Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Rant about social justice - and hater aid

Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 8:17:20 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Ok I've been on this site for a very short time, and at first - i believed it would be a great place to express a unique perspective on many topics. Now after viewing the dominance of blatantly racist posts on DDO as well as the backlash of sociologists who BH (sound it out) about micro-aggressions and the like - I can see that my perspective will be met with resistance from both sides.

First of all - white males are the majority of users here - but their dominance in sheer numbers doesn't' mean that their opinions need to reign out the loudest. And honestly - do other minorities really agree with micro-aggressions being a MAJOR offence, when there are so many real injustices that we face on any day?

I got kicked out of a College Composition class that I took in 2007 - to attempt to reintroduce myself to academic writing at the age of 37 - and decide what major I would like to pursue. I also got suspended for the next semester - and never returned - because the liberal indoctrination was enough to make me earl. The instructor - a so called social justice warrior from an upper middle class Ivy League College - discredited all of my attempts to participate in meaningful class discussions - because I didn't agree with her pity as an approach to dealing with the very real problems of economic and racial disparity - that I personally experienced for most of my life.

I thought empowerment - was a better solution - and that racial and cultural inequity would be served better by confronting the injustices faced in the criminal justice system, for charges like disorderly conduct - of individuals who posed no threat - but were brought up on charges for being expressive and not following societal norms.

The approach by liberal scholars to solving problems of race and class piss me off as much as the blatant racists do, for they assume their own superiority in solving the problems of people that they cannot relate to on a socio-economic or racial basis and pretend that they don't use their own racial and economic privilege to assert superiority. The result is that intelligent persons of color, who have experienced these social ills, are not empowered to express how we would like to contribute to solving the sociological problems that DO exist!

All in all liberal sociological approaches to solving racial and economic disparities increases racial intolerance because the blatant racists continue to drink their hater aid based on the ineffective solutions proposed by Ivy League scholars who are the ones who really feel superior but hide behind false compassion.
roun12
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 1:45:42 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 8:17:20 AM, Emmarie wrote:
Ok I've been on this site for a very short time, and at first - i believed it would be a great place to express a unique perspective on many topics. Now after viewing the dominance of blatantly racist posts on DDO as well as the backlash of sociologists who BH (sound it out) about micro-aggressions and the like - I can see that my perspective will be met with resistance from both sides.

First of all - white males are the majority of users here - but their dominance in sheer numbers doesn't' mean that their opinions need to reign out the loudest. And honestly - do other minorities really agree with micro-aggressions being a MAJOR offence, when there are so many real injustices that we face on any day?

I got kicked out of a College Composition class that I took in 2007 - to attempt to reintroduce myself to academic writing at the age of 37 - and decide what major I would like to pursue. I also got suspended for the next semester - and never returned - because the liberal indoctrination was enough to make me earl. The instructor - a so called social justice warrior from an upper middle class Ivy League College - discredited all of my attempts to participate in meaningful class discussions - because I didn't agree with her pity as an approach to dealing with the very real problems of economic and racial disparity - that I personally experienced for most of my life.

I thought empowerment - was a better solution - and that racial and cultural inequity would be served better by confronting the injustices faced in the criminal justice system, for charges like disorderly conduct - of individuals who posed no threat - but were brought up on charges for being expressive and not following societal norms.

The approach by liberal scholars to solving problems of race and class piss me off as much as the blatant racists do, for they assume their own superiority in solving the problems of people that they cannot relate to on a socio-economic or racial basis and pretend that they don't use their own racial and economic privilege to assert superiority. The result is that intelligent persons of color, who have experienced these social ills, are not empowered to express how we would like to contribute to solving the sociological problems that DO exist!

All in all liberal sociological approaches to solving racial and economic disparities increases racial intolerance because the blatant racists continue to drink their hater aid based on the ineffective solutions proposed by Ivy League scholars who are the ones who really feel superior but hide behind false compassion.

Sometimes the people claiming to fight racism/sexism/intolerance can be the most racist/sexist/intolerant of us all.
"No, I disagree. 'R' is among the most menacing of sounds. That's why they call it MURDER, not Muckduck." - Dwight

"Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." - George Carlin
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 2:47:31 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
As a concept, social justice isn't a bad one. The problem, as you correctly identify, is how certain people go about rectifying social injustice.

Policing language and thought (read: what postmodern liberals in higher education are all about) and inventing (not "identifying" but "coming up with new and creative ways of feigning victimhood") novel forms of "domination" and "oppression" serve no purpose other than to invigorate, and re-invigorate the ongoing racial tensions that exist in this country.

