What I dislike about the term is that it is inherrently racist. As though people from other racist backgrounds can't do this sort of *****.
Well, there's also 'mansplain' and 'straightsplain' and 'cissplain' if you need more.
And they're patronising in the same way that 'whitesplain' is. It assumes that the person you're talking to is inherently unable to empathise with your situation just because of their race/sex/gender.
Quote from
There"s a lot of debate among psychiatrists as to if multiple personalities are really a thing.[/quote »
Well, let's compromise and say that auditory hallucinations are, and that people who have these sometimes claim they recognize distinct personalities in these voices. Do you agree with me that it's disrespectful to these people when someone would say to them "Oh really? I have headmates too, you know. I have such a lot of fun with them, although that when one of my wolf alters tries to front, I start to want to do all strange things!"?
[quote]Indeed. The kit fox society is no more 'foxes' than the Queen is three lions.
But these New Age types don't get it.
I don't know. I do agree that New Age people often get the roots of what they're talking about wrong, but so do Christians with many of the tenants of their faith. I think the line between 'this is being disrepectful and you're ******* up parts of my belief' and 'yeah, it's derived from what I belief in, but it's old/different enough that it's okay' is blurry, if existent at all.
It's a legitimate major.
Then say that you disagree with me on that. And I'm sorry, maybe I have a too high standard for what an academic course should be, but from what I read/heard, this sort of stuff is just not up to snuff for me.
One of Fox News's 'reporters'. Has said that Japanese internment camps weren't so bad.
How do these people put their panties on the right way in the morning?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
While I hate Tumblr SJWs like most of you guys do, I disagree that their rantings are non-influential. Just recently, Sweden announced that they would be removing all mentions of race from their legislation. Now I know that Nordic countries as a whole are extremely progressive, but this seems like something taken directly out of a Tumblr rant about how race is an evil thing and should be removed because of X.
"Removing all mentions of race" is actually a goal more associated with libertarianism. A lot of progressives are suspicious of or hostile to it, because it precludes legal protections for racial minorities that they would like to have.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What I dislike about the term is that it is inherrently racist. As though people from other racist backgrounds can't do this sort of *****.
Well, there's also 'mansplain' and 'straightsplain' and 'cissplain' if you need more.
And they're patronising in the same way that 'whitesplain' is. It assumes that the person you're talking to is inherently unable to empathise with your situation just because of their race/sex/gender.
Yes, your privilege makes it harder for you to empathize with people who face issues daily that you don't.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
What I dislike about the term is that it is inherrently racist. As though people from other racist backgrounds can't do this sort of *****.
Well, there's also 'mansplain' and 'straightsplain' and 'cissplain' if you need more.
And they're patronising in the same way that 'whitesplain' is. It assumes that the person you're talking to is inherently unable to empathise with your situation just because of their race/sex/gender.
Yes, your privilege makes it harder for you to empathize with people who face issues daily that you don't.
Why? Are we cis white males so unable to understand anyone other than ourselves? It's just completely idiotic to say that I cannot empathize with someone because they have different levels of melanin.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
It's because of how you and them are treated your entire lives that is why you can't. Being a white male is pretty great, especially in countries where they're the majority.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
It's because of how you and them are treated your entire lives that is why you can't. Being a white male is pretty great, especially in countries where they're the majority.
The problem with statements like this, and the treatement of "privilege" as a thing that applies to individuals, is that they assume that the general trend is true for all. The experience of all white males, even in the US, is not pretty great. The experience of most is (relative to certain minorities), but most =/= all. Privilege is a general theory that, even if not bunk, does not and indeed, cannot, apply to individuals. The assumption that no white person can empathize with a black person (or other minority) purely because they are white is pure, unadultered, racism.
There are, in fact, white men who live in abject poverty and don't have the means to get out.
Privilege can, indeed, apply to individuals? There's no reason an individual cannot receive a benefit from being a member of the privileged class.
No, Privilege [meaning privilege theory] cannot. Privilege theory is the statement that an overall class of individuals has a general advantage, and makes literally no statements about specific members of that class. This is why your use of "Privilege" here, and Tumblr's use of "Privilege" in general is complete and utter bunk.
"white privilege" is not a statement about specific white individuals. If you use it as such (like you JUST did) you are using it wrong and are incorrect.
Privilege is the idea that in human society, some groups benefit from unearned, largely-unacknowledged advantages that increase their power relative to that of others, thereby perpetuating social inequality. Privilege is generally invisible to those who have it, and a person's level of privilege is influenced by multiple factors including race, gender, age, sexual orientation, and social class, and changes over time.[1] Privilege has many benefits, including ones that are financial or material such as access to housing, education, and jobs,[1] as well as others that are emotional or psychological, such as a sense of personal self-confidence and comfortableness, or having a sense of belonging or worth in society.[2]
...
Privilege, as understood and described by researchers, is a function of multiple variables of varying importance. They include race, gender, age, sexual orientation, social class, citizenship status, religion, country of origin, wealth, birth order, level of health, level of education, physical ability and many other attributes, with race, gender and social class generally felt by sociologists to be the most determinative of a person's overall level of privilege.[8] Privilege theory argues that each individual is embedded in a matrix of categories and contexts, and will be in some ways privileged and other ways disadvantaged, with privileged attributes lessening disadvantage and membership in a disadvantaged group lessening the benefits of privilege.[9] For example a white lesbian university professor benefits from racial and educational privilege, but is disadvantaged due to her gender and sexual orientation.[10] Some attributes of privilege are ordinarily fairly visible, such as race and gender, and others, such as citizenship status and birth order, are not. Some such as social class are relatively stable and others, such as age, wealth, religion and attractiveness, will or may change over time.[11] Some attributes of privilege are at least partly determined by the individual, such as level of education, whereas others such as race or class background are entirely involuntary.
Yes individuals can have privilege.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
It's because the individuals have the advantage that the whole theory exists!
If you want my honest opinion, it's because people want to blame their situation entirely on factors outside their control that the theory exists.
Application of privilege theory to an individual is a completely idiotic prospect though. The theory states that people gain X advantages because they have Y traits. But, we can empirically show that not everyone with Y traits has X advantages. Once you take it from the large general view down to the specific view, the entire theory falls apart.
Further, nothing in the source you cited prohibits someone with the alleged privilege from empathizing with, or understanding, the plight of someone without it. I don't *need* to experience rape, to empathize with a rape victim. I don't *need* to experience anti-black racism to empathize with someone who has. Saying that I not only don't, but am completely and utterly incapable of empathizing with people purely because of my skin colour? How is that *not* racism?
Finally, on the point of privilege:
(from the wiki)
The concept of privilege has been criticized for crudely ignoring relative differences among groups. For example, researchers have argued that in American culture there are status differences among Asian Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and Cambodians, and among African-Americans, black immigrants from the Caribbean and black immigrants from Africa.[23]
It's because the individuals have the advantage that the whole theory exists!
Application of privilege theory to an individual is a completely idiotic prospect though.
Did you just ignore the bolded portions of the block quote?
Further, nothing in the source you cited prohibits someone with the alleged privilege from empathizing with, or understanding, the plight of someone without it. I don't *need* to experience rape, to empathize with a rape victim. I don't *need* to experience anti-black racism to empathize with someone who has. Saying that I not only don't, but am completely and utterly incapable of empathizing with people purely because of my skin colour? How is that *not* racism?
Again, from the article:
Privilege is generally invisible to those who have it, and a person's level of privilege is influenced by multiple factors including race, gender, age, sexual orientation, and social class, and changes over time.[1]
You can't understand because it hasn't happened to you. Much like the people who have never been water-boarded say it's not torture. Experiencing it first hand is imperative to fully understanding.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
Further, nothing in the source you cited prohibits someone with the alleged privilege from empathizing with, or understanding, the plight of someone without it. I don't *need* to experience rape, to empathize with a rape victim. I don't *need* to experience anti-black racism to empathize with someone who has. Saying that I not only don't, but am completely and utterly incapable of empathizing with people purely because of my skin colour? How is that *not* racism?
Again, from the article:
Privilege is generally invisible to those who have it, and a person's level of privilege is influenced by multiple factors including race, gender, age, sexual orientation, and social class, and changes over time.[1]
You can't understand because it hasn't happened to you. Much like the people who have never been water-boarded say it's not torture. Experiencing it first hand is imperative to fully understanding.
But fully understanding is not imperative to empathizing! No, I don't fully understand it. But that doesn't mean I cannot empathize with it. Nor does it mean my opinion is invalid, or of less weight. But, more to the direct point, an ability (or inability) to see privilege is wholly irrelevant to whether I can empathize with someone. Even if I have monumental privilege and I can't see it. That in no way negates my capacity for empathy.
You are flat out, explicitly, saying "bLatch has no capacity for empathy because bLatch is a white male." That is practically the definition of a racist statement.
"Removing all mentions of race" is actually a goal more associated with libertarianism. A lot of progressives are suspicious of or hostile to it, because it precludes legal protections for racial minorities that they would like to have.
You need to look at the decision with some context. Sweden, along with its Nordic cousins, has had a lot of problems with failing to integrate non-Western immigrants into their country. Rather than admit they've screwed up, their press attempts to hide this fact. Sometimes it's something relatively benign like mentioning immigrants as "youth" if a crime is being reported. Or you get stuff like this (Yes, I'm aware of the irony of linking to Tumblr) where pictures of criminals get whitewashed to make them look like native Swedes that never actually committed said crimes in the first place.
Sweden didn't remove all mentions of race because they had a libertarian moment, they did it because they're a very politically correct country that is paranoid of anyone trying to mention race that isn't in a positive manner.
Headmates could mean one of two things: get some psych help, or take up a career as a writer. If Tumblr SJW stuff bleeds into the real world, it could help the people who are actually trying to make a difference refine their approach so as to distinguish themselves from Tumblr bigotry.
It's because of how you and them are treated your entire lives that is why you can't. Being a white male is pretty great, especially in countries where they're the majority.
You can't understand because it hasn't happened to you. Much like the people who have never been water-boarded say it's not torture. Experiencing it first hand is imperative to fully understanding.
No, that's not how empathy works. As bLatch says: you don't need to experience something to be able to empathise with someone going through that experience. I never got my bike stolen. That doesn't mean I can't empathise with someone having his/her stolen and feeling sympathetic for that person.
That's ridiculous. It's because the individuals have the advantage that the whole theory exists!
Privilege deals on a larger level than the individual. As a group, yes, white people* have an advantage. However, you cannot say that each person because of this benefits from this privilege.
*in most western countries in this period of time
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
You can't empathize because you can't know. To empathize you have to have felt the same way otherwise you're not empathizing, you're sympathizing (feeling for them rather than feeling with them.)
So has it just been decided that privilege theorists don't get to define their own theory?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
You can't empathize because you can't know. To empathize you have to have felt the same way otherwise you're not empathizing, you're sympathizing (feeling for them rather than feeling with them.)
Find me one goddamned reason for this other than "because I say so", please.
So has it just been decided that privilege theorists don't get to define their own theory?
Sure they can, just as I can say that their theories make no sense whatsoever. Not every white man benefits from white privilege.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
You're linking to a site that advocates eugenics and genetic racism. This, uh, to put it mildly takes the edge off of the complains about people of colour being insufficiently portrayed as criminals. That you link us to tumblr is the least of the issues with you.
Never mind that the pictures on the specific page you link to are from a site that is now gone and that I can only find on nazi pages and some brief debate pages where it's clear that it was a nazi site.
How are you going to explain yourself?
I linked to that site not because I'm a Nazi or an advocate of eugenics, but because it consolidated all the pictures of whitewashing that goes on in your country in one link.
If you're just going to do nothing but ad hominem me, I'm not going to waste any more time with you.
If you're just going to do nothing but ad hominem me, I'm not going to waste any more time with you.
Okay, look. On the one hand, yes, "This source is Nazi therefore everything they say is wrong" is an ad hominem fallacy. But on the other hand, it is valid to question the reliability of sources. Being a Nazi doesn't make someone automatically wrong, but it is probably a good idea to maintain a healthy degree of skepticism about any claims they make concerning race. Non-Nazi sources are generally more trustworthy. Do you have any?
Violence against minorities is the entire point of nazis organisation and the press taking just a moment to not actively feed it is the least they can do.
