The Deciders

[Salty]

You are really not getting it. Advertising is aimed at SWM. Politicians throw the rest of the population under the bus to get their vote. Books and video games are aimed at SWM.

Your consumption determines societal output. Fucking read what I goddamn posted in the post right after that.

Being "The Deciders" for XBOX marketing isn't quite the same as being "The Deciders" for public policy. 

Yes one has a direct impact on the lives of millions and and enacts change over time, the other is public policy.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Somebody doesn't grasp that whole "sociology" concept.

In order to ascertain a median, you have to have a large sample of individuals, all of whom will fall on one side of the median or the other. You can't refute science with anecdotes; it doesn't work that way.

His argument basically boils down to "because some white kids are disempowered, there is no institutionalized power imbalance or culturally ingrained power hierarchy".

[Juana]

Fair enough.

Somebody doesn't grasp that whole "sociology" concept.

In order to ascertain a median, you have to have a large sample of individuals, all of whom will fall on one side of the median or the other. You can't refute science with anecdotes; it doesn't work that way.

His argument basically boils down to "because some white kids are disempowered, there is no institutionalized power imbalance or culturally ingrained power hierarchy".

This.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Actually, I think he's trying to focus on the "Some, but not all" position, rather than saying there's no institutionalized imbalance.

Its a true point, in that most people in a society don't actually control the society, even if they have the same color and shape of dangly bits that the people in charge have. However, from a broad perspective, there is a bias in society toward SWM. Its not so much that they are the Deciders, as it is that The Deciders are biased toward the SWM.

I think.

[Faust]

Fair enough.

Somebody doesn't grasp that whole "sociology" concept.

In order to ascertain a median, you have to have a large sample of individuals, all of whom will fall on one side of the median or the other. You can't refute science with anecdotes; it doesn't work that way.

His argument basically boils down to "because some white kids are disempowered, there is no institutionalized power imbalance or culturally ingrained power hierarchy".

This.

Agreed.

Representing one small subset of the disempowerd doesn't make sense the entirety of the ingrained power hierarchy needs to be attacked in order of those at the top to the bottom.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Fair enough.

Somebody doesn't grasp that whole "sociology" concept.

In order to ascertain a median, you have to have a large sample of individuals, all of whom will fall on one side of the median or the other. You can't refute science with anecdotes; it doesn't work that way.

His argument basically boils down to "because some white kids are disempowered, there is no institutionalized power imbalance or culturally ingrained power hierarchy".

This.

Agreed.

Representing one small subset of the disempowerd doesn't make sense the entirety of the ingrained power hierarchy needs to be attacked in order of those at the top to the bottom.

[Faust]

As a Somalist (Representing somalia), the least powerful large group of people I could quickly find
I demand an immediate redistribution of wealth and a power sharing operation be established with the following people
http://www.forbes.com/powerful-people/list/
Also New York is to be given to Afganistan, like last week.

[AFK]

Somebody doesn't grasp that whole "sociology" concept.

In order to ascertain a median, you have to have a large sample of individuals, all of whom will fall on one side of the median or the other. You can't refute science with anecdotes; it doesn't work that way.

His argument basically boils down to "because some white kids are disempowered, there is no institutionalized power imbalance or culturally ingrained power hierarchy".

Some?   


Maybe it's different in the shangri-la of the Pacific Northwest but I can show you streets and streets of "some" here in Maine.  They aren't "deciding" jack shit.

[LMNO]

Is it possible that the disenfranchised SWM youth that the Deciders market to are choosing products that reinforce the Opression of She?

And if so, the passive acceptance of what the Deciders present contribute to and enforce the Opression.

Therefore, the SWMY are a crucial tool being used by the Deciders.

And so the SWMY need to be woken up to their dilemma -- they are not benefiting from the Patriarchy, but they are actively participating in it.

[AFK]

Actually, I think he's trying to focus on the "Some, but not all" position, rather than saying there's no institutionalized imbalance.

Its a true point, in that most people in a society don't actually control the society, even if they have the same color and shape of dangly bits that the people in charge have. However, from a broad perspective, there is a bias in society toward SWM. Its not so much that they are the Deciders, as it is that The Deciders are biased toward the SWM.

I think.

Yes.  It's completely disingenuous, and frankly stupid, to call all straight white men Deciders when so many of them are deciding precisely zilch.  If you want to talk broadly that straight white males, as a faceless cohort, have on balance had things a lot better over time than other cohorts, I can agree with that.


