I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
Sure. But the only thing that ‘white privilege’ means is the other side of that coin. ie of all the shitty things that might happen to you in life, those things are not among them. I don’t know that it’s a particularly useful term, but it’s not without meaning.
I think that white privilege is a precise term that describes something real and its use contributes to fruitful debate. I struggle to understand how anyone can have a genuine problem with it.
Try reading my posts. You've got this badly wrong.
No I have read them and I think you have got it wrong, to be honest. You claim to understand the problems of discrimination and disadvantage faced by minority groups, yet you take offense at a phrase that many members of those groups use to describe and analyse the situation they face. I mean, you can call it non-white non-privilege if you find that a pithier turn of phrase, but I'm not sure it's helpful.
Very unusually, I don't agree with you on that last point at all, OLB. Although a convoluted and possibly painful mouthful, "non-white non-privilege" understandably refers to the situation particular groups face ; "white privilege" simply reduces a favoured group only to privilege.
But the point is that a white person doesn't face that situation, and therein lies the privilege. The purpose of the phrase is to make white people think about what it would be like to walk in someone else's shoes, to engage with situations they might never have to face themselves and to question whether they are OK with that continuing. To imagine that if you go to the police as a victim of crime they might treat you as if you were a criminal. That you might be deported from a country you are legally a citizen of. That you might be passed over for a job or a promotion because of your name or the colour of your skin. These things all happen, but if you are white they will almost certainly never happen to you. That is a privileged position to be in. And if you are not doing what you can to change that situation, then you are part of the problem. I think it is a very powerful phrase.
Shall we move on and try "Male Privilege"?
If one of the male posters would repost that, I’ll give it a like.
Why is chlorine good in swimming pools but not in chicken ?
Why is bleach good in your bog but not in your veins?
A better question would be why is chlorine washing okay for UK vegetables but not for US meat? It is both legal and common practice to wash non organic fruit and veg in chlorine solutions as part of processing. The only requirement is that no trace of the chlorine is left on the food item after processing. Which I imagine is the same in the US.
Now personally I don't like the idea of chlorine washed meat products because the process is used in place of good animal hygiene so I would be strongly opposed to us importing meat that has gone through that process. But most of the opponents are being seriously disingenuous to suggest there is something dangerous about the process given they are probably eating vegetables that have had the same process every day.
This article from Which probably sums up my view pretty well. But I just wish people would be honest about the arguments.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
Sure. But the only thing that ‘white privilege’ means is the other side of that coin. ie of all the shitty things that might happen to you in life, those things are not among them. I don’t know that it’s a particularly useful term, but it’s not without meaning.
I think that white privilege is a precise term that describes something real and its use contributes to fruitful debate. I struggle to understand how anyone can have a genuine problem with it.
Try reading my posts. You've got this badly wrong.
No I have read them and I think you have got it wrong, to be honest. You claim to understand the problems of discrimination and disadvantage faced by minority groups, yet you take offense at a phrase that many members of those groups use to describe and analyse the situation they face. I mean, you can call it non-white non-privilege if you find that a pithier turn of phrase, but I'm not sure it's helpful.
Very unusually, I don't agree with you on that last point at all, OLB. Although a convoluted and possibly painful mouthful, "non-white non-privilege" understandably refers to the situation particular groups face ; "white privilege" simply reduces a favoured group only to privilege.
But the point is that a white person doesn't face that situation, and therein lies the privilege. The purpose of the phrase is to make white people think about what it would be like to walk in someone else's shoes, to engage with situations they might never have to face themselves and to question whether they are OK with that continuing. To imagine that if you go to the police as a victim of crime they might treat you as if you were a criminal. That you might be deported from a country you are legally a citizen of. That you might be passed over for a job or a promotion because of your name or the colour of your skin. These things all happen, but if you are white they will almost certainly never happen to you. That is a privileged position to be in. And if you are not doing what you can to change that situation, then you are part of the problem. I think it is a very powerful phrase.
I have to say I think the last part of your paragraph leads up some quite dangerous alleys, OLB, because it suggests anyone not accepting this kind of conceptual framework is not only resistant to progress, but also morally suspect.
