/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4463942]

Does this view of thinking terrify anyone else?

Specifically, the parts labeled "Anger is always justified.", and "The conversation is always in the favor of the privileged."

An excerpt:
A common misconception when there is discussion around oppressive behavior, is that the people involved are on equal footing and debating as equals. Even though they didn’t ask for it, the privileged always goes into a conversation with an advantage. For example, the marginalized will always be assumed to have misplaced anger. Rhetoric such as being sensitive and illogical come into play, where on top of their base argument, they have to prove they have the ‘right’ to be angry. They have to first convince the privileged they are allowed to be angry, when the privileged doesn’t have to legitimize their feelings. Their feelings are considered the standard. And because they are in a privileged position, there is a whole cultural backlog of excuses and derailments available that society uses to silence and brush aside minority voices. Their argument seems more ‘natural’ while the marginalized are always actively trying to legitimize their existence and right to be considered equal by a system that doesn’t treat them this way. Recognize that privileged thinking seems essentialized into universal truth or common sense. You might think that your lens is logical, but often it is colonial and marginalizing.

[Anonymous No.4463943]

>>4463942
forgot link: http://www.mattiebrice.com/on-civility/

[Anonymous No.4463950]

>social justice

Stopped reading right there and you should have done the same. Don't waste your time on these people they have too much free time and no real problems and this article is the outcome.

[Anonymous No.4463963]

>>4463950
lel at proving their point

[Anonymous No.4463968]

>>4463950
However small of a vocal minority there are, isn't there a calling to bring attention to this? How can anyone legitimately think that your level of privilege overrides facts and logic?

How can logic be privileged?

I wanted to understand, I wish to understand, but I can't and it makes me want to cry out.

>>4463963
Have you actually read the article? Him being dismissive is not inherently proving their point.

[Anonymous No.4464003]

>>4463968
You can't argue with them, there is no point. This whole thing can be boiled down to: You mustn't hurt my feelings. But they don't have any ''or else'', they are toothless - harmless - no matter how much media coverage they get nobody will ever take them seriously and it will just fade away. I hope.

[Anonymous No.4464005]

>>4463942
This appears to maintain the current of mainstream/marginalia while trying to apprehend inequality. Ultimately, inequality isn't socially constructed; some people would be lucky and some unlucky even in a perfect social framework. Anger is as justified as inequality as everything ought to be; if we didn't justify things we would never be able to justify justification, and then where would we be?

[Anonymous No.4464022]

>>4463942
You're terrified because you realize she's right. Just don't be a bully (an emotional vampire) and there's nothing to worry about.

[Anonymous No.4464024]

>>4464005
>Ultimately, inequality isn't socially constructed.

How eloquently put, I agree, it was in my head but you put it into words.

The irony of the whole situation is how they seem to be actively pursuing to even the battleground per se, but by demeaning and undermining and abusing the mainstream, which forces them to be utterly irrelevant.

It also creates an atmosphere where if they do have influence, they merely force people to say and do things they would not agree with.

Perhaps what bothers me quite a bit is my love of the English language, and the butchering of it that they would wish to commit by having individual pronouns. It seems to be largely an argument of individuality versus the collective, but I wonder what would happen if they would realize that Spanish and French have gendered words.

[Anonymous No.4464025]

>>4463968
The point is that it isn't real logic, it's just a view accepted as logical by the privileged because it supports their position of privilege. You aren't forced to critically examine how you think about certain things because you can just handwave your opponents away as angry and irrational.

[Anonymous No.4464031]

What's it an excerpt of?

[Anonymous No.4464033]

>>4464025
>it's just a view accepted as logical by the privileged because it supports their position of privilege

What evidence supports this notion?

This line of thinking makes it seem as if its an inherent conspiracy. I would like examples if this is so frequently common.

[Anonymous No.4464037]

>>4463968
>How can logic be privileged?
There isn't a magical, incorruptible realm where Logic exists to bestows its facts upon those that call its name? Logic is a human activity, accessible only by the educated, which itself requires social and/or political privilege. Not that we can't use logic to reach at "the truth", but we can just as quickly use it to obfuscate the truth.

[Anonymous No.4464038]

>>4464005
>Ultimately, inequality isn't socially constructed; some people would be lucky and some unlucky even in a perfect social framework.

That's awfully silly. You may as well say we shouldn't punish murder because everyone ultimately dies, even in a society with no murder. Just because perfect equality is not attainable does not mean we should abandon attempts at removing structures which artificially amplify inequality.

[Anonymous No.4464044]

>>4464037
Logic is relevant to the human experience, which is universal. It does not take a measure of privilege to assert that the moon orbits the Earth, which orbits the stars. That information is easily accessible to those who wish to attain it.

I am from a family that would be bureaucratically labeled as poor, and yet my socioeconomic status did not limit me from being able to pursue my inherent interest in knowledge and hard facts.

You seem to be arguing from the point that there is a world in which people are actively kept down, but I disagree, we live in a world where you actually have to try.

[Anonymous No.4464050]

>>4463968
>I wanted to understand, I wish to understand, but I can't and it makes me want to cry out.
People in desperate need to sound right make up articles on the internet they can cite when you call them out on their bullshit.
That's literally what this is. I'm sorry you thought it was an actual argument.

[Anonymous No.4464052]

>>4464033
>This line of thinking makes it seem as if its an inherent conspiracy.

It's not a conspiracy, just the opposite in fact, it happens without the privileged even realizing it, which is the point.

One classic example I suppose would be a gay person getting upset over the joking use of "fag" as a derogatory. The person who uses the insult may not be truly homophobic, they may not be directing it at the gay man himself, or may not even know he's gay; and all of these are "logical" deflections the insulter can use to mitigate what he's doing -- which is, ultimately, contributing to a pervasive atmosphere of anti-homosexual rhetoric.

The straight person who jokingly says "fag" and moves on with his life doesn't stop to think, doesn't have to stop to think, about how common and how demoralizing this kind of language is, and how it makes life as a homosexual -- the expression of one of the most basic aspects of your personality -- an immense struggle, when it doesn't need to be.

[Anonymous No.4464053]

>>4464005
You're conflating social inequality, which is the intentionally created socio-economic divisions between groups, and the idea that individuals are unique. Anger towards social inequality is always justifiable since it's entirely artificial. The article's writer isn't saying I'm personally justified at being angry at a fellow student that's better at painting, for example.

[Anonymous No.4464058]

>>4464038
>That's awfully silly. You may as well say we shouldn't punish murder because everyone ultimately dies, even in a society with no murder.

What?

Even if you phrased that statement correctly, it is still not comparable.

To assume a society that is inherently equal, you would have to have a collective 'hivemind' status quo, which is significantly arbitrary to the individual mentality that is associated with this 'movement'.

[Anonymous No.4464055]

I think it's a big mistake presuming that things like anger, sensitivity, and one's "right" to make an assertion ought to come into play at all. You basically rule out the possibility at coming to grips with things honestly and impartially.

[Anonymous No.4464063]

>>4464058
>Even if you phrased that statement correctly, it is still not comparable.

It absolutely is. Homicide is like artificial mechanisms of inequality - and natural death is like the natural inequalities that arise from the differences amongst people. We can pursue and try to eliminate the former even though we understand the latter is always there.

[Anonymous No.4464068]

>>4464044
I'm afraid the politest way I can respond to this is to simply state that your worldview is naive; impossibly so.

[Anonymous No.4464077]

>>4464058
>>4464063

Also, I phrased the statement perfectly correctly, which is more than can be said of this grammatical nightmare:

>To assume a society that is inherently equal, you would have to have a collective 'hivemind' status quo, which is significantly arbitrary to the individual mentality that is associated with this 'movement'.

To say nothing of your penchant for scare quotes and buzzwords -- I don't know what you think "arbitrary" means, but you definitely aren't correct. Maybe you should buff up on your reading skills.

[Anonymous No.4464082]

>>4464052
It is with time that these things become inherently acceptable. Women's rights movement, Civil Right's movement, and the most recent LGBT movement. Understanding comes with time.

The issue I have chiefly is that the same line of thinking, of privilege and lack of privilege, is that it undermines any possible dialogue because it places people on artificial levels of discourse. My opinion is not valued more, simply because I am at a disadvantage.

>>4464063
I understand now, I'm glad you put it into those words.

>>4464068
I've actively tried to expend my world view, and have learned a lot from this thread. I would suggest that your condescending attitude limits you from meaningful dialogue.

[Anonymous No.4464085]

>>4464052
>The person who uses the insult may not be truly homophobic, they may not be directing it at the gay man himself, or may not even know he's gay; and all of these are "logical" deflections the insulter can use to mitigate what he's doing -- which is, ultimately, contributing to a pervasive atmosphere of anti-homosexual rhetoric.

