Red Mosquito

digster wrote:This doesn't really have anything to do with free speech either way; that's regarding government censorship, not sniping between late night hosts and twitter users. She's well within her rights to call for Colbert to be cancelled, and people are well within their rights to say they think it's for a poor reason.

Basically, yeah. I'd just like a little mutual appreciation for the other point of view. I mean, you know, I'm regularly asked by abled people (those with privilege above me) to respect their opinions on disability. In return my opinions on this stuff are called irrational, illogical, subjective etc. Freedom of speech for Colbert is something I couldn't really care less about. He'll get it. They always do.

Congrats on completely divorcing yourself from the dreaded ranks of the oppressors and into the noble ranks of the oppressed. You've achieved quite a bit in your short time away.

harmless wrote:Freedom of speech for Colbert is something I couldn't really care less about. He'll get it. They always do.

digster's right: this really isn't a freedom of speech issue in the slightest. Native Americans (or the disabled or African-Americans, etc.) have a right to free speech - what they don't have is the right to a platform so everyone has to listen. It's irrelevant to this discussion.

Thanks for twisting my points so that you have the upper hand, guys. Well done, clap clap.

I'm done, no idea why I came back.

Harmless, I'm reasonably positive nobody here bears you any ill will; they just think this intersection/privilege business is a bunch of shit.

Hey, any time a (mostly?) straight white male can throw off his white male-ness to the point he can refer to Stephen Colbert as a "they", and become one with the oppressed underclasses and fight on their behalf, I'm inspired. Is there anything we can't do? This is Dances with Wolves kind of shit here. Or maybe Avatar is more apt in this case.

I can't speak to your opinion that something I have no choice but to live by is 'a bunch of shit', so I'll leave that alone. Intersectional thinking is not an option I've chosen. I am a white male, but in this case I'm not one spewing horrendous bigotry. I've always made clear that I speak as an oppressed minority in two senses: not 'mostly' straight but not straight at all (albeit not gay either), and disabled since birth with Spina bifida and Hydrocephalus. Pardon me for admitting to the fact that these things, particularly my life-long disability, rather undermines the privilege I'd otherwise have if I was an able-bodied white male. That's just common sense, guys. If we're not going to be able to agree on that then I'm sorry, but I don't feel welcome in these parts and never will. My opinion will never be welcome on anything other than shit that has no bearing on real life. You might be happy with that, but I can't be, because my withholding opinions is not a choice I've made but a necessity if I'm going to avoid a bunch of undermining abuse and mockery.

Your privilege is showing when you laugh my perspective off and you're the one who walks away unhurt by the experience.

Birds in Hell wrote:they just think this intersection/privilege business is a bunch of shit.

Fuck that; I don't, and fuck you if you do.

I disagree with #CancelColbert for other reasons, not the plain truth that we all operate on fundamentally different playing fields.

theplatypus wrote:the plain truth that we all operate on fundamentally different playing fields.

Sure, we're all human beings dealing with our own challenges and advantages; who argued otherwise?

Harmless, we routinely laugh off each other's perspective here on RM, even dearly held ones. You are not a special case. I'm pretty sure we will continue to do so. Despite your disability you aren't that far removed from the rest of us, and may well rank higher on the great privilege ranking board than some others here, yet you seem to think you are lower. Frankly, you sound like you get off on it, you seem to wrap yourself up in it like a warm blanket, but I won't laugh off your perspective further.

I don't know if I'm clear what would constitute a black cause (as in your past comment), or native cause, etc, and I don't particularly care to fight about or comment on these things in themselves (other than perhaps disabled issues since I support my severely disabled brother and my mother who takes care of him), so in that sense we agree I should just butt out i guess if they don't apply to me.

However, morally, I am for equality, freedom, agency and free speech FOR ALL, and on matters in which those ideals are in play, even if they overlap supposed "black, disabled, etc" causes, I may speak on it and maybe even mock (playfully or perhaps not) people or ideas that I think may act in opposition to this, intentionally or no. Anyone who believes these matters are none of my business (whether my demographic is immediately involved or not) or think I can best serve them by shutting up, can politely suck shit out of their own assholes. If discussions related to equality, agency, etc. overlap what could be considered racial issues, or disability issues, or any other issue, then I am going to speak about them if I choose to. For you to say that it is wrong to speak independently on these issues, and that I should simply submit to my betters and parrot their opinions on faith alone because my voice is "too loud", well... I mean... fuck you. Your particular brand of intersectional thinking (that seems to have nothing to do with the actual concept of intersection from what I can tell), though you probably mean well, is divisive, ultimately destructive to the ideal of equality, freedom, agency and free speech FOR ALL, and pessimistic to the point of outright defeatism (as well as very CULTLIKE). In this case, I want no part of it.

