Society/Culture Straight White Male

Remove this Banner Ad

Run n Spread said:
True. We are a bit different from the states thou.

I could just as easily argue the rich in Australia import immigrants to keep everyone else poor, including the immigrants.

The true question is why the anger thou? I don't think the underlying anger is without foundation.
Click to expand...

Build a wall?

Stop the boats?

Same thing.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Sydney Bloods said:
there's only 1 war, the class war. attempting to stir up division among society based on race, gender, sexual orientation, native language, etc, etc. Is designed to divide people and ensure that any real change relating to standard of living goes completely unaddressed.
Click to expand...
Modern identity politics arose from Ivy League universities in the US, some of the most privileged people on the planet.
 
Last edited:
Ratts of Tobruk said:
The idea that issues like gay marriage are "designed to divide people" is a joke. The people who care about that as an issue more often than not also care a lot about inequality and actively are trying to do something about it. The fact you have to be rich to run for President in the US is barely relevant.

People aren't taught "life aint hard because your poor, its because of that white campaigner who lives next door". They are taught that they can get ahead by working hard. And when they don't get a job interview due to having a foreign sounding name, or when a woman hits a glass ceiling in a blokey industry, they have legitimate complaints.

Well-educated white men playing the victim is childish 95% of the time.
Click to expand...

oh really? funny how its the wealthy political/religious/cultural institutions which overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage and dig their heals into to block equality. Quite literally describing people as evil for being gay. Yet you claim they aren't using it to divide people. The entire basis of saying gay people cannot get married is based on dividing people.

Restricting political positions on a wealth basis is entirely relevant, It is a damning indication of dis-empowerment, the openness of democracy and how well socioeconomic classes are represented within the system and as we see in the US and here at an increasing rate, the treatment of poorer classes by the system is continuing to be more and more discriminating rather then less. As for thinking people do not have a victim agenda pushed on to them and the concept that white people reject them from a young age is probably the whitest thing you could possibly say.

Your right in that well educated white people playing the victim is childish, as is said well educated white people forever attempting to explain away, why they are a protected class with every excuse that doesn't include addressing a wealth buffer they never earned.
 
This could probably go in a couple of threads but this is the most active so I'll lay it down here.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...entity-i-had-no-choice-but-to-walk-out-on-her

“Mama, I can’t sit here,” I said, the corners of my mouth dragging downwards. “I cannot legitimise this …”
Click to expand...

Her question was — or could have been — an interesting question: What are fiction writers “allowed” to write, given they will never truly know another person’s experience?

Not every crime writer is a criminal, Shriver said, nor is every author who writes on sexual assault a rapist. “Fiction, by its very nature,” she said, “is fake.”

There is a fascinating philosophical argument here. Instead, however, that core question was used as a straw man. Shriver’s real targets were cultural appropriation, identity politics and political correctness. It was a monologue about the right to exploit the stories of “others”, simply because it is useful for one’s story.
Click to expand...

As the chuckles of the audience swelled around me, reinforcing and legitimising the words coming from behind the lectern, I breathed in deeply, trying to make sense of what I was hearing. The stench of privilege hung heavy in the air, and I was reminded of my “place” in the world.
Click to expand...

It’s not always OK if a white guy writes the story of a Nigerian woman because the actual Nigerian woman can’t get published or reviewed to begin with. It’s not always OK if a straight white woman writes the story of a queer Indigenous man, because when was the last time you heard a queer Indigenous man tell his own story? How is it that said straight white woman will profit from an experience that is not hers, and those with the actual experience never be provided the opportunity? It’s not always OK for a person with the privilege of education and wealth to write the story of a young Indigenous man, filtering the experience of the latter through their own skewed and biased lens, telling a story that likely reinforces an existing narrative which only serves to entrench a disadvantage they need never experience.
Click to expand...

I can’t speak for the LGBTQI community, those who are neuro-different or people with disabilities, but that’s also the point. I don’t speak for them, and should allow for their voices and experiences to be heard and legitimised.
Click to expand...

My own mother, as we walked away from the tent, suggested that perhaps I was being too sensitive. Perhaps … or perhaps that is the result of decades of being told to be quiet, and accept our place. So our conversation then turned to intent. What was Shriver’s intent when she chose to discuss her distaste for the concept of cultural appropriation? Was it to build bridges, to further our intellect, to broaden horizons of what is possible?

Her tone, I fear, betrayed otherwise. Humility is not Shriver’s cloak of choice.

The kind of disrespect for others infused in Lionel Shriver’s keynote is the same force that sees people vote for Pauline Hanson.
Click to expand...

The piece reads like satire of vanguard identity politic issues. In bold are some highlights. The piece is littered with logical fallacies and isn't even internally consistent. The author is young and possibly naive, yes, but all ideas need to be critiqued, especially when coming from a Young Australian of the year with a platform and an audience. Also as anyone who has spent any time on a university campus over the last decade will know, these ideas are not only commonplace but form an almost unspoken orthodoxy.

To pick up on the direction of the thread, the author, Yassmin Abdel-Magied is an engineer working for a major oil and gas company. By her own admission she has benefited from the gender and racial equality policies of a major multinational. The author is a young religious conservative, from a privileged background, with no interest in critiquing capital; are these warriors of identity even of "the left" as it once was conceived? Is anti-racism enough?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

ShanDog said:
Just generally speaking. All these issues of social class, race relations, privilege etc are all debates that involve contextualising the issue within our recent history.
Click to expand...
The issues of the civil rights era were different in philosophy and prosecution to that of identity politics today. Mixing the two up is fraudulent.
 
Chief said:
Come on. You are ignorant of something so the conclusion is that it was made up in order to confuse you? :)
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...

I mean you could have a stab at something in the ballpark but can you honestly say you know the specific meaning of that term?

Lionel Shriver gave a speech on the importance of literature, imagination and the universality of human values and the author of that piece essentially said Shriver's liberal values were akin to the race baiting populist right. Where do you go from there?
 
Run n Spread said:
True. We are a bit different from the states thou.

I could just as easily argue the rich in Australia import immigrants to keep everyone else poor, including the immigrants.

The true question is why the anger thou? I don't think the underlying anger is without foundation.
Click to expand...

Well you would be right to argue that about the United States.

Who is the biggest beneficiaries of cheap illegal immigrants who can't complain to the authorities over there?
 
Chief said:
I do. Use Google. It's pretty easy.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=neuro-different
Click to expand...

Autism, ADHD, bipolar, dyslexia etc. are the new edge of the identity politics movement?

Abdel-Magied's argument is that certain groups have been so oppressed by the prevailing culture of society that it's inappropriate for a white author/dominant group to assume their identity in character when writing fiction. I don't see the connection, personally.
 
Chief said:
The roots of a lot of this are in the actions of the rich in giving poor white people a target for their anger.
Click to expand...

Depends how you define the rich. See Brexit, the "liberal elite" were aghast, the working class finally got a chance to stick up two fingers to the inner city sorts and their gesture politics. Their wages had been suppressed, schools ruined, hospitals overcrowded etc, yet the rich were furious because now Jacinta and Rupert mightnt be able to take summer jobs as ski instructors and the nanny may have to go back to Poland.

Its not hard to work out why so many in the US hate illegal immigration (and why the rich usually like it)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Society/Culture White people arent so bad afterall
Replies
1
Views
590
Malifice
Malifice

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top