The curtain is now fully pulled.
That's a factor, yes. It marks prevention of, among other things, inheritance of various resources - the major factor in white prosperity.
Last edited:
On American Appeasement
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
EF's attempt to deal with all issues as "just" this or that is his contribution here, not other people's. It's another of the full panoply of wingnut rhetorical gambits with which he has graced this science forum.
I'm not sure how it is a contradiction? It seems simple to me - poverty is an issue, no doubt - however, bigotry and the inability to actually be taken seriously or as a productive member of society would, I think, be a bigger issue. One can overcome poverty with a bit of help - however, when people continue to judge you on the color of your skin, rather than any sort of qualifier... well, what can you do besides go and look elsewhere?
Yes, racism and sexism are issues that exist but overall economic inequality affects/hits everyone (regardless of gender or race) which is a huge/major issue because it's about human greed, period. that's why economic reform is needed.
that was the exact point EF was making at this point and time in this discussion. I don't know if he decided to change his tune or it's genuine or not but....
citing exceptional examples of success is also a 'wingnut' ploy to ignore endemic and unfair economic policy. maybe it wasn't your intention? It's like 'see, they made it', to downplay the issues and effects of poverty, abuse, racism and discrimination. Therefore, it's often used by the right/conservatives to ignore those issues citing those who have become successful which is unrealistic anyways because that will not be the 'norm.' Not everyone can be a ceo, superstar, rapper, singer, celebrated author etc. btw, notice they are in the top earning brackets. economic reform is needed to address the blue collar people especially, not those who win the lottery of life or have exceptional gifts or talents that can skyrocket them into the millionaire club. hello?
Last edited:
It doesn't hit "regardless" of gender or race. It's often structured by gender and race, as in the US.
Race and gender have been used as the primary obstacles to economic reform in the US for centuries now.
uh, absolutely not true. as if the underpaid worker at mcdonalds (for example) is due to racism. NO, it is due to classism. it does affect everyone, it is not just structured by gender or race. there are situations where it can but it's definitely not 'just' by gender or race.
My apologies if I came across that way - my intent was merely to show that trying to distill these issues down to a single point is fallacy of the highest degree.
There is, admittedly, a large volume of data showing that women still face lower pay for similar jobs as their male counterparts, for no apparent or appreciable reason other than they are a female, rather than a male. Again, not a single issue problem, but a multi-faceted one.
Yes, I have noticed that, especially such as sales/marketing etc. ANY position where the 'rules' can be blurred or bent or job requirements are more based on subjective criteria (confident? formidable? charismatic? etc) vs actual ability is subject to unfairness. One example is I was turned down for a position with an IT diploma mill as a sales representative because I was female. The male who was hired really didn't know anything (and very ADD) but since he was aggressive, pushy and a bullshitter, as well as 'looked' the part of a formidable guy being 6'2 and like a linebacker, he was preferred. It would have even been legitimate if he was perhaps more eloquent but he wasn't even that. Yeah, as if 'looking' formidable and being male means actual or better ability. lmfao
Another example is I interviewed for an assistant property management position when the property manager would be away or out of town (female) and she preferred a male for this position as she kept harping on if one could handle the bratty kids and irate tenants that might barge in the office and complex wasn't in the best neighborhood etc. I kept telling her that I could but she did not believe it though I knew I could handle it. She was old school and felt that a male would be more intimidating and she did hire a male. So even women can have the sexist stereotypes, social programming and misgivings that are projected toward their own gender. She was kind of 'butch' or masculine herself. The issue in that case was that she perceived me to be not as strong.
That's the thing with many, especially, lower level positions is that it is based on very subjective reasoning/criteria and ridiculously the judgement of qualification is filtered through the prejudices, preferences, ignorance, idiosyncrasies and sometimes even prejudice of one particular individual and ripe for all types of discrimination, sometimes even unconsciously. But this also happens to males too.
But, there is an overarching issue of economic inequality regardless. People struggle financially because of this inequality. ignorance, racism, sexism, discrimination, and prejudice just make it more difficult, unfair and aggravating and adds fuel to the fire.
Last edited:
It's precisely his penchant for making everything "just" this or that--and the accompanying obsession with simplistic causality--that makes it clear it's less an issue of comprehension, and more that of being disingenuous.
neighborhood | white hood
So, if I understand the Appeasement argument correctly—
—the important thing here is to not piss off white supremacists.
Unfortunately, what such theses fail to address is the fact of white supremacists behaving this way. Lacking some clarity on these points, these theses end up having a functional value describing perpetuation of supremacism.
This thread has yet to bear particular fruit, namely regarding the points of how to get along, to work and play well, with the antisocial—
—and why we should sacrifice women's access to economic justice in order to appease supremacists in hopes of winning a few votes:
The failure to address these questions, combined with responses that not only relegates a majority of the population to being an "ever-smaller demographic group" that somehow slights the majority of the population, but also argues that "the belief racism, sexism, homophobiasis [sic] on the same plane as classicism [sic] is idiotic" (#3↑), only reinforces the perpetual and growing suspicion that Appeasement really is open sympathy.
Because as near as anyone can tell, the functional outcomes of the arguments involve simply giving over. There is a curious moment in which the argument is to give over to the bullies except for taking them to court (#14↑), but this only leads back to the problem with all this vapid posturing on behalf of Appeasement.
Electing "a bunch of democrats [sic] that claim to be pro-life" (3) is a dangerous proposition that relies on misogynistic distortion; the truth of the matter is that the courts are all liberals have most days, and that fact drives conservative identity politics (Blue↱).
But the result of what we have here is pretty straightforward: When the bullies reach out and attack, are people supposed to just leave it alone? "But yes, aside for [sic] fighting it in the courts".
So, are we really dealing with, don't meet them on the picket line, don't challenge them at the ballot box, and don't say a goddamn thing when they come to run the black folks out of town?
The questions at the outset were pretty straightforward. Four months later the we haven't any useful answers, but the whole thing keeps verging toward the idea of actually giving the supremacists what they want.
So, hey, when the reporter asks the female Democratic candidate her opinion on the latest conservatve proposal about birth control, should she not say anything at all? Or is the problem that she's a female Democratic candidate? Should Democrats just cover the bases and run only men? Should they limit that to white Christian and Jewish men? Or do they need to kick out Ben Cardin and stop working with Bernie Sanders?
Yeah, there are reasons why people think Appeasment is an insincere disguise for Supremacism.
____________________
Notes:
Fish, Mr. "Not OKKK". Clowncrack. 30 November 2014. Clowncrack.com. 7 September 2017. http://bit.ly/1gCpL6f
Gettys, Travis. "'I wanted to cry': Black family greeted with racial slurs in Kansas at new Habitat for Humanity home". Raw Story. 7 September 2017. RawStory.com. 7 September 2017. http://bit.ly/2f8tQkc
So, if I understand the Appeasement argument correctly—
Racist vandals painted slurs on the grass where a black family will move into a Kansas neighborhood with the help of Habitat for Humanity.
A neighbor discovered the racial slurs spray-painted on the grass and tried to remove them with a weed whacker, and he called Habitat officials—who then notified the homeowner-to-be, reported The Topeka Capital-Journal.
"I wanted to cry," said Shavonn Smith, who is black. "We've worked really hard to get to where we are."
The vandalism happened Aug. 12, the same day white supremacists rallied hundreds of miles away, in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a counter-protester was killed when a neo-Nazi intentionally drove into a crowd.
The neighbor who found the racial slurs declined to help Habitat file a police report, because he feared retaliation.
(Gettys↱)
A neighbor discovered the racial slurs spray-painted on the grass and tried to remove them with a weed whacker, and he called Habitat officials—who then notified the homeowner-to-be, reported The Topeka Capital-Journal.
"I wanted to cry," said Shavonn Smith, who is black. "We've worked really hard to get to where we are."
The vandalism happened Aug. 12, the same day white supremacists rallied hundreds of miles away, in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a counter-protester was killed when a neo-Nazi intentionally drove into a crowd.
The neighbor who found the racial slurs declined to help Habitat file a police report, because he feared retaliation.
(Gettys↱)
—the important thing here is to not piss off white supremacists.
Unfortunately, what such theses fail to address is the fact of white supremacists behaving this way. Lacking some clarity on these points, these theses end up having a functional value describing perpetuation of supremacism.
This thread has yet to bear particular fruit, namely regarding the points of how to get along, to work and play well, with the antisocial—
But if the point is to get along with other people who refuse to work and play well with others, the Appeasers need to explain just how their advocacy is going to help anything but the advancement of prejudice, bigotry, and bullying.
(#1↑)
(#1↑)
—and why we should sacrifice women's access to economic justice in order to appease supremacists in hopes of winning a few votes:
Appeasers should probably take the moment to explain just how they expect Democrats to grow the party and advance justice by betraying a majority of the American population.
(#2↑)
(#2↑)
The failure to address these questions, combined with responses that not only relegates a majority of the population to being an "ever-smaller demographic group" that somehow slights the majority of the population, but also argues that "the belief racism, sexism, homophobiasis [sic] on the same plane as classicism [sic] is idiotic" (#3↑), only reinforces the perpetual and growing suspicion that Appeasement really is open sympathy.
Because as near as anyone can tell, the functional outcomes of the arguments involve simply giving over. There is a curious moment in which the argument is to give over to the bullies except for taking them to court (#14↑), but this only leads back to the problem with all this vapid posturing on behalf of Appeasement.
Electing "a bunch of democrats [sic] that claim to be pro-life" (3) is a dangerous proposition that relies on misogynistic distortion; the truth of the matter is that the courts are all liberals have most days, and that fact drives conservative identity politics (Blue↱).
But the result of what we have here is pretty straightforward: When the bullies reach out and attack, are people supposed to just leave it alone? "But yes, aside for [sic] fighting it in the courts".
So, are we really dealing with, don't meet them on the picket line, don't challenge them at the ballot box, and don't say a goddamn thing when they come to run the black folks out of town?
The questions at the outset were pretty straightforward. Four months later the we haven't any useful answers, but the whole thing keeps verging toward the idea of actually giving the supremacists what they want.
So, hey, when the reporter asks the female Democratic candidate her opinion on the latest conservatve proposal about birth control, should she not say anything at all? Or is the problem that she's a female Democratic candidate? Should Democrats just cover the bases and run only men? Should they limit that to white Christian and Jewish men? Or do they need to kick out Ben Cardin and stop working with Bernie Sanders?
Yeah, there are reasons why people think Appeasment is an insincere disguise for Supremacism.
____________________
Notes:
Fish, Mr. "Not OKKK". Clowncrack. 30 November 2014. Clowncrack.com. 7 September 2017. http://bit.ly/1gCpL6f
Gettys, Travis. "'I wanted to cry': Black family greeted with racial slurs in Kansas at new Habitat for Humanity home". Raw Story. 7 September 2017. RawStory.com. 7 September 2017. http://bit.ly/2f8tQkc
And that is an example, of course. Minimum wage laws in the US have been directly influenced by racism and sexism - both in their establishment and in their opposition. Everything legally pertaining to employment and labor in the US has been jacked around by the wealthy, using racial and sexual bigotry to undermine the political power of the more numerous - but racially and sexually divided - poor.
This inequality is maintained and exacerbated using race and gender bigotries, in the US.
Why did you throw in the word "just"?
It doesn't affect everyone equally, but is structured by race and gender. This structure is used to maintain it, to (for example) organize political support for the inequality among white men who are in the long run damaged by it.
That's how Trump was elected, for example - and most of the Republican Congress.
What is it with the word, "just"? We get why EF is using it; his fallacy requires it. What is the word to you, though, in this context?
douwd20
Registered Senior Member
Excellent...
