• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Harriet

Harriet’s Year of Metal, Track 4: It’s The Grace In Imperfection

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Harriet said:

How do you make smart nice friends as an adult? Maybe I could do a team sport or some volunteering when COVID dies down. I would love to have some people I can discuss philosophy and politics with, with whom it’s possible to disagree and puzzle things out together, and have space to change my mind or develop more nuanced views, like I was able to do at uni. 

 

I miss that part of university life. I agree that volunteering is a great way to make friends with like-minded individuals, just be aware that if you volunteer for a cause, you will be creating an echo chamber for yourself. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Volunteering are library/book clubs are excellent, but require more work than socializing during something you already want to be doing. I think that's why most of my friendships have grown from fitness communities -- places I already definitely wanted to be because I wanted the exercise/activity, but wind up socializing as well. And you know for sure you already have at least one thing in common. :)

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2020 at 9:35 AM, raptron said:

There are. 

 

On 6/1/2020 at 9:39 AM, Scalyfreak said:

Yes, there are. And they have a lot of money and a lot of political power.

 

Sooo who are these people exactly? I never meet anyone who cops to explicitly racist views in person. Erm. No pun intended. 

 

16 hours ago, Jupiter said:

 

Oi, just...Oi. I don't understand this whole "refusing to listen to differing opinions/arguments" movement that's been happening lately.  

 

Yeah, it's got me thinking about the ways that we debate and interact with each other. One of the things I've been noticing is that silencing tactics might seem excusable when used by well-meaning people on villains, but if those tactics gather widespread acceptance, they also become available to people you disagree with, and badly intentioned people. So for me it really demonstrates the need to find common ground in logic, empathy and civility, assuming your interlocuter is engaging in good faith. If they're not, it's probably best to point this out or disengage rather than use silencing tactics. 

 

16 hours ago, Jupiter said:

I have this issue too. It's so much harder to find friends as an adult. Team sports and volunteering both sound like great ideas. :) There are also book clubs and programs at the library if you want to check those out too. 


Book clubs sounds great. Not sure how well it will work for me when I head back to Germany, though 😕 

 

16 hours ago, h3r0 said:

OMG what a great song! I am adding it to the play list. It would be awesome to listen to in the car with the window down at WOT. 

 

Wot's WOT? 

 

14 hours ago, Scalyfreak said:

I miss that part of university life. I agree that volunteering is a great way to make friends with like-minded individuals, just be aware that if you volunteer for a cause, you will be creating an echo chamber for yourself. 

 

Yeah, I think if I did decide to volunteer I would pick something more general where I can be useful in concrete ways, rather than advocacy work specifically.

 

2 hours ago, raptron said:

Volunteering are library/book clubs are excellent, but require more work than socializing during something you already want to be doing. I think that's why most of my friendships have grown from fitness communities -- places I already definitely wanted to be because I wanted the exercise/activity, but wind up socializing as well. And you know for sure you already have at least one thing in common. :)

 

Sport is nice because you're busy with something, so talking happens but the pressure to talk is not high. The reason I never make friends at parties is that it's so damned stressful just standing there and the ONLY think you're meant to do is small talk. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Harriet said:

 😕

 

Wot's WOT? 

 

 

Wide Open Throttle 

 

AKA pedal to the metal, speeding, going fast, 2 fast 2 Furious 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Harriet said:

How do you make smart nice friends as an adult? Maybe I could do a team sport or some volunteering when COVID dies down. I would love to have some people I can discuss philosophy and politics with, with whom it’s possible to disagree and puzzle things out together, and have space to change my mind or develop more nuanced views, like I was able to do at uni. 

All of my IRL friends are:

  • NF nerds who I've met IRL
  • colleagues or ex-colleagues (I realized I am blessed here and this is not the case for most people to like or want to hang out with work friends all the time)
  • friends I have met from gymnastics, crossfit, gym etc. But I don't hangout with this group much outside of classes
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harriet said:

Sooo who are these people exactly? I never meet anyone who cops to explicitly racist views in person. Erm. No pun intended. 

 

One of them was elected President of the United States in 2016. He's pretty active on Twitter. I believe that everyone who still supports him shares his views, as well, but that's my personal opinion, and should not be taken as fact.

 

No one openly cops to "I think you are less valuable and less human than I am because of your skin color". It's nowhere near that obvious. It's a lot more insidious and consists of a lot of vague talking around that needs to be dug through in order to find the (sometimes unintentional) values that lead to specific word choices. Examples in the spoiler because  politics. Also because racist statements can be triggering and no one should be forced to read them.

 

Spoiler

 

"It's terrible that innocent black men are killed by police officers, but the looting and destruction of local businesses has to stop".

