| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
in this particular point, male privilege vs. female, historically advantaged males don't get to choose what words we are forced/limited to use
We already have a word for it. Its called society.
If you want it to be a conversation and not just sit us down to lecture at us about how unfair it is that we're doing all of these things to you, you can start by picking a different, non loaded term that doesn't diminish our accomplishments and dismiss our counterarguments out of hand.
@AS-I appreciate the level-headed response.
The first part of your post I can wholly agree with. Nothing more really needs to be said.
The second part, I still have to disagree. When you use language and terminology that specifically puts people, who you already agree have to be at the table in this conversation, on the defensive and, in your own words, identifies them as "other", it's not going to move us in the right direction.
Terms like cisgender, which I do dislike and has practically become an epithet. There's a place for these terms, just like there's a place for the terms "white devil" "gaijin" or "haole", but it's not in any forum where you're trying to broker compromise and understanding with the people those terms describe.
Furthermore, for the specific term "privilege", I don't think it's as accurate as it could be. As I said, it comes with strong negative connotations. The people who coined the term knew this, know this, and use it on purpose to elicit an emotional response. I think my comparison is apt--the term "entitled" as it is used by the right. The word means things that are owed to you, but the way it's spoken (with a sneer) comes across, and is intended to come across, as "you whiny babies!" Privilege conjures images of babies born with silver spoons in their mouth.
I'd also like to note where I disconnect myself with the radical left. Some of these "privileges", or advantages, are things that can be remedies (perhaps not easily) through legislation. Equal pay laws, the ERA, gay marriage, etc. Great! Where do I sign! But then there are other things that can only be solved over time and a spreading of awareness, and when the radical left (which I'm not accusing you of being part of) grasps for remedies, they come back with nonsense like "let's abolish urinals."
I'll say this. I know that the straight white male privilege concept exists and we do need to work on it. But to start working on it, I'd like to get rid of that loaded term "privilege" because it really does paint people in very broad strokes and will get people that may agree with you on the defensive. Remember, words have the power to offend and illicit emotion from people, both negative and positive. It's not always the intent of the word, but the perception of it. Or else, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I'd prefer to just call it "advantaged" rather than "privileged" personally.
Remember, we are all on the same side here. We all want equality and fairness for all genders, races, and so on. Let's not let a word divide us on an issue we generally agree on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But you have to appreciate that I can be conscious of my privilege...and still not change by behavior which is exactly what I'm doing.
Appreciate? How about it respect? Free speech protects us all. But I (and others) reserve the right to call you on it when your behavior crosses the line.
I reserve the right to still be a jerk to people, to say what's on my mind, to tell tasteless jokes in mixed company, etc. Because, to me, it's more important that there is a freedom of expression and thought in this world than protecting anyone's feelings, even while understanding they have the right to those feelings.
I cannot begrudge you the same freedom enjoyed by many of my favorite comedians, especially when deftly skewering a choice target.
Basically, I'm saying that I recognize the ways in which I'm "privileged" to use your terminology (personally I'd prefer lucky, because luck by its nature is something you can't control, unlike privilege which is loaded in the same way that conservatives use "entitled"), and I recognize the ways in which I've been unlucky, but that on the balance, complaining doesn't help much.
While I recognize privileged can be a divisive term, I'm afraid "lucky" is too weak, too light, too vague to replace it. Lucky is not getting hit by a meteor or falling plane. Lucky completely ignores/erases social, political, economic, and education advantages and mobility, especially when derived from the system.
I am, I think, as left as they come. I am certainly the farthest left of my social group...
...and I think "privilege" is a loaded term that I only use when someone is being a jerk.
Some people have it better than others due to circumstances of birth. This is true. I think this could be discussed without people being mean about it.
If you TRULY can't understand another person's point of view, and how it might feel to be that person, then why are you on a RPG board?
in this particular point, male privilege vs. female, historically advantaged males don't get to choose what words we are forced/limited to useWe already have a word for it. Its called society.
