2858 réponses à ce sujet

[Nathair Nimheil]

"Gosh stop interpreting the comic wrong"

You are totally helping.

[Nathair Nimheil]

Its also not unusual for people that perceive others to have an advantage to lash out and blame them for it and guilt them for all perceived inequities as if they have control over it.

That hardly justifies reacting as if every mention of your privilege were a personal attack.

[Heimdall]

It is a metaphor for a broad and real statistical advantage coupled with the extremely common refrain used to oppose and decry affirmative action. The assumptions, broad, inaccurate or otherwise that you are reading into it would seem to be of your own inference.
 
I'm sure that is what you see but that doesn't mean that is what you are looking at.

I'm sure that's what you believe, I just don't think you realize the implications of what you're looking at. If what you say is the point its trying to get across, it totally discredits itself by utilizing a demeaning and inaccurate narrative to reach that point.

[WarBaby2]

That hardly justifies reacting as if every mention of your privilege were a personal attack.

If it's mentioned by somebody with roughly the same set of privileges, to which they conveniently are totally oblivious to themself? I don't think so... let's face it, in this day and age, in western society, nobody should decry anybody else based on "privilege"... ever... at all.

[Heimdall]

That hardly justifies reacting as if every mention of your privilege were a personal attack.

Sorry, after a lifetime of people using my perceived privilege in attempts to dismiss my opinions and get something from me with emotional blackmail, I hope you can forgive me for not seeing it as a good sign when people bring it up..

[Steelcan]

You are totally helping.

I aim to please

[Barathos]

Sorry, after a lifetime of people using my perceived privilege in attempts to dismiss my opinions and get something from me with emotional blackmail, I hope you can forgive me for not seeing it as a good sign when people bring it up..

"But you just don't understand! Your tiny mind does not comprehend the vastness of what I am conveying!!"
 

I think I'm doing it right...

[robertthebard]

It is a metaphor for a broad and real statistical advantage coupled with the extremely common refrain used to oppose and decry affirmative action. The assumptions, broad, inaccurate or otherwise that you are reading into it would seem to be of your own inference.
 
I'm sure that is what you see but that doesn't mean that is what you are looking at.

I was really going to stay all the way out of this, until you brought up affirmative action. I'll explain this as briefly as I can: People who are only qualified for a job based on gender or race are not qualified for the job. My case worker for the SRS, until they changed to teams instead of individual workers, and the lady that was responsible for my well being, and insuring that my rights were looked after the last time I was in prison are prime examples.

I have, over the course of the last 8 years, had to go to the local SRS building to speak with my then worker's supervisor because she shut off my benefits. In each case, she claimed it was because she didn't have my paperwork. On each occurrence, I called every day for a week, and then finally just went to the office, since she refused to return my calls. She could not be fired, female and minority, even though I didn't have to fill out any paperwork, because, surprise surprise, the paperwork was right there. In each of these occurrences, by the time I drove the 15 minutes it takes me to drive home, my benefits were fixed.

The unit team counselor had my paperwork right in front of her. Paperwork that showed that my old cases had been converted to the new law, and that the controlling sentence and controlling post release supervision had been maxed out. The new law controlled my then current sentence, which means that I was serving a flat 90 days, and then 12 months of post release. Instead of releasing me on the date, she put me in front of the parole board, who had no jurisdiction over my case. When I filed my grievance against her, to her, she "neglected" to respond. After 10 days, the required wait to go over her head, I filed one to her supervisor. He got it on a Monday, interviewed me on that Wednesday, and they kicked me out of prison that Friday. She cannot be fired, female and minority. These are my experiences with Affirmative Action. They can shut that down any time.

If you are not qualified for a job, you should not have the job. Period. There should be no Local, State or Federal laws or guide lines that require employers, at any level, to hire someone based solely on their race or gender. Some jobs have no associated qualifications, others, however, do, and if an applicant isn't qualified, there's no reason that an employer should be required to give them the job. While you're going on about privilege, be sure to keep that in mind: A qualified applicant can indeed be denied a job, if the right Affirmative Action applicant has also applied, even if they don't have the qualifications to do the job. Refusing to hire them can lead to fines, or a cut off of any Federal funding, if such exists, such as the SRS and Department of Corrections. This can mean that people that are qualified to do a job can be denied the opportunity to do the job, so that someone that isn't can be hired. I'd love to believe that this is a "fiction", or a "paranoid delusion", but, as you can see, I have actually experienced what happens when Affirmative Action is the basis for employment.

[WarBaby2]

That's quotas for you... way to shoot free market in the foot.

[KaiserShep]

This thread did a good job of establishing why I find Sera to be the most fascination companion of the lot.

[hairlessOrphan]

If it's mentioned by somebody with roughly the same set of privileges, to which they conveniently are totally oblivious to themself? I don't think so... let's face it, in this day and age, in western society, nobody should decry anybody else based on "privilege"... ever... at all.

 

Ah, the argument that a Bad Thing is meaningless unless it is The Most Bad Thing.

