On the Problems with Communication, Discourse, and Social Justice


Off-Topic Discussions

401 to 450 of 788 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Perhaps slightly off the topic of the thread, but not too far I think.

The thing about the whole "cis good or bad" debate that gets me all rustled is people like Lazar acting like turnabout is fair play there.

The term "cis scum" is fine to use because trans people have had slurs thrown at them for a long time...and somehow that makes it okay?

And this is what torques me off when Rynjin puts words in my mouth that I've NEVER spoken,either here nor elsewhere. Unless he's of the severely mistaken belief that calling someone "cis" is the exact same thing as using the term "scum" right afterward.

This is where your habit of letting your eyes glaze over when reading bites you.

You'll notice I specifically said the term "cis scum" was the problematic (to borrow another over-used SJW word) phrase.

Your previous thoughts on the matter.

LazarX wrote:

Consider getting that chip off your soldier. Cis and Cis Scum are two very different terms, the latter generally used by LGBT folks who have just been spat on or worse by homophobic bashers. (who may or may not be CIS themselves)

Whether you want to admit it or not, you have lived in the privileged position of not only being considered the gender "norm" but of the preferred gender and ethnic class in this country. We are entering a period of transition where being white and male is becoming less of a privileged status. (You still have plenty of advantage over someone who is female or of another ethnic background, whether you wish to admit to that or not.)

You're essentially starting to get some of the same treatment every other group has had to endure at your hands.... which includes being looked at from outside.

I bolded the relevant bits, which by all readings boil down to "It's okay to say 'cis scum' because trans people have it bad" but dressed up all nice.

You reread your post again. You said "people like LazarX" and in the very next sentence you talk about people who use the term "cis scum".

The text you referenced of my post was me talking about the background of why non-cis people use those terms. Its your conflation of my explanation of why the term has come to use with endorsement of said use. If you have problems with my identification of CIS privilege... again.. that's nothing more than a statement of fact. CIS people occupy a privileged position in this country relative to non-cis, it helps even more if in addition to being CIS, you're white and male.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
** spoiler omitted **...

The problem with getting nitpicky on an analogy, is by definition, an analogy is not a perfect stand in for the original. An analogy, is by definition, different than the original.

Grasping at the differences from an analogy to the original is kind of pointless.

The intent, and point, of an analogy is to highlight a similarity, thereby helping to explain and elucidate the original point. Going past that... well... you're not addressing the original point. You're expanding the conversation to include all aspects of the analogy, which have nothing to do with the original point, thereby clouding the discussion and making it harder to discuss the original topic.

I'm highlighting this, cause it's an extremely super common cause of how these conversations get further and further off topic.

I make a point.
You make a counter point.
I introduce an analogy to highlight something.
You counter the analogy by highlighting flaws in the analogy, using your own analogy.
Now I'm picking apart your analogy for an analogy, and introduce my own analogy.
Something, something porn.
Err... wait.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You don't need to say "extremely super". It is enough to use either of those words, since they mean the same thing, Irontruth.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
You don't need to say "extremely super". It is enough to use either of those words, since they mean the same thing, Irontruth.

{super} != 2{super}


Irontruth wrote:

Spoiler:
The problem with getting nitpicky on an analogy, is by definition, an analogy is not a perfect stand in for the original. An analogy, is by definition, different than the original.

Grasping at the differences from an analogy to the original is kind of pointless.

The intent, and point, of an analogy is to highlight a similarity, thereby helping to explain and elucidate the original point. Going past that... well... you're not addressing the original point. You're expanding the conversation to include all aspects of the analogy, which have nothing to do with the original point, thereby clouding the discussion and making it harder to discuss the original topic.

I'm highlighting this, cause it's an extremely super common cause of how these conversations get further and further off topic.

I make a point.
You make a counter point.
I introduce an analogy to highlight something.
You counter the analogy by highlighting flaws in the analogy, using your own analogy.
Now I'm picking apart your analogy for an analogy, and introduce my own analogy.
Something, something porn.
Err... wait.

Fair enough.

I was not intending to get nit-picky with your word choice, and thus I apologize if it comes off that way - poor use of analysis and comparison on my part, I guess.

Rather, my intent to show why the concept of choosing a well-established and currently socially-accepted term and comparing it linguistically and functionally with a less-well-established and currently-debated term - though meritorious and worth thinking about with interesting insight into the potential importance of the latter - also has some issues, as well as pointing out the exact methods by which any word describing people (regardless of what its purpose or original intent) is capable of being altered into or out of an insult and being seen as such by the very people it is supposed to be describing.

One final example of the idea of how insults can become non-insults (and, by way of extension, the reverse): the term Christian - or rather, the term Χριστιανός from whence we derive Christian - was, originally, an insult.

In the early days of the religion, back when such believers were mostly referred to as "Followers of the Way" (a mouthful) or "Nazarene" (which could be confusing, considering Nazareth was a real place with other people who did not share the religion also coming from that place) or similar, Christian was a derisive term (at least, from my historical studies) originally created in Antioch.

It was very quickly "reclaimed", however, by the very people who were supposed to be insulted - they genuinely embraced being called "little Christ(s)" (with the implication/meaning being that they were "follower(s) of Christ"), and chose to utilize this term above all others for themselves.

It is absolutely guaranteed, however, not all chose to use this term when it was first established, and even after it gained popularity, there would have been many who were resistant to using it to identify themselves - after all, it had been introduced as an insult.

This is a normal form of linguistic alteration - things may have had one intended meaning or use as their origin, but because of a movement to claim and use the term for other things, its original intent is left behind, and the new use or intent is embraced (or not, depending on the word, society, and a host of other factors).