If you want it to be a conversation and not just sit us down to lecture at us about how unfair it is that we're doing all of these things to you, you can start by picking a different, non loaded term that doesn't diminish our accomplishments and dismiss our counterarguments out of hand.
How does an individual or a group move a society when starting out disadvantaged? When society prefers the status quo without regard to justice or equality? Can a MLK alone mobilize the pressure and the activism, and sustain it, without his counterpart Malcolm X? Sometimes you need harsh angry words to wake others up.
I've never said you, or any poster here, got where they were and achieved their successes solely on "systemic societal advantages" (see, muddier than privilege). I've never meant to dismiss your hard work, your setbacks, your own disadvantages (some also due to the "system"/"society"). I'm just saying that if you have privilege, please be aware, be considerate, be empathetic, and maybe even an ally to those without it.
But to start working on it, I'd like to get rid of that loaded term "privilege" because it really does paint people in very broad strokes and will get people that may agree with you on the defensive.
...and I think "privilege" is a loaded term that I only use when someone is being a jerk.
I'm open to replacement suggestions, but I don't get invited to the sekrit cabals, so I can't call for a vote on it. :)
Actually, I like "systemic societal advantages". It's accurate. It can also encapsulate the idea that such advantages can fluctuate depending on the society (microcosm)it's applied to.
Edit: I wish my keyboard would stop ghosting.
How about we stop trying to come up with terms that pigeon hole people.
We don't all fit into neat little descripitve boxes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I like "systemic societal advantages".
I think it's clunky, even if I did suggest it. Also, I am strongly reminded of Carlin's thoughts on the subject. (Some NSFW language)
How about we stop trying to come up with terms that pigeon hole people.
We don't all fit into neat little descripitve boxes.
Yeah, pigeonholing people is bad. But labels and terms are like pronouns and abbreviations and acronyms, and serve a useful and needed function... when used accurately and precisely.
How does an individual or a group move a society when starting out disadvantaged?
Almost every individual or group is disadvantaged somehow. This is why I'm objecting to the term: You're equivocating between disadvantaged in regards to X with disadvantaged vs the entire alphabet.
When society prefers the status quo without regard to justice or equality? Can a MLK alone mobilize the pressure and the activism, and sustain it, without his counterpart Malcolm X? Sometimes you need harsh angry words to wake others up.
The concept is too nebulous. It is one giant timey whimey ball of "Grrrrr! Meeen BAAAAAAD!" Its not doing you any good, and the way the concept is being defended by passively aggressively dismissing the counter arguments doesn't help either.
Give me the specifics, show me the money and I'll listen.
Maybe tomorrow. I've already monopolized this thread enough for today/tonight (and yesterday too), and I'm tired.
|
I think this sums it up my views on privilege.
That said, when you approach the conversation with the assumption that anyone who was privileged = aligned with evil, you immediately force them to that camp, which it just piss poor strategy if your goal is to actually get change rather than just pat yourself on the back for being all disadvantaged...which...you know...not that great a thing to be.
|
It is one giant timey whimey ball of "Grrrrr! Meeen BAAAAAAD!"No mainstream discussion of privilege says "men bad".
When the entire premise is men have it too easy and women have it so hard it is. Instead we could have a non-blame filled conversation about the pros and cons of both genders and the pitfalls of trying to get involved in the other gender's traditional playground. Yes women have issues in the gaming hobby, watch a man try to join a kniting club and watch the sparks fly if he wants them to act more "man friendly". Women criticize what men read but do not see the sexism in the romance stuff they read. BOTH sides have issue but when you set the discussion up as "male oppressor vs innocent perfect women" you do not get a discussion at all.
