Dream on.

I cannot say I’m massively surprised by that reaction. Still a little disappointed though.

Such is human nature! :)

You're preaching to the choir a bit, I haven't heard anyone in this thread dispute that wealth inequality is often characterised by the social circumstances for different races in the past. Nobody is denying that blacks were systematically oppressed, that past governments have specifically and overtly favoured whites over blacks. The question is what to do about it and how to characterise the current social circumstances, determining how dominant this information is in our understanding of the present.

There are many truths on many different levels of analysis and while when looking at the group, blacks are clearly disadvantaged, when looking at the individual we have what comes with being poor, their individual circumstances which may or may not be parts of trends of a culture specific to the race such as rates of fatherlessness or access to drugs and temptations to do crime. The individual has the odds stacked against him in a variety of ways but he must still take responsibility for his actions and circumstances if he wants to improve as a person and have a better future.

What perspective takes priority? That's the question.

So, race-blind, class-based redistribution of wealth is the key step (there are various mechanisms to do this -- it's been done before). — Bitter Crank

I'm glad you agree, this is the way forward.

On the group level, what I believe is that particularly in America, racial and ethnic histories take priority over nationality. This is an obstacle to race-blindness, a big one, particularly when many have an interpretation of America and indeed the West's both achievements and mistakes prior the civil rights movement having only to do with the white race. I want three things, first race-blind solutions or improvements to issues such as wealth inequality, crime, education and etc. Race-based interpretations to be demonized no matter who is doing it and thirdly for national and cultural identities to take over the role currently held by racial and ethnic identities.

Many believe that a white American can take responsibility for the achievements of the West, the technology and prosperity developed before the civil rights and must shoulder the burden of imperialism and slavery. While black Americans are still former slaves who had all these atrocities done to them and are now feeling the aftereffects of that. I think there should be some kind of discussion on what an American is and when you are that, you are now the extenuation of America's past and you can make of that what you want but you are not different based on race. Black Americans are now citizens of the country that used to practice slavery, they should view it that way instead of seeing themselves as former slaves. What are your thoughts on this?


There's a huge difference between wealth inequality in a country and differences in wealth between countries. Wealth inequality is a social issue, it's known to increase crime, it's a moral issue, it's an issue of responsibility, it's an issue of looking after your own and explaining the inequality in a way which makes sense within the system. There are many examples where governments assist their own citizens and it's not undermined by the fact they don't extend that same level of assistance to citizens of other countries.

Distribution in small public housing units that are well managed and maintained is a desirable strategy. — Bitter Crank

Yes, there are good policies to be implemented. Naturally the policies do have also their negative aspects, like that the whole system does create apathy and if you are OK with a meager living, you don't have to work. Still I think that the positive aspects are far larger. Starting from things like social cohesion and low crime.



Social cohesion has also been important. The big question is if those that don't work and live off the welfare aren't the stereotypical "blonde haired Finns with an alcohol problem" that we are used to, but foreigners, what happens then?

Great video. I think people don't understand that living with basically nothing but some housing and basic stuff is not what people want. They generally will want to work and go on holidays and buy the stuff they want and the many good things that come with becoming a functioning member of society.

We can at least agree that screwy looniness is evenly distributed across the population.

HOUSING FIRST is an excellent strategy employed sometimes, but too seldom in the United States. It just rubs some people the wrong way to hand somebody a key to a room and tell them, "this is yours". It takes a significant up-front appropriation to provide funds for rent, and it needs to be followed up with social service. And, of course, there need to be units available which the state can afford to rent. In San Francisco, which has a big homeless population, housing is absurdly expensive.

Your city ignoring the fact that it has hundreds on up to thousands of people living without shelter in the streets is a measure of how dehumanized a place one is living in.

One of the programs I like is an American Indian housing program for "public inebriates". These are people whose alcoholism will be terminal if they are not protected. The residents receive a small unit in a purpose built apartment building with very few strings attached. They can't drink in the hallways, and they can't cause problems in the building (like fighting). There is no expectation that they will stop drinking. It gives protection and a measure of dignity. (Its housing with services.)

A lot of people who are social service recipients need two things: they need some money and they need their own shelter. Give them at least their own shelter and some cash and they can start dealing with their other problems--mental illness, drug addiction, criminal history, history of abuse, maladaptive behavior, etc.

Black Americans are now citizens of the country that used to practice slavery, they should view it that way instead of seeing themselves as former slaves. What are your thoughts on this? — Judaka

The side truth of the species is that we are not very nice. We engage in all sorts of bad behaviors: ruthless conquest, mass murder, slavery, exploitation... the list goes on and on. We can, we should, we must accept our species' history as it is, since we can't change it. We can only change things in the present,

I see no benefit in dwelling on one's ancestor's status as slaves. Slavery is now 160 years, or about 8 generations distant. Later, more recent history matters more. Dropping out of high school will cause an individual far more problems than being the descendent of slaves. In fact, if one drops out of school, it won't matter all that much whether one's ancestors were black or white; it is a very stupid move. It's also a stupid move to learn nothing in high school.

Getting involved in drug dealing, drug use, and petty crime is a very bad idea for young people, black white, yellow or red. Don't do it. The measly short-term gains of petty cash and fun aren't worth the longer term downsides, like an addled brain, a criminal record, or getting shot by a rival dealer.

If you want to be a success, dress the part, speak the part, and get some skills to actually play the part. This is just universal good advice for anybody. Employers expect performance and production, and if you fail to deliver, you will get fired, whether you are a privileged white or a disadvantage black or asian.

If you tend to business in school, shape up, and work hard, you too can be successful. Not rich, probably, but even small success is a lot better than getting a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

I agree with your level of analysis. It is preferable to focus on the present individual and the interpretative relevance of race being reduced is always a positive outcome. We agree much more than I thought initially, I didn't think it was the case due to how others in this thread have recounted history to me, as though it justified maintaining the racialised perspectives of the past. I do not deny the history, it is in part an acknowledgement of the past to want a different future. Racism is not the problem anymore, it is the interpretative relevance of race. The drive to end racism through race-based solutions perpetuates this problem, that's why it isn't going away.

I would not bother to invite other races to share in the success and failures of the people who lived in countries now called the West if it didn't seem people yearn for that kind of interpretation. I condemn all race-based interpretation so, if you're a citizen of a Western country then feel free to make those Western people your "we". I have not seen what a society without this kind of historical "we" would look like and I don't know if it'd be better or worse but with this, nobody has to give that up.

The next problem for me is the emphasis of interpretations based on racial representation in important occupations and statistical differences by race in the many contexts it's brought up. Terms like "white privilege" are so pernicious because they force racialisation of every applicable context and questioning that makes you an enemy of the facts, a part of the problem. The problem isn't that people are oblivious to the statistical probability of being advantaged or disadvantaged by their race. I'm not even aware of any argumentation of how promoting awareness of these issues will lead to any kind of resolution. That's not even present in the thinking.

On this forum, many people bring it up all the time, like awareness solves something when actually this interpretation being prioritised as a tool for understanding and as a compass for guiding moral action is counterproductive as it is a propellant of race-based interpretations. Everyone is hyper-aware of the enemy but nobody knows where or who he is. It's madness.

If we became focused on reducing the interpretative relevance of race, we'd be out of this mess so quickly. Nobody can complain except precisely those who still think race is important. Half of the problems would disappear as a result and the other half become social problems that are not characterised non-racially and I think that will help in being able to tackle them. They aren't easy issues but they're a lot harder when you add tribalism to the equation.

There's a huge difference between wealth inequality in a country and differences in wealth between countries. Wealth inequality is a social issue, it's known to increase crime, it's a moral issue, it's an issue of responsibility, it's an issue of looking after your own and explaining the inequality in a way which makes sense within the system. There are many examples where governments assist their own citizens and it's not undermined by the fact they don't extend that same level of assistance to citizens of other countries. — Judaka

Just curious to see if you can spot the possible irony of this statemenr alongside what you’ve been saying in this thread?

