the ongoing anti- racism, anti- oppression thread

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Neither did 99 per cent of Canadians (including most natives).

I am, however, part native. Does that reduce my White Privilege Rating by a few points?

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by GGG

Did you grow up on a reserve or a residential school?
How did your ancestors acquire any assets they have? Did you benefit from homesteading?
Were you born a male and therefore didn’t have the fact you might get pregnant held against you in your early career?
Were you ever let off with a warning from the police?

Did your ancestors immigrate from Europe without any kind of headtax?

Did you have a disability, physical or learning?
Are you attractive or ugly?
Did your parents stay together?
What's your IQ?
Did you have a stable family?

Wow, it's almost as if there's an infinite number of factors that can make someone life easier or harder, and focusing on race is literally the most coarse and broad factor you can focus on. I'm sure that doesn't matter to our local crusaders here though.

You guys literally know nothing about CliffFletchers life except for two things, and on the basis of that you're generalizing out a whole life story. You think you're enlightened but you're really just as ignorant as the racists you hate, and as we're seeing any party that adopts your toxic intersectional mantra is going to get shredded at the polls

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

When has society ever been more geared towards “universalism” and less geared towards tribalism than it is today? Please name one time.

Discriminatory legal and institutional policies had been stricken down in Canada by the late 60s. When I was a student in the 70s and 80s, we were being taught to treat people as individuals and see past race and gender. The dogma rejecting that liberal approach to society has only recently emerged from the far left of the academy and entered mainstream Canadian society. So I'd say the high water mark for liberalism in Canada was the 70s through the 2000s.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Did you have a disability, physical or learning?
Are you attractive or ugly?
Did your parents stay together?
What's your IQ?
Did you have a stable family?

Wow, it's almost as if there's an infinite number of factors that can make someone life easier or harder, and focusing on race is literally the most coarse and broad factor you can focus on. I'm sure that doesn't matter to our local crusaders here though.

You guys literally know nothing about CliffFletchers life except for two things, and on the basis of that your generalizing out a whole life story. You think you're enlightened but you're really just as ignorant as the racists you hate, and as we're seeing any party that adopts your toxic intersectional mantra is going to get shredded at the polls

I think that’s the point, is that there are a lot of factors, and that race/gender/sexuality are unfortunately included in those factors.

To deny those factors existing would be to deny economic factors, factors of ability, factors surrounding education, upbringing, etc.

Why are we disputing the advantages inherent in these things?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Did you have a disability, physical or learning?
Are you attractive or ugly?
Did your parents stay together?
What's your IQ?
Did you have a stable family?

Wow, it's almost as if there's an infinite number of factors that can make someone life easier or harder, and focusing on race is literally the most coarse and broad factor you can focus on. I'm sure that doesn't matter to our local crusaders here though.

You guys literally know nothing about CliffFletchers life except for two things, and on the basis of that you're generalizing out a whole life story. You think you're enlightened but you're really just as ignorant as the racists you hate, and as we're seeing any party that adopts your toxic intersectional mantra is going to get shredded at the polls

Yes the above matters a lot and when considering how you react to a proposal to increase taxation on the top 10% of earners or whether or not voter ID is a reasonable policy all of the things you mention above should be taken into account including race. Failing to recognize these inherent advantages given to people leads to a lack of empathy.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think that’s the point, is that there are a lot of factors, and that race/gender/sexuality are unfortunately included in those factors.

To deny those factors existing would be to deny economic factors, factors of ability, factors surrounding education, upbringing, etc.

Why are we disputing the advantages inherent in these things?

Because. Quotas and affirmative action based on race and gender exist.

There isn't a ugly person quota or child of single parents quota.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Because. Quotas and affirmative action based on race and gender exist.

There isn't a ugly person quota or child of single parents quota.

Part of that is because even if account for socioeconomic factors in the US minorities are still under represented at post secondary institutions so a policy based on purely economics would over represent whites. There are many programs that are targeted at socioeconomic factors independant of race.

You are right that in our society we do allow a lot of discrimination based on appearance and weight and that is something we should work towards eliminating. I’m not sure affirmative action type policies would work though as defining what is ugly would be problematic.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This has already been explained. Being a white, straight male gave you advantages over those in similar circumstances in terms of education, economics, etc.

In those days in Calgary, schools were 90-95 per cent white. The non-white students were mostly Asian, and over-represented on the honour roll. So I'm struggling to think of how my race advantaged me in my education.

