Was that a yes or a no? It looked like you took both sides. — Pro Hominem
the general framing of contemporary public debates
fails similar attempts to avoid the direct stereotypic labelling. — Number2018
I do not understand if you talk directly to me, or this is just your rhetoric style. In the first case, almost all that you say is factually incorrect. In the second, you have constructed an imaginary white Other, possessing a set of crude features and straight forwarded attitudes. I think that this style is also the expression and consequence of the intensification of identity politics that we deal with in this thread. There is the identification's disbalance: one starts from self-identification, "I am white," then admits being against systemic racism, but does not like its consequence of "white privilege."What about being white makes the moral responsibility to challenge systemic racism greater than having a different skin colour? Why is the onus on being white here at all? If you're going to say that it's because of power, wealth, political influence, social influence and so on, why not actually put an onus on the actual possession of the things which lead to your actions having greater consequences and therefore there being a greater imperative for you to do something?
Secondly, being the beneficiary here doesn't usually actually give you the ability to do something about it precisely because most of the time, you aren't actually even a beneficiary but rather just someone who is not targeted for disadvantages. Most of the time you aren't going to even be aware of it, even if you're aware of the reality. How can you tell if you got a job easier due to your skin colour? Specifically, you, as opposed to just "people generally of your race"? When is it ever the right time to stand up and say "no, you are just giving me a free pass here because I'm white" or "you wouldn't be so generous if I wasn't white"? Overt racism already gets obliterated, you can lose everything if you're caught. — Judaka
Various complicated solutions have been offered here to resolve a moral, cognitive or emotional dissonance. I want to provide another one. One of the latest achievements of gender politics (which is also identity politics!) was the appearance of individuals that have not to have a particular gender. So, in many countries, it become an institutional right. Paradoxically, due to identity politics' latest twist, we are necessarily obliged to have one of the two prescribed races. Does one have a right not to have a race?So where do I fit in? I am fully conscious of systemic racism, but I do not support its practices. Yet I am white. What now? — Pro Hominem
All of us are against racism. Yet, I think that the latest comprehensive definition of systemic racism has a few flaws. It often equips its proponents with the pretension for the possession of the ultimate universal truth of our society and the superior moral position. They oversimplify the complexity of our society and do not tolerate any dissent. So far, their primary achievement is the intensification of identity politics. As our recent history shows, the neoliberal capitalistic system has successfully incorporated various newly constructed identities.What we're already seeing from people who use the term "white privilege" is the results of it being obviously near-impossible to actually look at someone's actions and know with absolute certainty (they will deny it) that racial motivation was at play. Which means that in order to challenge systemic racism in your day-to-day you have to assume racism took place even though you are severely lacking in any hard evidence. It is so easy to be called racist in today's society because of that problem. — Judaka
The framing (the medium) has a decisive role today in almost all vital social domains. This forum shows how dramatic communication between people has changed: compare ours with what took place 30-40 years ago. Judith Butler even proposes that the media should be the leading constitutive part of ‘the people.’I think you are severely overestimating the framings usefulness, — Judaka
Pure thought question here. What if the following were true:
1. There exists a system that at least intends to divide people according to a criterion it calls "race".
2. That system marks some members of our society as "black" and some as "white".
3. This system legitimizes separating those marked "black" from those marked as "white" whenever and wherever possible.
4. The system also rigorously enforces fair and equitable treatment of those marked as "black" and those marked "white".
Again, this is a hypothetical, I realize these things are not accurate. Given the above statements, would we classify that system as "racist?" — Pro Hominem
Actually, the mentioned consensus functions as an indicator of the conventional understanding of the system. Conventionally, it is understood as racist. It looks like @Srap Tasmaner wanted to avoid the explicit labelling, but cautiously enacted the 'racist' understanding. Maybe, I misenterpreted him/her. Anyway, probably, the general framing and context of contemporary public debatesI do not believe there is any disagreement here on (1)-(4). — Srap Tasmaner
1. There exists a system that at least intends to divide people according to a criterion it calls "race".
2. That system marks some members of our society as "black" and some as "white".
3. This system legitimizes violating the human rights of those marked as "black" but not of those marked as "white".
4. The system also legitimizes various sorts of unfair or inequitable treatment of those marked as "black" but not of those marked as "white".
