Lurker > Kenri

Corrik posted...

You are like the engineers who make theoretical formulations of how something works and the regular worker repeatedly says it will not work, but they think they know more because they have some paper that supposedly says they are smart... Then they try it, and it fails horribly.

---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Lopen posted...

We might be. I'm more concerned with the mindset of people who take Sociology classes being warped towards racism against (colloquial) white people by repurposing of words moreso than saying the colloquial definition is "right" or anything like that, which I think may have been lost in this argument.

Even if they are I think more people taking sociology classes will result in a net decrease of racism.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Mac Arrowny posted...

anyone else read the topic title as "Why is ok to defend transgender but not ok to defend transience?

Absolutely.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Lopen posted...

I meant fuck not f**. Sorry. I mean, that's also a good example though.

Oh shit, my bad lmao.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Lopen posted...

This is the part where you put your field of study to use and explain for a plebeian like me what the reasons actually are.

Well, like you said, it's largely the same thing. Straight and gay (or homosexual, or f**, or whatever) are just terms that denote acceptable and unacceptable behavior with regard to sex, gender, etc. Just like white and black, they don't have set meanings.

The LGBT community has reclaimed a lot of the terms but that's still what the original purpose was.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Lopen posted...

It's no different than using the f word "creatively"

Correct, but uh, not for the reasons you think!
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Lopen posted...

If you want to redefine the N word for academic use you're free to.

This literally already happened like 50 years ago. There's a fairly well-known feminist book called "Woman as N*****", for example.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Lopen posted...

The world isn't black and white, though. I wouldn't call Shinsuke Nakamura white either but he sure as hell ain't black.

FWIW black isn't used nearly as much in the same way (though it still sees occasional use, as does brown). That's why when I first commented on the article that started this discussion, I didn't use it at all and referenced being "denied whiteness" instead.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Lopen posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

I really dont get what Lopen thinks white people means when said colloquially.

I don't believe you.

I'll second him because I have no idea what you're arguing it means either, but I'm guessing you also won't believe me?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Jakyl25 posted...

the same way people inherently know that Hulk Hogan isnt an orange person.

I almost said this before (but about Donald Trump) lmao
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Lopen posted...

I think the big problem is more that when you say "only white people can be racist" it sends a poor message, because no matter how long people have been in this field and have been immersed in its arbitrary redefinition of words, people aren't thinking of that definition instinctively.

True, but you'll recall I also said they were wrong about that.

Lopen posted...

And trying to change your definition of "white people" to "the ruling class" it's one that almost propagates racism vs white people inherently-- particularly unnecessarily when by your own admission it's less about any given race and more about whichever group of people happens to be the ruling class at a given time.

But again, I don't know why you're arguing that I'm trying to "change" the definition when 1) the whole discussion has been about academia and 2) you seem willing to accept that this is an actual concept I'm talking about and not something I made up.

Corrik posted...

Oh is he still calling only white people racist and if a black person were to be racist they magically become a white person ala Michael Jackson?

Yeah you nailed it, Michael Jackson has actually been my go-to example this whole time.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

I think it's gotta be fake just because of the comedic timing of the pitch, but I'd love to be proven wrong cuz it would be even funnier that way.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

kevwaffles posted...

If black people had been the "dominant group" in history, you wouldn't suddenly start calling people "white" as a definition of being on the upper hand of racism/power structure/whatever.

Maybe not, but that doesn't change the fact that historically, groups can gain or lose "whiteness", or never have it at all despite a light skin tone.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Lopen posted...

Kenri posted...

All academia is self-important but that doesn't make it bullshit. My definition has a lot more factual and historical backing than any of this nonsense about skin color, which at most correlates and frequently doesn't even get that far.

The point is it's stupid to use the word "white people" in the context of "racism" and not have it mean literally "white people." Come up with a different term. It means the field is lazy or is filled with people who took classes on race studies and wanted to pretend what they were studying applied to more things than it actually does.

