The worldview of liberals is not a narrative of race/class/power/privilege? WTF is it, then? Won't you guys tell us, instead of ranting on about race/class/power/privilege every day?

Why would anyone bother (again)? You'd just disagree, then tell us what you think it's REALLY about.

I like Ray's version better than ours, anyway. A hell of lot more entertaining.

Should we all just go with it? Ayes?

Sure, if I can say that all conservatives are Randians who are all out to go Galt in a ditch they're digging for themselves.

Why would anyone bother (again)?

I didn't see any explanations. Just naked denials of fundamental beliefs.

The quotes I presented on the previous page accurately reflect the general viewpoint of those on the left.

I didn't see any explanations. Just naked denials of fundamental beliefs.

The quotes I presented on the previous page accurately reflect the general viewpoint of those on the left.

okay.

.

Won't you guys tell us, instead of ranting on about race/class/power/privilege every day?

Ray, again projecting his own obsessions onto others, totally incapable of seeing that it's happening.

I didn't see any explanations. Just naked denials of fundamental beliefs.

I thought Bitter Mouse had a pretty clear description of how liberals see the world in one of these threads a while back. I was hoping it was the "Bitter Mouse's Law" episode, as that would be easier to google search, but sadly that was just about the liberal view of the role of government.

To be fair, "power" covers a fairly broad spectrum of human activity. Is there a political world-view that doesn't engage with issues of power at some level?

You lot should be ashamed of yourselves. You got Ray excited before bedtime and he went and #### his jammies.

I think evaluating how Obama is "doing" vis a vis Sandy is mostly a matter of optics and messaging.

I'd rather emphasize facts. While it may take several months for us to be able to evaluate Obama's performance, it will eventually be clear how competent he was or wasn't. While it can be tough to tease out responsibility when multiple agencies are involved, it won't be too hard to find out who did and didn't perform.

Funny, a lot of folks are saying the government's handling of Sandy has been worse than for Katrina. Meet the new boss.....

Oh, thbbbbbttt. You're better than this.

It's that he and his administration staffed the agencies of the government with lackeys, ideologues and donors who had no clue how to run government agencies. (See also NASA, DOD, State, Treasury, CIA...

That's an oversell. Donald Rumsfeld was evil and in thrall of false assumptions (some truly, fantastically stupid false assumptions) about the world, but he wasn't incompetent per se. I don't think anyone would call Condi Rice incompetent, and certainly not Robert Gates. There's a degree of distinction between Rumsfeld or Henry Paulson and "Brownie" and the guy put in charge of NASA.

I'll give it a shot. Rumsfeld, Rice, and Cheney were utterly incompetent at their jobs. They thought Iraq would be a cakewalk. They thought their war of choice would pay for itself. They thought we would be greeted as liberators. They invaded under false pretenses and for a combination of fantastically stupid and fraudulent reasons. If not only having literally no idea what you're doing, but also committing fraud in order to do it isn't "incompetent", that word has no meaning at all.

Does it come as a shock to some people that anyone who disagrees with the liberal agenda is branded a racist/sexist/bigot along with a twist of cruel/greedy/selfish?

Well, now, by definition....

The worldview of liberals, as expressed every day over and over again in these threads, is a narrative of race/class/power/privilege. And - cue Andy from earlier today - "racial sensitivity."

Why the liberals here are denying this is left as an exercise for the reader.

Amazing, isn't it?

I've been out for the evening, but what I'd like to know is if SBB has ever elaborated on his rather weird proclamation earlier today, to wit:

Nothing amazing about it, and I wholeheartedly stick by it.

Is there any white person who isn't "privileged"? If so, please explain some of the factors that would convert that white person from privileged to not privileged.(*) Let's start there, to see if personal details even matter -- if all whites are somehow privileged, then they don't, and your request for detail was mere deflection.

(*) I'll note here that a life led in Washington and New York, with a detour to the cracker 1960s South, doesn't necessarily give one a full accounting of the white American experience.

SBB, privilege isn't merely racial. A white person (unless they live in an isolated town run by black people or some such) has racial privilege. If they are female they lack gender privilege and if they are poor they lack class privilege. If they are gay, disabled, etc etc etc.


I'm a black man who grew up upper middle class. Able-bodied and young. Not a lot of money now but opportunities to make some. I have a measure of class privilege, definitely gender privilege, lack racial privilege.