Tacticslion wrote:

Clarification of the above: there is no problem inherent to the word fix, or privilege, or any such thing.

Problems are twofold: the failure to recognize the reasoning behind and properly empathize with those who are leery of them; and the failure to recognize them as non-insults and those who use them as non-aggressive.

Basically both sides failing to communicate the proper emotion and empathy, regardless of politics, despite trying.

So, in addition to making this quickly from my phone, and dealing with autocorrect (Which does not seem to recognize "cis" and attempts to substitute "fix" for some reason? What?**) I think this might come across as overly harsh, especially as I don't think I properly executed the intended parallel within the second sentence, or clarity in the last sentence. In fact, I woke up at 4 AM (well, really 3 AM, at which point I went back to sleep, and then woke again at 4 AM) worried about that.

See, "cis" isn't inherently bad, nor "trans" nor "privilege" nor "white" nor "male" nor any word whatsoever (unless you're using the Words of Power variant, in which case we'd be in trouble - fortunately, we are not using said variant in Real Life*, to the best of my knowledge).

The problem is, when words are created and used, they generate associations - connotations, emotional baggage, and other emotional or practical elements that build off of what is experienced within the word.

Especially when the words are co-opted from existing words, such ideas are going to be laden with those associations... and not all people have the same associations.

When two people with two different sets of associations attempt to interact, even using the same words and language, their differences with associations may well ruin any interaction with said other people.

It is a mistake to automatically assign malice or to nitpick anyone's word-choice with the presumption of a given set of associations - yours - or review their hesitation (or rejection) of a given word-choice for the same reason: the associations you (or I) and they (or I) might have with a given word choice are not necessarily the same.

Of course, the reason the dictionary is also quoted so often around this, is because the definition of a word that is used might be very different from person to person as well - not just the association.

If I fail to properly empathize with someone who is using a non-aggressive term non-aggressively, I will read aggression where there is none, and this generates hostility and defensiveness, regardless of any intent of the original writer/speaker, and regardless of any of my attempts to understand or empathize with their point.

On the other hand, if I fail to properly empathize with someone who does not like a given term to be applied to them, I will come off as aggressive and arrogant, regardless of my intent, and regardless of my hoped-for end-result of fostering understanding.

Neither "I" in this case are bad or acting poorly - both have simply made a really easy and really common mistake (to the point that such distrust has become part of the general conversation, it sometimes seems; the actual "I" has made them multiple times on multiple occasions, for sure).

In other words, it is the social context and history relative to a given user that makes a given word a good or bad thing. If you look at something someone has posted, and read "baaaaaaaaaaad" then stop, step back, and see if they actually meant that at all.

Alright, back to bed. Hopefully this is more coherent and less harsh than it seems, at present, as I'm out of words for how to say, "Not what I meant".

Tacticslion maybe should have wrote:

Clarification of the above: there is no problem inherent to the word cis, or privilege, or any such thing.

Problems are twofold: the failure to recognize the reasoning behind and properly empathize with those who are leery of them; and the failure to recognize them as non-insults and those who use them as non-aggressive and properly empathize with them.

Basically both sides failing to communicate the proper emotion and empathy, regardless of politics, despite trying to do exactly that. The reason for that failure is multifaceted and varied, but often boils down to the utilization of seemingly the same word to mean very different things.

"Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo."

"That word, you keep using it; I do not think it means what you think it means."

"Aaaaaaaaaaactually it does, and here's why"

* I'm not linking to tv tropes. I'm crazy, not cruel. tv tropes 4-evaaaaaaaahhhhh~!

** In retrospect, looking at the qwerty keyboard, I can guess at how autocorrect chose to alter it: the "i" is in the middle of a three-letter word, the "f" sits to the top-right of the "c" and the "x" to the bottom-left of the "s" - probably it is simply not a common-enough word for Autocorrect to recognize automatically without heavy usage and correction on my phone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Scythia wrote:
No matter how wealthy
There is a certain level of wealth that provides privilege which supersedes/obscures any other consideration.

Maybe?

I suppose once you're at the level where you're always surrounded by an entourage and your own security.

Even below that, it certainly helps.

But there are still plenty of examples of wealthy black people for example being harassed because they obviously don't belong in the expensive store or driving the nice car or in their own well-off neighborhood.

You still lack privilege in many of the same ways, but the privilege from wealth can mitigate it.

That is certainly true. I was objecting to Scythia's choice of words. The emphatic absolute that "no matter how wealthy" a person may be that their characteristics would limit their opportunities. I assure you that there exists a level of wealth which can and does obscure any other disadvantage a person might have.

Well, yes. "Found your own island nation" level wealth can mitigate other concerns, so long as you never leave your kingdom/safety bubble.

Since most of the good islands are taken, and established nations would take a dim view of large-scale artificial island creation near their territory, such an island nation would likely consist of up to half a dozen households and be dependant on imported food and water. Look into the colourful history of libertarian or anarchist micronations to see how well that tends to work out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Scythia wrote:
No matter how wealthy
There is a certain level of wealth that provides privilege which supersedes/obscures any other consideration.

Maybe?

I suppose once you're at the level where you're always surrounded by an entourage and your own security.

Even below that, it certainly helps.

But there are still plenty of examples of wealthy black people for example being harassed because they obviously don't belong in the expensive store or driving the nice car or in their own well-off neighborhood.

You still lack privilege in many of the same ways, but the privilege from wealth can mitigate it.

That is certainly true. I was objecting to Scythia's choice of words. The emphatic absolute that "no matter how wealthy" a person may be that their characteristics would limit their opportunities. I assure you that there exists a level of wealth which can and does obscure any other disadvantage a person might have.