The choice of words and the order they are in shows that stopping the looting is more important to this speaker, than stopping police officers from killing black human beings by stepping on their necks until the die from asphyxiation.

 

"Football players who kneel during the national anthem are unpatriotic and are disrespecting  the flag and our troops".

This is an incorrect statement, but it is very distracting for certain audience, and most importantly, disregards the reason so many NFL players were kneeling and the cause they were protesting. It effectively silenced their protest by making the conversation all about the way the protested instead of why. (Incidentally, what was done to George Floyd a few days ago is exactly what they were protesting.)

 

Equating the right to not wear a mask to the grocery store with a violation of personal or civil rights.

No one forces you to shop at the grocery store that requires mask wearing. You have the ability to go to another store that doesn't require masks. But most importantly, wearing a mask to the store is not dangers to a person's health, nor is it something that will put other members of a person's community at risk (quite the opposite, actually). However, by treating forced mask wearing as if it is just as severe as the fact that the US legal system unfairly targets the non-white population, the latter is pulled down to the former's level. Because after a bit of a tantrum, we're all in agreement that the mask issue is really just a matter of principles and making a statement. And if it's not a big deal, then the systemic and open racism in the US police system must not be either. 

 

On that note: 

Black Americans are nearly three times as likely to be killed by police, as white Americans are. If they person is unarmed, the black American is fives time more likely to be shot and killed, than the white American. The US prison population is disproportionately non-white, despite the majority of the country's population being white, largely because the mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession disproportionately target non-whites. The vast majority of drug arrests for marijuana possession are also arrests of a black American, who may find themselves in prison for up to 15 years because they forgot to take their medical marijuana out of their suitcase before travelling through a state that has not legalized that drug yet. (Source)

 

When slavery was ended in the US, it was for practical reasons, not because the legislators at the time had an attack of conscience. It didn't take said legislators long to realize that the number of former slaves far outnumbered the number of former slave owners. And they had a very real fear that the former slaves would exact some kind of revenge on the white and wealthy ruling class. That fear, combined with the still firmly held belief that being the white enslavers made them superior to the black former slaves, shaped the society they built and what they built has by far outlived them. And they built it to last, because their fear led them to believe they needed to subjugate the black former slaves in order to be safe from them, and we are still dealing with the consequences of their fear and racism today.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scalyfreak said:

 

One of them was elected President of the United States in 2016. He's pretty active on Twitter. I believe that everyone who still supports him shares his views, as well, but that's my personal opinion, and should not be taken as fact.

 

No one openly cops to "I think you are less valuable and less human than I am because of your skin color". It's nowhere near that obvious. It's a lot more insidious and consists of a lot of vague talking around that needs to be dug through in order to find the (sometimes unintentional) values that lead to specific word choices. Examples in the spoiler because  politics. Also because racist statements can be triggering and no one should be forced to read them.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

"It's terrible that innocent black men are killed by police officers, but the looting and destruction of local businesses has to stop".

The choice of words and the order they are in shows that stopping the looting is more important to this speaker, than stopping police officers from killing black human beings by stepping on their necks until the die from asphyxiation.

 

"Football players who kneel during the national anthem are unpatriotic and are disrespecting  the flag and our troops".

This is an incorrect statement, but it is very distracting for certain audience, and most importantly, disregards the reason so many NFL players were kneeling and the cause they were protesting. It effectively silenced their protest by making the conversation all about the way the protested instead of why. (Incidentally, what was done to George Floyd a few days ago is exactly what they were protesting.)

 

Equating the right to not wear a mask to the grocery store with a violation of personal or civil rights.

No one forces you to shop at the grocery store that requires mask wearing. You have the ability to go to another store that doesn't require masks. But most importantly, wearing a mask to the store is not dangers to a person's health, nor is it something that will put other members of a person's community at risk (quite the opposite, actually). However, by treating forced mask wearing as if it is just as severe as the fact that the US legal system unfairly targets the non-white population, the latter is pulled down to the former's level. Because after a bit of a tantrum, we're all in agreement that the mask issue is really just a matter of principles and making a statement. And if it's not a big deal, then the systemic and open racism in the US police system must not be either. 

 

On that note: 

Black Americans are nearly three times as likely to be killed by police, as white Americans are. If they person is unarmed, the black American is fives time more likely to be shot and killed, than the white American. The US prison population is disproportionately non-white, despite the majority of the country's population being white, largely because the mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession disproportionately target non-whites. The vast majority of drug arrests for marijuana possession are also arrests of a black American, who may find themselves in prison for up to 15 years because they forgot to take their medical marijuana out of their suitcase before travelling through a state that has not legalized that drug yet. (Source)

 

When slavery was ended in the US, it was for practical reasons, not because the legislators at the time had an attack of conscience. It didn't take said legislators long to realize that the number of former slaves far outnumbered the number of former slave owners. And they had a very real fear that the former slaves would exact some kind of revenge on the white and wealthy ruling class. That fear, combined with the still firmly held belief that being the white enslavers made them superior to the black former slaves, shaped the society they built and what they built has by far outlived them. And they built it to last, because their fear led them to believe they needed to subjugate the black former slaves in order to be safe from them, and we are still dealing with the consequences of their fear and racism today.

