Lets talk solutions, people!

[Chahklet]

GSK Lives

Anyone else notice that Love's call for solutions demands nothing of the right wing conservative side of the spectrum? Only liberals need to change, not conservs.

God, I hate it when political foot soldiers try to act like they're somehow above the fray just be being on one side of it.

I had a hard time reading anything after I read the username which is sad. sad

[Jeff the Kitten]

PrincessNeko

YourNeighborsCat

Kakubunretsu

YourNeighborsCat

Kakubunretsu

Quite frankly, the universal solution to every social issue involving inequality is listening to the oppressed.

"Help I'm being oppressed!"

"Prove it."

"How dare you ask me to prove it, or challenge the answers I give when they don't make sense!"

You evidently aren't trying to understand the proof that they give, then. <_<

No. I read the proof they give. Being a white person IRL; I was curious what all of this 'white privilege' business was about, so I gave the blogs listing the privileges that white people have a go, and everything was either a blanket statement (I.E. "There are more white people accepted into colleges than black people), something racist in and of itself (I.E. Not having to worry that your college professor is the same ethnicity as you), or a misnomer (I.E. Not having to worry if a Band-Aid matches your skin tone).

And then the whole qualm revealer of blocking/deleting comments of people that disagree with you and have a counter argument, posting their IP addresses on your social media accounts, and accusing them of making threats against you that you sent your groupies to do for them.

"But I'm being oppressed!"

By. Your. Self.

'Cause ya know...blogs are the scholarly bastions in the cesspool we call the internet.

Blogs are the only place 'occurrences' of white privilege are listed to be analyzed.

[Jeff the Kitten]

Kakubunretsu

Quote:

a blanket statement (I.E. "There are more white people accepted into colleges than black people)

And how does this not indicate a systemic imbalance? Like, let's be serious here. A trend over multiple centuries of white people making up a disproportionate share of representation in post-secondary education, and essentially all positions of power, indicates something. You'd think that if there was no structural inequality, things would eventually average out to the same proportions as the general population, right?

Quote:

something racist in and of itself (I.E. Not having to worry that your college professor is the same ethnicity as you)

That's not racist, though. That's more a matter of avoiding racism — it's hard to trust some random person of the race which reaps most of the benefits of structural racism to be, you know, not racist. I mean, I'm a white person who tries quite hard to shoot down racist sentiments in my mind whenever they appear, but I'm not just going to say that I'm "not racist" when I will literally spend the whole of my life benefitting massively from structural racism. As will every other white person in a white supremacist society.

Quote:

or a misnomer (I.E. Not having to worry if a Band-Aid matches your skin tone).

Do you even know what the word "misnomer" means?

Quote:

And then the whole qualm revealer of blocking/deleting comments of people that disagree with you and have a counter argument

When they have to deal with as much bigotry as they do, I can see why they'd be quite eager to block. It's for the sake of their own mental health.

Quote:

posting their IP addresses on your social media accounts,

No one actually does that, though, considering:
1. It's hard as hell to get someone's IP from behind a website owned by neither party.
2. ...what use is an IP these days? Most residential customers have dynamic IPs.

Quote:

By. Your. Self.

That's absolutely vile. You do not get to simply blame people for systematic oppression performed entirely by external social forces.

Like, I know this whole concept is a Cool Funny Meme amongst anti-SJ sorts, but you should really try to take a look at how your position might bias you towards ignoring oppression that doesn't affect you.

Quote:

And how does this not indicate a systemic imbalance? Like, let's be serious here. A trend over multiple centuries of white people making up a disproportionate share of representation in post-secondary education, and essentially all positions of power, indicates something. You'd think that if there was no structural inequality, things would eventually average out to the same proportions as the general population, right?

I'd assume nothing. Unless it can be proven that the statistical imbalance was an issue of race, and not the countless other reasons why people are turned away from institutes of post-secondary education; I'm not going to cry wolf.

Quote:

That's not racist, though. That's more a matter of avoiding racism — it's hard to trust some random person of the race which reaps most of the benefits of structural racism to be, you know, not racist. I mean, I'm a white person who tries quite hard to shoot down racist sentiments in my mind whenever they appear, but I'm not just going to say that I'm "not racist" when I will literally spend the whole of my life benefitting massively from structural racism. As will every other white person in a white supremacist society.

The professor is not a person, but an interactive kiosk of logical data in the function of the school. If it matters to you whether a teacher is black or white, when they are required to teach the same course, then you are a racist. Math is not race based, it is logic based. Science is not race based, it is logic based and empirical (read: requiring repeatable results in experimentation). History is iffy in and of itself due to governments covering up their sins, but any professor is required to teach the same history for the same course, regardless of skin color.

Quote:

Do you even know what the word "misnomer" means?

Yes. To be more specific; Band-Aids are flesh colored, yet the example claims that it is designed to match skin tones. Flesh and skin are not the same thing. Further, no such skin tone exists that a band aid will blend in with because skin has homogeny to it's color scheme, whereas Band-Aids are uniformly flesh colored.

Quote:

When they have to deal with as much bigotry as they do, I can see why they'd be quite eager to block. It's for the sake of their own mental health.

The videos and websites dedicated to refuting their claims of oppression are filled with logical dissections of their arguments for why they are oppressed. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuRSaLZidWI

Quote:

No one actually does that, though, considering:
1. It's hard as hell to get someone's IP from behind a website owned by neither party.
2. ...what use is an IP these days? Most residential customers have dynamic IPs.

http://gintaxalvissforever.tumblr.com/post/91880828757/anita-sarkeesian-is-doxing-to-those-who-dont

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/quinnspiracy

http://whatismyipaddress.com/dynamic-static

Quote:

That's absolutely vile. You do not get to simply blame people for systematic oppression performed entirely by external social forces.

Like, I know this whole concept is a Cool Funny Meme amongst anti-SJ sorts, but you should really try to take a look at how your position might bias you towards ignoring oppression that doesn't affect you.

It would be vile if these people could provide any conclusive evidence of being discriminated against on the basis of race or sex in this day and age. Instead you see people with victim complexes holding their hands out for sympathy gifts because ******** holding down an honest job.

My position is with logic. If you gave me proof that racism and sexism were woven into the lives of modern Americans, I'd help spread the proof around, as mathematicians helped spread calculus around.

[laffett]

all the problems in this world would be effortlessly solved by honor
doing the right thing because it is the right thing
knowing that skin color is utterly meaningless
killing every last rapist out there as slowly as possible
basically...there is nothing you cant solve with honor
but no one wants to do that
people want their sex with the women they are after dont (rape) ((yes I know there is more to it than that))
people want to be able to look down at another race using past grievances to gather pity and "righteousness" to slather their ignorance and hate across the world labeling it tolerance and justice (anyone who disagrees is called a racist)

the list goes on. the world is stained forever and will never recover
in the words of my favorite philosopher
peace is a lie
but its a beautiful lie
perfection is impossible but worth striving for

[thatonechick101]

I think a lot of our issues stem from the fact that we don't hold each other and society up to high morals. Back in the Western days, if a guy was caught be physical with a woman, others would beat the sh*t out of him. Now we turn a blind eye or just yell at the guy. Rapists would be less likely to rape if they new those acquainted with the, would be so disgusted and humiliated by them. I'm not saying violence is the answer, but I do think our society has gotten way to soft. We protect people so much that criminal acts are much easier to commit without as severe of punishments. We don't have respect for humanity in general. How often are you respectful to the person you call up when you have an issue? Do you treat them like another human being or the worthless trash that caused hell in your life? What about when driving? Are you flipping everyone off and cursing at them?

Until we can regain our morality as a society, none of these issues can ever be resolved.
Sexism is a power struggle. If people respected other genders equally, there would not be sexism.
Racism is a hatred built from stereotypes. If everyone respected each other equally, racism would be resolved.
Rape occurs from entitlement to sex. If the rapist had respect for their "partners" they would never take advantage or use them.

It all stems from morality, character, and basic respect for all of humanity.

I hope the new generation of parents can instill these attitudes instead of perpetuating the idea of the self being the most important.

[Treasaigh]

If you want to discuss solutions and such, why have you offered none?

[Nitroglycerific Rainbow]

Kakubunretsu

Quite frankly, the universal solution to every social issue involving inequality is listening to the oppressed.

This, coupled with lowering your country's Gini Coefficient, which is a measure of the degree of income inequality in a nation. It would just be a useless statistic number if it didn't pretty accurately predict the level of prevalence of almost every social problem: rape, teenage pregnancy, drug abuse, gang activity, riots, and even issues I think are bullshit like obesity.

I'm not about to claim evening out paychecks solves rape. A lot of it has to do with cultural attitudes. However, the more income inequality a country has, the more people have the financial means to get out of bad situations, the fewer neighborhoods are considered "bad situations," and there's more happiness in the world, ja?

Now all it comes down to is countering feelings of male entitlement to female sexuality in personal settings.

[Kaptain K Rool]

Well, we could resort ta' clonin' fer maintainin' a poplutation. Them clones could have no reproductive organs and eventually ova' time such reproductive organs wouldn't exist

Now how ta' stop wh' whole people rapin' otha's fer reasons based on powa' regardless o' blokes not havin' reproductive organs? I got no clue

[SirPuzzle]

What's this thread about?

I admit I skimmed through the OP's post but I got confused because he seemed to be touching on multiple topics but not focusing on any specific topic.

The thing that jumped out at me though was his claim that back when he was growing up the politicians in the U.S. actually cared about the general population. Perhaps I've read too much Noam Chomsky but I just don't agree with that at all. If I dare to be so bold I'd say there has never been a moment in U.S. history that the majority, or even a plurality of politicians have cared about the general population of the country they are representing.

That's not to say that I don't think there are sincere politicians who really do care about the country, but that I think politicians who honestly put the population as their number one priority are in the minority.

Although I don't blame the politicians or think the politicians are bad people, rather I think this is expected in a democratic country. I don't trust democracy, I think most people are too emotional and lack the discipline to make good decisions and vote for honest people. Most people do not have the character to commit themselves to intellectual honesty and thus do not put pressure on politicians to stop using sophistry.

People like Ron Paul and Ralph Nader will never be voted into the executive branch of the government (it's a surprise to me that Ron Paul can even be elected in the legislative), and it has nothing to do with their beliefs. It has to do with the fact that they are actually moral people and do not have an ends justify the means mentality like the typical politician does. In a democracy people will always vote for people who lie to win, and thus you'll never have honest people representing a democratic country.

It's why I agree with Plato's idea of how government should work. The people who run things should be enlightened philosophers (maybe not philosophers in these modern times, but rather a diverse set of intelligent people that I'd just call technocrats, people who are experts in certain fields), it's a dumb idea to expect the masses to have the moral character to vote in politicians that will serve the people.

Democracy is a bad idea, that's not to say that I think totalitarianism is good. Rather what I am saying is that there is a point at which too much democracy is a bad thing, and I think we have reached that point. So speaking of solutions, I for example would advocate banning lobbying and banning all donations to political campaigns. Don't let any private party influence a politician financially, have all elections be paid for by the government. Also go back to the system before the 1820's where the two senators representing each state were chosen by the governors of those states, don't have senators be elected by people.

[sitting cow]

i just sometimes wonder what's gonna happen to humanity if we do solve racism, sexism etc...like are we then gonna start trying to solve animal rights and stuff

i read this one time:

Quote:

The eventual outcome of existence is to become God and defy entropy; that is the way things work.

For all time since the big-bang, matter has been organizing itself into more and more complex structures and formations. Energy and matter interacted to become gasses, solids, liquids, and plasma. These states of matter began to collect in pools due to gravity, becoming galaxies. Within the galaxies,smaller structures formed, giving birth to planets, stars, and nebulae. Within these bodies, formed even smaller structures; basic elements formed compounds and these themselves became the building blocks of life. Then, as life formed, simple life became increasingly complex and structured. Eventually it has lead to us; right now, we are the pinnacle of evolution.

But, this constant change never stops; Humanity's ultimate goal is to live, forever. Humanity cannot live forever though; not in this form. And so, we make machines. They WILL replace us, and I see no need to worry about it, for they will be made of the same stuff we are; they ARE us. As the creation myth goes, they will be created in our own image, to carry on our quest to become omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. They too, will be replaced by even better machines, and in the end, they will reach a point of existence where every variable is known, every element of physics is understood, every molecule in the universe is categorized and indexed. All conscious thought that has ever existed and will exist will exist simultaneously and infinitely within this all powerful being.

Then the being will realize how empty it's existence really is. It's only goal was to exist eternally and defy entropy. With entropy gone, it's only purpose has been fulfilled, and it will destroy itself, so that it can live once more, and satisfy it's drive to defy the chaos it has, always has, and always will create, every time it wills itself out of meaningless existence into meaningful dissolution.

also the title of this makes a lot of sense to me

[Sugarbeary]

SirPuzzle

What's this thread about?

I admit I skimmed through the OP's post but I got confused because he seemed to be touching on multiple topics but not focusing on any specific topic.

The thing that jumped out at me though was his claim that back when he was growing up the politicians in the U.S. actually cared about the general population. Perhaps I've read too much Noam Chomsky but I just don't agree with that at all. If I dare to be so bold I'd say there has never been a moment in U.S. history that the majority, or even a plurality of politicians have cared about the general population of the country they are representing.

That's not to say that I don't think there are sincere politicians who really do care about the country, but that I think politicians who honestly put the population as their number one priority are in the minority.

Although I don't blame the politicians or think the politicians are bad people, rather I think this is expected in a democratic country. I don't trust democracy, I think most people are too emotional and lack the discipline to make good decisions and vote for honest people. Most people do not have the character to commit themselves to intellectual honesty and thus do not put pressure on politicians to stop using sophistry.

People like Ron Paul and Ralph Nader will never be voted into the executive branch of the government (it's a surprise to me that Ron Paul can even be elected in the legislative), and it has nothing to do with their beliefs. It has to do with the fact that they are actually moral people and do not have an ends justify the means mentality like the typical politician does. In a democracy people will always vote for people who lie to win, and thus you'll never have honest people representing a democratic country.

It's why I agree with Plato's idea of how government should work. The people who run things should be enlightened philosophers (maybe not philosophers in these modern times, but rather a diverse set of intelligent people that I'd just call technocrats, people who are experts in certain fields), it's a dumb idea to expect the masses to have the moral character to vote in politicians that will serve the people.

Democracy is a bad idea, that's not to say that I think totalitarianism is good. Rather what I am saying is that there is a point at which too much democracy is a bad thing, and I think we have reached that point. So speaking of solutions, I for example would advocate banning lobbying and banning all donations to political campaigns. Don't let any private party influence a politician financially, have all elections be paid for by the government. Also go back to the system before the 1820's where the two senators representing each state were chosen by the governors of those states, don't have senators be elected by people.

The thread is that nobody wants to talk about how we can get solutions for rape, race, etc.

People would rather say that a policeman is racist, a politician is racist, people that live in the south are racist, instead of addressing problems of racism and praising situations where 'racism' may be down.

People would rather film 8 year olds in princess outfits and have them flick off the camera and shout every curse word in the book than discuss and implement things to end or deter rape. People love to rally together and attack those who wish to implement dress codes and prevent women from carrying protection because its just not supposed to happen because its illegal and someone should have told him its illegal. I'm trying to get a thread to see if people would discuss anything besides 'lets teach him not to rape' to prevent or stop or decrease the prevalence of rape.

[SirPuzzle]

LoveLoud837

SirPuzzle

What's this thread about?

I admit I skimmed through the OP's post but I got confused because he seemed to be touching on multiple topics but not focusing on any specific topic.

The thing that jumped out at me though was his claim that back when he was growing up the politicians in the U.S. actually cared about the general population. Perhaps I've read too much Noam Chomsky but I just don't agree with that at all. If I dare to be so bold I'd say there has never been a moment in U.S. history that the majority, or even a plurality of politicians have cared about the general population of the country they are representing.

That's not to say that I don't think there are sincere politicians who really do care about the country, but that I think politicians who honestly put the population as their number one priority are in the minority.

Although I don't blame the politicians or think the politicians are bad people, rather I think this is expected in a democratic country. I don't trust democracy, I think most people are too emotional and lack the discipline to make good decisions and vote for honest people. Most people do not have the character to commit themselves to intellectual honesty and thus do not put pressure on politicians to stop using sophistry.

People like Ron Paul and Ralph Nader will never be voted into the executive branch of the government (it's a surprise to me that Ron Paul can even be elected in the legislative), and it has nothing to do with their beliefs. It has to do with the fact that they are actually moral people and do not have an ends justify the means mentality like the typical politician does. In a democracy people will always vote for people who lie to win, and thus you'll never have honest people representing a democratic country.

It's why I agree with Plato's idea of how government should work. The people who run things should be enlightened philosophers (maybe not philosophers in these modern times, but rather a diverse set of intelligent people that I'd just call technocrats, people who are experts in certain fields), it's a dumb idea to expect the masses to have the moral character to vote in politicians that will serve the people.

Democracy is a bad idea, that's not to say that I think totalitarianism is good. Rather what I am saying is that there is a point at which too much democracy is a bad thing, and I think we have reached that point. So speaking of solutions, I for example would advocate banning lobbying and banning all donations to political campaigns. Don't let any private party influence a politician financially, have all elections be paid for by the government. Also go back to the system before the 1820's where the two senators representing each state were chosen by the governors of those states, don't have senators be elected by people.

The thread is that nobody wants to talk about how we can get solutions for rape, race, etc.

People would rather say that a policeman is racist, a politician is racist, people that live in the south are racist, instead of addressing problems of racism and praising situations where 'racism' may be down.

People would rather film 8 year olds in princess outfits and have them flick off the camera and shout every curse word in the book than discuss and implement things to end or deter rape. People love to rally together and attack those who wish to implement dress codes and prevent women from carrying protection because its just not supposed to happen because its illegal and someone should have told him its illegal. I'm trying to get a thread to see if people would discuss anything besides 'lets teach him not to rape' to prevent or stop or decrease the prevalence of rape.

Oh well yeah leftists aren't in the business of doing anything practical such as solving problems.

They'd rather just yell at people and then pat themselves on the back for being morally awesome.