/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18098882]

Sorry in advance if this long, poorly worded, confusing, and/or too broad. I do that a lot. Just skim it and ask me questions. For some reason, I'm not good at-... look just skim this post, but make sure you read the all-caps part... don't ask me why I can't correct it, just do it...

Hi /lit/. Fair warning: I can't guarantee this thread won't be a shitstorm, but this board seems like the closest I can get to asking anonymous questions of a librarian. I'd ask /his/, but the issue seems broader than just history. I'd ask /pol/ or /b/, but >asking /pol/ or /b/

So, while I generally prefer that /lit/ stay on the topic of the art of story telling etc., I guess I have to make an exception.

AS A NORMAL, MODERATE, URBAN, SECULAR AGNOSTIC, OMNIVOROUS, ENGINEERING MAJOR, SOUTH-PARK-AND-HEALTHCARE STYLE LIBERAL WHO WILL NOT BE CONVINCED OTHERWISE, If I wanted to learn about "intersexual feminist", dumb communist shit, and all the other stuff people meme about when speaking of BLM and community college - like, really learn about what it boils down to and really dissect it so I can say "I understand this" and not deal with a certain internal nagging feeling I have inside that I couldn't ever win an argument against an SJW and might even fall prey to stupid bullshit if I'm ever in the right set of mental circumstances and don't do something about this.

Don't say Sargon. Don't say any political pundits if you have any doubt that I might disagree with them or their portrayal of the subject or have any other doubts about. I want to develop my own independent (if you will) understanding, but also don't want to deal with shit that reads... well, like anything or almost anything an actual SJW or SJW profiteer writes, like fucking White Fragility. Holy shit. Some crazy person gave me a copy of that once, and my fucking God there is so much wrong with it. Right off the bat, the book basically tells you that logic is bad and she immediately stereotypes everyone who disagrees with her. I learned nothing.

So what, I want to know is what can I read if I wanted to listen to them spew such stupid words at me and have some chance to authoritatively say "no; you're wrong" without actually reading the entirety of this toss? Like, if I wanted to understand the history of social justice shit, how it develops, and perhaps what variations of SJW-ism might be out there, what would I read?

I hate that this is probably a boring, depressing, waste of my time and emotional resources that could end up turning me into a cancerous single-issue obsessor, but I feel somehow like I need to know this, so that at the very least, I can just internally know the info is out there and that I won't find myself heading to some far-end of the spectrum from ignorance alone.

...Also I know little of philosophy or soft sciences, so keep that in mind. I realize this might become a whole project, but still...

[Anonymous No.18098884]

>>18098882
peepee poopoo

[Anonymous No.18098885]

nigger

[Anonymous No.18098894]

>>18098882
Probably some series of academic papers sitting behind a paywall nobody on this board has heard of or read. You're asking in the wrong place.

[Anonymous No.18098897]

>>18098882
You can't win an argument against a BLM or SJW if you're a liberal. The entire point of those movements is that liberals(and conservatives) are completely incapable of dealing with the race question so it can be used to bully anyone.

There is only one way to win the argument, and I don't think you want to go there.

[Anonymous No.18098945]

>>18098897
Everyone is pretty fed up with ghetto negros at this point. Don't let the news and social media propaganda fool you. A vast majority have had enough of their bullshit.

[Anonymous No.18098946]

>>18098882
>So what, I want to know is what can I read if I wanted to listen to them spew such stupid words at me and have some chance to authoritatively say "no; you're wrong" without actually reading the entirety of this toss?

I honestly don't know if it matters if you have hard evidence to back anything up or not. The things these people say aren't absolute truths or solid tenets that everyone can somewhat agree with or do hard research on their own, it's mostly just "IT'S CURRENT YEAR AND YOU THINK X" type shit, it's groupthink. If you want to authoritatively say no you're wrong just say no you're wrong and leave the discussion, no point in even arguing with those types to be honest.

[Anonymous No.18098971]

>>18098882
you think those types read lmao? just watch a bunch of netflix garbage while reading huffington post articles and looking at instagram on your phone if you want to understand their mindset

[Anonymous No.18099103]

>>18098882
>>18098897
Okay, well I don't want to win an argument, actually, I just want to know more.

>completely incapable of dealing with race questions
Even anonymously, on my own, or with people I highly trust?
>I don't think you want to go there
That doesn't make any sense. Make your post make sense so I can report your stupid Nazi ideology for wasting my time.

>>18098946
I think I should clarify I just want to know, like the origin of it.
>>18098971
Maybe you're right. Maybe I don't want to really argue with them or whatever, its just that there's something bothering me. I don't even know what the fuck it is? I just want to know... like... how much influence they have.

I don't know this was a stupid fucking thread.

[Anonymous No.18099115]

Its just that I've read so many things from stupid people and I didn't know they were stupid until later. Now I feel like I have to sort out my own thoughts, but I don't even know where to begin.

[Anonymous No.18099146]

I mean, do they really have so much influence? If I go to a sociology course at a university, is it really as bad as I keep hearing? What is going on? Making money from suing, I think I heard once? Then who is involved?

[Anonymous No.18099150]

>>18099103
>Make your post make sense so I can report your stupid Nazi ideology for wasting my time.
lel. Ok here you go

The Prog narrative is that racial disparities(income, crime, etc.) are due to white racism. If this is true then you and everyone else is complicit in a semi-hidden system of white supremacy that you don't even really realize you're engaging in. This means you can't understand the perspective of black people and you can't second guess them when they tell you about racism, and it's honestly just kind of depraved of you to do so since you are actively contributing to a huge amount of suffering that black people go through.

There is nothing you can say to this, the logic follows if you accept the premise that the racial disparities are due to white racism. There is only one other possible source for the disparities, and that would be the 'nazi ideology' you want to report me for.

[Anonymous No.18099163]

>>18099146
Moreover, and far less on topic, how do group structures, more generally work?

But that's a whole... whatever this thread is dumb.

[Anonymous No.18099313]

>>18098882
Lmao you're way off-base. The current "white privilege" rhetoric basically follows the model of original sin but redemption is impossible.

Statistically whites are smarter, wealthier, more attractive, healthier and wield much greater political power than the more melanated peoples they co-exist with all the way from birth until death. At this point you're basically stuck between saying "whites are privileged and that's great" (at which point you're literally Hitler to anyone who takes books like this one seriously) and "whites are privileged and that's bad", at which point everything in the book applies. You could also bury your head in the sand and say something like "whites are privileged but if we spend mo money fo dem programs the blacks will surely catch right up".

[Anonymous No.18099410]

>>18099150
Not him, but there are alternatives
>the "Nazi" route: accept the race debate is a snake pit and essentially play the game: whites first, fuck everyone else
>the orthodox leftist route: class matters above all else, this identity politics is an attempt to divide the working classes and have them fight in the gutter
>the CultNat/colourblind route: sort of a combination of the above two; race is irrelevant, we're all Americans first and foremos and identity politics is an attempt to make the countrty weak, divide without the conquest
Conservatives, populists and Blue Dog type liberals are much more amenable to the last one IMO, the other two are extremist routes that probably have no hope outside of a deep economic crisis that makes the mere concept of e.g. white privilege look laughable.

[Anonymous No.18099415]

>>18099410
>>the CultNat/colourblind route: sort of a combination of the above two; race is irrelevant, we're all Americans first and foremos and identity politics is an attempt to make the countrty weak, divide without the conquest
This doesn't work though, because the disparities still exist, and the progressives will never stop talking about them. What are you supposed to say when they bring them up? If you don't offer an alternative explanation then you concede to the 'white racism causes it' line, and then you have to accept that solving racism is a very pressing issue.

[Anonymous No.18099430]

>>18099415
>This doesn't work though, because the disparities still exist, and the progressives will never stop talking about them. What are you supposed to say when they bring them up? If you don't offer an alternative explanation then you concede to the 'white racism causes it' line, and then you have to accept that solving racism is a very pressing issue.
Class issues, 1% oppressing everyone else..

[Anonymous No.18099449]

>>18099430
They are already onto your game mr 'class reductionist', you are erasing the lived experiences of blah blah. They have a point though if you accept their premise, why is the 1% oppressing poor blacks more than poor whites? The racism has to be more distributed than that, throughout all layers of society and institutions, so that it affects them at every step. Ergo you are guilty even if you're a prole.

[Anonymous No.18099457]

>>18099410
Lmao. Those last two are the same thing as far as the race-baiters are concerned; as long as you're not giving absolute primacy to the racial questions, regardless of why you're doing so or whatever else you do or views you espouse, you're part of the problem.

>>18099430
Assuming for the sake of this argument that Jews are "white", what are the racial demographics of the 1% in America? Which demographics are over-represented and which are under-represented? How did the people in the 1% reach their current station in the social hierarchy?

They already know this trick; it doesn't work on them.

[Anonymous No.18099522]

>>18098882
OP, this thread isn't dumb and useless as you say elsewhere. All the old-school liberals need to figure out how to deal with these SJWs, and fast. More reasonable people are being converted every day. As the psychologist Jonathan Haidt has shown, the new kind of progressive identity politics shares many features with religion. It's a kind of cult. You don't argue with a cultist in order to achieve some rational compromise. (But obviously you're just as crazy if you think the solution is to "destroy" them for their beliefs.)

These people exist and they're becoming more numerous. Your goals should be (1) don't set them off; (2) don't let them convert you. If a radical Christian explained with full fervor that you NEEDED to be saved to avoid eternal suffering in Hell, then you'd probably gently disengage from him and not fall prey to his zealotry. But the SJWs hearken to things that almost all normal liberals agree with, like civil rights and equality. Don't get sucked in.

I'm a centrist lib myself, but much more seasoned in the culture war. There's not a single book that will teach you everything about their ideology and their arguments—it's very hypocritical and emotional, so you won't get a rational program or platform. If you can't stomach reading books like DiAngelo's, then I recommend reading what some fairly intelligent centrist liberals have to say about SJWism.

>John McWhorter's review of "White Fragility" was very cogent. He has other articles about the race ideology of SJWs too.
>Jonathan Haidt, as mentioned, goes into the psychology and moral framework of the movement in many of his talks (available on YouTube).
>Liberties Journal is a brand new magazine (founded 2020) that tries to combat the new political polarization from an old-school liberal perspective. There's some good prose in many of their essays. Also, their website has a cool feature where instead of putting things behind a paywall or limiting the number of articles you can read, they make only three articles available at a time. Check them out.

But perhaps more importantly...
This is largely a renaissance of the oppressive PC culture of the 1990s. Many books from that era will give you a good sense of the unconscious of this new social justice movement. The best of them is undoubtedly
>"The Human Stain" by Philip Roth
It's a great book that talks about a lot of things (including Vietnam, the Monica Lewinsky affair, prostate problems), but the main plot is about PC campus culture and race in America.

[Anonymous No.18099549]

>>18098882
This person >>18099150 who is obviously some sort of "race realist" is correct about one thing; when it comes to the racial disparities we see in America, we essentially have two options; recognize the fact that these are the long-term consequences of generations of government and social policy which treated Black people as lesser, or say that none of that matters, that Black people are inherently inferior and nothing can be done to help them. Some try to get around the choice with an argument about "hood culture" and "violent rap music", but that's just kicking the can down the road; you then have to decide what caused that culture, and end up with the same choice.

Now the "white guilt" stuff, the shit where you need to prostrate yourself before a black man and ask forgiveness for your sins, that's all bullshit, and moreover, its bullshit that the Nazi types want you to think is core to progressivism so that the Nazis look good in comparison. You don't have to accept any personal responsibility for the status quo, don't have to think of yourself as racist; you can simply acknowledge the fact that some dead assholes made some racist decisions long ago that still have a substantial impact on the outcomes of black americans, and support policy to correct for that.

>>18099410
while those are valid options as to how to treat race going forward, none of them act as explanations of the current state of affairs; I believe in a pretty "cultural nationalist" perspective myself but if I were to try and dismiss racial issues with that line, any black man would be right to say "well it really doesn't seem like we're all 'Americans first' currently, given the disparate outcomes"

>>18099449
>They have a point though if you accept their premise, why is the 1% oppressing poor blacks more than poor whites? The racism has to be more distributed than that
congratulations mr nazi, you've discovered intersectionality

[Anonymous No.18099591]

>>18099549
>congratulations mr nazi, you've discovered intersectionality
As if I wasn't taught it my entire life in school lol. My whole point if you hadn't noticed was that there are only two options, and if you accept the only socially acceptable option then the Progressives are actually completely justified in harping on about race so much, because there really must be a giant distributed web of white supremacy that almost all white people are feeding into that is causing immense damage to black people.

You're not going to get away with this 'it was all decisions made in the past' stuff either buddy, they are very clear that it is a present problem that present white people are contributing to, even well-meaning white people. Ask Kendi about it.

[Anonymous No.18099608]

>>18099591
>>18099549
In fact I just remembered I wrote a post about Kendi but the thread had been deleted:

It's actually useful he wrote this book, so that nobody can pretend the situation is other than it really is:
>A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. An antiracist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial equity between racial groups. By policy, I mean written and unwritten laws, rules, procedures, processes, regulations, and guidelines that govern people. There is no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy. Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity between racial groups.

