Political Correctness

As an addendum, [MENTION=266]Hawk[/MENTION], I'd think you of all people would be comfortable with my arguing the merits of something, without explicitly arguing for something, since this seems exactly the distinction you've taken great pains to mark out for Julio when it comes to your discussion of potentially-benevolent strains and frames of fascism.
 
jpx7 said:
It's not even my approach, so you yourself have already read too far when you say "that it's not that hard to decipher that (I) believe one voice deserves 'special' consideration over the other". But I don't think it's an approach without its merits, and I do understand and have some sympathy for its angle—and those two issues are what I set out to emphasize (which is distinct from outright advocacy).

I also understand and sympathize with white men who suddenly feel marginalized by this sort of trend—but much stronger than any understanding and sympathy here is my conviction that that sort of complaining at best is likely to be met with little more than a shrug from non-white, non-male individuals who've been dealing with that sort of marginalization much longer and more intensely; and at worst it represents a pretty acute confluence of historical amnesia, solipsism, and a blindness (purposeful or not) to the ways in which being white and being male still does confer advantages on its holders.

I think there's a strong argument to be made that a "playing field [...] turfed in natural equality" is a nice moral ideal, but practically theoretical until structural inequality is dismantled and discarded. Man is a naturally political animal; we do not exist outside these structures in any politically practical way.
Click to expand...

Okay, well, if it's not your own ideological approach it's certainly the approach you have personally aided within the confines of this thread. I don't think I've read into things very deeply at all in contending that - but, honestly, I've only read your posts on the matter which include the search query "woefully". Whether or not you actually subscribe to that particular system of beliefs is wholly immaterial to me (although it might not be to Julio, who likely would have already pejoratively labeled you a reparationist or something like that).

I think there's a strong argument to be made that a "playing field [...] turfed in natural equality" is a nice moral ideal, but practically theoretical until structural inequality is dismantled and discarded. Man is a naturally political animal; we do not exist outside these structures in any politically practical way.
Click to expand...

I guess what I don't get here is that you propose (or, within the very strict context guidelines required to comment in this thread: emphasize) "dismantling and discarding" structural inequality ... by imposing another variety of structural inequality (or, at least, imposing it until a state of pseudo-eqality is reached). So ... equality through inequality? Don't get me wrong, I don't believe there is any one right answer or approach to this particular issue, but I generally gravitate more toward addressing the social psychologies of inequality than I do to the so-called 'structural' (governmental) aspects of it. Realizing, of course, that the two often intersect.
 
jpx7 said:
As an addendum, [MENTION=266]Hawk[/MENTION], I'd think you of all people would be comfortable with my arguing the merits of something, without explicitly arguing for something, since this seems exactly the distinction you've taken great pains to mark out for Julio when it comes to your discussion of potentially-benevolent strains and frames of fascism.
Click to expand...

I am completely comfortable with it - where have I lead you to believe I feel otherwise?

This forum is perfect for playing devil's advocate. It's pretty boring if you don't try on a couple of different hats.
 
Hawk said:
Okay, well, if it's not your own ideological approach it's certainly the approach you have personally aided within the confines of this thread. I don't think I've read into things very deeply at all in contending that - but, honestly, I've only read your posts on the matter which include the search query "woefully". Whether or not you actually subscribe to that particular system of beliefs is wholly immaterial to me (although it might not be to Julio, who likely would have already pejoratively labeled you a reparationist or something like that).

I guess what I don't get here is that you propose (or, within the very strict context guidelines required to comment in this thread: emphasize) "dismantling and discarding" structural inequality ... by imposing another variety of structural inequality (or, at least, imposing it until a state of pseudo-eqality is reached). So ... equality through inequality? Don't get me wrong, I don't believe there is any one right answer or approach to this particular issue, but I generally gravitate more toward addressing the social psychologies of inequality than I do to the so-called 'structural' (governmental) aspects of it. Realizing, of course, that the two often intersect.
Click to expand...

