https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR...AAAAAQAQ&hl=en
The juicy stuff starts at around 42 mins. Worth the trip.
Printable View
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR...AAAAAQAQ&hl=en
The juicy stuff starts at around 42 mins. Worth the trip.
^ Which one of the videos is it?
The first one, 516.
When a pesticide is approved for use, how many other plants and animals are tested for effects?
Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
You're hoping there's an expert on pesticide testing on FTR? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I'd be happy to hear I'm wrong. Either way, I'd think that the number is significantly lower than all of them. How do they know it's not gonna kill a few extra species? Shouldn't that be kinda relevant info though?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Depends what it's being used for I imagine. If you're spraying a wheat field you might not be too bothered about what else dies as long as it's not the wheat (assuming your priority is to maximize the yield).Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I'm guessing they also have some fairly sophisticated understanding of biology, like how we understand there are certain chemicals that are bad for all animals (e.g., cynaide, strychnine, antifreeze), and other things that are bad for some animals but not all of them (e.g., chocolate and dogs, penicillin and bacteria). So maybe pesticide X is bad for knapweed but not for wheat? Dunno.
There's also the dosage, where if you give the same amount of a pesticide to a tree vs. a weed the latter is small enough for it to be fatal but the tree can shrug it off.
There was the tail end of a big scandal about DDT when I was a kid because it harmed nearly everything but the crop it was being used to protect, plant and animal, so it obviously wasn't properly tested before they brought it out. But that was like 50 years ago so I assume testing standards are higher now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
If any of you guys are looking for a broken hair dryer, let me know and I'll hook you up!
From my local community forum:
Quote:
Hair dryers. My hair dryer stopped working and when I reached for my old one - though it's working it's making an unhealthy noise so I don't think it's safe to use and I'm going to buy a new one.
Is anyone interested to take these off my hands?
Posted in General To 16 neighbourhoods
There's a part of me that always hesitates whenever I throw away an otherwise broken device that still has a working motor.
Things sometimes break, but the motor is fine, and it feels so wrong to throw away a perfectly good motor.
Maybe, but I think it'd have to be something with a bit more value for me to think it's worth salvaging, not a motor from a £30 hair dryer.
Either that or I'd already have to own something to install the working motor into that didn't require major modifications. Which pretty much means another hair dryer of the same make and model.
"Guys, let's not lose sight of what's important, here. The way a dog wags its tail so hard that it can't keep both hind legs on the floor when it greets you coming home from work every day. That's what's important."
-some rando in a discord comment that kinda made my day
More dogs, less people.
When you're REALLY late for your flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=758Y...ature=youtu.be
People trying to be toxic on Twitter, and getting more and more pissed that you're not letting it bother you, is hilarious.
This one started off as a pretty civil debate, then turned into an argument, then they went full retard and just kept repeating the same arguments over and over and acting like I must be an idiot not to agree with them. Here's the end of it.
Random Angry Person on Twitter: You're wrong and an idiot and you suck!
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/...20140704100101
Me: Ok, well I gotta go now. Bye.
RAPT: Sure, just leave when you're losing the argument, idiot!!
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/...20140704100101
Me: Ok then. Adios.
RAPT: Why do you get to decide when the discussion is over?
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/...20140704100101
Me: What part of "goodbye" don't you understand?
RAPT: You can stop talking but you won't silence me! Not until I finish telling you why you're wrong!
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/...20140704100101
Me:
RAPT: [blocks me]
Damn, now I won't be able to talk to them anymore! Checkmate, I guess.
Blocking someone is basically an admission that you've lost the argument. I think I have one person blocked on Twitter, and I didn't even engage with him, I just read something so horribly offensive (rape) and was about to reply, but thought it's probably just best if his tweets didn't appear on my timeline.
When someone blocks me, I consider that a win.
Fucking hilarious.
https://scontent-lhr8-1.xx.fbcdn.net...cb&oe=5F9BD194
In case this joke needs an explanation...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSuHrTfcikU
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It was another one of these "everything and everyone is racist" people, but even worse because it was a white woman SJW with a side order of Karen that came out when I got tired of shooting down her arguments and tried to end the convo.
Long story short, she had claimed someone's research was racist, I calmly explained why it had nothing to do with race and that she probably shouldn't make such serious accusations with no evidence, and why was she out trying to find racism in places it's not when there's plenty of actual racism to fight against. She kept arguing it was racist and then threw in the old standby that "you must be racist 'cause you're sticking up for a racist."
Looked at her past tweets and one of them was something about never voting for a white man again. I quoted it and told her that was both racist and sexist, as well as stupid, and that's when she lost it.
Haha I adore the hypocrisy of these people. They don't even realise it.
I feel a bit sorry for people like her tbh. I think her heart is in the right place, and she's trying to do the right thing. She just lacks the powers of reasoning to do it properly, and ends up doing the cause more harm than good. That's why I was trying to be patient with her at first.
I took the kid gloves off when she started calling me a racist though. That's when I went looking through her tweets 'cause I assumed she'd have something idiotic like that 'never voting for a white man' thing in them.
I can imagine her thought process goes something like this:
1. POC aren't being treated fairly. This pisses me off.
2. I want to help POC.
3. The best way to do this is to find racism and call it out.
4. Another way is to not support white politicians.
I'm totally on board with 1-3. The thing with 3 is though it doesn't help if you just go around accusing everyone who is white of being a racist on flimsy/no evidence. All that does is alienate people.
And 4 is just retarded. It's like saying a white person can't possibly NOT be racist, and a POC can't possibly be racist. What?
If she just changed 4 to say "I think POC are often better able to understand problems with racism, so I'll consider that when I cast my vote" that would be reasonable. But basically she's saying that given a choice between a moral whte person and a despicable POC, she'd vote for the latter only because they're a POC. Well, that's fucking racist!
It seems to me you're beginning to learn why the BLM movement is counterproductive. I appreciate a large number of their followers are people like you, those on board with 1-3. But far too many vocal idiots hurt the cause by assuming white people are all racist and black people cannot be racist. This doesn't just alienate people, it makes good people feel the cause is flawed. And it is. The leadership of BLM are encouraging this kind of mentality. They promote the siege mentality, they promote the "us vs them" identity politics that goes with it. And that's why these vocal idiots feel empowered, they think they're on the right side of history, and when you're arguing with someone who thinks they are morally superior, you're not going to have a reasonable, well thought out discussion, instead it's going to be a shit slinging contest.
BLM use white guilt as a weapon. White guilt is racism. If you say to someone "you are white so therefore you should feel bad about the state of the world" you have identified someone's skin colour and made a judgement based on that identity. Unfortunately there's no solution. This is the world we live in now.
Yeah, I think they mainly get tripped up on 3, which leads them on to increasingly levels of irrationality in where they go after that (4, 5, 6 etc.).
First, their interpretation of 3 allows a very wide net to be cast, including things that are either grey areas or just clearly not racist by any reasonable definition.
Second, where something is either not racist or ambiguous they behave as if it's both racist and a major problem that needs addressing right now, as if identifying and solving this smaller "problem" would somehow solve all the bigger problems.
At one point I said to her that doing this is like seeing your neighbour's house on fire and offering to go and weed their garden - it's not helping. She didn't get it.
The truth is the bigger problems need to be tackled and solved. This will make it clear the smaller problems are really pretty insignificant in the big scheme of things, assuming their even real problems at all. Proper activists get this, a lot of the SJWs don't.
I cannot imagine MLK Jr. going around on twitter picking the fights she does, for example. He'd actually be focussing on the things that matter, like he did in real life.
There are a lot of definitions of racism, and people tend to pick the one that makes them feel good and ignore the nuance in the way other people understand the concept.
One definition of racism holds that simply being mistreated as a result of your race is just normal human behavior and not an -ism. However, if you're being mistreated as a result of your race, AND those mistreating you are in a position of power over you (for any reason), then it's racism. The position of power matters because if the person in power is mistreated, they have avenues of recourse. Whereas the person without power has no recourse. This definition holds that it's not racism if 2 people with equal power over each other hate each other on the basis of race. Both have equal standing, and no one is being exploited beyond their ability to respond in kind.
I'm not saying it's the best definition of racism, but it's one of them. Understanding what someone means, specifically, when they talk about racism is important to understanding them, and their perspective.
Personally, I think it's not enough to just want to not be racist yourself. You need to commit to antiracism work, too. You can't deny that there's rampant racism around the world, and to accept that and do nothing is not good adulting, IMO.
One problem is that the Karen's of the white world think that posting tripe on facebook is antiracism work, and it's not. Another problem is the whole white saviorism angle that tends to come up. White people want to "save" black people as if the black people would need saving if not for the white people's racism, or as if they couldn't save themselves if they tried. That's just veiled racism.
A good step for white people who want to be real about antiracism work would be to find the community organizations already lead by people of color, and see if you want to join and support that group.
Racism is well defined. It's discrimination or hatred based on race, or it is a belief that one's own race is superior to that of another. Being in a position of power is irrelevant. If that were true you're basically saying it's impossible for me to be racist, because I have no power, certainly no more than a black person in the UK. Of course, that's silly. Of course I can be racist. Racism comes from the heart, it's how you feel about other cultures, not something that society imposes on you based on status.
There's lots of terrible things happening around the world. In some places, homosexuals are persecuted. That's exactly as terrible as persecuting someone because of their race. Unfortunately, it's part of what humans are. No individual is capable of changing human nature, it can only happen over time, the only process that can change human nature is evolution. It's easy to forget we are just animals.Quote:
Personally, I think it's not enough to just want to not be racist yourself. You need to commit to antiracism work, too. You can't deny that there's rampant racism around the world, and to accept that and do nothing is not good adulting, IMO.
All any one individual can really do is try to be the best person they can be. Most of us fail. I certainly do. I could be a better person. Why can't I make the changes in my life that would make me a better person? I don't know the answer to that question. But while I'm not the best person I can be, I'm still, on balance, a good person. I have no violent tendencies whatsoever, I am not a criminal, I do not go out of my way to make other people feel bad. I'm mostly happy with who I am. I feel like that's the only true power I have... the power to be who I want to be.
Some people are in positions of influence. These people do have greater responsibility, and it's these people who are failing the human race. Not me, not you, not anyone in this thread, and not anyone you're going to meet at the pub.
I think this is part of the problem. Why an organisation led by people of colour? Right there, you are continuing to use race as an identity. It shouldn't matter what colour someone's skin is, the only thing that matters is their message.Quote:
A good step for white people who want to be real about antiracism work would be to find the community organizations already lead by people of color, and see if you want to join and support that group.
Not really much of a rah-rah activist. I prefer to have pointless arguments on twitter myself. ;)
But seriously, I try to be sensitive to racial issues without losing my shit and going overboard the way some SJWs do. If something is clearly racist I call it out. But I'm not losing sleep over whether I'm the most fair person that ever lived 'cause I think I'm pretty damn fair and that's good enough for me.
Our dept. recently had interviews for a teaching assistant. One of the applicants was black, and also happened to be the best candidate. I pointed out we didn't have a single black person in our department as an argument for hiring her, and whether that worked or not, she got hired. But really I just thought she was the best person for the job and I didn't want her not to get it because she was black (not that I think that would happen, our dept. is pretty decent).
I don't hold any illusions that what I said was manipulative and itself somewhat racist (I was using race to make an argument that really should have nothing to do with race), but my motives were the correct ones I think. I wanted her to be hired 'cause she was the best person for the job regardless of her colour.
I'm also pretty certain that if I posted that little confession on twitter I'd trigger some random SJW who would find some reason to "call me out" for it.
Also agree the power structure is irrelevant. It just makes it easier for some people to get away with being racist than others.
The biggest problem with it imo is that it's leaderless. If Obama or whoever could take it and focus it in the right direction, it'd be a lot more effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The reason it's leaderless is because black leaders have historically been targeted and vilified if not criminalized over fabricated BS.
The founders of BLM have stated as much, and have stated why the pure democracy of a leaderless organization has a different kind of power.
I know that's 'your' definition of racism, ong, but it's not 'the' definition of racism. A word means what the person saying means when they say it.
Effective communication requires us to hear the person speaking as best we can to their intended meaning. If you know what they mean, but you can't get over their choice of words, then you're just being a jerk throwing a tantrum.
No, it's not racist to say that people of color know better what their communities need than other people who are not members of those communities. Don't be silly.
I don't define words. I'm not in the habit of making up my own definition of words, I tend to use the wonderful resources at my disposal to ensure I'm using the right word. I mean, if I can define my own words, then racism to me means "enjoys a nice cup of tea".Quote:
I know that's 'your' definition of racism, ong, but it's not 'the' definition of racism. A word means what the person saying means when they say it.
I'm not saying it's racist, I'm saying using race as an identity is compounding the problem, not solving it.Quote:
No, it's not racist to say that people of color know better what their communities need than other people who are not members of those communities. Don't be silly.
The facts on the ground are that while it shouldn't matter, it damn well does matter. It's a decades long conspiracy that's been admitted to by just about every bad actor along the way. The simple statistics tell the tale. Look at how black men are having their right to vote systematically stripped away from them by over criminalizing black cultural equivalents to white culture and charging black men with felonies a disproportionate amount, resulting in their loss of the right to vote. Look at the prisons. Who's in there? Predominantly black men who've committed non-violent crimes. This is no accident. It's been constructed to be this way incrementally for decades, and it's been admitted to. It's a conspiracy, but it's not a "wild" conspiracy "theory." It's one of those real ones that's actually worth getting riled up about.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's a part of white privilege to say things should be perfect, so it's OK to just ignore that they're not perfect for other people. People who are the objects of the negative consequences of racism don't have the privilege to just shrug it off because it 'should' be fine.
Kyle Kulinski had an interesting theory about Trump refusing to denounce white supremacists and instead telling Proud Boys to "stand by," which is that many republicans don't like it because while they are racist, they don't want to be perceived as racist. They are comfortable with all the dog whistling in the world, but the moment you take it out in the open, they're like: whoa, you're not supposed to say that out loud!
Since he said that some post debate polls have shown Trump up compared to before the debate, so that might be true for Washington republicans but not necessarily for the bulk of Trump's base.
Every word ever is a made up word that someone made up to mean something.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The meaning of words changes over time as usage changes. Living languages and all that.
C'mon, man.
https://xkcd.com/1576/
Yup, and I'm saying this is part of the problem.Quote:
The facts on the ground are that while it shouldn't matter, it damn well does matter.
And with the "white privilege" once more. Can I identify as a fucking human being and not a white man please?Quote:
It's a part of white privilege to say things should be perfect, so it's OK to just ignore that they're not perfect for other people. People who are the objects of the negative consequences of racism don't have the privilege to just shrug it off because it 'should' be fine.
Angry sausage purple into thingy twenty seventeen moon Saturn?Quote:
Every word ever is a made up word that someone made up to mean something.
Indeed, "gay" used to mean "happy". But not all words change. Racism used to mean hatred or intolerance of other races, and still does.Quote:
The meaning of words changes over time as usage changes. Living languages and all that.
So who speaks for them then? They seem to have no voice. That's what I think they need.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Fun fact - all races are subject to racism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
But language only works because we have a shared understanding of what words mean.
If 100 people read "the fox is red" and 99 think it means what it really means, and one says "racist!" that one person has a problem, not the other 99.
Granted, "racist" has come to have a broader meaning than it's dictionary definition; it's become a shorthand not only for any form of bigotry, but also for anything that a SJW can link to it through three degrees of separation. But that's a problem if you're trying to fight against real racism, and not just virtue signal on social media.
Duh.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Exactly. Diluting the meaning of words like "racism" to cast a wider net is not solving a problem, it's exasperating it.Quote:
Granted, "racist" has come to have a broader meaning than it's dictionary definition; it's become a shorthand not only for any form of bigotry, but also for anything that a SJW can link to it through three degrees of separation. But that's a problem if you're trying to fight against real racism, and not just virtue signal on social media.
I feel like poop is finally waking up to the problem of the misuse of the word "racism", and it's taken idiots accusing him of racism on Twitter to get there.
Sure you can. The same moment POC can.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Great, so I no longer have white privilege, because I'm not white, I'm human. That was easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If only 27 hours of Brexiters getting set straight on national radio had the same enlightening effect on everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Yup, and now POC are no longer disadvantaged too. Oh wait...Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Serious question: Would you rather have the benefits of being white or be a POC who involuntarily contributes to those benefits to their own detriment?
Are you seriously whining about having an advantage due to your skin colour?
Not sure why you still care about "Brexiters". You're talking about voters here, not the negotiators. What possible outcome do you expect from constantly complaining about voters? It's not like we can change our mind, even if we wanted to, which we don't, because to most of us, no deal is still better than being a member state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'd rather continue to not give a fuck about my skin colour or that of another person.Quote:
Serious question: Would you rather have the benefits of being white or be a POC who involuntarily contributes to those benefits to their own detriment?
"White privilege" is another way of saying "white guilt". I resent having identity imposed on me by others.Quote:
Are you seriously whining about having an advantage due to your skin colour?
I've heard of 'white guilt' but I've never heard of POC demanding it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Just a comment on stubbornness and cognitive dissonance, that's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
"I had a dream. A dream that white people would still be cunts to us, but at least they'd feel bad about it."Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
MLK - never.
In fairness, it's usually twat white people who demand it. For example, oskar, when he points to British colonialism in an attempt to slap me down when talking about immigration, as though I don't have the right to complain about immigration because I am white British. I guess that's more "British guilt" than "white guilt" but it's the same bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Everything is about identity. Even those trying to do good work to improve the lives of other people, they fall into this trap.
I have two identities... me, and human. I am both unique, and one seven billionth of a species.
How do you think POC feel about having their identity imposed on them by others?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Like you just did and have been constantly doing by using the term "POC"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I think there is a thing where a lot of anti-immigration belief is historically associated with racism and bigotry.
On another, unrelated to you personally, note: I learned recently that UK education equates colonialism with the great British people bringing great things to those they colonised. Kipling's "The white man's burden" and all that. The truth is colonialism was nearly entirely exploitative.
Do you think it's a problem that colonialism is whitewashed in schools that way? That to me seems like the kind of systemic racism that could easily be removed.
Edit: Boris got the phrase "watermelon smiles" as a reference to black people from a textbook he read at Eton. Fact.
So I'm the problem by recognising racism is a thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Sorry but your level of reasoning is sinking to SJW levels. I get the feeling you're about to "block" me here.
I don't think there's many people in the UK that think colonialism was purely a good thing. I think it's fair to say there were positive and negative consequences. But it's history. We're taught bullshit when it comes to WWII. Every nation in the country whitewashes their history to remove the stuff that makes them look bad. The UK is not alone in doing this. It's not a well known fact in the UK that the Soviets paid the highest human price in WWII, people assume we won the war. In USA, they'll say it was them who won the war. But it was USSR that did the most to defeat Hitler.Quote:
Do you think it's a problem that colonialism is whitewashed in schools that way? That to me seems like the kind of systemic racism that could easily be removed.
haha I don't block anyone for disagreeing with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The point is though, you are imposing an identity on people, and speaking on their behalf. Your question was "how do POC feel about having identity imposed on them", completely oblivious to the fact you literally imposed an identity on them. I'm obviously going to point that out.
I mean really man, you seem more upset by people misusing the word "racism" than you do about actual racism. It just seems a strange, and honestly a bit self-centred, way of prioritising things.
Not sure where you're trying to go with this, except possibly to distract attention from anything serious, so I'm not going to pursue it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Simply put, it was positive for us and negative for them, yes. We got rich off their backs. We gave them Christianity in return. And yes, we built some railroads to help us get rich off their backs, and yes, when we left they got to keep the railroads. Not really expert on this topic, but I dare say they were better off before we came along and worse during and after.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Edit: What you say here is kind of like saying Native Americans are better off now than they were when they roamed free on the plains chasing buffalo because now they have mobile phones. The point is, whenever they were asked, they said "Leave us alone, let us live the life we've had for thousands of years, we're happy the way we are." And they were promised they could and then those promises were broken. It's pretty hard to see that as in any way ok.
The difference though is that at least in WWII we were unquestionably on the right side of things overall. We reacted to events in a generally moral way. We declared war on Germany after they attacked Poland, sticking up for a minor country's independence, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's one thing to glorify that; it's actually something to be proud of. It's quite another thing to teach our children that we were doing India a favour by colonising those poor stupid POC.
Yes, but only due to your white privilege. A person of color can't just choose to be a human and have that be an end to their being the object of racism. Ergo, it is a white privilege to identify as you suggest.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I can draw from context that you had no intent other than to appear random, and so I probably understood what you were intending to communicate to me and I don't need to throw a tantrum that you didn't say it in the way I expected to hear it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I seriously don't understand your angle on this one. Listening means trying to understand someone.
Just listen; you don't have to agree to listen.
I know when you say "pants" you mean "underwear." I'm quite certain that if I said something about "underwear," you'd know I was talking about "pants."
We don't need to insist that one of us translate pants to underwear or vise versa just to communicate.
It's like you're looking for any excuse to not understand this issue. So much so that you can't get past semantics.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You'd probably see it differently if there was someone in this discussion actually saying racist things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It comes back to my point that I believe racial identity is a huge part of the problem. It's ingrained in us all, even myself. I try not to do it, but it's inevitable when talking about race.Quote:
Not sure where you're trying to go with this, except possibly to distract attention from anything serious, so I'm not going to pursue it.
It's not that simple. We didn't just give them Christianity, we also gave them industry.Quote:
Simply put, it was positive for us and negative for them, yes.
I doubt this is true in all cases, and it will depend on who you're asking. I mean, one Indian might say British colonialism was the worst thing that happened to India, another might say it was the best. Personally, I'm not qualified to say either way. But it's history. I don't hold a grudge against Iceland or Norway because of the Vikings.Quote:
Not really expert on this topic, but I dare say they were better off before we came along and worse during and after.
Yeah, but it's subjective, and it's not necessarily something I agree with. I'd rather a simple life, but that doesn't mean it's best for humanity. In 100 years, maybe this process we're going through will be seen as essential to create the kind of civilisation that will exist then, with great medical care, science, art, all the things that separate us from the monkeys.Quote:
Edit: What you say here is kind of like saying Native Americans are better off now than they were when they roamed free on the plains chasing buffalo because now they have mobile phones.
If you'd rather be a monkey than a human, that's fine, but you can't impose that will on everyone. Not everyone sees it that way.
Were we though? How can you be sure this isn't just indoctrination? I mean, where did all the Nazi scientists end up? How can you know that what we're taught is the truth? You appreciate we teach bullshit when it comes to colonialism, but you assume we're the good guys in WWII because we weren't gassing Jews. Well we knew it was happening, and we waiting until they threatened the rest of Europe before acting. At least, that's my understanding of how it panned out. Perhaps that's me being indoctrinated, too. We believe what we're taught.Quote:
The difference though is that at least in WWII we were unquestionably on the right side of things overall.
Which is something you have the privilege to do because you are not a person of color.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
A person of color can't just not give a fuck that they are held to a different standard as though that makes the standards change.
Your choice to feel guilt has nothing to do with white privilege.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
White privilege affects all white people as being members of a society that treats us normally while it does not treat people of color like it treats us. It doesn't mean we have advantages by and large, except that it means we lack a shit ton of disadvantages, and oops that's actually a huge advantage when you think about it.
Also - "white guilt" is something that racist people have, so if you're feeling guilty for things done by white people, then it's because you identify as a white person. Your guilt is neither appropriate nor helpful. Snap out of it and realize that there are active systems of oppression that need to be taken down, and you and I on the street level aren't part of the problem unless we ignore it and pretend it'll go away.
It's not going away, it's only growing in more subtle and insidious ways. They never openly took away black men's right to vote, rather, they criminalized black people with negative imagery on the news. Then they passed laws to put harsher punishments on the clearly criminal elements of black culture - no not black people, just these clearly criminal elements, mind. Then here we are with a generation of black men in prisons having committed non-violent crimes and with their right to vote stripped from them.
THIS is what happens when good people think being "color blind" is all that it takes to end racism. Being "color blind" is just another white privilege, and that doesn't mean you should feel guilty, it means you should open your eyes to what's going on and try to understand why people of color do not have the luxury to ignore racism, and the suggestion that they should is both callous and cruel.
Nonsense. You just proved it by continuing to identify me as white, which means to you, I am not merely a human. So I can't identify as I choose. People like you won't let me. Some privilege.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
This isn't about using different words to describe the same thing. Racism means the same to us both. At least, it should.Quote:
I know when you say "pants" you mean "underwear." I'm quite certain that if I said something about "underwear," you'd know I was talking about "pants."
My problem is that I simply refuse to dilute the meaning of the word "racism". It's far too powerful a word, and should be used with extreme caution.Quote:
It's like you're looking for any excuse to not understand this issue. So much so that you can't get past semantics.
Said much better than I did, but yeah exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
So you're saying black people have no choice but to identify as black? How do you not see a problem with this mentality?Quote:
Which is something you have the privilege to do because you are not a person of color.
It's a flawed argument. I can choose to identify as I choose, but others still impose an identity on me that I did not choose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
How can I have white privilege if I do not identify as white?
If that 1 person insists their interpretation is valid, and then goes on to behave like an adult and explain their interpretation, then the 99 have the choice to also behave like adults and listen, or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If the 1 is behaving like a child and simply saying they're right and not explaining anything, then I guess the adult thing would be to just walk away, 'cause I don't have time for people who don't have time for themselves.
A lot of b.s. to work with in that post, but I agree with this endnote of humility and suggest we all try to question what we think we know and try to learn more independently.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You don't have to change what the words means to you in order to listen to someone use the word in a way that means something differently than you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
This argument still makes no sense to me. Your mind and your beliefs do not need to change in order to listen to someone with different beliefs. You do not have to agree to listen, as indicated by this conversation we're having.
I'm saying that society is going to treat a person of color differently than it treats me, and it doesn't matter in the slightest how we internally identify ourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm saying it's a huge problem. I'm saying the assertion that it shouldn't be a problem is true, but does not accurately describe the world we live in. We can dicker and argue all day about what the world should be, but at the end of the day, we have to work with the world we live in.
Because society identifies you as white whether you like it or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Because others identify you as white. You're not the one doleing out the privelege, you're the one benefitting from it. You have no say in the matter, just like POC have no say in how others identify and treat them.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Dunno. I get what you're saying about listening and trying to understand others, but at the same the social contract of language requires reciprocity. If the other person has an idiosyncratic definition of a particular word, I have a hard time thinking it's on me to learn that definition and agree to it when conversing with them. I think they need to be aware they're using language differently than most people, and be clear they're doing so. This is a lot to ask maybe, but it's more to ask that I and others read ther mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
E.g., I suppose I could try to garner that someone is using the "Karen" definition of racism, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it, of that it leads to the same conclusions as a more (imo) reasonable definition).
So I don't have the privilege to identify as I please, any more than anyone else.Quote:
Because society identifies you as white whether you like it or not.
If you were a person of color, and you pretend that you will not be the target of oppression based on your race, and you do not dress and act accordingly in public spaces, then you have a higher risk of oppression.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Your choice to not identify as white bears no increased risk of anything.
That's the privilege.
My point was more general than about today's discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
To quote a wise man "you're not this dumb."Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The word 'privelege' refers to how society as a whole treats you, in the balance, due to your skin colour. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Now, if you want to argue that there's no advantage to the average person in (say) the UK if their skin is a pinkish hue and their features are European than if their skin is darker and their face is not European, then please go ahead.
Why do you suppose this could be? Haven't we talked about this extensively? The average white person in this country is a great deal more socially settled than the average non-white. I'm a bad example of "privilege" because I'm not exactly "advantaged". I came from a poor family and have remained poor my entire life. But I also understand I am a great deal wealthier than poor people in most other countries, and for that I do consider myself fortunate. I can at least afford to eat, pay rent, and even smoke weed for half the month. But there are a great many non-white people in the UK better off than me, and better off than lots of people living in mainly white estates around the country. There are lots and lots of disadvantaged white people in the UK. And I know you said "average". Well, when we import tons of migrants from third world countries, that will affect the average. Those who've been settled here for generations, they enjoy a greater average advantage than those who have not. The opportunities exist for all, we do not live in a country where opportunity is reserved for people of a certain colour. Rather, class is a greater obstacle than race. And, of course, language. Those who speak English well will obviously do better than those who do not. This isn't a conspiracy, it's inevitable in a wealthy nation that accepts migrants from all parts of the world.Quote:
Now, if you want to argue that there's no advantage to the average person in (say) the UK if their skin is a pinkish hue and their features are European than if their skin is darker and their face is not European, then please go ahead.
You're doing what you criticise people on Twitter for... looking for racism where it doesn't exist. The UK is extremely progressive when it comes to race. And that is why people from all over the world want to come here, to the point of risking their lives.
Oppression is not something that happens in the UK, not in any systematic way. Racism happens, but oppression is not something one person does to another. Oppression is something that people in power do to those who have no power. There is no higher risk of oppression here. This is not an oppressive country. Maybe in USA it's different, and that would go a long way to explain why we're so far apart on this matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
If I were a dress, I am at higher risk of discrimination. Does that mean putting a dress on removes my privilege?
Half the problem here is that you talk about yourself and your own life as if that is in any way representative of whites in the UK as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Ong n = 1 does not in any meaningful way reflect White British n = 55,000,000 or 60m or whatever the number is.
Half the problem here is that you think Karen is the average Brit.
I mean, I was quite clear that I wasn't just talking about myself. I don't know what else you could think I mean when I talk about "lots and lots of people in mainly white estates". I'm not talking about just me.
Ong you're confusing how your personal circumstances affect you vs how your race affects you. If you were yourself in every other way but your skin was black, would you be worse or better off?
In the UK? Probably better off. I didn't get the job I applied for (and actually wanted) at Oxfam, I reckon I'd have had better chance if I had different skin, because, y'know, quotas.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
lol. Show us the numbers to prove that please.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm talking to you mate. You are in no way the "average Brit".Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I mean as opposed to telling us what you've gleaned from what it's like for you personally as n=1 white person in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
This is pretty dumb, by the way. I was clearly being tongue in cheek, and you ask for "numbers" to "prove" something that is obviously unprovable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I don't think I'd be any better or worse off if I were black, assuming all else equal, and that's because, with all else being equal, my ancestors have lived here for centuries and established a social base for me. Maybe I'd have been picked on at school a bit more.
When I was at school, there were lots of Asians, and one German lad. Guess who got bullied?
I can even remember his name. Christopher Hassle. We called him Cristophe or Germ. He fucking hated both those names.
We still let him play football and cricket with us. I remember him getting out for 99 in one game, he was so pissed off. He was always angry. Not sure if it was because he was German, or because we picked on him. A bit of both, I suspect.
Oh man, Little England is alive and well.
Because bullying only happens in Little England.
I miss Little Britain. Is there a comedy sketch with Matt Lucas playing Boris? If not how has that not happened?
Little Britain was the least funny comedy of a generation. It was like the Fast Show, except it wasn't even funny the first time.
Am I dreaming or is there a running trend of you getting fairly defensive whenever anything criticizing Britain is mentioned?
Naturally.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKhOFKCOH5M
One more from back in March.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfrThV6DJu4
Heh that's pretty good. Uncanny similarities.
lol what? How is me slagging off Little Britain being "defensive"? And I think you're taking me a bit seriously when we talk about weather and cuisine.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill