Current Events > Diversity Isn't "Being in the Room" - Its Whites Giving Up Their Seats

(+) Yeah! (+)

FrisbeeDude posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

lightwarrior78 posted...

I'm getting to appreciate the honesty: yeah we want inclusion, but are only included if you are giving up lots of privilege and property all for our benefit.

Makes me feel so much less guilty about ignoring them.

Yeah, same here.

Cool. Since y'all don't give a fuck, can you ask your brethren to quit crying when we have meetings/gatherings/etc. to discuss these issues and don't invite you?

This is the attitude that makes actually getting inclusion harder. "We want to talk about issues of diversity. By the way, you don't get a vote, say, opinion, comment, second glance, or concern for your well being because we want it all to be about us and us alone." People fight it out of sheer self preservation lest the definition of "fair" becomes "gimee everything you've got".
---

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DI_mYuWVwAEwv0l.jpg

as a liberal it is easy to point and laugh at genuinely stupid people like the author of that article
---

Capn Circus posted...

Instead of calling for whites to give black people their seat, he should be encouraging his fellow people of color to go to school and earn their seat.

This.
---

and they wonder why Trump was elected. I did not vote for Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UVpnSWkGrU
White people to the back

lightwarrior78 posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

lightwarrior78 posted...

I'm getting to appreciate the honesty: yeah we want inclusion, but are only included if you are giving up lots of privilege and property all for our benefit.

Makes me feel so much less guilty about ignoring them.

Yeah, same here.

Cool. Since y'all don't give a fuck, can you ask your brethren to quit crying when we have meetings/gatherings/etc. to discuss these issues and don't invite you?

This is the attitude that makes actually getting inclusion harder. "We want to talk about issues of diversity. By the way, you don't get a vote, say, opinion, comment, second glance, or concern for your well being because we want it all to be about us and us alone." People fight it out of sheer self preservation lest the definition of "fair" becomes "gimee everything you've got".

When demand for equal share of power is met with accusations of entitlement by the group that holds an obscene amount of it, there's no.point in having them.in the room
---

lightwarrior78 posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

lightwarrior78 posted...

I'm getting to appreciate the honesty: yeah we want inclusion, but are only included if you are giving up lots of privilege and property all for our benefit.

Makes me feel so much less guilty about ignoring them.

Yeah, same here.

Cool. Since y'all don't give a fuck, can you ask your brethren to quit crying when we have meetings/gatherings/etc. to discuss these issues and don't invite you?

This is the attitude that makes actually getting inclusion harder. "We want to talk about issues of diversity. By the way, you don't get a vote, say, opinion, comment, second glance, or concern for your well being because we want it all to be about us and us alone." People fight it out of sheer self preservation lest the definition of "fair" becomes "gimee everything you've got".

How'd you completely miss the comments he was replying to? What kind of conversation do you expect to happen with a bunch of people with their fingers in their ears? Better to just talk to the people that are actually receptive to you and just let people like them dwindle in number.
---

Always nice to see some of the alt righters here embrace their radicalization. Don't worry, you guys seem totally different than other absurd hero worshipping groups
---

Do I hear the faint sounds of whinging
---

You're hearing things over the internet? Might want to see a doctor bro.
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

You're hearing things over the internet? Might want to see a doctor bro.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsNaR6FRuO0

If your country needs harsh laws to have harmony between various groups, your country is not diverse.
---

TrojanPony posted...

If your country needs harsh laws to have harmony between various groups, your country is not diverse.

The logic doesn't follow. Having a diverse population and having laws that encourage and enforce diversity are two different things. Diversity exists, you're just gonna have to accept that.
---

s0nicfan posted...

And there it is, buried way at the bottom: Intersectionality is going to have its way, and if you don't bow down to it expect a violent uprising.

I think it bears mention that the development of such risks necessarily imply one of three outcomes:

1) You give the under-classes their scraps.
2) You institute a police-state which may empower someone who will turn YOU into a member of the under-class.
3) You experience the violent revolution.

I do worry when people favor option 2).
---

TrojanPony posted...

If your country needs harsh laws to have harmony between various groups, your country is not diverse.

What do you qualify as "harsh laws to have harmony between groups"?
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

lightwarrior78 posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

lightwarrior78 posted...

I'm getting to appreciate the honesty: yeah we want inclusion, but are only included if you are giving up lots of privilege and property all for our benefit.

Makes me feel so much less guilty about ignoring them.

Yeah, same here.

Cool. Since y'all don't give a fuck, can you ask your brethren to quit crying when we have meetings/gatherings/etc. to discuss these issues and don't invite you?

This is the attitude that makes actually getting inclusion harder. "We want to talk about issues of diversity. By the way, you don't get a vote, say, opinion, comment, second glance, or concern for your well being because we want it all to be about us and us alone." People fight it out of sheer self preservation lest the definition of "fair" becomes "gimee everything you've got".

When demand for equal share of power is met with accusations of entitlement by the group that holds an obscene amount of it, there's no.point in having them.in the room

Maybe people demanding an 'equal share' should earn it, instead of just demand it.
---

the article seems fundamentally correct to me!

though I think the author is wrong that diversity in the sense he wants it is necessary for civil society to function (hegemony and homogeny seems much more useful from most of the research I've seen)
---

Balrog0 posted...

though I think the author is wrong that diversity in the sense he wants it is necessary for civil society to function (hegemony and homogeny seems much more useful from most of the research I've seen)

while true, i think he's looking more at practical realities: the US will never be homogeneous. that ship sailed a couple hundred years ago. to ellis island.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Capn Circus posted...

Instead of calling for whites to give black people their seat, he should be encouraging his fellow people of color to go to school and earn their seat.

This.

i think what it really is is that people feel like people of colors are presented with barriers from earning their seats. whites, like everyone else, should work towards everyone having the opportunity to have seats too.

unless you think underrepresented people aren't capable of earning their seats, then there must be a reason why they aren't represented as they should be, and people are suggesting that those reasons should be dealt with in meaningful ways.

The Great Muta 22 posted...

TrojanPony posted...

If your country needs harsh laws to have harmony between various groups, your country is not diverse.

What do you qualify as "harsh laws to have harmony between groups"?

When it hits the point that hate speech laws make people afraid to describe someone by their race, or to contact the police when a minority is acting suspicious for fear of being harassed for "racism". This is currently a problem in various parts of Europe.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28967427

When it gets that bad, people stop outright associating with others for their own protection, and as a result they become even more divided. In extreme cases, such divisiveness can turn into vigilantism, with people saying "If we report this guy he'll get away with it and we'll get branded as racists, we need to take this into our own hands" and you have lynch mobs acting as judge, jury, and executioner. I'm aware that's a slippery slope (they themselves could be suffering confirmation bias) but people who feel the police are corrupt will eventually take matters into their own hands.

Meanwhile, places that hardly bring up race or play identity politics don't have these kinds of issues. A place I worked at had people from all over Europe, but things started to get really ugly when "diversity" was being pushed, despite there being a smorgasboard of ethnicities there already having no problems.
---

Darkman124 posted...

while true, i think he's looking more at practical realities: the US will never be homogeneous. that ship sailed a couple hundred years ago. to ellis island.

I mean, if the white nationalists had their way we would at least be silo'd into ethnically homogenous enclaves (which isn't too far from what we do to ourselves anyway without much prompting) but yeah i feel you
---

Fam_Fam posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Capn Circus posted...

Instead of calling for whites to give black people their seat, he should be encouraging his fellow people of color to go to school and earn their seat.

This.

i think what it really is is that people feel like people of colors are presented with barriers from earning their seats. whites, like everyone else, should work towards everyone having the opportunity to have seats too.

unless you think underrepresented people aren't capable of earning their seats, then there must be a reason why they aren't represented as they should be, and people are suggesting that those reasons should be dealt with in meaningful ways.

There is a reason - they literally don't make the choices in life necessary to get that power.

White people ARE working to give minorities a seat, and it apparently isn't enough because not enough minorities have chosen to take the seat.

Granted, nobody has ever said what 'enough' is.
---

Fam_Fam posted...

i think what it really is is that people feel like people of colors are presented with barriers from earning their seats. whites, like everyone else, should work towards everyone having the opportunity to have seats too.

The author isn't interested at all in "earning" a seat. It's an entitlement mentality that someone should just give him a seat because people that shared his race generations ago used to be oppressed (note that this is not entitlement based on any inequality he, himself, ever experienced). He makes clear what he wants:

3) Diversity requires intentional redistribution of power.
If white institutions are sincere about making their spaces representative of the population, they must actually seek such changes proactively. Rather than wait for public protest and government intervention, actually put your time, energy, and money where you mouth is. This looks like calling yourself out before others do. This means investing ahead and putting the right people in place to ensure it. Prioritizing diversity should be an intentional practice, not a dire emergency reaction. In other words, institutions should be thinking about these issues at all times.

The problem with all of this entitlement mentality is that it:
1) It doesn't fix the fundamental social ills plaguing his group, which are mostly in-group in 2018
2) It creates a two-way attitude of resentment, both from people who are "forced" to give something to the underclass, and eventually from the underclass needing to deal with a social stigma that they required to a "white savior" to gain their seat.

This might make for an interesting academic exercise in a college classroom, but it's laughable as an actual prescription for positive change.
---

Darkman124 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

And there it is, buried way at the bottom: Intersectionality is going to have its way, and if you don't bow down to it expect a violent uprising.

I think it bears mention that the development of such risks necessarily imply one of three outcomes:

1) You give the under-classes their scraps.
2) You institute a police-state which may empower someone who will turn YOU into a member of the under-class.
3) You experience the violent revolution.

I do worry when people favor option 2).

would like to hear others' take on this

i think 'calling their bluff' and allowing for option 3) is a potentially viable, if risky choice.
---

I see we got the usual suspects in here
---

Darkman124 posted...

would like to hear others' take on this

i think 'calling their bluff' and allowing for option 3) is a potentially viable, if risky choice.

I think in reality we do employ the first two strategies, just in targeted ways. We give the 'worthy poor' like old people and single moms scraps and we try to crack down on the other kinds of poors with overly punitive laws
---

I don't mind a diverse society, but it is weird how radical social activists treat the pursuit of diversity like it's a religion and wield weaponized stigma to bully well-meaning white liberals and progressives into total submission. I specifically have events like Evergreen in mind.
---

Balrog0 posted...

I think in reality we do employ the first two strategies, just in targeted ways. We give the 'worthy poor' like old people and single moms scraps and we try to crack down on the other kinds of poors with overly punitive laws

You mean the kinds of poor that commit crimes and are a detriment to communities?
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

You mean the kinds of poor that commit crimes and are a detriment to communities?

exhibit a
---

Esrac posted...

I don't mind a diverse society, but it is weird how radical social activists treat the pursuit of diversity like it's a religion and wield weaponized stigma to bully well-meaning white liberals and progressives into total submission. I specifically have events like Evergreen in mind.

It's kinda interesting how America, the beacon of diversity in the world, is having so many problems because of the diversity isn't it? You can try to blame white people all you want but don't pretend as though if white people didn't exist there wouldn't be a group that would be right there in their place.
---

Balrog0 posted...

I think in reality we do employ the first two strategies, just in targeted ways. We give the 'worthy poor' like old people and single moms scraps and we try to crack down on the other kinds of poors with overly punitive laws

a decent point, although i don't think we've significantly militarized our police all that much; the present reaction to police murders seems more information-access driven than event frequency-driven

i've been relatively pleased at the lack of police state elements that have made their way into our society even as our federal government keeps reauthorizing surveillance programs
---

Darkman124 posted...

Darkman124 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

And there it is, buried way at the bottom: Intersectionality is going to have its way, and if you don't bow down to it expect a violent uprising.

I think it bears mention that the development of such risks necessarily imply one of three outcomes:

1) You give the under-classes their scraps.
2) You institute a police-state which may empower someone who will turn YOU into a member of the under-class.
3) You experience the violent revolution.

I do worry when people favor option 2).

would like to hear others' take on this

i think 'calling their bluff' and allowing for option 3) is a potentially viable, if risky choice.

So, you want us to discuss this, when you have yet to explain how minorities as a whole deserve a seat at the table...

You believe they deserve a seat at the table - without earning it - so much, that you suggest violent revolution (that worked out SO WELL for Communism, btw)?
---

Fishy posted...

Esrac posted...

I don't mind a diverse society, but it is weird how radical social activists treat the pursuit of diversity like it's a religion and wield weaponized stigma to bully well-meaning white liberals and progressives into total submission. I specifically have events like Evergreen in mind.

It's kinda interesting how America, the beacon of diversity in the world, is having so many problems because of the diversity isn't it? You can try to blame white people all you want but don't pretend as though if white people didn't exist there wouldn't be a group that would be right there in their place.

Is this your coming out party as a white nationalist?
---

darkjedilink posted...

So, you want us to discuss this, when you have yet to explain how minorities as a whole deserve a seat at the table...

You believe they deserve a seat at the table - without earning it - so much, that you suggest violent revolution (that worked out SO WELL for Communism, btw)?

just for absolute clarity, since i know you struggle with complex thought:

'calling their bluff' means 'not giving them a seat at the table'
---

Darkman124 posted...

a decent point, although i don't think we've significantly militarized our police all that much; the present reaction to police murders seems more information-access driven than event frequency-driven

I'm more speaking to mass incarceration as a phenomenon rather than actual police in our streets brutalizing people in their communities tbh -- I think that's bad and happens, too, but less than it used to if anything
---

Fishy posted...

Esrac posted...

I don't mind a diverse society, but it is weird how radical social activists treat the pursuit of diversity like it's a religion and wield weaponized stigma to bully well-meaning white liberals and progressives into total submission. I specifically have events like Evergreen in mind.

It's kinda interesting how America, the beacon of diversity in the world, is having so many problems because of the diversity isn't it? You can try to blame white people all you want but don't pretend as though if white people didn't exist there wouldn't be a group that would be right there in their place.

America is the only country in the world where a member of the racial minority group could democratically be elected as the leader of that country. Instead of this being a watershed moment where people admitted a lot of the historical racial barriers no longer existed, it was the exact opposite -- an extreme push back to the idea that minority groups couldn't lean on the old excuses and should need to accept some responsibility for collective underachievement. This led to coded racism (white privilege rhetoric, which is a deliberately antagonistic name) and a demonization of the white majority that had just willingly ceded power (through their election votes) to a member of the minority group.

And, predictably, the reaction to this treatment was electing someone like Trump.
---

Balrog0 posted...

I'm more speaking to mass incarceration as a phenomenon rather than actual police in our streets brutalizing people in their communities tbh -- I think that's bad and happens, too, but less than it used to if anything

yeah, i suppose mass incarceration is the principal example of police state development in america.

i am inclined to think--possibly due to personal bias--that it's heavily influenced by our poor drug policy and a federal revision of that would mostly bring about an end of it
---

The Admiral posted...

America is the only country in the world where a member of the racial minority could democratically be elected as the leader of that country.

Peru elected an asian man as their president almost 30 years ago my man

If jew counts as a race there are examples of that, too

but yeah it isnt common at all
---

Darkman124 posted...

just for absolute clarity, since i know you struggle with complex thought:

'calling their bluff' means 'not giving them a seat at the table'

Then what are you referring to?
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Fishy posted...