What most postmodern liberals (but not all liberals, generally.... this is a uniquely post 1990s thing) do not grasp is that the only way in which racial and gender-based sociocultural tensions are ameliorated is by reconceptualizing how we view one another; stop categorizing, and start unifying on the basis of commonality and common--often economic--interests.

Working people of all colors, genders, sexual orientations, etc. have more in common with each other than any of them do with the rich ruling elites. But the reality is that intellectuals do not work. They sit around and do nothing other than strive to find ways to not become irrelevant, and the way they do that is by inventing concepts like micro-aggressions.
Tsar of DDO
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 3:45:39 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 1:45:42 PM, roun12 wrote:

Sometimes the people claiming to fight racism/sexism/intolerance can be the most racist/sexist/intolerant of us all.

Sounds like something only a racist/sexist/intolerant would say!
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 4:21:12 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
They sit around and do nothing other than strive to find ways to not become irrelevant, and the way they do that is by inventing concepts like micro-aggressions.

Slight tangent, but this is only true in humanities.

I have talked with many profs in the hard sciences and technology that are itching to make the current model of education obsolete. They don't want to waste one more semester with the same base material to go over, when there are smart ways to free professors time to work with students in a more productive way. They all want shared "best lectures" schemes, with some incredible concepts on meta data (notes) embedded etc.

The ones that fear for there relevance... Well I am sorry for them, but there are a handful of them who teach Beowulf better than another. Not all of them are necessary for a solid liberal arts background. I don't want them to go, I want them to do what proper intellectuals have done throughout time. ADD to the world of education, not just regurgitate it.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 4:43:34 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
My $.02 about "social justice" - if you need to add a word to justice, then you're probably not talking about justice.
This space for rent.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 5:56:12 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 4:43:34 PM, v3nesl wrote:
My $.02 about "social justice" - if you need to add a word to justice, then you're probably not talking about justice.

So "biblical justice" is not about justice?
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 7:23:28 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 4:21:12 PM, TBR wrote:
They sit around and do nothing other than strive to find ways to not become irrelevant, and the way they do that is by inventing concepts like micro-aggressions.

Slight tangent, but this is only true in humanities.

Indeed, because hard science is always relevant as long as you're discovering new things. But humanities professors and psychology Ph.D.'s do this thing where they try to come up with new ideas in order to seem like they're saying something profound, when in reality, what's going on, for example with regard to microaggressions, is that we are recasting garden variety rudeness as social injustice so outrageous that it merits storming the (metaphorical) bastille that is a university president's office.

There is nothing remarkable that psychology (especially the uber-political bullsh!t that we see now) or social science has come up with in some time, with regard to social justice. It just hasn't. The last time psychology did anything groundbreaking was when it corrected a mistake that it had made since the (quasi)science's inception: removing homosexuality from the DSM.

But now, psychology and psychologists do plenty of other idiotic things; namely, their rather amusing effort to make psychology more like real medicine (which will never happen, for reasons obvious to any reasonably informed outside observer), and their further effort to pathologize ordinary human existence.

Do you daydream in the day? You have ADD.

Worried that the NSA might be watching you? You've got a paranoia disorder.

Like to be the center of attention? You have histrionic personality disorder?

Grieving at the loss of a loved one for more than 6 months? You may be suffering from major depressive disorder, because 6 months is the limit of the normal and acceptable time to bereave.

Like to take selifes? You have narcissistic personality disorder.

I could go on, but the stuff that psychology, and psychologists these days pump out doesn't frequently even rise to the level of idiocy; and each and every published anything that I've read (i've read quite a bit in this area, if you were wondering) with regard to the new PC concepts (i.e. "micro-aggressions") is not only facially absurd, it's dangerous.

The danger exists in what purpose talk of micro-aggressions serves. It lays the foundation for future censorship based on concern for public health, and anyone who can't see that really just needs to think about how regulations have happened in the past.

That is why I so adamantly mock discussion of micro-aggressions; not only are they the height of intellectual trash, but they are *dangerous* intellectual trash in terms of what purpose they serve, or will serve.

Now, there are many who hold themselves out as "researchers" who believe that they're just doing their social justice thing. Many will even write disclaimers at the end of their papers which ring to the general tune of "the contents herein should not be used to influence public policy."

The problem is that what happens in academia LITERALLY DRIVES public policy, and it has pretty much since the foundation of the modern University. It's a coy gesture at best that these so-called "researchers" do, because no one actually thinks that policymakers with political agendas are going to ignore what "findings" these so-called "researchers" produce.

And sure... maybe you think this is fine; the government is only out to help us, right? To protect us? The problem with that is that where there are changes in political power, any government that is powerful enough to censor any group is powerful to censor every group. That is why you are going to see me come to the defense, for example, of pro-life and anti-gay groups that the SPLC has identified as "hate groups."

Today, we're just censoring "hate groups," right? Well, Russia has a version of that too: they have a law that makes it a crime to distribute to any person under the age of 18 anything that has anything to do with homosexuality. Russia has its own version of bullsh!t social science and psychology. They have their own political hacks in their own politically charged universities, and it is those very people who have led the persecution of homosexuals in Russia to the point that if you're gay in Russia you face a world that is as bad as the worst of what blacks experienced under Jim Crow in the south.

People (e.g. the incomprehensibly stupid psychology graduate students who do "research" on "microaggressions") who do things that lay the foundation for that kind of legal regime are *bad* people; people who SHOULD be on notice of what impact their actions will have, but who are often so caught up in their little bubble of pretending to be more intelligent than they are that they don't "get" it. It's disgusting.
Tsar of DDO
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 7:41:10 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 5:56:12 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/11/2016 4:43:34 PM, v3nesl wrote:
My $.02 about "social justice" - if you need to add a word to justice, then you're probably not talking about justice.

So "biblical justice" is not about justice?

I'm not sure I've ever heard that term. The point is, if I need to explain: Justice is justice, period. Justice is equal treatment, regardless of the plaintiffs or their back stories. The classic symbol of lady justice is blindfolded - she doesn't know who she is granting decisions of behalf of. Which is generally exactly the opposite of 'social justice', which is generally actually social activism. Social activism is a good thing, often, don't get me wrong - but it's not justice, it's activism. Many times you need the activism because the justice system is lacking. And sometimes you have activism because of the age old lust for power.
This space for rent.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 9:17:29 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 7:41:10 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/11/2016 5:56:12 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/11/2016 4:43:34 PM, v3nesl wrote:
My $.02 about "social justice" - if you need to add a word to justice, then you're probably not talking about justice.

So "biblical justice" is not about justice?

I'm not sure I've ever heard that term. The point is, if I need to explain: Justice is justice, period. Justice is equal treatment, regardless of the plaintiffs or their back stories. The classic symbol of lady justice is blindfolded - she doesn't know who she is granting decisions of behalf of. Which is generally exactly the opposite of 'social justice', which is generally actually social activism. Social activism is a good thing, often, don't get me wrong - but it's not justice, it's activism. Many times you need the activism because the justice system is lacking. And sometimes you have activism because of the age old lust for power.

I'm not disagreeing entirely, but I have seen "biblical justice" way more than "social justice" - just saying.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 9:32:53 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 7:23:28 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/11/2016 4:21:12 PM, TBR wrote:
They sit around and do nothing other than strive to find ways to not become irrelevant, and the way they do that is by inventing concepts like micro-aggressions.

Slight tangent, but this is only true in humanities.

Indeed, because hard science is always relevant as long as you're discovering new things. But humanities professors and psychology Ph.D.'s do this thing where they try to come up with new ideas in order to seem like they're saying something profound, when in reality, what's going on, for example with regard to microaggressions, is that we are recasting garden variety rudeness as social injustice so outrageous that it merits storming the (metaphorical) bastille that is a university president's office.

There is nothing remarkable that psychology (especially the uber-political bullsh!t that we see now) or social science has come up with in some time, with regard to social justice. It just hasn't. The last time psychology did anything groundbreaking was when it corrected a mistake that it had made since the (quasi)science's inception: removing homosexuality from the DSM.

But now, psychology and psychologists do plenty of other idiotic things; namely, their rather amusing effort to make psychology more like real medicine (which will never happen, for reasons obvious to any reasonably informed outside observer), and their further effort to pathologize ordinary human existence.

Do you daydream in the day? You have ADD.

Worried that the NSA might be watching you? You've got a paranoia disorder.

Like to be the center of attention? You have histrionic personality disorder?

Grieving at the loss of a loved one for more than 6 months? You may be suffering from major depressive disorder, because 6 months is the limit of the normal and acceptable time to bereave.

Like to take selifes? You have narcissistic personality disorder.

I could go on, but the stuff that psychology, and psychologists these days pump out doesn't frequently even rise to the level of idiocy; and each and every published anything that I've read (i've read quite a bit in this area, if you were wondering) with regard to the new PC concepts (i.e. "micro-aggressions") is not only facially absurd, it's dangerous.

The danger exists in what purpose talk of micro-aggressions serves. It lays the foundation for future censorship based on concern for public health, and anyone who can't see that really just needs to think about how regulations have happened in the past.

That is why I so adamantly mock discussion of micro-aggressions; not only are they the height of intellectual trash, but they are *dangerous* intellectual trash in terms of what purpose they serve, or will serve.

Now, there are many who hold themselves out as "researchers" who believe that they're just doing their social justice thing. Many will even write disclaimers at the end of their papers which ring to the general tune of "the contents herein should not be used to influence public policy."

The problem is that what happens in academia LITERALLY DRIVES public policy, and it has pretty much since the foundation of the modern University. It's a coy gesture at best that these so-called "researchers" do, because no one actually thinks that policymakers with political agendas are going to ignore what "findings" these so-called "researchers" produce.

And sure... maybe you think this is fine; the government is only out to help us, right? To protect us? The problem with that is that where there are changes in political power, any government that is powerful enough to censor any group is powerful to censor every group. That is why you are going to see me come to the defense, for example, of pro-life and anti-gay groups that the SPLC has identified as "hate groups."

Today, we're just censoring "hate groups," right? Well, Russia has a version of that too: they have a law that makes it a crime to distribute to any person under the age of 18 anything that has anything to do with homosexuality. Russia has its own version of bullsh!t social science and psychology. They have their own political hacks in their own politically charged universities, and it is those very people who have led the persecution of homosexuals in Russia to the point that if you're gay in Russia you face a world that is as bad as the worst of what blacks experienced under Jim Crow in the south.

People (e.g. the incomprehensibly stupid psychology graduate students who do "research" on "microaggressions") who do things that lay the foundation for that kind of legal regime are *bad* people; people who SHOULD be on notice of what impact their actions will have, but who are often so caught up in their little bubble of pretending to be more intelligent than they are that they don't "get" it. It's disgusting.

I might want to drill down on this topic in another thread. The humanities, generally, suffer from "gatekeepers of knowledge" problem. This is how a Physiology prof was framing the discussion. His field, biology / neurology, is moving past this concept. That is to say, it is a waste of expensive time (professors, and students) to stand in the way of access to information. It is not the information that he wants to be in charge of, disseminating it out like it is his to give. There is an endless path of good use of his time with the student that absolutely nothing to do with him being the "prof" standing at the podium explaining the basics of mRNA for the Umteenth time - a student can get that better from a good video that he made five years ago. His time would be better spent sitting with the students in the hall looking over what they are making notes about.

Anyway. Education has to change, and change radically.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 11:18:28 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 7:23:28 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/11/2016 4:21:12 PM, TBR wrote:
They sit around and do nothing other than strive to find ways to not become irrelevant, and the way they do that is by inventing concepts like micro-aggressions.

Slight tangent, but this is only true in humanities.

Indeed, because hard science is always relevant as long as you're discovering new things. But humanities professors and psychology Ph.D.'s do this thing where they try to come up with new ideas in order to seem like they're saying something profound, when in reality, what's going on, for example with regard to microaggressions, is that we are recasting garden variety rudeness as social injustice so outrageous that it merits storming the (metaphorical) bastille that is a university president's office.

There is nothing remarkable that psychology (especially the uber-political bullsh!t that we see now) or social science has come up with in some time, with regard to social justice. It just hasn't. The last time psychology did anything groundbreaking was when it corrected a mistake that it had made since the (quasi)science's inception: removing homosexuality from the DSM.

But now, psychology and psychologists do plenty of other idiotic things; namely, their rather amusing effort to make psychology more like real medicine (which will never happen, for reasons obvious to any reasonably informed outside observer), and their further effort to pathologize ordinary human existence.

Do you daydream in the day? You have ADD.

Worried that the NSA might be watching you? You've got a paranoia disorder.

Like to be the center of attention? You have histrionic personality disorder?

Grieving at the loss of a loved one for more than 6 months? You may be suffering from major depressive disorder, because 6 months is the limit of the normal and acceptable time to bereave.

Like to take selifes? You have narcissistic personality disorder.

I could go on, but the stuff that psychology, and psychologists these days pump out doesn't frequently even rise to the level of idiocy; and each and every published anything that I've read (i've read quite a bit in this area, if you were wondering) with regard to the new PC concepts (i.e. "micro-aggressions") is not only facially absurd, it's dangerous.

The danger exists in what purpose talk of micro-aggressions serves. It lays the foundation for future censorship based on concern for public health, and anyone who can't see that really just needs to think about how regulations have happened in the past.

That is why I so adamantly mock discussion of micro-aggressions; not only are they the height of intellectual trash, but they are *dangerous* intellectual trash in terms of what purpose they serve, or will serve.

Now, there are many who hold themselves out as "researchers" who believe that they're just doing their social justice thing. Many will even write disclaimers at the end of their papers which ring to the general tune of "the contents herein should not be used to influence public policy."