 

 

 

Politics:

 

Spoiler

I don't think it can be possible that everyone who supports a candidate does so for the same reasons. I do feel a deep sense of betrayal that people can overlook his racist, misogynist, plutocratic values and lack of interest in climate change and vote for him for any reason, but I still think it's worth examining motives in greater detail, because that can inform our strategies. I also understand if anyone is simply too angry or fed up or hurt right now to want to do this kind of examination or conversation. So no one is obliged to follow along with this discussion.

 

So, I'm familiar with some of those mechanisms you point out, and I have been slowly reading Howard Zinn's People's History of America, which paints a more sinister history than the prevailing narrative. Some of the talking points you mention could be interpreted two ways, however. They could be intentionally misleading statements by active, calculating racists whose clear if unstated goal is to literally make POC worse off. Or those arguments could be repeated by what you might call incidentally racist people--people who don't think of themselves as racist and don't actively want non-white people to be worse off, but who believe that America is essentially already fair and just, and who have been led to believe some of those arguments and talking points spread by racist thought leaders. In particular, Michael Kimmel suggests that the (legitimate) frustration of poorer or working class white men at America's loss of social mobility has been manipulated by 'thought leaders' such as those racist shock jocks; that these thought leaders have deliberately 'massaged' that anger toward immigrants and women in order to take the focus off economic injustice (which could actually mean that those thought leaders are, at their cores, plutocrats first and racists opportunistically... though I don't really know and we can't just ask them because they lie fluently and without pause, kind of like musicians who use circular breathing...) 

 

You might ask what it matters what peoples' motivations are if the end results are racist. Well, it matters to me because I have been assuming a lot of people are the latter type--the incidentally racist type who suffer from a 'fair America delusion'. It's relevant because those people might change their minds, if systemic injustice can be explained in a simple, plausible way to them. That's why I like Robert Reich. He takes complex and unpopular economic topics and makes them super clear and accesible, and he has a lot of plausibility as an academic economist. But there's not point talking to active, deliberate racists--you can't really directly persuade the first type of people. Because they're not mistaken, or misled, they know exactly what they're aiming for. So your strategy there might just be identifying them and keeping them out of the police force, for example, or teaching new generations of children at school that these attitudes are not okay. 

It's similar in Germany. I believe the AFD is led by a core of true racists, who don't always say exactly what they mean. They make sure to have a salonsfähig or lounge-room-acceptable face, using sanitised phrases to hint at what they mean. In this way they attract other secret racists, but they also attract more moderate, not-actively-racist people who are disappointed with the mainstream parties, and who take the AFD's respectable sounding lounge-room phrases at face value. Tja, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking 'those people are stupid'. But I'm interested in how to tempt them away from the AFD, which means strategy. I'm also interested in just understanding things.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Harriet said:

 

Politics:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

I don't think it can be possible that everyone who supports a candidate does so for the same reasons. I do feel a deep sense of betrayal that people can overlook his racist, misogynist, plutocratic values and lack of interest in climate change and vote for him for any reason, but I still think it's worth examining motives in greater detail, because that can inform our strategies. I also understand if anyone is simply too angry or fed up or hurt right now to want to do this kind of examination or conversation. So no one is obliged to follow along with this discussion.

 

So, I'm familiar with some of those mechanisms you point out, and I have been slowly reading Howard Zinn's People's History of America, which paints a more sinister history than the prevailing narrative. Some of the talking points you mention could be interpreted two ways, however. They could be intentionally misleading statements by active, calculating racists whose clear if unstated goal is to literally make POC worse off. Or those arguments could be repeated by what you might call incidentally racist people--people who don't think of themselves as racist and don't actively want non-white people to be worse off, but who believe that America is essentially already fair and just, and who have been led to believe some of those arguments and talking points spread by racist thought leaders. In particular, Michael Kimmel suggests that the (legitimate) frustration of poorer or working class white men at America's loss of social mobility has been manipulated by 'thought leaders' such as those racist shock jocks; that these thought leaders have deliberately 'massaged' that anger toward immigrants and women in order to take the focus off economic injustice (which could actually mean that those thought leaders are, at their cores, plutocrats first and racists opportunistically... though I don't really know and we can't just ask them because they lie fluently and without pause, kind of like musicians who use circular breathing...) 