Also, at least until very recently and in some situations still, being very wealthy and gay just made you a more tempting target for blackmail.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The only place he goes wrong is when he starts talking about how he reached his place in life due to his own hard work and how no one gave him anything and how anyone could have done it and we need to stop giving handouts to them. Because he's not seeing that it isn't true.
The best schools have surplus intake, which means a significant portion of the students don't get through the education, leaving them with no job and heavy student debts.

Um,.... no, actually, the best schools [in the US, which AFAIK is the culture we're discussing, esp. if you are talking about "heavy student debts"] are the ones with lower surplus intake, which is why the graduation rate (whether measured at the four year point or the six year point) is substantially higher. From the Department of Education, "Among first-time, full-time undergraduate students who began seeking a bachelor's degree at a 4-year degree- granting institution in fall 2007, the 6-year graduation rate was 58 percent at public institutions, 65 percent at private nonprofit institutions, and 32 percent at private for-profit institutions."

Further, "Six-year graduation rates for first-time, full-time students who began seeking a bachelor's degree in fall 2007 varied according to institutions' level of selectivity. In particular, graduation rates were highest at postsecondary degree-granting institutions that were the most selective (i.e., had the lowest admissions acceptance rates), and graduation rates were lowest at institutions that were the least selective (i.e., had open admissions policies). For example, at 4-year institutions with open admissions policies, 34 percent of students completed a bachelor's degree within 6 years. At 4-year institutions where the acceptance rate was less than 25 percent of applicants, the 6-year graduation rate was 89 percent."

So I'm afraid you have exactly the wrong end of the stick there.

And, in fact, it ends up becoming another instrument of privilege. The people who graduate are the people who fit in. For example, the six-year graduation rate for whites -- across all colleges -- is 63%, while it's only 40% for blacks.

There are several reasons for this, of which the two most obvious are preparation and opportunity. Better high school provides a better background for the college experience (20% of white first-years are in remedial classes, while 30% of black first-years are), and of course, whites still have an admissions advantage (although this admissions advantage has narrowed over the past decade or so), so it's easier to get into the "good" schools that do not, in fact, flunk out their students.

Quote:
While I agree that his advantages made this easier for him than it would have been for others,

That's exactly the point. It's been a lot easier for him than for others without his background.

Quote:


your post still smacks of denying him credit for his own work, because the ONLY reason he got there was that he was lucky with the circumstances of his birth.

The only reason? No. But it's certainly a major reason, and it's absolutely counterfactual to claim that the only reason he succeeded was because of his hard work. Far too many people work hard and don't get to Wall Street except perhaps as part of the cleaning staff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The only place he goes wrong is when he starts talking about how he reached his place in life due to his own hard work and how no one gave him anything and how anyone could have done it and we need to stop giving handouts to them. Because he's not seeing that it isn't true.

What is interesting here is that Chris has quite likely had to work his butt off for several years, including taking financial risks. The best schools have surplus intake, which means a significant portion of the students don't get through the education, leaving them with no job and heavy student debts. While I agree that his advantages made this easier for him than it would have been for others, your post still smacks of denying him credit for his own work, because the ONLY reason he got there was that he was lucky with the circumstances of his birth. While this is certainly a comforting thought to people who did not reach there, that doesn't make it true.

It also seems to me that you claim that only those dependent on social welfare should be allowed to have an opinion on how taxation and economy should be constructed, is that so?

Having gone through a full university education, I have a good number of examples of people I used to know, who all had the grades and economic situation to go through the same, who did not choose to do so for various reasons (more fun to freelance in advertising, I can't be bothered to do that much studying, better to get a job instead to get more money, I don't want student debt, etc etc etc), who now complain that their expected salary curve looks rather weak. And you know what they all say today? Having money and getting the chance at better things than wage slavery is ALL due to "favourable circumstances".

Not necessarily. For the first and arguably most pivotal part of his life, his parents were the only ones taking the financial risks, such as they were. It could be argued his parents were the only ones paying his bills for the bulk of his life. I don't doubt that Chris has the skills to pay the bills as an adult, but when someone else is paying your way to get there, it's a lot easier. This is about ease, not lack of skill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:


Having gone through a full university education, I have a good number of examples of people I used to know, who all had the grades and economic situation to go through the same, who did not choose to do so for various reasons (more fun to freelance in advertising, I can't be bothered to do that much studying, better to get a job instead to get more money, I don't want student debt, etc etc etc), who now complain that their expected salary curve looks rather weak.

You don't see a difference between being given an opportunity (and turning it down) as opposed to not being offered the opportunity in the first place?

Yes, good grades are not a guarantee of success, but they're a near-requirement. If you don't have the good grades in the first place, which is as much a function of the school you attended as it is of your intelligence, then you're starting out with a significant, and in many cases insurmountable, disadvantage.

Just as an example.... having AP [Advanced Placement] credit is a near-requirement for admission to admission to an "elite" college, which in turn is a huge leg up in admission to an elite graduate school, which, in turn,.... well, I'm sure you know about pipelines. (AP credit is also strongly predictive of six-year graduation, btw.)

There are about 26,000 public secondary schools in the United States, and only about 14,000 offer AP credit at all. If you're from the more than 30% of high schools with no AP program, you're all but locked out of the Ivy League because you don't have a competitive background.

And how do minority students fair on the AP tests? Not well, as you can imagine. Black students, even "qualified" black students (as measured by the PSAT) are vastly overrepresented in schools that do not offer AP credit and vastly underrepresented in taking the tests when they are available.

Are guidance counsellors steering Watermelondrea away from taking AP Calculus? That's one theory, and I have no data on it. Are the tests themselves culturally biased? That's another theory. But there is demonstrably something that isn't intelligence and isn't test-taking skills that keeps black students from sitting the AP tests, which puts them behind even before they set foot on a college campus.