The problem is that what happens in academia LITERALLY DRIVES public policy, and it has pretty much since the foundation of the modern University. It's a coy gesture at best that these so-called "researchers" do, because no one actually thinks that policymakers with political agendas are going to ignore what "findings" these so-called "researchers" produce.

And sure... maybe you think this is fine; the government is only out to help us, right? To protect us? The problem with that is that where there are changes in political power, any government that is powerful enough to censor any group is powerful to censor every group. That is why you are going to see me come to the defense, for example, of pro-life and anti-gay groups that the SPLC has identified as "hate groups."

Today, we're just censoring "hate groups," right? Well, Russia has a version of that too: they have a law that makes it a crime to distribute to any person under the age of 18 anything that has anything to do with homosexuality. Russia has its own version of bullsh!t social science and psychology. They have their own political hacks in their own politically charged universities, and it is those very people who have led the persecution of homosexuals in Russia to the point that if you're gay in Russia you face a world that is as bad as the worst of what blacks experienced under Jim Crow in the south.

People (e.g. the incomprehensibly stupid psychology graduate students who do "research" on "microaggressions") who do things that lay the foundation for that kind of legal regime are *bad* people; people who SHOULD be on notice of what impact their actions will have, but who are often so caught up in their little bubble of pretending to be more intelligent than they are that they don't "get" it. It's disgusting.

Ok, so you are against the overuse of labeling of psychiatric disorders, so am I! Your rant about the homeless man disturbing your meal would have me have thought otherwise. You can be so articulate, when you express your opinions like how you responded to this post, but when you make posts about people deserving to get beat up by the cops, for acting out of mainstream societal norms, but not harming anyone, you seem to have no compassion for the REAL problems that come with poverty that many Americans face.

I highly doubt that the man who was signing, while you ate would have responded the way he did, if you had not acted like you are superior, by telling him to "move along." I agree that a sidewalk is a place where people should be able to exercise free speech, and you provoked him by YOUR response to his exercise of free speech. You

I also am gonna make a broad generalization, that many patrons who choose to dine at restaurants that offer sidewalk tables, do so to show their economic prosperity.

" you have to abide by certain social norms
If people know that if they act out of line, even when they think they have nothing to lose, they need to be reminded that in fact they do."

Let me remind you, social norms are not laws! Acting our of line with social norms isn't a reason to be beaten down by law enforcement.

You are the reason I made this rant about social justice warriors! It's because when people like you use their free speech to complain about violations of social norms and such, social warriors attempt to censor all of us with their promotion of micro-aggressions and such, when they should be attempting to have direct dialog with people like you. Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing because it opens up dialog.

You could have chosen dialog, when dealing with the homeless man. You could have even invited him to join you and asked him what brought him to poverty, or you could have respected his first amendment right, and complained to the restaurant about placing tables on the sidewalk, instead of investing in an alternative location for outdoor seating. There are several ways that people like you are responsible for social warriors backlash. And if we all become censored because of their rhetoric, I'll blame people like you.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 11:26:08 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 11:18:28 PM, Emmarie wrote:

Ok, so you are against the overuse of labeling of psychiatric disorders, so am I! Your rant about the homeless man disturbing your meal would have me have thought otherwise.

It shouldn't have. He clearly was not mentally balanced, and that is very common among the homeless. It is in fact one of the reasons why they are so frequently homeless.

You can be so articulate, when you express your opinions like how you responded to this post, but when you make posts about people deserving to get beat up by the cops, for acting out of mainstream societal norms,

I didn't say that people who act outside of mainstream societal norms deserve to get beat up by the cops. What I said is that I understood why cops overreact in response to certain kinds of situations.

but not harming anyone, you seem to have no compassion for the REAL problems that come with poverty that many Americans face.

Having a person demand money from me while I'm dining on the sidewalk after he had been previously asked by several to leave is something that bothers me, and it's something I have no sympathy for. Literally, my sympathy for a person turns to contempt in the moment that they become aggressive towards me.

I highly doubt that the man who was signing, while you ate would have responded the way he did, if you had not acted like you are superior, by telling him to "move along."

This is going to sound very snide, but I am his superior; and even if I wasn't, what he was doing was rude. He does not have a right to be rude, whether he is homeless and mentally disturbed or not.

I agree that a sidewalk is a place where people should be able to exercise free speech, and you provoked him by YOUR response to his exercise of free speech. You

It's not about free speech. This is a common misconception. It's about basic decency. If people are trying to eat a meal, leave them to be.