The First White President
The foundation of Donald Trump’s presidency is the negation of Barack Obama’s legacy.
Barack Obama delivered to black people the hoary message that if they work twice as hard as white people, anything is possible. But Trump’s counter is persuasive: Work half as hard as black people, and even more is possible.
The foundation of Donald Trump’s presidency is the negation of Barack Obama’s legacy.
Barack Obama delivered to black people the hoary message that if they work twice as hard as white people, anything is possible. But Trump’s counter is persuasive: Work half as hard as black people, and even more is possible.
Just that: racism is secondary to class issues these days and that has always been an issue. Those using race-bait as a ploy as a way to herd politics will always exist but class issues (blue vs white collar, for instance) has always existed primarily to divide resources beyond reasonable equity. And that does end up affecting everyone regardless of race or gender. This is because the root of it is simple: who the hell wants to do the dirty, menial or boring work? Well, at least they could be paid fairly for it and that's not barely scraping by (current) either nor the opposite, too generously as if its a higher accomplishment.
Automation and robotics may be the answer. Lol
I've had so many odd jobs, some even weird, (not wearing a hotdog suit with a sign weird) just to pay the bills throughout my life. I know how frustrating the rat race is and the desperation. Racism and discrimination is an issue in many cases but its largely also fueled by the economic inequality itself and scarcity thinking. The inequality itself breeds prejudice, bigotry and cluster/cliquish identity politics to hedge in favor of itself. It's also fostered by a win/lose perspective and that sense of competition negatively degenerates to racism and bigotry and there is no race that is immune. For instance, if you think african-americans (for instance) cant be prejudiced, then you are naive. I've lived in north carolina and the south where there is a historically large african american population and whenever groups have more power, they can also exercise discrimination and bigotry.
I would propose that you can end racism and still have classism, but not end classism without addressing racism.
Same with sexism.
When you say, "economic inequality affects/hits everyone", you're late. When you say, "regardless of gender or race", you're just wrong. And here's the deal, if you think you're right all you need to explain is how you achieve economic justice without addressing racism and sexism.
I didn't say you shouldn't address racism or sexism. it should definitely be addressed and stressed with a blowhorn constantly, lest people fall under an illusion it doesn't exist. but economic inequality will still exist because racism and sexism is about addressing bias to result in equal opportunities, not necessarily addressing entrenched economic inequality. just because mcdonalds (example again) hires people in all spectrum of the rainbow, doesn't automatically mean they will be receiving decent pay. it's not the same issue.
it's going to be tough to do when you want concrete results. racism and sexism are qualitative. most humans can barely walk a straight line much less draw one without a fuking ruler. they are prone to bias and yet make decisions which affect the livelihoods of people based on, often, ridiculous and petty reasons such as simply liking or disliking another etc. lmao
I remember before I would go into most interviews thinking, 'what should I say to impress this bitch or bastard? what lies do they want to hear? because usually it was always 70 percent bullshit/subjective and 30 percent or less real talk/qualifications.
The majority of jobs out there are unskilled or not professional and when you veer away from the professional sector (highly technical is the least bs rating), you are automatically in 'bullshit' sector of the job market. discrimination, sexism, bias and bigotry is the name of the game. that is what is not openly admitted.
really, a supercomputer should be making these decisions in the future, not people, because they create a circus and people's lives when it comes to the hard reality of providing for their basic livelihood is no joke.
I am so glad I have been put out to pasture and out of the rat race, because now, I would probably keel over. too many battle scars.
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
Who makes the decisions about access to abortion and birth control in the US? Who makes the decisions about women fulfilling combat roles or working in coal mines, since you seem to have a bee up your behind about those two issues?
Men do, EF.
Women are not given a choice.
In a free and fair society, men and women are given a choice. In the US, say in coal mining, it has only been in the last few years that women have been allowed to enter those fields. Because they were deliberately locked out of those positions by men. Women are certainly not weak and your constant referral to women staying home with the kids is yet another right wing stereotype about the role of women in society. When the dictates of society prevent women from making choices about themselves, either through policy or entrenched sexism that deliberately denies women the right to enter certain fields of employment or say in the military, then that is unjust and deeply sexist. You do understand this, yes?
