My life of rainbows and sunshine (the fallacy)
- Thread starter cookyy2k
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I was born to a relatively poor family in a predominantly non white neighborhood. I got the shit kicked out of me as a kid multiple times because someone would start a fight with me and then it was "gang up on the white kid." I wasn't able to pull even one college scholarship out of a consistent 3.0-3.5 gpa, 2 years of cross country and track and field, and a year of cross enrollment in highschool and community college. I got my job on the internet before my employers even knew what my race was. I've never felt even remotely privileged because of my race or gender.
The problem with what is commonly referred to as "progressivism" is it operates on the pretense that as a white male you get an advantage, so it tries to give the other races and gender the same "easy time" that you allegedly get. I'm not saying that these advantages don't exist somewhere, because they most definitely do, but as a white male, what am I supposed to do, intentionally seek them out? Try to buddy up with racists so I can get the inherent "white male entitlement" that modern day progressivism is trying to compensate for? If it's operating on the pretense that I'm the "bad guy" who's inherently put higher up and it's trying to make things equal on that assumption, then my choices are either to be the bad guy and be equal or to not be and not be. I mean when it comes down to it it's more an issue with reality being shit than it is with progressivism, since it's impossible to have a perfect system, but still, it's more of a case by case thing, and in my specific case I'm not seeing any inherent benefits. More tv characters look like me, whoop-de-do I would've rather had the scholarship.
As for being strait, that's undeniably a social advantage. Gays are discriminated against. Openly in most cases, legally in some as well. That one's pretty unanimous...
The problem with what is commonly referred to as "progressivism" is it operates on the pretense that as a white male you get an advantage, so it tries to give the other races and gender the same "easy time" that you allegedly get. I'm not saying that these advantages don't exist somewhere, because they most definitely do, but as a white male, what am I supposed to do, intentionally seek them out? Try to buddy up with racists so I can get the inherent "white male entitlement" that modern day progressivism is trying to compensate for? If it's operating on the pretense that I'm the "bad guy" who's inherently put higher up and it's trying to make things equal on that assumption, then my choices are either to be the bad guy and be equal or to not be and not be. I mean when it comes down to it it's more an issue with reality being shit than it is with progressivism, since it's impossible to have a perfect system, but still, it's more of a case by case thing, and in my specific case I'm not seeing any inherent benefits. More tv characters look like me, whoop-de-do I would've rather had the scholarship.
As for being strait, that's undeniably a social advantage. Gays are discriminated against. Openly in most cases, legally in some as well. That one's pretty unanimous...
Yes it does, because the world does not revolve around Europe. What might be true for Europe isn't necessarily true for the rest of the world. It's quite Eurocentric to think that just because Europeans think one way, the entire world must follow because its the only "right" way.Nikolaz72 said:
Tell me again about the time when American and Russia went to war, oh wait.... that didn't happen.Nikolaz72 said:
First off, Russia is part of Europe. Second, I'll grant you that Japan did that in WWII, but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule(see:China's return to power and how they are trying to reassure their neighbors that China isn't a threat to anybody). As for Africa, again when did ALL of the African nations go to war with each other like Europe did? I can't recall such a event taking place, seeing as how they had to deal with European Imperialism. And finally, Australia...a former European penal colony. Are you trying to tell me that they went on some nationalistic war with the rest of Asia[footnote]Tbh I don't know where to classify Australia, because I have heard arguments in-favor of saying its part of Asia and I have heard arguments against it being called part of Asia.[/footnote]?Nikolaz72 said:
I didn't say that war only happens in Europe, I said that the strongest modern cases of nationalistic massive war has been in Europe.Nikolaz72 said:
I'm not saying that Nationalism hasn't cause problems in other parts of the world, just that it seems that Europe is very black and white on the subject. Either they are very nationalistic(look at Europe prior to WWI) or that they are completely against it(modern day Europe). The only time I really see anybody being nationalistic is when a football match is involved, and those seem to be quite violent.Nikolaz72 said:
Come to think of it, it seems that the economic crisis is causing a rise in nationalism in some parts of Europe, and I can't say that things are looking good(see:Golden Dawn party).
