Talking about race with white people

731 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

Anyway, here's another one:

http://www.canadalandshow.com/racist-rhetoric-barbara-kay-frances-widdow...

In her May 23 column for the National Post, Kay sides with other like-minded “independent thinkers” — particularly Frances Widdowson, an associate professor at Calgary’s Mount Royal University and co-author of Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry: The Deception Behind Indigenous Cultural Preservation.

Kay envies the freedom-of-speech protection that Widdowson is afforded through academic tenure, and by extension, her inability to be silenced. Kay also dubs her “a courageous scholar who dares to poke a stick in the intelligentsia’s groupthink hive” and “the last of the Mohicans in her field.”

Last of the Mohicans. That's clever.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
But again, that is in the shadow of a long history of white people getting non-white roles and no one saying a damn thing.

I think we kind of cross-posted (maybe I was slow with the typing).

But what's a "non-white" role?  In the context of what we're talking about, what might be a "non-black" role?

Personally, my interest is only in whether some white actor dons some "yellow face" to play an Asian, but not whether the play or movie or whatever wants to imagine some initially Asian character as white.

Jesus is a good example of a non-white role. Queen Elizabeth is a good example of a non-black role.

I have some sympathy for casting directors. An all female police station would be odd to say the least. The production would have to some how justify the lack of men because it's unheard of. So, to some extent they have to bow to reality.

On the other hand Murdoch Mysteries, set in the 1890s, has managed to have a black female coroner and many primary roles, both good and evil, played by women. Houdini and Doyle has a female detective. They had an episode in which they were investigating nuns for murder, and they weren't even sexy nuns. A black female coroner in 1890s Toronto is a bit of a stretch but it isn't jarring. A white male would be far more likely to be in that role but it isn't a documentary.

It's not tit for tat. Because white male is the default casting choice when a woman is cast as Thor, or a black person is cast as Santa Claus, it is taking one role of many available to white male actors. White male actors still take the majority of primary roles. When a skinny actress puts on a fat suit for a role she is taking one of the few roles available for a fat actress.

Boze

voice of the damned wrote:
Boze:

If you wanna use "cuck" simply to mean "someone who is less critical than he should be of certain left-wing ideas", go ahead, knock yourself out. But I will tell you right now, you are begging to be misunderstood.

If you think that's what I'm using it for, then you are not paying attention. I'm using it to describe someone who is so weak, so eager to appear non-threatening, that they accede to demands instead of standing up for themselves. "I am so sorry protesters, you're so right, I am so racist, how can I bend over further for you?" As you can see from the footage I linked, they hate him even more for it. Obviously!

6079_Smith_W

Of course, how it is used by Bannon's by stupid racists who think any white person who supports fighting against racial injustice is a traitor to their race, and is just doing it because they won't stand up.

Bullshit really.

Boze

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Of course, how it is used by Bannon's by stupid racists who think any white person who supports fighting against racial injustice is a traitor to their race, and is just doing it because they won't stand up.

Bullshit really.

Uh, look at Professor Weinstein. That guy is as progressive as they come, and he's standing up to these yahoos, and they're threatening him for it. The university president isn't going along because he's committed to fighting racism. He's going along because he's bought into the toxic critical race theory narrative that says that a white person has no business standing up to demands made by people of colour, no matter how absurd those demands are.

6079_Smith_W

Sorry, I'm confused. He's the guy calling people by that slur? If not then why are you holding him up as an example regarding bigots who are?

 

Boze

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Sorry, I'm confused. He's the guy calling people by that slur? If not then why are you holding him up as an example regarding bigots who are?

Uh, what are you even talking about? He's the professor at that university whose head the protesters have been calling for, because he wrote a letter explaining his opposition to this year's perversion of the day of absence. He's an incredibly well-spoken guy, just watch any interview with him. He's a committed progressive and anti-racist, and nobody is calling him a cuck.

6079_Smith_W

I commented about your "cuck" word, and in response you start in about what a great guy this fellow is. Is there a connection?

 

Boze

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I commented about your "cuck" word, and in response you start in about what a great guy this fellow is. Is there a connection?

Yes. You said: "Of course, how it is used by Bannon's by stupid racists who think any white person who supports fighting against racial injustice is a traitor to their race, and is just doing it because they won't stand up." That isn't how it's used here. Bret Weinstein supports fighting against racial injustice. But he's not afraid to call out bad behaviour, bad arguments, and bad tactics.

6079_Smith_W

I guess that means no connection then.

 

Boze

I'm sorry, what was your original point about the use of the word again?

Boze

I think there are many reasons why people on the left are deeply uncomfortable with the word. For starters, it originated as a gendered insult. It also seems to be attacking someone for being weak, and we don't generally like that, because we're supposed to help the weak. Are these reasons enough that we shouldn't use it?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I really don't care for the term "cuck" because it's nothing more than a gender stereotype.  Like someone who "fellates" the boss, or "bends over" for the tax man, it's used as some kind of opposite of maleness.  English is a rich enough language that we can do better.

