No doubt that’s appealing to some (one example is the USA civil rights movement in the 1960s, especially with states conforming to federal laws that mandate desegregation of schools) but I think another advantage for the privileged is the lack of competition for good jobs, study places etc… If 50% of your peers are kept in slums then just by biological outcomes (lack of nutrition and sleep) the odds are very much in your favor. Throw in the psychological effects of poverty, mass incarceration, addiction and you have a situation like a running race where half the contestants have a broken leg. Fear of a level playing field might be another factor in why the privileged don’t want equal rights. BUT, imagine if we had 50% more people working on a cure for cancer etc.
But, but, but…I am winning everything. Can’t let those marginalized communities beat me. I’ve been told everything is a zero sum game! I say in the most whiny, navel voice. The kind of the voice that makes your soul shiver up and die
For those who you are wondering, the above comment was dripping in sarcasm. Human Rights are not a zero sum game. When marginalized communities prosper, we all better off as a society.
In general white cishet westerners don’t know any social dynamic beyond the “in” group oppressing the “out” group (colonialism, settler-colonialism, slavery, capitalism, imperialism), so without targeted education, their imagination of different social structures can only be a projection of this assumed default state.
Is Arch the most popular Linux distro at 0.15% of 1.95%? What’s missing here? Steam OS?
A couple of things – yes, SteamOS is by far the most popular Linux distro and it was left off this part of the list, and also Arch is the most popular because it’s a rolling release distro, so we’re all running “Arch Linux” no matter how far behind we are on patching our system. Ubuntu would probably come out on top if you bundled every other version besides 22.04.3 LTS together into one line item.
Here’s a screenshot of the Linux breakdown with a few more entries (though most are still bucketed under Other). SteamOS alkone is almost half of Linux deployments.
For those unfamiliar with the acronym, JAQ = "Just asking questions," a bad faith tactic pushing an absurd narrative (e.g. "movies for white people are disappearing") by pretending to ask innocent questions.
Direct quote, emphasis mine:
That’s why the final step towards true racial equality on screen is for whiteness to be cinematically named, described and dethroned from its “just human” position of cultural power. It’s time for white people to develop a cinema culture all of their own.
It's riddled with white power talking points like this. This shit is really fucked up. It is irresponsible for a well-known major news source to publish shit like this, even with the "opinion" label attached. It's basically right wing extremist (aka Nazi) recruitment propaganda.
I didn’t read the whole thing but I made it to your quote and I think their point is intended to be anti-racist. They are saying films have a sort of universal human experience or perspective or whatever you want to call it that’s been “white” by default but shouldn’t be.
This is also how I read it. I actually really appreciate attacking the idea of “white as default”. It’s kind of like how some gamers think representing anything besides the “default” demographic is “political”.
I think this is the more revealing excerpt:
This is the defining irony of white film-making. The more oblivious your film is to matters of race, the whiter it plays. Because whiteness is often exactly that: the freedom not to see race, even when it’s right there in front of you.
Basically, being aware of whiteness makes for less racist movies. There’s nothing wrong with white movies, but it’s wrong when white movies pretend they’re not white, but universal and default. The article concludes:
Instead, our twofold expectation should be this: 1) The industry affords more film-makers of colour the same creative freedoms and commercial opportunities that are now afforded white film-makers, and 2) That the film culture – including the film-makers themselves – develop the confidence, insight and language to discuss and dethrone white cinema.
This does not sound like racist dog-whistling or white supremacy to me.
Yep, and the top comment showed the exact kind of thinking that led to the creation of OPs meme.
Just talking about whiteness in anything other than accusatory or self-deprecating terms is always racism by default, even if the points made are absolutely valid and not racist at all.
This in turn leads to a situation where a large chunk of the “mildly conservative” folks can only assume, that if those are the advocates of the movement, then just mentioning their own identity will get them in trouble. Demagogues of course gladly take it from there.
Once again, self-righteous zealots sabotage the very thing they claim to be fighting for, by completely not understanding what that actually means.
That’s why the final step towards true racial equality on screen is for whiteness to be cinematically named, described and dethroned from its “just human” position of cultural power.
No, the way to dethrone whiteness as being “just human” is for all movies to have reasonable representation of non-white people.
I read that as white people being perceived as the default human, which they (the writer) assert needs to change by defining white people with a distinct non-default culture. Your emphasis only serves to show me your laser-focus on one statement, disregarding the context, which I perhaps incorrectly assume you looked specifically for after the title of the article upset you.
The real problem with that Guardian piece is the insistence on perpetuating a superficial identity marker well past its expiration date. Why do we keep breathing life into the dead horse that is racism? Let it die along with the aging population of people who grew up when it was still cool to think that race exists.
I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it. If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.
There is equity, and there is equality, and those are different things. I do think that forceful push to maintain percentages in various aspects of life to correspond to percentages of population often is actually unjust. For example, to insist that it should be strictly 50/50 percentage (or whatever it is) between men and women in all professions e.g. police, school teachers, etc. and actually stop hiring a particular gender until this 50/50 distribution is established is not good.
The little guy should be hurt in the 3rd panel as well for the sake of accuracy.
I find that equity tends to create the illusion of opportunity rather than providing the actual support needed to allow the disadvantaged parties to properly take advantage of the opportunities, thus backfiring and hurting all parties.
For example, giving college spots to those who are unable to pass the entry bar rather than giving them the actual support they need to pass the bar in the first place, which ends up with the disadvantaged parties falling behind and taking opportunities away from those who did pass the bar. In the end, nothing gets solved.
See Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
Sure it is, but folks fight it tooth and nail, so you end up settling for equity.
Frankly, I find the folks who think equity looks like your image and description are usually the folks we’re also having to fight against for justice. I’m a little surprised to see you supporting the fence analogy while also tearing down the boxes one. (Maybe we have different ideas about what the fence is?)
Personally I disagree that your third panel is accurate, and IME the occurrence of that outcome (and your “college spots” example) is a theoretical worst case, and detractors of equity-focused solutions claim it to be much more common it than it ever is.
It’s like all those 70’s cartoons where quicksand was a likely threat. Sure, quicksand exists. Are you likely to encounter it? No. Any entity that is supposedly taking unqualified candidates for any position based on equity programs would bring other harm to itself by doing so. I think there’s a reasonable debate to be had about things that fall under the broad umbrella of affirmative action, but I don’t think a reasonable debate includes the assertion that it routinely creates outcomes that result in hiring unqualified candidates.
It’s far easier to find cases of those programs doing exactly what they should than to find them doing harm.
The problem with equity is that we live under a government in which doesn’t give a rats ass about providing boxes in the first place and so rather chooses the appeasement route that takes the least amount of effort.
They don’t actually want to do anything, just appear like they are.
Making the comparison to the homeless crisis, it becomes more clear.
Instead of building more housing and providing a mechanism to help the homeless, they go with hostile architecture that forces the homeless out into dangerous and deadly environments.
They want the illusion of solving the problem while doing the most minimal amount of effort. If you didn’t know any better & saw fewer homeless people, you’d probably think that “maybe they are solving the homeless problem” when in reality they were solving “the homeless people problem” by creating an environment where the homeless either leaves or dies.
and your “college spots” example is a theoretical worst case…
It’s not as theoretical as you think, as there’s plenty of real world examples of the scenario I described.
Infact, Harvard; one of the most acclaimed colleges in the world let alone the US; was doing exactly what I described prior to the Supreme Court ruling that the practice was unconstitutional, see Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
Many colleges, do infact still engage in this practice sighting state level laws.
So that makes it a continuing goal and imperfect solution that we should continue to improve while working on the much bigger and longer problem of taking down the fence.
Yes, it’s implementation is imperfect. We’re on exactly the same page.
If equity or rather politicians focused on providing necessary supports in the first place rather than taking shortcuts, the fence would’ve already been down by now.
Please note, that I’m neither “right” or “left”. I hold beliefs that fall on either end as well a neither.
I’m mearly a rights advocate that looks for the truth & most effective solutions and in doing so, I believe we must look at the shortcomings of the supposed solution to patch out the jank so it can actually be a solution rather than the illusion of one.
People often look at the solutions their side proposes through rose colored glasses and solutions proposed by the opposition through a circus mirror. As is the nature of the “us vs. them” mindset the vast majority of people take when anything political is discussed. Hopefully I helped bridge that gap by bringing an alternative more neutral perspective.
The problem with this graphics is that this is absolutely not what equity proponents are doing. What is shown here is individual approach. What equity supporters want to do is to group you according by things like skin color or gender, and provide support according that grouping.
For example, equality in income distribution is when help is given based on income of the individual. Equity is when help is given based on skin color to make average income of all skin colors the same.
There’s also a conflict of interest that informs these notions, namely that “equality,” especially in the economic sense, the one that was invoked by MLK Jr and popular in the Civil Rights era, represents a threat to economic arrangements. Those same arrangements, like employers who purchase services from the diversity industry, inform the type of content that will be most marketable for diversity consultants. A company isn’t going to invoke notions of these things that would impact their bottom line. That’s why disparity frameworks are the most readily adopted by capital, because the arrangement of individuals in the system doesn’t alter or threaten the position of capital. The inverse example of this notion of equity would be, “everyone should struggle for a decent job and quality of life equally.” You can even bring this framework to the Antebellum south where, “if we had more black slave owners…”
So I always raise this “yes, and” approach to this subject matter, because it’s in the history of this racial order where the more radical and satisfying answers to it are.
Perfect intersectionality is a goal, an ideal that we can be measured against, but there must be a transition to it because we are not there in many ways. Places holding themselves to a strict or impossible standard are probably hurting themselves in the short term, but I still think that it is a good goal to work toward.
A great point! I feel like the overarching end goal is a meritocracy - people are rewarded for their talents and hard work. I’d wager most people agree with this goal.
The problem becomes disentangling history and circumstance from our ability to measure talent and hard work. The only way we know to break some social norms that hinder a true meritocracy is to unfairly manipulate the playing field in the short term, which in itself does not follow a meritocracy.
I think there are a few main obstacles:
Perceived talent and hard work that was actually the result of circumstance - those that think the system is currently working and therefore their position is justified.
Lack of acceptance that the goal is long term / generational. Those that are unwilling to accept a temporary ‘manipulated meritocracy’ in the short term that would allow a better one in the future.
I know Ellis Henican has a whole ass career that isn’t voice acting, but it kills me we only ever got him as Stormy Waters and nothing else. He’s got such a great voice!
You know, I’d be OK with all the AI tosspots breaking copyright if I didn’t risk getting a nastygram every time I download Jason Statham Beats People Up For 90 Minutes VII without a VPN.
Either we can all do what we want online or no cunt can.
This is a flawed method of thinking though, there are plenty of factors that go into what you think. If you’re aware of and trying to avoid a negative stereotype, you’re just as likely to fall into the “he doth protest too much” as someone who demonstrates that stereotype.
That’s impossible since the point was a superficial elevation of their own interests.
Unless you think the point of feminism (for example) is to make men second class citizens. That’s just not a thing. It’s a rhetoric created by assholes to get ignorant people on board with their continued grossness.
Unless you think the point of feminism (for example) is to make men second class citizens. That’s just not a thing. It’s a rhetoric created by assholes to get ignorant people on board with their continued grossness.
I think there may be some radicals who genuinely wish for that, but those don’t represent the entire movement and usually only pay lip service to the cause where it aligns with their personal beliefs. They should be ignored.
I’m not even sure the radicals want that. Anger is an appropriate response to oppression. Vengeance is an extreme form of that but I doubt anyone that isn’t truly damaged would be okay with it.
a lot of women who call themselves feminist believe theyre superior to men instead of equal. most of those are very loud about it, so feminism turns into a term that describes that, even if the “real” meaning isn’t that.
There’s also a psychological phenomenon that occurs in ‘elite classes’ where they think that someone getting more means they get less. They literally cannot fathom someone getting welfare without it affecting them negatively. It’s one of the reasons why poor people still support Republicans.
Unless you think the point of feminism (for example) is to make men second class citizens.
More people want this, than you think. These “radicals” are not a minority, and they are the ones who have ruined what feminism once stood for – equality. And the most intriguing part is this has only happened within the last decade, thanks to social media amplifying toxic voices (negativity spreads fastest). Feminism wants to recruit men, but openly says men and their rights (equality) are not their responsibility.
There is a big question mark on equality claims, which frustrates me, because neither needs to suffer.
The issue is that people generally view their situation not by how much they have, but how much more they have than others. It’s like a race to these people - who’s winning isn’t based on how close to the goal they are, it’s based on how far ahead of the competitors they are. People who have everything they need often see others getting to that same point as competitors catching up, and, seeing that they are not advancing themselves, they feel that they need to prevent that in order to maintain their lead. It’s meant to be everyone working together, but few see it that way, especially among the current “winners.”
I considered putting a “some” in there, but honestly, I feel like it’s sadly the default state, at least in the US. Even fellow politically-left people I meet rarely demand resources for underprivileged people that actually elevate them to their own station. It usually feels like “They deserve more! But still less than me.”
At the same time, privileged people will still sometimes feel a loss of something when you’re portioning out a finite resource. So if a particular group is 25% of the population and they were getting 75% of the pie before and now they’re getting 25% of the pie, that’s a loss. It’s a justified loss, but it’s still a loss.
That said, there are other things like rights that are not finite in any meaningful sense of the word. When someone is feeling a loss because an oppressed group gained rights, it’s usually because they’re an oppressive asshole.
That’s well and good, but bringing everyone up needs to be done in consideration of lasting multigenerational harm from what has come previously, and areas where we as a people and nation continue to marginalize, underserve, and sometimes actively harm some segments of our population.
Folks who think those things should be ignored are not actually interested in bringing everyone up.
That IS the point, and rarely do equality or equity initiatives “pull down” anyone.
But the Haves feel like they’ve earned their position, and that means that if you help a Have Not in any way, you are taking away from their achievement (which in this case is “not being born poor/black/female”)
I’ve been using steam since Half Life 2 released and had the survey pop up twice. And both times major data-points were completely wrong. Like resolution (it apparently used my second screen) and HDD space.
That data is about as relevant as a once a lifetime epidemiologic study about diet preferences.
lemmy.ml
Newest