I see no benefit in dwelling on one's ancestor's status as slaves. Slavery is now 160 years, or about 8 generations distant. Later, more recent history matters more. Dropping out of high school will cause an individual far more problems than being the descendent of slaves. In fact, if one drops out of school, it won't matter all that much whether one's ancestors were black or white; it is a very stupid move. It's also a stupid move to learn nothing in high school. — Bitter Crank

The problem is that the slavery/Jim Crow issue dominates the discourse even if the are things of the past. It's a convenient way emphasize the victimhood of the minority and not to look at the current problems. What I've noticed that there are similarities in the attitudes with African Americans and Finnish children and youngsters that relate to the working class or to a bluecollar background. Basically studying hard and succeeding in school isn't, especially with boys, looked upon as being a great or a natural thing.

I myself attended a so called elite school where the pupils graduated from the gymnasium with grades close being highest to the country. There everybody studied hard, the teachers were great and usually had written the course books themselves (which were used in other schools too). Hence it came to me as a shock when I went to a Church confirmation camp at the age of 16 that had the teenagers coming from another "ordinary" school. These boys from the local school used the term 'engineer' as a swearword and were against learning in school, which simply "sucked". Good grades meant that you were the teachers pet and an 'engineer'. I tried to keep a low profile until I happened to make a too sophisticated (or something) comment that they didn't like, and I was then deemed to be an engineer and was ridiculed the rest of the days in the camp.

I noticed the similar phenomenon in the army when the soldiers noticed that one of them had graduated from the gymnasium and started to pick on him because of this. Yet then of course I was officer candidate and my peers, other officer candidates, were nearly all university students and of "my class". (Actually military service presented the most starkest example how classes are formed in our meritocratic society as everybody started from the same level and then through testing and performance reviews picked to be enlisted, sergeants and officers)

Now this happened in Finland, which has one of the most level educational systems in the World. So I just can imagine how bad it is when there indeed are true differences with the schools and in the performance of the teachers. When you have the concept of race added to this, it creates a problematic environment.

Enlighten me. I won't play guessing games.

I meant the possibility that referring to some “race” is not unlike referring to some “nationality”. Neither are focused on the broader picture of “humanity”.

I’m well aware of the effect of inequality on crime rates (It is a phenomenon observed on every scale; from global to city district). The issue being the proximity of poorest to wealthiest.

It's just technically true that wealth redistribution within a country and charity towards other countries are different things. A discussion on what to do about poverty in the world beyond the West is just an entirely different topic, it doesn't undermine a desire for wealth redistribution within a country, something which would be performed by a government. The responsibility of a government is to their people, not all people.

You want to discuss an entirely different topic then make a new thread for it but I don't get what it's got to do with what is being discussed here.

Your observations are very interesting. I finished high school in 1964. In the fairly small middling quality school I attended there was the usual distribution of rank from not-very-bright to smart, as well as social rank. As far as I can remember, there was very little status to be gained by not performing well, or by sneering at classmates who were upward and outward bound. My peers in college and in the early 70s reported pretty much the same thing.

Maybe it was in the late '80s that I started to hear of black children claiming status by "not acting white" -- which meant doing well in school. It's quite possible that I was not in that particular loop and just didn't hear about it earlier, but it seems like a significant cultural change occurred. But it is strange that you would have observed the same thing, because the inner city slums of the US are presumably quite different than Finland.

Did a lot of young people in the late 1980s come to the pessimistic, self-defeating conclusion that there was "no future for them"? (assuming that "no future" actually was a pessimistic view, and not realism...) and that there was no point in excelling? Or was it something else?

. But it is strange that you would have observed the same thing, because the inner city slums of the US are presumably quite different than Finland. — Bitter Crank

Of course they are, but the phenomenon that I mentioned is actually observed by sociologists. Unfortunately I can't remember now which studies to refer to, but there is this kind of self reinforcing of one's own class. One just has to look at the most class conscious society in the West, the UK. Those belonging to the working class are quite proud of their own class. And what should be noted that it isn't at all about reinforcing failure: Yes, you might punish those who are "teachers pets", but where you can excel is especially in sports and a totally accepted objective can be traditional blue collar jobs, to be a car mechanic or to work at the construction site. These aren't the jobs where mathematics, biology or history lessons help you, so the disinterest in school is logical. And if there are those fathers around to give the example for the youngster to choose a blue collar job, it's not such a bad thing at all. Unfortunately, there are less of those jobs around. The crucial thing is there to be those jobs around.

In the US there are more factors in this, things like many know being brought up in single parent households, the crime and drug problem and things like what you mentioned, the thing of 'acting white'.

I think that people who do work or who have an academic background seldom understand just how big it can be mentally for people to not have a job, to not have an education. The disillusionment, the apathy can truly affect a person. You apply for work just so many times and then it starts to work on you. Just like loneliness can truly cause problems, so can unemployment or being uneducated do also.

I think defeatism must have been rife during the 80's, probably for more reasons than I can fathom (Born in '88 myself), but I can say with confidence it was prevalent because of how much it has come to define the "3rd/4th wave" of "feminist" ideology.

Feminism has long been intertwined with other social equality and civil rights movements (female rights advocates and abolitionists of the 1800's noticed they shared many core beliefs, and they've generally ganged together ever since), and in today's academic and political/cultural landscape, "intersectional feminism" aggressively defends its monopolistic right to have the main and final say on all things unequal. I know I bring up intersectional feminism more than I should (as if it is a bogeyman), but it's just so damn relevant because it's the ideological and academic source for contemporary identity-based politics.

In any case, the post 80's vectors of social justice are inherently defeatist in that they blame everything on a system of systems that is beyond their immediate control. It portrays a power-dynamic that cannot be worked with, and instead must be destroyed entirely (ultimately the power dynamic they've defined is based upon identity such as race, gender, or sexual orientation, so almost invariably white/male/cis/het/etc become "problematized").

This is where the simplistic and polarizing ideas and rhetoric that actually gave birth to the proto-reactionary alt-right originally came from (I.E the idea that "whiteness" or "white people" or "white culture" are "under attack"). Ideas like "white guilt" which are based on the idea that all whites have all the power are the perfect rhetorical tools for right wing pundits to appeal to the emotions of (especially) young white men by stoking fear and paranoia (it doesn't help that the online world of rhetoric can amplify absurd messages, which warps our perceptions of the political landscape and magnifies the severity of certain elements).

Once a large enough base of the emotionally vulnerable and intellectually immature had coalesced (with no coherent political worldview), it was really only a skip and a hop for many of them to turn to full blown neo-nazism. After soaking themselves in the anti-white rhetoric and paranoid delusions of a white-apocalypse, it's hard to see how none of them would be enticed by it. At the same time, as if they were dormant vampires awakened and rejuvenated by fresh youthful blood, the neo-nazi and KKK old guard came out of the wood work to enter and stoke the evolving alt-right movement (which exists almost entirely in social media formats that mainstream reporting is not equipped to report on or compete with).

What's the answer to white guilt? "White pride", they said. "If it's O.K for other groups to celebrate their heritage and be proud of who they are, and to seek to preserve their culture, why not us whites? What if they hate you because you're white?

And that's how a faction of the alt-right became a tribalistic white supremacist movement that is out of touch with reality. It took a counterpart; a dance partner to mirror. Intersectional feminism is tribalistic in every way, and it directly controverts the main thrust that made MLK so effective (peace, love and unity). In the same way that the alt right is tribalistic, so too are many over-blown "justice" movements that claim to champion a different shade. Being tribalistic poses a danger to modern society of a certain magnitude, but tribalism that is also largely divorced from reality is another magnitude of danger entirely. Alt-right lunatics with their deeply held delusions and irrational fears (e.g: white people will soon cease to exist) are especially dangerous.

"The sky is falling, there's nothing we can do about it alone, and they are to blame".

It's the exact same dull argument from all sides, and it's maddening.

P.S Sorry to suddenly lay this tangent on you; I've been trying to make a post in this thread and it turns out you're my safe space! <3

Welcome to My[safe]Space.

Well that's an interesting tangent, to say the least.

I know I bring up intersectional feminism more than I should (as if it is a bogeyman), but it's just so damn relevant because it's the ideological and academic source for contemporary identity-based politics. — VagabondSpectre

Keep bringing it up. Is Andrea Dworkin a 3/4th wave feminist? I encountered her loathsomeness back in the 1980s. Quite repellent. She's still around; she gotten written up in some paper recently.

Gay liberation was my entre into this stuff in the early 1970s, and at the time it seemed like gays and women were kind of all on the same side, but I was probably tuning into older earlier feminists who were more 2nd wave. "the main thrust that made MLK so effective (peace, love and unity)" God, the issues around sex, race, and class were so much simpler back then! One of the gay groups back then was "Black and White Men Together (BWMT). I was going to say it doesn't exist these days but a quick Google reveals that it still does, sort of. Back then it was about black and white sex, now it's about racism and homophobia (and dining out). I suggest they will have more fun if they stick to sex. And, they might be more successful.

The reason I say that is that by partnering across racial lines, they are the change they want to see. A very unkind critique of BWMT was raised back in the 70s (it's just white guys out slumming). Today the criticisms would be harsher, grinding on power differentials, oppressive roles, exploitation, reverse racism, etc.

"white guilt" — VagabondSpectre

I'm white and I plead NOT GUILTY, your honor, and I am not a white-hyphen-something, other than live-white-male. I only know (for sure) 1 white supremacist--a brother in law. We don't spent much time together--I've been banned for a good 15 years, at least. I'm not a separatist or a nationalist. On the other hand, I like white western culture (English, French, Mozart, Van Gogh, all that). I don't feel guilty about the Amerindians (I feel deep regret) nor do I feel guilty about slavery--again, deep regret -- really. What history and anthropology tells us is that we are one vicious species, as often as not, and we have all employed similar strategies to promote our particular aspirations.

Personally, I think we would be farther ahead of we stopped talking about racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and so forth. What we are saying a good share of the time is social justice boiler plate, and it prevents us from seeing nuance or progress. Like, do Somali's in Minneapolis run into racist attitudes? Sure they do. On the other hand, a Somali was elected to Congress from a Minneapolis district that contains more Christian and Jewish voters than Somalis. We also elected a [home grown] Moslem as Attorney General, after he had served in Congress. White (mostly Democrats) people electing a black [home grown] Moslem is progress, no matter how you slice it.

I was trying to point out that the idea of “race” and “national identity” are pretty much the same thing. You’re happy to ignore the “race” disparities to better the economic situation but not the national disparities.

I was suggesting that such opposed attitudes are possibly contradictory? I suggested “perspective” about the standing of the US in the world and was met with derision from Bitter Crank - another “blame the rich” mentality akin to “all blacks are criminals” mentality. It appearsone is okay to voice publicly and the other isn’t. Why is this?

Keep bringing it up. Is Andrea Dworkin a 3/4th wave feminist? I encountered her loathsomeness back in the 1980s. Quite repellent. She's still around; she gotten written up in some paper recently. — Bitter Crank

Ah! Ye olde "sex negative feminism". What an anti-gem! According to wiki, Andrea Dworkin died in 2005, but the bloated corpse of her ideas oft drift ashore on a spat isolated beaches.