6079_Smith_W

You think those who oppose Donald Trump's wall, or his travel ban are doing so just because we are weak? That the two men who were just murdered in Portland were weak?

John Brown? Andrew Goodman? Michael Schwerner?

Those who call out that word don't do so because it involves people who are vulnerable, but because it used by those who want to promote right-wing and racist ideology, or defend it.

(edit)

@ Magoo

Yes, but it also has a very specific etymology. Here's that link Michael posted awhile ago. It is worth watching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25psaDxHVfg

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
"I am so sorry protesters, you're so right, I am so racist, how can I bend over further for you?"

Boze, by "bend over further for you" are you referring to women or to gay men?

Boze

6079_Smith_W wrote:
You think those who oppose Donald Trump's wall, or his travel ban are doing so just because we are weak? That the two men who were just murdered in Portland were weak?

John Brown? Andrew Goodman? Michael Schwerner?

Of course not. It's very difficult for me to believe that you actually misunderstand me this badly. I think you're just being dishonest.

We're talking about people who DO NOT stand up for their beliefs.

Boze

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
"I am so sorry protesters, you're so right, I am so racist, how can I bend over further for you?"

Boze, by "bend over further for you" are you referring to women or to gay men?

No, I am not. I am referring to the fact that this utterly pathetic excuse for an administrator immediately capitulates to every demand these protesters make, hoping to look like an ally, and they actually resent him more for it, because people instinctively despise weakness disguised as virtue.

Boze

Prof. Weinstein is on Joe Rogan's show right now. Very well-spoken guy. The idea that he's a racist just because he stood up to some bad actors who happen to be black has absolutely no currency.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq4Y87idawk

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
No, I am not.

I think you misunderstood.

You're EITHER referring to women (who may "bend over" during sex) OR gay men (who may bend over during sex).

If not one of those, what is this metaphor alluding to, then?  Not "real, manly men", I'm guessing.

Quote:
I am referring to the fact that this utterly pathetic excuse for an administrator immediately capitulates to every demand these protesters make, hoping to look like an ally, and they actually resent him more for it, because people instinctively despise weakness disguised as virtue.

Okay.  I'm not even rushing to disagree!

But notice how you were able to say what you felt without having to compare him to women or gay men?

Boze

Maybe I misspoke, Magoo, I should have said "bending over backwards."

6079_Smith_W

Boze wrote:

We're talking about people who DO NOT stand up for their beliefs.

Give me a break. People who don't stand up for your beliefs is more like it.

The word is basically used by right-wing racists to bait others for not sharing their paranoid ideology.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/195434-what-does-cuck-mean-the-alt-right...

http://www.gq.com/story/why-angry-white-men-love-calling-people-cucks

Come on. You should stand up for your beliefs enough to not soft pedal that one for our benefit. We all know what it really means.

 

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Boze wrote:

The Evergreen College story is a perfect topic fo rthis thread, and a perfect example of how toxic a particular brand of social justice politics has become. There is no meaningful way for the people accused of being racists to defend themselves against this mob, or to condemn or denounce the decision to organize the day of absence in this particular way this year, within the confines of a narrative that says that when racialized people tell white people about racism, white people need to listen.

Some background: historically, Day of Absence is a day on which black faculty and students depart campus to make a point by their conspicuous absence. This year, they wanted white people to leave campus for a day instead. It then appears that the protesters took over the campus in a horrendous fashion, chanted slogans, threatened faculty and administrators, and demanded Bret Weinstein be immediately be fired.

All of this is doing tremendous damage to one of the most progressive universities in North America. Nobody is going to want to go there now. The college is having its name dragged through the mud and quite frankly deserves it in some respect, because this shit HAS to be condemned, denounced, BY US on the left especially. Of course, I'm just a white guy saying this, right?

I won't even deny that I'd take a certain perverse pleasure in being asked to leave campus for a day because I'm white. Outraaaaaaage! But my outrage would be more justified than these protesters' outrage, because what they're doing is disgusting, and if they tried it at a college that's as racist as they claim Evergreen actually is, they'd be shot like the animals they're acting like.

STOP TEACHING AND ENABLING THIS SHIT, PROGRESSIVES. THIS SHIT IS HARMING THESE KIDS' MINDS.

Look at that pathetic university president. The word "cuck" was invented for figures like this man. That kind of failure to stand up to bullshit is so utterly revolting.

I'm a part-time student at Evergreen and I can tell you that a lot of what you have heard is bullshit.

There was no coercion involved in the Day of Absence(I was on campus myself later in the day and no one hassled me over it, even the African-American students in the class).  Whites were not ordered off of campus.

The encounter between Bret and the students only lasted about ten minutes.  Bret was in no danger, neither were his students, and by the time the campus officer arrived and pushed his way through the white students who were protecting the students of color in order to head straight for the students of color(following which, the Olympia police and the Washington State Patrol were called in to deal with a situation that was already over)causing the students of color, now fearing for their lives, to seek sanctuary in the campus library.

Bret then went on Fox News to spread lies about the students-telling the white supremacist Fox audience that the protests were all about him(they were not)and that the protesters were threatening violence(they were not-they were vocally angry, but anger is not an inherent threat).

There have been several other incidents that helped create this confrontational situation-the school has refused to listen to students of color when they expressed fear for their physical safety and there has been blatant harassment of students of color, including two African-American trans lesbians who have been continually hassled by the administration for their activism.

If you want an accurate depiction of events at Evergreen, go to THIS site:

http://www.cooperpointjournal.com/

it's the campus paper and has the most detailed coverage and background stories on this situation.

Boze

Ken Burch wrote:

There was no coercion involved in the Day of Absence(I was on campus myself later in the day and no one hassled me over it, even the African-American students in the class).  Whites were not ordered off of campus.

I don't think anybody was "ordered" off campus, but what do you think about the protesters, led by one faculty member Naima Lowe, are chanting at white faculty to "go inside or go home"?

Quote:
The encounter between Bret and the students only lasted about ten minutes.  Bret was in no danger, neither were his students, and by the time the campus officer arrived and pushed his way through the white students who were protecting the students of color in order to head straight for the students of color(following which, the Olympia police and the Washington State Patrol were called in to deal with a situation that was already over)causing the students of color, now fearing for their lives, to seek sanctuary in the campus library.

Uh. Did you watch that footage? There's a loooot of footage.

Quote:
Bret then went on Fox News to spread lies about the students-telling the white supremacist Fox audience that the protests were all about him(they were not)and that the protesters were threatening violence(they were not-they were vocally angry, but anger is not an inherent threat).

He didn't say that on fox, so what lies did he tell? Also let's be clear, barricading the exits so that faculty or administrators either can't leave or feel hesitant to leave is clearly a threatening move. Then chanting "2, 4, 6, 8, this time you cannot escape!"

Quote:
There have been several other incidents that helped create this confrontational situation-the school has refused to listen to students of color when they expressed fear for their physical safety and there has been blatant harassment of students of color, including two African-American trans lesbians who have been continually hassled by the administration for their activism.

The students in one of the videos I linked said that the president taking his hands out of his pockets was threatening.

Quote:
it's the campus paper and has the most detailed coverage and background stories on this situation.

Given the way the administration, the protesters, and now the faculty who are calling for Weinstein's resignation or dismissal are acting, I have no reason to believe the campus paper would have accurate coverage.

Boze

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Boze wrote:

We're talking about people who DO NOT stand up for their beliefs.

Give me a break. People who don't stand up for your beliefs is more like it.

The word is basically used by right-wing racists to bait others for not sharing their paranoid ideology.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/195434-what-does-cuck-mean-the-alt-right...

http://www.gq.com/story/why-angry-white-men-love-calling-people-cucks

Come on. You should stand up for your beliefs enough to not soft pedal that one for our benefit. We all know what it really means.

That president has been cucked. I don't know a better way to put it. Your attempts to smear are your business. 

6079_Smith_W

Well like VOTD said upthread even if you think you are using it to mean something else no one is going to buy it.

But then, you aren't using it to mean something else even if you claim this is all about others being traitors. This is about refusing to believe that someone who you think must hold the same values as you (and in most cases it is because they are white, male, or  otherwise well-off) dares to fight for the equality of all. If a white person isn't an active party to oppression - and most recently in the U.S. that meant refusing to support Trump and his wall and his immigration bans - they must a traitor to white people and subservient to those who presumably threaten white people.

You know, like the person who was found dead near the Manitoba border yesterday.

Which makes it a bit of a contradiction that you are claiming a smear when someone points out what you are saying. Feel free to point out if I am mistaken, but you sure aren't giving any indication of that with that snake picture.

 

Boze

Quote:
But then, you aren't using it to mean something else even if you claim this is all about others being traitors.

I DIDN'T use the word traitor. This is about people being spineless. Watch the video I linked. The president is broken and humiliated.

Quote:
 This is about refusing to believe that someone who you think must hold the same values as you (and in most cases it is because they are white, male, or  otherwise well-off) dares to fight for the equality of all.

I refuse to believe that somebody like that president is acting out of virtue, you have only got to look at the fucking footage, he is acting out of weakness.

Quote:
 If a white person isn't an active party to oppression - and most recently in the U.S. that meant refusing to support Trump and his wall and his immigration bans - they must a traitor to white people and subservient to those who presumably threaten white people.

Oh give me a break, you cannot possibly think I am saying that. Look at the footage, this president is subordinating himself to the protesters, and part of that is that he's been taught that when persons of colour are making a demand of white folk, anti-racist allies should not argue. If you argue, you're "an active party to oppression." Now, these protesters have come along to hammer home the essential flaw in that twisted identitarian logic, and thoroughly debase and humiliate President George in the process. The chickens have come home to roost. Critical race theory is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

You are mistaken, and if you will not watch the footage then you cannot possibly know what I am talking about, so we can't possibly have a productive conversation.