Esrac posted...

I don't mind a diverse society, but it is weird how radical social activists treat the pursuit of diversity like it's a religion and wield weaponized stigma to bully well-meaning white liberals and progressives into total submission. I specifically have events like Evergreen in mind.

It's kinda interesting how America, the beacon of diversity in the world, is having so many problems because of the diversity isn't it? You can try to blame white people all you want but don't pretend as though if white people didn't exist there wouldn't be a group that would be right there in their place.

Is this your coming out party as a white nationalist?

There is an example of what I mean. You seem to be weaponizing the stigma of white nationalism against him to try to bully him; instead of addressing his statement you're employing slurs to attack him. That doesn't help anything.

Granted, I'm not familiar with Fishy and whether or not he is into white nationalism. Regardless, his post doesn't seem particularly objectionable. The US is a very diverse country and there is a lot of social friction related to that diversity that might not be there if we were a more homogenous nation. And if white people weren't the predominant racial demographic in a hypothetical America where whites didn't exist, we probably would see a similar start of racially influenced classism. Pointing that out isn't an endorsement of the current disparity.

But like I said, I'm not familiar with Fishy, so I don't know if he is supportive of white nationalism, etc.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Then what are you referring to?

the threats of violence correctly observed by s0nicfan

i am noting that those threats do call for a response, and i listed out three possible responses, and their potential benefits and costs.
---

Darkman124 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Then what are you referring to?

the threats of violence correctly observed by s0nicfan

i am noting that those threats do call for a response, and i listed out three possible responses, and their potential benefits and costs.

I'll be honest, my gut reaction to threats of violence is probably authoritative crackdown.

I say that, but I also do want to see disadvantaged minority groups get a fairer shake. I don't know if that means taking "seats at the table" away from whites or just bringing in a bigger table.

I guess I want to see minority groups assimilated into the predominant group. Does that make sense?
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Is this your coming out party as a white nationalist?

Who are you? I only ever see you come into topics randomly to whine about white nationalism. I'm saying that maybe diversity, especially forced diversity, may not be as good of a thing as people think.
---

Esrac posted...

bringing in a bigger table.

i think this is a very common response from white moderates, and it's definitely my gut reaction too

but when i try to think about it from a power standpoint i'm not sure it's possible
---

Esrac posted...

I guess I want to see minority groups assimilated into the predominant group. Does that make sense?

Minority groups need to choose assimilation first, and that's the problem - people demanding a seat at the table want it WITHOUT assimilation at all. That's why any under- or over-representation is always branded as racist, without any examination of why.
---

Darkman124 posted...

Esrac posted...

bringing in a bigger table.

i think this is a very common response from white moderates, and it's definitely my gut reaction too

but when i try to think about it from a power standpoint i'm not sure it's possible

I don't know, but talking about taking seats away from whites or coercing whites into giving up their seats is probably just going to inflame resentment and reactionary sentiments even in a lot of moderates. Maybe even in some otherwise progressive people.

I mean, this kind of language does bring to mind events like the Evergreen shitshow last year. A lot of white people who are less progressive aren't going to take kindly to feelings of coercion by minority activists. But maybe that's not the most relevant point here.
---

oh, i agree

i think it's going to make people be more open to option 2), or more eager to allow for option 3) and switch to 2) when the fire gets too hot
---

I don't know why it is being viewed as seats being taken away or given up, tbh. That description would paint some tense terms of discussion. Having people sit at the same table is all that's being asked. Their addition will necessitate a bigger table over the long term anyway through cooperative efforts and teamwork.
---

Kineth posted...

Their addition will necessitate a bigger table

i don't think the table actually gets bigger. if we had 1000 house reps instead of 438, we would be diluting the power of each individual rep, for example
---