Do you remember the hearings that the Republican Party held about birth control and insurance policies in the US? Do you remember how many women sat on that panel?
Today on Capitol Hill, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform assembled a panel to discuss the birth control mandate in President Obama's Affordable Care Act. Specifically, whether or not requiring insurers to cover birth control violates religious freedom of people who don't believe in science. The committee, chaired by a male, consisted of eight men who felt personally persecuted by the requirement. And that's about the least depressing aspect of the whole circus.
Now, remember, this was something that would affect women.
California Republican Darrell Issa chaired the panel, and because Republicans hold a majority in the House, he was able to choreograph the entire proceedings. He thoughtfully assembled a diverse group of men who don't necessarily have any real, fact-based reason to oppose birth control except for the fact that it made them feel icky. Invited to testify were five men. And no women. The whole thing was, to put it as succinctly as possible, depressing as fuck.
From Issa's opening statements that "a man's conscience" should guide laws in America (and his failure to see the irony in using masculine nouns in a hearing that was ultimately about female parts) to his interrupting of DC's Eleanor Norton when she angrily requested clarification of rules, the entire hearing was was a tone deaf symphony that showcased just how delusional religious men who feel persecuted by the wide availability and accessibility of the pill actually are. Following a circus-y opening to the hearing that eventually led the Democratic women to reportedly walk out in protest, Bishop William Lori opened the testimony with a bit of truly dumb analogy making.
I'll put this as fairly as I possibly can: he compared insurance companies subsidizing the cost of birth control to the government forcing kosher delis to serve pork. Unbeknownst to him, failure to take pork every day cannot lead to pregnancy, bacon does not regulate periods, and a ham sandwich cannot decrease the number of abortions or promote women's health. The comparison of birth control to cooked pig parts was effective in one way, though— it showed that the Church utterly devalues women, and views their health care as a recreational afterthought. Want to have some honey glazed ham? Wanna keep from getting pregnant? Same thing!
From Issa's opening statements that "a man's conscience" should guide laws in America (and his failure to see the irony in using masculine nouns in a hearing that was ultimately about female parts) to his interrupting of DC's Eleanor Norton when she angrily requested clarification of rules, the entire hearing was was a tone deaf symphony that showcased just how delusional religious men who feel persecuted by the wide availability and accessibility of the pill actually are. Following a circus-y opening to the hearing that eventually led the Democratic women to reportedly walk out in protest, Bishop William Lori opened the testimony with a bit of truly dumb analogy making.
I'll put this as fairly as I possibly can: he compared insurance companies subsidizing the cost of birth control to the government forcing kosher delis to serve pork. Unbeknownst to him, failure to take pork every day cannot lead to pregnancy, bacon does not regulate periods, and a ham sandwich cannot decrease the number of abortions or promote women's health. The comparison of birth control to cooked pig parts was effective in one way, though— it showed that the Church utterly devalues women, and views their health care as a recreational afterthought. Want to have some honey glazed ham? Wanna keep from getting pregnant? Same thing!
And you actually had the temerity to whine how you do not believe that men have the power to dictate social norms? Really?
You know, your freak show performance would be funny as batshit if it was not so stupidly inane and downright dangerous.
Oh hey, look. Another white dude telling me what women want and saying that women would prefer to stay home with the kids and fulfill the role men set for them. How strange and unusual.
Oh hey look, same white dude dictating about how he believes women are money grubbing and conniving.. How strange and unusual! Because we have never heard this before from the right..
Bells
Staff member
Because men like you mock them, EF. Literally. For example:
Your stereotypical posts about the roles of the sexes is downright dangerous for men who suffer from a mental illness.
Oh hey, look! White dude spouting more right wing stereotypes of women. How strange and unusual.
You're not 'jumping into that sexist trope'? Right..
