity that you can't handle actual communication. What I said right before that quote- To conflate any cultural movement as an attack on whiteness is intentionally looking to bait... any cultural movement is what I'm talking about. Then in my next posts I tried to clarifying, not talking about racism dude. You are the one with the agenda on racism, i'm saying it's far wider ranging than that.

What do you think Negative views and combat mean? You seem to like to attach aggressive meanings to many terms in your OP and others posts.

To elaborate the simplicity here. If you don't have a negative view What would be your motivation to alter the situation you think is unfavorable? If you want change, you need a reason to desire change. If you think it's all neutral or positive, you have no rational or strong desire to attempt to attempt to create change or the "perfect" world you've mentioned before. You have said, you think we should work to redistribute to have better wealth and equality? If you don't have a negative view towards higher wealth and less equality? What would be your reason to seek that?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2014, 02:31 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(04-11-2014 01:45 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(03-11-2014 03:39 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  More sidestepping. If you weren't talking about negative views of white people benefitting society, then who were you talking about?... Whoever you were talking about, I still disagree with you. Negative views of anyone does NOT benefit society.

You change your argument every time it gets dismantled and then you get sour and attack me instead of discussing the issue.

Here is a reminder of your EXACT words.

"Hey there's a segment of of people in some areas that have been the dominant force for no rational reason. We should probably combat that because we desire more equality"

Try not to attack me if you choose to reply.

What was I talking about? Are you really this one-minded? I've been saying this from early on in my posts on this topic. Many stereotypes are more frequently about class and wealth than it is about race. You're asserting these things about race without large cultural proofs that it's mainly race and not other factors. I've repeatedly brought that up and you've frequently just ignored that point for whatever. You can pick apart a quote to make a point if you want.. it's clearly either a misunderstanding or showing an immaturity that you can't handle actual communication. What I said right before that quote- To conflate any cultural movement as an attack on whiteness is intentionally looking to bait... any cultural movement is what I'm talking about. Then in my next posts I tried to clarifying, not talking about racism dude. You are the one with the agenda on racism, i'm saying it's far wider ranging than that.

What do you think Negative views and combat mean? You seem to like to attach aggressive meanings to many terms in your OP and others posts.

To elaborate the simplicity here. If you don't have a negative view What would be your motivation to alter the situation you think is unfavorable? If you want change, you need a reason to desire change. If you think it's all neutral or positive, you have no rational or strong desire to attempt to attempt to create change or the "perfect" world you've mentioned before. You have said, you think we should work to redistribute to have better wealth and equality? If you don't have a negative view towards higher wealth and less equality? What would be your reason to seek that?

Remember the part where I said "Try not to attack me if you choose to reply."? Did you just choose to ignore that or is it possibly YOU who doesn't read what the other person has written?

You say that "cultural movement is what [you're] talking about"... Perhaps you did not read or have forgotten when I wrote this to you when you first brought that up:

(03-11-2014 03:39 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  Regarding your point on "agenda lead cultural movements" - that may be a valid point, but it does not invalidate my OP. There may very well be an agenda lead cultural movement against upper class mentality but that is a separate point from my OP which is that pop-culture draws associations between whiteness and racism in the same way that it draws associations between blackness and crime. Both of these stereotypes are wrong and should be called out as racist stereotypes.

To bring up classism in response to an analysis of stereotypes within our culture is either a non-sequitur or it is an intentional manipulation of what I have written.

Classism is a separate conversation and has nothing to do with racial stereotypes in our culture. The equivalent mistake would be if someone said that black people can't complain about stereotypes in culture because those stereotypes aren't racial, they're classist.

You then go on to ask the following question: "To elaborate the simplicity here. If you don't have a negative view What would be your motivation to alter the situation you think is unfavourable?".
My response is really quite simple. We acknowledge that there exists inequality in society and we work towards making a change. At no point do we adopt negative views of people of ANY kind - whether racial or classist.

If you think that we SHOULD adopt negative views of people who are in a "higher class", then I simply disagree with you. This is (1) irrational as class is not a cause of social inequality, it is a result... and (2) unstrategic as it will only polarise people and make higher class people defensive which will perpetuate inequality.

BUT - the most important point here is that this entire thread of yours about class has got absolutely NOTHING to do with my OP. You have demonstrated that you do not understand the distinction I made between culture and people. I will simplify my OP to you once more in the hopes that you understand...

1) White stereotypes exist in our CULTURE
2) They are relatively more overlooked than other stereotypes

To talk about the upper class section of society shows that you don't understand what my OP was about. And yet you complain that I do not read properly what you write. Ironic isn't it?

CULTURE is intangible. If you look at the world we live in today and compare it to the world in 1920, would you agree that the culture was different? Culture is a cause of societal behaviour and perception. You really need to understand this. Our language, media, music etc. are all part of our culture.... I am criticising this. Try your very best to understand this. I am NOT talking about people. You are.

So when you say the following (these are your exact words): "There should always be cultural contempt for the dominant culture" , this demonstrates to me that you understand the word "culture" to mean "people"... A dominant culture to you is a dominant group of people. This is not what i mean when I criticise culture. I can't make this any clearer. You're just going to have to get someone else to explain it to you, sorry.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: