Principia Discordia

Note:  Please let's not turn this into another feminist argument.  We have 3 of those already.  This is more about the very idea of privilege/entitlement, as demonstrated by the state of Arizona.  Yes, some of the examples will involve feminism, some will involve race, but most will involve class and some basic assumptions by people who aspire to a higher economic class.


Since a lot of the word used with regard to this subject have become loaded terms, first priority must be to define the terms, to avoid miscommunication.  The definitions below are not meant to be a definitive, end-of-story description, but rather a basic overview of the terms for purposes of this discussion.

1. Privilege:  Literally meaning "private law", privilege is the state in which certain societal and/or restrictions do not apply to the individuals with said privilege.  Essentially, the privileged individual is being given a head start by the system to one degree or another.  There are two important facts that must be known about privilege:

1.  Privilege, by definition, isn't something you do or achieve, it's something that happens to you.  If you created the situation, it isn't privilege, as it was earned (for good or for ill).  It CAN, however, help you earn the situation, so there can still be some element of privilege in the situation.

2.  There are multiple levels of privilege, which are based on things like gender, age, enthnic background, race, sexual orientation, wealth or status as accident of birth, etc.  A person may have multiple privileges; very few people have none at all.  Nobody in Western society has none, as being in this society automatically counts as a form of privilege (as opposed to being born in Darfur, for example).

2.  Entitlement:  Entitlement is the perception of privilege, and can be (and usually is) unrecognized by the person in question.  This can include things like government assistance, but in more general terms indicates where you perceive yourself "in line"...That is to say, where you view yourself in the pecking order.  Interestingly enough, the more privilege you have, the more you perceive your sense of entitlement to be violated or denigrated.  In other words, the more privileges you have, the more downtrodden you assume yourself to be.

3.  Racism:  The act of judging people based on their ethnic background.  Yes, this includes the poorly worded "reverse racism", but it also includes the assumption of "reverse racism".  I say that "reverse racism" is badly worded, because it is merely racism.  The act of using the term "reverse racism" automatically indicates racism at one level or another by the person using the term, because while "racism" implies a single person or act, "reverse racism" implies that an entire ethnic group or groups are conspiring as a whole to commit racism upon the dominant race.

4.  Gender:  For our purposes, gender will mean the sex of the person in question.

5.  Gender identity:  Gender identity indicates the gender a person percieves him or herself to be.  IE, CIS vs Transgender.  Will also for the purposes of this discussion include transvestites.

6.  Sexual orientation:  This can be many things, but for the purposes of this discussion, it will be limited to Straight/Gay/Bisexual, which are sufficient for the demonstration of privilege.

7.  Oppression:  The exertion of privilege on those with less privilege (ie, women being paid less for the same work, Gays not being allowed to marry, etc).

Where I get stuck is in the definition of Privilege which amalgamates all the factors. I think lack of privilege secondary to say, direct government oppression (The government dictates your rights) versus societal privilege based on socioeconomic factors should be further defined.

Life in Darfur isn't underprivileged simply because the people don't have squat, it's also because the separate issue of not being allowed to do shit about that.

So maybe we ought define Oppression, is what I mean?

Privilege comes in many levels in America.  For this discussion, Arizona will be the example.  There is a general ranking of privilege that a person can be born with.  In Arizona, the ranking is, with 1 being the greatest privilege and

1.  Economic class.  How much money do you make?
2.  Race.  Whites are the top of the heap with respect to this, being followed by Asians, then Blacks, then Native Americans, then Hispanics at the very bottom (this is a result of fear for entitlements on the part of Whites, which will be discussed later).
3.  Gender.  Males have a distinct privilege over females.  The lessening of this privilege has caused a fear reaction that leads many to believe that females somehow have the advantage, because males can't oppress women quite as badly as they used to.
4.  Sexual orientation.  Straights are on top, followed by Gays, followed by Bisexuals.  Fear of loss of privilege (Gay marriage, etc) has gotten fairly ridiculous concerning sexual orientation, with people making straight-faced claims that Gays (bisexuals especially) are out to "recruit" straights, as if it were some sort of conscious decision.
5.  Gender Identity.  CIS always holds the cards here.
6.  Age.  In most areas of America, the dominant age is 30-50, as these are the people most likely to have amassed enough wealth to have an impact on how they are treated.  In Arizona, however, the majority of decision makers are at retirement age, with the level of privilege enjoyed being indirectly proportional to the age of the person in question.

Give the above, in Arizona, a rich woman in Arizona has more privilege than a poor man, and a White woman has far more privilege than a Hispanic male.

The maximum privilege would be:  Rich, White, Male, Straight, CIS, 55+ years old.

The minimum privilege would be:  Poor, Hispanic, Female, Gay, Transgender, ~ 18 years old.

Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 05:20:57 PM
Where I get stuck is in the definition of Privilege which amalgamates all the factors. I think lack of privilege secondary to say, direct government oppression (The government dictates your rights) versus societal privilege based on socioeconomic factors should be further defined.

Life in Darfur isn't underprivileged simply because the people don't have squat, it's also because the separate issue of not being allowed to do shit about that.

So maybe we ought define Oppression, is what I mean?

Defined oppression, but this is fucking NOT turning into a thread about government and liberatarian bullshit.  END OF STORY.

FUCKING RAH!

This board, and all its earlier hashings-out about privilege, has been REALLY fucking instrumental in helping me identify my own privileges, which I think is really important for a variety of reasons:

1. Where I can recognize my own privilege, I have empowerment.
2. Where I can recognize my own sense of power, I can see where I have entitlement.
3. Where I can recognize my own entitlement, I can recognize what areas make me feel defensive if I perceive them as  threatened.

In other words, recognizing my privileges makes me not only a better person, it also makes me a more effective person, and better able to achieve my goals.

Also I'd like to point out, only because just now I almost made a post that goes in the wrong direction, that oppression should never be allowed simply because of "demographics."

For example, I have heard the argument before that apparently government-sanctioned public displays of religion are admissible because "there are just so many Christians, so obviously the nature and appearance of society is going to take on a Christian tone." As if at a certain percentage of the population, oppression is inevitable or something.

This, of course, is bullshit. Take economic status for example: how many rich people are there? How many poor people are there? So, society should inherently take on a distinct tone of condoning poverty, then. What's that? It doesn't? Well, then, I guess it doesn't matter how many of you there are, or how few; it's never okay to exert the force of your privilege on anyone else.

I also think that there are certain factors, like age, which work differently depending on your economic class. A rich old person has more power (slightly distinct from privilege) than a rich young person, but a poor old person has less power than a poor young person, especially if they are also female.

It goes ALL THE WAY BACK here. The founding fathers had white male land owners in mind.
It's been addressed with things like the Civil Rights Act, but WAY TOO FUCKING SLOWLY.

Entitlement is the perception of privilege by a member of a privileged group.  Entitlement is, in other words, the reaction to one's privilege, or the reaction to a threat against that privilege.  In the case of Arizona, the primary demonstration of entitlement is the reaction of White persons in Phoenix with respect to Hispanics.

To begin with, White people in Arizona have always been first in line for everything.  This is due to 2 factors...First, Whites have historically outnumbered everyone else, and second, almost all the wealth is concentrated in Phoenix, in the hands of the Whites that live there.  However, White people can do math just like anyone else, and the math demonstrates quite clearly that this may not be the case much longer, as shown by the chart in "Race and Ethnicity" at the following link (their source is the census bureau).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Arizona

Fear Response:  Needless to say, this scares the pants off of the mostly-conservative White population of Arizona, who can clearly see that they will no longer be the most numerous group, sooner rather than later.  This leads to support for people like Sheriff Joe Arpiao, and legislation such as SB1072, that more or less criminalizes brown skin.

Aggrieved Entitlement Response:  The number one complaint among poor Whites with respect to race is that "the Hispanics/Blacks/etc have used up or are using up all available Department of Economic Security resources."  This is patently not true, as DES has no tests for eligibility other than the economic situation of the applicant, with children factoring highest in the decision making.

When people say the above, they generally mean: "I am White, therefore I should have first access to DES resources, and other groups can have what's left when I am done."

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 05:45:21 PM
I also think that there are certain factors, like age, which work differently depending on your economic class. A rich old person has more power (slightly distinct from privilege) than a rich young person, but a poor old person has less power than a poor young person, especially if they are also female.

I covered that in part 2, but I was speaking from Arizona, where things are slightly different on a cultural level.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 05:32:46 PM

Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 05:20:57 PM
Where I get stuck is in the definition of Privilege which amalgamates all the factors. I think lack of privilege secondary to say, direct government oppression (The government dictates your rights) versus societal privilege based on socioeconomic factors should be further defined.

Life in Darfur isn't underprivileged simply because the people don't have squat, it's also because the separate issue of not being allowed to do shit about that.

So maybe we ought define Oppression, is what I mean?

Defined oppression, but this is fucking NOT turning into a thread about government and liberatarian bullshit.  END OF STORY.

It's not my intent to try to strap you down, shove a Toblerone in your mouth and take you on another tour of Ron Paul's Libertarian Candyland but we'd be fools if we didn't at least look at the travel brochure to make comparisons to the other vacation spots the advertisers like to shove down people's throats here and abroad.

Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 05:55:35 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 05:32:46 PM

Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 05:20:57 PM
Where I get stuck is in the definition of Privilege which amalgamates all the factors. I think lack of privilege secondary to say, direct government oppression (The government dictates your rights) versus societal privilege based on socioeconomic factors should be further defined.

Life in Darfur isn't underprivileged simply because the people don't have squat, it's also because the separate issue of not being allowed to do shit about that.

So maybe we ought define Oppression, is what I mean?

Defined oppression, but this is fucking NOT turning into a thread about government and liberatarian bullshit.  END OF STORY.

It's not my intent to try to strap you down, shove a Toblerone in your mouth and take you on another tour of Ron Paul's Libertarian Candyland but we'd be fools if we didn't at least look at the travel brochure to make comparisons to the other vacation spots the advertisers like to shove down people's throats here and abroad.

If you have something oppression-related to say about entitlement and privilege, say it, but don't tell Roger that HE needs to say it for you.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 05:48:58 PM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 05:45:21 PM
I also think that there are certain factors, like age, which work differently depending on your economic class. A rich old person has more power (slightly distinct from privilege) than a rich young person, but a poor old person has less power than a poor young person, especially if they are also female.

I covered that in part 2, but I was speaking from Arizona, where things are slightly different on a cultural level.

I do agree that culture affects the entitlements of aging quite a lot.

You know, I'm just going to walk away for a little while and cool off.

I just spent two hours reading and writing to cover a very specific topic.  Now I am told that this isn't what I was supposed to be fucking doing.

I am angrier than I should be, I guess.  I have no clue whatsoever WHY I would think that a topic like this would stay on track past the first reponse.

I'll be back to write part 4 in a while.

Navvie, you want to talk about government oppression, you go start a thread and do it.  It's NOT what this thread is about.

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 06:00:05 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 05:48:58 PM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 05:45:21 PM
I also think that there are certain factors, like age, which work differently depending on your economic class. A rich old person has more power (slightly distinct from privilege) than a rich young person, but a poor old person has less power than a poor young person, especially if they are also female.

I covered that in part 2, but I was speaking from Arizona, where things are slightly different on a cultural level.

I do agree that culture affects the entitlements of aging quite a lot.

Yeah, here it's the White retired crowd that carries the most punch, both economically and at the voting booth.

Okay.

Saying it now: I'd like to hear your Official Thoughts on the oppression/government angle simply because I think it's relevant. Not from a position of allegiance to some brand of political science theology but from the pure realism I assume is intended by this thread.

I'm saying, I'm willing to listen.

Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 06:02:50 PM
Okay.

Saying it now: I'd like to hear your Official Thoughts on the oppression/government angle simply because I think it's relevant. Not from a position of allegiance to some brand of political science theology but from the pure realism I assume is intended by this thread.

I'm saying, I'm willing to listen.

This thread is about entitlement with Arizona as a principle example.  You are asking for a completely irrelevant addition.

I can't fucking stand it.  I'm out.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 06:01:54 PM
You know, I'm just going to walk away for a little while and cool off.

I just spent two hours reading and writing to cover a very specific topic.  Now I am told that this isn't what I was supposed to be fucking doing.

I am angrier than I should be, I guess.  I have no clue whatsoever WHY I would think that a topic like this would stay on track past the first reponse.

I'll be back to write part 4 in a while.

Navvie, you want to talk about government oppression, you go start a thread and do it.  It's NOT what this thread is about.

I'm sorry. Not trying to get your dander up.

Maybe I should clarify what I mean. Give me a second to collect my thoughts.

Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 06:02:50 PM
Okay.

Saying it now: I'd like to hear your Official Thoughts on the oppression/government angle simply because I think it's relevant. Not from a position of allegiance to some brand of political science theology but from the pure realism I assume is intended by this thread.

I'm saying, I'm willing to listen.

So you're demanding content on YOUR topic of choice? You're interested in it, YOU write it.

As I'm sure you can imagine, I spend a lot of my days having to deal with the relationship between 1. and 2. in the OP.

Lots of my students have never had curfews, never had to tidy their rooms, never had be considerate of others around them, never had to be organized or really look after themselves.  Not all, some have in fact had excellent upbringings, or else been in situations to make them understand just how privileged they are.

But most have not.  And thus they feel entitled to act in particular ways which stem from that.  Thus, when I tell them "stop being noisy little shits, it's midnight on a Wednesday", they feel that I'm infringing on their right to behave in such a way.

And then I have to sit them down for The Talk.

Obviously, this is less in the political and more in the social sphere, but the two do interact, and one who feels entitled socially will quite likely also feel so in a political context.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 06:02:42 PM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 06:00:05 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 05:48:58 PM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 05:45:21 PM
I also think that there are certain factors, like age, which work differently depending on your economic class. A rich old person has more power (slightly distinct from privilege) than a rich young person, but a poor old person has less power than a poor young person, especially if they are also female.

I covered that in part 2, but I was speaking from Arizona, where things are slightly different on a cultural level.

I do agree that culture affects the entitlements of aging quite a lot.

Yeah, here it's the White retired crowd that carries the most punch, both economically and at the voting booth.

Right... my point was that age works differently at different economic levels. You're white and wealthy, age gets you more clout. You're poor and brown and age gets you even more fucked over because people aren't even afraid of you anymore. You're an old White man, people will probably listen to you. You're an old Hispanic lady, they might let you clean their toilets.

Government is a tool for oppression in this instance.  It is wielded by those with the highest levels of privilege, with the support of the classes directly beneath them.  As such, it falls under oppression and does not require additional descriptions for the purposes of this discussion.

Now I need some time to get back in the frame of mind to continue.

I'm trying to comprehend what's being seen as divergent here. I'm not trying to go off-topic. Give me a break here, would you please?

Okay, attempt to post this shows that Cain responded. His last line sort of hits where I'm trying to go in a sense.

The majority of the first page, and Cain's response on this page, is awesome, and needs to be tattooed on Sherriff Joe's ass.

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 06:10:45 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 06:02:42 PM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 06:00:05 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 05:48:58 PM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 05:45:21 PM
I also think that there are certain factors, like age, which work differently depending on your economic class. A rich old person has more power (slightly distinct from privilege) than a rich young person, but a poor old person has less power than a poor young person, especially if they are also female.

I covered that in part 2, but I was speaking from Arizona, where things are slightly different on a cultural level.

I do agree that culture affects the entitlements of aging quite a lot.

Yeah, here it's the White retired crowd that carries the most punch, both economically and at the voting booth.

Right... my point was that age works differently at different economic levels. You're white and wealthy, age gets you more clout. You're poor and brown and age gets you even more fucked over because people aren't even afraid of you anymore. You're an old White man, people will probably listen to you. You're an old Hispanic lady, they might let you clean their toilets.

Sure.  That's why I put age at the very bottom of the catagories.  The catagories are, as demonstrated, cumulative.  A poor old female has far less clout than a poor young female.  Likewise, a rich Hispanic person has more clout than a poor White person.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 06:11:02 PM
Government is a tool for oppression in this instance.  It is wielded by those with the highest levels of privilege, with the support of the classes directly beneath them.  As such, it falls under oppression and does not require additional descriptions for the purposes of this discussion.

Now I need some time to get back in the frame of mind to continue.

Okay.

Quote from: Cain on April 08, 2013, 06:09:27 PM
As I'm sure you can imagine, I spend a lot of my days having to deal with the relationship between 1. and 2. in the OP.

Obviously, based on what you've said in the past, although I might add that the two are not separate things, for the most part.  Privilege is what one HAS, and entitlement is how they perceive what they have with respect to their place in the pecking order.

Nav, why don't you let Rog finish posting everything he's trying to explain first, and then you can try opening up the conversation.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 06:13:28 PM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 06:10:45 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 06:02:42 PM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 06:00:05 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 05:48:58 PM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 05:45:21 PM
I also think that there are certain factors, like age, which work differently depending on your economic class. A rich old person has more power (slightly distinct from privilege) than a rich young person, but a poor old person has less power than a poor young person, especially if they are also female.

I covered that in part 2, but I was speaking from Arizona, where things are slightly different on a cultural level.

I do agree that culture affects the entitlements of aging quite a lot.

Yeah, here it's the White retired crowd that carries the most punch, both economically and at the voting booth.

Right... my point was that age works differently at different economic levels. You're white and wealthy, age gets you more clout. You're poor and brown and age gets you even more fucked over because people aren't even afraid of you anymore. You're an old White man, people will probably listen to you. You're an old Hispanic lady, they might let you clean their toilets.

Sure.  That's why I put age at the very bottom of the catagories.  The catagories are, as demonstrated, cumulative.  A poor old female has far less clout than a poor young female.  Likewise, a rich Hispanic person has more clout than a poor White person.

I'm not trying to quibble about something that is actually not terribly important, but the distinction that I'm trying to make is that age works the opposite for poor colored people than it does for rich white people, in that rather than having the least power when you're young, you have the least power when you're old. So the most disempowered people, even in Arizona, are the ones who are poor, brown, trans, female, 65+, rather than poor, brown, trans, female, ~18.

If that makes sense.

Anyway, it's a minor distinction and I don't mean to detract from the thread, but rather to enhance it.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 08, 2013, 06:16:53 PM
Nav, why don't you let Rog finish posting everything he's trying to explain first, and then you can try opening up the conversation.

Yes. I didn't realize I was throwing shit on the track there.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 06:15:17 PM

Quote from: Cain on April 08, 2013, 06:09:27 PM
As I'm sure you can imagine, I spend a lot of my days having to deal with the relationship between 1. and 2. in the OP.

Obviously, based on what you've said in the past, although I might add that the two are not separate things, for the most part.  Privilege is what one HAS, and entitlement is how they perceive what they have with respect to their place in the pecking order.

Indeed.  All of my students are privileged, but not all of them are entitled as a result.

In fact, my students provide a pretty useful case study.  In a situation of generally high levels of economic privilege, what matters most is not race, or gender, or religion or even sexual orientation between the students in determining the pecking order...it's the exact magnitude of economic privilege they have in comparison to other students.

I notice you put class as the top consideration in your second post on this thread, so I like to think of this as a level of confirmation and supporting evidence.

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 06:18:16 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 06:13:28 PM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 06:10:45 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 06:02:42 PM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 06:00:05 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 05:48:58 PM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 05:45:21 PM
I also think that there are certain factors, like age, which work differently depending on your economic class. A rich old person has more power (slightly distinct from privilege) than a rich young person, but a poor old person has less power than a poor young person, especially if they are also female.

I covered that in part 2, but I was speaking from Arizona, where things are slightly different on a cultural level.

I do agree that culture affects the entitlements of aging quite a lot.

Yeah, here it's the White retired crowd that carries the most punch, both economically and at the voting booth.

Right... my point was that age works differently at different economic levels. You're white and wealthy, age gets you more clout. You're poor and brown and age gets you even more fucked over because people aren't even afraid of you anymore. You're an old White man, people will probably listen to you. You're an old Hispanic lady, they might let you clean their toilets.

Sure.  That's why I put age at the very bottom of the catagories.  The catagories are, as demonstrated, cumulative.  A poor old female has far less clout than a poor young female.  Likewise, a rich Hispanic person has more clout than a poor White person.

I'm not trying to quibble about something that is actually not terribly important, but the distinction that I'm trying to make is that age works the opposite for poor colored people than it does for rich white people, in that rather than having the least power when you're young, you have the least power when you're old. So the most disempowered people, even in Arizona, are the ones who are poor, brown, trans, female, 65+, rather than poor, brown, trans, female, ~18.

If that makes sense.

Anyway, it's a minor distinction and I don't mean to detract from the thread, but rather to enhance it.

I'd actually argue that.  Here, an old poor Hispanic is seen as irrelevant and invisible.  A poor young Hispanic is automatically assumed to be a criminal until proven otherwise.  This isn't hyperbole, it's a matter of public record and legislation.

Quote from: Cain on April 08, 2013, 06:21:16 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 06:15:17 PM

Quote from: Cain on April 08, 2013, 06:09:27 PM
As I'm sure you can imagine, I spend a lot of my days having to deal with the relationship between 1. and 2. in the OP.

Obviously, based on what you've said in the past, although I might add that the two are not separate things, for the most part.  Privilege is what one HAS, and entitlement is how they perceive what they have with respect to their place in the pecking order.

Indeed.  All of my students are privileged, but not all of them are entitled as a result.

In fact, my students provide a pretty useful case study.  In a situation of generally high levels of economic privilege, what matters most is not race, or gender, or religion or even sexual orientation between the students in determining the pecking order...it's the exact magnitude of economic privilege they have in comparison to other students.

I notice you put class as the top consideration in your second post on this thread, so I like to think of this as a level of confirmation and supporting evidence.

Sure.

Although "entitlement" is automatic.  What some of your more civilized students may have is a perception of their privilege as being luck of birth, etc.  This would imply a high level of privilege, with a low level of entitlement.  I am unsure that it is possible to have NO sense of entitlement, though it IS possible to have a "negative" sense of entitlement...IE, the person on the bottom who knows he or she is on the bottom, and perceives no chance whatsoever of remedying that.  Which may very well be accurate.

Yeah, that's true.

I'm being sloppy with my thoughts today.  Lack of sleep and all.

In Phoenix, there is what I call The Terrified White People Party.  It is composed mostly - but not entirely - of conservatives.   The agenda for this party is simple:  White people must remain on top of the heap, and any means to do so are acceptable.

This explains why a crooked old Nazi like Sheriff Joe Arpiao gets elected over and over again.  He is a tool by which the White population of Maricopa County keeps the Hispanics and Blacks in line.  He and Russel Pearson pushed SB1072, for example, which was basically a means by which to criminalize the act of having brown skin.

Never mind that Sheriff Joe is a strutting hack whose eyes roll back into his head when anyone mentions "Truth", "Justice", or even "Who profits from the jail concessions?"...The fact is, he does what he was hired to do, which is to bring a 1950s Birmingham, Alabama police force into being for the purpose of maintaining White privilege.

The reason this has become so popular recently is simple:  The growth rate of the Hispanic sector of the population is twice that of the White sector.  10 years ago, Arizona was one of the reddest of the red states, and now it is sort of a light pink, as more and more Hispanics arrive at the polling stations.  Hispanics are just as smart and observant as anyone else; they can see the abuses and misuse of power directed against them, and they won't be voting tea party any time soon.

This is a direct threat to the power base of the White sector, particularly the retired sector, most of whom are "transplants" from areas with fewer minorities...And most of whom view Hispanics and Blacks as congenitally criminal folks who can't be trusted.  On top of that, the idea that minorities might outnumber Whites means the most terrifying thing of all:  The Whites might not be "first in line" anymore, and may actually have to wait until an Hispanic's needs are met before theirs are addressed.

This is the fear reaction that drives the insane legislation we have down here.  In fact, I'd hazard a guess that a good chunk of the legislation aimed at reducing reproductive rights in women is an attempt to bolster birth numbers among Whites (while having the added advantage of telling women what for).  But not all of it...those pieces of legislation are also aimed at an even more general idea, that of returning to a mythical golden age 1950s in which women stayed at home, dad went off to work, and Those People stayed on their own end of town, to get into the sort of trouble that White people don't get into if they don't allow mixing.

Needless to say, that era never actually happened.  The 1950s were, once you strip the nostalgia away, the most conformist years in our history, but also had the highest levels of teenage pregnancy, juvenile delinquency, and drug abuse (pharmaceutical as well as illegal) since we started tracking that sort of thing.