No it isn't. Europe's struggle with nationalism isn't reflective of the rest of the world. South Korea is pretty nationalistic and despite having land fired upon by artillery and despite having there navy fired upon, they haven't gone to war with North Korea. So as I said before, its quite Eurocentric to have the attitude that only the European view of Nationalism is the "right" view.Nikolaz72 said:
I didn't say that its a biological design that results in European nationalism causing massive war, but its the culture/atmosphere/environment/ect. that seems to be the cause. I mean, seeing as how a great number of Americans are ethnic Europeans, it would behoove me to claim that ethnic-Europeans are just naturally a war mongering people.Nikolaz72 said:
I've listened to what the Europeans have to say about the subject, but then I look at places like South Korea and I also realize that some of the problems that Europe has are not reflective of the rest of the world.Nikolaz72 said:
White 20something male here. I found this to be a good article on the subject.
http://kasamaproject.org/race-liberation/3946-78white-privilege-unpacking-the-invisible-knapsack
Basically, white people are (for the most part) never in the minority. Even if they are in the minority in an area, in the news and the movies and all of pop culture, they are not in the minority. While it doesn't mean clear sailing and easy living (I've yet to walk into a bank and get a free money card from my fellow white folk), it does provide a number of small advantages to most white people.
http://kasamaproject.org/race-liberation/3946-78white-privilege-unpacking-the-invisible-knapsack
Basically, white people are (for the most part) never in the minority. Even if they are in the minority in an area, in the news and the movies and all of pop culture, they are not in the minority. While it doesn't mean clear sailing and easy living (I've yet to walk into a bank and get a free money card from my fellow white folk), it does provide a number of small advantages to most white people.
And then it was a typical flame war.
I have a VERY difficult time taking all the sides who complain about how many inequalities they've faced. White, Black, Asian, Women, Man, Straight, Gay, Transgender these things do not in itself control how difficult of a life you may have. You can throw means and medians and statistics at me forever, I still think it's all bullshit.
Perhaps, ON AVERAGE, women are faced with more challenges than me, perhaps Blacks are the same way, sure, great, we need to fix that bullshit. But when people start saying that "You don't understand because you're a man" rhetoric, I no longer take them seriously.
They're trying to apply their group statistics to an individual, when, on an individual basis, people's privileges in life GREATLY VARY.
I have a rich friend that happens to be Black. We live in Connecticut, the most liberal state ever, he's rich, had a supportive family, is very attractive, intelligent and simply doesn't have many troubles in life. He himself even admits it.
I however, grew up in a white-trash, broken, poor, and unsupported family. I'm still poor, I'm not very attractive, I'm struggling though schooling and jobs, I have several mental disorders (chief among them depression) and it is through EXTREME effort I manage to keep myself from becoming fat and dying of diabetes at 40 like the rest of my family.
I do not hate him, and he does not feel guilty. Because it's not either of our faults that we were born into what we are. He's not a whiny prick, complaining about whatever incredibly minor difficulties he may have had in life because of the color of his skin, just as I do not complain to him about how he has had it better than me.
Inequalities exist, and always will. Yes, we need to stamp some of the more serious ones out. But, when you all attack random, anonymous people personally, saying that they need to "check their privilege", they get offended and start these fucking pissing contests. You do not know their personal situation. You do not know the lives they've led. You're making a personal attack and put-down, essentially saying that all the bullshit they've had to put up with in their lives, all the difficult things they've overcome, all that is nothing compared to the "IMMENSE DIFFICULTIES I'VE HAD TO FACE BECAUSE I'M A WOMAN/AFRICAN/MUSLIM/CYBORG". And then we, "privileged cis white" folk die a little. BECAUSE YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE.
I have a VERY difficult time taking all the sides who complain about how many inequalities they've faced. White, Black, Asian, Women, Man, Straight, Gay, Transgender these things do not in itself control how difficult of a life you may have. You can throw means and medians and statistics at me forever, I still think it's all bullshit.