The press is not actively feeding Nazi paranoia by representing the facts honestly. If the Nazis take the wrong message from the facts, that's their problem; the press' role is passive at worst. However, if the press began to doctor photographs to misrepresent the truth, then that would be taking an active role in feeding Nazi paranoia - except I'm not sure it counts as "paranoia" if their fear of the public being manipulated by an untrustworthy press is what's actually happening. ("The fascists of the future will be called anti-fascists", anyone?)
The thing I don't get here, though, is that you first criticize Surging Chaos' source, implying that what it claims about Swedish press practices is untrue, but then you defend those alleged practices as if the claims were true. Which is it?
EDIT: This topic probably deserves its own thread too. Made one.
Well, these strange people do exist and come around with strange beliefs they feel are true. There's been a few of the whooley headed anarchists such as Shining Blue Eyes that aren't extremely good at their debating skills nor are intellectually well grounded in their own arguments. Others, I've found more resounding such as Surging Chaos or Ijosspiere to be able to come to a good debate without negating inherent weaknesses of their own philosophy. Overall, betwixt most of these stranger ideas like Neo-Reactionaries like Mencius Moldbug offer me little confidence that these "ideas" are anything more than utopian groups or hippies in their attempts to reorganize society.
Altogether, I feel that there are some natural, predestined routes towards social organization that make specific "dreams" such as communism or anarchism unrealistic without geographical, material, and demographic specifics to maintain self-reinforcing norms and values over a long haul without usurpation, direct conquest, or just plain apathy (which happened to most Utopian and Hippy groups).
Feminism in particular was a white rich woman's game that eventually got more focus as women in the middle class in college gave more voice, however those women also had real issues to vent against the old order. Even then, the reactionism has went too far in seeing men as an escape goat to everything that befalls women. The women empowerment movement has been successful, but a question that I come down is to redefine who we are as "men" as well as "women." That is we need to directly discuss the role of our own children within our culture, especially when I look upon young students practicing for marching band in the summer for some parade. I ask myself, "Wouldn't they be better served doing some vocational work and dating?"
While many areas are defined by their local football teams, cheerleaders, and marching bands. I have come to question the focus with education extracurriculars in regards to these prime pieces being so much put up. Where are the young entrepreneurs being rewarded and having their own trophy case? That is something I truly ask. I feel that it begins there with the segmentation early on where we look upon trivialities with much jubiliation without giving proper order to having children vet out their own life experiences as they become adults. Why are so few children drawn to politics or real vocations? Because we rob them of time preparing them for the future, rather than allowing them to enjoy the current era they are in. This doesn't degrade from summer love songs and the like, but rather that we must practice looking at ourselves first in the "adult world" and how we choose to order society through segregation and wonder why "kids and college kids are so naive about office politics." It's because we make the system that way.
Perhaps it is in that beginning for segregation of a kind that we allow for these kinds of ideas to fester, as the capacity to have free discussion and open thought in our public schools are stifled by ABC organizations that are scared about nude anatomy, the word ***** being said in class, or "not enough conservative or liberal materials" being taught in the abomination we call social studies. No wonder people see history and other areas of social science as a front for wasting tax payer dollars. It's because we disconnect the value from the education which is only gained through application and experience.
Then there's always football....
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
My primary problem with this movement is that I have not met or conversed with anyone that holds it and yet can still reason with those who do not.
Every interaction seems to boil down to, "check your privilege!" OK? Care to... make an argument? Discuss your ideas? Or would you prefer to just point your finger and scream? It's the equivalent of me yelling "statist, statist!" rather than actually, you know, talking to someone. "You're white, so you can't understand!" OK? What do you want me to do, keep not understanding? It is not my intent or desire to simply strawman these people; I would genuinely prefer to actually meet one with whom it was possible to interact in some way.
I also don't understand what made "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" some kind of gospel that everyone must bow down to, and no, I don't think it's helpful for you to refer me to it for the 1,000th time. If I link you to "Road to Serfdom", does that magically make you a libertarian? No? Then why do they keep linking me to Unpacking?
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
A very cogent diagnosis of the problem. But a friend of mine did point out one quibble with it: it doesn't take the motte-and-bailey analogy far enough. It calls terms like "racism" and "privilege" weapons when he thinks (and I agree) that they are, like a castle, defense mechanisms. You call other people "racist" and "privileged" not primarily because you want to put them down, but rather because you want to build yourself up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And they're patronising in the same way that 'whitesplain' is. It assumes that the person you're talking to is inherently unable to empathise with your situation just because of their race/sex/gender.