You come up with a different term. I don't care what the term is, I'm just using the one I'm familiar with, which is commonly used in my field, and which we were already discussing when I chimed in.

It's not like "white" and "black" are literal terms referring to skin color anyway so I'm not even sure what your issue is.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

kevwaffles posted...

It's a fucking joke. Don't stroke you're own ego like you can arrive at some insightful "gotcha" over it.

Sorry I mistook your joke for a genuine belief tons and tons of people actually have, I guess.

I'm still not sure where the hostility is coming from but uhhhh maybe workshop your shitty standup routine next time? Did I do it right? Is that how we're interacting now?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Lopen posted...

Sociology is also a branch of humanities-- sorry if you would like to be considered more important than people who study literature or music but it's true.

I mean, you're the one shitting on entire fields of knowledge -- I think studying literature and music is important. If you really think anyone who studies law or technology or whatever else listed on Wikipedia "should have had the sense not to major in humanities" then I can't help you.

Lopen posted...

Like it's not that it's hard to understand what you were saying per se. It's just that it's hard to accept it as something that isn't self-important academia bullshit.

All academia is self-important but that doesn't make it bullshit. My definition has a lot more factual and historical backing than any of this nonsense about skin color, which at most correlates and frequently doesn't even get that far.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Lopen posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanities

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science

(I'll concede that history is classified as both, especially historically (no pun intended), but almost everyone I've studied under has considered it a social science. Maybe my experience isn't universal.)
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

kevwaffles posted...

Kenri posted...

Just to clarify, are you also claiming here that light-skinned black people don't exist?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Like, you're implying it's based on skin color, so I'm asking a pretty simple follow up question. Idk what this overreaction is.

Suprak the Stud posted...

(I fully admit I have never taken a graduate level history course so you are far more informed that I am on the subject matter, but I am also fairly certain that the majority of people using "white" and "black" when describing people are talking primarily about skin color.)

They're really not otherwise a lot of Asian people would be white, just for one example.

Suprak the Stud posted...

I've just never heard any one look at someone and go "I can't tell you what skin color they are yet until I hear about what sort of power dynamics they experience in their day to day life".

For an historical example, when a white slaveowner raped a slave and the resulting child happened to be VERY light-skinned, they still weren't treated as white. Power dynamics defined their race, not skin color.

Lopen posted...

So basically Kenri was arbitrarily moving the goal posts from what people were talking about to some academia definition no one in the world with the sense to not major in humanities knows about to win an argument. Got it.

The conversation literally started because we were talking about the rhetoric used in a college course.

Also history and sociology aren't humanities.

Jakyl25 posted...

The dominant group over time regulates who counts as white and who doesnt.

This is very well put and succinct.

xp1337 posted...

It's just I found it strange that everyone was reacting like they had no idea what you were saying. I don't consider myself someone who has some academic background that would have naturally placed me in the path of the idea but I don't think what you were saying was hard to follow at all, but I guess maybe my having read articles/listened to talks about that, and similar issues, may have contributed?

tbh I think I just shitpost too much so everything I say now is just covered with a veneer of bullshit

But I appreciate you saying you can follow it because sometimes I feel like I'm going crazy when I post something that seems straightforward and everybody's just like "what. the. FUCK."
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

MrGreenonion posted...

thought this said "health bars" and i was like yeah i like it when games show enemy health

I voted before realizing this same mistake, the options including yum and yuck didn't even make me raise an eyebrow.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Corrik posted...

He literally just said if someone white is being subjected to racism that they are no longer white.

White and black describe power relationships, not skin color, biology, or ancestry or anything (it's clearly not skin color because people with light skin aren't always treated as white, it's not biology because there's really no such thing as "biological race", and it's clearly not ancestry because most people don't even really know their ancestry, nor the ancestry of others). One way of thinking about it is as an analogue for terms like rich and poor. Can a poor person be wealthier than a rich person, or does that change which terms apply to them?

Aren't you a history major? Have you really not heard this before? This has been an important concept in literally almost every single upper-division or graduate level history class I've ever taken.

kevwaffles posted...

I was unaware that my ancestors' skin color temporarily darkened when they were being denied jobs.

Just to clarify, are you also claiming here that light-skinned black people don't exist?

xp1337 posted...

IIRC what Kenri is referring to there was written about by Coates(?) recently. At the very least, I think he discussed it recently with Colbert last time he was with him.

Probably, Coates seems like someone who would write about it. I think the concept predates him but I'm not 100% sure about that. In either case I haven't seen that episode of Colbert so that's not, like, where I'm directly getting this from, but your gist of it sounds like the same thing I'm talking about yeah.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

If seemingly white people are experiencing systemic racism then they're not really "white" anymore (see: the Irish like a hundred years ago). But PoC can still be racist to other PoC so saying "only white people can be racist" is definitely wrong. It's more like, white people can't experience racism without having whiteness denied to them at the same time.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

CelesMyUserName posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

Who the fuck defends pedophiles here?

vlado

Corrik
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Jakyl25 posted...

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/insider/white-nationalist-interview-questions.html

THIS is kinda interesting though

A response to the piece by the author of it himself, frustrated that it basically serves no purpose because there is no logic to the source of the subjects extreme viewpoints, as far as he could find

That's more interesting but it's still hella soft on a literal Nazi. Like take this line:

Why did this man intelligent, socially adroit and raised middle class amid the relatively well-integrated environments of United States military bases gravitate toward the furthest extremes of American political discourse?

Why is this person being described as intelligent or socially adroit? I certainly didn't see anything in either article that points that way; in fact, descriptions in the original article of how he's a Holocaust denier and alienated tons of his friends point to the exact opposite.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

dowolf posted...

If you're not seeing the conclusion, Jakyl, then that's on you.

If someone like Jakyl isn't seeing the conclusion then 99% of readers are gonna miss it too, which is I think exactly what his criticism is? Like way to make his point for him, I guess.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/seanmcelwee/status/934483205004103680

Good example of the disturbing trend in the NYT of coddling white nationalism

I don't have as much of an issue with the one on the left as I do with the one on the right ("he was no angel" is basically the poster child for racism in journalism right now though so at least it gets appropriate backlash). The point the author is making about Nazism might be too subtle (it usually is) but at least it's not complete trash like "he drank ALCOHOL and wrote RAP MUSIC".
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

SSJBGenkiDama posted...

I didn't even put DB in the title.

You're incredibly predictable so you didn't have to.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

MysticBrohan posted...

way better topic i back this horse

---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Corrik posted...

Has become a new Salem Witch Hunt at this point.

are you positing that witches actually exist or that sexual predators don't?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Sweeping. No problems with mopping but sweeping is so slow and unsatisfying.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Jakyl25 posted...

Kenri posted...

Vlado posted...

you live among foreigners upon foreigners, you encounter 100 people on the street and 97 different sets of ideals.

god i wish

This in fact IS the future liberals want!

I'm the leftist a shitty alt-right political comic warned you about!
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Vlado posted...

you live among foreigners upon foreigners, you encounter 100 people on the street and 97 different sets of ideals.

god i wish
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Jakyl25 posted...

For all of Trumps gripes with the media, they could absolutely be hitting him far harder than they are.

As true today as it was in 2016.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

not sure why you're going "YOU'RE AUTISTIC LOL" over this

Because he's incredibly bad at communicating with other human beings but it can't be his own fault so he has to fall back on blaming other people instead.

Autistic is just the insult of choice for that in 2017, if it was 15 years ago he'd be calling you a r***** instead.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

I wouldn't expect _everyone_ to know it but it's pretty damn common.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Corrik posted...

He did not do anything wrong by thinking she is attractive and thinking later down the line she was "going to be special to him in life" when she was legal.

god you're a creep
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Corrik posted...

I am going to go out on a limb here... I am going to say that thinking someone is attractive is perfectly a normal thought for someone who is actually attractive.

I am going to say that we could find pictures of girls who are 15 to post here right now to you (not revealing pictures) that you would find attractive.

And, guess what... You found a girl attractive. That is all it means. It doesn't make you are a you know... Pedophile... LMFAO.

what age does it have to be before it makes you a pedophile and why
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Corrik posted...

In kenri"s mind. Possibly thinking a 15 year old girl is attractive is being a pedophile. Get the police out. We got some pedophiles to round up around the world I think.

yes please
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Corrik posted...

You can find attraction in girls who are not 18 yet or think they are attractive. You just cannot do things with them until they are 18 and not be trying to. (Or whatever the age of consent is) Literally websites with tens of thousands of men who count down ages until famous actresses are 18.

Literally arguing this.

Forgot. He is a a Republican. LMFAO.

man i knew your legalism was fucked up but i didn't think it was "pedophilia is perfectly fine" levels of fucked up
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Corrik posted...

I mean that wouldn't really be weird if it wasn't for the surrounding noise. It is weird in relation for sure.

...no it's pretttty weird regardless, dude
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

EndOfDiscOne posted...

He's just a dirty old man going senile. His behavior is very common for other old men

This is more an indictment of old men than a defense of Bush tbh
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

I saw that and almost couldn't believe it until I remembered it was Trump saying it.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

I feel bad for retail workers every day of the year, definitely on Thanksgiving.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Inviso posted...

To Kenri:

Given that the accuser accepted Franken's apology, I don't see the problem. The way you're describing it is less punishing him for what HE did and more making an example of him for the injustices leveled against victims EVERYWHERE. And that seems WILDLY unfair.

I mean, you're fine with exonerating him in order to incentivize other people to confess, but like... the point of a confession is typically to accept a punishment. If you're not punished, a confession is just gloating. Yeah, I'd rather make an example of him than that, and I think resignation is a fair punishment that still makes an example of him.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Inviso posted...

And I think that the message being sent if you force Franken out over this is not "we're not going to tolerate sexual harassment" so much as "never apologize and never admit fault because the end result is the same either way, or you could be like Trump and receive no punishment whatsoever."

And what message are we sending to victims who haven't yet come forward about a powerful person harassing/assaulting them if we just let Franken off the hook with an apology?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Inviso posted...

I think that there is a big difference between calling on a person to lose their job for sexual assault and sexual misconduct with multiple minors (which cannot be misinterpreted), and calling on a person to lose their job for an unwanted kiss and an immature photograph (which COULD be misinterpreted). The fact that he's adding "and Roy Moore should face legal repercussions as well" does not change that the baseline punishment Rock is establishing for both men is WAY more harsh for the severity of Franken's actions than it is for Moore's.

Well tbh they're both millionaires so I (and possibly Rock as well but I don't want to speak for him) treat them losing their jobs as just about the barest minimum punishment they could possibly receive while still sending any kind of actual message. They're not gonna go home and starve.

I'm absolutely fine with "lose your job" as the baseline for senators who commit sexual harassment, much less assault.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Inviso posted...

Then stop saying they should receive equally harsh punishments (but that Moore should also receive legal repercussions as well.)

what the fuck does this even mean? "stop treating them the same except for this whole other part where you don't treat them the same"?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

I didn't realize Friday the 13th was an indie game. Huh.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Nelson_Mandela posted...

If a single incident unwanted kissing and inappropriate joking are enough to warrant termination of employment, then 80% of men (myself included) would be out of work.

lmao shoulda thought of that beforehand
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

good topic OP
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

TheRock1525 posted...

There's plenty of examples of victims being too forgiving of the perpetrator's transgressions. This probably isn't a case of that but it does definitely happen.

That's what it feels like to me honestly, but then it was 11 years ago so maybe she's come to terms with it or just wants to move past it.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.