80's And 90's feminism (specifically pre-social media) was at first a wild west of thinkers who were all trying to take feminism to its next radical level (coincidentally at a time when the word "radical" had connotations of cool and awesome). The high of the 60's and 70's was wearing off, but we still hadn't reached utopia; the market demanded stronger medicine. Initially there were dozens of formalized feminist camps, each with their own focus and concerns (eg: some were concerned with sexualization of women, some were concerned with gender equity in political representation, some were concerned with keeping the traditional family together, some were concerned with dismantling necessary conformity to the traditional family unit; some were were concerned with women of color, some with women with disability, some with the oppression of ugly women, of hot women, of fat women, of skinny women; you name it.). This landscape demanded some sort of meta-feminist theory to explain it all, which is where "intersectionality" comes in. It's the idea that the amount of oppression a given person experiences exists theoretically at the intersection of their various "disadvantages". On its own this idea is actually compelling and potentially useful, but the hasty conclusions that have since been drawn from it are now dominant for perverse reasons.

As the pile of feminist causes grew, it generated a marketplace of competition. The more compelling a cause (let's call them "grievances") the more reaction and support it generateed, the more students it attracted, the more their proponents gained tenure. A "progressive stack" emerged where the prevalence and persuasive strength of a given theory was primarily based on the emotional strength of the grievance it sought to model or remedy. Feminists like Dworkin were given more than soap-boxes strictly because of the emotional strings they pulled (there were no tangible academic strings on her ideas whatsoever). Overtime things seem to settle down a bit, and some of the more ludicrous grievances either fade away or lead to fringe schisms within and between ostensibly feminist academic departments. By the late 90's, contemporary feminism at large actually seemed to have its head on straight. There was a global focus on helping women (and everyone) stuck in oppressive old world conditions, with sensible focus on the plight of women vs men in western society. Tucked safely away in my Canadian public school, I was taught to believe in the basic principles of the civil rights movement, and I was given a common sense description about what hatred, racism, sexism, and discrimination are, and why I should not engage in them. Radical feminist theory of the 80's and early 90's was nowhere to be seen (granted, radical feminist literature was still being produced, it just held no real political or cultural purchase).

At some point in the late 2000's, catastrophe struck. Social media created a realm of communication that has never before existed: everyone can talk to everyone (or at least, many can talk to many). Like a macrocosm of 80's feminism, the myriad of confusion and disagreement created a marketplace that selected for emotionally persuasive power as opposed to rationally persuasive power. Basically it's ancient Greek sophistry 2.0: whatever is persuasive is therefore true. And this environment was like a bull-horn for the entire body of grievance studies that departments had been built up since the 80's. The most emotionally provocative theories were given the biggest bull-horns, and the resulting market share they were able to capture became the wave of "social justice warriors" gone wild that has plagued the 2010's.

Interestingly, sex-negative feminism does re-emerge every so often, but it is quickly and vehemently put down by sexually liberal camps who take a different view of things (sex-negative theories are more repulsive today than they ever were, but in the new online environment, anyone with half a brain can make controversial statements and get undue attention). To be precise, I think Dworkin's ideas are largely set apart from the rest of 3rd or 4th wave feminism (post 70's feminism), but they're definitely in the same unkempt zoo.

The reason I say that is that by partnering across racial lines, they are the change they want to see. A very unkind critique of BWMT was raised back in the 70s (it's just white guys out slumming). Today the criticisms would be harsher, grinding on power differentials, oppressive roles, exploitation, reverse racism, etc. — Bitter Crank

They would say that the inherently white assumption that men of color should have sex with white men is an extension of colonialism into queer performativity, and that the very idea undermines their agency, mirroring the master-slave relationship of the 1800's. If as an organization they had politics that were in any way not fashionable to contemporary grievance politics, you can bet your ass they'd be problematized.

I'm white and I plead NOT GUILTY, your honor, and I am not a white-hyphen-something, other than live-white-male. I only know (for sure) 1 white supremacist--a brother in law. We don't spent much time together--I've been banned for a good 15 years, at least. I'm not a separatist or a nationalist. On the other hand, I like white western culture (English, French, Mozart, Van Gogh, all that). I don't feel guilty about the Amerindians (I feel deep regret) nor do I feel guilty about slavery--again, deep regret -- really. What history and anthropology tells us is that we are one vicious species, as often as not, and we have all employed similar strategies to promote our particular aspirations.

Personally, I think we would be farther ahead of we stopped talking about racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and so forth. What we are saying a good share of the time is social justice boiler plate, and it prevents us from seeing nuance or progress. Like, do Somali's in Minneapolis run into racist attitudes? Sure they do. On the other hand, a Somali was elected to Congress from a Minneapolis district that contains more Christian and Jewish voters than Somalis. We also elected a [home grown] Moslem as Attorney General, after he had served in Congress. White (mostly Democrats) people electing a black [home grown] Moslem is progress, no matter how you slice it. — Bitter Crank

Somehow we've become over-sensitized to grief, and desensitized to progress on a psychological level, which is in part why ideas like "white guilt" affect some people so severely (the more vehemently you deny it, the more proof of your white guilt you display!). We've focused on how evil racism, sexism, etc, are to the point that when a child encounters it for the first time in their life, they crumble to the ground while screaming bloody murder.

It really doesn't matter how far we've progressed as a whole, so long as there are a noticeable number of racist or sexist individuals out there, they can be cherry-picked as representative of the system, and to encounter one in real life is to encounter Satan himself. There's no room for nuance when every available emotional chip is at stake (except the positive ones). When Kim Crenshaw coined "intersectional feminism" and envisioned a system that sought to fairly empower victims, she didn't realize that people would therefore have perverse incentives to establish themselves as victims.

And that's a part of the political world we now live in. Victim-hood can mean everything, and if you disagree, you might just get yelled at until you go away. "Whites as victims" from the alt-right is just inter-sectional feminism by another name, and with a different victim hierarchy.

People don't have time to consider things like improving merit based diversity in outcomes, and improving levels of acceptance of and between different identity groups; what's compelling now?

Nothing motivates like a good problem.

Gosh, speak of the devil and she appears. This week's New Yorker has a piece on Dworkin's bloated corpse.

Shudder.

Isn't it fascinating though?

Perhaps it's because I've spent so long observing the contemporary rituals from the safety of wild blinds, but the overall evolution of "feminist" thought (into the abstract mosaic that it is today) is like a great and terrible kaleidoscope of emotion and angst.

Just like I said. Stronger medicine. Dworkin is that tablet of acid you've been saving; that old school cure. The fast and loose nature of social media has basically widened the Ovarian Overton Window to the point that just about any ridiculousness is acceptable (so long as it attacks fashionable targets)

"All penetrative sex is rape" isn't rationally too far off from "all whites are racist". Hyperbole within hyperbole. As the article you linked notes, Dworkin's approach of being "intentionally" bombastic is something that modern rad-fems often claim is necessary for a message to be heard. Trouble is sarcasm doesn't usually read well in text, and so Dworkin's burgeoning proponents take it all seriously.

:100:

:100:

As far as I remember, I never talked about national-identity with regards to wealth but you seem to want the disparities between nations to be reduced to national identity.

I don't think there's a meaningful difference between being white, black or Asian but I won't agree if one were to say there's no meaningful difference between Australia, Zimbabwe and China. I also don't agree that a poor individual in Australia should be treated the same as the country of Zimbabwe, it's not the same.

What's really important to understand is that the difference between Zimbabwe and Australia is not national identity. It's like taking one business and comparing it to another, different leaders, different systems, different circumstances and they're both watching their own numbers. It's normal that a business doesn't try to fix the practices of other businesses or worries about their circumstances.

The main reason that I don't care as much about Zimbabwe as Australia is that I have nothing to add to Zimbabwe other than money. I can send money to people there but I have literally no say in what goes on there and money isn't their problem. Same for most of these poorer countries, their problems are bigger than that. I think I can make a small difference someday to the West if I continue to sharpen my arguments and succeed to convince some people to think in the ways I think are better, all I can do for Zimbabwe is send money, that's probably the main reason for my disinterest in trying to help there.