 

You might ask what it matters what peoples' motivations are if the end results are racist. Well, it matters to me because I have been assuming a lot of people are the latter type--the incidentally racist type who suffer from a 'fair America delusion'. It's relevant because those people might change their minds, if systemic injustice can be explained in a simple, plausible way to them. That's why I like Robert Reich. He takes complex and unpopular economic topics and makes them super clear and accesible, and he has a lot of plausibility as an academic economist. But there's not point talking to active, deliberate racists--you can't really directly persuade the first type of people. Because they're not mistaken, or misled, they know exactly what they're aiming for. So your strategy there might just be identifying them and keeping them out of the police force, for example, or teaching new generations of children at school that these attitudes are not okay. 

It's similar in Germany. I believe the AFD is led by a core of true racists, who don't always say exactly what they mean. They make sure to have a salonsfähig or lounge-room-acceptable face, using sanitised phrases to hint at what they mean. In this way they attract other secret racists, but they also attract more moderate, not-actively-racist people who are disappointed with the mainstream parties, and who take the AFD's respectable sounding lounge-room phrases at face value. Tja, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking 'those people are stupid'. But I'm interested in how to tempt them away from the AFD, which means strategy. I'm also interested in just understanding things.

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

The silent racists you mention are the ones I sometimes call "unaware racists". They live a life of privilege afforded to them by their skin color without realizing that simply by living their lives the way they are, they are feeding supporting that system and making it stronger. 

 

"In particular, Michael Kimmel suggests that the (legitimate) frustration of poorer or working class white men at America's loss of social mobility has been manipulated by 'thought leaders' such as those racist shock jocks; that these thought leaders have deliberately 'massaged' that anger toward immigrants and women in order to take the focus off economic injustice " (quoting this way to avoid messing up the spoiler tags)

 

This is how the white supremacist parties in most countries gain power. Your comments on AFD mirror my thoughts on Sverigedemokraterna, the Swedish version of that same party. They are often described as practicing "frustration politics" and at their very core is a group of devoted white supremacists and plutocrats. I think those two often go hand in hand. In fact, without the manipulation towards racism, it would be difficult to continue the fine balance of keeping the frustrated white working class as poor as the non-white ones that the plutocrats want to suppress. The way school districts receive funding in the US is a simple but obvious way to make sure people who can afford to live in a wealthy neighborhoods receive all the advantages they need to remain wealthy, while the ones in poor districts are kept from improving their lives and the lives of their children. That system was perhaps not created for the explicit purpose of being racist, but it has become so because of several other mechanisms that all work together to ensure that the ones who benefit from it continue to benefit from it. 

 

But most importantly for my initial point that racists have a lot of money and power: There's no neutral position when it comes to racism in today's USA. This means that everyone who is not actively trying hard not to be racist, is one. There are many kinds of them, certainly, of varying degrees of dangerous. But ultimately, if someone sees an opportunity to push for a necessary change and chooses not to do so, they move from the anti-racism camp and over to the other side.

 

For example, the state legislature where I live spent a portion of the legislative session in 2020 on passing a law that makes it illegal for any employer who is a part of or affiliated with state or city government to give preferential treatment to any job applicant or employee based on gender identity, ethnicity, religion, etc. This looks good on the surface, but the result of that is that Affirmative Action now is illegal in the entire public sector in the state. Because affirmative action is one of the essential tools that helps us even the playing career field for non-whites, that piece of legislation is racist. And the people who voted in favor of it are racist are well, whether they call themselves that or not. (Which most of them won't, because the term makes them very uncomfortable.)

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Scalyfreak said:

 

 

  Hide contents

 

The silent racists you mention are the ones I sometimes call "unaware racists". They live a life of privilege afforded to them by their skin color without realizing that simply by living their lives the way they are, they are feeding supporting that system and making it stronger. 

 

"In particular, Michael Kimmel suggests that the (legitimate) frustration of poorer or working class white men at America's loss of social mobility has been manipulated by 'thought leaders' such as those racist shock jocks; that these thought leaders have deliberately 'massaged' that anger toward immigrants and women in order to take the focus off economic injustice " (quoting this way to avoid messing up the spoiler tags)

 

This is how the white supremacist parties in most countries gain power. Your comments on AFD mirror my thoughts on Sverigedemokraterna, the Swedish version of that same party. They are often described as practicing "frustration politics" and at their very core is a group of devoted white supremacists and plutocrats. I think those two often go hand in hand. In fact, without the manipulation towards racism, it would be difficult to continue the fine balance of keeping the frustrated white working class as poor as the non-white ones that the plutocrats want to suppress. The way school districts receive funding in the US is a simple but obvious way to make sure people who can afford to live in a wealthy neighborhoods receive all the advantages they need to remain wealthy, while the ones in poor districts are kept from improving their lives and the lives of their children. That system was perhaps not created for the explicit purpose of being racist, but it has become so because of several other mechanisms that all work together to ensure that the ones who benefit from it continue to benefit from it. 