But don't sell me some bullshit that just because someone is straight white and male they are some Decider. 


Frankly, it's insulting to those wading in the same abject poverty as other minority groups.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I don't know what to say, because it would be really, really hard to say with a straight face that I don't have privilege and a lot more options than any other demographic group.

For example, I have been given the ability to fail and then get right back up with relative ease.  I can bounce back from a stupid mistake with less effort than could a woman or a Black person.  Example:  When I fuck up, it doesn't necessarily mean permanently losing prestige (woman in the workplace) or JAIL FOR LIFE (Black person).

I intellectually abhor privilege, in the same way a fish could intellectually abhor water, or the way an American could abhor slave labor...Loudly, on a piece of electronics made by slave children in Bangladesh.

And I'm definitely in the decider class.  In my small world, I have the power to bind and to loose (read: hire & fire).  I really only have to answer to one person in my workplace.

All of this is true.  What, though, is to be done about it?

Interesting note:  In the New Testament, Jesus goes on about this for WHOLE CHAPTERS.

[Salty]

Actually, I think he's trying to focus on the "Some, but not all" position, rather than saying there's no institutionalized imbalance.

Its a true point, in that most people in a society don't actually control the society, even if they have the same color and shape of dangly bits that the people in charge have. However, from a broad perspective, there is a bias in society toward SWM. Its not so much that they are the Deciders, as it is that The Deciders are biased toward the SWM.

I think.

Yes.  It's completely disingenuous, and frankly stupid, to call all straight white men Deciders when so many of them are deciding precisely zilch.  If you want to talk broadly that straight white males, as a faceless cohort, have on balance had things a lot better over time than other cohorts, I can agree with that.


But don't sell me some bullshit that just because someone is straight white and male they are some Decider. 


Frankly, it's insulting to those wading in the same abject poverty as other minority groups.

What about the continuation of harmful rhetoric by uneducated white men? What about when they enforce and apply world-views that keep fucking things up for everyone because those views also come from white males, whether they're rich or in poverty?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Actually, I think he's trying to focus on the "Some, but not all" position, rather than saying there's no institutionalized imbalance.

Its a true point, in that most people in a society don't actually control the society, even if they have the same color and shape of dangly bits that the people in charge have. However, from a broad perspective, there is a bias in society toward SWM. Its not so much that they are the Deciders, as it is that The Deciders are biased toward the SWM.

I think.

Yes.  It's completely disingenuous, and frankly stupid, to call all straight white men Deciders when so many of them are deciding precisely zilch.  If you want to talk broadly that straight white males, as a faceless cohort, have on balance had things a lot better over time than other cohorts, I can agree with that.


But don't sell me some bullshit that just because someone is straight white and male they are some Decider. 


Frankly, it's insulting to those wading in the same abject poverty as other minority groups.

Point worth mentioning:  The poor Whites with no power fought very hard for the South in the civil war, even though victory meant a static class system in which they could not advance.  They would not, however, be on the BOTTOM of the shit heap, which was apparently enough motivation to go get blown to gobbets.

[LMNO]

Is it possible that the disenfranchised SWM youth that the Deciders market to are choosing products that reinforce the Opression of She?

And if so, the passive acceptance of what the Deciders present contribute to and enforce the Opression.

Therefore, the SWMY are a crucial tool being used by the Deciders.

And so the SWMY need to be woken up to their dilemma -- they are not benefiting from the Patriarchy, but they are actively participating in it.

Hey. This addresses the new subject.

[AFK]

Actually, I think he's trying to focus on the "Some, but not all" position, rather than saying there's no institutionalized imbalance.

Its a true point, in that most people in a society don't actually control the society, even if they have the same color and shape of dangly bits that the people in charge have. However, from a broad perspective, there is a bias in society toward SWM. Its not so much that they are the Deciders, as it is that The Deciders are biased toward the SWM.

I think.

Yes.  It's completely disingenuous, and frankly stupid, to call all straight white men Deciders when so many of them are deciding precisely zilch.  If you want to talk broadly that straight white males, as a faceless cohort, have on balance had things a lot better over time than other cohorts, I can agree with that.


But don't sell me some bullshit that just because someone is straight white and male they are some Decider. 


Frankly, it's insulting to those wading in the same abject poverty as other minority groups.

What about the continuation of harmful rhetoric by uneducated white men? What about when they enforce and apply world-views that keep fucking things up for everyone because those views also come from white males, whether they're rich or in poverty?

How does a poor white guy enforce anything?  Particularly if they are also NOT voting?