By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - $5,000 anti-racist dinner parties

Jaicee said:

WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS INSENSITIVE DEPICTIONS OF MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES. THESE STEREOTYPES WERE WRONG THEN AND THEY WILL STILL BE WRONG IN THE FUTURE. RATHER THAN REMOVE THIS CONTENT, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE ITS HARMFUL IMPACT, LEARN FROM IT AND SPARK CONVERSATION TO CREATE A MORE INCLUSIVE FUTURE TOGETHER.

Earlier, @Mr Puggsly wrote:

Spoiler!
I am pretty sure you're racist regardless if you do it. Woke scripture deems it so.


I just want to remind everyone that silence is violence. Anything else is complicity in genocide by the systems of white supremacy that govern our lives in the imperialist order of the United $naKKKe$ of AmeriKKKA, including the genocide directed toward Black transwomen. Check your privilege.

</more racial justice cliches>

Now that the thread has died down a bit I just want to point out how uncomfortable it is that you're making jokes about black transwomen genocide whilst having acknowledged publicly in the past to being a TERF. I get that the joke is that the genocide doesn't exist in the first place and that it would be an outrageous claim to say it does, but regardless the joke feels pretty tasteless. Might want to think about that a bit next time, just an fyi. 



Around the Network
KLAMarine said:
sundin13 said:

You could certainly argue that the existence of white supremacy creates tension between those who suffer under these systems and those who benefit under these systems, however to place the blame on those who are calling out these damaging systems and not the damaging systems themselves seems ludicrous to me.

I agree, very ludicrous.

What isn't ludicrous is calling out HOW 'white supremacy' is called out. The very racialization of 'systems' and 'privilege', for example, is very problematic, leads to 'othering', something you condemned in this very thread, yet some do not hesitate to 'other' whites and create the setting for injustices like another disabled teen getting kidnapped and tortured.

Let's proceed more carefully.

If I have crossed a line anywhere in my comments in this thread or otherwise, I encourage you to call it out. However, I take umbrage with the implication that calling out white supremacy is in itself an example of racism. This seems to be an incredibly lazy way of excusing and enabling these systems, by putting blame on those who seek to dismantle them. 

Further, in the absence of individuals calling out white supremacy, the harm done by white supremacy does not disappear, and the animosity felt by individuals who suffer under it does not disappear. When met with silence and inaction, white supremacy grows. It is through the voices of those who have stood up to white supremacy that we have made the tremendous progress that we have made over the last century, and if we are to continue to make progress over the next century, it will be through the voices of those who continue stand up to white supremacy. 



sundin13 said:
KLAMarine said:

I agree, very ludicrous.

What isn't ludicrous is calling out HOW 'white supremacy' is called out. The very racialization of 'systems' and 'privilege', for example, is very problematic, leads to 'othering', something you condemned in this very thread, yet some do not hesitate to 'other' whites and create the setting for injustices like another disabled teen getting kidnapped and tortured.

Let's proceed more carefully.

If I have crossed a line anywhere in my comments in this thread or otherwise, I encourage you to call it out. However, I take umbrage with the implication that calling out white supremacy is in itself an example of racism. This seems to be an incredibly lazy way of excusing and enabling these systems, by putting blame on those who seek to dismantle them. 

Further, in the absence of individuals calling out white supremacy, the harm done by white supremacy does not disappear, and the animosity felt by individuals who suffer under it does not disappear. When met with silence and inaction, white supremacy grows. It is through the voices of those who have stood up to white supremacy that we have made the tremendous progress that we have made over the last century, and if we are to continue to make progress over the next century, it will be through the voices of those who continue stand up to white supremacy. 

Where I believe you have been in error is ballooning the definition of white supremacy to include more than the term seems to hold.

white su·prem·a·cy

  • noun
  • noun: white supremacy
the belief that white people constitute a superior race and should therefore dominate society, typically to the exclusion or detriment of other racial and ethnic groups, in particular black or Jewish people.
  • White supremacy or white supremacism is the belief that white people are superior to those of other "races" and thus should dominate them. The belief favors the ...
  • Most white supremacists today further believe that the white race is in danger of extinction due to a rising “flood” of non-whites
  • Definition of White Supremacy by Merriam-Webster

White supremacy definition is - the belief that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other ...

Notice out of the top results they all refer to it as a belief, not a system, not the societal morals.  If anything you seem to be conflating the term with the term White Supremacy Culture as described here: https://www.showingupforracialjustice.org/white-supremacy-culture.html

If you are trying to change the definition of a word to fit your own view is it any wonder so many are having a hard time with that?

Edit - sorry the formatting went all wonky on me and ran everything together making it harder to read and tell that those were the definitions from 4 different sources

Last edited by The_Yoda - on 02 June 2021

sundin13 said:
KLAMarine said:

I agree, very ludicrous.

What isn't ludicrous is calling out HOW 'white supremacy' is called out. The very racialization of 'systems' and 'privilege', for example, is very problematic, leads to 'othering', something you condemned in this very thread, yet some do not hesitate to 'other' whites and create the setting for injustices like another disabled teen getting kidnapped and tortured.

Let's proceed more carefully.

If I have crossed a line anywhere in my comments in this thread or otherwise, I encourage you to call it out. However, I take umbrage with the implication that calling out white supremacy is in itself an example of racism. This seems to be an incredibly lazy way of excusing and enabling these systems, by putting blame on those who seek to dismantle them. 

Further, in the absence of individuals calling out white supremacy, the harm done by white supremacy does not disappear, and the animosity felt by individuals who suffer under it does not disappear. When met with silence and inaction, white supremacy grows. It is through the voices of those who have stood up to white supremacy that we have made the tremendous progress that we have made over the last century, and if we are to continue to make progress over the next century, it will be through the voices of those who continue stand up to white supremacy. 

Let me make it simple:

If you object to the usage of the terms 'China virus' and regard it as partially to blame for black-on-Asian violence, I can object to the usage of the terms 'white supremacy' and blame it partially for black-on-white violence.

Last edited by KLAMarine - on 02 June 2021

KLAMarine said:
sundin13 said:

If I have crossed a line anywhere in my comments in this thread or otherwise, I encourage you to call it out. However, I take umbrage with the implication that calling out white supremacy is in itself an example of racism. This seems to be an incredibly lazy way of excusing and enabling these systems, by putting blame on those who seek to dismantle them. 

Further, in the absence of individuals calling out white supremacy, the harm done by white supremacy does not disappear, and the animosity felt by individuals who suffer under it does not disappear. When met with silence and inaction, white supremacy grows. It is through the voices of those who have stood up to white supremacy that we have made the tremendous progress that we have made over the last century, and if we are to continue to make progress over the next century, it will be through the voices of those who continue stand up to white supremacy. 

Let me make it simple:

If you object to the usage of the terms 'China virus' and regard it as partially to blame for black-on-Asian violence, I can object to the usage of the terms 'white supremacy' and blame it partially for black-on-white violence.

I do not necessarily object to the term "China virus" in a vacuum. I object in the context which I have laid out in several posts. I have also laid out how my objections in regards to the racial/xenophobic parts of the Republican Covid platform go much deeper and include examples that are far more egregious than this. You can't simply pick one small piece out of a much larger picture, make a shoddy comparison and conclude that the two things are the same. 

The_Yoda said:

Where I believe you have been in error is ballooning the definition of white supremacy to include more than the term seems to hold.

Notice out of the top results they all refer to it as a belief, not a system, not the societal morals.  If anything you seem to be conflating the term with the term White Supremacy Culture as described here: https://www.showingupforracialjustice.org/white-supremacy-culture.html

If you are trying to change the definition of a word to fit your own view is it any wonder so many are having a hard time with that?

