Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's literally not, by definition. You cannot be racist to white people. They are the oppressors. Words mean things.
I hope you're being sarcastic.
[deleted]
White Women Need Not Apply
91–100 of 129 posts
Re: White Women Need Not Apply
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the fascinating aspects of the Trump phenomenon to me is how a globalist billionaire celebrity who started his career with a million dollar loan from his father managed to convince a demographic that hates globalists, billionaires and celebrities that he was the scrappy underdog and hero of the common man running against someone with a fraction of his net worth, a better pedigree of political advocacy and who…
who started his career with a million dollar loan from his father I've never understood why people keep repeating this line as if it's derogatory. I know a fair number of first and second generation immigrant business owners, and they have almost all started their businesses with help from their families. This has been very common in America for the last couple of hundred years. Probably longer. Why is this now consi…
No, it is not very common in America to have parents wealthy enough to loan a million dollars to their kid on a whim - most people take out loans from banks or work to pay for new businesses, rather than being born into it and then marrying it. It indicates a degree of privilege the vast majority of Trump's working class base can never hope to have access to.
I mean, Mitt Romney was ridiculed for being rich and upper class and even he was less rich than Donald Trump.
Re: White Women Need Not Apply
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
>it feels like such an overinflated digital age argument. It is and if it just stayed on twitter it would be a nothing burger ... but somebody's real life career, good name, and business was destroyed. It wasn't the first time this happened in the past 5 years (but especially in the past year) From the article: "Roost’s podcast network dropped her show; her producer publicly denounced her character (“We stand against…
I swear it's a modern day Shibboleth[0]. I mean, just look at the picture in that article of the pogrom. Villagers displaying pictures/support for Jesus during pogram == internet denizens (and companies) showing that they denounce racism. Or to use another biblical analogy, I suspect a lot of times when a company publically denounces racism, what they are really doing is painting lamb's blood above their doorway in t…
A more apt, and more modern, analogy is the struggle session (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session).
Re: White Women Need Not Apply
#94I feel like I'm so burnt out from reading about conflict. I can't even comment on who is right or wrong...it feels like such an overinflated digital age argument.
>it feels like such an overinflated digital age argument. It is and if it just stayed on twitter it would be a nothing burger ... but somebody's real life career, good name, and business was destroyed. It wasn't the first time this happened in the past 5 years (but especially in the past year) From the article: "Roost’s podcast network dropped her show; her producer publicly denounced her character (“We stand against…
>Isn't it ... terrible that her producer performed this public shaming ritual where they denounced their former coworker and friend and labeled them a racist? Imagine seeing your friends, family and coworkers publicly denounce you because either they themselves are afraid to stand up to the mob, or maybe because they have something to gain. There have been people who were ostracized because they wouldn't sufficiently (and publicly) denounced their family or if they attempted to defend their children (!!).
This is no less than a 2020 version of the Communist world's struggle session (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session).
Re: White Women Need Not Apply
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a vile and racist belief.
It's literally not, by definition. You cannot be racist to white people. They are the oppressors. Words mean things.
You cannot be racist to white people
You keep writing that as if under the impression that you write it enough times it will magically become true.
Re: White Women Need Not Apply
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's literally not, by definition. You cannot be racist to white people. They are the oppressors. Words mean things.
You cannot be racist to white people You keep writing that as if under the impression that you write it enough times it will magically become true.
[deleted]
Re: White Women Need Not Apply
#97Well, I'm not. This is nothing but a load of racist and intersectionalist tripe uttered by a brainwashed zealot who starts her twitter bio with a preferred pronoun. It represents a lot of what went wrong between the 90's and now. The solution to these problems might just be to a) totally ignore these self-proclaimed representatives of 'oppressed' groups and b) do exactly those things which they don't want you to do.…
intersectionalist This is a new word for me. I Googled a bit, but didn't find anything helpful to fit it into the context of your comment. Can you explain it a bit?
Let me try. You know the concept of oppression, like "men oppress women" or "whites oppress blacks". You can talk about each of those separately. But what happens when you notice that everyone has both a gender and a race? Should e.g. a white woman be supported as a victim, or rather attacked as an oppressor?
