This is the natural outcome of far leftist identity politics, nothing to see here.
White Women Need Not Apply
121–129 of 129 posts
Re: White Women Need Not Apply
#122I thought everyone was supposed to read Nathanial Hawthorne’s “Scarlet Letter” in high school. Maybe it should return to being required reading.
I wrote this hours ago and I want to remark that it seems that story isn't relevant to the facts of the situation gone on here and I shouldn't have invoked it. It's too late to edit my original post, which is fine, because I can still recant in a secondary post.
The story that this article is referencing may not be about marking those we dislike with an emblem meant to separate them; but, something more complicated and with many details I don't know; so, I want to roll back this particular comment.
Re: White Women Need Not Apply
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't this kinda feed into the larger statement of the message about how a larger apology is required by the collective when someone stays allied to the current deplorable person for longer? From what I read, I still don't know what happened (I don't care, either); but, the discussion on Twitter is so devoid of details that nothing can be learned or obtained from it, except that the person now cancelled seems to co…
The article in this case seems to be a very bad source for the actual details and is much more concerned with painting a macro picture of woe. Reading the actual twitter thread and email exchange[1] plus this pretty helpful Westervelt thread, here's what I gather: 0. Roost has a history of having some racial blind spots in their field 1. Roost emails Sojwal to submit something that wasn't really what Sojwal was looki…
Thanks for your perspective. It really does take a lot of effort to research and understand the context of these kind of events and I really wish everyone would make the same effort before jumping to their own conclusions.
Re: White Women Need Not Apply
#124I don't really feel like this article explores the situation fully. Why are there no quotes from either Roost or Sojwal or their respective supporters? For an article that talks about the concept of keeping an open mind to the other side of a story I feel like we really only hear one side. Maybe one needs to be actively following everything that happens on Twitter in order to get the necessary context before reading…
If you look at the previous pieces of the author, it becomes clear that this is not about the people involved here but the larger narrative the author wants to write about, with is cancel culture. You can see this with another piece, asking basically if the Amy Barrett case went too far. https://arcdigital.media/karens-all-the-way-down-cd530b0c0a0... This is more or less in line with HN's general "slippery slope" sen…
Wow thanks for this reply and the other reply that you linked. I think it just goes to prove how valuable it is to do your own research before passing judgement but sadly this takes a lot of time and effort that many people (including me) don't have.
Re: White Women Need Not Apply
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you imagine _any_ of the comments here HN affixed to that Twitter thread? You could seriously jeopardize your career. What I wonder is how people can live in such wildly divergent realities? I suppose social media (which includes both Twitter and HN) plays a primary role.
Have a different online identity that's not associated with yourself?
Maybe it's because of the way Twitter is designed. On Twitter, the root of a discussion thread is a post made by a particular user on their feed. If I want to talk about another person's post, I don't need to reply on their thread - I can just create my own. Maybe this leads to an explicit bifurcation in conversation and similarly in perspectives and point of view.
For example, if I disagree with something that Donald Trump said, I won't simply reply to his tweet where everyone including his supporters can see it, I will reply to in on my timeline. Similarly, my followers won't follow Donald Trump to hear what I have to say about him, they will only follow me directly.
Given the root of discussion is always a person rather than an idea it forces people to judge in advance the content they read based on who said it. Perhaps if Twitter didn't allow retweets and separate comment threads, this kind of division in commentary wouldn't happen so much.
PS - I hardly use Twitter at all, the above is just speculation.
Re: White Women Need Not Apply
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please get some context on why she was "cancelled". https://twitter.com/amywestervelt/status/1316923479011303424
After reading those four email screenshots, my conclusions are: 1. Roost should probably do a better job in the future figuring out who she's trying to send her work to. 2. Sojwal's reaction was way out of proportion to any slight or offense, real or otherwise. 3. Roost's further reaction was foolish and condescending; taking Sojwal to task for her response was never going to be well received. 4. Sojwal's further esc…
I read through the whole thing and came to the same conclusions. Your comment summarises the situation well.
Re: White Women Need Not Apply
#127A few thoughts here: 1. Who are all of these people? I've never heard of them. Is this a storm in a teacup, or is the implication of the article that this incident is a taste of what's to come? 2. The story seems almost too conveniently negative towards Sojwal. As someone who's well on the opposite side of radical intersectionality and radical feminism, this article feels written for people like me who will get outra…
Is this a storm in a teacup?" It's a storm within the academic liberal arts community. See [1]. That community has big problems. Once they ran education. Now they're not very influential. Many small liberal arts colleges are going out of business.[1] This sort of thing is a cry for attention. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-08/colleges-...
That would be nice, but seems they're plenty influential as their beliefs and value systems keep spilling out out of universities into the corporate world. This dangerous position that it's OK or even virtuous to be racist towards white people keeps popping up in places it shouldn't, and they keep getting what they want. Yes, we can simply treat the entire academic liberal arts as fundamentally toxic and poisoned by this kind of racial hatred, but that won't stop it spreading short of shutting down their funding completely. Even then they'd just get hired by places culturally allied to them.
This sort of story has happened many times before, it's just an unusually clear example. Senti Sojwal could easily be prosecuted for this, as there are laws against racism and she openly admits that she is discriminating against white women, but of course she won't be. The only serious way to put a lid on this would be for Trump to win and then to start systematically prosecuting academics and companies who ban white people from things, under racism laws. Once a bunch of them have lost a lot of money or worse, the actual legal definition of racism might start being respected again.
Re: White Women Need Not Apply
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my understanding, intersectional feminism believes this: Not all women experience the world the same, or have the same struggles. You can subdivide people's struggles further. For example, women and men experience the world differently. Black people and white people experience the world differently with what sort of things they can take for granted and things that other people will assume about them. And it goes…
It's almost as if we're all individuals, generalizations be damned.
If only!
Re: White Women Need Not Apply
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, intersectionality doesn't go that far. First, not every difference counts as oppression. What does, that depends on... what the woke people agree on today (which may differ from what they agreed on yesterday or tomorrow). Race, gender, sexual orientation = yes. Being left-handed, or being poor = no. Being a demisexual, or otherkin = depends on whom you ask; probably yes in college, but no anywhere else. Disabil…
> Being left-handed, or being poor = no That's not true. Intersectionality takes those things into account, it's just that in US law those traits are not illegal to use discriminately. They should be, but they're not protected classes. > Disability = generally yes, but not autism, because reasons. That's also not true, being neurotypical is acknowledged as a factor that makes your life easier. Since autism is include…
I was trying to describe intersectionalism, not the US law.
I have never seen anyone targeted by an online mob just because they said something bad about left-handed people. I am not aware of people being extra careful lest they accidentally offend someone left-handed. Maybe that's just my bubble.
Among the woke people, discussions of poverty are always framed in context of some discriminated group. Like, you can talk about the poverty of women, or poverty of black people. But you don't talk about poverty of poor people in general. Poverty is considered a bad thing that happens to oppressed people, but it is not a thing that makes one oppressed. No one cares about a homeless cishet white male... unless you say he probably has some mental problem, in which case it becomes an example of ableist oppression.
This is the reason why hardcore Marxists (such as Zizek) complain when people say that social justice warriors are Marxists. Marxism is about class conflict. Intersectionalism is about all kinds of conflicts... except for the class conflict! Intersectionalism is about having more female CEOs, more gay CEOs, more transsexual CEOs. Marxism is about eliminating the CEOs. To put it bluntly, intersectionalism is about things that can also happen to rich kids.
The problem with autism is that people on autistic spectrum are often quite bad at social skills... such as political correctness (think: James Damore). Which makes them unpopular among the woke people.