I don't understand this. You aren't contributing to an atmosphere of anti-homosexual rhetoric unless you are spewing anti-homosexual rhetoric, which, according to this example, the individual is not.

[Anonymous No.4464088]

>>4464077
I'm sorry, the choice word I should have used for arbitrary was contrary. I suffer from being a big picture guy.

[Anonymous No.4464090]

>>4464038
>we shouldn't punish murder
we shouldn't punish murder. at the point of the murder, obviously the social construct hasn't done its job, why should it be allowed to do it again. confining someone who has murdered will probably have some determining effect on whether or not they kill anyone else, but if you want to prevent that wholesale, you need to confine everyone. if you don't confine everyone then you justify the social construct which justifies some murders by punishing murderers as though that's orderly and not just the arbitrary line. There's plenty of deaths which are legally justified which you might consider murder and plenty which you will consider unjust in the moral sense, and others which you might consider not murder which are ruled as such just as arbitrarially as whatever system you justify. Saying that murder is even a thing is justifying some deaths and not others. That as perfect an equality as possible is a justification of laughably optimistic proportions. Justification, just like inequality, doesn't exist because it's right. It's just conveniently there.

[Anonymous No.4464100]

>>4464090

man you think you're a lot smarter than you actually are

[Anonymous No.4464104]

>>4464100
OP here, that guy is not me. However I hope his paragraph is an exercise in thought rather than application.

[Anonymous No.4464109]

>>4464100
no, i just don't give a shit when becausereasons.

[Anonymous No.4464110]

>>4464090

This post is irrelevant nonsense, and should be disregarded

[Anonymous No.4464123]

>>4464085

Imagine you went through your entire life hearing people dismiss, disaparage, and humiliate you being straight. You have to "come out" as straight to the world, and when you do, you face the very real possibility of your friends, your community, and members of your own family disowning you. Media is awash in depictions of straight people as perverts, as abominations; people assume you're a pedophile, or that you have AIDS, or that you're less of a man, just because you're straight. Now imagine in this atmosphere, a guy you admire laughs in your face and calls you a "fucking breeder."

Maybe you'd react with equanimity, understanding he doesn't 'really' mean it -- and a lot, even most, gay people do this when confronted by homophobic jokes. But some of them get angry, and see it as just one small piece in a giant tapestry of society's big "fuck you just for being you" -- and can you blame them?

[Anonymous No.4464128]

>>4464110
Agreed.

May we become a bit more directed in this conversation?

I've tried to isolate my thoughts into one question, and here it is.

If the concept of privilege, which is to arguably to the privileged just "the way it is", how is it in application to be handled? How is it to be handled when it becomes the ideological point of the majority versus the minority? Isn't this situation analogous to these supreme arguments that people have made in discussion over how to run a democracy (the right of the majority of over the minority).

[Anonymous No.4464133]

>>4464123
Yet, you are the minority, and homosexuals and trans will always be innately a small minority, due to the nature of how biologically these people are created, for lack of better words.

I for one, believe that sexuality is something that can be expanded and developed upon, and with that belief comes the notion that homosexuals are just as limited as heterosexuals, through ingrained social mechanisms.

[Anonymous No.4464140]

>>4464109


Also:
>My being butthurt and illogical doesn't mean I'm REALLY being butthurt and illogical, you're just PRIVILEGED!!! >:C

If someone told me they could be illogical in a debate because they were "marginalized", I'd laugh in their face. That's some retarded shit right there.

[Anonymous No.4464146]

>>4464140
>If someone told me they could be illogical in a debate because they were "marginalized"

Literally no one has said this.

What you think of as logic is nothing more than a bunch of masturbatory and self-serving idiocy, as per >>4464090

[Anonymous No.4464145]

>>4464082
>I've actively tried to expend my world view, and have learned a lot from this thread. I would suggest that your condescending attitude limits you from meaningful dialogue.
I disagree. The world is simply not meritocratic. Thinking it is reveals a naive worldview, no matter how much you've tried to expand it on your own thus far. I'm not trying to be condescending, but the entire history of humanity completely betrays that opinion.

[Anonymous No.4464148]

I don't understand the recent obsession over how we talk about things. There's no harm in thinking anything, and there's no possible harm in expressing what you think. Any sense of distaste, repulsion, anger, or whatever we feel when we hear someone share what they think is totally imagined, because their having said something doesn't harm anyone in anyway.

When we adopt this position that certain ideas are morally "wrong" or distasteful, we create this restrictive atmosphere which hampers our creativity and makes us focus on HOW we express our ideas to the extent that we no longer even care about discussing our ideas in the first place.

The distinction we need to remember is that ideas and sharing our ideas can't harm anyone. ACTING on our ideas is what can bring harm to the world (or positive change) and that is what we need to ponder carefully -- that's what we really ought to be talking about. But going over who is allowed to say what word and under what circumstances, and why you should never say this or that, really is quite pointless, especially when taken to this recent extreme.

[Anonymous No.4464152]

>>4464133

Jesus christ. It's like self-parody at this point. When told to imagine you're the minority, your only response is "well, I'm not the minority, so all is right with the world."

[Anonymous No.4464154]

[Anonymous No.4464158]

>pic related: how dominant ideas marginalize the uncomfortable truths

Let the butthurt commence. OP your quote is the uncomfortable truth. Basement dwellers will argue that the world is inherently just, disregarding all of history saying the status quo has nothing to with the past, in an effort to make an excuse not to think.

[Anonymous No.4464159]

>>4464148
>because their having said something doesn't harm anyone in anyway.
This is sociopathy.

[Anonymous No.4464161]

>>4464146
Actually, OP here, the article I posted suggested that entirely. Please take the time to read it. However I don't agree with how he put it.

>>4464145
I never claimed the world is meritocratic, which I think is actually irrelevant to this discussion.

There is an essay by Huxley, I believe, yet I forget the title, where to summarize it he discusses the necessity to examine other cultures to be able to inherently examine yours. This is how I view my own pursuit.

I think you are naive in your assumptions that it is inherently impossible. A clear head and a curious mind is all you need.

[Anonymous No.4464164]

>>4464148

No one can seriously believe this.

The expression of ideas necessarily leads to action. If a great deal of people decide a woman's face is "awrah" and needs to be covered, all of a sudden we have an entire subcontinent of women who have to go around in full body burqas. Discourse does not exist in a vacuum.

[Anonymous No.4464165]

>>4464123

No, it is perfectly natural for someone to get upset when they are insulted. Depending on who called me a fucking breeder, I might get upset or I might laugh with them (and mean it). That's more of an issue of a social impasse than an atmosphere of anti-breeder rhetoric. If they had called me a fucking idiot, or an asshole, the conditions would be same -- if I knew they were joking, it would be no big deal. But if I thought they were asserting themselves over me, I'd get pissed off.

[Anonymous No.4464168]

>>4464146
Dude OP's whole paragraph was saying that indirectly because it would be even MORE retarded if it just said it. "Yeah marginalized people are going to be angry and what the cis-lord thinks is logic ISN'T really logic and check ur priv :^c" = "Yuh I cn b angri in debate u fcking cracker u don't kno logic MUH FEELINGS"

This is a fucking joke.

Of course logic is something arbitrary we made up, but if you're going to play the game, you have to play by the rules.

[Anonymous No.4464170]

>>4464152
Except you don't seem to understand my point at all. I don't advocate antagonizing marginalized peoples, which you seem to be arguing from emotion from. I merely insist the understanding of minorities versus majorities, and understanding that history repeats almost entirely in this instance.

Perhaps what I am saying is that no matter how hard the effort, the marginalized can never overcome the majority, in all instances.

[Anonymous No.4464173]

OH GOD, I FORGOT TO CHECK IT TODAY
THE HORROR
THE HORROR

[Anonymous No.4464178]

>>4464168

The funny thing is how clearly angry you are.

[Anonymous No.4464180]

>>4464161
>>4464044
>I never claimed the world is meritocratic
>You seem to be arguing from the point that there is a world in which people are actively kept down, but I disagree, we live in a world where you actually have to try.

[Anonymous No.4464186]

>>4464161
>There is an essay by Huxley
The Individual Life of Man, Human Situation. He argues the point from Toynbee's assertion in Civilization on Trial that the impact of Western culture on other cultures is the largest historical fact of the time.

[Anonymous No.4464188]

>>4464170
what if we form politically independent ethnic communes?, that way there wont be marginalized groups
inb4 apartheid

[Anonymous No.4464184]

>>4464173
FUCK RIGHT OFF, BIGOT

[Anonymous No.4464185]

>>4464158
Except in a society dictated by individuality, someone will inherently be constricted due to the nature of whatever is the collective at that time in society.