Read that paragraph carefully. 'Any policy that produces or *sustains racial inequity*'. Inequity means differences in outcomes between races, so any policy that merely 'sustains' these differences, ie. doesn't actively address them, is racist. He says himself 'there is no neutral stance'. So practically all policies are racist since they are 'sustaining' differences in outcomes between races.

The second thing to note is 'by policy I mean written and unwritten laws'. Unwritten laws would appear to cover, well, literally anything about any community, what does that even mean, how do you prove the existence of an unwritten law? So the above condemnation of racism, which he has defined as any action that is not actively reducing inequity remember, including 'neutral' activities, is applied not only to actual policy and institutions but in practice to every dimension of every social interaction that exists through this 'unwritten law' nonsense.

So his definition is totalitarian in two different ways, in collapsing the spectrum of race-related positions to a false dichotomy that excludes neutrality and by merit of the 'equity' idea includes practically everything as racist since practically everything does not actively fight inequity; and in extending this beyond normal policy to every aspect of social life.

That right there^ is the future of respectable race discourse in America

[Anonymous No.18099641]

>>18099591
oh yeah, there are surely racist white people today in positions of power, who make decisions which negatively impact the lives of black people, and I can see how the way I wrote that sentence suggests otherwise. I wanted to emphasize that those people's decisions are not something the OP should feel any sort of personal responsibility for, and so I emphasized the continued impact of decisions made by long-dead people.

[Anonymous No.18099714]

>>18099608
I would actually agree with you that Kendi's definition is overreaching in ways; but I would disagree about the specifics. I do take the position that neutrality is ultimately implicit support for the status quo, and so "neutral" policies in a field where disparity exists are, in effect, racist. But his definition should absolutely have positioned neutrality in a way where neutrality can become actually neutral, once racial disparity is statistically insignificant, rather than always racist. I also think his definition creates rather too strict a binary, with little room for the nuances of scale and focus.

I think you've got a hard miss with the "unwritten law" thing though. I think it would be pretty ridiculous to narrow our definition of racism to official policy only; it would completely neuter our ability to look at an interaction like a father telling his son he can't date black girls and rightfully call it racist. If you're worried about a sort of "thought police" approach to racial discussion, its pretty clear that wouldn't be an outcome of Kendi's definition.

[Anonymous No.18100022]

>>18098882
>AS A NORMAL, MODERATE, URBAN, SECULAR AGNOSTIC, OMNIVOROUS, ENGINEERING MAJOR, SOUTH-PARK-AND-HEALTHCARE STYLE LIBERAL WHO WILL NOT BE CONVINCED OTHERWISE
You are literally worthless anon,all people like you should be hanged,I care little about how many words you fit in a post
>Also I know little of philosophy or soft sciences, so keep that in mind.
Of course you don't,if you streamed your suicide I would masturbate to it just like you subhumans masturbate to Destiny's retarded 50 iq rants

Never use this site again,your posts seem schizophrenic

>>18099608
>That right there^ is the future of respectable race discourse in America
Why would anyone want to make America better,why would anyone want americans to ''respect'' eachother?

[Anonymous No.18100291]

One approach from libertarians and Thomas Sowell I've heard is the argument that the welfare state is what has cause the uncompetitiveness of the black community.

Seems like the best argument one could make for the liberal ideology, and even strengthen it because it would imply less welfare would be better for everyone.

https://mises.org/wire/welfare-state-did-what-slavery-couldnt-do

https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2015/05/poor_blacks_looking_for_someon.html

[Anonymous No.18100592]

>>18098882
check out this book in particular the part about the national phantasm for a cultural understanding of the feminist perspective.

Jordan Peterson has a video on youtube where he points out how the conceptual framework of intersectional ideology has marxists roots. (white people privilige, the bourgeoisie over the protelariat, etc.)

also check out the The Kaleidoscope of Gender: Prisms, Patterns, and Possibilities.

also look up articles on everyday feminism to get a general idea of what these people think.

beyond that there's not much to really get into, most academic stuff is just a sociocultural deep dive applying the amoprhous concepts of racism, sexism etc. Literally looking at culture and history through a feminist lens. And you'll find that such interpretation are rarely consistent and often contradictory.

[Anonymous No.18100611]

>>18100592
>book

https://www.amazon.com.au/Being-Australian-Narratives-national-identity/dp/1741149282