 

But most importantly for my initial point that racists have a lot of money and power: There's no neutral position when it comes to racism in today's USA. This means that everyone who is not actively trying hard not to be racist, is one. There are many kinds of them, certainly, of varying degrees of dangerous. But ultimately, if someone sees an opportunity to push for a necessary change and chooses not to do so, they move from the anti-racism camp and over to the other side.

 

For example, the state legislature where I live spent a portion of the legislative session in 2020 on passing a law that makes it illegal for any employer who is a part of or affiliated with state or city government to give preferential treatment to any job applicant or employee based on gender identity, ethnicity, religion, etc. This looks good on the surface, but the result of that is that Affirmative Action now is illegal in the entire public sector in the state. Because affirmative action is one of the essential tools that helps us even the playing career field for non-whites, that piece of legislation is racist. And the people who voted in favor of it are racist are well, whether they call themselves that or not. (Which most of them won't, because the term makes them very uncomfortable.)

 

 

 

Spoiler

That last law you mentioned is interesting. Sometimes policies can create outcomes that aren't super obvious. Anyway, it seems like we're on the same page about these issues. The question is how to change things.

 

...So, I'm just going to put in the disclaimer that I'm not an expert and I am only trying to muddle through a mess of different impressions to get to some coherent thoughts...

So, back to strategy. Although there is more--and more intense--attitudinal racism in America than I realised, and definitely more than I personally witness in my nice bubble, I still think we need to keep drawing attention to the ways that injustice can be structural, rather than interpersonal/attitudinal. I do think that activism and conversation about reducing attitudinal racism is extremely important, too. It's just that when I look at social media, I see a strong tendency to neglect structural analyses in favour of critiques of interpersonal behaviour. I don't know if this is also true for the media you consume/the conversations you have with people, though. I think it's possible, given our countries of origin, that your education was less ignorant and shit than mine. 

 

I think we need both kinds of conversation. But I also think it's natural and intuitive and comparatively easy for people to think of morality in interpersonal terms (that is, in terms of our direct interactions with one another). It's relatively less intuitive and more difficult for us to analyse invisible structural forces. This could explain why I mostly see interpersonal critiques online.

 

But if we only talk about injustice in interpersonal terms, it's too easy for people to say "well I'm not like that, so I'm good." Or even "the law says we're equal, so everything is fine". For example, at my school the teachers obviously taught us that hating people for their skin colour is bad. Which is true. But students think "Well, I'm not like that. Case closed, no racism here." Then the schools teach nothing about how poverty is a sticky, intergenerational curse that's reinforced through formal legal mechanisms and informal social mechanisms. Nor do they mention the historical injustices (comparatively recent in our case) that have done such incredible social and economic damage to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. So later, when those school kids are grown up, unless someone other than a teacher has explained these things to them, whenever they hear about racism they may assume it's someone else's problem because they don't personally hate Aborigines or whomever. They might even assume that the claim that racism exists in Australia means that someone is accusing them personally, or white people as a group, of being hateful, and get defensive. Certainly that seems to be what motivates some people's reactions. Anyway, I feel like this confusion is only possible because we completely and utterly neglect talking about the structural causes of racial disadvantage. At least, we did in my school. And my university. And on the news. I got a little bit of discussion from my mother about how poverty can be self reinforcing and intergenerational, and how it disproportionately affects e.g. Aboriginal Australians. But that's possibly because my mother was literally studying social justice. I don't think everyone's parents teaches them this stuff. Maybe it's different in really well educated families or better educated countries. I have a feeling Germans might even teach economics at school... 


Okay, I'm done rambling. I just really, really want the left to come up with some awesome strategies that will win. Thanks for coming ❤️ 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Harriet said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

That last law you mentioned is interesting. Sometimes policies can create outcomes that aren't super obvious. Anyway, it seems like we're on the same page about these issues. The question is how to change things.

 

...So, I'm just going to put in the disclaimer that I'm not an expert and I am only trying to muddle through a mess of different impressions to get to some coherent thoughts...

So, back to strategy. Although there is more--and more intense--attitudinal racism in America than I realised, and definitely more than I personally witness in my nice bubble, I still think we need to keep drawing attention to the ways that injustice can be structural, rather than interpersonal/attitudinal. I do think that activism and conversation about reducing attitudinal racism is extremely important, too. It's just that when I look at social media, I see a strong tendency to neglect structural analyses in favour of critiques of interpersonal behaviour. I don't know if this is also true for the media you consume/the conversations you have with people, though. I think it's possible, given our countries of origin, that your education was less ignorant and shit than mine. 