 

Honestly, I don't think it's really a Responsibility for any of us to care about Bad Things. We're all of us just animals eking out enough calories to breed. Right? Right.

 

But I do think we should stop pretending that not caring is the moral thing to do. Because it forces us to make really dumb excuses, like "a Bad Thing is meaningless unless it is The Most Bad Thing."

[hairlessOrphan]

This thread did a good job of establishing why I find Sera to be the most fascination companion of the lot.

 

I think this thread came up despite Sera, not because of her.

 

Or, rather, it came up BECAUSE of Sera's concept, but DESPITE her actual writing.

 

Which is why I hate her and think she's boring. If she had a half-competent writer, this would have really been a party. Instead, we're talking about how Syrian refugees lead easier lives than us. Wow, what a waste.

[KaiserShep]

I disagree with all of that, but just the same, this thread did nothing but good things on my end.

[Britcorp]

Ah, the argument that a Bad Thing is meaningless unless it is The Most Bad Thing.

 

Honestly, I don't think it's really a Responsibility for any of us to care about Bad Things. We're all of us just animals eking out enough calories to breed. Right? Right.

 

But I do think we should stop pretending that not caring is the moral thing to do. Because it forces us to make really dumb excuses, like "a Bad Thing is meaningless unless it is The Most Bad Thing."

I think pretending that you care by saying we all have "original sin"  and should feel guilty, is delusional.

 

You should probably leave your "original sin" behind you and go live with those free of sin.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Hey guys, what's hap-

Nevermind.

[Danadenassis]

I think we should to agree to disagree here, because while you see consistent logic based on the writing, I see inconsistent writing.

<snip>

Sera ... it just feels like no care went into her at all, like she's just another thoughtless caricature of what many straight guys think lesbians are or should be.

To Korva: If I should label her as a caricature would it be as what straight white guys think about women, but I don't find her being that either.

 

Not specifically to Korva: Sure Sera is rash, sure she is pretty much used to get opposition all the time, she even mentions that if you apologise for not killing, or supporting to kill the noble in her quest.

 

It is how it often is if a child, or rather any person, even animals (I live with someone that train dogs so I get to hear this often and with my own years working with children do I concur with such psychological mechanisms being real also for humans) get challenged on every action. Such an individual will often have the "bristles" raised even before anything is said and to preempt the expected conflict by expecting and, ironically, fulfill any expectations expected by those around. It is a sort of survival mechanism.

 

The alternative is to be absolutely passive and for Sera is that not an option, so when she can't get even upward, does she try to help those that are worse off. This is not unusual among school kids either when it is strong sense of justice, but unable to sort out personal grievances. I bet everyone has noticed that it in some things feels far easier to fight for other's rights than for your own sometimes. Often because the uncertainty, self-doubt grows about own's worth and such.

 

It is a way of giving up on the expectation of being treated fairly. I find it very accurate when people in this thread have brought up systemic racism and other types of discrimination that the "jokers"/anti-SJWs, or privileged find hard to wrap their heads around.

 

So while I agree that Sera is rash and problematic at times, does the writing of Sera seems to indicate someone that takes her very seriously.

 

True, I don't know what Sera has experienced in her short life, but I can easily imagine reasons for why she is as she is.

[Danadenassis]

 

Why on Earth would I feel guilty about other people killing other people when it is not only beyond my group's ability to resolve the conflict, but an intervention could quite easily make it even worse and lead to even more suffering?

 

The Ebola crisis in Africa is a much greater issue to feel guilt over than the wars in the middle east.

 

 

I guess this attitude explains why our feelings of responsibility, privilege and empathy differs.

[Nathair Nimheil]

If it's mentioned by somebody with roughly the same set of privileges, to which they conveniently are totally oblivious to themself?

Why would you just assume that when someone points out your privilege? What makes you think they are oblivious? Speaking for myself, I am absolutely aware of the privileges I enjoy, they are many and they are significant.
 

let's face it, in this day and age, in western society, nobody should decry anybody else based on "privilege"... ever... at all.

...and we've gone from acknowledging privilege straight to decrying someone. When did that happen? Who has singled out and denounced? Where is the disparaging post?

[Nathair Nimheil]

I was really going to stay all the way out of this, until you brought up affirmative action. I'll explain this as briefly as I can: People who are only qualified for a job based on gender or race are not qualified for the job.

Affirmative action is a phrase for any number of programs or policies aimed at the amelioration of systemic disadvantage in countries all over the world. Support for taking remedial or ameliorative action doesn't mean that all programs or policies are appropriate or well thought-out or effective. I have no particular interest in getting into a debate over the merits or failings of some specific individual program or the effectiveness of some particular person in some particular job described in some particular anecdote. That being said...

The problem, and this has been said before by others, lies in the confusion between what we deserve and what we are entitled to. By what you morally deserve I mean something which should morally be yours by right of some particular virtue. The usual example given is the lottery ticket. Let's say that you buy a lottery ticket and your number comes up, you're the big powerball winner. Nobody is going to suggest that you somehow morally deserve to win that lottery. According to the rules by which the lottery is run, however, you certainly are entitled to your winnings now.

Likewise in applying for a job you are entitled to that job when the rules of applicant selection determine you to be the best qualified. If you have the qualities and characteristics set out in the rules of applicant selection you are entitled to the job. But! You are not entitled to having the rules of applicant selection laid out such that your qualities and characteristics are the ones most sought after. It may be in the best interest of society to place emphasis on things which tends to raise or lower the value placed upon your particular qualities, what those interests are determine to what you are entitled.

For example, a US Supreme Court Chief Justice earns $255,500 per year. Judge Judy earns $900,000 per day. Does a TV judge deserve to earn 185 times more than a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? However she is certainly entitled to the money she earns. Our culture clearly places a significant value on entertainment. However, were Judy to be translated into a Somali farming community or a Kogi village in Columbia she might find her talents less than ideal for success. Judy had the right combination of qualities and characteristics for success in the culture into which she happened to be born; she won the birth lottery.

So, a society might place some emphasis on reducing the harm caused by institutionalized racial and social stratification. It makes no sense to rail that you somehow morally deserve to live in a pure laissez faire meritocracy in which the qualities most prized shall correspond to the accidents of your birth and circumstance or the qualities you possess.

[Lucrece]

I can forgive her being a bratty thug, but I cannot forgive bad hair, ever.

[Yulia]

I had no issues for the most part but she did not get along with my human warrior inquisitor (female) lol. Chick has got some *angry issues* for sure. It gets even worse when you argue with my inquisitor lol.

[KaiserShep]

I can forgive her being a bratty thug, but I cannot forgive bad hair, ever.

Dorian Greatly Approves

[Heimdall]

*snip*
Likewise in applying for a job you are entitled to that job when the rules of applicant selection determine you to be the best qualified. If you have the qualities and characteristics set out in the rules of applicant selection you are entitled to the job. But! You are not entitled to having the rules of applicant selection laid out such that your qualities and characteristics are the ones most sought after. It may be in the best interest of society to place emphasis on things which tends to raise or lower the value placed upon your particular qualities, what those interests are determine to what you are entitled.
*snip*

For someone that isn't interested in discussing the failings of a particular program, you sure seem to be trying to excuse the his grievance, the hypocrisy of legally mandating employers to make their hiring decisions based on gender or race as a way of "ameliorating systemic disadvantages" based on gender or race. Nobody comes out the better for it, you even encourage prejudices about whether women and racial minorities are actually qualified for the jobs they hold. Exactly how does this help?

Not to mention the point you make above would seem to support the idea that people have no right to object to unequal treatment according to gender or race. "Sorry, we value whiteness more than blackness, and you are not entitled to equal treatment because we think this is best for society." How is that different? Its acceptable as long as its in the "best interest of society" to deny people jobs they're qualified for according to race? If the end goal is to create that meritocratic society, inflicting inequity is hypocrisy.
 

So, a society might place some emphasis on reducing the harm caused by institutionalized racial and social stratification. It makes no sense to rail that you somehow morally deserve to live in a pure laissez faire meritocracy in which the qualities most prized shall correspond to the accidents of your birth and circumstance or the qualities you possess.

Except that the society implementing these programs would seem to be aiming for a meritocracy in which race is not a factor that holds people back, certainly the idea that basing such decisions on race is wrong is part of the very premise of desiring to reduce the harm caused by institutional racial and social stratification. If it isn't, why do it? How is inflicting inequity on a person based on such factors ever acceptable, especially when you're supposed reason for doing so is to correct the very same inequity in others, which by pursuing such a course you must believe is wrong. Of course since I don't believe such measures are even necessary to correct the inequity, or indeed much more than the removing of active barriers and socially discouraging prejudiced attitudes, I doubt we'll agree. I see it as an imbalance that will then correct itself eventually, given time. You obviously disagree.

[errantknight]

*Backs out of the thread slowly*

[hairlessOrphan]

I see it as an imbalance that will then correct itself eventually, given time. You obviously disagree.

 

Yeah, maybe. Sometimes inequalities correct over time, and sometimes they just get worse. The thing is, "imbalance that will then correct itself eventually" doesn't just happen. Correction happens because someone or something acts to try to make it happen. So, you know, the "correct itself eventually, given time" thing is happening through blunt programs like Affirmative Action and through finer instruments like education programs aimed at inner cities.

 

Interpreting something like Affirmative Action as "inflicting inequality" relies on assuming the status quo is one of equality. Right? Like, if you were born holding two loaves of bread, and a Syrian refugee is born starving, and I take one of your loaves of bread and give it to the Syrian refugee, is that "inflicting inequality?" I don't know.

 

We can argue it's wrong for other reasons, of course. But is it "inflicting inequality?"

 

EDIT: I am just going to stress the "we can argue it's wrong for other reasons" clause, here, in an attempt to progress the conversation to, like, modern day moral philosophy.

Modifié par hairlessOrphan, 11 décembre 2014 - 10:15 .