I also am gonna make a broad generalization, that many patrons who choose to dine at restaurants that offer sidewalk tables, do so to show their economic prosperity.

I doubt it. I just like being outside.

You could have chosen dialog, when dealing with the homeless man. You could have even invited him to join you and asked him what brought him to poverty, or you could have respected his first amendment right, and complained to the restaurant about placing tables on the sidewalk, instead of investing in an alternative location for outdoor seating. There are several ways that people like you are responsible for social warriors backlash. And if we all become censored because of their rhetoric, I'll blame people like you.

I don't give a sh!t about him or his life circumstances. If I wanted to interact with a mentally disturbed homeless person, I would have initiated a conversation. I wanted to eat my meal and be left alone, and it is not my obligation to cater to people like that.

I am also not going to change my dining habits because of the homeless. I pity them, generally, but when they become aggressive, that pity turns to contempt. Simple as that.
Tsar of DDO
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 11:37:40 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 1:45:42 PM, roun12 wrote:
At 3/11/2016 8:17:20 AM, Emmarie wrote:
Ok I've been on this site for a very short time, and at first - i believed it would be a great place to express a unique perspective on many topics. Now after viewing the dominance of blatantly racist posts on DDO as well as the backlash of sociologists who BH (sound it out) about micro-aggressions and the like - I can see that my perspective will be met with resistance from both sides.

First of all - white males are the majority of users here - but their dominance in sheer numbers doesn't' mean that their opinions need to reign out the loudest. And honestly - do other minorities really agree with micro-aggressions being a MAJOR offence, when there are so many real injustices that we face on any day?

I got kicked out of a College Composition class that I took in 2007 - to attempt to reintroduce myself to academic writing at the age of 37 - and decide what major I would like to pursue. I also got suspended for the next semester - and never returned - because the liberal indoctrination was enough to make me earl. The instructor - a so called social justice warrior from an upper middle class Ivy League College - discredited all of my attempts to participate in meaningful class discussions - because I didn't agree with her pity as an approach to dealing with the very real problems of economic and racial disparity - that I personally experienced for most of my life.

I thought empowerment - was a better solution - and that racial and cultural inequity would be served better by confronting the injustices faced in the criminal justice system, for charges like disorderly conduct - of individuals who posed no threat - but were brought up on charges for being expressive and not following societal norms.

The approach by liberal scholars to solving problems of race and class piss me off as much as the blatant racists do, for they assume their own superiority in solving the problems of people that they cannot relate to on a socio-economic or racial basis and pretend that they don't use their own racial and economic privilege to assert superiority. The result is that intelligent persons of color, who have experienced these social ills, are not empowered to express how we would like to contribute to solving the sociological problems that DO exist!

All in all liberal sociological approaches to solving racial and economic disparities increases racial intolerance because the blatant racists continue to drink their hater aid based on the ineffective solutions proposed by Ivy League scholars who are the ones who really feel superior but hide behind false compassion.

Sometimes the people claiming to fight racism/sexism/intolerance can be the most racist/sexist/intolerant of us all.

Agreed.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 11:39:34 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 11:26:08 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/11/2016 11:18:28 PM, Emmarie wrote:

Ok, so you are against the overuse of labeling of psychiatric disorders, so am I! Your rant about the homeless man disturbing your meal would have me have thought otherwise.

It shouldn't have. He clearly was not mentally balanced, and that is very common among the homeless. It is in fact one of the reasons why they are so frequently homeless.

You can be so articulate, when you express your opinions like how you responded to this post, but when you make posts about people deserving to get beat up by the cops, for acting out of mainstream societal norms,

I didn't say that people who act outside of mainstream societal norms deserve to get beat up by the cops. What I said is that I understood why cops overreact in response to certain kinds of situations.

but not harming anyone, you seem to have no compassion for the REAL problems that come with poverty that many Americans face.

Having a person demand money from me while I'm dining on the sidewalk after he had been previously asked by several to leave is something that bothers me, and it's something I have no sympathy for. Literally, my sympathy for a person turns to contempt in the moment that they become aggressive towards me.

I highly doubt that the man who was signing, while you ate would have responded the way he did, if you had not acted like you are superior, by telling him to "move along."

This is going to sound very snide, but I am his superior; and even if I wasn't, what he was doing was rude. He does not have a right to be rude, whether he is homeless and mentally disturbed or not.

I agree that a sidewalk is a place where people should be able to exercise free speech, and you provoked him by YOUR response to his exercise of free speech. You

It's not about free speech. This is a common misconception. It's about basic decency. If people are trying to eat a meal, leave them to be.

I also am gonna make a broad generalization, that many patrons who choose to dine at restaurants that offer sidewalk tables, do so to show their economic prosperity.