I know that the phrase was originally developed to prompt a privileged and majority community to stop , take stock of what they normally take for granted ; to walk in another's shoes, rather than, as in the paranoid system of the alt-right, originally intended to insult and do down a particular community.
The doesn't change the fact that words and concepts have a life well beyond what is intended. This concept iand starting point is not helping to achieve the goal you and I both want ; in fact I would say the opposite.
The right have recognised that it is a powerful phrase and have attempted to counter it by pretending it is designed to denigrate white people. I am very clear as to what the phrase does and does not mean. To simply stop using a phrase because your opponents have attempted to weaponise it against you is like giving in to bullying. The solution is to continue to explain what it is you are actually saying and why it is important. I certainly understand the point you are making, but I think that in surrendering the phrase you also surrender some of its meaning (and that is of course the right's objective).
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
Yep. With one or two exceptions they are doubling down on this. All votes against us are illegitimate. This is where decades of voter suppression, gerrymandering and minority rule logically leads.
Lol at that Graham stuff. We've canvassed EVERY ballot and we've found 15 that might be dodgy (although probably have perfectly innocent explanations). And this apparently will be sufficient to overturn a majority of over forty thousand? These people are nuts. It's just a complete mystery what they're playing at.
Even if these ARE fraud, the numbers indicate it would clearly be individuals acting alone. It's hardly evidence of a systematic effort to steal an election. Election results don't get thrown out because of rogue individuals committing low level fraud. The offending parties (if they exist) get dealt with by the police.
American has a vastly higher rate of salmonella poisoning than the UK. ...
Hmm, not sure that proves anything. More likely related to ubiquitous fast food than fresh chicken sold to consumers. IIRC their chicken is actually less contaminated than EU chicken, and they certainly have a point in saying that it is clearly irrational of the EU to ban washing of chicken.
Of course none of this matters - the narrative of (shock, horror!) chlorine-washed chicken has won the political argument, as has the equally irrational narrative of 'selling off the NHS'. There won't be a meaningful trade deal with the US anytime soon whatever happens, since improved access on agriculture and healthcare services are the only two things the US might want from a trade deal. For that matter it's not obvious what they could offer in return; more access on financial services is the main thing we might want, but we're very unlikely to get, not least because regulation is all tangled up with state laws - it's not just a federal matter. The UK government should face this reality, and stop fantasising about a US deal compensating for the loss of EU trade.
Why is chlorine good in swimming pools but not in chicken ?
American has a vastly higher rate of salmonella poisoning than the UK.
It's not that the chicken is chlorine washed, it is that is has to be chlorine washed otherwise it would kill people.
Because it is cheaper to raise chickens in squalid, disease-enhanced conditions and then sterilise the corpses after slaughter and hope that none of your customer sue you.
The European way is to stop disease in the chicken flocks and have a higher standard for raising the chickens, but it costs more.
It reminds me of the American reluctance to invest in infrastructure - "Why should my taxes pay for preventative maintence if it works OK now? Wait until it breaks and maybe I will be dead by then or have moved away so somebody else can pay for it"
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
Sure. But the only thing that ‘white privilege’ means is the other side of that coin. ie of all the shitty things that might happen to you in life, those things are not among them. I don’t know that it’s a particularly useful term, but it’s not without meaning.
I think that white privilege is a precise term that describes something real and its use contributes to fruitful debate. I struggle to understand how anyone can have a genuine problem with it.
Try reading my posts. You've got this badly wrong.
No I have read them and I think you have got it wrong, to be honest. You claim to understand the problems of discrimination and disadvantage faced by minority groups, yet you take offense at a phrase that many members of those groups use to describe and analyse the situation they face. I mean, you can call it non-white non-privilege if you find that a pithier turn of phrase, but I'm not sure it's helpful.
Very unusually, I don't agree with you on that last point at all, OLB. Although a convoluted and possibly painful mouthful, "non-white non-privilege" understandably refers to the situation particular groups face ; "white privilege" simply reduces a favoured group only to privilege.