Sissyl wrote:
It is almost as if... you would need both a bit (or a lot) of luck AND smarts, and work, and willingness to take risks, AND choosing to do so, to get anywhere. How odd.

except none of what Chris has here falls under any of these categories save for luck and opportunity. Without patents willing/able to grease the wheel for him(legacy and cash) he won't get anywhere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And without oodles of hard work, none of his advantages will help him get where wants to go.

I reiterate, it is tempting to claim that everyone who has something you don't have got it by their (unfair) advantages, not the risks they took or the work they put in to get it. Good grades are certainly not only "as much a function of the school you attended as it is of your intelligence". It is also a question of spending the time studying to actually do well at the tests, which certainly not everyone does. It is your time, you're free to spend it on other things if you like. But if you do, don't come complaining about getting bad grades, and especially do not claim that those who get better grades than you only did so because they had advantages you did not.

That said, certainly there are people who have a rough hand to start with. They need help, no argument there. But is life unfair because you don't get to Wall Street and work with hedge funds for millions of dollars per year? Is that truly, really the extent of the idea of social justice?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

And without oodles of hard work, none of his advantages will help him get where wants to go.

I reiterate, it is tempting to claim that everyone who has something you don't have got it by their (unfair) advantages, not the risks they took or the work they put in to get it. Good grades are certainly not only "as much a function of the school you attended as it is of your intelligence". It is also a question of spending the time studying to actually do well at the tests, which certainly not everyone does. It is your time, you're free to spend it on other things if you like. But if you do, don't come complaining about getting bad grades, and especially do not claim that those who get better grades than you only did so because they had advantages you did not.

That said, certainly there are people who have a rough hand to start with. They need help, no argument there. But is life unfair because you don't get to Wall Street and work with hedge funds for millions of dollars per year? Is that truly, really the extent of the idea of social justice?

actually according to the story given, his dad would have gotten him in as a legacy if he couldn't get in otherwise.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

And without oodles of hard work, none of his advantages will help him get where wants to go.

I reiterate, it is tempting to claim that everyone who has something you don't have got it by their (unfair) advantages, not the risks they took or the work they put in to get it. Good grades are certainly not only "as much a function of the school you attended as it is of your intelligence". It is also a question of spending the time studying to actually do well at the tests, which certainly not everyone does. It is your time, you're free to spend it on other things if you like. But if you do, don't come complaining about getting bad grades, and especially do not claim that those who get better grades than you only did so because they had advantages you did not.

That said, certainly there are people who have a rough hand to start with. They need help, no argument there. But is life unfair because you don't get to Wall Street and work with hedge funds for millions of dollars per year? Is that truly, really the extent of the idea of social justice?

Yeah. There are lots of factors. Without the oodles of hard work, maybe he would have just wound up as middle management in a banking company instead of the hotshot young millionaire.

Meanwhile, even with the hard work, his counterpart isn't getting anywhere near that, unless she's brilliant and even more driven and lucky.

I'm a cis straight white guy. The only one of these privileges I'm missing is religion and I could fake that if I cared enough. I'm not jealous of this hypothetical guy's success. I certainly don't blame the differences on his supposed privileges. I know I'm lazy and unambitious, but I also know that my own privileges let me get away with that and still do pretty well. That if I'd screwed up as many opportunities as I have without the advantages of white, middle class male origins, I'd likely be in much worse shape.

Your argument on the other hand is getting perilously close to asserting that the differences in success between different groups is just down to "hard work". Do white males just have an inherently better work ethic? (I know I certainly don't.)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:


That said, certainly there are people who have a rough hand to start with. They need help, no argument there. But is life unfair because you don't get to Wall Street and work with hedge funds for millions of dollars per year? Is that truly, really the extent of the idea of social justice?

That work with hedge funds isn't something that exists in isolation. The games that Wall Street plays with money isn't merely about racking points in paper money. It's the games that close down factories, and turn middle class retirement funds into chips at a Vegas table.

Wall Street shenannigans encourage short term leveraged gains at the cost of long-term stability and in many cases long term prosperity for many who don't get a say in what's done behind closed doors. The problem with Wall Street and Financial plans that exist only to please Wall Street is the total lack of empathy for the impact on Main Street.


Sissyl wrote:
You don't need to say "extremely super". It is enough to use either of those words, since they mean the same thing, Irontruth.

Edited to remove my vitriol.

I'm done with the thread.


Sorry, Irontruth. You just made a post detailing one way communication breaks down. I gave an example of another. It WAS a joke, though in hindsight perhaps a poor one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The first university courses I went to showed me something pretty important. I got to them, thought the world of myself, felt invincible. I am smart enough, I knew enough. I came from an extremely competitive school environment. I quickly developed a feel for the others in my course, what they knew and what I thought they would manage.

I was a damn fool, of course. The first exam results showed me an entirely different story. I failed hard, ending up at the twentieth percentile of the course. Meanwhile, my coursemates who had actually worked the hours that I spent slacking off did great. If advantage was what did it, I should have been up there, but I wasn't. It was a thoroughly humbling experience.

I still knew more than many of them, I was just as smart... But none of that helped. Studying did.

Ergo: It is not your smarts that get you through an education, but your dedication. Certainly, you need some decent ability to think abstractly. You need to be able to cram. But, so long as you have some normal level of cognitive abilities, you CAN get through it.

Certainly, it is a question of getting in as well. I did mine in Sweden, so of course I can't speak for the US situation. In my experience, many of my classmates in school did not fight to get good grades. A number of other of us did. Guess which got the needed grades? The ones saying "You knew that? It's abnormal to know such things.", or those saying "Sorry, I can't go to that party, I have a test tomorrow."?

Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:
Sissyl wrote:


That said, certainly there are people who have a rough hand to start with. They need help, no argument there. But is life unfair because you don't get to Wall Street and work with hedge funds for millions of dollars per year? Is that truly, really the extent of the idea of social justice?

That work with hedge funds isn't something that exists in isolation. The games that Wall Street plays with money isn't merely about racking points in paper money. It's the games that close down factories, and turn middle class retirement funds into chips at a Vegas table.

Wall Street shenannigans encourage short term leveraged gains at the cost of long-term stability and in many cases long term prosperity for many who don't get a say in what's done behind closed doors. The problem with Wall Street and Financial plans that exist only to please Wall Street is the total lack of empathy for the impact on Main Street.

Actually, Wall Street got its power these last decades from Main Street's fear of retirement, growing old, and in the end dying.

Through the capitalization system for retirement, the US put their baby-boomers' hopes (and later fears) for the future in the hands of Financial Markets. Since fear of the future is stronger (because it is unknowable and uncontrollable) than actual hardships, the power given to Wall Street ended up crashing real life companies.

But the root problem does not lie with Wall Street, which has its place and purpose. It lies with the power that was given to them. A power based on a fear huge enough to drown any checks and balances, both formal and implicit, that were there before. It will likely take a few more decades and economical crises before we can put this behind us for good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

The first university courses I went to showed me something pretty important. I got to them, thought the world of myself, felt invincible. I am smart enough, I knew enough. I came from an extremely competitive school environment. I quickly developed a feel for the others in my course, what they knew and what I thought they would manage.

I was a damn fool, of course. The first exam results showed me an entirely different story. I failed hard, ending up at the twentieth percentile of the course. Meanwhile, my coursemates who had actually worked the hours that I spent slacking off did great. If advantage was what did it, I should have been up there, but I wasn't. It was a thoroughly humbling experience.

I still knew more than many of them, I was just as smart... But none of that helped. Studying did.

Ergo: It is not your smarts that get you through an education, but your dedication. Certainly, you need some decent ability to think abstractly. You need to be able to cram. But, so long as you have some normal level of cognitive abilities, you CAN get through it.

Certainly, it is a question of getting in as well. I did mine in Sweden, so of course I can't speak for the US situation. In my experience, many of my classmates in school did not fight to get good grades. A number of other of us did. Guess which got the needed grades? The ones saying "You knew that? It's abnormal to know such things.", or those saying "Sorry, I can't go to that party, I have a test tomorrow."?

So it really is all about the individuals dedication and hard work, in your opinion? If structural advantages or prejudices exist, they don't really matter?

If a minority doesn't do as well, it's because they didn't try as hard.
The whole group must just have a tendency towards goofing off.

Mind you, no one in this discussion has ever said that privilege guaranteed success. I said in my first post on this particular example that Chris needed "the brains and work ethic to take advantage of them." But the privilege gets you more opportunities in the first place.
And with privilege, you'll get more chances to recover and it's harder to fail as low.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I said, getting into US unis and colleges is not within my experience. The system I went through had simple grade thresholds. A lot of the time, those thresholds were rather low. I was talking about a variety of people, some men, some women, some swedes, some with an immigrant background, and so on. What determined success, apart from serious issues like mental illness, was how much they stayed put on their chairs to study, not smarts, not their dad's money, not skin colour, not sex.

Certainly, the US system may well be far more *ist. There are absolutely people who need much more help than others, but it wasn't the ones I expected going in. I maintain that if you have a basic intellectual capability, you are able to work through higher education. Explaining it by smarts and privilege doesn't catch the whole picture.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
So it really is all about the individuals dedication and hard work, in your opinion? If structural advantages or prejudices exist, they don't really matter?

Keep in mind where sissyl is. Its probably a lot closer to true there. Don't you get a full scholorship plus living stipend just for making it into college? I'd imagine that someone that has to work 40 hours and go to classes should be almost unheard of, much less the huge urban blights the US has.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Which suggests Sissyl has the privilege of being born in a saner country.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And every single one of you Americans have the privilege of not being born in North Korea, right? All privilege is relative. There is no disadvantage that can't be made worse by adding a lost leg or arm as well.

When I went through university (we don't have college, rather uni after 9 years basic school and three years gymnasium, where you choose various programs), student loans plus stipend was around 1200 dollars per month, 5/6ths of which was loans. No option to live on campus, and no tuition fees. To keep getting student loans and stipends you needed to clear 70% of the study goals each term. You can get it for 10 terms (2 terms per year), 11 if your education is that long. Afterward, you need to pay the student loans back at a maximum of 8% of your income, unless you go abroad, which means that cap disappears. I am sure parts or more of this has changed since I was there.

In Sweden, the major disadvantaged group is, I'd say, immigrants and their children. A few rather large immigrant groups are Finns, Polish, Somalians, Persians, Bosnians, Iraqis, and now Syrians. Speaking good swedish (or knowing english) is very important for how you are treated. We have various poor residential areas where there are a much higher percentage of immigrant families, and these areas tend to have worse schools than other areas, more crime, and the rest that goes with poor socioeconomics. Still, I doubt the students that come from such areas at university level have worse results than others. It has not been my experience that it would be the case, anyway.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
And every single one of you Americans have the privilege of not being born in North Korea, right? All privilege is relative. There is no disadvantage that can't be made worse by adding a lost leg or arm as well.

Absolutely true. Or born in Somalia or anyone of dozens of other places around the world.

If you acknowledge that, why isn't it possible to also acknowledge that even within one country, there are both places and groups it's worse to be part of?