I doubt it. I just like being outside.

You could have chosen dialog, when dealing with the homeless man. You could have even invited him to join you and asked him what brought him to poverty, or you could have respected his first amendment right, and complained to the restaurant about placing tables on the sidewalk, instead of investing in an alternative location for outdoor seating. There are several ways that people like you are responsible for social warriors backlash. And if we all become censored because of their rhetoric, I'll blame people like you.

I don't give a sh!t about him or his life circumstances. If I wanted to interact with a mentally disturbed homeless person, I would have initiated a conversation. I wanted to eat my meal and be left alone, and it is not my obligation to cater to people like that.

I am also not going to change my dining habits because of the homeless. I pity them, generally, but when they become aggressive, that pity turns to contempt. Simple as that.

Got you to call yourself out at least!
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 11:40:19 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 3:45:39 PM, imabench wrote:
At 3/11/2016 1:45:42 PM, roun12 wrote:

Sometimes the people claiming to fight racism/sexism/intolerance can be the most racist/sexist/intolerant of us all.

Sounds like something only a racist/sexist/intolerant would say!

That is quite possible.
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 11:46:42 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 7:23:28 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/11/2016 4:21:12 PM, TBR wrote:
They sit around and do nothing other than strive to find ways to not become irrelevant, and the way they do that is by inventing concepts like micro-aggressions.

Slight tangent, but this is only true in humanities.

Indeed, because hard science is always relevant as long as you're discovering new things. But humanities professors and psychology Ph.D.'s do this thing where they try to come up with new ideas in order to seem like they're saying something profound, when in reality, what's going on, for example with regard to microaggressions, is that we are recasting garden variety rudeness as social injustice so outrageous that it merits storming the (metaphorical) bastille that is a university president's office.

There is nothing remarkable that psychology (especially the uber-political bullsh!t that we see now) or social science has come up with in some time, with regard to social justice. It just hasn't. The last time psychology did anything groundbreaking was when it corrected a mistake that it had made since the (quasi)science's inception: removing homosexuality from the DSM.

But now, psychology and psychologists do plenty of other idiotic things; namely, their rather amusing effort to make psychology more like real medicine (which will never happen, for reasons obvious to any reasonably informed outside observer), and their further effort to pathologize ordinary human existence.

Do you daydream in the day? You have ADD.

Worried that the NSA might be watching you? You've got a paranoia disorder.

Like to be the center of attention? You have histrionic personality disorder?

Grieving at the loss of a loved one for more than 6 months? You may be suffering from major depressive disorder, because 6 months is the limit of the normal and acceptable time to bereave.

Like to take selifes? You have narcissistic personality disorder.

I could go on, but the stuff that psychology, and psychologists these days pump out doesn't frequently even rise to the level of idiocy; and each and every published anything that I've read (i've read quite a bit in this area, if you were wondering) with regard to the new PC concepts (i.e. "micro-aggressions") is not only facially absurd, it's dangerous.

The danger exists in what purpose talk of micro-aggressions serves. It lays the foundation for future censorship based on concern for public health, and anyone who can't see that really just needs to think about how regulations have happened in the past.

That is why I so adamantly mock discussion of micro-aggressions; not only are they the height of intellectual trash, but they are *dangerous* intellectual trash in terms of what purpose they serve, or will serve.

Now, there are many who hold themselves out as "researchers" who believe that they're just doing their social justice thing. Many will even write disclaimers at the end of their papers which ring to the general tune of "the contents herein should not be used to influence public policy."

The problem is that what happens in academia LITERALLY DRIVES public policy, and it has pretty much since the foundation of the modern University. It's a coy gesture at best that these so-called "researchers" do, because no one actually thinks that policymakers with political agendas are going to ignore what "findings" these so-called "researchers" produce.

And sure... maybe you think this is fine; the government is only out to help us, right? To protect us? The problem with that is that where there are changes in political power, any government that is powerful enough to censor any group is powerful to censor every group. That is why you are going to see me come to the defense, for example, of pro-life and anti-gay groups that the SPLC has identified as "hate groups."

Today, we're just censoring "hate groups," right? Well, Russia has a version of that too: they have a law that makes it a crime to distribute to any person under the age of 18 anything that has anything to do with homosexuality. Russia has its own version of bullsh!t social science and psychology. They have their own political hacks in their own politically charged universities, and it is those very people who have led the persecution of homosexuals in Russia to the point that if you're gay in Russia you face a world that is as bad as the worst of what blacks experienced under Jim Crow in the south.

People (e.g. the incomprehensibly stupid psychology graduate students who do "research" on "microaggressions") who do things that lay the foundation for that kind of legal regime are *bad* people; people who SHOULD be on notice of what impact their actions will have, but who are often so caught up in their little bubble of pretending to be more intelligent than they are that they don't "get" it. It's disgusting.

Thank goodness someone like YYW is around to make these articulate statements which make so much more sense than the majority of college professors.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 11:54:05 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 11:46:42 PM, Haroush wrote:
At 3/11/2016 7:23:28 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/11/2016 4:21:12 PM, TBR wrote:
They sit around and do nothing other than strive to find ways to not become irrelevant, and the way they do that is by inventing concepts like micro-aggressions.

Slight tangent, but this is only true in humanities.

Indeed, because hard science is always relevant as long as you're discovering new things. But humanities professors and psychology Ph.D.'s do this thing where they try to come up with new ideas in order to seem like they're saying something profound, when in reality, what's going on, for example with regard to microaggressions, is that we are recasting garden variety rudeness as social injustice so outrageous that it merits storming the (metaphorical) bastille that is a university president's office.

There is nothing remarkable that psychology (especially the uber-political bullsh!t that we see now) or social science has come up with in some time, with regard to social justice. It just hasn't. The last time psychology did anything groundbreaking was when it corrected a mistake that it had made since the (quasi)science's inception: removing homosexuality from the DSM.

But now, psychology and psychologists do plenty of other idiotic things; namely, their rather amusing effort to make psychology more like real medicine (which will never happen, for reasons obvious to any reasonably informed outside observer), and their further effort to pathologize ordinary human existence.

Do you daydream in the day? You have ADD.

Worried that the NSA might be watching you? You've got a paranoia disorder.

Like to be the center of attention? You have histrionic personality disorder?

Grieving at the loss of a loved one for more than 6 months? You may be suffering from major depressive disorder, because 6 months is the limit of the normal and acceptable time to bereave.

Like to take selifes? You have narcissistic personality disorder.

I could go on, but the stuff that psychology, and psychologists these days pump out doesn't frequently even rise to the level of idiocy; and each and every published anything that I've read (i've read quite a bit in this area, if you were wondering) with regard to the new PC concepts (i.e. "micro-aggressions") is not only facially absurd, it's dangerous.

The danger exists in what purpose talk of micro-aggressions serves. It lays the foundation for future censorship based on concern for public health, and anyone who can't see that really just needs to think about how regulations have happened in the past.

That is why I so adamantly mock discussion of micro-aggressions; not only are they the height of intellectual trash, but they are *dangerous* intellectual trash in terms of what purpose they serve, or will serve.

Now, there are many who hold themselves out as "researchers" who believe that they're just doing their social justice thing. Many will even write disclaimers at the end of their papers which ring to the general tune of "the contents herein should not be used to influence public policy."

The problem is that what happens in academia LITERALLY DRIVES public policy, and it has pretty much since the foundation of the modern University. It's a coy gesture at best that these so-called "researchers" do, because no one actually thinks that policymakers with political agendas are going to ignore what "findings" these so-called "researchers" produce.

And sure... maybe you think this is fine; the government is only out to help us, right? To protect us? The problem with that is that where there are changes in political power, any government that is powerful enough to censor any group is powerful to censor every group. That is why you are going to see me come to the defense, for example, of pro-life and anti-gay groups that the SPLC has identified as "hate groups."

Today, we're just censoring "hate groups," right? Well, Russia has a version of that too: they have a law that makes it a crime to distribute to any person under the age of 18 anything that has anything to do with homosexuality. Russia has its own version of bullsh!t social science and psychology. They have their own political hacks in their own politically charged universities, and it is those very people who have led the persecution of homosexuals in Russia to the point that if you're gay in Russia you face a world that is as bad as the worst of what blacks experienced under Jim Crow in the south.

People (e.g. the incomprehensibly stupid psychology graduate students who do "research" on "microaggressions") who do things that lay the foundation for that kind of legal regime are *bad* people; people who SHOULD be on notice of what impact their actions will have, but who are often so caught up in their little bubble of pretending to be more intelligent than they are that they don't "get" it. It's disgusting.

Thank goodness someone like YYW is around to make these articulate statements which make so much more sense than the majority of college professors.

Cheers :)
Tsar of DDO
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 9:49:50 AM
Posted: 9 months ago


Thank goodness someone like YYW is around to make these articulate statements which make so much more sense than the majority of college professors.

logically - his statements make sense (more so than many professors who think their academia applies to actual life) - too bad he doesn't have the compassion to contribute solutions to ideology that he obviously gives so much thought to - was my point.