It's amazing how in these arguments the people who are contrary to me always argue from contemporary issues.

>>4464180
I'm sorry, I should have listed and specified that I meant first world countries, where our privilege is large enough to justify these trivial differences.

[Anonymous No.4464190]

>>4464164
I agree with this point, even if the example is wrong.

[Anonymous No.4464192]

>>4464188
>politically independent

No such animal.

[Anonymous No.4464191]

>>4464178
Gr8 argument m8 u showed mi with all those fax

[Anonymous No.4464197]

>>4464159

No, it literally isn't.

>>4464165

The expression of ideas does NOT necessarily lead to action. Please think carefully about the word "necessarily", and I think you will realize you overstated the fact that a lot of times people act on their beliefs.

People can think incorrect things, and there's no harm in their being mistaken (to others anyway -- I do believe they have a duty to gain knowledge, and no longer be mistaken). When they act on these beliefs, that is when their actions become reprehensible and irresponsible. I don't think this is very outrageous, and I think your statement that "no one could seriously believe this" is a poor rhetorical strategy to try and make my position seem absurd when it isn't.

[Anonymous No.4464198]

>>4464191

Come on, you have to admit the humor here: getting mad at people for getting mad. Isn't it ironic, doncha think?

[Anonymous No.4464201]

>>4464184
FUCK YOU, YOU ANTEDILUVIAN POC-KINKSHAMING, THIN-PRIVILEGED AGEIST

[Anonymous No.4464210]

>>4464198
I'm actually not upset at all in the "WOW MAD" sense. I'm slightly disappointed that whoever I was talking to (not sure if it's you) gave up so quickly.

It's comedic yes, ironic no.

[Anonymous No.4464213]

>>4464185
It's good that you make an argument from privilege that everyone in your first world country have it like you do. Like there is nothing left to do. You argue like Aristotle saying that how it is now is the inherent nature of the [insert arbitrary category] this is faulty logic.

[Anonymous No.4464215]

>>4464185
I'm afraid the first world hasn't gotten past class and ethnic inequality. Not even close. They are, in fact, the perpetrators of this phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.4464219]

>>4464210
Gave up on what?

[Anonymous No.4464228]

>>4464219
The argument of their position.

[Anonymous No.4464230]

>>4464197

Okay, let me dial it back. The expression of ideas is always the first step toward action, and when those ideas are transmitted and shared by a large number of people, taking action on them becomes possible. There can be no action on an idea without the idea. So it should come as no surprise that gay people want to mitigate anti-gay ideas, black people want to mitigate anti-black ideas, and so forth.

[Anonymous No.4464239]

>>4464228

No one ever really argued with you in the first place. You posted an irrelevant wall of textual diarrhea and then got very mad when no one took you seriously.

[Anonymous No.4464251]

>>4464215
ha
ha
ha
no
racism and social inequality have existed since the dawn of civilization, every civilization is ethnocentric(except 21st century western academics I guess) and social inequality exists in every society more complex than hunter-gatherers

[Anonymous No.4464258]

>>4464251

Okay, so...?

[Anonymous No.4464259]

Wait.

So the next time I lose an argument I can claim oppression?

Well, hypothetically, I'm a white male with an average education and intellect, so every argument I make will be immediately null and void, apparently.

[Anonymous No.4464262]

>>4464215
Class and ethnic inequality? Of course not, for god's sakes, even the Wealth of Nations calls for the necessity of a slave class for capitalism to work.

I was merely pointing out that a large amount of inherent privilege must be present in the case of someone who feels oppressed to actually be able to live comfortably, and still openly talk about how they are oppressed; relative to other countries.

>>4464186
Thank you for the reminder, I wished to read it again, it has been a few years.

>>4464188
This is an actually proposed notion that history actually shows is plausible. Racial tensions are the first string to be cut when things go politically or economically south. However, I believe it's important to the human future to fully integrate, to become a collective.

>>4464213
>You argue like Aristotle saying that how it is now is the inherent nature of the [insert arbitrary category] this is faulty logic.

How is this inherently faulty logic? Determinism would like to have a word with you.

On a sidenote; it is a vicious thing, that to combat what someone would view as restricting them, to make efforts to restrict them as well.

[Anonymous No.4464265]

>>4464239
Well, even though that isn't true, by the logic in the OP, I'm right anyways. Check your privilege wow.