I was just pointing out a possible disparity in how you view “race” and “nationality”. I say this because they are both essentially part of cultural identity with little clear distinction. One can carry one’s sense of “nationality” to another country and throughout their lives - they hae to due to basica history. Race is just an outward appearence, yet it carries with it a sense of identity - hence a woman who was adopted feels “black” easily enough.

If people are only concerned with what’s going on in their backyard more fool them. They are going to realise one-day that the world is actually quite small and what happens on the other side of the globe can, and does, affect their lives.

A disparity between my views race and nationality? Does that have anything to do with wealth redistribution?

Analysis as only the individual level is not possible when discussing government level policies like wealth redistribution but it is when you're talking about race-based interpretation. You're now conflating the individual level analysis of it being wrong to have race-based interpretations and the government level analysis of a government's ideal foreign aid commitments?

I don't really mind nationality-based interpretations provided they're positive because they're inclusive and do more good than harm in my estimation. Maybe in the distant future, they won't be necessary but for now, I think they're good. It's also just the way the world has been organised into nations, I think there are many benefits to this but regardless of my views, that's how it is. Foreign aid is a thing and you may want more of it and fair enough but governments should prioritise those they preside over.

A disparity between my views race and nationality? Does that have anything to do with wealth redistribution? — Judaka

That is what I am asking too. I was not saying there IS a disparity between how you treat them only asking if it is possible you might’ve made a false distinction (I wasn’t fishing for an answer to the question either).

Does wealth distribution and have anything to do with race and nationality? Yes. So if your views about these positions (race as we both agree being essentially “irrelevant” from our perspectives) is different then how are they different and how can you justify this.

Meaning if racial differences are little more than cultural distinctions then nationality is also a cultural distinction. If you wish people to view being a citizen of a country are the primary sense of identity (as opposed to viewing themselves as “black” or “white”) then is not the sense of national identity equally trivial over all. And this doesn’t have to be about a sense of “race” or “nationality” it could be simply a sense of kinship with fellows of your hometown and general upbringing - embedded within lies the distinction between wealthy people and less wealthy people.

These are all obviously arbitrary distinctions yet they do effect how societies function. I originally pointed out that BC was perhaps being a little myopic in their view of “wealth inequality” by referring to the US only. Globally inequality has dramatically dropped ovr the past gew decades so I don’t take one nations relatively small blip to be that big of a deal given that it is in a country where people have slme democratic clout and, generally speaking, freedom of expression practically unparalleled in many other nations around the world.

You keep trying to conflate nationalities and the economies and governments of a country to make your argument relatable to race-based interpretation. If you asked me, a Russian tourist has come to visit America, should people who dislike Putin or have biases against Russian/Russian people be inhospitable towards him? Of course, the answer is they shouldn't and that's more comparable to this thread's main topic.

You'll find that this point is not as easy to extrapolate to foreign aid as you're making it out because I'm not even making a moral argument here. The basis for thinking that way is illogical and tribal, it leads to incorrect conclusions and it presents itself as an interpretative focus which distracts from things which should be more important and are more important from a pragmatic perspective.

I'm not trying to create equality, I want the individual and their traits to be taken as the appropriate level of interpretative relevance when dealing with others, yourself, history and etc. Now to compare the US with India and say that there are only insignificant cultural differences between the two countries, I'm pretty sure isn't your intention but obviously, that's untrue.

The question of whether the US government should treat citizens of India as equal to their own citizens is to me, a fairly odd question. You want the US to redistribute their wealth TO India? The economy of America to feed its wealth into India?

For starters I don’t believe I mentioned “foreign aid” and over all I have REPEATEDLY put my position across as being concerned with the topic on a global scale not an ”Amerocentric” one.

I merely asked BC why they were focusing on US and offered some global perspective. If we’ve crossed wires here we’ve crossed wires. If thr conversation is about the US only fair enough. If not I asked why is inequality in the US the focus when global inequality has had a downward trend (yet remained a problem in EVERY country around the globe).

It interesting to see that inequality does see to increase for the country (leading power) with the highest average income. Had to say much about this though given that the leading power doesn’t tend to fluctuate.