Is that why you just ranted about women and our 'breeding' capacity like we are cattle? Did you check your wife's teeth before or after you knocked her out with a lump of wood and dragged her to your cave? Did you measure her hips to make sure she could "breed well"?
Oh look! Right wing white dude continues to stereotype women as being conniving and manipulative. How utterly strange and unusual!
You believe in freedom, just so long as minorities, women and LGBT do not share the same freedoms you have. You believe in protecting the status quo. That much has been obvious in your posts. That is why your brand of 'left' does not deserve to win.
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
Without addressing sexism and racism, you will never get economic equality. You will get economic equality for white people, but the people who continue to face discrimination will continue to be affected negatively by the economy that discriminates against them.
Understand what I mean by this?
I'll give you an example. Say a white guy calls up a realtor about renting an apartment. They listen to his voice, jot down his name and show him an apartment in the area he wants to live in and then he puts down a deposit and they rent it to him. This is pretty standard fare. Normally he will compete with others for the apartment, but they will check with previous realtors, look at his references, where he is working, how much he earns, check his ID.. Normal things when renting. There are apartments available and they try to tailor to his needs by showing him apartments in the area he wants to live in. He's moving up in the world from an area that is less wealthy, but he has a good rental record and now has a good job. He is a good tenant.
Now say at the same time, a black guy calls up the same realtor and asks about renting an apartment in the same area. And the realtor says no, there are none available, even though she is showing the white guy a series of apartments that are available. The black guy is in the same situation as the white guy. He got a better paying job and is trying to move out of the poor area he lives in. He has a good rental record, good references. But the realtor automatically just says no, that there are none available because he sounds African American on the phone and his name sounds African American.
Economically, the white guy is now living in a better area, which will help him get an even better job later on down the track and rise above poverty, because a better job means he can live in a better area and so on and so forth.
Economically, the black guy is forced to continue to live in the poorer area, which will not help him get an even better job dow the track and it will not help him rise above poverty, and will instead remain in the same place and somewhat stagnant.
Another example.. White family drop in to an agent or rental property seeking to rent it or another in the area. The agent shows them and tells them of the number of properties they have available to rent. A minority family drop in to the same agent at the same time and they will be told there are less properties available and are more likely to be shown properties that are in worse condition than the white family would be shown. If you want to know more about housing discrimination, then read the section on incidences of discrimination in this report: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/Publications/pdf/HUD-514_HDS2012.pdf
This is the reality of economic inequality, birch. If you fail to address discrimination when fighting for economic equality, then you will never achieve economic equality for all.
And when people like EF and now you put the very ideas behind fighting this type of discrimination as a "just" this or that kind of argument, as though you believe that somehow addressing discrimination means that you cannot or are not willing to address economic inequality for all, it literally means, as iceaura aptly described earlier in the thread, that you cannot chew gum and walk at the same time. At no time has anyone argued that the only thing to deal with is discrimination against minorities, women and LGBT. On the contrary. We have consistently argued that it all needs to be addressed to ensure economic equality for all. That this is not a "just" this or that game, but something that also needs to be addressed along with economic inequality.
Failure to do so will literally mean that women, minorities and LGBT continue to experience economic inequality because of their sex, their ethnicity and their sexuality and that economic equality will not be for all. One of the big areas that this is demonstrated in is in housing in the US. This is the reality of economic inequality that is affected by racial or sexual discrimination.
True economic equality can only be had when all types of discrimination is dealt with. Ignoring one and not the other just means that the unfair system continues. So when you argue that you should all be fighting against economic inequality and that racial discrimination or sexual discrimination should not be "just" the thing looked at, in reality you are literally ignoring the economic inequality of more than half of the population. Discrimination is intrinsically tied to economic inequality for the majority. Failure to also deal with that means that you will not achieve economic equality. Sure, white males will be better off, but minorities, women and LGBT members of society will continue as they are right now - ie, no economic equality for them because the entrenched discrimination that kept them down to begin with, is still in place and ongoing.