I do not believe there is any disagreement here on (1)-(4). — Srap Tasmaner
All your consideration is based on the racial premise of skin colour as the most fundamental socio-economic distinction and operator. How can we know that non-white deal with various situations exclusively because they are non-white, and white are exempted just because they are white? One faces complex socio-economic situations, oversimplifies them, then transforms them into mere facts, and finally converts the descriptive truths into the ultimate prescriptive judgements. After all, the final truth has a binding ethical dimension. But who decides that we must accept this truth? Likely, one of the other dimensions is a political will and the intensive enforcement of this will. What if somebody disagrees with one of the stages of the operative process? For example, for a Marxist, the founding social dichotomy is not racial, but the working class and capitalists' opposition.Understanding and/or becoming aware of white privilege requires knowing about enough of the situations that non whites deal with because they are not white. White privilege is the exemption from just these sorts of specific circumstances and/or situations. Those situations are only thought about when a non white individual tells their own story. Until then, the white individual cannot know about all of the injustices that they are themselves immune to. — creativesoul
Actually, you indirectly agree that here is a kind of ‘potential complicity.’ If one unintentionally takes part in systemic racism practices and/or benefit from them, to make it evident, and to make one aware of the wrongdoing or benefiting from “white privilege,” there is the program to develop the process of the enlightenment: the universal truth of systemic racism and white privilege should become widely available, it should become the integral part of the academic curriculum, sportive events, entertainment, the media narratives, etc. After such reinforcement, any dissent, disagreement, or the pretext of being unaware would become nonsensical and almost impossible.After one becomes aware of the wrongdoing they can also become a willing and knowing accomplice of continued wrongdoing. However, at that time they are not yet willing accomplices to any wrongdoing, for let us not forget that they have just became aware of the wrongdoing. So, an otherwise unknowing white individual becomes aware of the residual effects/affects of racism that still pervade American society to this day.
What personal responsibility do they have? That ought be established by the amount of power they have to influence and/or effect change. — creativesoul
It is a challenging question. Probably, it is a false choice between “being white” and “being fully conscious of systemic racism.” We need to avoid a trap of the imposed choices between fixed, rigid, and normative identifications. One of the functions of power is to reduce the complexity of our social reality to the easily recognizable obviousnesses."unintentionally and/or unconsciously taking part in or supporting systemic racism practices."
— Number2018
So where do I fit in? I am fully conscious of systemic racism, but I do not support its practices. Yet I am white. What now? — Pro Hominem
Therefore, individuals may exercise acts of systemic racism unbeknownst to themselves, or even contrary to their intentions, — Number2018
Probably, you are right: the term act indicates a kind of juridical responsibility. So, let's replace the "act of systemic racism" with "unintentionally and/or unconsciously taking part in or supporting systemic racism practices." (Once again, as I wrote you, it does not work with your apprehension of institutional racism) Since we are talking about the unconscious dimension of activities, the analogy of psychoanalyses may fit here. A neurotic person systematically takes part in behavioural patterns that she is not aware of their hidden meaning. Yet, from the psychoanalytical perspective, the truth of the situation and treatment are known and achievable.There is no such thing as an "act of systemic racism". Systemic racism is system-wide, by definition. It is not contained in specific instances, it is perpetually present by virtue of the system in which it lives. Acts of racism are interpersonal, not systemic. You argument holds true if you make this distinction, but fails if you do not.