The bustle article linked writes "Yiannopoulos claims "cuck" has become "a byword for beta male or coward." As if those two traits are synonymous, not to mention he clearly associates strength and courage with men and men alone." 

There has been a push to redefine or reinvent masculinity, and for good reason. Part of this push has involved, mostly implicitly, the idea that good men are harmless men, and harmless is good, and traditional masculinity is dangerous, and dangerous is bad. Dangerous = bad, harmless = good. This is deeply flawed; human beings instinctively disdain harmless men, and many young men and boys are growing up thinking that harmlessness is a virtue, when it's not. Don't tell me this is male supremacist thinking; reproductive success matters, and women don't like harmless men, generally speaking.  This is why the cuck meme works. It's recognizable. We all know a metaphorical cuck when we see one. He's a chump. The butt of a joke.

voice of the damned

Boze: 

Okay, so this for you really is about biological-determinist views of personality. I was gonna suggest that you switch from "cuck" to "white liberal guilt"(or whatever one word describes a person beholden to that sentiment), in order avoid misunderstanding about your views, but I guess you are the real deal. 

I think there was a time when expressing views such as yours woulda got you banned from this place, but I never really supported that policy(at least not the way it was applied), and I certainly won't be taking any regulatory measures against your arguments here. I can't say I'm particularly interested in engaging them, either. 

6079_Smith_W

No, I used the word traitor, because I am not going to be drawn into using your language which falsely ascribes motive.

It amounts to the same thing.

Human beings instincively disdain harmless men? Men and boys grow up thinking harmlessness is a virtue when it is not? Women don't like harmless men?

You think men SHOULD do harm? And that women like men because they might harm them? I think you are talking nonsense.

6079_Smith_W

I haven't called for anyone either. Doesn't mean I appreciate having a thread like this trolled.

Boze

voice of the damned wrote:

Boze: 

Okay, so this for you really is about biological-determinist views of personality. I was gonna suggest that you switch from "cuck" to "white liberal guilt"(or whatever one word describes a person beholden to that sentiment), in order avoid misunderstanding about your views, but I guess you are the real deal.

White liberal guilt would work pretty much just fine. I like cuck because it is short, to the point, and intentionally demeaning, not because of any racial connotations. It makes the point that the president isn't just a sucker or a patsy, he's weak, pathetic, craven, and immoral, and his weakness is his immorality. They are one and the same.

I don't know how you think that anything I wrote implies that this is all about biological determination of personality, but would there be something wrong with such a biological determinist viewpoint? Do we all have to be good social constructionists here or something?

Quote:
I think there was a time when expressing views such as yours woulda got you banned from this place, but I never really supported that policy(at least not the way it was applied), and I certainly won't be taking any regulatory measures against your arguments here. I can't say I'm particularly interested in engaging them, either. 

I am quite sure that you are in fact misinterpreting me. I am just not sure in what way yet.

Boze

6079_Smith_W wrote:
No, I used the word traitor, because I am not going to be drawn into using your language which falsely ascribes motive.

It amounts to the same thing.

Human beings instincively disdain harmless men? Men and boys grow up thinking harmlessness is a virtue when it is not? Women don't like harmless men?

You think men SHOULD do harm? And that women like men because they might harm them? I think you are talking nonsense.

You should be dangerous, yet civilized. Not harmless. Harmless is useless. Human beings are monsters, and what good is a toothless monster? Well, a mob of "toothless" monsters is still a mob and could do harm. Better to recognize the monster within yourself, and control it, and know that you could do harm if you needed to (it's not like the world is a particularly safe place). Carl Jung called this incorporating your shadow and said that people who don't do this (men and women alike) make themselves vulnerable to their own shadow.

"It is a frightening thought that man also has a shadow side to him, consisting not just of little weaknesses- and foibles, but of a positively demonic dynamism. The individual seldom knows anything of this; to him, as an individual, it is incredible that he should ever in any circumstances go beyond himself. But let these harmless creatures form a mass, and there emerges a raging monster; and each individual is only one tiny cell in the monster’s body, so that for better or worse he must accompany it on its bloody rampages and even assist it to the utmost. Having a dark suspicion of these grim possibilities, man turns a blind eye to the shadow-side of human nature. Blindly he strives against the salutary dogma of original sin, which is yet so prodigiously true. Yes, he even hesitates to admit the conflict of which he is so painfully aware."

Seems relevant to this conversation about Evergreen, no?

Yes. Better to know that you are a monster, and exercise appropriate restraint.

Boze

I urge those who question Professor Weinstein's motives to listen to what he has to say.

6079_Smith_W

Oh. Violence against women is okay because Carl Jung says so.

Jesus, what a pile of crap. You honestly believe that?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Here is a "rumors v reality" list prepared by one of my fellow Evergreen students, as it appeared on the "Evergreen Commons", the discussion board on the TESC(the official name of the place is "The Evergreen State College") website.  It's a good intro to the situation to those who weren't there(and the student gave me verbal permission to post it in other places)

The rumors/lies are numbered.  The truthful answers are all marked by the letter "a."