When the entire premise is men have it too easy and women have it so hard it is. Instead we could have a non-blame filled conversation about the pros and cons of both genders and the pitfalls of trying to get involved in the other gender's traditional playground. Yes women have issues in the gaming hobby, watch a man try to join a kniting club and watch the sparks fly if he wants them to act more "man friendly". Women criticize what men read but do not see the sexism in the romance stuff they read. BOTH sides have issue but when you set the discussion up as "male oppressor vs innocent perfect women" you do not get a discussion at all.It is one giant timey whimey ball of "Grrrrr! Meeen BAAAAAAD!"No mainstream discussion of privilege says "men bad".
Your approval fills me with shame.... :)
What Andrew is talking about is true equality, the same kind that I wish existed.
...but apparently nobody wants that. It's either one or the other to nearly everyone here.
Us versus them, men vs women, oppressor vs opressed. With that kind of mentality, nobody will ever be happy!!
|
|
Icyshadow,
Because Andrew R is saying, as far as I can see, "I want true equality, therefore anything that helps those who have been disadvantaged for generations is bad because it's not equality." He's right, it isn't true equality. True equality is a goal. It also isn't going to happen in my lifetime barring a massive and radical trandformation in society that I can't see happening. Until it happens, Andrew R's view is, for pracittcal purposes, indistinguishable from "There's no problem." Neither one of them actually helps redress inequality. I accept that Andrew R is not saying there's no problem, but his proposed actions so far have all been consistent with "There's no problem" just from a different phisophical angle. It's making the perfect the enemy of the good. Are things like affirmative action crude and unfair? Yes. But given a demonstrated bias against people with non-English sounding names even with identical qualifications, what should we as a society do to address it?
meatrace,
Ok. You don't like being called cisgendered. What should non-trans people be called? If we're calling transgendered people "transgendered", we need to have something to call non-trans people rather than "normal".
Andrew R,
I think BNW is going for humour rather than being genuinely ashamed you agree with him,. However, persoanlly, if you or someone with views similar to your posted views agreed with me, I would reassess my position to make sure I was on firm ground. Had to do that recently when a prominant right-wing politician here and I were on the same side of an issue.
|
|
Icyshadow,
Because Andrew R is saying, as far as I can see, "I want true equality, therefore anything that helps those who have been disadvantaged for generations is bad because it's not equality." He's right, it isn't true equality. True equality is a goal. It also isn't going to happen in my lifetime barring a massive and radical trandformation in society that I can't see happening. Until it happens, Andrew R's view is, for pracittcal purposes, indistinguishable from "There's no problem." Neither one of them actually helps redress inequality. I accept that Andrew R is not saying there's no problem, but his proposed actions so far have all been consistent with "There's no problem" just from a different phisophical angle. It's making the perfect the enemy of the good. Are things like affirmative action crude and unfair? Yes. But given a demonstrated bias against people with non-English sounding names even with identical qualifications, what should we as a society do to address it?meatrace,
Ok. You don't like being called cisgendered. What should non-trans people be called? If we're calling transgendered people "transgendered", we need to have something to call non-trans people rather than "normal".
And affirmative action is a slap in the face to a white immigrant with poor english skills. And gives an unfair advantage to some that need no help but get it.
|
|
I think it is also really condescending.
I was reading the comments about things that needed to be removed from the game to make it "woman friendly" and I was thinking "So that needs to be removed, but the murder, torture, soul stealing, etc is cool, right?"
I game with my wife and other female friends. The game doesn't change when they are playing. Granted, we are all pretty liberal people to start with, and that helps, but the themes are the same. We ran RoTRL with the Kreegs as written.
The ladies didn't get the vapors.
Part of why the hobby is male centered is men are more drawn to violence and aggression. And it is a game where we hit things with swords and then roll dice to see how much we hurt them.
Are some topics uncomfortable? Yes. Should you be aware of your group, as as a whole, before introducing concepts? Yes.
But to say "Hey guys, there is a lady present, lets tone it down" to me is pretty damn sexist.
|
|
And affirmative action is a slap in the face to a white immigrant with poor english skills. And gives an unfair advantage to some that need no help but get it.
At the risk of derail, if you lose your job to someone who was born and educated in the third world, they are likely better than you.