By "structural" I mean a lot more than "governmental"—though government is both one such structure, and one possible method of remedying failures of other structures—and instead refer broadly to the complex web of social institutions that govern our lives. It's the sense of the term meant by the hip-lingo of structural violence, and within that context Rob Nixon (in Slow Violence) provides a good example—"the unequal morbidity that results from a commodified health care system"—of how non-racial forms can sometimes come to be expressed, for historical reasons, through racialized refractions.

So I agree there's a dearth of silver-bullet approaches to combating inequalities situated as such in these identity categories, like race and gender and sexuality. That's why I generally gravitate towards looking at redress through the lens of economic inequalities, which I think both form the buttress of these identity-centered inequalities and (as I mentioned to you in another thread) present the most significant hurdle in overcoming them. The "imposing another variety of structural inequality (or, at least, imposing it until a state of pseudo-eqality is reached)" seems to me the neoliberal-incrementalist approach.
 
jpx7 said:
white men who suddenly feel marginalized by this sort of trend
Click to expand...

Decided to bring a visual aid to class:

[video=youtube;DT5bZGwXV2A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT5bZGwXV2A[/video]
 
Jaw said:
Yeah, that was someone either being blatantly stupid, or being blatantly racist in a really stupid way. I can't fault the guy for calling them out on it.

[TW]922840667277135872[/TW]
Click to expand...

Agreed, though I have to admit, I literally laughed out loud when I saw this. I don’t know how stuff like this sneaks through anymore.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...-twitter-over-sexist-tweet-to-katy-perry.html

Comedian and daytime talk show host Ellen DeGeneres is receiving some backlash from fans after a joke about Katy Perry was taken as sexist.

The star courted outrage on Wednesday after dedicating a tweet to the “Roar” singer on her birthday.

“Happy birthday, @KatyPerry! It’s time to bring out the big balloons!” the star wrote over an image of her gawking, mouth agape, at Perry’s breasts.

[tw]923230978419474434[/tw]

[tw]923321728012574720[/tw]
 
sturg33 said:
Do you agree or disagree with that tweet?
Click to expand...

First of all, it's not a tweet, it's a link to an article. Did you read the linked article? As usual, the editor who titled the article went with the most exaggerated, provocative rendering of the actual content.

Second, I do not agree with the takeaway of the headline: "that white people are never discriminated against", on any individual level. It's not only far too generalizing, it runs against my own lived experience. So let's release another strawman from your pugilist clutches and be clear: It is possible for individual white people to face discrimination, of one form or another, in certain situations.

Third, however, I do agree with the actual claim the article makes: that white people, as a broad class or group, are not currently being subjected to a regime of discrimination at a national or cultural level. Even where there is discrimination, in the barest sense of the word—"the marking out of categories"—it is not discrimination against, and certainly not in the sense that word has when it applies to marginalized groups (for instance: Jim Crow).
 
Jaw said:
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...-twitter-over-sexist-tweet-to-katy-perry.html

Comedian and daytime talk show host Ellen DeGeneres is receiving some backlash from fans after a joke about Katy Perry was taken as sexist.

The star courted outrage on Wednesday after dedicating a tweet to the “Roar” singer on her birthday.

“Happy birthday, @KatyPerry! It’s time to bring out the big balloons!” the star wrote over an image of her gawking, mouth agape, at Perry’s breasts.
Click to expand...

Piers Morgan is an idiot, but I am fully comfortable marking this out as an example of over-policing. I don't find Ellen an especially funny comedian, either, but she's clearly referencing a song of Katy Perry's, and quoting her own lyrics:

So let me get you in your birthday suit
It's time to bring out the big balloons
Click to expand...

However, from what I've just quickly read about the "outrage" stemming from this tweet, it seems to be mostly from mouth-agape double-standard-police snowflakes such as Piers Morgan, who are more incensed that they feel they "couldn't get away" with such a tweet, than from any righteous wokers outraged on feminist grounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top