The Terrified White People Party doesn't care.  They want that conformity, they want their privileges enshrined in actual law, but most of all, they want to tell those liberals a thing or two...So they pass insane laws that are designed to piss liberals off, without considering any other consequences of those laws (liberals being defined as "people who think privilege can be a bad thing, sometimes").  It's legislation via AM radio, and it's led to the state going both bankrupt and fundamentally insane.

I am liking this a ton. Privilege is something that obviously got talked about a lot when I was dealing with Occupy people, and it's an uncomfortable thing to stare in the face of. When discussion opens up a bit, I'd love to get into how entitlement and privilege play into guilt and shame, but I don't want to derail.

Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on April 08, 2013, 06:53:22 PM
I am liking this a ton. Privilege is something that obviously got talked about a lot when I was dealing with Occupy people, and it's an uncomfortable thing to stare in the face of. When discussion opens up a bit, I'd love to get into how entitlement and privilege play into guilt and shame, but I don't want to derail.

My experience with the Occupy folks is that "privilege" was defined as "behavior we don't like", and was used as a mallet to smash square pegs into round holes.

And go ahead.  The topic is Entitlement and Privilege, and the floor is open (but please, please, stay on topic, folks!  See OP Notes for details).

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 06:56:22 PM

Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on April 08, 2013, 06:53:22 PM
I am liking this a ton. Privilege is something that obviously got talked about a lot when I was dealing with Occupy people, and it's an uncomfortable thing to stare in the face of. When discussion opens up a bit, I'd love to get into how entitlement and privilege play into guilt and shame, but I don't want to derail.

My experience with the Occupy folks is that "privilege" was defined as "behavior we don't like", and was used as a mallet to smash square pegs into round holes.

And go ahead.  The topic is Entitlement and Privilege, and the floor is open (but please, please, stay on topic, folks!  See OP Notes for details).

Gotta go pick up the munchkins, I'll get my thoughts in order on the walk.

Rodger, Parts 1-4 are most excellent. Thanks.

Cain, I am a grown man and fear the idea of you giving me "The talk". Are they ever the same?

Thanks for this. A big light that should have already been on came on here:

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 06:46:16 PMIn fact, I'd hazard a guess that a good chunk of the legislation aimed at reducing reproductive rights in women is an attempt to bolster birth numbers among Whites

This is great stuff, thank you.  I keep thinking I have something to add, but it is always off topic enough not to be worth adding so simply, thank you.

Quote from: Pergamos on April 08, 2013, 09:47:29 PM
This is great stuff, thank you.  I keep thinking I have something to add, but it is always off topic enough not to be worth adding so simply, thank you.

Well, considering I wrote it for Von DEC14, and he didn't even bother with it, I'm glad someone got something out of it.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:49:34 PM

Quote from: Pergamos on April 08, 2013, 09:47:29 PM
This is great stuff, thank you.  I keep thinking I have something to add, but it is always off topic enough not to be worth adding so simply, thank you.

Well, considering I wrote it for Von DEC14, and he didn't even bother with it, I'm glad someone got something out of it.

I'm pretty clearly not the only one.  It's nice when trolls inspire good stuff.  Sort of the opposite of the intended mission I think.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:49:34 PM

Quote from: Pergamos on April 08, 2013, 09:47:29 PM
This is great stuff, thank you.  I keep thinking I have something to add, but it is always off topic enough not to be worth adding so simply, thank you.

Well, considering I wrote it for Von DEC14, and he didn't even bother with it, I'm glad someone got something out of it.

reading it now...I feel like a bad, whiny child...

Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 10:00:43 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:49:34 PM

Quote from: Pergamos on April 08, 2013, 09:47:29 PM
This is great stuff, thank you.  I keep thinking I have something to add, but it is always off topic enough not to be worth adding so simply, thank you.

Well, considering I wrote it for Von DEC14, and he didn't even bother with it, I'm glad someone got something out of it.

reading it now...I feel like a bad, whiny child...

Nice try.  You shot your wad.  You'll need to start over with a new account or something if you want any more mileage out this business.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:01:31 PM

Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 10:00:43 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:49:34 PM

Quote from: Pergamos on April 08, 2013, 09:47:29 PM
This is great stuff, thank you.  I keep thinking I have something to add, but it is always off topic enough not to be worth adding so simply, thank you.

Well, considering I wrote it for Von DEC14, and he didn't even bother with it, I'm glad someone got something out of it.

reading it now...I feel like a bad, whiny child...

Nice try.  You shot your wad.  You'll need to start over with a new account or something if you want any more mileage out this business.

huh, ok...mabey I will start making sock puppets and trolling the board incessantly with illogical rants and teabaggerism. Perhaps I'll even eat sleep and shit this dec14 persona just to piss on you.


meh, why should I even let my jimmies get so rustled...going back to 4chan now...

Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 10:04:24 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:01:31 PM

Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 10:00:43 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:49:34 PM

Quote from: Pergamos on April 08, 2013, 09:47:29 PM
This is great stuff, thank you.  I keep thinking I have something to add, but it is always off topic enough not to be worth adding so simply, thank you.

Well, considering I wrote it for Von DEC14, and he didn't even bother with it, I'm glad someone got something out of it.

reading it now...I feel like a bad, whiny child...

Nice try.  You shot your wad.  You'll need to start over with a new account or something if you want any more mileage out this business.

huh, ok...mabey I will start making sock puppets and trolling the board incessantly with illogical rants and teabaggerism. Perhaps I'll even eat sleep and shit this dec14 persona just to piss on you.

Meh.  Don't care.  You've kind of gone from "interesting person to talk to", to "One of Fang's arse-leeches."

So do whatever you want. 

I thought Cainad vouched for this guy.

Or  :?

Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 10:05:53 PM
I thought Cainad vouched for this guy.

Or  :?

I got vouched for, but then shit on that by making an ass of myself.

Roger's justified in his reactions, and anyone who said nice things about me would be equally justified in taking his opinion

Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 10:05:53 PM
I thought Cainad vouched for this guy.

Or  :?

No, Cainad wanted us to take the time to see if he was on the level.

:lulz:

OPTIMISM UBER ALLES!

Of course he wasn't on the fucking level.  But after all the typing that went into this thread, nobody can say I didn't make an honest effort.

Now I'm just going to go back to my old ways, noob-huffing and all.

I wasn't huffed when I was a noob. Not by you.

Challenged a bunch, trolled, but huffed?

I'm assuming that means you get high off of inhaling noobs. AMIRITE?

Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 10:20:28 PM
I wasn't huffed when I was a noob. Not by you.

Challenged a bunch, trolled, but huffed?

I'm assuming that means you get high off of inhaling noobs. AMIRITE?

It is a filthy and immoral vice, to which I am ENSLAVED.   Lost weekends, the whole thing.

Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 10:04:24 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:01:31 PM

Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 10:00:43 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:49:34 PM

Quote from: Pergamos on April 08, 2013, 09:47:29 PM
This is great stuff, thank you.  I keep thinking I have something to add, but it is always off topic enough not to be worth adding so simply, thank you.

Well, considering I wrote it for Von DEC14, and he didn't even bother with it, I'm glad someone got something out of it.

reading it now...I feel like a bad, whiny child...

Nice try.  You shot your wad.  You'll need to start over with a new account or something if you want any more mileage out this business.

huh, ok...mabey I will start making sock puppets and trolling the board incessantly with illogical rants and teabaggerism. Perhaps I'll even eat sleep and shit this dec14 persona just to piss on you.


meh, why should I even let my jimmies get so rustled...going back to 4chan now...

Have fun.  Stop back by in 5-6 years and let us know how your philosophy has served you.

I have utterly failed to get my thoughts in order. Zen baking may be necessary.

Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on April 08, 2013, 10:28:44 PM
I have utterly failed to get my thoughts in order. Zen baking may be necessary.

Roger's Rule:  Shut up and type.

Doesn't work for everyone.  Works for me.  There's a trick to it, though.  You have to type what you want to say, and then - this is the important bit - you have to bludgeon the self-loathing monkey in your head into a coma and hit the POST button.

My thoughts are never in order.  That sort of thing always ends badly.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:32:03 PM

Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on April 08, 2013, 10:28:44 PM
I have utterly failed to get my thoughts in order. Zen baking may be necessary.

