Knights of Awakening: Jedi Safe Spaces (Charles McBride)

Atticus wrote: I'm not so willing to write off the "what can you do?" part, either.

That's just it though, I'm saying there is something that can be done, but it won't be accomplished if we just assume it's the goshdarn rednecks who are making us all look back.

Ignorance has no socioeconomic class, look at our politicians. All of them are fairly wealthy people and still manage to spout ignorant garbage.

To the question, "What can you do?" I say we need to educate, relentlessly continue to push forward in the face of ignorance and foolishness. We develop empathy, understanding, and compassion. We extend a hand, open our arms wide.

Listened to the video and well, Charles has, and always will be Charles.

What I am more interested in is the level of heat( I might even say anger), dismissal, and the type of critique that has followed.

Especially given that while others have had people post for them, Connor took it upon himself to post this here, and the creator of the video cannot defend himself. Which, I suppose if you were only talking about the subjects of the video, would be fine.

I only say that given the level of venom in the responses, I think it more important to look at the nerve it touched.

Especially when you talk about the importance of "safe places" and "privilege", while not providing one, and showing that TotJo has its level of privilege among its members.

I mean really, reference to rednecks? Come now, this is hardly mature.

Perhaps its best to look as to why it makes you so angry, because I cannot see anything to be angry about in an opinion that it seems collectively almost you see no value in.

That which I consider nonsense does not usually inspire such ire in me.

Things only bother me, if there is indeed something to be bothered about.

Now, I could project it back on the source of it, easy enough, but then I am simply denying the opportunity to understand why I reacted in such a way.

Khaos wrote:
That which I consider nonsense does not usually inspire such ire in me.

Things only bother me, if there is indeed something to be bothered about.

Now, I could project it back on the source of it, easy enough, but then I am simply denying the opportunity to understand why I reacted in such a way.

Ah, yes, I've been thinking about this since I first posted my reaction. Is it accurate to say I give no weight to what McBride says if I took the time to write a three and a half paragraph response? Yeah, it bothers me as many opinions I strongly disagree with do, but McBride isn't the sole problem. He's merely the focal point for which I can address my response to an opinion I've heard voiced more than once.

So I guess it's not true that I don't give any weight to McBride. I clearly care a great deal about the issue of safe spaces and what McBride articulated a viewpoint I strongly disagree with.

"Safe spaces" may very well be the greatest danger to its continued evolution humanity has ever faced.

Can you clarify that? I define racism as discrimination based on race. Not looking at someones skin colour as a means to reduce the likeleehood of being racist doesn't seem to fit that description to me.

It sounds to me like an attempt to not get caught rather than lack of racism. Blind people don't appreciate all colours equally, they do not appreciate any of them at all.

ren wrote: It sounds to me like an attempt to not get caught rather than lack of racism. Blind people don't appreciate all colours equally, they do not appreciate any of them at all.

I'm not sure I follow. If I reject the notion that there is race (as these scientists do) , how can I possibly be racist? Could you elaborate?

TheDude wrote:

ren wrote: It sounds to me like an attempt to not get caught rather than lack of racism. Blind people don't appreciate all colours equally, they do not appreciate any of them at all.

I'm not sure I follow. If I reject the notion that there is race (as these scientists do) , how can I possibly be racist? Could you elaborate?

From what I've heard from POC, ignoring their race is invalidating their culture/experience, be they good or bad. They wish their race be acknowledged, not ignored or persecuted.

Although race doesn't exist in DNA, it still exists in culture and cultural experience.

ren wrote: "Safe spaces" may very well be the greatest danger to its continued evolution humanity has ever faced.

Can you clarify that? I define racism as discrimination based on race. Not looking at someones skin colour as a means to reduce the likeleehood of being racist doesn't seem to fit that description to me.

It sounds to me like an attempt to not get caught rather than lack of racism. Blind people don't appreciate all colours equally, they do not appreciate any of them at all.

Practice makes perfect

When meeting something/someone different or new, its like a negotiation to determine what is and what is not the best manner to communicate and relate.... because what makes it different would usually imply that its less-familiar (and obviously new is completely unfamiliar) and so to make it easy - don't see skin colour! Instead look and listen to how the person 'wants' to be related with, see people for how they choose to be seen, for how they choose to interact, for how they choose to represent themselves for example. If they want to use their culture, race etc then great, if not then great. I think the problem is people are quick to use stereotypes based on shallow interpretations such as skin colour, instead of having a better more accurate 1 on 1 interaction. I cannot see how that is racist. It is though reducing the importance of race in the defining someones identity, but as mentioned unless they themselves make effort to embrace it and therefore it becomes an opportunity, something to discover about the person. It is in fact, the opposite of ignoring someone IMO. It is about wanting to see the persons spirit more then the body of the person.

TheDude wrote:

ren wrote: It sounds to me like an attempt to not get caught rather than lack of racism. Blind people don't appreciate all colours equally, they do not appreciate any of them at all.

I'm not sure I follow. If I reject the notion that there is race (as these scientists do) , how can I possibly be racist? Could you elaborate?

In doing so, you are rejecting the notion that people are different from you.

I actually find science to be a bit racist when it comes to humans. Biologists do not seem to have a problem calling marginally different animals different species, but humans? No we're all the same. Except we're not, and ignoring that fact is harmful to our health. As "race" isn't formally defined and corresponds to categorisations below sub-species, it makes absolutely no sense to avoid it or redefine it for humans.

From what I've heard from POC, ignoring their race is invalidating their culture/experience, be they good or bad. They wish their race be acknowledged, not ignored or persecuted.

Although race doesn't exist in DNA, it still exists in culture and cultural experience.

Race exists in DNA. The cultural race thing is a load of nonsense. The nazis did it with the jews and the SJWs do it with everyone. Bunch of fucking arseholes, the lot of them.

Cultures are cultures, they are not owned and certainly not on the basis of people's physical characteristics. Most importantly, people with certain physical characteristics are not responsible for any particular cultures. nuff said

ren wrote:

From what I've heard from POC, ignoring their race is invalidating their culture/experience, be they good or bad. They wish their race be acknowledged, not ignored or persecuted.

Although race doesn't exist in DNA, it still exists in culture and cultural experience.

Race exists in DNA. The cultural race thing is a load of nonsense. The nazis did it with the jews and the SJWs do it with everyone. Bunch of fucking arseholes, the lot of them.

Cultures are cultures, they are not owned and certainly not on the basis of people's physical characteristics. Most importantly, people with certain physical characteristics are not responsible for any particular cultures. nuff said

No no, not "nuff said." Are you denying that race-based culture exists? And just because the Nazis were obsessed with race to a degree where they believed that one race (and really, only particular characteristics within one race) was superior to the others, that doesn't mean that every who acknowledges race is a Nazi..or a SJW.

And no, race doesn't *automatically* define one's culture. But for many, it does. Why do you think so many immigrants tend to live together in the same neighbourhoods? Because it gives them comfort to be close to those of the same culture (and, depending on the culture, race) as they themselves are part of.

Acknowledging difference in race/culture only means racism if we choose to be divisive rather than inclusive.

ren wrote: In doing so, you are rejecting the notion that people are different from you.

I actually find science to be a bit racist when it comes to humans. Biologists do not seem to have a problem calling marginally different animals different species, but humans? No we're all the same. Except we're not, and ignoring that fact is harmful to our health. As "race" isn't formally defined and corresponds to categorisations below sub-species, it makes absolutely no sense to avoid it or redefine it for humans.

I also find the humanocentrism in science (and most philosophy, for that matter) unbecoming. But I wouldn't consider Advaita Vedanta folks over in India to be racists, and they reject the notion that anything is different from anything else, which would necessarily include people. Actually, I find the idea of substance monism to be not only in line with the Force, but also an extremely viable logical conclusion (through Spinoza’s ontological argument for the existence of substance). I don't see how rejecting the idea that there is anything to discriminate against is a discriminatory idea, I think it's the exact opposite.