Being 'PC' and 'safe places' on campus. The Younger gens

[D.o.S.]

That's not correct, but ok.

[casecandy]

Agreed. Like, there are shades of Donald Trump in Bill Maher, only he's "liberal" and Trump's "conservative" (spoiler: dumb-as-shit, arbitrary categorizations for people who need their thoughts wrapped up to go). They both spew similar rhetoric. In fact, Maher's been doing it for an audience for longer.

[Invisible Man]

Funny how, on the converse side, Donald Trump saying "I know it's not politically correct to say but..." gives him instant carte blanche to get away with any xenophobic bullshit.

I'm not racist, but...

or, may favorite:

I'm not racist. I have a black dog.

There are no disclaimers that make saying dumb shit any less dumb. It does seem to reassure some people, though.

[D.o.S.]

But, of course, the idea that either of them are getting carte blanche is incorrect, as well. There is certainly a cost being paid by people who say that sort of thing, even if it isn't immediately obvious at a glance.

related: One of my freelance minions is a college student who's work has not been comparable to his initial portfolio (to say the least). The assumption seems to be that whatever he sends in will be acceptable. I am fighting the urge to ask him if he was born dumb or simply became stupid over time.

[Invisible Man]

Not sure I follow. You mean that there's damage done to people who say this sort of thing, even if they're unaware that this is happening? Or are you talking about Trump/Maher?

Maybe your minion is a plagiarist. Lots of people doing this with application materials/portfolios/submissions where the stakes are high...in which case your questions would be apt.

[D.o.S.]

I don't even think it's as nefarious as plagarism, I think it's just an effort thing.

Talking about Maher/Trump there.

[Invisible Man]

Haha got it. Though I've found that plagiarism is probably an issue of effort in eight out of ten cases...

Anyway, the job of Maher and Trump is to be demagogues, and to be provocative. They've done a good job of that, so it's kind of unclear to me why we'd collectively fault them for it. Maybe the issue is that Trump aspires to more, and that he doesn't understand that the tools he's developed are really ill-suited for the job of President...Or maybe I'm crazy, and he's very well-suited to the job. That's worse, I guess.

George Saunders has a good piece on this. "The Braindead Megaphone."
http://as1020.pbworks.com/f/saunders-braindead.pdf

[D.o.S.]

As of page 4 of that PDF, that's it exactly.

[Faldoe]

yeah, and I mean sometimes when you've been told to 'calm down' and 'be careful' your whole life when you're trying to make some space for yourself, feel like we can't really blame people for yelling or deciding nothing is going to come from more talking.

I mean the argument that this kind of identity politics is a symptom of white privilege is a hugely important one too, one I'd definitely never really looked at that much but it definitely reminds me of a lot of the stuff that was happening around intersectionality and post colonial feminism when I was at uni. I just get wary of this stuff when people start talking in the language of the oppressors about it. Like yeah it's uncomfortable and hypocritical and doesn't make sense and all that. That's no reason not to let it breathe and see what comes of it.

This theories are interesting but they are theories. One of my undergrad degrees is in American Indian Studies and I read a lot about colonialism, the various 'waves' of feminism and a lot of it has some importance to it, but it's easy to wrap one's self up in these theories or narratives, combine them, and then you have your world view where everything is seen through the lenses of those theories. I think I mentioned it before in another post, but the old Abraham Maslow quote: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails." These theories may be good ground to further explore ideas with but shouldn't be taken as gospel - something I think people tend to do and thus omit any information or nuance that doesn't fit into that perceptual narrative.

We're all a little racist, or misogynistic, or ageist, or classist. Admitting those things to ourselves and maybe to others is a hard but useful thing to do, and it'd help us get a little closer to avoiding the PC bullshit that's been happening. We're all trying to diagnose a problem, but no one will admit that they are a part of that problem. It's always someone else (preferably someone right-of-center).

This is the crux of a lot of what is going on. People are far too willing to point out the wrongs (or perceived wrongs) in others without looking inside to see how they themselves are engaging in similar prejudices.

[daseb]

Eh I prefer to think of theoretical perspectives as a whole toolkit. And you've got a couple of them. Those big ones on wheels.

I think that no one will admit they're part of the problem is going on a little in this thread though, unless I'm reading it totally wrong? It sucks when you want to help or be an ally or whatever and people feel you aren't 'liberal enough' or whatever but you know...sometimes that's not all on them. Sometimes our own biases and privileges get in the way. You can laugh at something like the word 'mansplaining' but as a concept it's pretty fucking on point. I see it every day in the way people treat my wife versus me, or the way people I work with treat each other.

I could be reading this wrong though, stuff like this tends to go over my head a little.

[snipelfritz]

the whole perspectives as a tool kit (or as a lens or perspective as I like to think of it) is something I strongly got out of my political science minor (certainly not a job! Nyuknyuk)

For the record: I have benefited greatly from white privilege and I'm incredibly ageist (not too fond of the elderly). Since I can admit that, my opinion is more valid. I don't actually have an opinion I'm trying to convey, just throwing out random ideas thoughts and reading others.

[Faldoe]

Eh I prefer to think of theoretical perspectives as a whole toolkit. And you've got a couple of them. Those big ones on wheels.