Perhaps, ON AVERAGE, women are faced with more challenges than me, perhaps Blacks are the same way, sure, great, we need to fix that bullshit. But when people start saying that "You don't understand because you're a man" rhetoric, I no longer take them seriously.
They're trying to apply their group statistics to an individual, when, on an individual basis, people's privileges in life GREATLY VARY.
I have a rich friend that happens to be Black. We live in Connecticut, the most liberal state ever, he's rich, had a supportive family, is very attractive, intelligent and simply doesn't have many troubles in life. He himself even admits it.
I however, grew up in a white-trash, broken, poor, and unsupported family. I'm still poor, I'm not very attractive, I'm struggling though schooling and jobs, I have several mental disorders (chief among them depression) and it is through EXTREME effort I manage to keep myself from becoming fat and dying of diabetes at 40 like the rest of my family.
I do not hate him, and he does not feel guilty. Because it's not either of our faults that we were born into what we are. He's not a whiny prick, complaining about whatever incredibly minor difficulties he may have had in life because of the color of his skin, just as I do not complain to him about how he has had it better than me.
Inequalities exist, and always will. Yes, we need to stamp some of the more serious ones out. But, when you all attack random, anonymous people personally, saying that they need to "check their privilege", they get offended and start these fucking pissing contests. You do not know their personal situation. You do not know the lives they've led. You're making a personal attack and put-down, essentially saying that all the bullshit they've had to put up with in their lives, all the difficult things they've overcome, all that is nothing compared to the "IMMENSE DIFFICULTIES I'VE HAD TO FACE BECAUSE I'M A WOMAN/AFRICAN/MUSLIM/CYBORG". And then we, "privileged cis white" folk die a little. BECAUSE YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE.
Obviously you have little knowledge of what you are speaking of, it sounds a lot like that North Korea documentary. What was it? Oh right, 'oh there is no birds left, except for the places they are left, they will be eaten on Tuesday'Helmholtz Watson said:
It's generally nonsensical. Nationalism is a world-wide problem, it's 'not' only apparent during Football matches http://www.economist.com/node/21560882 if that was the case, it wouldn't be a problem. Besides, Football Matches are more than nationalism, really it goes deeper than that and into a group mentality smaller than that of a country, football goers rarely 'really' think "Oh its England VS Spain" they think "It's Lancaster VS Barcelona" At least the proper fans. Clubs representing the countries are not always the best, nor the ones whom win.
You addressed that it was a problem other places, but that it was only valid because there'd been a World War in Europe. But that kind of disregards the fact that there was another Ultra-Nationalist country, youknow. Japan.
Of course the war between the Empire of Japan and China never amounted to anything big, only a few twentymillion dead, small stuff. Not to talk about the fact that this exact war has mostly created what we know as Chineese Nationalism, which might cause some big problems in the future.
South Korea is a bad example, mostly because they have at several times wanted to act like Israel going gung-hoh on a nearby nation almost universally hated, but just as with Iran there have been quite a few countries 'not' wanting to start a war. Youknow, because South Korea wouldn't be the only country going to war, every western nation would be forced into the conflict.
Golden Dawn in Greece is also a poor example, the massive wave of support came in large to lack of alternative, it is once again falling and is most probably gonna balance around the same as the rest of its kind.
"Nationalism has been closely associated with the most destructive wars of human history; the revisionist states responsible for initiating both the First and the Second World Wars have historically been examined as the epitome of the dangers of nationalism. However, it must be noted that whilst there is a great deal of academic literature surrounding nationalism as a social and political phenomenon, there is little concerning the causal link between nationalism and war, scholars often taking the ?war-causing character of nationalism for granted?[1]. A nationalist group can be defined as a set of individuals holding their most important loyalty to their ethnic or national group, with this superseding other loyalties (such as political ideology, religious ideology, etc)"
As we can see, the only place this would really be a problem would be America, luckily most of the people there are in too bad shape and too lazy to start shooting at some other nation, this is why most wars we see caused by Nationalism today is in Africa, Middle East or in some cases Asia. Only people in bad enough shape and lazy enough to do something about their hatred for other cultures.
