/u/chajman if you have such a problem with people fighting back against white privilege, maybe you should look in a mirror (you might see a swastika on your forehead)
Stop telling me what you wrongly think I am saying.
I'm not telling you what 'I wrongly think your saying.' I'm deconstructing what your saying, because you're hiding behind rhetorical flourishes like 'non-partisan solutions' and 'using reason instead of violence' without ever explaining what these things mean.
She doesn't attack any of these things in this speech, beyond pointing out one of the ways 'white privilege' functions in schools. Unless you can explain how her example doesn't disenfranchise Pasifika children in school, I don't see why you object to her bringing it up?
Ideas like 'male privilege' and 'rape culture as a product of toxic masculinity' and 'white privilege' are highly studied subjects in the social sciences. I don't see how using academic concepts, driven by our best research in the relevant disciplines is 'dumbing down the debate.'
Nor do these concepts, when properly understood, turn entire groups into 'enemies.' In fact, they are designed to do specifically the opposite of that. The concept of privilege emerges from an understanding of power that is not a commodity. Traditionally power is seen as a commodity in the sense that it is either 'held or not held' and can be 'lost or taken.' In this sense, challenging power requires one group to take power from another through class conflict.
In contemporary social science positions of power are understood as strategic advantages, like on a battlefield. So male privilege doesn't describe 'men having power' that must be taken, rather, it describes 'man' as an identity from which one is able to strategically exercise power in a way that those who do not have the identity cannot do. From this perspective, power is not something that must be taken, rather, society must subtly shift to minimize these strategic advantages.
The only reason you see these as 'attacking you' is either a lack of understanding, or a decision that your power and advantage in society is deserved. If it turns out that sexual violence is generally a result of certain constructions of masculinity, then how should we fight this as a society is attacking these constructions? And if your only opposition to attacking these constructions is 'doing so is inherently divisive' then why is being divisive worse than refusing to challenge conceptions of masculinity causing sexual violence?
Do you think we should just ignore the problem? Do you think we should refuse to discuss these things? Do we need to use politically correct language to protect snowflakes who can't deal with criticism? What's the solution?
It sounds good and noble, but leads to nothing but anger.
Why is this a bad thing? Again, do you think people who are systemically disadvantaged shouldn't get angry? Do you think they should just be passive citizens and accept systemic disadvantage in the name of unity and civility?
Stop telling me what you wrongly think I am saying. I'm not telling you what 'I wrongly think your saying.' I'm deconstructing what your saying, because you're hiding behind rhetorical flourishes like 'non-partisan solutions' and 'using reason instead of violence' without ever explaining what these things mean. She doesn't attack any of these things in this speech, beyond pointing out one of the ways 'white privilege' functions in schools. Unless you can explain how her example doesn't disenfranchise Pasifika children in school, I don't see why you object to her bringing it up? Ideas like 'male privilege' and 'rape culture as a product of toxic masculinity' and 'white privilege' are highly studied subjects in the social sciences. I don't see how using academic concepts, driven by our best research in the relevant disciplines is 'dumbing down the debate.' Nor do these concepts, when properly understood, turn entire groups into 'enemies.' In fact, they are designed to do specifically the opposite of that. The concept of privilege emerges from an understanding of power that is not a commodity. Traditionally power is seen as a commodity in the sense that it is either 'held or not held' and can be 'lost or taken.' In this sense, challenging power requires one group to take power from another through class conflict. In contemporary social science positions of power are understood as strategic advantages, like on a battlefield. So male privilege doesn't describe 'men having power' that must be taken, rather, it describes 'man' as an identity from which one is able to strategically exercise power in a way that those who do not have the identity cannot do. From this perspective, power is not something that must be taken, rather, society must subtly shift to minimize these strategic advantages. The only reason you see these as 'attacking you' is either a lack of understanding, or a decision that your power and advantage in society is deserved. If it turns out that sexual violence is generally a result of certain constructions of masculinity, then how should we fight this as a society is attacking these constructions? And if your only opposition to attacking these constructions is 'doing so is inherently divisive' then why is being divisive worse than refusing to challenge conceptions of masculinity causing sexual violence? Do you think we should just ignore the problem? Do you think we should refuse to discuss these things? Do we need to use politically correct language to protect snowflakes who can't deal with criticism? What's the solution? It sounds good and noble, but leads to nothing but anger. Why is this a bad thing? Again, do you think people who are systemically disadvantaged shouldn't get angry? Do you think they should just be passive citizens and accept systemic disadvantage in the name of unity and civility?
Stop telling me what you wrongly think I am saying. I'm not telling you what 'I wrongly think your saying.' I'm deconstructing what your saying, because you're hiding behind rhetorical flourishes like 'non-partisan solutions' and 'using reason instead of violence' without ever explaining what these things mean. She doesn't attack any of these things in this speech, beyond pointing out one of the ways 'white privilege' functions in schools. Unless you can explain how her example doesn't disenfranchise Pasifika children in school, I don't see why you object to her bringing it up? Ideas like 'male privilege' and 'rape culture as a product of toxic masculinity' and 'white privilege' are highly studied subjects in the social sciences. I don't see how using academic concepts, driven by our best research in the relevant disciplines is 'dumbing down the debate.' Nor do these concepts, when properly understood, turn entire groups into 'enemies.' In fact, they are designed to do specifically the opposite of that. The concept of privilege emerges from an understanding of power that is not a commodity. Traditionally power is seen as a commodity in the sense that it is either 'held or not held' and can be 'lost or taken.' In this sense, challenging power requires one group to take power from another through class conflict. In contemporary social science positions of power are understood as strategic advantages, like on a battlefield. So male privilege doesn't describe 'men having power' that must be taken, rather, it describes 'man' as an identity from which one is able to strategically exercise power in a way that those who do not have the identity cannot do. From this perspective, power is not something that must be taken, rather, society must subtly shift to minimize these strategic advantages. The only reason you see these as 'attacking you' is either a lack of understanding, or a decision that your power and advantage in society is deserved. If it turns out that sexual violence is generally a result of certain constructions of masculinity, then how should we fight this as a society is attacking these constructions? And if your only opposition to attacking these constructions is 'doing so is inherently divisive' then why is being divisive worse than refusing to challenge conceptions of masculinity causing sexual violence? Do you think we should just ignore the problem? Do you think we should refuse to discuss these things? Do we need to use politically correct language to protect snowflakes who can't deal with criticism? What's the solution? It sounds good and noble, but leads to nothing but anger. Why is this a bad thing? Again, do you think people who are systemically disadvantaged shouldn't get angry? Do you think they should just be passive citizens and accept systemic disadvantage in the name of unity and civility?
Stop telling me what you wrongly think I am saying. I'm not telling you what 'I wrongly think your saying.' I'm deconstructing what your saying, because you're hiding behind rhetorical flourishes like 'non-partisan solutions' and 'using reason instead of violence' without ever explaining what these things mean. She doesn't attack any of these things in this speech, beyond pointing out one of the ways 'white privilege' functions in schools. Unless you can explain how her example doesn't disenfranchise Pasifika children in school, I don't see why you object to her bringing it up? Ideas like 'male privilege' and 'rape culture as a product of toxic masculinity' and 'white privilege' are highly studied subjects in the social sciences. I don't see how using academic concepts, driven by our best research in the relevant disciplines is 'dumbing down the debate.' Nor do these concepts, when properly understood, turn entire groups into 'enemies.' In fact, they are designed to do specifically the opposite of that. The concept of privilege emerges from an understanding of power that is not a commodity. Traditionally power is seen as a commodity in the sense that it is either 'held or not held' and can be 'lost or taken.' In this sense, challenging power requires one group to take power from another through class conflict. In contemporary social science positions of power are understood as strategic advantages, like on a battlefield. So male privilege doesn't describe 'men having power' that must be taken, rather, it describes 'man' as an identity from which one is able to strategically exercise power in a way that those who do not have the identity cannot do. From this perspective, power is not something that must be taken, rather, society must subtly shift to minimize these strategic advantages. The only reason you see these as 'attacking you' is either a lack of understanding, or a decision that your power and advantage in society is deserved. If it turns out that sexual violence is generally a result of certain constructions of masculinity, then how should we fight this as a society is attacking these constructions? And if your only opposition to attacking these constructions is 'doing so is inherently divisive' then why is being divisive worse than refusing to challenge conceptions of masculinity causing sexual violence? Do you think we should just ignore the problem? Do you think we should refuse to discuss these things? Do we need to use politically correct language to protect snowflakes who can't deal with criticism? What's the solution? It sounds good and noble, but leads to nothing but anger. Why is this a bad thing? Again, do you think people who are systemically disadvantaged shouldn't get angry? Do you think they should just be passive citizens and accept systemic disadvantage in the name of unity and civility?
If you wanted an explanation for why people learn to dislike places like /r/badhistory, /r/badeconomics, and /r/badphilosophy, this guy is pretty much a type species of the kind of person that slowly takes over self-referential metacommunities.
In zoological nomenclature, a type species (species typica) is the species name with which the name of a genus or subgenus is considered to be permanently taxonomically associated, i.e., the species that contains the biological type specimen(s). A similar concept is used for suprageneric groups called a type genus.
In botanical nomenclature, these terms have no formal standing under the code of nomenclature, but are sometimes borrowed from zoological nomenclature. In botany, the type of a genus name is a specimen (or, rarely, an illustration) which is also the type of a species name.
46 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-11-16
I can take a 9-inch dildo up my butt, because I'm an adult and I solve my own problems
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Thot_Crusher 2017-11-16
Imagine getting so worked up over literally nothing that you write a thesis at someone on reddit
1 TinyJibble 2017-11-16
Juice the kiwi?
1 SDIHTD 2017-11-16
It's cool that they turned the lotr set into a real country.
1 IslamicStatePatriot 2017-11-16
Im a Narnia man myself personally fyi
1 becauseiliketoupvote 2017-11-16
You lion. You just picking another movie witch was filmed there. Wardrobe.
1 Jon_SoupSandwich 2017-11-16
How does it to be part of the left-leaning academia hindering the progress of our species, /u/TheZizekiest?
1 shazbottled 2017-11-16
According to contemporary social xyiences, they are actually furthering the progress of our species. It's in the xyience book
1 tHeSiD 2017-11-16
I feel retarded just reading this and understanding it
1 zergling_Lester 2017-11-16
Xyience drools xxience rules.
1 Jon_SoupSandwich 2017-11-16
/u/chajman if you have such a problem with people fighting back against white privilege, maybe you should look in a mirror (you might see a swastika on your forehead)
1 WereCarrot 2017-11-16
No serious posting please.
1 Jon_SoupSandwich 2017-11-16
I posted two comments tagging each of the guys involved to see if I could rile them up over here get off my fucking lawn please
1 WereCarrot 2017-11-16
Get off your what?
1 Jon_SoupSandwich 2017-11-16
My fucking lawn
1 WereCarrot 2017-11-16
Your what?
1 AIDS_Fairy 2017-11-16
Stop telling me what you wrongly think I am saying. I'm not telling you what 'I wrongly think your saying.' I'm deconstructing what your saying, because you're hiding behind rhetorical flourishes like 'non-partisan solutions' and 'using reason instead of violence' without ever explaining what these things mean. She doesn't attack any of these things in this speech, beyond pointing out one of the ways 'white privilege' functions in schools. Unless you can explain how her example doesn't disenfranchise Pasifika children in school, I don't see why you object to her bringing it up? Ideas like 'male privilege' and 'rape culture as a product of toxic masculinity' and 'white privilege' are highly studied subjects in the social sciences. I don't see how using academic concepts, driven by our best research in the relevant disciplines is 'dumbing down the debate.' Nor do these concepts, when properly understood, turn entire groups into 'enemies.' In fact, they are designed to do specifically the opposite of that. The concept of privilege emerges from an understanding of power that is not a commodity. Traditionally power is seen as a commodity in the sense that it is either 'held or not held' and can be 'lost or taken.' In this sense, challenging power requires one group to take power from another through class conflict. In contemporary social science positions of power are understood as strategic advantages, like on a battlefield. So male privilege doesn't describe 'men having power' that must be taken, rather, it describes 'man' as an identity from which one is able to strategically exercise power in a way that those who do not have the identity cannot do. From this perspective, power is not something that must be taken, rather, society must subtly shift to minimize these strategic advantages. The only reason you see these as 'attacking you' is either a lack of understanding, or a decision that your power and advantage in society is deserved. If it turns out that sexual violence is generally a result of certain constructions of masculinity, then how should we fight this as a society is attacking these constructions? And if your only opposition to attacking these constructions is 'doing so is inherently divisive' then why is being divisive worse than refusing to challenge conceptions of masculinity causing sexual violence? Do you think we should just ignore the problem? Do you think we should refuse to discuss these things? Do we need to use politically correct language to protect snowflakes who can't deal with criticism? What's the solution? It sounds good and noble, but leads to nothing but anger. Why is this a bad thing? Again, do you think people who are systemically disadvantaged shouldn't get angry? Do you think they should just be passive citizens and accept systemic disadvantage in the name of unity and civility?
1 WereCarrot 2017-11-16
What are you saying?
1 AIDS_Fairy 2017-11-16
Stop telling me what you wrongly think I am saying. I'm not telling you what 'I wrongly think your saying.' I'm deconstructing what your saying, because you're hiding behind rhetorical flourishes like 'non-partisan solutions' and 'using reason instead of violence' without ever explaining what these things mean. She doesn't attack any of these things in this speech, beyond pointing out one of the ways 'white privilege' functions in schools. Unless you can explain how her example doesn't disenfranchise Pasifika children in school, I don't see why you object to her bringing it up? Ideas like 'male privilege' and 'rape culture as a product of toxic masculinity' and 'white privilege' are highly studied subjects in the social sciences. I don't see how using academic concepts, driven by our best research in the relevant disciplines is 'dumbing down the debate.' Nor do these concepts, when properly understood, turn entire groups into 'enemies.' In fact, they are designed to do specifically the opposite of that. The concept of privilege emerges from an understanding of power that is not a commodity. Traditionally power is seen as a commodity in the sense that it is either 'held or not held' and can be 'lost or taken.' In this sense, challenging power requires one group to take power from another through class conflict. In contemporary social science positions of power are understood as strategic advantages, like on a battlefield. So male privilege doesn't describe 'men having power' that must be taken, rather, it describes 'man' as an identity from which one is able to strategically exercise power in a way that those who do not have the identity cannot do. From this perspective, power is not something that must be taken, rather, society must subtly shift to minimize these strategic advantages. The only reason you see these as 'attacking you' is either a lack of understanding, or a decision that your power and advantage in society is deserved. If it turns out that sexual violence is generally a result of certain constructions of masculinity, then how should we fight this as a society is attacking these constructions? And if your only opposition to attacking these constructions is 'doing so is inherently divisive' then why is being divisive worse than refusing to challenge conceptions of masculinity causing sexual violence? Do you think we should just ignore the problem? Do you think we should refuse to discuss these things? Do we need to use politically correct language to protect snowflakes who can't deal with criticism? What's the solution? It sounds good and noble, but leads to nothing but anger. Why is this a bad thing? Again, do you think people who are systemically disadvantaged shouldn't get angry? Do you think they should just be passive citizens and accept systemic disadvantage in the name of unity and civility?
1 WereCarrot 2017-11-16
What are you saying?
1 AIDS_Fairy 2017-11-16
Stop telling me what you wrongly think I am saying. I'm not telling you what 'I wrongly think your saying.' I'm deconstructing what your saying, because you're hiding behind rhetorical flourishes like 'non-partisan solutions' and 'using reason instead of violence' without ever explaining what these things mean. She doesn't attack any of these things in this speech, beyond pointing out one of the ways 'white privilege' functions in schools. Unless you can explain how her example doesn't disenfranchise Pasifika children in school, I don't see why you object to her bringing it up? Ideas like 'male privilege' and 'rape culture as a product of toxic masculinity' and 'white privilege' are highly studied subjects in the social sciences. I don't see how using academic concepts, driven by our best research in the relevant disciplines is 'dumbing down the debate.' Nor do these concepts, when properly understood, turn entire groups into 'enemies.' In fact, they are designed to do specifically the opposite of that. The concept of privilege emerges from an understanding of power that is not a commodity. Traditionally power is seen as a commodity in the sense that it is either 'held or not held' and can be 'lost or taken.' In this sense, challenging power requires one group to take power from another through class conflict. In contemporary social science positions of power are understood as strategic advantages, like on a battlefield. So male privilege doesn't describe 'men having power' that must be taken, rather, it describes 'man' as an identity from which one is able to strategically exercise power in a way that those who do not have the identity cannot do. From this perspective, power is not something that must be taken, rather, society must subtly shift to minimize these strategic advantages. The only reason you see these as 'attacking you' is either a lack of understanding, or a decision that your power and advantage in society is deserved. If it turns out that sexual violence is generally a result of certain constructions of masculinity, then how should we fight this as a society is attacking these constructions? And if your only opposition to attacking these constructions is 'doing so is inherently divisive' then why is being divisive worse than refusing to challenge conceptions of masculinity causing sexual violence? Do you think we should just ignore the problem? Do you think we should refuse to discuss these things? Do we need to use politically correct language to protect snowflakes who can't deal with criticism? What's the solution? It sounds good and noble, but leads to nothing but anger. Why is this a bad thing? Again, do you think people who are systemically disadvantaged shouldn't get angry? Do you think they should just be passive citizens and accept systemic disadvantage in the name of unity and civility?
1 WereCarrot 2017-11-16
What are you saying?