Roger's Rule:  Shut up and type.

Doesn't work for everyone.  Works for me.  There's a trick to it, though.  You have to type what you want to say, and then - this is the important bit - you have to bludgeon the self-loathing monkey in your head into a coma and hit the POST button.

My thoughts are never in order.  That sort of thing always ends badly.

I'm pretty sure your thoughts being in order would rend a hole in something.

Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on April 08, 2013, 10:35:13 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:32:03 PM

Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on April 08, 2013, 10:28:44 PM
I have utterly failed to get my thoughts in order. Zen baking may be necessary.

Roger's Rule:  Shut up and type.

Doesn't work for everyone.  Works for me.  There's a trick to it, though.  You have to type what you want to say, and then - this is the important bit - you have to bludgeon the self-loathing monkey in your head into a coma and hit the POST button.

My thoughts are never in order.  That sort of thing always ends badly.

I'm pretty sure your thoughts being in order would rend a hole in something.

I have made a living out of last minute insanity.  This job doesn't help...It does not reward careful planning.

Come to think of it, ALL of my jobs have been adrenaline junkie material.

In any case, you just shove your head in, and see what happens.

Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 10:05:53 PM
I thought Cainad vouched for this guy.

Or  :?

Ouch. "Vouch" is a strong word. :lulz:

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:07:46 PM
No, Cainad wanted us to take the time to see if he was on the level.

:lulz:

OPTIMISM UBER ALLES!

Of course he wasn't on the fucking level.  But after all the typing that went into this thread, nobody can say I didn't make an honest effort.

Now I'm just going to go back to my old ways, noob-huffing and all.

And this is why Roger will always be a Holier^TM Man than I, no matter how much vindaloo I eat. :sad:

Quote from: Cainad on April 09, 2013, 01:40:47 AM

Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 10:05:53 PM
I thought Cainad vouched for this guy.

Or  :?

Ouch. "Vouch" is a strong word. :lulz:

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:07:46 PM
No, Cainad wanted us to take the time to see if he was on the level.

:lulz:

OPTIMISM UBER ALLES!

Of course he wasn't on the fucking level.  But after all the typing that went into this thread, nobody can say I didn't make an honest effort.

Now I'm just going to go back to my old ways, noob-huffing and all.

And this is why Roger will always be a Holier^TM Man than I, no matter how much vindaloo I eat. :sad:

Vindaloo doesn't make Holiness™.  It does, however, make Holiness™ better.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:22:21 PM

Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 10:20:28 PM
I wasn't huffed when I was a noob. Not by you.

Challenged a bunch, trolled, but huffed?

I'm assuming that means you get high off of inhaling noobs. AMIRITE?

It is a filthy and immoral vice, to which I am ENSLAVED.   Lost weekends, the whole thing.

[INTERNAL DIALOGUE] "I gotta stop waking up in strange places like this; hungover and sore, a pile of used noobs all over..."

Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 09, 2013, 02:42:59 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:22:21 PM

Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 10:20:28 PM
I wasn't huffed when I was a noob. Not by you.

Challenged a bunch, trolled, but huffed?

I'm assuming that means you get high off of inhaling noobs. AMIRITE?

It is a filthy and immoral vice, to which I am ENSLAVED.   Lost weekends, the whole thing.

[INTERNAL DIALOGUE] "I gotta stop waking up in strange places like this; hungover and sore, a pile of used noobs all over..."

The image in your sig SCREAMS "emote".

Perhaps itsokay or maybe modernamerican?

Fuck yeah, it's okay!

*flattered*

:lambs:

:lambs:

Awesome. :)

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 06:22:47 PM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 06:18:16 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 06:13:28 PM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 06:10:45 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 06:02:42 PM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 06:00:05 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 05:48:58 PM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 05:45:21 PM
I also think that there are certain factors, like age, which work differently depending on your economic class. A rich old person has more power (slightly distinct from privilege) than a rich young person, but a poor old person has less power than a poor young person, especially if they are also female.

I covered that in part 2, but I was speaking from Arizona, where things are slightly different on a cultural level.

I do agree that culture affects the entitlements of aging quite a lot.

Yeah, here it's the White retired crowd that carries the most punch, both economically and at the voting booth.

Right... my point was that age works differently at different economic levels. You're white and wealthy, age gets you more clout. You're poor and brown and age gets you even more fucked over because people aren't even afraid of you anymore. You're an old White man, people will probably listen to you. You're an old Hispanic lady, they might let you clean their toilets.

Sure.  That's why I put age at the very bottom of the catagories.  The catagories are, as demonstrated, cumulative.  A poor old female has far less clout than a poor young female.  Likewise, a rich Hispanic person has more clout than a poor White person.

I'm not trying to quibble about something that is actually not terribly important, but the distinction that I'm trying to make is that age works the opposite for poor colored people than it does for rich white people, in that rather than having the least power when you're young, you have the least power when you're old. So the most disempowered people, even in Arizona, are the ones who are poor, brown, trans, female, 65+, rather than poor, brown, trans, female, ~18.

If that makes sense.

Anyway, it's a minor distinction and I don't mean to detract from the thread, but rather to enhance it.

I'd actually argue that.  Here, an old poor Hispanic is seen as irrelevant and invisible.  A poor young Hispanic is automatically assumed to be a criminal until proven otherwise.  This isn't hyperbole, it's a matter of public record and legislation.

The very fact that they are seen as a threat, rather than being invisible, is a measure of power. If they were perceived to have NO social power they could not be a threat. To have no social power is to be invisible. "Invisible" is, in fact, one of the words commonly used to describe total disempowerment. Who is more invisible; a young Hispanic male or an elderly Hispanic woman? After a point, the elderly poor lose influence even within their own communities, as their children and grandchildren start making decisions for them.

The elderly rich gain power with age. The elderly poor lose it.

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 04:00:25 PM

The very fact that they are seen as a threat, rather than being invisible, is a measure of power.

Excellent point.  I hadn't considered that.

Quote
If they were perceived to have NO social power they could not be a threat. To have no social power is to be invisible. "Invisible" is, in fact, one of the words commonly used to describe total disempowerment. Who is more invisible; a young Hispanic male or an elderly Hispanic woman? After a point, the elderly poor lose influence even within their own communities, as their children and grandchildren start making decisions for them.

The elderly rich gain power with age. The elderly poor lose it.

Point conceded.

One thing that reading your last installment brings to mind is the way threatened white people always bring up the fact that Hispanics have large families. They're scared shitless of being overrun by brown-skinned people. They really ARE terrified that brown people will out-breed them, and they seem peculiarly unaware that A. those kids are all Americans, and other than being brown won't be noticeably different from any other American kids, and B. that is only true of the immigrant generation; subsequent generations, being Americans, tend to have the same small family sizes other Americans do.

The hilarious thing is that they stand right in front of me and say this shit to my face. TO MY FACE. Like they failed to notice that I'm brown.

QuoteThe elderly rich gain power with age. The elderly poor lose it.

This. A lot this.

Rich elderly are also a lot more prone to crazy. See the various will, whims and fucking insanity of far too many to list.

Elderly
Rich
Not a scumbag

Pick 2 seems to be the general rule of thumb.

I had been thinking in terms of consequences, and had been focusing primarily on the state's ability and willingness to punish people based on "because we can".

It occurs to me that the invisible people live on sufferance.  They are okay as long as they are invisible.  That's even worse than being visibly regarded as a threat, now that I think of it.  The young can at least say, "I'm fucked anyway", the elderly say "Keep my head down.  Don't make waves."

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 04:08:40 PM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 04:00:25 PM

The very fact that they are seen as a threat, rather than being invisible, is a measure of power.

Excellent point.  I hadn't considered that.

Quote
If they were perceived to have NO social power they could not be a threat. To have no social power is to be invisible. "Invisible" is, in fact, one of the words commonly used to describe total disempowerment. Who is more invisible; a young Hispanic male or an elderly Hispanic woman? After a point, the elderly poor lose influence even within their own communities, as their children and grandchildren start making decisions for them.

The elderly rich gain power with age. The elderly poor lose it.

Point conceded.