I don't know. I do agree that New Age people often get the roots of what they're talking about wrong, but so do Christians with many of the tenants of their faith. I think the line between 'this is being disrepectful and you're ******* up parts of my belief' and 'yeah, it's derived from what I belief in, but it's old/different enough that it's okay' is blurry, if existent at all.
Then say that you disagree with me on that. And I'm sorry, maybe I have a too high standard for what an academic course should be, but from what I read/heard, this sort of stuff is just not up to snuff for me.
How do these people put their panties on the right way in the morning?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yes, your privilege makes it harder for you to empathize with people who face issues daily that you don't.
Why? Are we cis white males so unable to understand anyone other than ourselves? It's just completely idiotic to say that I cannot empathize with someone because they have different levels of melanin.
The problem with statements like this, and the treatement of "privilege" as a thing that applies to individuals, is that they assume that the general trend is true for all. The experience of all white males, even in the US, is not pretty great. The experience of most is (relative to certain minorities), but most =/= all. Privilege is a general theory that, even if not bunk, does not and indeed, cannot, apply to individuals. The assumption that no white person can empathize with a black person (or other minority) purely because they are white is pure, unadultered, racism.
There are, in fact, white men who live in abject poverty and don't have the means to get out.
No, Privilege [meaning privilege theory] cannot. Privilege theory is the statement that an overall class of individuals has a general advantage, and makes literally no statements about specific members of that class. This is why your use of "Privilege" here, and Tumblr's use of "Privilege" in general is complete and utter bunk.
"white privilege" is not a statement about specific white individuals. If you use it as such (like you JUST did) you are using it wrong and are incorrect.
Yes individuals can have privilege.
If you want my honest opinion, it's because people want to blame their situation entirely on factors outside their control that the theory exists.
Application of privilege theory to an individual is a completely idiotic prospect though. The theory states that people gain X advantages because they have Y traits. But, we can empirically show that not everyone with Y traits has X advantages. Once you take it from the large general view down to the specific view, the entire theory falls apart.
Further, nothing in the source you cited prohibits someone with the alleged privilege from empathizing with, or understanding, the plight of someone without it. I don't *need* to experience rape, to empathize with a rape victim. I don't *need* to experience anti-black racism to empathize with someone who has. Saying that I not only don't, but am completely and utterly incapable of empathizing with people purely because of my skin colour? How is that *not* racism?
Finally, on the point of privilege:
(from the wiki)
The concept of privilege has been criticized for crudely ignoring relative differences among groups. For example, researchers have argued that in American culture there are status differences among Asian Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and Cambodians, and among African-Americans, black immigrants from the Caribbean and black immigrants from Africa.[23]
Did you just ignore the bolded portions of the block quote?
Again, from the article:
You can't understand because it hasn't happened to you. Much like the people who have never been water-boarded say it's not torture. Experiencing it first hand is imperative to fully understanding.
No, I disagree with them, because they are wrong. Wiki, is not infallible.
But fully understanding is not imperative to empathizing! No, I don't fully understand it. But that doesn't mean I cannot empathize with it. Nor does it mean my opinion is invalid, or of less weight. But, more to the direct point, an ability (or inability) to see privilege is wholly irrelevant to whether I can empathize with someone. Even if I have monumental privilege and I can't see it. That in no way negates my capacity for empathy.
You are flat out, explicitly, saying "bLatch has no capacity for empathy because bLatch is a white male." That is practically the definition of a racist statement.
You need to look at the decision with some context. Sweden, along with its Nordic cousins, has had a lot of problems with failing to integrate non-Western immigrants into their country. Rather than admit they've screwed up, their press attempts to hide this fact. Sometimes it's something relatively benign like mentioning immigrants as "youth" if a crime is being reported. Or you get stuff like this (Yes, I'm aware of the irony of linking to Tumblr) where pictures of criminals get whitewashed to make them look like native Swedes that never actually committed said crimes in the first place.
Sweden didn't remove all mentions of race because they had a libertarian moment, they did it because they're a very politically correct country that is paranoid of anyone trying to mention race that isn't in a positive manner.