Edit - sorry the formatting went all wonky on me and ran everything together making it harder to read and tell that those were the definitions from 4 different sources

I've mentioned several times in this conversation that I am speaking about the academic use of the term (Note that this conversation originated under the thesis "One of the issues with the left is that it likes to talk to itself, which can cause people who aren't well versed in leftist ideas to be puzzled or object, however I believe that behind all the confusing language is a lot of truth that raises fewer objections once people understand the terms and definitions related to the subject" (more or less)):

"The term white supremacy is used in some academic studies of racial power to denote a system of structural or societal racism which privileges white people over others, regardless of the presence or the absence of racial hatred."

"By "white supremacy" I do not mean to allude only to the self-conscious racism of white supremacist hate groups. I refer instead to a political, economic and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas of white superiority and entitlement are widespread, and relations of white dominance and non-white subordination are daily reenacted across a broad array of institutions and social settings."



Around the Network
sundin13 said:

"How [is it] possible that other countries wherein white people are a minority -- sometimes only a fringe minority without any political power to speak of, like in the case of say Japan, for example -- one also often finds exceedingly restrictive immigration policies and bigoted, hostile attitudes toward migrant workers?"

[1] Well, because they have their own systems of oppression at work. The issue is largely a majoritarian one, not a "white" one. White people aren't evil or bigoted because of their skin tone. These trends largely emerge from power. As they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is simply the case that in America, white people have historically held the lions share of power, and as such, society has become tailored to them. These types of discussions seek to explain the way things work in America. Similar human forces are at play in other countries, but through the differences in the countries, the outcome varies. 

"However, Donald Trump's opinions are not exactly reflective of those of most white people in positions of power even in this country, are they?"

[2] While Trump's opinions may not be reflective of a majority, Donald Trump is far from the only one who has been saying these things, and Donald Trump held a lot of systemic power. But does that singular power make this systemic? I would argue that through the outsized influence that Trump has, yes, it is almost inherently systemic. He still arguably leads an entire wing of our government, and his influence holds a lot of power in the news media as well. I find it difficult to not see such a thing as systemic given the fact that seemingly the majority of the Republican party either played along or stayed silent. 

"I really doubt that the black person who attacks an Asian-American over Covid-19 does so because they view themself as inferior to white people."

[3] I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here. I never insisted that this was the case, and it doesn't have to be the case for anything that I'm speaking about to be true. As previously stated, white supremacy is not really about people outwardly stating that one group is better than another, it is often broken into much smaller pieces, such as the belief that a nuclear family is a superior family structure to, say, living with your parents or extended family units which may be more common in other cultures. People often don't see that there is a supremacist component to these beliefs or feelings. Similarly, memetic ideas such as "Mexicans are stealing our jobs" largely spread through the power of white supremacy. White supremacy goes a lot deeper than simply people believing one group is superior to another group and saying "well, this person didn't say that whites are better, so it must not be relevant here" is a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of what is being discussed. 

"Crime rates"

[4] I think the decreased trust in police may be a better theory about what is the cause here than changes in funding, but I'd like to say that I put the blame for this on the cops who killed George Floyd (and others), not the people who criticized them for it. 

[1] I think we agree here.

[2] Okay, this represents a different definition of the term "system" than what I would mean by it. I mean I don't disagree with the substance of what you're saying here, but when I think of a general social system, I'm thinking of something that persistently governs society overall, not just one party or or a particular subset of a subset of Americans.

[3] Don't you see what you're doing here though? You're taking something very simple and concrete and trying to make something very complicated and subjective out of it because it is the only way to blame white people for hate crimes that don't involve them. That sort of thinking is the crux of critical race theory: it begins with the goal of finding a way of blaming white people for literally all of the worlds problems and proceeds to explain based upon this predetermined, simplistic conclusion. The conclusion is simple. The explanation from whence it proceeds, on the other hand, becomes so subjective and complex that it's nigh impossible to even comprehend.

[4] That's just a very dualistic, Marxian way of viewing life, IMO. The origin of the issue here is yes the need the problem of white racism in much of our policing and criminal justice system in this country. But the issue is clearly more than just its origin at this point. A gunman opportunistically gunning down a child or someone who pushes someone in front of a subway car is not 'criticizing the cops', they're committing a violent crime. The certain vacuum that has come in the wake of George Floyd's murder last year has taken on a life of its own and it has to be addressed to if we're serious about valuing black lives, frankly.



sundin13 said:
KLAMarine said:

Let me make it simple:

If you object to the usage of the terms 'China virus' and regard it as partially to blame for black-on-Asian violence, I can object to the usage of the terms 'white supremacy' and blame it partially for black-on-white violence.

I do not necessarily object to the term "China virus" in a vacuum. I object in the context which I have laid out in several posts. I have also laid out how my objections in regards to the racial/xenophobic parts of the Republican Covid platform go much deeper and include examples that are far more egregious than this. You can't simply pick one small piece out of a much larger picture, make a shoddy comparison and conclude that the two things are the same. 

The_Yoda said:

Where I believe you have been in error is ballooning the definition of white supremacy to include more than the term seems to hold.

Notice out of the top results they all refer to it as a belief, not a system, not the societal morals.  If anything you seem to be conflating the term with the term White Supremacy Culture as described here: https://www.showingupforracialjustice.org/white-supremacy-culture.html

If you are trying to change the definition of a word to fit your own view is it any wonder so many are having a hard time with that?

Edit - sorry the formatting went all wonky on me and ran everything together making it harder to read and tell that those were the definitions from 4 different sources

I've mentioned several times in this conversation that I am speaking about the academic use of the term (Note that this conversation originated under the thesis "One of the issues with the left is that it likes to talk to itself, which can cause people who aren't well versed in leftist ideas to be puzzled or object, however I believe that behind all the confusing language is a lot of truth that raises fewer objections once people understand the terms and definitions related to the subject" (more or less)):

"The term white supremacy is used in some academic studies of racial power to denote a system of structural or societal racism which privileges white people over others, regardless of the presence or the absence of racial hatred."

"By "white supremacy" I do not mean to allude only to the self-conscious racism of white supremacist hate groups. I refer instead to a political, economic and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas of white superiority and entitlement are widespread, and relations of white dominance and non-white subordination are daily reenacted across a broad array of institutions and social settings."

"I do not necessarily object to the term "China virus" in a vacuum."

>Maybe you should: wouldn't want to accidentally set off an anti-Asian attack now would we?

"The term white supremacy is used in some academic studies of racial power to denote a system of structural or societal racism which privileges white people over others, regardless of the presence or the absence of racial hatred."

>One could just go with something more neutral like "systematic bias" or "racial bias" rather than racializing the terms and 'other' whites in the process...



AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Now that the thread has died down a bit I just want to point out how uncomfortable it is that you're making jokes about black transwomen genocide whilst having acknowledged publicly in the past to being a TERF. I get that the joke is that the genocide doesn't exist in the first place and that it would be an outrageous claim to say it does, but regardless the joke feels pretty tasteless. Might want to think about that a bit next time, just an fyi. 

Those who demand sensitivity and respect from me ought to demonstrate some themselves. No one accepts the term "terf" as a descriptor of themselves and no one (including me) calls themself a terf unless they're being sarcastic. It's a misogynistic slur that is designated specifically and exclusively to women and frequently used in the context of a threat (the veiled one here being an example).

The term feminist critics of gender identity use to describe that range of perspectives is "gender critical feminist" or GC feminist for shorthand. Such women, myself included, reject the label "terf" on two factual levels:

1) most women to whom the term is applied are not radical feminists, and...

2) the women-only spaces such women defend are exclusionary of all men, by sex-based definition. They are not exclusionary of trans people (e.g. transmen).



Jaicee said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Now that the thread has died down a bit I just want to point out how uncomfortable it is that you're making jokes about black transwomen genocide whilst having acknowledged publicly in the past to being a TERF. I get that the joke is that the genocide doesn't exist in the first place and that it would be an outrageous claim to say it does, but regardless the joke feels pretty tasteless. Might want to think about that a bit next time, just an fyi. 

Those who demand sensitivity and respect from me ought to demonstrate some themselves. No one accepts the term "terf" as a descriptor of themselves and no one (including me) calls themself a terf unless they're being sarcastic. It's a misogynistic slur that is designated specifically and exclusively to women and frequently used in the context of a threat (the veiled one here being an example).

The term feminist critics of gender identity use to describe that range of perspectives is "gender critical feminist" or GC feminist for shorthand. Such women, myself included, reject the label "terf" on two factual levels:

1) most women to whom the term is applied are not radical feminists, and...

2) the women-only spaces such women defend are exclusionary of all men, by sex-based definition. They are not exclusionary of trans people (e.g. transmen).

I didn't demand anything, I just said it's might be something you want to think about next time. I also didn't make a veiled threat (?) at you. If you could kindly either show the example in which I did so, or take back that accusation, I'd be happy. 

Here's you calling yourself a terf in your own words: Locked: (SPOILER ALERT) TLOU2: Thoughts of a Lonely, Loud-Mouthed Terf Dyke (vgchartz.com). It's the only reason why I used the label on you. Frankly, I took the title as you being sarcastic, but not about being a terf, moreso in a being sarcastic in the vein of "being a turf isn't actually a bad thing, but people think it is, so I'm going to say it in an overly sarcastic 'taking back the term!' kind of way". If you don't identify as a terf, I'm sorry for mislabeling you, but I don't think it changes much if I just quote some of the stuff you yourself say:

"Well...being as Lev's entire character arc is his transness, as in he seems to have no other distinguishing characteristics besides being transgender, it seems very apparent to me that he was included purely in order to convince ignorant, narrow-minded religious bigots like me that gender identity is totes for real. Did it succeed? Noooooooope. If anything, it reinforced my pre-existing opinion that gender identity is simply a crude, anti-feminist way of resisting patriarchal social roles. Lev, it turns out, is male because he has shaved his head and wanted to be a soldier instead of the involuntary wife of a political leader. He is male, in other words, because he wishes to resist forced feminization. (As much only makes me all the more grateful for the game's inclusion of characters like Abby who get to be largely gender-conforming without having to be transgendered.)"

And yes, I know that later on in the thread you say that what matters most to you is how something is represented in games, but regardless, I think you can understand how identifying yourself as a terf then specifically outlining how you don't like trans people because you don't believe in gender identity and transwomen are anti-feminist makes the joke you made in this comment a bad look. Honestly, when you spell it out this clearly that you don't like trans people because of gender identity affecting feminism, it doesn't really matter which label you prefer though, does it?

Regardless, I'm not sure why you are playing the victim when a rather innocent and thoughtful reply is sent your way. Responding by trying to say that someone threatened you (?) or that the person replying is demanding respect from you (when it was a suggestion, and one that wouldn't even show respect towards me in particular) isn't going to make you look better. It's just going to make you look like you're weaseling out of a pretty poor joke. I'm not trying to make this into an oppression olympics contest; you don't have to. Just because I say "hey maybe it's not funny to make jokes about a fake hypothetical trans genocide, even if the joke is that people would believe in something so outrageous your past comments make it a bit uncomfortable that you are using something like that as an example" doesn't mean you respond with "stop threatening me!". 



AngryLittleAlchemist said:

I didn't demand anything, I just said it's might be something you want to think about next time. I also didn't make a veiled threat (?) at you. If you could kindly either show the example in which I did so, or take back that accusation, I'd be happy. 

Here's you calling yourself a terf in your own words: Locked: (SPOILER ALERT) TLOU2: Thoughts of a Lonely, Loud-Mouthed Terf Dyke (vgchartz.com). It's the only reason why I used the label on you. Frankly, I took the title as you being sarcastic, but not about being a terf, moreso in a being sarcastic in the vein of "being a turf isn't actually a bad thing, but people think it is, so I'm going to say it in an overly sarcastic 'taking back the term!' kind of way". If you don't identify as a terf, I'm sorry for mislabeling you, but I don't think it changes much if I just quote some of the stuff you yourself say:

"Well...being as Lev's entire character arc is his transness, as in he seems to have no other distinguishing characteristics besides being transgender, it seems very apparent to me that he was included purely in order to convince ignorant, narrow-minded religious bigots like me that gender identity is totes for real. Did it succeed? Noooooooope. If anything, it reinforced my pre-existing opinion that gender identity is simply a crude, anti-feminist way of resisting patriarchal social roles. Lev, it turns out, is male because he has shaved his head and wanted to be a soldier instead of the involuntary wife of a political leader. He is male, in other words, because he wishes to resist forced feminization. (As much only makes me all the more grateful for the game's inclusion of characters like Abby who get to be largely gender-conforming without having to be transgendered.)"

And yes, I know that later on in the thread you say that what matters most to you is how something is represented in games, but regardless, I think you can understand how identifying yourself as a terf then specifically outlining how you don't like trans people because you don't believe in gender identity and transwomen are anti-feminist makes the joke you made in this comment a bad look. Honestly, when you spell it out this clearly that you don't like trans people because of gender identity affecting feminism, it doesn't really matter which label you prefer though, does it?

Regardless, I'm not sure why you are playing the victim when a rather innocent and thoughtful reply is sent your way. Responding by trying to say that someone threatened you (?) or that the person replying is demanding respect from you (when it was a suggestion, and one that wouldn't even show respect towards me in particular) isn't going to make you look better. It's just going to make you look like you're weaseling out of a pretty poor joke. I'm not trying to make this into an oppression olympics contest; you don't have to. Just because I say "hey maybe it's not funny to make jokes about a fake hypothetical trans genocide, even if the joke is that people would believe in something so outrageous your past comments make it a bit uncomfortable that you are using something like that as an example" doesn't mean you respond with "stop threatening me!". 

Alright, if you say that your closing statement was just advice, I believe you. And I'll try to be more sensitive about how I describe activism around gender identity in the future.

Anyway, you didn't have to look that hard to find such a self-description: there's one in my profile. The context is similar: I place the term right next to "dyke". Of course I'm being sarcastic about it! "Dyke" is a hostile, misogynistic slur. "Terf" is a hostile, misogynistic slur. My use of these terms as a lesbian GC feminist is always contextually clearly intended to poke fun at the ways I've been characterized. I'm a sarcastic person much of the time. I do stuff like that. No one actually, seriously identifies themself with the term "terf" ever. To the extent that it is meant seriously, it is consistently imposed on people. It's NOT an identity.

Moreover, I strongly disagree with your repeated insistence that I "don't like trans people". Matter-of-factly, that type of dramatization is precisely the thing I was critiquing about Lev's relationship to his mother and the larger society around him in The Last of Us Part II. There are indeed people on this Earth who murder trans people. Those people, however, are called men. I've literally never heard of a single example of a woman attacking a trans person before in the real world, ever. Now I've seen the inverse occasionally in news reports, but not that phenomenon. Such cases may exist, but I've never heard of them before.

Frankly, most gender critical feminists are politically left wing mothers of trans-identifying children who's sinister motivation is simply wanting the best for their kids. They're not violent, they're not murderers, they're often not religious at all, and they certainly don't hate their kids. The game portrays every character who disagrees with the idea that Lev is male as a religiously-driven psychotic murderer who's out to kill him over it. I know TLOU2 is a dramatic story and everything, but to me this seemed more so than other aspects and discriminations portrayed therein (I highlighted how Ellie and Dina's experiences with homophobia seemed much more grounded in reality, by contrast, for example) and as much I found to be a minor fault of the game, which still ranked in as my second-favorite video game of all time in last year's top 50 games lists anyway. Moreover, you will also notice in other posts I've made that I've also praised the developers for having the audacity to include a trans character in the game because that really has been very rare up to now; more rare than trans-identifying people are IRL at this point. I actually like Lev as a character! I mean how can you not? I just wasn't convinced by his character arc that gender identity is a real thing, if that's permitted.

I don't buy into gender identity as a concept, no. That doesn't mean I wish harm upon anyone over the matter! Of course I don't!

Last edited by Jaicee - on 03 June 2021