So you get intersectionalism, the updated philosophy of "Oppression 2.0", which says that there are multiple axes of oppression (such as gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.), and instead of dividing the world into 2 groups, you need to divide it into a matrix of 2^N groups. And the idea is that multi-oppressed people have more than the sum of oppression... for example, black women face all the oppression that white women face, plus all the oppression that black men face, plus some extra oppression unique for them.
It is still black-and-white thinking along each axis of oppression. Like, it would be a heresy to suggest that women have some disadvantages, but men have some disadvantages (albeit less than women) too. No! Women have disadvantages, therefore men have no disadvantages, end of debate. Etc. However, it introduces the extra nuance that e.g. white women may have some disadvantages that black men don't have, and black men have some disadvantages that white women don't have. However, black women trump them all at being oppressed, absolutely (i.e. don't you ever dare to mention that e.g. police kills more black men than black women).
So far the theory. What it means in practice is that now you can dismiss any person by finding someone who is more oppressed. For example, in the old days, if you were in a feminist group, and you were a (white) woman, you were considered a good person, end of debate. That means, white women were at the top of the pecking order. These days, if you are in a feminist group, and you are a white woman, you are considered a good person as long as the group complains about men... but if you try to make an argument about your own oppression, if any black woman decides that you take too much of the spotlight, she can silence you using the intersectional argument. Of course, she can in turn be silenced by a black lesbian woman. Who can in turn be silenced by a... well, it doesn't go on forever like this, because at some moment someone is a too tiny minority, so people will just ignore them. So, maybe the black lesbian woman actually does not have enough political power to silence the black straight woman. Sometimes the black woman doesn't have enough political power to silence the white woman. It depends.
So, whether you are a victim or a villain, depends on who opposes you in the debate. Which is kinda what this story is about. There was a white woman, she tried to play a victim card. After losing against a stronger card, she failed to humbly accept the defeat according to the rules of the game. Therefore she received an exemplary punishment. According to the rules, she is a villain, therefore she deserves all she got. Maybe from our perspective, this is completely disproportionate. But arguably, she made the choice to play this game, so perhaps she deserves it partially.
Re: White Women Need Not Apply
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
> made a mistake in submitting her article unknowingly to a blog that doesn't accept articles from white women I am still pretty aghast that the liberal side thinks that is acceptable without irony.
Because the "doesn't accept articles from white women" is just a clickbait statement -- the group she posted to is "Asian American Writers Workshop". It's not "anti-white" -- its just an Asian targetted group.
Except if you read even the beginning of the article you learn that she was accepting submissions from black people as well. In other words, anti-white, or, at least, white-exclusionary. What everyone used to call “racist”.
Re: White Women Need Not Apply
#99Earlier 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.
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. Disability = generally yes, but not autism, because reasons. It's complicated.
So there are N categories, and 2^N groups. Within each group, people are considered the same. For example, all black straight able-bodied etc women, whether they are millionaires or homeless, are considered to have the same experience.
Re: White Women Need Not Apply
#100Well, I'm not. This is nothing but a load of racist and intersectionalist tripe uttered by a brainwashed zealot who starts her twitter bio with a preferred pronoun. It represents a lot of what went wrong between the 90's and now. The solution to these problems might just be to a) totally ignore these self-proclaimed representatives of 'oppressed' groups and b) do exactly those things which they don't want you to do.…
intersectionalist This is a new word for me. I Googled a bit, but didn't find anything helpful to fit it into the context of your comment. Can you explain it a bit?
Lots of other people have already replied, but I didn't see this explanation yet.
The concept of intersectionality came from a court case, DeGraffenreid v. General Motors, where this black woman was denied employment. She had noticed that the company was hiring very few black women and thought they were being biased against her when they refused to hire her despite her qualifications. The court checked the numbers and they found that GM was hiring a sufficient amount of black men to not be racist, and a sufficient amount of white women to not be sexist. So, despite actually not hiring black women, GM was let off the hook.
If you've studied set theory, you probably know the concept of the intersection of two sets: basically the middle part of a venn diagram. The theory of intersectionality says basically, when people are biased against you in more than one way (in this case through sexism and racism) that the effects compound to create a situation where people like you are underrepresented in terms of opportunities, in a way that affirmative action failed to take into account.