People engaged in discrete acts of interpersonal racism absolutely bear responsibility for those acts. There is no such thing as systemic responsibility. — Pro Hominem
It is not my position. I tried to show the important flaw in your line of argument against “white privilege”. You embrace the notion of institutional (systemic) racism, but you do not recognizeWhat you are suggesting is far worse. If you think it is appropriate to make every white person "responsible" for every racist act that occurs in this country, you need to think some more. That is facially unjust. Also, extremely racist. — Pro Hominem
it reflects that the concept of race and attitudes or beliefs about specific racial groups are woven into the fabric of our culture and its institutions. Racial discrimination is any action that follows from these embedded ideas. Do not conflate the racist ideas in the system with the individual acts of discrimination. Not all members of a culture must adhere to every one of that culture's constituent beliefs. It is possible to be American and not be racist, — Pro Hominem
According to the logic of collective responsibility, yes. Unless I did not resist the existing system of administering the transportation system or did not participate in campaigns of public awareness about unsafe conditions, etc.- I am complicit in the accident. We cannot find the presumption of innocence here; instead, there is the presumption of guilt. Once again, it is not my position, it is my reconstruction (and deconstruction) of the newest perspective on racism. In principle, since we do not control the proliferated production, circulation, and a widespread understanding and significance of “institutional (systemic) racism”, any thoughtless use of the concept increases a risk of being inconsistent and controversial. The new definition of racism makes the refutation of “white privilege” almost impossible.If you are riding in a bus, and the bus runs over a person crossing the street, do you bear responsibility for that event because you are a beneficiary of the bus ride? — Pro Hominem
The last statement strikes me as too strong(maybe too broad a brushstroke)... — creativesoul
No, I disagree with you. I think that your position is inherently controversial and inconsistent. First, you acknowledge the existence of institutional racism. The notion implies the institutional, systemic discrimination of a particular group of people. They are targeted and singled out as a specific community of colour.It seemed liked you almost agreed with me in a way here, but don't worry, I won't tell anyone. :D — Pro Hominem
Yet, it is quite common now to define systemic racism as a set of
institutional practises that function to favour certain racial groups over others:
— Number2018
I understand that this is common, but that doesn't make it correct. — Pro Hominem
You may insist that your understanding is correct, appropriate, making sense, and you may bring the best arguments in favour of your version. However, in our environment, public discourse's agenda and content are not shaped due to academic or intellectual discussion. It is primarily formed and controlled by the coherent actions of the media, the leading groups of political, cultural, academic elites, corporations, and the most active political activists. Only the singular conjuncture of the acute political and ideological struggle could bring such heterogeneous forces together to impose the discussion of the "white privilege" as a vehicle for social change.Systematic racism is maintained for the perceived benefit of racists and elites, not all whites. — Pro Hominem
To the extent that ordinary middle-class whites receive a "benefit" from it, it is a byproduct (although I still say characterizing freedom from abuse as a benefit or privilege and not a norm that all should expect and receive is a terrible conceptual precedent to set). — Pro Hominem
It is the only factual basis for claiming a causal correlation between institutional racism and white privilege. Likely, given the complexity of the contemporary society, it is impossible to show that there is a kind of cause and effect relation here. Yet, there is almost no need for such research. The processes of the creation of dominant public opinion utilize facts and researches as secondary and subordinate means.I acknowledge that there is inequity between both the opportunities and outcomes of generally all whites versus generally all blacks. — Pro Hominem
if someone can demonstrate the efficacy of the "white privilege" concept as a vehicle for positive social change, then I'm on board. Ultimately, the goal is the destruction of race (not culture) as a meaningful category in public thought. — Pro Hominem
Your position is based on the ultimate separation between the reality of systemic racism and the existence of white privilege. Yet, it is quite common now to define systemic racism as a set ofyou are trying to make the case that it is impossible to convince a person of the reality of systemic racism without convincing them of this privilege. I totally disagree. I do not believe that white privilege exists. I am supremely confident in the existence of both individual and institutional racism, and its many areas of impact beyond criminal justice, including housing, employment, education, and many more.