Economically, I was in the lower half of household income among my fellow students in high school. Again, the numbers of non-white students was marginal, and did not seem to be economically disadvantaged. The poorest students (both economically and academically) were virtually all white and from broken homes. While the school (Wise Wood) had a lot of students from affluent families, it was middling academically.

As for gender, girls were already doing better than boys at every stage of school by the 70s and 80s, including university admission. The class of 30 in the journalism program I completed in the early 90s had 21 women.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

Part of that is because even if account for socioeconomic factors in the US minorities are still under represented at post secondary institutions so a policy based on purely economics would over represent whites.

Actually, it would over-represent Asians. Just as Asians are the group most hurt by affirmative action in U.S. colleges today, and will be the group most hurt as the big players in Silicon Valley try to tailor their workforce to match the overall demographics of the U.S.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Discriminatory legal and institutional policies had been stricken down in Canada by the late 60s. When I was a student in the 70s and 80s, we were being taught to treat people as individuals and see past race and gender. The dogma rejecting that liberal approach to society has only recently emerged from the far left of the academy and entered mainstream Canadian society. So I'd say the high water mark for liberalism in Canada was the 70s through the 2000s.

The LGBTQ community were not protected from discrimination until 96 federally. In Alberta, it wasn’t until 2009.

The “rise of tribalism” seems to be a push from the wealthy to drive wedges between people. It’s even been monetised, with everyone from half-wits to intellects releasing books, asking for funding on their Patreon, and dominating media warning of the perils of tribalism... a problem that, really, is as minimised as it’s ever been.

Just because you’ve bought in, both literally and figuratively, to the monetisation of the fictional problem, you believe it to be a problem much more severe than anything else.

There’s really just no evidence for it that isn’t entirely fictional. Today, more than ever, the “tribe” you’re part of does not dictate your outcome, our your situation, or anything, really. It’s getting better and better every day. It’s certainly better than it was in 1970, or 2000, but go ahead and show me why that’s not true.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

In those days in Calgary, schools were 90-95 per cent white. The non-white students were mostly Asian, and over-represented on the honour roll. So I'm struggling to think of how my race advantaged me in my education.

Economically, I was in the lower half of household income among my fellow students in high school. Again, the numbers of non-white students was marginal, and did not seem to be economically disadvantaged. The poorest students (both economically and academically) were virtually all white and from broken homes. While the school (Wise Wood) had a lot of students from affluent families, it was middling academically.

As for gender, girls were already doing better than boys at every stage of school by the 70s and 80s, including university admission. The class of 30 in the journalism program I completed in the early 90s had 21 women.

Again, this shouldn’t need to be explained one hundred times. Race, gender, and sexual orientation are a set among other factors of privilege that impact us all. It does nothing to say that if you’re white, you can’t be poor, or if you’re a man, you can’t do worse at school than a woman, just as privilege does not say that if you have a disability you can’t be wealthy, or that if you’re low income you can’t obtain an education.

Don’t be so binary in your thinking, Cliff.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Neither did 99 per cent of Canadians (including most natives).

I am, however, part native. Does that reduce my White Privilege Rating by a few points?

Are you visibly part Native, or just part native? Your privilege would not have been reduced in society unless it is visible.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

As for natives, that's a huge problem. I don't know what's an acceptable solution. I've once mentioned that newcomers/immigrants get a slew of government programs to get them started and into the work force. Free english, free job training... Why not extend that program to natives.


"but we're not immigrants"

The natives do have massive amounts of government programming aimed at them.

It's working. The amount of natives with college diplomas is rising.

[Matata]

I think everyone in this thread should post an essay about themselves detailing the level of priviledge and systematic oppression relevant to their socio economic group(s) (bonus points if you can get a visible minority to testify on your level of wokefulness) that way we can properly assign relevancy to their opinion.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Matata

I think everyone in this thread should post an essay about themselves detailing the level of priviledge and systematic oppression relevant to their socio economic group(s) (bonus points if you can get a visible minority to testify on your level of wokefulness) that way we can properly assign relevancy to their opinion.

Or we could just continue with the conversation.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The “rise of tribalism” seems to be a push from the wealthy to drive wedges between people. It’s even been monetised, with everyone from half-wits to intellects releasing books, asking for funding on their Patreon, and dominating media warning of the perils of tribalism... a problem that, really, is as minimised as it’s ever been.

Just because you’ve bought in, both literally and figuratively, to the monetisation of the fictional problem, you believe it to be a problem much more severe than anything else.