But the point is that a white person doesn't face that situation, and therein lies the privilege. The purpose of the phrase is to make white people think about what it would be like to walk in someone else's shoes, to engage with situations they might never have to face themselves and to question whether they are OK with that continuing. To imagine that if you go to the police as a victim of crime they might treat you as if you were a criminal. That you might be deported from a country you are legally a citizen of. That you might be passed over for a job or a promotion because of your name or the colour of your skin. These things all happen, but if you are white they will almost certainly never happen to you. That is a privileged position to be in. And if you are not doing what you can to change that situation, then you are part of the problem. I think it is a very powerful phrase.
I couldn't disagree with you more.
It isn't a privileged position to be in to not be threatened with deportation from your own nation. It isn't a privileged position to not be passed over for a job because of your name. It isn't a privileged position to not be treated as a criminal because of the colour of your skin.
Those are all what should be normal and if they're not then we should call out that. Demand that for all. Not pretend it is "privilege".
The trouble is, every way of describing the phenomenon is objected to. People get very excited about the word "racism", and that word seems to carry with it a big sense of a brewing, conscious hatred. Some like to call it "microaggression", which is then problematic because people will say "but I wasn't being aggressive".
Personally I've concluded that this is such a difficult thing to talk about, the term itself becomes contested, because having a big old barny about semantics is easier for some people than stopping and hearing the difficult experiences of others and empathising with them.
Racism certainly has too many different meanings for it to be a meaningful word. If people are talking past each other on a series of contentious and important issues because of language, and they often are, it is time for words with sharper, clearer meanings.
Why is chlorine good in swimming pools but not in chicken ?
Why is bleach good in your bog but not in your veins?
A better question would be why is chlorine washing okay for UK vegetables but not for US meat? It is both legal and common practice to wash non organic fruit and veg in chlorine solutions as part of processing. The only requirement is that no trace of the chlorine is left on the food item after processing. Which I imagine is the same in the US.
Now personally I don't like the idea of chlorine washed meat products because the process is used in place of good animal hygiene so I would be strongly opposed to us importing meat that has gone through that process. But most of the opponents are being seriously disingenuous to suggest there is something dangerous about the process given they are probably eating vegetables that have had the same process every day.
This article from Which probably sums up my view pretty well. But I just wish people would be honest about the arguments.
Doesn't everyone who knows anything about it understand that the issue is the animal welfare practices the Chlorine washing is meant to cover up? I think you're setting up a bit of a straw man here.
Obviously there are people who simply here the word "chlorinated" and don't get any further. But don't pretend the serious objections to the practice aren't serious as a result.
Very ingenious. If he'd not told everyone about it in advance, I'd go so far to say Cummings is almost as clever as Coleen Rooney.
Whatever happened in that case. I know it was going to court but has it been heard yet?
There is a preliminary hearing in a couple of weeks to determine, essentially, what exactly was alleged in Rooney's post. Then they potentially set a date for the main libel trial, where Rooney would presumably claim her allegations about Vardy were justified (although it may settle/be dropped earlier depending on the preliminary hearing).
Why is chlorine good in swimming pools but not in chicken ?
Swimming pools are phasing out chlorine because though it is cheap, it is not good for you.
Hey I am still here after a lifetime of swimming in it - Legal and General still giving me good odds to die soon with my life insurance wager with them
I guess if it has had no effects on you then everybody else must be fine as well.
Although I'm on the Left, on the question of the term "white Privilege", and some others like it, I have quite a lot of sympathy for what Casino Royale is saying.
A privileged status for white people in a number of areas is a fact ; but the term reduces people morally to that privilege, which is extremely dangerous. It also has conceptual parallels with the kind of portrayals of "black suffering" that people from those communities find demeaning in western portrayals of Africa.
Not all white people. The white homeless guy I saw on the street today isn't obviously privileged.
In fairness, I don't think most people who say 'White privilege' mean by it that all white people are overall privileged. It means that all white people have certain benefits from skin colour, but that doesn't mean they can't have other disadvantages which mitigate or even outweigh that.
Language is not just what people mean, but also what people hear.
It would be fine if the term and concept of white privilege was only being discussed by people who are committed to spending a lot of time discussing the issues and meaning around it.
But CR is correct that it is a terrible way of practically addressing the issues of racism through social media, as the instant initial reaction of the majority will be negative, and social media thrives on instant opinion, not carefully considered analysis.
Yep. With one or two exceptions they are doubling down on this. All votes against us are illegitimate. This is where decades of voter suppression, gerrymandering and minority rule logically leads.
Lol at that Graham stuff. We've canvassed EVERY ballot and we've found 15 that might be dodgy (although probably have perfectly innocent explanations). And this apparently will be sufficient to overturn a majority of over forty thousand? These people are nuts. It's just a complete mystery what they're playing at.
Even if these ARE fraud, the numbers indicate it would clearly be individuals acting alone. It's hardly evidence of a systematic effort to steal an election. Election results don't get thrown out because of rogue individuals committing low level fraud. The offending parties (if they exist) get dealt with by the police.
It's a complete non-mystery what they're playing at, it's a fund-raising scam. Seeing how much Jill Stein raised, why would Donald Trump of all people leave the money on the table?
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
Sure. But the only thing that ‘white privilege’ means is the other side of that coin. ie of all the shitty things that might happen to you in life, those things are not among them. I don’t know that it’s a particularly useful term, but it’s not without meaning.
I think that white privilege is a precise term that describes something real and its use contributes to fruitful debate. I struggle to understand how anyone can have a genuine problem with it.
Try reading my posts. You've got this badly wrong.
No I have read them and I think you have got it wrong, to be honest. You claim to understand the problems of discrimination and disadvantage faced by minority groups, yet you take offense at a phrase that many members of those groups use to describe and analyse the situation they face. I mean, you can call it non-white non-privilege if you find that a pithier turn of phrase, but I'm not sure it's helpful.
Very unusually, I don't agree with you on that last point at all, OLB. Although a convoluted and possibly painful mouthful, "non-white non-privilege" understandably refers to the situation particular groups face ; "white privilege" simply reduces a favoured group only to privilege.
But the point is that a white person doesn't face that situation, and therein lies the privilege. The purpose of the phrase is to make white people think about what it would be like to walk in someone else's shoes, to engage with situations they might never have to face themselves and to question whether they are OK with that continuing. To imagine that if you go to the police as a victim of crime they might treat you as if you were a criminal. That you might be deported from a country you are legally a citizen of. That you might be passed over for a job or a promotion because of your name or the colour of your skin. These things all happen, but if you are white they will almost certainly never happen to you. That is a privileged position to be in. And if you are not doing what you can to change that situation, then you are part of the problem. I think it is a very powerful phrase.
I have to say I think the last part of your paragraph leads up some quite dangerous alleys, OLB, because it suggests anyone not accepting this kind of conceptual framework is not only resistant to progress, but also morally suspect.
I know that the phrase was originally developed to prompt a privileged and majority community to stop , take stock of what they normally take for granted ; to walk in another's shoes, rather than, as in the paranoid system of the alt-right, originally intended to insult and do down a particular community.
The doesn't change the fact that words and concepts have a life well beyond what is intended. This concept iand starting point is not helping to achieve the goal you and I both want ; in fact I would say the opposite.
The right have recognised that it is a powerful phrase and have attempted to counter it by pretending it is designed to denigrate white people. I am very clear as to what the phrase does and does not mean. To simply stop using a phrase because your opponents have attempted to weaponise it against you is like giving in to bullying. The solution is to continue to explain what it is you are actually saying and why it is important. I certainly understand the point you are making, but I think that in surrendering the phrase you also surrender some of its meaning (and that is of course the right's objective).
We'll have to agree to differ on this OLB, because not only do I think very many people are not clear on its meaning, but in fact that its very form tips the odds against this, on both the right and left. It personally reminds me slightly of the misapplication by Eastern-Bloc governments of key philosophical terms, because they had seen them mentioned in Marx.
"World War III is now 'a real risk' due to economic damage caused by Covid, UK's military chief warns - as he predicts armies of robots will fight future conflicts
General Sir Nick Carter made comments on Sky News's Sophy Ridge on Sunday UK economy projected to shrink by 2 per cent between October and December Sir Nick is worried regional global conflicts could ramp up into a 'full blown war'"
Yep. With one or two exceptions they are doubling down on this. All votes against us are illegitimate. This is where decades of voter suppression, gerrymandering and minority rule logically leads.
Lol at that Graham stuff. We've canvassed EVERY ballot and we've found 15 that might be dodgy (although probably have perfectly innocent explanations). And this apparently will be sufficient to overturn a majority of over forty thousand? These people are nuts. It's just a complete mystery what they're playing at.
Even if these ARE fraud, the numbers indicate it would clearly be individuals acting alone. It's hardly evidence of a systematic effort to steal an election. Election results don't get thrown out because of rogue individuals committing low level fraud. The offending parties (if they exist) get dealt with by the police.
It's a complete non-mystery what they're playing at, it's a fund-raising scam. Seeing how much Jill Stein raised, why would Donald Trump of all people leave the money on the table?
It has multiple benefits to Trump.
If even a quarter of the population believes he has had the presidency stolen from him it will make a jury trial conviction exceedingly difficult.
That's a very big insurance policy for him to have.
"World War III is now 'a real risk' due to economic damage caused by Covid, UK's military chief warns - as he predicts armies of robots will fight future conflicts
General Sir Nick Carter made comments on Sky News's Sophy Ridge on Sunday UK economy projected to shrink by 2 per cent between October and December Sir Nick is worried regional global conflicts could ramp up into a 'full blown war'"
Yep. With one or two exceptions they are doubling down on this. All votes against us are illegitimate. This is where decades of voter suppression, gerrymandering and minority rule logically leads.
Lol at that Graham stuff. We've canvassed EVERY ballot and we've found 15 that might be dodgy (although probably have perfectly innocent explanations). And this apparently will be sufficient to overturn a majority of over forty thousand? These people are nuts. It's just a complete mystery what they're playing at.
Even if these ARE fraud, the numbers indicate it would clearly be individuals acting alone. It's hardly evidence of a systematic effort to steal an election. Election results don't get thrown out because of rogue individuals committing low level fraud. The offending parties (if they exist) get dealt with by the police.
It's a complete non-mystery what they're playing at, it's a fund-raising scam. Seeing how much Jill Stein raised, why would Donald Trump of all people leave the money on the table?
It has multiple benefits to Trump.
If even a quarter of the population believes he has had the presidency stolen from him it will make a jury trial conviction exceedingly difficult.
That's a very big insurance policy for him to have.
IDK, America has that thing where the parties can strike out jurors they think will be unfavourable to them so I guess the prosecutors can get rid of most of the MAGA people.
I think Trump ultimately winds this up with "The campaign need $x million by midnight or Trump will be forced to concede", if they raise $x million then repeat with a higher $x.
American has a vastly higher rate of salmonella poisoning than the UK. ...
Hmm, not sure that proves anything. More likely related to ubiquitous fast food than fresh chicken sold to consumers. IIRC their chicken is actually less contaminated than EU chicken, and they certainly have a point in saying that it is clearly irrational of the EU to ban washing of chicken.
Of course none of this matters - the narrative of (shock, horror!) chlorine-washed chicken has won the political argument, as has the equally irrational narrative of 'selling off the NHS'. There won't be a meaningful trade deal with the US anytime soon whatever happens, since improved access on agriculture and healthcare services are the only two things the US might want from a trade deal. For that matter it's not obvious what they could offer in return; more access on financial services is the main thing we might want, but we're very unlikely to get, not least because regulation is all tangled up with state laws - it's not just a federal matter. The UK government should face this reality, and stop fantasising about a US deal compensating for the loss of EU trade.
Unusually, Richard, I disagree with you. Chicken cultivation rules in the US are much laxer (in general) than in the UK or the EU.
End of season plot twist: the leader of Q is revealed to be Roman P[NOPE - Ed]
It can’t be ruled out what you call “leader” is in fact taking the piss out of them. The fact he has used Q suggests as much? If my post here was a picture montage I would include Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars programme, Pangloss hung by the Spanish Inquisition, Luther Blisset missing a great chance in an England shirt, and Borges Labyrinths.
Whilst he laughs himself silly, Qanon followers have to believe controllers ever more far fetched fictions. This could be either the most fabulous practical joke of all time, once revealed it was following the same plot of a book. Or could be an ingenious controlled experiment, to measure the dangers of the social media age.
The president will make his first media appearance since the Joe Biden was widely called as the winner of the presidential election. Donald Trump tweeted that he will appear on rightwing host Mark Levin’s show on Fox News at 8pm ET tonight, where he says he will discuss “the Mail-In Ballot Hoax!”