 

I think we need both kinds of conversation. But I also think it's natural and intuitive and comparatively easy for people to think of morality in interpersonal terms (that is, in terms of our direct interactions with one another). It's relatively less intuitive and more difficult for us to analyse invisible structural forces. This could explain why I mostly see interpersonal critiques online.

 

But if we only talk about injustice in interpersonal terms, it's too easy for people to say "well I'm not like that, so I'm good." Or even "the law says we're equal, so everything is fine". For example, at my school the teachers obviously taught us that hating people for their skin colour is bad. Which is true. But students think "Well, I'm not like that. Case closed, no racism here." Then the schools teach nothing about how poverty is a sticky, intergenerational curse that's reinforced through formal legal mechanisms and informal social mechanisms. Nor do they mention the historical injustices (comparatively recent in our case) that have done such incredible social and economic damage to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. So later, when those school kids are grown up, unless someone other than a teacher has explained these things to them, whenever they hear about racism they may assume it's someone else's problem because they don't personally hate Aborigines or whomever. They might even assume that the claim that racism exists in Australia means that someone is accusing them personally, or white people as a group, of being hateful, and get defensive. Certainly that seems to be what motivates some people's reactions. Anyway, I feel like this confusion is only possible because we completely and utterly neglect talking about the structural causes of racial disadvantage. At least, we did in my school. And my university. And on the news. I got a little bit of discussion from my mother about how poverty can be self reinforcing and intergenerational, and how it disproportionately affects e.g. Aboriginal Australians. But that's possibly because my mother was literally studying social justice. I don't think everyone's parents teaches them this stuff. Maybe it's different in really well educated families or better educated countries. I have a feeling Germans might even teach economics at school... 


Okay, I'm done rambling. I just really, really want the left to come up with some awesome strategies that will win. Thanks for coming ❤️ 

 

 

Spoiler

 

Well, this isn't going to be a very interesting discussion if we keep agreeing with each other on everything. 😛 

 

Those structural causes you are talking about are what Americans mean with the term "systemic racism". And it is a problem for the exact same reasons you describe: No one in the US enjoys considering the possibility that they are a part of the problems that led up to the protests this weekend. Or worse, an actual contributor through inaction somehow. 

 

That said, I do believe there are people who are deliberately trying to keep "those people" in "their place" and who say and do things that are racist, and believe they have every right to do so, for whatever reason. This is not the kind of world I want to live in. I am trying my best to change my tiny part of it, in the hopes that people who live in the rest of the world do the same thing in their little corners and together we can hopefully change the big picture together.

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tired. So tired.
No KBs (have now had four rest days in a row... the warrior spirit has left my body and I am now a pacifist)

Art: yep. not saying it went well, just saying I did it

Walk: 25 min
Other: watched this interesting talk that scratches the surface of why women's training should be different to men's. Apparently a lot of sports research (on training and diet) is done on men and might not apply to women. I wish to learn about this in much greater detail, though. 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Scalyfreak said:

 

 

  Hide contents

For example, the state legislature where I live spent a portion of the legislative session in 2020 on passing a law that makes it illegal for any employer who is a part of or affiliated with state or city government to give preferential treatment to any job applicant or employee based on gender identity, ethnicity, religion, etc. This looks good on the surface, but the result of that is that Affirmative Action now is illegal in the entire public sector in the state. Because affirmative action is one of the essential tools that helps us even the playing career field for non-whites, that piece of legislation is racist. And the people who voted in favor of it are racist are well, whether they call themselves that or not. (Which most of them won't, because the term makes them very uncomfortable.)

 

 

 

14 hours ago, Harriet said:

 

  Hide contents

That last law you mentioned is interesting. Sometimes policies can create outcomes that aren't super obvious. Anyway, it seems like we're on the same page about these issues. The question is how to change things.

 

 

Spoiler

I am speculating, but I imagine that the outcome was the exact intent of the legislation.

 

Enjoyed reading that. Thank you both.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Harriet said:


No KBs (have now had four rest days in a row... the warrior spirit has left my body and I am now a pacifist)

 

 

Noooooo! A Warrior never gives up, only catches their breath before rejoining the frey. 

 

When I feel worn out like that I usually find rest, extra calories / protein, and extra sleep usually helps. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Harriet said:

Other: watched this interesting talk that scratches the surface of why women's training should be different to men's. Apparently a lot of sports research (on training and diet) is done on men and might not apply to women. I wish to learn about this in much greater detail, though. 

I recommend you read Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men if you'd like to know even more about the impacts of both deliberately and incidentally excluding women from research studies, product design, and policy development. The biggest section is on healthcare and medicine. It's frequently infuriating. 👍

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, miss_marissa said:

 

 

  Hide contents

I am speculating, but I imagine that the outcome was the exact intent of the legislation.