There you go, Cliff - your concerns are fictional! You've had the wool pulled over your eyes by the rich in order who are trying to drive wedges between people. You're doing their bidding by insisting that identity based on race, gender, sexuality and the like not be treated as the most important things about a person! Surely you see how that sort of behaviour would drive those wedges, and how insisting on the crucial importance of those classifications like Pepsi wants to will accomplish unity and mutual understanding. Are you seeing the light yet? Do you repent?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So non-white Canadians in 2018 are profiled all day long by the majority?

Not as overtly as say in the United States, but yes. Canada is much more of an open nation than the United States, but yes, white Canadians do profile just like their American cousins. Just ask a cop.

Actually my workplace, in the tech sector, is disproportionately Asian. What systemic advantages have my Asians co-workers been granted to account for their disproportionate representation in these high-paying fields?

When you say disproportionately, what do you mean by that? I would say that because you use the term disproportionately that you are expressing a noticed exception to the standard you yourself consider "Canadian," and when I say that I mean "white." You out yourself and your own biases there Cliff.

What tangible, systemic advantages do white Canadians in 2018, as a group, have over people of color in Canada?

The right of not being profiled. The right of still being considered the majority and being given the benefit of the doubt.

And yet here on this forum, in the media, in entertainment, in academia, there is 5x or 10x more concern and anger expressed over racial and gender disparity than over economic disparity. Class is far more of a taboo than race.

Let's move the goalposts shall we.

The platform produced by the UK Labour party's most recent party conference included dozens of references to race and gender, and only a handful of references to class. A party that has it roots in workshop canteens is now the part of intersectionalists academics and gender columnists who went to Oxford. And not surprisingly, that party (along with the Democrat party in the U.S.) is hemorrhaging white working class voters.

What a load of crap. The only reason these people have swung to the other side is because of fear. They are not voting on their own best interests, they have succumbed to the spate of fear based campaigns where people who do not look like them or sound like them, are the enemy, rather than the rich "white" guys that taking everything they have worked for. Last I checked, it wasn't them foreigners that were coming to Canada or the United States that were shipping jobs to third world nations and profiteering from it. It was the enriched and powerful classes that were doing so, and that is comprised "disproportionately" by white people. Fear is an amazing motivator and can make people do incredibly stupid things, like voting for the very people that are stealing their lunch money from them.

Explain how the white carpet layer trying to retrain in Canada in 2018 has advantages and better access. What specific advantages are those?

He has a distinct advantage in that he is white and will always get the benefit of the doubt over the person of color. Given a chance, a person will almost always select a candidate who they believe shares their values and beliefs, because its human nature. The fact that the vast majority of businesses are run by white people, it provides an advantage to white people.

What specific laws and government policies in Canada in 2018 do you think denies fair access to non-whites? Where is your evidence that most white Canadians are angry that our post-secondary institutions, for example, have increasingly non-white student bodies?

I didn't say anyone was angry about anything. That is your schtick. I am pointing out that because of the history behind the countries, who established the laws, who still presides over those laws, and who has the money to influence those who establish and preside over those laws, is the group who has the greatest advantage. Being white has incredible benefit, especially working within the system. Again, don't believe me? Ask a cop.

[Duruss]

This is a bit of a driveby but. Just because you haven't experienced white or male privilege does not mean it does not exist.

My Autism diagnosis finally got me to see my privilege. If I were female I am much less likely to be diagnosed, same if I were not white.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Duruss

This is a bit of a driveby but. Just because you haven't experienced white or male privilege does not mean it does not exist.

My Autism diagnosis finally got me to see my privilege. If I were female I am much less likely to be diagnosed, same if I were not white.

So... You're autistic living in a society that is designed based entirely on the expectation that you won't be autistic in order to navigate it without significant difficulty on a daily basis - the kind of difficulty that people who don't share your life experiences can't possibly understand - and the conclusion you've reached is that being white and male has advantaged you?

I don't deny the existence of white or male privilege by the way, but your statement here is super interesting.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

There you go, Cliff - your concerns are fictional! You've had the wool pulled over your eyes by the rich in order who are trying to drive wedges between people. You're doing their bidding by insisting that identity based on race, gender, sexuality and the like not be treated as the most important things about a person! Surely you see how that sort of behaviour would drive those wedges, and how insisting on the crucial importance of those classifications like Pepsi wants to will accomplish unity and mutual understanding. Are you seeing the light yet? Do you repent?

Well, considering nobody is suggesting those things are the most important things about a person, and rather, as factors that shouldn’t be completed ignores, then I’m not sure what point you’re making.

But sure, take the hysterical sarcasm route instead of actually engaging or just letting the conversation continue, it’s really convincing.