:)

HEY VON FUCKFACE, SEE THIS? MAKE NOTE. THIS IS WHAT "BEING A BIPED" LOOKS LIKE.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 04:11:19 PM
I had been thinking in terms of consequences, and had been focusing primarily on the state's ability and willingness to punish people based on "because we can".

It occurs to me that the invisible people live on sufferance.  They are okay as long as they are invisible.  That's even worse than being visibly regarded as a threat, now that I think of it.  The young can at least say, "I'm fucked anyway", the elderly say "Keep my head down.  Don't make waves."

Yeah, it's really sad. The elderly non-english-speakers are particularly fucked.

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 04:10:03 PM
One thing that reading your last installment brings to mind is the way threatened white people always bring up the fact that Hispanics have large families. They're scared shitless of being overrun by brown-skinned people. They really ARE terrified that brown people will out-breed them, and they seem peculiarly unaware that A. those kids are all Americans, and other than being brown won't be noticeably different from any other American kids, and B. that is only true of the immigrant generation; subsequent generations, being Americans, tend to have the same small family sizes other Americans do.

The hilarious thing is that they stand right in front of me and say this shit to my face. TO MY FACE. Like they failed to notice that I'm brown.

That's not a reflection on your personality, Nigel, or your appearance.  It's that your mannerisms don't project an impression of being oppressed.  You're direct, you look people in the eye, and you don't give the impression of being one who will take a lot of shit.

So they turn you white in their heads, because you don't look like an easy target.  And that's what they're after, just like any mindless mob of bullies.

But yes, they are TERRIFIED of being "overrun", and the points you bring up would never occur to them, nor would they listen to them.  It would go something like this:

Nigel:  "Kids are kids.  Hispanic kids are no different than white kids."

Po'bucker:  "Yes, but...<insert truism and/or You Know How Those People Can Be."

What you said would vanish into their empty heads, and they'd simply use your statement as an opening to rationalize their fear to you and to themselves.

Remember the conversation I told you about with Jacob?

Jacob:  "Have they (Hispanics) ever broken into your house?"

Me: "What, all at once?"

To Jacob, it WAS all at once.  Because to him, it is perfectly acceptable to blame the entire Hispanic population for burglary, despite the fact that you are more likely - in this city - to be burglarized by whites.

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 04:10:03 PM
One thing that reading your last installment brings to mind is the way threatened white people always bring up the fact that Hispanics have large families. They're scared shitless of being overrun by brown-skinned people. They really ARE terrified that brown people will out-breed them, and they seem peculiarly unaware that A. those kids are all Americans, and other than being brown won't be noticeably different from any other American kids, and B. that is only true of the immigrant generation; subsequent generations, being Americans, tend to have the same small family sizes other Americans do.

The hilarious thing is that they stand right in front of me and say this shit to my face. TO MY FACE. Like they failed to notice that I'm brown.

This seems fairly universal. There was a bit of shitstorm here regarding the immigrant population of London, changing demographics and whatnot. The statements were generally along the lines of "You don't see as many white faces anymore- Taking out jobs". I interpret this to "Change scares me and so I shall blame it". There is an unfortunate tendency for some here to view any non white as non-british (English particularly) regardless of how long they've been part of this culture.

My suspicion is there will always be racist tools. The only good solution I can think of currently is Ronsealing them.

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 04:11:58 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 04:08:40 PM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 04:00:25 PM

The very fact that they are seen as a threat, rather than being invisible, is a measure of power.

Excellent point.  I hadn't considered that.

Quote
If they were perceived to have NO social power they could not be a threat. To have no social power is to be invisible. "Invisible" is, in fact, one of the words commonly used to describe total disempowerment. Who is more invisible; a young Hispanic male or an elderly Hispanic woman? After a point, the elderly poor lose influence even within their own communities, as their children and grandchildren start making decisions for them.

The elderly rich gain power with age. The elderly poor lose it.

Point conceded.

:)

HEY VON FUCKFACE, SEE THIS? MAKE NOTE. THIS IS WHAT "BEING A BIPED" LOOKS LIKE.

I have been carefully documenting my physiological responses to having conceded an error.

So far, the Nigeling effects seem to be:

No shortness of breath.
No red haze in front of my eyes.
My ass has not, contrary to expectations, fallen off.
My penis has not shriveled up and vanished.

Social aspects:

I haven't been beaten up by any girl scouts, old ladies, or Richard Simmons fans.
My wife hasn't called me a 90 LB weakling. 
Biff did not kick sand in my face.
Charles Atlas isn't getting any of my money.

(Because, kids, your girl's love for you is dependent on your ability to act like a baboon at the beach.)

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 04:18:40 PM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 04:10:03 PM
One thing that reading your last installment brings to mind is the way threatened white people always bring up the fact that Hispanics have large families. They're scared shitless of being overrun by brown-skinned people. They really ARE terrified that brown people will out-breed them, and they seem peculiarly unaware that A. those kids are all Americans, and other than being brown won't be noticeably different from any other American kids, and B. that is only true of the immigrant generation; subsequent generations, being Americans, tend to have the same small family sizes other Americans do.

The hilarious thing is that they stand right in front of me and say this shit to my face. TO MY FACE. Like they failed to notice that I'm brown.

That's not a reflection on your personality, Nigel, or your appearance.  It's that your mannerisms don't project an impression of being oppressed.  You're direct, you look people in the eye, and you don't give the impression of being one who will take a lot of shit.

So they turn you white in their heads, because you don't look like an easy target.  And that's what they're after, just like any mindless mob of bullies.

But yes, they are TERRIFIED of being "overrun", and the points you bring up would never occur to them, nor would they listen to them.  It would go something like this:

Nigel:  "Kids are kids.  Hispanic kids are no different than white kids."

Po'bucker:  "Yes, but...<insert truism and/or You Know How Those People Can Be."

What you said would vanish into their empty heads, and they'd simply use your statement as an opening to rationalize their fear to you and to themselves.

Remember the conversation I told you about with Jacob?

Jacob:  "Have they (Hispanics) ever broken into your house?"

Me: "What, all at once?"

To Jacob, it WAS all at once.  Because to him, it is perfectly acceptable to blame the entire Hispanic population for burglary, despite the fact that you are more likely - in this city - to be burglarized by whites.

My car was burglarized this weekend in New Orleans while I was inside at a wedding. I was gone for less than two hours.

It was in the Marigny. Smashed my window on the driver's REAR and grabbed stuff on the passenger FRONT. Given the area, the circumstances, the shit they took (Asus tablet and keyboard dock, near-empty wallet, near-empty bag and a bag of toiletries with my glasses and a watch inside)  and what they left (GPS, some cash in the side pocket, an iPod, car stereo), I just get the feeeling it was one of those crustwave whites. While I was standing at the corner of Decatur and Elysian Fields, as people passed me by, I caught myself suspiciously scrutinizing the scraggy, drunken whites, not other races.

The tablet was covered up by my hi-vis EMS raincoat. I'd taken all the cash and cards out of my wallet already and threw the mostly empty thing on top without thinking about it.

I just feel like a black person would feel less bold, especially in the Marigny, about taking the time to go through all my shit to get the best stuff and leave the rest. Someone sat in that back seat with the door closed, pulled my EMS jacket off the front seat and exited the car with the best stuff. This wasn't just a desperate act to grab a quick crack rock. If they'd wanted that, they'd have smashed the driver's window and grabbed the GPS and the wallet, then ran. No, this was self-indulgence. Possibly someone who watched me go into the gallery. Someone comfortable hanging out there for a minute. I have a concealed carry permit. I'm lucky my firearm wasn't in the car because I'm sure they looked (it's legal to keep one in your car in Louisiana so it's exceedingly common).

What does that say about me? Is this a rational set of reasons behind my "gut" instinct or is it borne of some kind of bias?

I bring it up because it's relevant to explore whether certain kinds of racial bias themselves are borne of a character flaw or simple misinformation.

I'm sure there is at least an element of bias in my initial feeling but I'm dealing with a lot more information about the area and circumstances than someone who hasn't spent time there or hasn't been through it. But I still chided myself for my preconceived notions: it's still a race-based assumption.

What do you think of that?

Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 09, 2013, 10:00:50 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 04:18:40 PM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 04:10:03 PM
One thing that reading your last installment brings to mind is the way threatened white people always bring up the fact that Hispanics have large families. They're scared shitless of being overrun by brown-skinned people. They really ARE terrified that brown people will out-breed them, and they seem peculiarly unaware that A. those kids are all Americans, and other than being brown won't be noticeably different from any other American kids, and B. that is only true of the immigrant generation; subsequent generations, being Americans, tend to have the same small family sizes other Americans do.