No, that's not how empathy works. As bLatch says: you don't need to experience something to be able to empathise with someone going through that experience. I never got my bike stolen. That doesn't mean I can't empathise with someone having his/her stolen and feeling sympathetic for that person.
Privilege deals on a larger level than the individual. As a group, yes, white people* have an advantage. However, you cannot say that each person because of this benefits from this privilege.
*in most western countries in this period of time
So has it just been decided that privilege theorists don't get to define their own theory?
Find me one goddamned reason for this other than "because I say so", please.
Sure they can, just as I can say that their theories make no sense whatsoever. Not every white man benefits from white privilege.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I linked to that site not because I'm a Nazi or an advocate of eugenics, but because it consolidated all the pictures of whitewashing that goes on in your country in one link.
If you're just going to do nothing but ad hominem me, I'm not going to waste any more time with you.
The press is not actively feeding Nazi paranoia by representing the facts honestly. If the Nazis take the wrong message from the facts, that's their problem; the press' role is passive at worst. However, if the press began to doctor photographs to misrepresent the truth, then that would be taking an active role in feeding Nazi paranoia - except I'm not sure it counts as "paranoia" if their fear of the public being manipulated by an untrustworthy press is what's actually happening. ("The fascists of the future will be called anti-fascists", anyone?)
The thing I don't get here, though, is that you first criticize Surging Chaos' source, implying that what it claims about Swedish press practices is untrue, but then you defend those alleged practices as if the claims were true. Which is it?
EDIT: This topic probably deserves its own thread too. Made one.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Altogether, I feel that there are some natural, predestined routes towards social organization that make specific "dreams" such as communism or anarchism unrealistic without geographical, material, and demographic specifics to maintain self-reinforcing norms and values over a long haul without usurpation, direct conquest, or just plain apathy (which happened to most Utopian and Hippy groups).
Feminism in particular was a white rich woman's game that eventually got more focus as women in the middle class in college gave more voice, however those women also had real issues to vent against the old order. Even then, the reactionism has went too far in seeing men as an escape goat to everything that befalls women. The women empowerment movement has been successful, but a question that I come down is to redefine who we are as "men" as well as "women." That is we need to directly discuss the role of our own children within our culture, especially when I look upon young students practicing for marching band in the summer for some parade. I ask myself, "Wouldn't they be better served doing some vocational work and dating?"
While many areas are defined by their local football teams, cheerleaders, and marching bands. I have come to question the focus with education extracurriculars in regards to these prime pieces being so much put up. Where are the young entrepreneurs being rewarded and having their own trophy case? That is something I truly ask. I feel that it begins there with the segmentation early on where we look upon trivialities with much jubiliation without giving proper order to having children vet out their own life experiences as they become adults. Why are so few children drawn to politics or real vocations? Because we rob them of time preparing them for the future, rather than allowing them to enjoy the current era they are in. This doesn't degrade from summer love songs and the like, but rather that we must practice looking at ourselves first in the "adult world" and how we choose to order society through segregation and wonder why "kids and college kids are so naive about office politics." It's because we make the system that way.
Perhaps it is in that beginning for segregation of a kind that we allow for these kinds of ideas to fester, as the capacity to have free discussion and open thought in our public schools are stifled by ABC organizations that are scared about nude anatomy, the word ***** being said in class, or "not enough conservative or liberal materials" being taught in the abomination we call social studies. No wonder people see history and other areas of social science as a front for wasting tax payer dollars. It's because we disconnect the value from the education which is only gained through application and experience.
Then there's always football....
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Every interaction seems to boil down to, "check your privilege!" OK? Care to... make an argument? Discuss your ideas? Or would you prefer to just point your finger and scream? It's the equivalent of me yelling "statist, statist!" rather than actually, you know, talking to someone. "You're white, so you can't understand!" OK? What do you want me to do, keep not understanding? It is not my intent or desire to simply strawman these people; I would genuinely prefer to actually meet one with whom it was possible to interact in some way.
I also don't understand what made "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" some kind of gospel that everyone must bow down to, and no, I don't think it's helpful for you to refer me to it for the 1,000th time. If I link you to "Road to Serfdom", does that magically make you a libertarian? No? Then why do they keep linking me to Unpacking?
Here's an article discussing SJW's and their mindset...
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-words/
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.