I think that no one will admit they're part of the problem is going on a little in this thread though, unless I'm reading it totally wrong? It sucks when you want to help or be an ally or whatever and people feel you aren't 'liberal enough' or whatever but you know...sometimes that's not all on them. Sometimes our own biases and privileges get in the way. You can laugh at something like the word 'mansplaining' but as a concept it's pretty fucking on point. I see it every day in the way people treat my wife versus me, or the way people I work with treat each other.

I could be reading this wrong though, stuff like this tends to go over my head a little.

Yes, they can be tools, or seen as such, or they can not be seen as such and mistaken as on par with empirical truth about the way the world, or society (groups of people) act. Or the way people 'are' in some essentialist perspective, which is also dangerous cause that is a form of objectification which limits a person or persons potentiality and sees them only in a certain way, with certain characteristics.

Yes, mansplaining is a good example of a theory/explanation for perspective and behavior of a given group. Some theories are better thought out than others. All aren't equal in their containment of truth.

The whole liberal/conservative paradigm is a good example of people's perspectival constraints. I'm not accusing you, daseb, of this, but highlighting it since you mentioned someone feeling another person isn't "liberal enough." It seems people want the simplest answer or explanation as possible with two clear choices, one being 'right' and the other 'wrong.'

[t-rey]

We're all a little racist, or misogynistic, or ageist, or classist. Admitting those things to ourselves and maybe to others is a hard but useful thing to do, and it'd help us get a little closer to avoiding the PC bullshit that's been happening. We're all trying to diagnose a problem, but no one will admit that they are a part of that problem. It's always someone else (preferably someone right-of-center).

This. So. Much. This. Everything would be a lot better if people were willing to admit this - not even work on that shit, but just acknowledge it. It relieves so much tension in heavy conversations.

Far and away the best class I took in graduate school (not my favorite, but easily the best) was my multicultural counseling class. The professor was this big black dude from South Carolina that got his phd in Alabama in the 70s. He never really went into detail, but it's pretty easy to assume that he was on the receiving end of a lot of bullshit during that time. He was fond of saying that racism and prejudice are a part of us, and we will continue to act on them unless we choose to acknowledge them. Any time someone said something that embodied some (usually) unintentional bias, dude would pull up a chair in front of their table and have a one on one conversation with them about that shit in front of everyone. And everyone learned some shit every time it happened.

My dude also worked on the same floor that I did, so every now and then I would wander down to his office and we would watch Les Claypool videos on Youtube.

[Invisible Man]

Eh I prefer to think of theoretical perspectives as a whole toolkit. And you've got a couple of them. Those big ones on wheels.

I think that no one will admit they're part of the problem is going on a little in this thread though, unless I'm reading it totally wrong? It sucks when you want to help or be an ally or whatever and people feel you aren't 'liberal enough' or whatever but you know...sometimes that's not all on them. Sometimes our own biases and privileges get in the way. You can laugh at something like the word 'mansplaining' but as a concept it's pretty fucking on point. I see it every day in the way people treat my wife versus me, or the way people I work with treat each other.

I could be reading this wrong though, stuff like this tends to go over my head a little.

Eh, there's no real consensus here, anyway. It doesn't seem like this can be misread--it's a bunch of people shooting asynchronous opinions into the internet. But it's still cool to talk about it, and to hear what others think. I wouldn't worry about "getting it." I definitely don't get it, and it's pretty literally my job to "get it."

Not quite sure what you mean here, though--that it's frustrating that there's no way to help if you exist "outside" the problem? I feel that, too...but I've developed something of an approach so that I can get through this.

On that note: equivocation is a great tool for debates and contentious conversations. We get so focused on beating our opponent sometimes...destabilizing the whole enterprise of winning really works wonders for me when things get critical. I just address the thing head-on, be as authentic as I can about who I am, where I come from, what my biases are (and how they got to be that way), get brutally honest with others, accept their criticism of me, and let go of whatever meager authority people have assigned to me because I'm on the other side of the desk. Ultimately, that last bit doesn't mean a whole lot. The letters behind our names, or absence of those letters, has little to do with our ability to contribute. Seizing that shit is like squeezing sand--the more you clutch your authority, the weaker you become. So getting into fights where we puff ourselves up just encourages others to do the same. There's no collaboration there, and no progress--just a moment where someone wins, someone "loses," and everyone is resentful. If we can present these things as problems rather than as histories or debates, it gives people a stake in helping to find a workable solution.

Anyway, that's just an approach that works for me. Might not work for anyone else.

Far and away the best class I took in graduate school (not my favorite, but easily the best) was my multicultural counseling class. The professor was this big black dude from South Carolina that got his phd in Alabama in the 70s. He never really went into detail, but it's pretty easy to assume that he was on the receiving end of a lot of bullshit during that time. He was fond of saying that racism and prejudice are a part of us, and we will continue to act on them unless we choose to acknowledge them. Any time someone said something that embodied some (usually) unintentional bias, dude would pull up a chair in front of their table and have a one on one conversation with them about that shit in front of everyone. And everyone learned some shit every time it happened.

Hahaha yep. People who have seen some shit generally have a better take on "reprimanding" others, having been swatted down by life enough times. This brings us back full circle to privilege, and the problem of seeing a problem versus being mired in a problem.

[lost in music]

Maybe the issue is that Trump aspires to more,

misread that as "aspies to more". sorry.