The hilarious thing is that they stand right in front of me and say this shit to my face. TO MY FACE. Like they failed to notice that I'm brown.

That's not a reflection on your personality, Nigel, or your appearance.  It's that your mannerisms don't project an impression of being oppressed.  You're direct, you look people in the eye, and you don't give the impression of being one who will take a lot of shit.

So they turn you white in their heads, because you don't look like an easy target.  And that's what they're after, just like any mindless mob of bullies.

But yes, they are TERRIFIED of being "overrun", and the points you bring up would never occur to them, nor would they listen to them.  It would go something like this:

Nigel:  "Kids are kids.  Hispanic kids are no different than white kids."

Po'bucker:  "Yes, but...<insert truism and/or You Know How Those People Can Be."

What you said would vanish into their empty heads, and they'd simply use your statement as an opening to rationalize their fear to you and to themselves.

Remember the conversation I told you about with Jacob?

Jacob:  "Have they (Hispanics) ever broken into your house?"

Me: "What, all at once?"

To Jacob, it WAS all at once.  Because to him, it is perfectly acceptable to blame the entire Hispanic population for burglary, despite the fact that you are more likely - in this city - to be burglarized by whites.

My car was burglarized this weekend in New Orleans while I was inside at a wedding. I was gone for less than two hours.

It was in the Marigny. Smashed my window on the driver's REAR and grabbed stuff on the passenger FRONT. Given the area, the circumstances, the shit they took (Asus tablet and keyboard dock, near-empty wallet, near-empty bag and a bag of toiletries with my glasses and a watch inside)  and what they left (GPS, some cash in the side pocket, an iPod, car stereo), I just get the feeeling it was one of those crustwave whites. While I was standing at the corner of Decatur and Elysian Fields, as people passed me by, I caught myself suspiciously scrutinizing the scraggy, drunken whites, not other races.

The tablet was covered up by my hi-vis EMS raincoat. I'd taken all the cash and cards out of my wallet already and threw the mostly empty thing on top without thinking about it.

I just feel like a black person would feel less bold, especially in the Marigny, about taking the time to go through all my shit to get the best stuff and leave the rest. Someone sat in that back seat with the door closed, pulled my EMS jacket off the front seat and exited the car with the best stuff. This wasn't just a desperate act to grab a quick crack rock. If they'd wanted that, they'd have smashed the driver's window and grabbed the GPS and the wallet, then ran. No, this was self-indulgence. Possibly someone who watched me go into the gallery. Someone comfortable hanging out there for a minute. I have a concealed carry permit. I'm lucky my firearm wasn't in the car because I'm sure they looked (it's legal to keep one in your car in Louisiana so it's exceedingly common).

What does that say about me? Is this a rational set of reasons behind my "gut" instinct or is it borne of some kind of bias?

I bring it up because it's relevant to explore whether certain kinds of racial bias themselves are borne of a character flaw or simple misinformation.

I'm sure there is at least an element of bias in my initial feeling but I'm dealing with a lot more information about the area and circumstances than someone who hasn't spent time there or hasn't been through it. But I still chided myself for my preconceived notions: it's still a race-based assumption.

What do you think of that?

I think you were assuming facts not in evidence.

Also, there is no reason a black person would be more or less competent at crime, or even more or less worried about the consequences of being caught.

Criminals in general are dumb, and dumb crosses every boundary.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 10:11:05 PM


I think you were assuming facts not in evidence.

Also, there is no reason a black person would be more or less competent at crime, or even more or less worried about the consequences of being caught.

Criminals in general are dumb, and dumb crosses every boundary.

I don't think that's where my mind went. At least I hope not. I think it was more or less that there's a strong police presence there and fewer blacks "hanging around" for fear of NOPD getting in their face. Not to say it doesn't happen but I see the exchanges between the police and white crust kids go down a lot differently than with blacks in the Marigny and in the FQ. The crusties get loud and indignant and are pretty damned obnoxious, even when they're caught doing something red-handed. They hang around the Spirit shop on Decatur drinking and busking and hogging the sidewalk.

My knee-jerk assumption was likely the product of that.

The other possibility is that I was targeted. Maybe it was someone who knew what to look for. I'm sure my Faulkner State parking decal was a big hint that there might be some cool gadgets in my car. The hot-pink steampunk goggles and the stethoscope slung over the rear-view mirror probably didn't hurt. I don't know.

One of my courses this semester is about race, ethnicity, and religion in US politics.  What bemuses me is that the exact some arguments are being made for the exact same reasons now as they were fifty or a hundred years ago.  For example, back in the early days of integration, a lot of scared white people backed the "Gray Plan."  Under the Gray Plan, local school boards that were ordered by the state to desegregate could choose to shut down instead.  The state would then pay tuition grants to all students so no one who didn't want to would be forced to integrate.  They called it "freedom of choice."*

The phrase comes up about thirteen times per week in the local paper.  The conservatives in power here want the state to issue tuition vouchers.  It seems to boil down to the same justification: keeping the "us" away from the "them."

*from Carl T. Bogus Buckley

Quote from: Jez on April 10, 2013, 03:29:47 AM
One of my courses this semester is about race, ethnicity, and religion in US politics.  What bemuses me is that the exact some arguments are being made for the exact same reasons now as they were fifty or a hundred years ago.  For example, back in the early days of integration, a lot of scared white people backed the "Gray Plan."  Under the Gray Plan, local school boards that were ordered by the state to desegregate could choose to shut down instead.  The state would then pay tuition grants to all students so no one who didn't want to would be forced to integrate.  They called it "freedom of choice."*

The phrase comes up about thirteen times per week in the local paper.  The conservatives in power here want the state to issue tuition vouchers.  It seems to boil down to the same justification: keeping the "us" away from the "them."

*from Carl T. Bogus Buckley

That is such an interesting observation! Thanks for mentioning it, I didn't know that.

Very interesting discussion. Here in Turkey there is a wide disparity of privilege, depending on the region. For example, educated women in the cities, or in Western (European) Turkey have about as much privilege as a man with equal education. However, in the southeast, particularly the tribal areas, men are far more privileged and women deal with treatment that is decades, centuries even, behind the rest of the country. In the Black Sea region, women and men have different sorts of privilege. Women tend to be the ones working and running things, while men tend to be more leisure, and not run much of anything.

In the village I live in, a man hit his wife. He was arrested, went to court and was fined almost a years wages, which if he doesn't pay will be replaced with 7 years of prison. This is normal in Western Turkey. In Southeastern Turkey, particularly the village areas, honor killings still happen. The government doesn't sanction them, and they are putting a lot of effort into ending the problem, but in that culture, its normal... they've even had to replace the local police with Westerners and put video cameras in all of the police stations.

Class and education, in the cities and in the west have far more privilege associated with them. A poor man with no education is in a much less privileged situation than an educated woman with a good job.

On the sexual identification side, its equally mixed. Bulant Ersoy is one of the most adored singers in the country, her musical knowledge is often compared to Pavarotti. She packs in the audience wherever she goes... she is transgender, she has been married to multiple men over the years and everyone accepts her. Gays find wide acceptance throughout Turkey as well, but there's not even a thought of gay marriage. Interestingly in a country that is mostly Muslim, a transgender person may have  more privilege than a man, based on education and wealth.

Brilliant topic, Roger!!

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51547238/ns/local_news-colorado_springs_co/

Oh ffs, there's stalls in women's bathrooms.  Why the hell would I care about penis status in one?

Quote from: Mome Papess Trivial on April 16, 2013, 01:52:32 AM
Oh ffs, there's stalls in women's bathrooms.  Why the hell would I care about penis status in one?

For the same reason hyper religious weirdos down the street yelled at my 7 year old sun for walking outside without a shirt on, and why my sister-in-law refuses to change a baby in the same room with anyone else. Because "Social Conservatism" is a silly euphemism for a chronic, progressive, degenerative disease of the mind that makes you obsessively contemplate inappropriate sexual behavior. These people's minds are dirtier than any back alley you've ever seen, and they must find a way to be loud and obnoxious about how EVERYTHING MUST BE "PROPER" AND "CLEAN" AT ALL TIMES. Classic overcompensation, really.