Want to know what is actually happening at Evergreen!? Don't listen to media sources that constantly report fake news and news that is only partially true. I work and go to school at Evergreen, and I was actually here.
This is a small list of false claims made by several sources:
1. The protests were about Bret
a. 1 ten minute protest was about Bret. The others were about the administration continually dismissing acts of racism on campus aimed at students, faculty, and staff.
2. Bret was blocked in his classroom for five hours
a. Again, this protest was only about ten minutes
3. Professors and administration were run off campus by students
a. Nobody was run off campus. Students protested, loudly, but they did not force anybody off campus. I was at the protest. Students went to a faculty meeting and asked faculty to participate in the protest, faculty willingly left their meeting and joined the protest.
4. Day of Absence required all white people to leave campus
a. Day of Absence has been around for 30+ plus years where there are workshops both on campus and off campus related to diversity training and racism. Traditionally, workshops for students, faculty, and staff that identify as people of color have been held off campus and diversity trainings and workshops for white faculty, students, and staff have been held on campus. This year the training and workshop locations were switched. Nobody is required to participate in this event. In reality, there were only about 200 spaces available for white students, faculty, and staff to participate in off-campus training at a school that has somewhere over 3,000-4,000 white students alone. Nobody has ever been required to be on or off campus during this day. Bret was never asked to leave campus. He was only sent a mass email which invites students, faculty, and staff to participate so that they can reserve their spot. All students, faculty, and staff were also invited to a movie on campus this day. I was on campus this day, it could not have been more ordinary. A side note: The emails stated explicitly that students, faculty, and staff should participate in whichever workshops they feel comfortable in.
5. Students protested Bret because he chose to hold his class on campus during day of absence.
a. Students protested outside of Bret’s classroom because he has a history of “reply all” emails where he spouts tone-deaf bullshit and demeans other faculty and staff. An example of his tone deaf statements, he said that he was a better authority to speak about racism because he was a scientist. Bret is not a person of color. Faculty that act like adults and not martyrs show up to teach classes this day without sending bullshit “reply all” emails and have never been harassed or protested.
6. Bret and other white people have no say in Day of Absence/Day of Presence.
a. Bret was invited multiple times to participate in the planning of Day of Absence. Bret sent “reply all” emails that he wasn’t invited to participate. Faculty and staff sent “reply all” emails and private emails with days, times, and locations of planning meetings and was invited (before and after he accused people of not inviting him). Bret never attended.
7. White people are being discriminated against.
a. No. Reverse racism is not real. In fact, you can often find white supremacist propaganda and graffiti posted around the school. Evergreen is also the whitest school I have ever been to, Evergreen and Olympia are alarmingly white. Out of my entire program, only a few students are people of color and all faculty that I am aware of in my program are white.
8. Students ran the school.
a. Not even partly true. Students demanded change from an administration that continually ignores racism directed at students, faculty, and staff. Students feel the new president has not done enough against racism on campus compared to the college’s previous president. Classes at evergreen are co-taught. Racism is so bad on this campus that faculty have dropped from classes they were teaching because of racist co-teachers.
Also worth noting, students that led the protests were young and fresh out of high school. People this age understandably make mistakes. They could have been more organized for sure. The problem is that Bret is an adult and should act like one. His white-male fragileness has made him feel like a victim. Instead of handling this through the appropriate channels, such as the college itself, he aired his grievances to controversial media sources and continues to do so. Some of the shows that he has appeared on has called for white supremacist rallies at the college. Because Bret's ego is so fragile, he has put students, faculty, and staff at risk and although his colleagues are receiving direct death threats and students have been threatened to be slaughtered, Bret continues to spout bullshit through controversial media. Bret was never going to be fired for being a tone-deaf idiot. But now that he has put so many lives in danger because of his recklessness, I believe he should be.

6079_Smith_W

thanks Ken.

Boze

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Oh. Violence against women is okay because Carl Jung says so.

Jesus, what a pile of crap. You honestly believe that?

Every time I go out of my way to give you the benefit of the doubt, you consistently seem to play the part of the troll. You KNOW that isn't what I'm saying. I didn't even MENTION violence against women. What would it take for you to stop reading things into what I write? I am not trying to say anything other than what I have written.

Boze

Ken, it appears you have knowledge that you could only have if you are either quite close to much of what is going on, or if you are taking things on faith. For example:

Quote:
Bret was invited multiple times to participate in the planning of Day of Absence. Bret sent “reply all” emails that he wasn’t invited to participate. Faculty and staff sent “reply all” emails and private emails with days, times, and locations of planning meetings and was invited (before and after he accused people of not inviting him). Bret never attended.

How could you know this?

Nobody is saying that the protest was all about Weinstein, or that he was blocked in his classroom for five hours, or that anybody was run off campus. But tell me, what do you think about Naima Lowe leading a chant of "Go inside or go home" to white faculty? That's an attempt to intimidate.