As far as the concept of privilege is concerned, setting aside that the word itself is a subtle but intentional insult when better more constructive terms exist (we've been over this), you barely know a thing about me or my circumstances, but feel that you can assign privilege to me based on a tiny handful of factors. The disgustingly limited attributes that you and other (what I would call faux-)intersectionalists use as the basis for determining an individual's net privilege in society and one's place in some vague hierarchy is fucking stupid, destructive, and possibly coming from a place of sheer hatred. If people react so vehemently when they are judged based on it, it is because EVERYONE hates being judged on the basis of a few ridiculously broad factors, and rightly so. The term, as it was first coined, was actually "white privilege", not "straight white male privilege" or "straight white able bodied male between the ages of 25-55 privilege" or any of that. Just "white privilege". Why the need to further divide it up? Because "white privilege" doesn't accurately portray the problems women have? or gays? or elderly paraplegics white males living in Ukraine? No fucking shit.

Obviously, one can look at society as a whole and and see who thrives and who suffers and make some reasonable assumptions about this group or that's societal advantage or disadvantage. One can make criticisms about and propose solutions to the system based on this data. But to use just a few characteristics (and ignore the vast majority) as a basis for assuming an individual's net advantage in society is just plain racism, and evil from my perspective. One's entire circumstance MUST be taken into account, and one should most certainly not make assumptions about someone based on a handful of factors such as race. Maybe the ENTIRETY of your circumstances give you less privilege than me, or maybe they don't, or maybe they balance out, but don't fucking assume one way or another.

I don't care what your circumstances are or what you were born with. I will try to treat you the same as anyone else, but I won't kill myself or curb my free speech trying to keep the field level for your benefit. If, by attempting to treat you exactly the same as anyone else, I am inadvertently oppressing you, then this is all a pointless waste of time. Luckily, I dont think that is the case. The theory is faulty at its base.

who the hell posted that #CancelColbert article link, anyway? what a dick.

I'm just still angry about #CancelEveningShade.

malice wrote:who the hell posted that #CancelColbert article link, anyway? what a dick.

some broad

cutuphalfdead wrote:

malice wrote:who the hell posted that #CancelColbert article link, anyway? what a dick.

some broad

#cancelmalice

BurtReynolds wrote:Harmless, we routinely laugh off each other's perspective here on RM, even dearly held ones. You are not a special case. I'm pretty sure we will continue to do so. Despite your disability you aren't that far removed from the rest of us, and may well rank higher on the great privilege ranking board than some others here, yet you seem to think you are lower. Frankly, you sound like you get off on it, you seem to wrap yourself up in it like a warm blanket, but I won't laugh off your perspective further.

I don't know if I'm clear what would constitute a black cause (as in your past comment), or native cause, etc, and I don't particularly care to fight about or comment on these things in themselves (other than perhaps disabled issues since I support my severely disabled brother and my mother who takes care of him), so in that sense we agree I should just butt out i guess if they don't apply to me.

However, morally, I am for equality, freedom, agency and free speech FOR ALL, and on matters in which those ideals are in play, even if they overlap supposed "black, disabled, etc" causes, I may speak on it and maybe even mock (playfully or perhaps not) people or ideas that I think may act in opposition to this, intentionally or no. Anyone who believes these matters are none of my business (whether my demographic is immediately involved or not) or think I can best serve them by shutting up, can politely suck shit out of their own assholes. If discussions related to equality, agency, etc. overlap what could be considered racial issues, or disability issues, or any other issue, then I am going to speak about them if I choose to. For you to say that it is wrong to speak independently on these issues, and that I should simply submit to my betters and parrot their opinions on faith alone because my voice is "too loud", well... I mean... fuck you. Your particular brand of intersectional thinking (that seems to have nothing to do with the actual concept of intersection from what I can tell), though you probably mean well, is divisive, ultimately destructive to the ideal of equality, freedom, agency and free speech FOR ALL, and pessimistic to the point of outright defeatism (as well as very CULTLIKE). In this case, I want no part of it.

As far as the concept of privilege is concerned, setting aside that the word itself is a subtle but intentional insult when better more constructive terms exist (we've been over this), you barely know a thing about me or my circumstances, but feel that you can assign privilege to me based on a tiny handful of factors. The disgustingly limited attributes that you and other (what I would call faux-)intersectionalists use as the basis for determining an individual's net privilege in society and one's place in some vague hierarchy is fucking stupid, destructive, and possibly coming from a place of sheer hatred. If people react so vehemently when they are judged based on it, it is because EVERYONE hates being judged on the basis of a few ridiculously broad factors, and rightly so. The term, as it was first coined, was actually "white privilege", not "straight white male privilege" or "straight white able bodied male between the ages of 25-55 privilege" or any of that. Just "white privilege". Why the need to further divide it up? Because "white privilege" doesn't accurately portray the problems women have? or gays? or elderly paraplegics white males living in Ukraine? No fucking shit.

