PC Principal V: What The Fuck Am I Reading

[Ksandra]

I agree about 90% with that tweet.

I wouldn't really label it as white supremacy, just white ignorance/privilege in that feminism has always been predominately a white women's movement, and they usually don't see that.


It's not so much that white women are trying to own black people, they are just racially insensitive.

[Day]

Yeah was talking to the wife about it, i actually agree up until he starts throwin white supremacy around.

[Gredival]

Black activists have also always been extremely defensive about equivalences being drawn between their struggles and that of other groups. Many did not take kindly to equating the gay marriage movement with the civil rights movement for instance.

[guartz]

What system is he talking about? It's easy to say there is systemic oppression, but it's a bit more difficult to nail it down. Which part of the government is oppressive black people specifically? As far as I know there are no laws that target people based on race. So what system is he talking about?

[Dotsudoku]

it's systemic because the system consists of a controlling majority who hold certain beliefs, be they latent or conscious

[guartz]

it's systemic because the system consists of a controlling majority who hold certain beliefs, be they latent or conscious

That's about how I understand it. What belief is that, that white people are better? How and where is it put into action, what law supports those beliefs?

[Day]

I just dont understand the attack your allies approach I see a lot these days. I used to think it was exclusive to the left but honestly theres a lot of infighting amongst the right as well. I mean the guy has a point but is it the hill to die on? Id say yes if his "enemies" were trying to coopt the message, but the "white women" hes attacking in a fairly harsh fashion probably agree with him on 90+% of policy/political issues. Just seems like you are alienating folks on "your side" for no great reason, i dont think it will do anything but splinter the greater movement. Straight white male btw so take all this with the tiny grain of salt it is worth in 2018.

[archibaldcrane]

There was no recompense for centuries of legal and then de facto oppression, the ramifications of which echo into present day.

You can say that having poor parents (and everything that entails) isn't "oppression" but if the root of that economic situation was oppression then, well...

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[archibaldcrane]

I just dont understand the attack your allies approach I see a lot these days. I used to think it was exclusive to the left but honestly theres a lot of infighting amongst the right as well. I mean the guy has a point but is it the hill to die on? Id say yes if his "enemies" were trying to coopt the message, but the "white women" hes attacking in a fairly harsh fashion probably agree with him on 90+% of policy/political issues. Just seems like you are alienating folks on "your side" for no great reason, i dont think it will do anything but splinter the greater movement. Straight white male btw so take all this with the tiny grain of salt it is worth in 2018.

He's saying they aren't allies. If they were allies they would have been kneeling to begin with.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Day]

He's saying they aren't allies. If they were allies they would have been kneeling to begin with.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Right but they are definitely more of an ally than the right wing who think kneeling is disrespectful to the flag no? And even if they arent they are surely the type of people that would most likely be your ally if you dont lash out and generalize them like that.

[Eurell]

Right but they are definitely more of an ally than the right wing who think kneeling is disrespectful to the flag no? And even if they arent they are surely the type of people that would most likely be your ally if you dont lash out and generalize them like that.

I agreed with most of what you said, except the very last part. I mean, it still makes sense, but I just don't understand people that are like, I was an ally until a few people were mean to me! Now I'm gonna support the opposite side. This is just some random dude. He holds no power, his opinions don't actually mean anything. Who gives a shit if he is an idiot and lashes out?

[Day]

I mean you say its some random guy but his tweet has 100k likes, retweeted by 30k people, some of those accounts could have god knows how many followers, and while twitter is far from reality and those are not very large numbers in the scheme if things, this is how ideas start and spread in current year.

Once this idea becomes a theme or whatever its not about one instance of someone said something mean, it becomes a daily struggle to even have discourse, bc now suddenly these white women feel alienated, and if they were to try to comment on that subject... Well just read the replies...

I cant comment on race, sexism, etc without being reminded that im a straight white male and that I could never experience their struggles, while true I could perhaps understand them if you werent already sterotyping me into some box of patriarchal white supremacy off the bat, which ironically is the very thing Im often being asked not to do.

I miss the push towards individualism.

[Greatguardian]

Historically speaking, the greatest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action are white women. Many of the programs were designed in spirit to increase black attendance in universities and the workforce, but on paper the only incentives were only to increase the representation of any historically underrepresented demographics. When given a choice between these underrepresented demographics, a white man will hire a white woman over a colored person any day of the week.

Of course, this isn't the fault of white women and many of them don't even realize this has happened. However, it is totally understandable that people of color would be frustrated by the appearance of white women co-opting their first successful movement in a good long while for their own gain.

Edit: I understand that life ain't been easy for women, even white women. But whenever American society has been presented with a choice between caring about women and caring about colored people, it has chosen to throw the entirety of their collective social weight behind women. People get to tick their progressive and forward thinking check boxes for the year without actually having to think about colored people. It's a real sore spot for folks of color.

[Ksandra]

I think GG sums it up nicely. If you look at this as a singular incident, I could see the frustration, Day. But as a collective history and present of the interactions between white women and POC, it’s been overflowing of WW being ahead and somehow expecting that’s good for everyone and POC shouldn’t complain.

[Gredival]

That's about how I understand it. What belief is that, that white people are better? How and where is it put into action, what law supports those beliefs?

Systemic oppression is not equivalent to legally embedded discrimination. There doesn't need to be a formal law authorizing inequality.

It's that kind of belief that underlies people who think there must not be racism anymore because we had the civil rights movement.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not stopping the disparate amounts of police violence inflicted on black persons. It didn't stop Donald Sterling from telling the managers of his slums in Los Angeles to give applications only in Korean because he didn't want blacks applying to live there.

[guartz]

Systemic oppression is not equivalent to legally embedded discrimination. There doesn't need to be a formal law authorizing inequality.

It's that kind of belief that underlies people who think there must not be racism anymore because we had the civil rights movement.

What's a joke is that people take the concept of systemic oppression seriously when talking about modern U.S. Which leads me to

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not stopping the disparate amounts of police violence inflicted on black persons. It didn't stop Donald Sterling from telling the managers of his slums in Los Angeles to give applications only in Korean because he didn't want blacks applying to live there.

That my naive friend, is just examples of plain ol' good fashion racism. Or to be more precise, good examples of socioeconomic oppression.
What I find funny, is that people who use the term are least likely to know what the term means or even where it comes from, and really who is to blame you? It's origin is pretty fucking obscure. It's a seldom used term, only truly known to the most studied minds.

Oh wait no, no.. hold on. Here is a wikipedia quote:
"Institutional Oppression occurs when established laws, customs, and practices systemically reflect and produce inequities based on one's membership in targeted social identity groups. If oppressive consequences accrue to institutional laws, customs, or practices, the institution is oppressive whether or not the individuals maintaining those practices have oppressive intentions."[25]


The use of "systemic oppression" is like a confused marriage of Institutional Oppression and postmodern idea of oppressive structures of modernity. It's like some gender studies professor just mashed the two to make some stupid point and this monstrosity was born, and as far as postmodern "theory" goes, I think Chomsky put it best:

https://youtu.be/VjNJX64cBOE

[Gredival]

Actually in the US the terms derive from the distinction between disparate treatment and disparate impact discrimination claims as set fort in Title VII and Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. When discriminatory outcomes occur (such as the overwhelming disparity in police related deaths in blacks vs. whites) despite a facially neutral situation (such as the lack of overtly discriminatory laws and policies) it is considered systemic in nature and is a disparate impact claim.

[Zealot]

I'm gonna recommend a book to you called The New Jim Crow.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[guartz]

When did they add title viii to the civil rights act?

roflmao

[guartz]

Hey I'm trying to look it up so I can better myself and my understanding, and I wont bs you, I just learned about disparate treatment and disparate impact discrimination, but everything I've looked at so far doesn't mention the term systemic, well, it doesn't even make sense to mention that word in that context you know? Plus disparate impact seems to have it's origin from Fair Housing Act of 1968 which further confuses me. I mean it's complicated stuff. So if you please can point me to where disparate act is considered "systemic" I'd much appreciate it, since most terms I ran into are "unintentional" and "discriminatory" but not "systemic". Thanks, you can say .. i'm ...desperate.