Because, it simply isn't all privilege or lack of it. I am an old-school liberal, with what that entails: Viewing the individual as greater than merely its place in society, specifically. We all carry burdens. Very few of us get to toss down Dom Perignons on Wall Street. Sure, it is a game and a gamble for everyone. Not everyone gets the same hands to start with, but if someone truly wants something, it takes a lot to prevent them from going for it. Western society of today is far more open and tolerant than has been the case, ever. Privilege still matters, being a woman, gay, trans, black, sure, it matters - but the obstacles are no longer insurmountable, as they were a mere generation ago.

And choice still matters MORE.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sis, the whole issue that resulted in affirmative action (love it or hate it) is that minorities who work just as hard as members of the majority don't achieve the same results. I'm not sure affirmative action is the best solution to the disparity*, but it's not a matter of welfare queens riding in limos to cash their checks.

*You remember how I talked about being born into an old New England WASP family? I went to a small private school that one of my ancestors founded; another of my ancestors wrote the school song. But despite the wealth and lineage of my extended family, my parents were crazy hippies who lived off the grid, so I was on scholarship.

My first year there, after earning a scholarship through the normal channels that anyone who lived in a house without running water would have used, I was awarded a legacy scholarship reserved for the children of alumni. At that point, I didn't receive anymore funding to my scholarship, but it did move to a different column in the ledgers, so the scholarship I had received for my first year could be used to fund students who weren't legacy students.

My point? The world is a nuanced place. Everyone rails against legacy scholarships, and I agree with most of what they say, but if it weren't for legacy scholarships I wouldn't have the education I do. As crazy at sounds, sometimes taking a legacy scholarship is the more responsible choice.

I didn't mean to go off there, but it feels connected to the subjects of social justice and privilege.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
And every single one of you Americans have the privilege of not being born in North Korea, right? All privilege is relative. There is no disadvantage that can't be made worse by adding a lost leg or arm as well.

Absolutely true. Or born in Somalia or anyone of dozens of other places around the world.

If you acknowledge that, why isn't it possible to also acknowledge that even within one country, there are both places and groups it's worse to be part of?

because a plateau looks an awful lot like a bowling alley from the inside


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fair enough. I never said it was all privilege. You seemed to be setting up your examples to deny all effects.
If we're just quibbling over the extent, I'll let it go.

I am not so sure about "far more open and tolerant" though. At least in the US. LGBTQ definitely. Racially, while it may still be true, a generation ago it looked like there was will to make progress, now we're dealing with backlash. Possibly even losing ground.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Because, it simply isn't all privilege or lack of it.

You're the only one that seems to be claiming that it's all-or-none, and then claiming further that it's none.

Quote:
We all carry burdens.

Yes, but some of us carry substantially heavier burdens than others.

Quote:
Sure, it is a game and a gamble for everyone. Not everyone gets the same hands to start with, but if someone truly wants something, it takes a lot to prevent them from going for it.

And, fortunately or unfortunately, the game itself is rigged and there is a lot preventing that someone from going for it in far too many cases.

Quote:
Privilege still matters, being a woman, gay, trans, black, sure, it matters - but the obstacles are no longer insurmountable, as they were a mere generation ago.

No. Now it's merely ALMOST insurmountable.

You can't get a job if you can't get an interview. And having merely the wrong name will reduce your chances of getting an interview for the job you want by a third.

If you attend more than thirty percent of the high schools in the United States, you will not be able to take Advanced Placement classes. These are so critical and so integral to high level university admissions that UC-Berkeley, among others, asks you to describe your experiences with such classes as part of the admissions essays. You can't describe what you aren't allowed to experience -- tell me that's not a disadvantage.

Et cetera, et cetera.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
And every single one of you Americans have the privilege of not being born in North Korea, right? All privilege is relative. There is no disadvantage that can't be made worse by adding a lost leg or arm as well.

Absolutely true. Or born in Somalia or anyone of dozens of other places around the world.

If you acknowledge that, why isn't it possible to also acknowledge that even within one country, there are both places and groups it's worse to be part of?

because a plateau looks an awful lot like a bowling alley from the inside

I'll be using this saw in the future.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the wrong name reduces your chances by a third, then it's a far cry from no chance at all. There are also ways around this, such as name blinded applications. It's not perfect, but it is something, right?

If AP classes are so critical, maybe it's that system that is at fault. What would work better? None of the practical details are written in scripture or stone. They can be changed.

I am not saying there are not unfair things around. There are. There always will be. I am saying that these things are a reflection of people's views of other people. Acceptance is a slow process, primarily of awareness, and it is not a straight path. Because it matters to people, there are those who will capitalize on this process as a career, and those who want change to stay away. It is, however, a losing battle, and change comes whether those people like it or not. What people don't see, however, is the time scale. You can't measure these things in less time than generations. I am a firm believer in kids growing up together, getting to know kids in other situations. Eventually, it boils down to who we see as fellow human beings, and that process is unstoppable (the expanding circle) and has been so since time immemorial. Now, since the unfairnesses are reflections of the level of acceptance, I don't believe you can really rush it without risking falling into dangerous examples of groupthink or other discrimination (affirmative action for blacks hitting asians, I'm looking at you here). If I had my way, Social Justice Warriors ought to spend their time showing us all what other people's lives are like. It's the way I can see to greater understanding.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:


My point? The world is a nuanced place. Everyone rails against legacy scholarships, and I agree with most of what they say, but if it weren't for legacy scholarships I wouldn't have the education I do. As crazy at sounds, sometimes taking a legacy scholarship is the more responsible choice.