I have never been into gambling per se - beyond investing in equity ISAs etc - but in mid-July I was introduced by my brother to CrossBetting which involves betting on both outcomes. In just under 3 months I have accumulated a profit of just over £1000- and am more than happy with that. The related website - TeamProfit - has also persuded me to subscribe on a trial basis to its Casino club. Welcome offers are given which involve very limited risk. Tonight,however, I have had my head blown off by winning - out of the blue - a Daily Jackpot of almost £1300. It has given me almost as much pleasure as seeing the demise of Trump!
There's just been another batch in in Arizona, and (like the last) it had more Biden votes than Trump ones. Biden lean there now up to over 20,000.
Arizona must be nearly done surely?
Good to see a bit more of a healthy buffer.
There's some more votes in... and Biden's lead has shrunk again...
There are (at most) 81,000 votes to come. And a lot of those are provisional ones, many of which will relate to already counted mail ins. It'll get called tomorrow morning.
The president will make his first media appearance since the Joe Biden was widely called as the winner of the presidential election. Donald Trump tweeted that he will appear on rightwing host Mark Levin’s show on Fox News at 8pm ET tonight, where he says he will discuss “the Mail-In Ballot Hoax!”
The hoax being that there has been reams of evidence suggesting there is a problem.
Yep. With one or two exceptions they are doubling down on this. All votes against us are illegitimate. This is where decades of voter suppression, gerrymandering and minority rule logically leads.
Lol at that Graham stuff. We've canvassed EVERY ballot and we've found 15 that might be dodgy (although probably have perfectly innocent explanations). And this apparently will be sufficient to overturn a majority of over forty thousand? These people are nuts. It's just a complete mystery what they're playing at.
Even if these ARE fraud, the numbers indicate it would clearly be individuals acting alone. It's hardly evidence of a systematic effort to steal an election. Election results don't get thrown out because of rogue individuals committing low level fraud. The offending parties (if they exist) get dealt with by the police.
It's a complete non-mystery what they're playing at, it's a fund-raising scam. Seeing how much Jill Stein raised, why would Donald Trump of all people leave the money on the table?
It has multiple benefits to Trump.
If even a quarter of the population believes he has had the presidency stolen from him it will make a jury trial conviction exceedingly difficult.
That's a very big insurance policy for him to have.
IDK, America has that thing where the parties can strike out jurors they think will be unfavourable to them so I guess the prosecutors can get rid of most of the MAGA people.
OTOH most American jurisdictions (including federal I think) require a unanimous verdict. One dissenting juror means a mistrial.
The president will make his first media appearance since the Joe Biden was widely called as the winner of the presidential election. Donald Trump tweeted that he will appear on rightwing host Mark Levin’s show on Fox News at 8pm ET tonight, where he says he will discuss “the Mail-In Ballot Hoax!”
The hoax being that there has been reams of evidence suggesting there is a problem.
Interesting choice of host. One who has called for States to ignore the vote and appoint Electors. That way lies conflict.
There's just been another batch in in Arizona, and (like the last) it had more Biden votes than Trump ones. Biden lean there now up to over 20,000.
Arizona must be nearly done surely?
Good to see a bit more of a healthy buffer.
There's some more votes in... and Biden's lead has shrunk again...
There are (at most) 81,000 votes to come. And a lot of those are provisional ones, many of which will relate to already counted mail ins. It'll get called tomorrow morning.
Looks like the lead came down by about 3k in a 10k batch, which looks as though it was from maybe Pinal, which skews Republican. Doesn’t mean the other votes will given some will come from Maricopa plus Pima.
Two things here for Trump. One does he overcome Biden (possible), two can he force a recount, which looks as though he needs to come within c 3500 of Biden (0.1pc)
Yep. With one or two exceptions they are doubling down on this. All votes against us are illegitimate. This is where decades of voter suppression, gerrymandering and minority rule logically leads.
Lol at that Graham stuff. We've canvassed EVERY ballot and we've found 15 that might be dodgy (although probably have perfectly innocent explanations). And this apparently will be sufficient to overturn a majority of over forty thousand? These people are nuts. It's just a complete mystery what they're playing at.