Or at minimum they can do the job cheaper than you, which a free market advocate like yourself should think is awesome, right?
|
|
Andrew R,
I agree AA is crude and unfair. However, so far, no one's come up with anything better to address the fact that even today, there is a bias against those who don't 'conform' to being white male in university and job applications even with otherwise identical CVs. The bias is still real. How do you fix it? Stamping your foot about the, admitted, unfairness of the current solution isn't a solution.
I think it is also really condescending.
I was reading the comments about things that needed to be removed from the game to make it "woman friendly" and I was thinking "So that needs to be removed, but the murder, torture, soul stealing, etc is cool, right?"
I game with my wife and other female friends. The game doesn't change when they are playing. Granted, we are all pretty liberal people to start with, and that helps, but the themes are the same. We ran RoTRL with the Kreegs as written.
The ladies didn't get the vapors.
Part of why the hobby is male centered is men are more drawn to violence and aggression. And it is a game where we hit things with swords and then roll dice to see how much we hurt them.
Are some topics uncomfortable? Yes. Should you be aware of your group, as as a whole, before introducing concepts? Yes.
But to say "Hey guys, there is a lady present, lets tone it down" to me is pretty damn sexist.
If it's a friend who I know has had some horrid experiences (such as being a rape victim), I have a good reason to tone it down. On the other hand, if I know she's totally okay with that stuff (like a fangirl of horror movies) then I run it as intended. Hell, gender should not be equated to that actually, since I myself am disgusted by some stuff (PF Ogres) and I'm a man. I'm no less a man for disliking what you like, though. If you're going to complain that I'm a "squeamish sissy", then you are just as sexist as the other guy as well as being a d***.
|
|
Andrew R,
I agree AA is crude and unfair. However, so far, no one's come up with anything better to address the fact that even today, there is a bias against those who don't 'conform' to being white male in university and job applications even with otherwise identical CVs. The bias is still real. How do you fix it? Stamping your foot about the, admitted, unfairness of the current solution isn't a solution.
So creating more unfairness is? because some group (screw the individual, the group) has it "too easy" they deserve less no matter what the situation they are in and the "disadvantaged group" gets all the help they may not need? it is not right.
|
When the entire premise is men have it too easy and women have it so hard it is.It is one giant timey whimey ball of "Grrrrr! Meeen BAAAAAAD!"No mainstream discussion of privilege says "men bad".
You're either purposely trolling at this point, or being wilfully ignorant of the arguments used.
Yes women have issues in the gaming hobby, watch a man try to join a kniting club and watch the sparks fly if he wants them to act more "man friendly". Women criticize what men read but do not see the sexism in the romance stuff they read.
It would be really awesome if a discussion about issues regarding subaltern groups could be resolved before being derailed by the privileged classes.
BOTH sides have issue but when you set the discussion up as "male oppressor vs innocent perfect women" you do not get a discussion at all.
Nobody is saying women are perfect, nor innocent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I may be male, but I am not white. However, I still disagree with you |dvh| because you basically write off whatever Andrew said with the "privileged" card instead of actually realizing that it's not a one-sided issue. In addition to that, claiming that he has no say here because of how he was born is as absurd as claiming I deserve the hate, death threats and other forms of anti-semitism thrown at me because I was born jewish, something I did not choose to do!!
|
|
When the entire premise is men have it too easy and women have it so hard it is.It is one giant timey whimey ball of "Grrrrr! Meeen BAAAAAAD!"No mainstream discussion of privilege says "men bad".
You're either purposely trolling at this point, or being wilfully ignorant of the arguments used.
Yes women have issues in the gaming hobby, watch a man try to join a kniting club and watch the sparks fly if he wants them to act more "man friendly". Women criticize what men read but do not see the sexism in the romance stuff they read.
It would be really awesome if a discussion about issues regarding subaltern groups could be resolved before being derailed by the privileged classes.
BOTH sides have issue but when you set the discussion up as "male oppressor vs innocent perfect women" you do not get a discussion at all.Nobody is saying women are perfect, nor innocent.
So we can discuss how hard life is for everyone else if white men shut the hell up. like i knew you meant.
|
|
So creating more unfairness is? because some group (screw the individual, the group) has it "too easy" they deserve less no matter what the situation they are in and the "disadvantaged group" gets all the help they may not need? it is not right.Andrew R,
I agree AA is crude and unfair. However, so far, no one's come up with anything better to address the fact that even today, there is a bias against those who don't 'conform' to being white male in university and job applications even with otherwise identical CVs. The bias is still real. How do you fix it? Stamping your foot about the, admitted, unfairness of the current solution isn't a solution.
You're proving my point, Andrew. Anything short of perfect equality isn't good enough. AA is unfair. It is less unfair than not trying to sort out the problem of racial or sexual bias that has been shown to exist with CVs identical except for the name. You appear fine with people having to work twice as hard to be thought half as good. "Until we stop all of that, nothing should be done to address any of it." seems to be your view. Which does make one wonder how we can change it if no change but global revolution (cue Anklebiter) is enough. So yeah, you're in the same boat as the bigots who actually like that situation, even if you're not bigoted yourself. For practical purposes, you both want the same thing done about the problem: Absolutely nothing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're proving my point, Andrew. Anything short of perfect equality isn't good enough. AA is unfair. It is less unfair than not trying to sort out the problem of racial or sexual bias that has been shown to exist with CVs identical except for the name. You appear fine with people having to work twice as hard to be thought half as good. "Until we stop all of that, nothing should be done to address any of it." seems to be your view. Which does make one wonder how we can change it if no change but global revolution (cue Anklebiter) is enough. So yeah, you're in the same boat as the bigots who actually like that situation, even if you're not bigoted yourself. For practical purposes, you both want the same thing done about the problem: Absolutely nothing.So creating more unfairness is? because some group (screw the individual, the group) has it "too easy" they deserve less no matter what the situation they are in and the "disadvantaged group" gets all the help they may not need? it is not right.Andrew R,
I agree AA is crude and unfair. However, so far, no one's come up with anything better to address the fact that even today, there is a bias against those who don't 'conform' to being white male in university and job applications even with otherwise identical CVs. The bias is still real. How do you fix it? Stamping your foot about the, admitted, unfairness of the current solution isn't a solution.
...what. I think the lack of elaboration on Andrew's part is not okay, but neither is jumping to such heavy conclusions.
|
|
You're proving my point, Andrew. Anything short of perfect equality isn't good enough. AA is unfair. It is less unfair than not trying to sort out the problem of racial or sexual bias that has been shown to exist with CVs identical except for the name. You appear fine with people having to work twice as hard to be thought half as good. "Until we stop all of that, nothing should be done to address any of it." seems to be your view. Which does make one wonder how we can change it if no change but global revolution (cue Anklebiter) is enough. So yeah, you're in the same boat as the bigots who actually like that situation, even if you're not bigoted yourself. For practical purposes, you both want the same thing done about the problem: Absolutely nothing.So creating more unfairness is? because some group (screw the individual, the group) has it "too easy" they deserve less no matter what the situation they are in and the "disadvantaged group" gets all the help they may not need? it is not right.Andrew R,
I agree AA is crude and unfair. However, so far, no one's come up with anything better to address the fact that even today, there is a bias against those who don't 'conform' to being white male in university and job applications even with otherwise identical CVs. The bias is still real. How do you fix it? Stamping your foot about the, admitted, unfairness of the current solution isn't a solution.
So telling white students that staight A is not as good as born black is not expecting someone to work harder to get anywhere? There is real discrimination sure but it is being made too foolishly simplistic when economic difference is more a factor than skin. And that name issue can hurt white people too, but we are entitled so screw us, thats fair right?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. It's not fair. You have noted I've f$++ing agreed withyou that AA is a crude unfair system, right? I'm still waiting for you to come up with something better. So far, nothing. What's your solution? Identifying a problem is only the first step in fixing it. What is your fix for this situation?
|
|
So we can discuss how hard life is for everyone else if white men shut the hell up. like i knew you meant.
It is not. I said it would be nice if we could resolve one issue before derailing it with another. Men face issues. White people face issues. But when subaltern issues are brought up, it does no good to say but my life sucks too because I can't be a brony and not be ridiculed. People are trying to explain these issues to you, and it seems like your only response thus far is along the lines of "No, because potatoes."
|
It astounds me that some men object to women seeing all men as potential rapists. And then blame the victims of rape by saying things like "Well, she shouldn't have gone to that party and gotten that drunk, and wore clothing that slutty. What was she thinking?!?"
Well, the answer was she was giving all guys the benefit of the doubt and look how well that turned out for her.
Please note I am not claiming anyone here ever said both those things. I'm just pointing out the inherent mixed messages that women are forced to endure.
While the 'she was asking for it' defense is reprehensible, there are times that a victim's bad choices contribute to their victimization.
If a white man dresses up in a Klan costume, walks into a bar filled with members of an african american street gang and starts calling them n******, etc and gets his ass kicked, is he totally without responsibiltiy for being assaulted? Not that he deserves it or that his assaulters did not commit a violent crime for which they should be punished, but is he blaimless?
Less extreme, two years ago I went to a midnight show of Rocky Horror. Afterwards my friends and I were walking behind two teenage girls as walked out of the theater in their very skimpy lingere. They did not put their dresses or coats back on. As they walked past the bars next to the theater and down the street at one on the morning they taunted and teased the drunken men standing around, including flashing their breasts and posing provocatively. We had called the police by now and nothing happened, but if something had happened claiming that their dress and behavior was partly responsible is rediculous?
Another, horrifically common example from when I was in college were women who had a few drinks, got dressed in incredibly skimpy and provacative clothes, and then went to party at one of the two scummy fraternities who had a well known reputation for not being gentlemen. Then complaining the next day that they were treated like sex objects...
See, I gotta disagree with you. Like it or not, parties of this sort are a major social event for youth. Those situations are not analogous.
If a guy gets blackout drunk and and takes his shirt off the worst thing that he can expect is to be covered in crude pictures in the morning. If a woman does the same she could end up raped and possibly with a child that she's stuck with the rest of her life if certain politicians get their way.
Its this kind of attitude that allows this stuff to continue. I believe that fraternities should be held responsible both legally and socially for the things that happen within their walls. The main reason they aren't, IMO, is because too many men think it's the woman's poor judgement that's to blame and not the fault of the actual rapists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's 'taters, precious?
short for time right now, but this:
That said, when you approach the conversation with the assumption that anyone who was privileged = aligned with evil...
Wait, what? At what point in this thread, any thread, did I ever take that approach or imply that? I've repeatedly made a very specific point of saying those who have (white/straight/male/whatevs) privilege, does not are not evil, or "aligned with evil?"
No. It's not fair. You have noted I've f!+&ing agreed withyou that AA is a crude unfair system, right? I'm still waiting for you to come up with something better. So far, nothing. What's your solution? Identifying a problem is only the first step in fixing it. What is your fix for this situation?
Eagerly awaiting Citizen R.'s reply.
In the meantime, More country.
Also, Citizen Watson is correct. International proletarian socialist revolution is the only answer.
|
short for time right now, but this:
That said, when you approach the conversation with the assumption that anyone who was privileged = aligned with evil...Wait, what? At what point in this thread, any thread, did I ever take that approach or imply that? I've repeatedly made a very specific point of saying those who have (white/straight/male/whatevs) privilege, does not are not evil, or "aligned with evil?"
As a (mostly) lurker in this thread, I'm going to need some quotes to back up the claim that Ambrosia Slaad has indicated privileged = aligned with evil in this thread. I think she has bent over backward and tied herself into a pretzel knot to be sure she's not leaving that impression.