 

Enjoyed reading that. Thank you both.

 

It's not a bug in the system, it's a feature. It was designed that way on purpose. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, miss_marissa said:

 

  Hide contents

I am speculating, but I imagine that the outcome was the exact intent of the legislation.

 

Enjoyed reading that. Thank you both.

 

Thanks for coming :P 

 

27 minutes ago, raptron said:

I recommend you read Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men if you'd like to know even more about the impacts of both deliberately and incidentally excluding women from research studies, product design, and policy development. The biggest section is on healthcare and medicine. It's frequently infuriating. 👍

 

Thank you! I would most assuredly like to read about it! I read an article she wrote for the guardian but didn't realise there was a book. 

 

28 minutes ago, h3r0 said:

Noooooo! A Warrior never gives up, only catches their breath before rejoining the frey. 

 

When I feel worn out like that I usually find rest, extra calories / protein, and extra sleep usually helps. 

 

Thanks. I was so hungry yesterday. I ate all the things. But maybe I need more sleep, too... I was just assuming I get enough because i wake up without an alarm at roughly the same time every day. But it's 7:30am and I want to go back to sleeeeep.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Harriet said:

 

Thanks. I was so hungry yesterday. I ate all the things. But maybe I need more sleep, too... I was just assuming I get enough because i wake up without an alarm at roughly the same time every day. But it's 7:30am and I want to go back to sleeeeep.

 

Eat. Take a nap. Wake up and eat some more. Then whisper to the iron, Tomorrow I am coming for you, then go to bed early. 

 

5812067_0.jpg.491c07900a7a917b71603ea7ff3fff3e.jpg

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, miss_marissa said:

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

I am speculating, but I imagine that the outcome was the exact intent of the legislation.

 

Enjoyed reading that. Thank you both.

 

1 hour ago, h3r0 said:

 

It's not a bug in the system, it's a feature. It was designed that way on purpose. 

 

@h3r0 is correct in assuming your speculation is correct. Bitterness and additional detail in the spoiler.

 

Spoiler

 

That was indeed the exact and open purpose of the legislation. Other laws they passed, while they dragged out the in-person legislative session long after it had been confirmed that we do indeed have a pandemic in the US, was to force anyone who identified as a woman and who wants to participate in sports to prove that they are truly women, regardless of their age, if their gender is questioned.

 

This "proof of being a woman" requires a full medical exam, including a pelvic exam, and the results of said exam are to be made public as proof of the person's gender. Every person who has undergone a pelvic exam should be disgusted that this could be forced on little girls who want to participate in school sports. The opponents of this bill accurately described it as a direct attack on trans women of all ages. 

 

The legislators who sponsored that bill also sponsored one that would make it illegal to provide any gender-affirming medical treatments to a minor. Because trans teenagers don't have enough hardships to deal with, apparently. :eyeroll: 

 

Both bills passed with an overwhelming majority in both the house and the senate. They have of course been challenged in court by the ACLU and other organisations, and the State's Attorney General says ACLU is going to win, based on multiple precedents. Until they do, however, they are spending their own money and other resources in court instead of where they really are needed, and tax money that could have been spent on obtaining PPE and ventilators for our hospitals is being used for defending unconstitutional and very deliberate anti-trans and anti-equality laws.

 

There is something very rotten in the state legislature over here. 

 

 

  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Harriet said:

No KBs (have now had four rest days in a row... the warrior spirit has left my body and I am now a pacifist)

 

Also can no longer make myself leave this alone... rest days are important. That is how we heal the warrior spirit when it takes damage.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, miss_marissa said:
  Hide contents

That is so gross and invasive to not only transgender people, but also cisgendered females. 

 

I hate it here.

 

 

 

Spoiler

It is gross, period. My volunteer group lobbied hard against this bill, for obvious reasons.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Scalyfreak said:

 

 

@h3r0 is correct in assuming your speculation is correct. Bitterness and additional detail in the spoiler.

 

  Hide contents

 

That was indeed the exact and open purpose of the legislation. Other laws they passed, while they dragged out the in-person legislative session long after it had been confirmed that we do indeed have a pandemic in the US, was to force anyone who identified as female and who wants to participate in sports to prove that they are female, regardless of their age, if their gender is questioned.

 

This "proof of being female" requires a full medical exam, including a pelvic exam, and the results of said exam are to be made public as proof of the person's gender. Every female who has undergone a pelvic exam should be disgusted that this could be forced on little girls who want to participate in school sports. The opponents of this bill accurately described it as a direct attack on trans-females of all ages. (Apologies if that's the wrong term. Having a mental 404 on terminology over here and had to wing it.)