Even if these ARE fraud, the numbers indicate it would clearly be individuals acting alone. It's hardly evidence of a systematic effort to steal an election. Election results don't get thrown out because of rogue individuals committing low level fraud. The offending parties (if they exist) get dealt with by the police.
It's a complete non-mystery what they're playing at, it's a fund-raising scam. Seeing how much Jill Stein raised, why would Donald Trump of all people leave the money on the table?
There is another potential issue here in that, just like the Russia story around the 2016 election and Trump, the “election was stolen” line will be used to delegitimise Biden and hamper his actions. One might say what goes around comes around.
Comments
Alaska Senate market. They have added Al Gross to the Market.
It is now a 3 option market
Republicans
Democrats
Al Gross
What a total fuck up
Night all.
Now personally I don't like the idea of chlorine washed meat products because the process is used in place of good animal hygiene so I would be strongly opposed to us importing meat that has gone through that process. But most of the opponents are being seriously disingenuous to suggest there is something dangerous about the process given they are probably eating vegetables that have had the same process every day.
This article from Which probably sums up my view pretty well. But I just wish people would be honest about the arguments.
https://www.which.co.uk/news/2020/09/chlorine-washed-chicken-vs-chlorine-washed-salad-leaves-whats-the-difference/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPl3hZqFaLM
Even if these ARE fraud, the numbers indicate it would clearly be individuals acting alone. It's hardly evidence of a systematic effort to steal an election. Election results don't get thrown out because of rogue individuals committing low level fraud. The offending parties (if they exist) get dealt with by the police.
https://alex.github.io/nyt-2020-election-scraper/battleground-state-changes.html#
Of course none of this matters - the narrative of (shock, horror!) chlorine-washed chicken has won the political argument, as has the equally irrational narrative of 'selling off the NHS'. There won't be a meaningful trade deal with the US anytime soon whatever happens, since improved access on agriculture and healthcare services are the only two things the US might want from a trade deal. For that matter it's not obvious what they could offer in return; more access on financial services is the main thing we might want, but we're very unlikely to get, not least because regulation is all tangled up with state laws - it's not just a federal matter. The UK government should face this reality, and stop fantasising about a US deal compensating for the loss of EU trade.
The European way is to stop disease in the chicken flocks and have a higher standard for raising the chickens, but it costs more.
It reminds me of the American reluctance to invest in infrastructure - "Why should my taxes pay for preventative maintence if it works OK now? Wait until it breaks and maybe I will be dead by then or have moved away so somebody else can pay for it"
Obviously there are people who simply here the word "chlorinated" and don't get any further. But don't pretend the serious objections to the practice aren't serious as a result.
Thank you for sorting that out
It would be fine if the term and concept of white privilege was only being discussed by people who are committed to spending a lot of time discussing the issues and meaning around it.
But CR is correct that it is a terrible way of practically addressing the issues of racism through social media, as the instant initial reaction of the majority will be negative, and social media thrives on instant opinion, not carefully considered analysis.
General Sir Nick Carter made comments on Sky News's Sophy Ridge on Sunday
UK economy projected to shrink by 2 per cent between October and December
Sir Nick is worried regional global conflicts could ramp up into a 'full blown war'"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8925945/Economic-damage-cause-Covid-pandemic-means-WWIII-risk-warns-UKs-military-commander.html
If even a quarter of the population believes he has had the presidency stolen from him it will make a jury trial conviction exceedingly difficult.
That's a very big insurance policy for him to have.
Good to see a bit more of a healthy buffer.
If my post here was a picture montage I would include Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars programme, Pangloss hung by the Spanish Inquisition, Luther Blisset missing a great chance in an England shirt, and Borges Labyrinths.
Whilst he laughs himself silly, Qanon followers have to believe controllers ever more far fetched fictions. This could be either the most fabulous practical joke of all time, once revealed it was following the same plot of a book. Or could be an ingenious controlled experiment, to measure the dangers of the social media age.
There are (at most) 81,000 votes to come. And a lot of those are provisional ones, many of which will relate to already counted mail ins. It'll get called tomorrow morning.
That way lies conflict.
Two things here for Trump. One does he overcome Biden (possible), two can he force a recount, which looks as though he needs to come within c 3500 of Biden (0.1pc)