1 AIDS_Fairy 2017-11-16
Stop telling me what you wrongly think I am saying. I'm not telling you what 'I wrongly think your saying.' I'm deconstructing what your saying, because you're hiding behind rhetorical flourishes like 'non-partisan solutions' and 'using reason instead of violence' without ever explaining what these things mean. She doesn't attack any of these things in this speech, beyond pointing out one of the ways 'white privilege' functions in schools. Unless you can explain how her example doesn't disenfranchise Pasifika children in school, I don't see why you object to her bringing it up? Ideas like 'male privilege' and 'rape culture as a product of toxic masculinity' and 'white privilege' are highly studied subjects in the social sciences. I don't see how using academic concepts, driven by our best research in the relevant disciplines is 'dumbing down the debate.' Nor do these concepts, when properly understood, turn entire groups into 'enemies.' In fact, they are designed to do specifically the opposite of that. The concept of privilege emerges from an understanding of power that is not a commodity. Traditionally power is seen as a commodity in the sense that it is either 'held or not held' and can be 'lost or taken.' In this sense, challenging power requires one group to take power from another through class conflict. In contemporary social science positions of power are understood as strategic advantages, like on a battlefield. So male privilege doesn't describe 'men having power' that must be taken, rather, it describes 'man' as an identity from which one is able to strategically exercise power in a way that those who do not have the identity cannot do. From this perspective, power is not something that must be taken, rather, society must subtly shift to minimize these strategic advantages. The only reason you see these as 'attacking you' is either a lack of understanding, or a decision that your power and advantage in society is deserved. If it turns out that sexual violence is generally a result of certain constructions of masculinity, then how should we fight this as a society is attacking these constructions? And if your only opposition to attacking these constructions is 'doing so is inherently divisive' then why is being divisive worse than refusing to challenge conceptions of masculinity causing sexual violence? Do you think we should just ignore the problem? Do you think we should refuse to discuss these things? Do we need to use politically correct language to protect snowflakes who can't deal with criticism? What's the solution? It sounds good and noble, but leads to nothing but anger. Why is this a bad thing? Again, do you think people who are systemically disadvantaged shouldn't get angry? Do you think they should just be passive citizens and accept systemic disadvantage in the name of unity and civility?
1 WereCarrot 2017-11-16
What are you saying?
1 Jon_SoupSandwich 2017-11-16
My god damn fucking lawn
1 WereCarrot 2017-11-16
Your what?
1 Jon_SoupSandwich 2017-11-16
My lawn
1 WereCarrot 2017-11-16
Your what?
1 Jon_SoupSandwich 2017-11-16
My sex lawn
1 WereCarrot 2017-11-16
Your sex what?
1 Jon_SoupSandwich 2017-11-16
My sex dungeon lawn
1 WereCarrot 2017-11-16
Your sex dungeon what?
1 Jon_SoupSandwich 2017-11-16
My sex dungeon torture lawn
1 WereCarrot 2017-11-16
Your sex dungeon torture what?
1 Jon_SoupSandwich 2017-11-16
Sex dungeon oiled torture lawn
1 IneedSomeThrowaway 2017-11-16
Jon has also commented https://www.reddit.com/r/Drama/comments/7d8shq/argument_in_rnz_over_everything_from_marxism_to/dpvztcu/
1 WereCarrot 2017-11-16
Who is jon?
1 Stuntman119 2017-11-16
you
1 IneedSomeThrowaway 2017-11-16
/u/jon_SoupSandwich
1 Jon_SoupSandwich 2017-11-16
Me.
1 Jon_SoupSandwich 2017-11-16
Thank you, I was just trying to rile them up
1 aliceunknown 2017-11-16
Damn, kiwis be cray.
1 big_guyforu 2017-11-16
Gas my country tbqhwy
1 wwyzzerdd 2017-11-16
White people nonsense.
1 Prysorra 2017-11-16
If you wanted an explanation for why people learn to dislike places like /r/badhistory, /r/badeconomics, and /r/badphilosophy, this guy is pretty much a type species of the kind of person that slowly takes over self-referential metacommunities.
The kind of person that thinks being right and being reasonable is interchangeable.. The subjectiveness of their sense of "right" makes it all the worse.
1 WikiTextBot 2017-11-16
Type species
In zoological nomenclature, a type species (species typica) is the species name with which the name of a genus or subgenus is considered to be permanently taxonomically associated, i.e., the species that contains the biological type specimen(s). A similar concept is used for suprageneric groups called a type genus.
In botanical nomenclature, these terms have no formal standing under the code of nomenclature, but are sometimes borrowed from zoological nomenclature. In botany, the type of a genus name is a specimen (or, rarely, an illustration) which is also the type of a species name.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source | Donate ] Downvote to remove | v0.28
1 Prysorra 2017-11-16
Good bot .... .... but .... why in /r/Drama?