 

The legislators who sponsored that bill also sponsored one that would make it illegal to provide any gender-affirming medical treatments to a minor. Because trans teenagers don't have enough hardships to deal with, apparently. :eyeroll: 

 

Both bills passed with an overwhelming majority in both the house and the senate. They have of course been challenged in court by the ACLU and other organisations, and the State's Attorney General says ACLU is going to win, based on multiple precedents. Until they do, however, they are spending their own money and other resources in court instead of where they really are needed, and tax money that could have been spent on obtaining PPE and ventilators for our hospitals is being used for defending unconstitutional and very deliberate anti-trans and anti-equality laws.

 

There is something very rotten in the state legislature over here. 

 

 

 

Spoiler

I’m familiar with the terminology because this is related to the debates on my social media, and it's something I've been looking into.

 

-Female/male usually refers to biological sex

-Feminine/masculine usually refers to social genders/roles

-Woman/man is… a contested term. Suffice it to say that it might mean:

a) someone who identifies as a woman

b) someone who lives out the social life/roles of a woman and is generally treated as one

c) an adult female

d) someone with an innately feminine/female brain


So a ‘trans female’ might be interpreted as an offensive (or accurate, depending who you ask) term for a trans man. I think you meant ‘trans women’. Also, it makes more sense to say trans women identify as women, because it doesn't really make sense to identify as female.

 

As for the law… what???? I don’t think there’s any need to conduct pelvic exams on girls… their parents and teachers know whether they’re female or not. I can understand wanting to check for high level sports like the olympics or something, but even then there would be less invasive ways to determine someone’s sex.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Harriet said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

I’m familiar with the terminology because this is related to the debates on my social media, and it's something I've been looking into.

 

-Female/male usually refers to biological sex

-Feminine/masculine usually refers to social genders/roles

-Woman/man is… a contested term. Suffice it to say that it might mean:

a) someone who identifies as a woman

b) someone who lives out the social life/roles of a woman and is generally treated as one

c) an adult female

d) someone with an innately feminine/female brain


So a ‘trans female’ might be interpreted as an offensive (or accurate, depending who you ask) term for a trans man. I think you meant ‘trans women’. Also, it makes more sense to say trans women identify as women, because it doesn't really make sense to identify as female.

 

As for the law… what???? I don’t think there’s any need to conduct pelvic exams on girls… their parents and teachers know whether they’re female or not. I can understand wanting to check for high level sports like the olympics or something, but even then there would be less invasive ways to determine someone’s sex.

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

First off, thank you for the reminders on terminology. (I really do need to actually memorize it at some point.) I have updated my prior post accordingly.

 

Second, the supporters of this law claim they are trying to protect the "actual" girls in our state from being forced to compete against biologically male bodies, since we all know men are naturally stronger and faster than women, and the cis-female athletes would lose unfairly. This article by Barbell Medicine does a good job of explaining just how much bullshit that reasoning is.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Scalyfreak said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

First off, thank you for the reminders on terminology. (I really do need to actually memorize it at some point.) I have updated my prior post accordingly.

 

Second, the supporters of this law claim they are trying to protect the "actual" girls in our state from being forced to compete against biologically male bodies, since we all know men are naturally stronger and faster than women, and the cis-female athletes would lose unfairly. This article by Barbell Medicine does a good job of explaining just how much bullshit that reasoning is.

 

 

 

Ahhhh. I didn't want to have this argument, since it's all over my FB feed and the people doing the arguing are kinda scary. I do thank you for sharing your thoughts on this issue, however. I really appreciate our arguments and conversations. 

 

Spoiler

I'm going to send you a private message with my thoughts, because I don't want to bore everyone with three pages of argumentation. I believe your argument is made in good faith and we can disagree civilly, however. If anyone else wants to read my response, feel free to PM me. 

 

I can't just leave this article here without saying something briefly, however.

 

The long and short of it is that I think biological sex is absolutely not meaningless, it's real and very relevant for sports. I don't see how we can nod along to the TED talk on 'women are not small men' and get angry at the lack of research into women's nutrition and training, and then turn around and say sex isn't real just because intersex people exist. I do think we need to come up with compassionate solutions that work for everyone, and I think there's room for compromise, especially in schools. But I don't think it's right for non-intersex males to compete in women's professional sports.

 

Sorry. Thanks. Please don't dox me or burn my Harry Potter books. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Harriet said:

 

Ahhhh. I didn't want to have this argument, since it's all over my FB feed and the people doing the arguing are kinda scary. I do thank you for sharing your thoughts on this issue, however. I really appreciate our arguments and conversations. 

 

Spoiler

 

Since you made the decision to send me a long PM with your thoughts on this, I'm going to respectfully call BS on this statement. ;) 

 

I will read the long message tonight, when I have time and brain space to give it the attention it deserves.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.