It's quite simple. While Religion has without doubt contribtued to every single war on Earth, where Nationalism has not. What sets them apart is that Religion is the main reason for war very rarely, whereas Nationalism has been the reason for some of the most devastating war we have 'ever' faced. It's not something you want to make light of, and seeing the main spokespeople of nationalism (The Extreme Right, Ultra-Religious, Conservatives) It doesn't encourage much trust in the modern movements.
As a final word, and to rebute some of the things you were bound to say if you were to respond.
Globalism (NATO, UN, EU) are not just a contributing factor, but I'd say the MAIN reason that Nationalism will not get as much of a hold anywhere as it used to. The fact that as countries we have to communicate and trade, that alone. Is pretty much enough to strengthen bonds over time to prevent what is required by Nationalism to spark wars.
Darken12 said:
Allow me to refresh your memory then, you sugguest that society should be changed overall as a way to stop prejudice in the next generation of people, to which I remarked that such an idea might not work outside of the US and that as such, the issues of the US are not reflective on the entire world. As a way to demonstrate my comment about the US not reflecting the entire world, I gave the example of the relationship between South Korea and Japan and the feelings the two countries have about WWII related topics. I said that instead of going along with your idea and just forcing South Koreans to change their society(as you had suggested as a way to combat prejudice), that the two groups have their own way of solving this issue(like having the emperor of Japan apologies for what happened in WWII).Darken12 said:
Now it seems that despite having the internet at your fingertips, where you can look up what I having been saying about Japan and South Korea, you seem to just want to dismiss the whole subject because it doesn't conform to your idea that society "must" be forced to change in order to combat prejudice and that it goes against your pessimistic comment that, "So when does it end? When do we say "all right, enough atrocities and bad blood, the issue has been settled"? I'll tell you when: never, not with that attitude".
No, my comment is based on the demonstrable fact that the Emperor of Japan is willing to go along with South Korea's demand that he apologies for WWII, while your comment about transsexual rights has yet to demonstrate how all of society would benefit from transsexuals being given more rights.Darken12 said:
Colour-Scientist said:
Once again, I am not talking about whether the IRA or Ulster Loyaist were "right" in their view on the subject of North Ireland being part of Ireland or not. I am asking you, did either the Provisional IRA/"Official"IRA or UVF/UDA care if the people they targeted were White males? Again, I'm not asking you whether either side was "right", I'm asking you whether they would avoid trying to kill their targets because their target was a/several White male(s).Colour-Scientist said:
I'm not saying that they were oppressed because they were White or male, I'm simply saying that the fact of being a white male(regardless of what the English thought) didn't exempt them from being oppressed.Colour-Scientist said:
No, it holds up just fine because it demonstrates perfectly what I have been saying the entire time, which is that what may be a problem in the United States(White Privilege) is not reflective of the entire world. The people who say that White privilege is global are not saying that White privilege is a recent thing, they are saying that it is something that has been going on for a very long time. As such, it is more than reasonable for me to point out how such notions of global/long-term prevalence of White Privilege is complete nonsense by bringing up the conflicts between the Irish, North-Irish, and the English.Colour-Scientist said:
Nikolaz72 said:
What are you talking about? What sounds like a "North Korea[n] documentary"? Seriously...you're making no sense.Nikolaz72 said:
What? Who said that nationalism wasn't global? I said that it was only in Europe that I see so strongly the idea that nationalism is always bad because it can only result in violence. I specifically pointed out that despite this claim(which seems prevalent in West Europe), South Korea is demonstrable proof that you can be nationalistic and not necessarily violent because of it. Because if that was the case, South Korea would have gone to war with North Korea already because the North Koreans have fired artillery shells on South Korean land and they have sunk a South Korean military ship.Nikolaz72 said:
As the idea that nationalism deeply rooted in football matches, I'm going to just ignore your no-true-scottsman comment("At least proper fans")and just show you a reoccurring theme that I see English fans use when there is a match between them and Germany. Take [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Hosf86OLxM] a look [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/world/europe/01iht-journal.1869452.html?_r=0] for yourself [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukqo_3f-sB4], though this kind of attitude is hardly exclusive [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HAe-tpB8hA] to English fans.