I think you may be carrying things from outside this conversation into this conversation. It's a sensitive topic - this is not uncommon when stuff like this is discussed - but I think it may be worthwhile to take a step back and see if you might be too close to the conversation? Or reading things into the conversation that haven't been typed?
Sometimes AA feels like the stupid solar shield in Highlander 2.
If you're never willing to remove it, how will you know if it's still necessary?
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes AA feels like the stupid solar shield in Highlander 2.
If you're never willing to remove it, how will you know if it's still necessary?
Augh! There can be only one Highlander movie!!!!!!!!!!
I know not what you speak of, this "Highlander 2" business.
::frowns disapprovingly::
@Kryzbie: Here's a good clue: when they remove it and minorities start disappearing from the universities.
Can't claim to be an expert, though. Would be willing to look at other articles about what happens when affirmative action is removed.
I dunno that California is a good litmus test for anything. It'd be like trying new policies in Florida to get an idea of how the rest of the country would react. Those folks are crazy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
short for time right now, but this:
That said, when you approach the conversation with the assumption that anyone who was privileged = aligned with evil...Wait, what? At what point in this thread, any thread, did I ever take that approach or imply that? I've repeatedly made a very specific point of saying those who have (white/straight/male/whatevs) privilege, does not are not evil, or "aligned with evil?"
It's not. Any more than one would say that wealthy, good looking, tall, or thin are aligned with evil.
Some folks just aren't comfortable evaluating how fortunate they are in comparison to other people. Folks tend to define their existence by virtue of the obstacles that they have overcome. It makes some folks genuinely uncomfortable to admit that there are certain challenges they seldom or never face on the basis of things over which they had no control.
|
|
short for time right now, but this:
That said, when you approach the conversation with the assumption that anyone who was privileged = aligned with evil...Wait, what? At what point in this thread, any thread, did I ever take that approach or imply that? I've repeatedly made a very specific point of saying those who have (white/straight/male/whatevs) privilege, does not are not evil, or "aligned with evil?"
You do realize you aren't the only person on your side of the debate, correct?
"Since 2007, admissions of minority students have declined since U of M stopped considering race as a factor in its admissions policies. Mark Rosenbaum, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who also argued the case, felt that the ruling reaffirmed 'the cornerstone principle of our democracy.'"
|
|
As a (mostly) lurker in this thread, I'm going to need some quotes to back up the claim that Ambrosia Slaad has indicated privileged = aligned with evil in this thread.short for time right now, but this:
That said, when you approach the conversation with the assumption that anyone who was privileged = aligned with evil...Wait, what? At what point in this thread, any thread, did I ever take that approach or imply that? I've repeatedly made a very specific point of saying those who have (white/straight/male/whatevs) privilege, does not are not evil, or "aligned with evil?"
I will provide it when someone can back up the claim my post was toward Ambrosia Slaad :)
"Since 2007, admissions of minority students have declined since U of M stopped considering race as a factor in its admissions policies. Mark Rosenbaum, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who also argued the case, felt that the ruling reaffirmed 'the cornerstone principle of our democracy.'"
Without reading the whole article mind you...if minorities were overrepresented, and then post 2007 their admissions declined, mightn't that signal a return to the norm?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, if you don't want to be less confrontational, please proceed ...
You are familiar with my work on here, correct? :)
I just got quoted, out of context, and had it reframed as a personal attack on someone I wasn't even referencing. Then got piled on by someone else for being mean, presumably because they read the out of context quote and made an incorrect assumption about it...
I kind of wanted to confront that.
Without reading the whole article mind you...if minorities were overrepresented, and then post 2007 their admissions declined, mightn't that signal a return to the norm?"Since 2007, admissions of minority students have declined since U of M stopped considering race as a factor in its admissions policies. Mark Rosenbaum, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who also argued the case, felt that the ruling reaffirmed 'the cornerstone principle of our democracy.'"
It might. Anyone know if Michigan's state universities overly represented minorities?
I'll bet $20 they weren't.