Obviously, one can look at society as a whole and and see who thrives and who suffers and make some reasonable assumptions about this group or that's societal advantage or disadvantage. One can make criticisms about and propose solutions to the system based on this data. But to use a few characteristics (and ignore the vast majority of others) to assign net privilege to an individual on these few characteristics is plain evil from my perspective. One's entire circumstances MUST be taken into account, and one should most certainly not make assumptions about someone based on a handful of factors such as race. Maybe the ENTIRETY of your circumstances give you less privilege than me, or maybe they don't, or maybe they balance out, but don't fucking assume one way or another.

I don't care what your circumstances are or what you were born with. I will try to treat you the same as anyone else, but I won't kill myself or curb my free speech trying to keep the field level for your benefit. If, by attempting to treat you exactly the same as anyone else, I am inadvertently oppressing you, then this is all a pointless waste of time. Luckily, I dont think that is the case. The theory is faulty at its base.

theplatypus wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:they just think this intersection/privilege business is a bunch of shit.

Fuck that; I don't, and fuck you if you do.

(why do I do this to myself?)

The concept of "privilege" is real. The precept of Intersectionality that privilege is multidimensional and relative is also real. I'm not sure why Intersectionality is some huge revelation as the entire history of sociological study has illustrated this, but whatever. I believe the issue here is not in this theory, it's in the practice. It appears that arbitrary weightings are being applied to a select subset of the dimensions of privilege that are measured in Intersectionality (e.g. race, gender, sexual orientation) to empower certain historically marginalized groups and achieve limited social justice goals. The result of this is the creation of a hierarchy of bullying in which the just statement "shut up and listen" is transformed to mean "shut up and obey", with the obvious response as we see in post after post here. What makes this most tragic is that it's a distortion of the logical conclusion of Intersectionality; which is that societal privilege and life experience is so relative and so multidimensional that it is unique to the individual, not to some cause célèbre (like #CancelColbert).

Burt, spare me your credentials. Your disabled brother and pro-freedom liberal credentials give you no fucking right to belittle my (or his, or anyone's) opinions. If you guys get off on that, good luck to you, but it won't involve me. Neither will I have disabled people's experiences of prejudice and oppression erased so that you can assume we're more alike than we are. We are not. Who gives you the fucking right to tell me that oppression against disabled people, against me, hasn't existed and doesn't exist in life? Someone who has made zero effort to get to know me? Fuck you, and you know what, fuck anyone who agrees with you. Who's on this cunt's side here? You are not my friend.

Here's how this went: I defended the right to free speech of the female Asian activist who started #CancelColbert, itself an act of satire because Suey Park herself KNEW it wouldn't get the show cancelled. I defended her point of view because I related to hearing defences of 'It was satire!' spewed by a bunch of abled people who got jokes about disability wrong, and ended up offending disabled people themselves. I said that I have no power to cancel Colbert, I don't give two shits whether Colbert is cancelled, but I won't defend this stupid little inconsequential joke either. I was laughed off. I was mocked. I was told that my entire system and basis for defending the cause against systemic racism over the right to 'free speech' of white guys with TV shows was 'a bunch of bullshit'. Because Colbert's wonderful attempts to highlight the problem of systemic racism was doing a great fucking job in this case, wasn't it? And all the while, my initial thesis -- that this joke will do precisely nothing to further the cause of changing the Redskins name, or increasing Native American visibility and self-advocacy in the media -- was completely forgotten. Because this became all about cancelling Colbert, your beloved TV show. This joke and its related hashtag will be forgotten. Native American people have not been helped by it. Which is the bigger fucking issue?

Thanks to everyone who welcomed me back to RM on the basis that we were actual friends, but clearly that isn't the case for most of you, so I have to decline.

broken iris wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:they just think this intersection/privilege business is a bunch of shit.

Fuck that; I don't, and fuck you if you do.

(why do I do this to myself?)

The concept of "privilege" is real. The precept of Intersectionality that privilege is multidimensional and relative is also real. I'm not sure why Intersectionality is some huge revelation as the entire history of sociological study has illustrated this, but whatever. I believe the issue here is not in this theory, it's in the practice. It appears that arbitrary weightings are being applied to a select subset of the dimensions of privilege that are measured in Intersectionality (e.g. race, gender, sexual orientation) to empower certain historically marginalized groups and achieve limited social justice goals. The result of this is the creation of a hierarchy of bullying in which the just statement "shut up and listen" is transformed to mean "shut up and obey", with the obvious response as we see in post after post here. What makes this most tragic is that it's a distortion of the logical conclusion of Intersectionality; which is that societal privilege and life experience is so relative and so multidimensional that it is unique to the individual, not to some cause célèbre (like #CancelColbert).

None of this shit has anything to do with 'the individual'. If you can afford to think it does, you don't understand kyriarchy, intersectionality or the interlocking histories of communal societal oppressions one bit.