Goodness, offering legacy scholarships is also the more responsible choice, due to the crazy educational policies in the US. Since most schools are responsible for generating their own revenue (even the so-called public schools usually only get like 10-15% of their costs covered), the increase in donations from offering legacy scholarships usually more than covers the costs of the scholarships. (I think the relationship is like 2:1; on average, you get enough extra donations to fund two extra general scholarships.)

Yes, I hate legacy scholarships as an entrenchment of privilege. But until we can find other ways to plug that financial hole, they may be necessary.


Sis, could you provide an example of affirmative action for blacks hitting asians? I'm not trying to be dense, but I have no idea what that means.


It was about affirmative action for blacks to get into higher education. The Economist had an article about it perhaps a year or so back. I don't have time to look it up right now, will get back to you.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:

And every single one of you Americans have the privilege of not being born in North Korea, right? All privilege is relative. There is no disadvantage that can't be made worse by adding a lost leg or arm as well.

In the first, yes... even if privilege is the result of blind luck and circumstance. George Bush had the luck of being born into a family with such connections, he was continuously shoveled money no matter how many oil companies he ran into the ground.

Lost leg, lost arm? If you're in the privileged set, you'll have access to the best prosthetics money can buy. If you're in the poor set, the best you'll get for a lost hand is a hook.

Privilege may be relative but it does exist and it does matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You don't have to provide a link or anything, I was just confused by the phrasing. Although, in the late 80s Rhode Island had a large population of Hmong immigrants-cum-refugees, and I'd bet their children's access to higher education was as limited any other minority group's, asian or not.

Edit: oops, ninja'd, that was to Sis.


Sissyl wrote:

If the wrong name reduces your chances by a third, then it's a far cry from no chance at all. There are also ways around this, such as name blinded applications. It's not perfect, but it is something, right?

If AP classes are so critical, maybe it's that system that is at fault. What would work better? None of the practical details are written in scripture or stone. They can be changed.

I am not saying there are not unfair things around. There are. There always will be. I am saying that these things are a reflection of people's views of other people. Acceptance is a slow process, primarily of awareness, and it is not a straight path. Because it matters to people, there are those who will capitalize on this process as a career, and those who want change to stay away. It is, however, a losing battle, and change comes whether those people like it or not. What people don't see, however, is the time scale. You can't measure these things in less time than generations. I am a firm believer in kids growing up together, getting to know kids in other situations. Eventually, it boils down to who we see as fellow human beings, and that process is unstoppable (the expanding circle) and has been so since time immemorial. Now, since the unfairnesses are reflections of the level of acceptance, I don't believe you can really rush it without risking falling into dangerous examples of groupthink or other discrimination (affirmative action for blacks hitting asians, I'm looking at you here). If I had my way, Social Justice Warriors ought to spend their time showing us all what other people's lives are like. It's the way I can see to greater understanding.

Of course it's not "no chance at all". No one's ever claimed it was. It's just another hurdle that makes it harder for one group and easier for the dominant one. And the whole point of the "wrong name" experiments was to show that the bias existed, not that it was just about the name. If you switch to name blind applications all you lose is the way to demonstrate it, since they're going to meet the employees eventually. You lose the ability to do the controlled experiment where the only thing different is an indicator of group membership. Then you get bogged down in all the individual details and it's much harder to draw patterns. The problem isn't the names.

So yeah, the point is that there are unfair things around and we'd like to minimize them, but plenty of people keep claiming they aren't unfair anymore and it's all just the individual's work ethic and ability. It is reflective of people's view of other people. When people's view of other people includes "People in this other group aren't as good" we call that prejudice. Or racism. Or sexism. Because it is.

I'm not anywhere near convinced that the process is unstoppable and that no one should try to interfere. Near as I can tell from history, the changes have come from people acting. From people throwing themselves against the unjust system and trying to stop the prejudice. And when they stop, we see relapses. We can and have fallen back, gotten worse.

Even assuming inevitable, slow progress, I'm not happy telling people "I know things suck for you, but don't worry, you're grandchildren will be a little better off. And maybe a few generations after that, we'll all actually be equal. So don't try to change things. That just brings problems."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:

You don't have to provide a link or anything, I was just confused by the phrasing. Although, in the late 80s Rhode Island had a large population of Hmong immigrants-cum-refugees, and I'd bet their children's access to higher education was as limited any other minority group's, asian or not.

Edit: oops, ninja'd, that was to Sis.

I think the argument is that Asians in general tend to be overrepresented in higher education for various reasons, so the effect of affirmative action programs on them has been to lower enrollment. Which particularly hurts the lower status groups - recent immigrants/refugees etc.


We have gotten worse? Interesting. How? When? Compared to when?


Here is a piece about Asians and education.

The Economist

Edit: Dammit, didn't get that link to work. Try again later.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
We have gotten worse? Interesting. How? When? Compared to when?

Well, here's a Newsweek headline from 2013 : "Support for Affirmative Action at Historic Low."

The social safety net that has been built, mostly in the aftermath of the Depression and then later in the Great Society program, has been systematically dismantled since the Reagan presidency, and the public has largely bought into that systematic dismemberment.

Housing segregation by race, having decreased markedly in the 1960s and 1970s, started climbing again in the 1980s and 2000s.

Essentialliy, we're seeing a lot less de jure marginalization, but a substantial increase in de facto marginalization, because there's a lot less social pressure against public expressions of prejudice against minorities as long as you couch it in the right terms.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
We have gotten worse? Interesting. How? When? Compared to when?

Well, here's a Newsweek headline from 2013 : "Support for Affirmative Action at Historic Low."

The social safety net that has been built, mostly in the aftermath of the Depression and then later in the Great Society program, has been systematically dismantled since the Reagan presidency, and the public has largely bought into that systematic dismemberment.

Housing segregation by race, having decreased markedly in the 1960s and 1970s, started climbing again in the 1980s and 2000s.

Essentialliy, we're seeing a lot less de jure marginalization, but a substantial increase in de facto marginalization, because there's a lot less social pressure against public expressions of prejudice against minorities as long as you couch it in the right terms.

Minority prison populations have also soared.

Also, from a larger perspective, you don't have to argue we're worse right here and now to dispute the "Things are always getting better" claim.

In the case of American blacks, every major victory seems to be followed by a retrenchment of racism: After emancipation, there was a period during Reconstruction when there was a good deal of progress made, including more black elected officials until the 60s. It was turned around and Jim Crow took over.

In other countries progress has definitely gone backwards at times - often through (violent) changes in government. Iran's transition from democracy to dictatorship to theocracy would be an obvious example.

The overall long term global trend may be towards progress or we may simply be near the top of an upswing. And nearly every advance I can think of was won by hard struggle. Rarely do things just get better by waiting around.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see a similarity with what people live through after recovering from a nervous breakdown : every so often, they fall back in it. But not as low nor as long as before. There is indeed a trend toward progress.

And because there is always hard struggle on many many fronts, we can always associate some with any significant advance. Doubly so because it is so much easier to focus on the flashpoints that incarnate the global trend.

In the end, things get better by waiting around while doing the right thing. Which does not entail hurting others recklessly or without caring.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interesting article, Orfamay. I do not, however, see how less support for affirmative action is a BAD thing. It has always been a two-edged sword. It has never been possible to explain well why an otherwise privileged black student should get chosen before a poorer, disabled, whatever, further disadvantaged white student ON THE BASIS OF EVENING OUT PRIVILEGE, SUPPORTED BY THE STATE. In effect, that white student is treated worse because of his race. And while it is deplorable that people in society treat one another badly due to race, it is far worse when that happens with support from the powers that be, the laws, and so on.

If we have far less de jure discrimination today, then that is the metric that truly means something. Equality of opportunity is the most you can hope to reach without hurting other things, equality of outcome is a fool's game, where group identity is connected to the exact percentage points desired for various metrics. I really have a hard time feeling sorry for Watermelondrea for not getting the hedge fund job on Wall Street - I quite understand her desire to lead a decent life, however.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:


I am not saying there are not unfair things around. There are. There always will be. I am saying that these things are a reflection of people's views of other people.

And that's something I'm trying to correct you on. Something I've been at pains to correct you on, but you seem determined not to listen.

Because it's not simply about people's views of other people. A lot of times, it's about people's lack of views of other people, because of.... "privilege."

It's precisely because people don't, and they see differential success among people-like-them, and believe that the causes for those differences are the only important differences for people like them.

Quote:
What people don't see, however, is the time scale. You can't measure these things in less time than generations.

Bullfrog. We can change things overnight by action of law, if necessary. And if the only alternative is that every person alive today will be significantly discriminated against for the rest of their life, then the blunt trauma of the law is the appropriate choice. If there's a more effective gradualist approach that will still make significant progress on the issue, then I'm in favor of that.

And one approach that I favor is to point out to idiots who believe that the only reason there aren't more blacks on Wall Street is that they must all be lazy the fact that, no, the system actively hinders them from getting into the appropriate pipeline.

You can't get a job you weren't allowed to interview for.
You can't graduate from a college you couldn't get into.
You can't take classes your high school doesn't offer.

So when you're compelled to graduate from a bad high school because there's no funding to offer enrichment classes in your mostly-minority suburb, I contend it's the system's fault you didn't make it to Wall Street, because the system didn't allow you to compete for the job.

Liberty's Edge

To get lasting results, you need to build them slowly. It took a very long time for French democracy to stabilize after the French Revolution took down the Ancient Regime. Including several periods when we went back to monarchy.

And the French Revolution itself did not happen in a vacuum. It was the consequence of social trends that were centuries old.


Should poor people's tax money go to support people far richer than them? If it should, why? How does that solve anything? And if you give up on equality of opportunity to focus on equality of outcome, you are STILL saying it's okay to discriminate people based on their skin. And not because of anything so high-minded as equality and human dignity, but BECAUSE THE PERCENTAGES ARE NOT WHERE THE GOVERNMENT THINKS THEY SHOULD BE.

College admission processes can be changed. Classes given in various places can be changed. You CAN let people be equal before the law and NOT enforce discrimination. And no, I did not call anyone lazy. Please show me where I did, if you think so.

If "the blunt trauma of the law" is what you suggest, then give us something to discuss. What are you actually saying should be done?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

Should poor people's tax money go to support people far richer than them? If it should, why? How does that solve anything? And if you give up on equality of opportunity to focus on equality of outcome, you are STILL saying it's okay to discriminate people based on their skin. And not because of anything so high-minded as equality and human dignity, but BECAUSE THE PERCENTAGES ARE NOT WHERE THE GOVERNMENT THINKS THEY SHOULD BE.

College admission processes can be changed. Classes given in various places can be changed. You CAN let people be equal before the law and NOT enforce discrimination. And no, I did not call anyone lazy. Please show me where I did, if you think so.

If "the blunt trauma of the law" is what you suggest, then give us something to discuss. What are you actually saying should be done?

Please give examples of what you're talking about in the section I bolded.

I don't mean to pile on here, but look Sis, you're a Swede who lives in Sweden, and you've got all sorts of opinions about how the US gets it wrong, but you're not speaking from experience. Yes, racial affirmative action is a blunt instrument when it comes to solving long term economic disparity, but that means we need to keep widening access, not re-segregate it, not matter how many times the Roberts Court will hear cases on the subject.

401 to 450 of 788 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / On the Problems with Communication, Discourse, and Social Justice All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.