You are aware that I already brought up Japan, yes?Nikolaz72 said:
Yep, great example since I totally didn't say that Japan isn't the exception to the rule and its not as if earlier in history, Japan was forced out of isolation by the West and then heavily influenced by them. Yep, glad those are not things, because it might look kind of silly for you to bring up Japan as a counter example after I already commented on Japan.Nikolaz72 said:
That comparison doesn't work because Iran hasn't openly attacked Israel like North Korea has towards South Korea(see:artillery shells fired on South Korean land).Nikolaz72 said:
That is a presumption on your part.Nikolaz72 said:
Care to tell me why I should care about this quote or who said this?Nikolaz72 said:
I really hope that you are just being ironic and are not serious about this delusional idea of the US.Nikolaz72 said:
No it hasn't [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warring_States_Period]Nikolaz72 said:
I don't know why you even brought up religion, but getting back on hand, you give them too much credit. The Uyoku dantai can shout all they want, but it doesn't seem to have any effect on important people like emperor Akihito and how the emperor views Yasakuni Shrine(fyi, the emperor opposes the class-A war criminals having their name on the shrine).Nikolaz72 said:
I never said that. You will never hear me say that anyone or anything MUST be forced to do anything. I do not force my views upon others.Helmholtz Watson said:
"My opinions are facts" = automatic disengage in conversation.Helmholtz Watson said:
Have a good day, sir.
But they aren't identical.Vegosiux said:
One of them has a family which could probably still live fairly well, where the other probably wouldn't do so well.
Seems like an easy choice for me.
That wasn't part of the scenario.Vegosiux said:
Which also is not at all relevant in a privilege discussion.
What scenario now? The one about two individuals dealing with exactly identical situations? For one, that'd kind of imply the family situation is the same too.Hafrael said:
For two, yes, it is relevant. Going "eh, privilege" without examining the actual facts of the situation, that's kind of lazy.
The scenario of a doctor choosing who to save.Vegosiux said:
A better scenario, where privilege is a factor, is a employer choosing who to hire. In this example the person who remains jobless would still be acted upon by social forces, and has another chance to be hired.
You say that, yet your earlier comments on contradict this because you seemed dead set on people changing their society so that there is less prejudice in future generations and "rising above" the hatred that they might have for other groups of people because according to you "otherwise it will never end".Darken12 said:
My opinion? You think that its my opinion that former president Lee Myung-Bak demanded that the Japanese emperor apologize for Japans past crimes [http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/08/15/national/japanese-emperor-must-apologize-for-colonial-rule-s-korean-president/] or that its my opinion that Japanese emperor Akihito has agreed to apologies for the crimes of Japan during WWII [http://japandailypress.com/emperor-akihito-wishes-to-visit-south-korea-will-apologize-if-necessary-2112902]?Darken12 said:
Get serious, everything I said about this issue is backed up by credible sources.
That's hoping, not forcing. I have a right to hope/want.Helmholtz Watson said:
And that's doomsaying. I have a right to do that, too. It's still not forcing.Helmholtz Watson said:
No, I think that every conclusion you derive from those facts is, in fact, your opinion. Facts, in and of themselves, do not lend themselves to any form of prescriptive conclusion. Facts are descriptive, not prescriptive. Your prescriptive statements are entirely your opinion.Helmholtz Watson said:
I am seriously starting to grow quite weary of your attitude.Helmholtz Watson said:
.Darken12 said:It's not your fault, you didn't choose to be part of the problem, nobody does. Nobody wakes up and says "I'm gonna be super-duper racist today!!!!"
I wake up and think that every day. But is it still racism it I don't think of myself as superior and just do it because I feed of the sadness of others?