So, since it is completely possible to understand the institutionalized framework of racial oppression without resorting to the use of this admittedly non-descriptive term, I ask again, what value does it have? . — Pro Hominem
All I am interested in is how the truth gains a distinct privilege in how it is not to be challenged on any basis but validity. — Judaka
Probably, what you describe is a kind of an idealized, abstract model of truth. In our contemporary socio-political reality, this model does not work. For example, let's consider the two latest debates about systemic racism and white privilege. Both strive to define US society as a whole, and the discussions' outcomes can become vital for our future. Are the debates managed according to your model? Do participants start from some basic facts (objective, mere, bare facts, etc.)we need to scrutinise over whether we couldn't or shouldn't introduce new truths, new interpretations, emphasise different points to get to a different outcome and then determine when we should aim to do this and when we shouldn't. I think how truths are arranged might challenge our understanding of what is true — Judaka
When I wrote about Searle’s distinction between brute facts and social facts, I have already noted that any brute facts have resulted from social construction. It is possible show that brute facts do not exist. Yet, epistemically, didactically, and phenomenologically this concept is entirely justified. Likely, social actors live lives as if it is firmly grounded on brute facts, without noting their socially constructed organization. A set of stable conventional facts (brute facts) is necessary for maintaining individuals’ social routine, social order, and the development of various models and theories of truth. When a relative balance between apparently stable facts and socially constructed is disturbed, we experience that 'the time is out of joint'. Models of truth collapse, individuals lose any common ground to debate the contemporary issues (for example, in the US right now). That is why Deleuze writes that the narration becomes fundamentally falsifying.My interest in the subjective/objective framing is to distinguish between what Number2018 has called "brute facts" and pretty much everything else. — Judaka
I mostly thought of the arrangement of truth as being more explicitly stated, consciously understood. Logically, I see what you're saying, the same explanation you gave of the social fact of money and how acknowledging the item means acknowledging the system. Truths are acknowledged and must also acknowledge a system and that system can be called an arrangement of truth. Is that correct? — Judaka
because one's worldview depends on social facts and social facts depend on an implied arrangement of truth and this arrangement of truth is determined by various social, economic and political factors, we can see these factors as restricting our capacity for types of worldviews? Influencing how we see things? Is that correct? — Judaka
I think you completely misunderstood or misinterpreted what I tried to outline. My intention was to prioritize impersonal, collective social processes. In principal, I do not think that the process of formation of one’s opinion functions like processing ‘bits of information’. Bits of information, mere or brute facts, proceeding bits of information, are just virtual concepts, abstractions, isolated pieces of various conceptualizations, taken out of the determinant social contexts.if we decided to rate a mutual acquaintance's intelligence, even with the same information, you might rate them lowly due to how you recall them being bad at maths and I might judge them highly because I think they're articulate. Even though I knew that this person was bad at maths, that wasn't something I thought was relevant to their intelligence, so it was excluded from my interpretation.
So when you combine these two concepts (and undoubtedly more which we aren't talking about), you have your arrangement which is implicitly personal and then your usage of your arrangement to come to conclusions based on what you think is interpretatively relevant in the specific context. I think information goes through such a process to become a functioning opinion or perspective that examining this process becomes more important than anything else. As their opinion, while using their arrangement of truths and based on what they consider to be interpretatively relevant is possibly correct. So whatever impact the opinion or perspective has on their thinking, there is no reason for it to be challenged, regardless of what behaviour becomes logical or justified. — Judaka
They are usually indistinguishable in the case of ordinary language. If so, we already deal with a few syntheses, even in the most straightforward everyday speech cases. Though interpretations, characterizations, etc. are quite common discursive devices, they are inseparable from various unintentional operational arrangements.What I understand is that interpretations, characterisations and the like certainly mesh with facts by being so closely attached to the fact being interpreted or characterised, they become indistinguishable to some. — Judaka
You assume that terms (a man) are primary, and relations (angriness as a relation between a man and his behaviour) is secondary. On the contrary, I think that the terms of the relation are completely undetermined until they enter into a particular relation: a man without emotion is a nonsensical being.The "angriness" of the man as I said in my OP becomes the angry man but that he is a man is a fact while his angriness is a characterisation of something - his behaviour, tone of voice, whatever else. — Judaka
In general, people do not distinguish between social facts and brute facts, but the identification of a complex social fact as a mere fact, and the processes of recognition are impossible without the inscription of the status of truth. When you state a fact, you (most often implicitly) effectuate some system (arrangement) of truth. Even when one states a simple fact, there is no apparent natural truth. I think that unless we deliberately isolate some mathematical, or logical systems, we never start with a set of essential truths, and then develop or deduct consequent truths. In math, the presupposed truth arrangement cannot be separated from essential statements (axioms) or concepts. Arrangement of truth (the reasonable and correct logical ways of deduction and induction, various analytic strategies, etc.), direct and manage one’s thinking essential mathematical facts. For social actor, her worldview dominates over her system of values and beliefs. The worldview cannot be separated from the results of socially determined processes of normative recognition. One lives life as grounded on a set of essential (true) social facts. Yet, any recognition or identification results from operations of socio-political institutions and apparatuses, incorporating and applying various regimes (arrangements) of truth. Louis Althusser called them ideological state apparatuses: “all obviousnesses, including those that make a word 'name a thing' or 'have a meaning’ (therefore including the obviousness of the 'transparency' of language) and that does not cause any problems - is an ideological effect. It is indeed a peculiarity of ideology that it imposes (without appearing to do so, since these are 'obviousnesses') obviousnesses as obviousnesses, which we cannot fail to recognize and before which we have the inevitable and natural reaction of crying out (aloud or in the 'silence of consciousness') : 'That's obvious! That's right! That's true!'” (Louis Althusser ‘Ideology and State Ideological Apparatuses’). Any social fact that we accept and recognize as an accurate and correct is the product of particular arrangements' operations. When you merely start with the facts' truth, you run a risk of the unintentional effectuation of the hidden 'ideological' assemblage.I do think that it might be sufficient to just say that brute facts + (add subjectivity) + widespread acceptance could = social fact and the social fact is not distinguished from a brute fact. After all, I don't think people often do distinguish between social facts and brute facts, that's not a widespread concept from my experience. So I may have misunderstood something because I wouldn't have said a particular arrangement of truth was crucial for this process. — Judaka
There are probably various kinds of truth, ultimately different from a conventional understanding of this concept. Suppose we agree that social facts are in the cyclic relations with mere facts, and a particular arrangement of truth is crucial for the maintenance of this cycle. In that case, we could consider how different this arrangement could be from what you outlined in your OP. Likely, when individuals are stating social facts, the arrangement of truth works as a momentarily temporary synthesis. Previous critical stages and moments of the process are condensed and compressed; we observe just the final moment of truth. The synthesis is impersonal. Mainly, it works independently from personal intentions. Trump (and so many other politicians) has been often accused of lying, contradicting his previous statements or positions. Yet, if we change our system of reference, we could find that there are culminations of arranging the truth at particular moments, independent of results of previous arrangements. What matters is not a reference to reality or mere facts, but a synchronic particular constellation, ultimately in-forming the resulting outcome. Different regimes (arrangements) of truth or the changes of variables of the same arrangement could lead to logically inconsistent statements of the same individual.I do think that by recognising how or whether the truth was arranged, we can detect the presence of "human institutions" and how the choices made by people were necessary for the "truth' to exist or function. Which would apply to language also, I certainly prefer to look at it this way as opposed to the objective/subjective conceptualisation. — Judaka
the resulting explanation makes the process appear far more efficient and difficult to handle than I had already believed. — Judaka
I don't wish to accept social facts which make claims that are guiding people towards ways of thinking which lead to misfortune or negative social effects. Social facts seem to be an umbrella to a great many different kinds of claims. — Judaka
Probably, we can agree on the existence of things external to human consciousness. Yet, we need a more comprehensive account of realism. A spherical object such as a bundle of newspapers held together by a string, or a piece of foam rubber, is a thing that exists. But it is a 'football' in the context of a particular rule-governed practice, such as playing football; in other words, its meaning and significance are relative to a specific set of meaningful practices. A thunderstorm could be a physical phenomenon in our culture and the expression of Zeus's anger for ancient Greeks. Things can acquire different meanings and functions in different historical contexts and situations. Likely, our conceptual and discursive forms can ever exhaust their objectivity and meaning. Yet, if we do not apply Lacanian conceptualization of 'the Real,' when we talk about 'things,' we inevitably imply a network of social and discursive practices and embedded meanings. Is that possible to separate facts and their interpretations? John Searle distinguishes between 'brute facts' and 'social facts': "Brute facts require no human institutions forWe presuppose that reality exists and that truth is that which is in accordance with reality. Whether something is true or not is based on whether it is in accordance with reality or not. Therefore, the only thing for an intellect to do is to determine what is true or not true and they are either right or wrong about it.
We could begin by saying that the meaning of a fact can be true and it can also be untrue. That is to say that one can interpret a fact to mean another thing is true and be correct or incorrect about it but it is still separate from the fact that was interpreted. Nonetheless, there is coherency in asking "is the meaning of the fact in accordance with reality? — Judaka
I want to point out to what looks like one of your central presuppositions:What it means for something to be true is separate from the actual truth itself. We can reasonably disagree on the interpretation without disagreeing on the fact. — Judaka
The point of saying it is that an intellectual commitment to nihilism that severs facts from interpretations is like a powerful acid.
So such a hard wedge between fact and interpretation; even if true in principle, is useless in the practice of reasoning about things. Except as a selectively applied powerful acid. — fdrake
Can it be the effectiveness of one’s arrangement? If I understand you correctly, when one expresses her positions, views, or perspectives, the implicit ‘arrangement of truth’ has been inevitably involved. It brings many opportunities to disagree, oppose, contradict, or challenge the conclusion or the final statement. Yet, if the object of consideration is notEven without ever disagreeing on what is true, you can arrive at a near infinite number of different conclusions by arranging the facts differently. Thus the question becomes, how do I judge a good conclusion from a bad one. — Judaka
I agree that what is truly at stake has become hard to discern. What we are presented with in the media are two caricature extremes - woke cancel culture against meathead rednecks. — apokrisis
It is the main point! If we answer this, it could help us to understand where is the US right now. Is there a contest of interest groups? What are the group's goals? What are the current riots about? One could say that what is on stake is not a set of particular policies reflecting different groups' interests. There are different visions of America, and this existential conflict cannot get settled in a 'regular' way.could the US now crumble because of a few riots, a bit of woke activism, a lot of redneck moronicism? The US has always been characterised by its freely vitriolic approach to social discourse. That can indeed be a competitive national strength as much as a flaw.
Society ought to be a contest of interest groups. That is how differences eventually get settled and a society stays well adapted to the challenges and goals as it understands them. So is the current level of discord an actual problem or evidence of stuff being sorted? — apokrisis
What about China? This communist country has not collapsed so far.:smile:Communism collapsed because it is brittle. It isn't a system in which interest groups can contest and sort out their differences to arrive at a mutual accomodation. It lacked a marketplace of ideas. — apokrisis
What actually happened was Gorbachev - in a moment of desperation - made a fateful decision to allow free speech. His hope and expectation was that this would allow some kind of graceful transition. The people would be so grateful that the Communist Party would win in open elections. The voters would ignore the economic stagnation.
But unmuzzled, the population took its opportunity. Every republic wanted to assert its own identity. The grip on the entire Eastern Bloc was lost. — apokrisis
My argument is that the system can tolerate a Trump because it is basically uncollapsable. — apokrisis
The stable existence or the decline of any society should not be measured just by its material resources. The decisive factor is social capital. It can be defined as the system of a particular set of informal values, norms, and beliefs shared among members of a society that permits cooperation.In the US, there has been the deepening corrosion of trust in political and social institutions. The lack of belief in what constitutes America can undermine its social capital. Similar processes had led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.The US has a base within spitting distance of every possible enemy. And none of its enemies can claim the reverse applies. That is what empire looks like.
The US through dumb leadership can misuse that investment. But it doesn’t face a serious rival for its dominance on that score. — apokrisis
There were a few accounts of the riots in Sweden. Professor of political science at the University of Uppsala, Tommy Möller wrote in an op-ed:Once when young people get the habit of confronting the police and they have nothing to do, riots can erupt. I remember in Sweden few years ago the media was totally clueless why there were youth riots with absolutely no movement behind it. In the end, they just died down. Sociologists had a lot of explaining to do. — ssu
People are laying siege to a federal courthouse in Portland. Looks like a war zone. — NOS4A2
that rioting doesn't even have to have a clear dedicated cause. Once when young people get the habit of confronting the police and they have nothing to do, riots can erupt — ssu
The narrative any media follows is the what the audience wants to hear and what the owner wants to promote. Anything that challenges one or especially both is simply left out. You can observe that many news media that do classic investigative journalism do have the ability to make objective and high standard journalism and reporting, however in today's climate that is rare. So better for Fox News to report on "Joe Biden supporters" rioting in Portland. — ssu
It is not just a matter of cost. Since capital has become mobile and fluid, an ‘organized labor’ has become outmoded, attached to immobile ‘real economy,’ and cumbersome commodity. Also, there has been a permanent tendency to accelerate consumerism and develop various techniques for the production of suitable subjectivities. The success of identity politics is the vital effect of neoliberal capitalism’s productivity. Moreover, identity politics has become a ubiquitous and flexible tool for framing public opinion agendas.A good point among others is made by Weinstein (starting at 17:52) that under Clinton the left's traditional voting block, organized labor, was replaced as it made some quite expensive economic demands. And it replace was with identity politics was cheaper, or that you could get people with very little relying on identity politics. I think Weinstein's insight is great to answer why identity politics, rights of minorities (sexual or racial) have become the focus rather than the working class in general. — ssu
It is probably impossible to find logic and common sense reasoning behind the contemporary ‘culture war’ or ‘cancel culture.’ Likely, their primary drives are the reciprocal process of neoliberal deterritorialization and reterritorialization, followed by further mobilization and utilization.I've now started to think that the whole "culture war" with it's "identity politics" is really a way to divide Americans and have the voters fight each other than to unite in the oppose status quo and face the real problems in the country . — ssu
Another function of ‘political correctness’ is the distribution and reactivation of preferable subjective positions that individuals should assume and confirm. Thus, while taking part in the survey, one can re-affirm herself as a voter, a consumer, an expert, etc. Therefore, surveysThe purpose of a survey question should be to elicit someone's opinion on a matter, what that "political correctness" one did is leave any interpreter to fill in the blanks about what their opinions concerned as they like. — fdrake
These people (and some of you posters here) have worms in your brain, just chomping away. — Maw
Fishfry is correct. There is an American culture war going. And no, it's not like in China. — ssu
Is this all really an urgent problem as fishfry says? I think that it is. — ssu
Exactly. Kind of reminds me of how the n-word has been reinterpreted as something that is racism to something that isn't. If we're tearing down racist symbols then why aren't we abandoning the use of the n-word? If we can reinterpret a symbol, then why not reinterpret those statues being torn down as a history lesson rather than a racist symbol? — Harry Hindu
Buddhas of Bamyan: The Taliban were good at cancel culture — jgill
In principle, I am against destroying statues or any other historical artifacts.Yet, likely, this particular statue cannot play any role in our cultural practices. For most of us the symbolic significance of this monument has been completely lost. Probably, it can explain why so many people do not care about statues anymore.
Our present situation is ultimately different from China’s state of affairs in 1966. All in all, China was primarily an agricultural country where the vast majority of the population had the traditional, ancient culture and style of life. Mao mobilized “cultural revolutionaries” to accelerate the country and tighten his grip on power. Likely, what we deal with right now, is not ‘a culture war’ or ‘a cultural revolution.’ If our culture, our symbolic order, has not been maintained via ‘traditional symbolic means,’ our ‘cultural revolution’ has already happened. Therefore, it is a struggle to redefine the parameters and limits of free speech, public political debate, the way to initiate, and frame public opinion agendas. Freedom of speech is the subject of the expedite socio-political construction rather than the fixed and timeless entity.Do you happen to remember Mao's cultural revolution? You don't see echoes of that in our present situation? — fishfry
‘the narcissistic majority’ (the similar term is ‘the silent majority’) will survive and feel well enough even if the more significant restrictions of political correctness will be imposed.It's not maintainable. The mob is not organized enough or smart enough to control the majority, who are not in the mob and never will be because of the inherent exclusivity (narcissism). — Kev
I think this interview below with Stephen Pinker makes the case pretty well as he was one of the signatures of the Harper's letter — ssu