I don't sit around moping about it, and I sometimes use it to motivate me and keep me on my toes, but it would be silly to ignore these factors as they do have a background effect on my life. (In positive and negative ways. There are things I just don't have to worry about as a man, and things well-off white folks don't have to worry about that I do.)

1966. Rickey is America's Favorite Neighbor Posted: December 11, 2012 at 04:40 PM (#4322153)

I have to leave for the day, but the main problem is that money absolutely rules politics in most of the developed world, and nowhere moreso than the US



Money is power. Power is politics. In the rest of the world, power is guns, or tribal allegiances. But more often guns.

Power always serves power. How is this a story?

Catching up, and to answer your question..... because the media and everyone influenced by it likes to pretend that we live in a fundamentally open, free, democratic society in which everyone has equal rights under the law and the bad guys go to jail, and anyone that points out that this is not even remotely the case is labelled as a nutter.

Re: 2010 and the term "differently-abled". I heard that on the local radio last year, involving accessibility on the UNB campus. AFAIC, if you were born with wheels instead of feet, you are differently abled. Otherwise, get over the dis prefix.

Totally unrelated to anything else, I came across this today.

The Royal Navy Field Gun Competition. Crews run a 12 pound field cannon through a course, dismantle it to man-handle it over a wall, then swing it in pieces over a 28-foot trench, put it back together and fire three shots, in under 3 minutes.

And people want to cut military spending!

I'm a black man who grew up upper middle class. Able-bodied and young. Not a lot of money now but opportunities to make some. I have a measure of class privilege, definitely gender privilege, lack racial privilege.

The latter is categorically false. It's certainly not the sum total of life, but if you've engaged in the competition for college/professional school spots, and jobs, being black is an advantage -- thus, you do not "lack racial privilege" in those spheres. Again, not the sum total of life, but a big part.

Which isn't to say being black might not have been a disadvantage in developing the record you bring to the competition (*)-- it also might not have been -- but to think that you didn't get a benefit in the admissions office and most/all hiring offices is way off.

(*) Which I'm only raising because it's often raised as a justification for school/hiring privileges.

I've been out for the evening, but what I'd like to know is if SBB has ever elaborated on his rather weird proclamation earlier today, to wit:

I have never benefitted from white privilege and would not have benefitted from it in its heyday. (A heyday you can read about, in grand detail, in the Joe Kennedy biography that just came out.)

Yeah, this oughta be good.

Nothing amazing about it, and I wholeheartedly stick by it.

Gee, that was a hell of an "explanation", Mr. Bedoya.

Is there any white person who isn't "privileged"? If so, please explain some of the factors that would convert that white person from privileged to not privileged.(*) Let's start there, to see if personal details even matter -- if all whites are somehow privileged, then they don't, and your request for detail was mere deflection.

SBB, you were the one making a rather incredible assertion, backed by absolutely no evidence whatever. I'll be glad to elaborate on your counter-question, but you first owe it to us to either put up or shut up about your unprivileged life as a white person on planet Earth---not to mention how you wouldn't have benefited in the heyday of Jim Crow.

(*) I'll note here that a life led in Washington and New York, with a detour to the cracker 1960s South, doesn't necessarily give one a full accounting of the white American experience.

Whoever said that it did? I've benefited from my own particular circumstances of birth in so many ways that I've long lost count.

OTOH I've spent the past 50 years trying to learn about as many "other" experiences as I can, from friendships, acquaintances, travel, and a fair amount of reading, study and thought, part of which was reflected in the books I chose for my history-centered shop and for my own personal library. IMO life is an ongoing educational process.

I was hoping to add your "never benefited from white privilege" experience to my knowledge base, but you apparently think I'm likely to turn such information over to the black hats or something. As quoted verbatim, that was a strong assertion you made there, and not to back it up with a fair amount of detail naturally might lead the cynics among us to believe that you might just be blowing it out of your butt. But I'm certainly willing to consider your unembellished story, if you ever care to give it.

SBB, you were the one making a rather incredible assertion, backed by absolutely no evidence whatever. I'll be glad to elaborate on your counter-question, but you first owe it to us to either put up or shut up about your unprivileged life as a white person on planet Earth---not to mention how you wouldn't have benefited in the heyday of Jim Crow.

So you're punting on offering for peer review a falsifiable hypothesis of white privilege, then? Are all white people privileged?

Re: 2010 and the term "differently-abled". I heard that on the local radio last year, involving accessibility on the UNB campus. AFAIC, if you were born with wheels instead of feet, you are differently abled. Otherwise, get over the dis prefix.

Why does that bother you?

Totally unrelated to anything else, I came across this today.

The Royal Navy Field Gun Competition. Crews run a 12 pound field cannon through a course, dismantle it to man-handle it over a wall, then swing it in pieces over a 28-foot trench, put it back together and fire three shots, in under 3 minutes.

And people want to cut military spending!

Just think, in about 1,500 years that will become an Olympic event.

The Royal Navy Field Gun Competition.

I can't watch Youtube at work, but I assume this is similar to the competition they have at the Royal Nova Scotia International Tattoo. The gun race is pretty impressive.

I thought Bitter Mouse had a pretty clear description of how liberals see the world in one of these threads a while back.

<Blush>

As my memory is terrible I don't remember what I wrote, but I can try to freelance something together. So while it is basically impossible to describe an entire world view of millions of people in a few short sentences here is my rough draft.

Liberals believe in
* Change. Change is inevitable and can be good, bad or whatever.
* Complexity. The world is incredibly complex and ever changing, make things better but don't let the quest for perfect destroy what you can do now.
* Progress. "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" MLK. Over the long run we make progress.
* Diversity. Variety is good. There is not one version of reality, ideal, or model person, race, religion, ideology or whatever.
* Balance. The needs of the many and the needs of the one need to be balanced, neither can be allowed to dominate.
* Reality trumps ideology. Making sure people get fed, have access to health care and so on is more important than the ideal of freedom with no opportunity to exercise that freedom (freedom from hunger matters).
* History matters. The weight, the inertia of history is real and needs to be acknowledged, so injustice yesterday still lives on today though a tiny bit less, and will likely live on tomorrow and must be fought every day until it is truly gone.

But I invite the Liberals on this board to poke holes and make fun of what I wrote. The Libertarians and Conservatives should attempt to write out their world view (I think Good face did a while back, at least inpart), but I realize it will be much easier to make fun and take shots and engage is other such behavior.

Why does that bother you?

I just think its silly. The terms moron, imbecile, idiot were all clinical terms at one time. Then they were deemed offensive and it because retarded. Then that was deemed offensive and it became handicapped. Then that was deemed offensive and it became disabled. Then that became offensive and we're switching to the utterly ridiculous "differently abled". The same PC progression has occurred for physical problems (crippled used to be a perfectly acceptable word), racial descriptions, etc. Its all ########.

Can you tell me what the liberal view is on cheeses

I know this wasn't directed at any actual liberal, but it's interesting. I'd say that whole-milk artisanal cheeses are preferred, unpasteurized, small batches from heirloom recipes, sheep and goat milks, mozzarella di bufala, anything with a sense of terroir. And for ironic purposes, Velveeta with Ro-Tel peppers.

Conservative cheeses include gummy pizza mozzarella, stanky salad-dressing blue cheese, waxy "cheddar," anything pre-shredded, "Parmesan" in a green can, The Laughing Cow, and shelf-stabilized ageless "Brie" in an impenetrable rubbery shell, for special cocktail-party use.

If my academic and professional record wasn't stellar, you might have a point SBB.

Affirmative action might have pushed me five percent farther, but, no, it doesnt cancel out the larger effects of institutionalized discrimination.

But because people out there share such views, it is imperative that I make certain not to #### up. And I don't. :)

So you're punting on offering for peer review a falsifiable hypothesis of white privilege, then? Are all white people privileged?

I'm not sure "privileged" is a thing that you either are or are not. My dad was a teacher and my mom ran a fiscally responsible household. I grew up pretty financially secure, I didn't really need to have a job until university. I think I've been dealt a better hand than some of my friends, a less beneficial one than others. "Privileged" is a relative term, it depends who I'm talking to. When talking to a student of the First Nations University in Regina "privileged" seems a fair assessment. Same when I'm talking to high school classmates who had to drop out to work and help out with family expenses (white or otherwise). When I'm hanging out with my friend whose family is within the Romanian nobility, I don't feel particularly privileged. Or a guy I once knew who was a member of a powerful political family in Kenya.

Like anything else this conversation could probably be simplified a great deal if we first had a discussion on what we mean by "privileged" (assuming the goal of the conversation is understanding what everyone is saying).

I do wonder if Ray would end up doubling-down on SBB's stance. Legitimately wondering, not being snarky.


Are all white people privileged?

Most absolutes are stupid. There's a liberal world-view for you, Ray.

Greg, you are right. Privilege is relative. I have class privilege compared to some and not to others. Privilege is mostly about advantages.

I do love it when I'm told minorities are the lucky ones. Fun stuff.

Its all ########.

So what would you call a person who can't hear, but is incredibly skilled at reading lips, facial and hand gestures? Remember the Seinfeld episode where George got Jerry's deaf girlfriend to eavesdrop on a conversation from across a crowded room? That was certainly a different ability.

A blind person has much different and more highly attuned sensory perception than most seeing people. Could you get around New York City with your eyes closed with only a stick to guide you? Someone who spends a lifetime in a wheelchair has much more upper body strength than the average person. People with aspergers are usually much more creative than the average person.

In many cases, differently abled is just as accurate as disabled, and has the advantage of sounding less pejorative. So why not give it a rest and worry about something that actually matters.

Reality trumps ideology

I would disagree that liberals adhere to this one (although the same could be said about Conservatives too, in other ways). Non-liberals recognize that when you develop big-government facilitated safety nets from which people can get many things for free, they will take advantage of it to the detriment of others. Liberals refuse to believe that there is anything more that a scattered few people like this, but the truth is, when people are indulged and never held personally responsible for their decisions, most of them will continue to make bad ones. This is part of human nature and will never change, no matter how many times we give these people the benefit of the doubt. And by "these people" I don't mean a particular economic class, race or nationality. A white trust fund baby will exhibit the same response to being coddled that an inner city single mother with 4 kids by 3 men will.

I obviously don't consider myself a liberal, but I agree that change is more often than not a good thing, that the world is complex and diverse, and history definitely matters. I also believe to each his own - which would seem to be a recognition of these three statements - but for some reason most liberals do not.

we're switching to the utterly ridiculous "differently abled". The same PC progression has occurred for physical problems (crippled used to be a perfectly acceptable word), racial descriptions

It's way more complicated than that, of course. It seems to me that euphemisms crowd out other euphemisms when society is uncomfortable about, or disdainful of, the traits or people that the euphemisms identify. By contrast, once society is generally OK with a group or a feature of a group, the euphemistic drift stops. Terms like "African-American" and "gay," which would have sounded affected 50 years ago, are now very stable descriptors that are used by everybody, because very few people anymore think it inherently embarrassing or unseemly to be black or queer.

"Disabled" is becoming such a descriptor. "Differently abled" probably won't, because it sounds tendentious; but unlike some of its kin, it's also provocatively useful. Greg Rutherford, after all, is "differently abled" than I am. If the gap you're supposed to mind in the Tube station were 20 feet, he could get on and off trains all day long without a problem, while I would routinely fall to my death. The difference in ability between Rutherford and me is effectively like the difference between me and my disabled father in the last years of his life. It's important to see that as a difference (and always a temporary one) rather than somehow seeing one condition as "normal" or "natural" and the other as defective. It just puts things in thoughtful perspective.

Regarding the "hot topic" as to whether SBB has benefited from being a white male ... in my opinion White Males as a class gain relative benefits from the existing power structure in the US(I know I have). I am positive there are specific instances where in total some few individuals have not benefited - just from the fact we are dealing with millions of people, get enough people and someone is goignto be an outlier. So there is a very small but non zero chance SBB has not benefited. I think it more likely he is a fish who never notices the water he swims in, but not having lived in his scales I don't know for sure.

However, I also believe that everyone (including white males) is disadvantaged in absolute terms but the fact that white males are advantaged. Example: Saudi Arabia in absolute terms is disadvantaged as a nation in that they refuse to take full advantage of the wonderful talents of full half of their population (women). Men in Saudi Arabia gain relative advantage(compared to women), but lose out in absolute terms because of the waste of human capital. In the short run I suspect the transfer of "advantage" from women to men helps the men in absolute terms but over time the waste compounds and so they only harm themselves and their entire society.

I think Saudi Arabia is an unusually clear and easy to understand example (cautionary tale) of the dangers of such institutional advantages. Not only is it wrong (unjust), but over time it is actively harmful to society in many ways including (but not limited to) all the squandered human capital.

Oh look an expression of liberal thought. The example speaks to underlying principles (societal cost of institutional favortism), but though it is expressed in terms of gender for Saudi Arabia (or race in the US vis-a-vis "white advantage") neither race nor gender is the primal factor, they are only the undesired expression of institutional bias.

In many cases, differently abled is just as accurate as disabled, and has the advantage of sounding less pejorative. So why not give it a rest and worry about something that actually matters.

Fair enough.

Word, Bitter Mouse.

Terms like "African-American"

I will never get that one. I can understand is you want to get beyond "black", but African-American has little descriptive value. You wouldn't call an American of Egyptian or Moroccan descent African-American, but that's literally what they are. The Finns all came from Mongolia originally, but we don't call them Scandinavian-Mongolian.

The Finns all came from Mongolia originally, but we don't call them Scandinavian-Mongolian.

And we all come from Africa originally! (I'm actually not read up on my genetic history of mankind - is this right?)

I think the value of the names of social categories isn't so much technical or historical accuracy, but (since they are social categories) the measure is "does everyone in society agree on what this means?" That the Pennsylvania Dutch are actually German (again I'm running on old info here, so anyone correct me if you like) is really more of a bit of trivia than a failure of the term to do its job.

I suppose it could be confusing for a Morroccan-American to think, "hey, why aren't I African-American?" Or maybe it doesn't even occur to him and he just thinks of himself as an American or Morroccan descent. Or he identifies more with Americans with backgrounds from Libya, Egypt, Syria etc.

I will never get that one. I can understand is you want to get beyond "black", but African-American has little descriptive value. You wouldn't call an American of Egyptian or Moroccan descent African-American, but that's literally what they are. The Finns all came from Mongolia originally, but we don't call them Scandinavian-Mongolian.

I'm with you on this one. African American is OK for now, but I hope it's just another transitional term. There does need to be a better, more descriptive term. Especially when dealing with black people who are born and raised in other countries. People tie themselves in knots trying to figure out what to call them. What do you call Fergie Jenkins, Lennox Lewis, or Yannick Noah?

I just think its silly. The terms moron, imbecile, idiot were all clinical terms at one time. Then they were deemed offensive and it because retarded. Then that was deemed offensive and it became handicapped.

In purely static and logical terms it is bs. I used to thnk the whole thing was silly as well, but then two different conversations with a liguist friend of mine convinced me otherwise.

First was the discussion of how languages evolve. Word meanings tend to shift overtime and mostly (not always - absolutes are generally stupid) tend to become stronger, so stink at one time meant an odor and that has evolved to becomea powerful and negative odor. Words do not have a static meaning over time and periodic redefinitions and reassignments of words is natural and expected. Languages are living things.

Second was about how groups express power through definition of language. For example as a Liberal I may want to change the dialogue, redefine my ideology, or reexpress it - gain power over the terms used to describe me and my ideology - by convincing people to use the term progressive instead of Liberal. part of the reasn I may do this is rebranding (perhaps the word Liberal has been damaged or the meaning has changed over time (see above), but also by doing this I am expressing power over society by changign how I am labeled.

Liberal/Progressive is not the best example, but it is a group I am part of so I feel I can speak to it. A similar dynamic has occurred many times by many groups including racial groups, "abled" groups, and so on. Often those groups that feel most disadvantaged feel the desire to reclaim some of the advantage and express ownership of their own identity by defining the terms used to describe themselves.

Even if you don't think they are disadvanatged they often clearly do and through that redefinition feel better about their place in society. To you it is BS and trivial, but their perspective matters also (another reference to the Bitter Mouse Liberal world view).

That the Pennsylvania Dutch are actually German

Yeah. I think that comes from a bastardization of the word "Deutch".

To you it is BS and trivial, but their perspective matters also (another reference to the Bitter Mouse Liberal world view).

You should have refreshed. CP seems to have acknowledged that fact a few posts ago. I applaud him for it. It's very rare that someone has and admits a change of heart on this board.

I would disagree that liberals adhere to this one (although the same could be said about Conservatives too, in other ways). Non-liberals recognize that when you develop big-government facilitated safety nets from which people can get many things for free, they will take advantage of it to the detriment of others.

I knew that point would cause discussion. I think most Liberals do agree there is a deadweight cost to government safety net programs, and any who doesn't is an idiot. However I thnk the principle of complexity come into play. Liberals recognize it is a complex business and every action will have both god and bad impacts. So you try your best, learn as you go, and try to have more positive than negative effects; but you can't let the fear (or even reality) of the negative consequences stop you from providing the good.

You wil get bad, but if it is better than the other options then you suck it up and take the bad with the good rather than holding out for a perfect solution (while people in the real world are suffering and could be helped by the good). It does mean that sometimes there is more bad than good (or the bad is not worth the good), and in that case you have to suck it up and change what you are doing.

You should have refreshed. CP seems to have acknowledged that fact a few posts ago. I applaud him for it. It's very rare that someone has and admits a change of heart on this board.

I write slow. I did notice that they did so and I also applaud. Though I hope what I wrote is broadly applicable. I was trying to speak to my experience and the overall issue as sparked by their post (especially since I shared their view in the past) and was not trying to attack them or anything.

But yeah the asynchronous nature of posting does result in some odd dialogues. So cokes and apologies as needed.

apologies as needed.

Don't wory about it, I've only been offended a few times in all my years frequenting this site - I won't say by whom, but it wasn't you.

I've only been offended a few times in all my years frequenting this site

It was prolly me if I offerd to bust you 1 in the Kisser. I know I do too much of that Al but it is my Irish blood only Ozzie Guillen used to say I should say Hiberno American. I am sorry for what I done and I will try to act more Specific in Future.

Affirmative action might have pushed me five percent farther, but, no, it doesnt cancel out the larger effects of institutionalized discrimination.


Kudos for the honesty, which isn't shared by many of the whites around here.

So, assuming one's chosen path to "success" and fulfillment involves academic and professional competition and credentials, at key inflection points not only are whites not "privileged" because they're white, they're disadvantaged.

This is so obvious that it's barely worthy of argument, and only is because of white liberal denial.

If my academic and professional record wasn't stellar,

Awesome. Congratulations and good luck.

On a slightly different note regarding the "Liberal Obsession with Race" there is another non-ideological reason for the appearance of this.

There is an obvious overlap between liberals and democrats (just as there is between conservatives and the GOP). As a political (not ideological) matter the democratic coalition has a large and diverse group of races (especially as compared to the GOP). Politically one would expect more dialogue about racial issues from democrats than the GOP, just as religion is a strong political factor in the GOP, so politically it makes sense for the GOP to speak about religious issues more often than their ideology wold otherwise lead them to.

Basically the same people/groups are functioning on two different levels, ideological and political. Attributing everything that is said or done (by any actor) to either ideology or politics is an extremely shallow analysis. Both matter and both influence the relevent parties.

In fact one of my main complaints about third parties in the US is the fact that for a variety of reasons they generally only care about ideology (since they, except in very rare instances, never have to be political and actually govern) so they often make claims of purity of ideology compared to the big two parties that are ridiculous because they are apple to automobile comparisons.

Most absolutes are stupid.

Few so much so as "white privilege."

SBB, you're only pitch-black entertainment at this point.

they're white, they're disadvantaged

SBB, I can sort of see your point. For instance, if I were a native (Indian/First Nations) person, I could literally walk into my MLA's office and have a government job within a week, and I would not have to perform, at all really, to keep it. But, does that make up for the fact that my father was taken from his family at age 6 and sent to a residential school and had his language and culture beaten out of him, only to continue the cycle of violence when he had his own family? This is all hypothetical of course. I for one don't believe in soft or hard affirmative action hires, because two wrongs don't make a right, but I think its an honest attempt by policy makers to right a past wrong.

So there is a very small but non zero chance SBB has not benefited. I think it more likely he is a fish who never notices the water he swims in, but not having lived in his scales I don't know for sure.


It's the opposite. I notice the water I swim in too well. The pool is almost entirely modern liberal in premise, philsophy, and operation and I have little reason or inclination to euphemize or deny its shortcomings and delusions.