Quote:
Students protested outside of Bret’s classroom because he has a history of “reply all” emails where he spouts tone-deaf bullshit and demeans other faculty and staff. An example of his tone deaf statements, he said that he was a better authority to speak about racism because he was a scientist. Bret is not a person of color. Faculty that act like adults and not martyrs show up to teach classes this day without sending bullshit “reply all” emails and have never been harassed or protested.

Why would that merit protesting him? A "tone-deaf" email? Give me a break. The idea that racism is best discussed from a scientific perspective is a legitimate position to hold. The fact that he is not a person of colour doesn't mean anything. Critical race theory doesn't have a monopoly on this discussion.

And what the fuck does "alarmingly white" mean? Lol. It's Olympia, Washington, of course it's mostly white people. I shudder to think what you'd think of Kamloops, BC.

Quote:
a. Not even partly true. Students demanded change from an administration that continually ignores racism directed at students, faculty, and staff. Students feel the new president has not done enough against racism on campus compared to the college’s previous president. Classes at evergreen are co-taught. Racism is so bad on this campus that faculty have dropped from classes they were teaching because of racist co-teachers.

Oh, really. Racism at Evergreen is particularly bad? Everything I've heard from even people defending the protesters has been that Evergreen is a model of what a progressive university should look like.

"Racism is so bad on this campus that faculty have dropped from classes they were teaching because of racist co-teachers."

That's pathetic, if true. "My co-teacher is soooo wacist that I have to stop teaching this class!" It raises the question, who sets the bar for what is racist? People would say what I just wrote is racist. People say that Bret Weinstein's letter is racist.

Quote:
Also worth noting, students that led the protests were young and fresh out of high school. People this age understandably make mistakes. They could have been more organized for sure.

Bullshit. Watch the footage, faculty and alumni played important leadership roles.

Quote:
The problem is that Bret is an adult and should act like one. His white-male fragileness has made him feel like a victim. Instead of handling this through the appropriate channels, such as the college itself, he aired his grievances to controversial media sources and continues to do so.

There's nothing wrong with what he's done. There's NEVER anything wrong with talking to ANY media source who will listen, and it's DESPICABLE to suggest otherwise. "How dare he go on Fox news? Those airwaves are immoral!"

Quote:
Some of the shows that he has appeared on has called for white supremacist rallies at the college.

Bullshit. Prove it. Name one. You are just repeating shit you have been told.

Quote:
 Because Bret's ego is so fragile, he has put students, faculty, and staff at risk and although his colleagues are receiving direct death threats and students have been threatened to be slaughtered, Bret continues to spout bullshit through controversial media. Bret was never going to be fired for being a tone-deaf idiot. But now that he has put so many lives in danger because of his recklessness, I believe he should be.

You're an ignorant fascist. What "controversial" media? Dave fuckin' Rubin? Joe Rogan?

I think you just don't know how to deal with this other than to defend the indefensible. You can't find a way to climb down from this position you've taken. Honestly dude, give your head a shake. "Controversial media." What a fucking thing to say.

6079_Smith_W

Even if there is some scuttlebut about what "cuck" means, it is pretty clear what "harmless" and its opposite mean, right Boze.

If, as you say, women don't like men who are harmless, what are you saying? Women like men based on their potential ability to beat the shit out of them? Or to have that presumed masculine power, even if they are nice guys and keep it in check?

If you aren't quite sure how I am misunderstanding you, maybe think about it and get back to me.

 

Boze

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Even if there is some scuttlebut about what "cuck" means, it is pretty clear what "harmless" and its opposite mean, right Boze.

If, as you say, women don't like men who are harmless, what are you saying? Women like men based on their potential ability to beat the shit out of them? Or to have that presumed masculine power, even if they are nice guys and keep it in check?

If you aren't quite sure how I am misunderstanding you, maybe think about it and get back to me.

What's the opposite of harmless? Dangerous. Speaking generally, of course, women want men who are dangerous but civilized (and ideally they want to be the ones to make them civilized). Again speaking generally, women want men who are deemed worthy by other men, i.e. of high status, and being harmless isn't a great way to attain high status. Note that when I say "high status" I don't necessarily mean what you probably think I mean, like money or power in the traditional sense - those are just particular kinds of status. They work, though.

If you don't think ALL of this can be explained in terms of some kind of biological imperative you're kidding yourself.

6079_Smith_W

I think you have a romantically stupid idea of what makes you appealing to other people, Boze. I have never thought my potential for being dangerous carried any weight with my partner, my family, my children, or my friends. Sorry dude, but that isn't what it means to be a man.

My inexplicable ability to open jar lids maybe, if that is a big deal for you (which I don't get, since my partner has the far more manually physical job of the two of us).

I don't see how having other people thinking they might have cause to be scared of me would make me any more loveable, respectable, or attractive. But feel free to keep digging.

Boze

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I think you have a romantically stupid idea of what makes you appealing to other people, Boze. I have never thought my potential for being dangerous carried any weight with my partner, my family, my children, or my friends. Sorry dude, but that isn't what it means to be a man.

My inexplicable ability to open jar lids maybe, if that is a big deal for you (which I don't get, since my partner has the far more manually physical job of the two of us).

I don't see how having other people thinking they might have cause to be scared of me would make me any more loveable, respectable, or attractive. But feel free to keep digging.

Everyone is a monster. Do you want to be aware of it and make the monster part of you, or do you want to repress or deny it?

What happens when you confront another monster? Are you ready to be a monster when you have to be, or are you saying that you'll never have to be?

6079_Smith_W

If you are asking whether I have ever had to deal with violent people in a physical way, sorry to disappoint you, but I have. Numerous times.

Is this really how you evaluate people's worth? What are you even talking about monsters for? This is really really stupid.

Boze

Quote:
Is this really how you evaluate people's worth? What are you even talking about monsters for? This is really really stupid.

I didn't say anything about evaluating people's worth. But the idea that making yourself toothless is virtuous is something that I think too many people believe.

Why am I even talking about monsters? Read that Jung quote again and maybe it will make sense. Hint: It's about the "protesters."

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Boze wrote:

Quote:
Is this really how you evaluate people's worth? What are you even talking about monsters for? This is really really stupid.

I didn't say anything about evaluating people's worth. But the idea that making yourself toothless is virtuous is something that I think too many people believe.

Why am I even talking about monsters? Read that Jung quote again and maybe it will make sense. Hint: It's about the "protesters."

Being nonviolent doesn't mean being weak or toothless.  There are other ways to convey strength without sounding like you're always ready to beat somebody to death with a tire iron.

I don't think it's that women prefer men who are "dangerous"...it's more(from what I've heard)about women preferring men who seem confident in themselves.  There are a lot of non-dangerous men who can present themselves in that way.

And it's also possibly a reaction to the deformation of the concept of the "nice guy"...which some men manage to turn into "guy who expects sex as reward for helping a woman move into her new apartment"(which isn't actually "nice" in any recognizable sense at all).

And to get back to the thread the protesters are not monsters.  I know some of them.  They are angry and have a right to be, but they wouldn't harm anyone.

They are angry because, as always, those in power wouldn't listen when they were nice.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Boze wrote:

Quote:
Is this really how you evaluate people's worth? What are you even talking about monsters for? This is really really stupid.

I didn't say anything about evaluating people's worth. But the idea that making yourself toothless is virtuous is something that I think too many people believe.

Why am I even talking about monsters? Read that Jung quote again and maybe it will make sense. Hint: It's about the "protesters."

Being nonviolent doesn't mean being weak or toothless.  There are other ways to convey strength without sounding like you're always ready to beat somebody to death with a tire iron.

I don't think it's that women prefer men who are "dangerous"...it's more(from what I've heard)about women preferring men who seem confident in themselves.  There are a lot of non-dangerous men who can present themselves in that way.

And it's also possibly a reaction to the deformation of the concept of the "nice guy"...which some men manage to turn into "guy who expects sex as reward for helping a woman move into her new apartment"(which isn't actually "nice" in any recognizable sense at all).

And to get back to the thread the protesters are not monsters.  I know some of them.  They are angry and have a right to be, but they wouldn't harm anyone.

They are angry because, as always, those in power wouldn't listen when they were nice.  Those in power almost never DO, in case you somehow missed most of history prior to now.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Notwithstanding the meta-discussion of "cuck" and notwithstanding whether Weinstein was protested for ten minutes or five hours, if there's any truth to the claim that students demanded either his termination, his resignation or his suspension without pay, then this is still an example of the evidently popular "race to the bottom" when it comes to any kind of disagreement or controversy around identity politics.

I can only assume that this man, by not bowing his head respectfully to this year's Day of Absence, totally destroyed someone's "safe space" and probably "committed violence" toward them, so presumably he completely deserves to freeze in the dark.  HE KNOWS WHAT HE DID.

Geez.  Srsly??

Boze

Ken Burch wrote:

Boze wrote:

Quote:
Is this really how you evaluate people's worth? What are you even talking about monsters for? This is really really stupid.

I didn't say anything about evaluating people's worth. But the idea that making yourself toothless is virtuous is something that I think too many people believe.

Why am I even talking about monsters? Read that Jung quote again and maybe it will make sense. Hint: It's about the "protesters."

Being nonviolent doesn't mean being weak or toothless.  There are other ways to convey strength without sounding like you're always ready to beat somebody to death with a tire iron.

I don't think it's that women prefer men who are "dangerous"...it's more(from what I've heard)about women preferring men who seem confident in themselves.  There are a lot of non-dangerous men who can present themselves in that way.

And it's also possibly a reaction to the deformation of the concept of the "nice guy"...which some men manage to turn into "guy who expects sex as reward for helping a woman move into her new apartment"(which isn't actually "nice" in any recognizable sense at all).

I don't think you understand what I mean by "dangerous" or "harmless." I am not talking about nonviolence. I support nonviolence! I'm talking about the idea of "harmlessness" as virtue. 

Quote:
And to get back to the thread the protesters are not monsters.  I know some of them.  They are angry and have a right to be, but they wouldn't harm anyone.

They are angry because, as always, those in power wouldn't listen when they were nice.

Once again, you're not understanding. Of course they're monsters, because we all are, and if we pretend we aren't, we are ignorant of our own ability to cause harm. It's better that each of us recognize, tame, and harness the monster within ourselves.

Pondering

Boze wrote:
There has been a push to redefine or reinvent masculinity, and for good reason. Part of this push has involved, mostly implicitly, the idea that good men are harmless men, and harmless is good, and traditional masculinity is dangerous, and dangerous is bad. Dangerous = bad, harmless = good. This is deeply flawed; human beings instinctively disdain harmless men, and many young men and boys are growing up thinking that harmlessness is a virtue, when it's not. Don't tell me this is male supremacist thinking; reproductive success matters, and women don't like harmless men, generally speaking.  This is why the cuck meme works. It's recognizable. We all know a metaphorical cuck when we see one. He's a chump. The butt of a joke.

You are obviously not a woman and certainly can't speak for what we do and don't like or want particularly in a mate as opposed to a one off. Harmless is not the same as weak. Interestingly there are a whole lot of non-beauty-queens and non-jocks that have relationships with the opposite sex. I suppose jocks and beauty queens get the most action, have the most options, so if that's what your after then the qualities you speak of are important. I think most men and women mature and begin to see other qualities as more important in a mate or at least understand that we aren't all going to have jocks and beauty queens. I think all people hope to have a strong partner not a dangerous one. Strength comes in many forms.

Traditional masculinity is dangerous. Men don't just kill women they also kill each other and themselves. Dangerous to me means capacity to rape not protect. That ability is widespread as when men go to war women can expect to be raped as a matter of course. The kind of "dangerous" you're talking about is a movie hero not flawed flesh and blood men, or women for that matter.

Boze wrote:
What's the opposite of harmless? Dangerous. Speaking generally, of course, women want men who are dangerous but civilized (and ideally they want to be the ones to make them civilized).

I think I can safely speak for most women on this. We want men that are pre-civilized not fixer-uppers.

Your whole take is at once shallow and misogynistic and You manage to be pretty insulting to men while you are at it.

Pondering

Is there no way to flag a post now? The last video in the post that has a group of them is really offensive.

As to the president I didn't find him weak at all. Just the opposite. I found him strong and intelligent and exactly the right kind of man to de-escalate the situation. I find that admirable. If only it was a quality more police officers shared.

I think it's pejorative to call the protesters a mob. Loud chanting is the kind of thing protesters do. The professor is an idiot. He should have respected the reversal of the day of absence. He wants his 15 minutes of fame. He's getting it. Free speech comes with public judgement. My judgement is that he's an asshole.

Fox News, seriously. He should be fired just for that if it is a progressive liberal arts college. Those words have to mean something. He struck me as smug and condescending. He should have been listening and asking questions instead of insisting on speaking.

Boze

Quote:
I think it's pejorative to call the protesters a mob. Loud chanting is the kind of thing protesters do.

Look at WHAT they are chanting. "2, 4, 6, 8, this time you cannot escape." "Hey ho, hey ho, these racist teachers have got to go." Who cares if it's pejorative to call them a mob?

Quote:
The professor is an idiot. He should have respected the reversal of the day of absence. He wants his 15 minutes of fame. He's getting it. Free speech comes with public judgement. My judgement is that he's an asshole.

Why the fuck would anybody respect such a "reversal"? Seriously, if the point of the original day of absence was for persons of colour to make a point by their conspicuous absence, what exactly is the point of reversing it? Like the professor said in his letter, there is a world of difference between a community voluntarily absenting themselves and a community asking another group of people to absent themselves. The professor in question is also Jewish, and he makes it clear in both the Rubin and the Rogan interviews that this might have something to do with him getting his back up when he's asked to leave for a day on the basis of race.

As for public judgment, fortunately the public is overwhelmingly on the professor's side.

Quote:
Fox News, seriously. He should be fired just for that if it is a progressive liberal arts college.

Disgusting sentiment, thought police. If you have a message you should feel free to share it with anybody and everybody who will listen. There is nothing inherently toxic about Fox News airwaves. This is something I feel very strongly about: progressives MUST STOP refusing to speak to right-wing media, whether it's Fox, or the Rebel, or anyone else.

Quote:
He should have been listening and asking questions instead of insisting on speaking.

Disgusting sentiment, critical race theorist. Don't EVER tell me that I should be listening and asking questions instead of insisting on speaking, ESPECIALLY on the basis of skin colour!! It is ALWAYS my place to speak on WHATEVER I want to speak on, and the same goes for this professor.

Progressivism without liberalism is no better than fascism. Free speech and individual rights are bedrock principles.

As for flagging posts because a video had something offensive in it, that's disgusting and you're disgusting. Get the fuck over it.

And as for de-escalating the situation? Is that what you think the President did? He did everything wrong and made everything worse. Don't ever give in to bullies, it only emboldens them.

Pages

Topic locked