Not that there's anything improper or dirty about this transgendered woman, other than what the freaks in Idaho seem to think about her.

Quote from: V3X on April 16, 2013, 03:00:50 AM

Not that there's anything improper or dirty about this transgendered woman, other than what the freaks in Idaho seem to think about her.

Improper and dirty are in the mind of the obsessives.  I hadn't assumed you meant her.

I do like that the paper referred to the individual as a woman.

I want to contribute to this thread but I haven't really flushed out any idea...but i also want this thread to pop up in my recent topics.  So I'll just a thought that creeped in upon reading this thread.

With regard to the 'invisibles'-- they seem to not have any social/economic privilege because they're under the radar...but that idea alone might warrant some power...being the invisibles becomes being the 'unsuspecting.'  So it seems to me that having a certain degree of power doesn't necessarily mean more privilege.  I figure with enough ingenuity one could elevate one's power.

I don't mean to derail the thread but I was wondering how power fit into this dynamic.  I'll be happy to take this elsewhere if it's too off topic.

Quote..being the invisibles becomes being the 'unsuspecting.'  So it seems to me that having a certain degree of power doesn't necessarily mean more privilege.

Just wanted to touch on that, Invisible also means an easy scapegoat when things go bad. There's probably more than a couple of homeless guys in jail who have confessed to crimes they didn't do to up the police stats for that month.

I think you may be thinking of a situation where you choose to become invisible. I'd guess to get to that position you'd need a degree of power in society anyway.

Invisible to me just equates to lack of rights and marginalization: the homeless, the war-displaced, the illegal immigrants, all without documentation, and without documentation you do not exist for the State, thus having no elemental protections that everyone should have.

Quote from: Bu☆ns on April 16, 2013, 04:43:24 AM
I want to contribute to this thread but I haven't really flushed out any idea...but i also want this thread to pop up in my recent topics.  So I'll just a thought that creeped in upon reading this thread.

With regard to the 'invisibles'-- they seem to not have any social/economic privilege because they're under the radar...but that idea alone might warrant some power...being the invisibles becomes being the 'unsuspecting.'  So it seems to me that having a certain degree of power doesn't necessarily mean more privilege.  I figure with enough ingenuity one could elevate one's power.

I don't mean to derail the thread but I was wondering how power fit into this dynamic.  I'll be happy to take this elsewhere if it's too off topic.

In any power structure it is possible to navigate up or down but I think examples of this would be exceptions rather than the rule. Lack of ingenuity is not limited to any class or status.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 15, 2013, 10:01:25 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51547238/ns/local_news-colorado_springs_co/

The thing that makes this a shining example is the fact that if the ladies room were full and I urgent enough to use the men's, no one would have tossed me.

Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 18, 2013, 09:31:25 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 15, 2013, 10:01:25 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51547238/ns/local_news-colorado_springs_co/

The thing that makes this a shining example is the fact that if the ladies room were full and I urgent enough to use the men's, no one would have tossed me.

Question:  I know trans people don't always dress trans.

What then?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 19, 2013, 01:02:14 AM

Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 18, 2013, 09:31:25 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 15, 2013, 10:01:25 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51547238/ns/local_news-colorado_springs_co/

The thing that makes this a shining example is the fact that if the ladies room were full and I urgent enough to use the men's, no one would have tossed me.

Question:  I know trans people don't always dress trans.

What then?

probably safer to go with the gender most assumed/presented on the day for a pee.

I saw some horrible stats for bladder damage in the trans community, because of holding it in for fear of assault. I reckon single lockable unisex bathrooms should be available everywhere. If you don't have to share the space you would lose a lot of the bullshit.

(http://www.robot-hugs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Privilege-clean1.png)

That was really good!

Printing off.

Yeah, I thought it was a pretty awesome explanation, and done really thoughtfully.

That's a nice image.

Privilege Shaming on tumblr and the like is something that needs to stop.

Especially the privilege checklist. I have a particularly hard time explaining, sometimes, that almost everyone has some form of privilege.

For example, even though I'm a poor single mom of color, my parents were educated. That means that through no doing of my own, I grew up with an expectation that I would read a lot, be curious about the world, and speak excellent academic English. This gives me an edge in the job market and academia, over every single poor kid of any race whose parents were uneducated and spoke in dialect.

exactly, it is all just a scale.

And (if I didn't make it obvious already), I get a big kick out of the phrase Privilege shaming.

brb have to use my new found phrase to go inform tumblr people how they are oppressing me.

Here's thought - Privilege shaming is actually the opposite of what's required. Privilege shaming trys to lessen the advantage of the privilege whereas what would be better is elevating the privilege of those with less.

Helping those less fortunate than yourself?

Nah... that can't be right  :lulz:

Quote from: Faust on February 27, 2014, 03:21:37 PM
exactly, it is all just a scale.

And (if I didn't make it obvious already), I get a big kick out of the phrase Privilege shaming.

brb have to use my new found phrase to go inform tumblr people how they are oppressing me.

Bring me with you.

I wish to point out that, merely by virtue of being born in America or Europe, we've won the privilege lottery.

Compared to, say, someone from Darfur or Sierra Leone.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 27, 2014, 03:25:59 PM
Here's thought - Privilege shaming is actually the opposite of what's required. Privilege shaming trys to lessen the advantage of the privilege whereas what would be better is elevating the privilege of those with less.

Helping those less fortunate than yourself?

Nah... that can't be right  :lulz:

Missing the point.  The point is to make YOU BASTARDS feel BAD.

At least on Tumblr.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 27, 2014, 03:26:30 PM

Quote from: Faust on February 27, 2014, 03:21:37 PM
exactly, it is all just a scale.

And (if I didn't make it obvious already), I get a big kick out of the phrase Privilege shaming.

brb have to use my new found phrase to go inform tumblr people how they are oppressing me.

Bring me with you.

I wish to point out that, merely by virtue of being born in America or Europe, we've won the privilege lottery.

Compared to, say, someone from Darfur or Sierra Leone.

After work this evening perhaps, I'll link when I start.

Quote from: Faust on February 27, 2014, 03:21:37 PM
exactly, it is all just a scale.

And (if I didn't make it obvious already), I get a big kick out of the phrase Privilege shaming.

brb have to use my new found phrase to go inform tumblr people how they are oppressing me.

Oh hell yeah.  :lulz:

One of the things being aware of privileges can help to alleviate is that whole "bootstrap" mentality... the idea that "if I could make it, anyone can, if they just try hard enough".

If we are able to recognize the factors that contributed to our own success, we are less likely to blame others, in general, for not thriving, and more likely to be able to recognize (and maybe even do something about) the factors that prevent others from thriving.

Quote from: Nigel on February 27, 2014, 06:35:28 PM
One of the things being aware of privileges can help to alleviate is that whole "bootstrap" mentality... the idea that "if I could make it, anyone can, if they just try hard enough".

If we are able to recognize the factors that contributed to our own success, we are less likely to blame others, in general, for not thriving, and more likely to be able to recognize (and maybe even do something about) the factors that prevent others from thriving.

Having a fall is good for that. Anyone who's ever had it sweet then had the rug pulled out then managed to rebuild should be able to appreciate how "easy" it is. Of course, it's not a given. It's talking apes, after all.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 27, 2014, 07:39:26 PM

Quote from: Nigel on February 27, 2014, 06:35:28 PM
One of the things being aware of privileges can help to alleviate is that whole "bootstrap" mentality... the idea that "if I could make it, anyone can, if they just try hard enough".

If we are able to recognize the factors that contributed to our own success, we are less likely to blame others, in general, for not thriving, and more likely to be able to recognize (and maybe even do something about) the factors that prevent others from thriving.

Having a fall is good for that. Anyone who's ever had it sweet then had the rug pulled out then managed to rebuild should be able to appreciate how "easy" it is. Of course, it's not a given. It's talking apes, after all.

Unfortunately, that experience often helps reinforce the "self-made man" identity. "I lost everything, but I picked myself back up and..." yadda yadda.

Yup - been there, shit all over that teeshirt. "Well I managed to kick mental illness in the teeth while I was homeless, and you've only got a little sniffle of depression and a strong support network..."

:horrormirth: