Knights of Awakening: Jedi Safe Spaces (Charles McBride)

Leah Starspectre wrote:

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?

Race-based culture does exist. It's called racism.

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.

What the nazis did is mix race with culture. There is no jewish race. The european jews they persecuted were far more european than semitic. European jews do not look like semites, and Yiddish is not a semitic language, it is a germanic language. What the nazis did is associate the culture of a minority of jews with an inexistent jewish race. The nazis showed us how much power could be gathered and used to control and persecute using this method. SJWs use this method to do the same, although they have found more efficient methods of dealing with their undesirables.

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.

I'm an immigrant, and so is my wife. We're from different continents and at opposite ends of the skin colour spectrum. My race does not define my culture (although people never manage to figure me out anyway), and my wife's race most certainly does not define her culture, in fact it severely aggravates her when people believe that it does or suggest that it should.

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

Acknowledging a difference in culture has got nothing to do with racism. Race is physical, culture spiritual.

TheDude wrote:
To be fair, Audrey is hardly an unbiased source of information.

By McBride's own standard, Audre Lorde is the most qualified to speak on black women's anger. You're welcome to disagree with me, but at least be consistent.

TheDude wrote: I'm not sure about Tatum, quick Google search resulted in saying that she's a clinical psychologist, and psychology has a long history of extremely biased practitioners. I would know, I've studied it formally and extensively. Not to mention current trends in the APA which tend to favor public opinion over scientific research.

I too have studied psychology and know of its troubled past, however I cannot dismiss it wholesale and neither can you. If you want to do your own research and furnish evidence that suggests Tatum's work is bunk, be my guest.

EDIT: Also, it seems a bit funny that someone has to get a PhD to be taken seriously and yet somehow someone has the nerve to try to discredit them with a 5-second Google search.

I work with APA academically and professionally. Just because something coincides with public opinion doesn't mean it's abandoned the peer-reviewed methodology (in fact, it's usually because of public opinion that research on certain issues ever sees the light of day).

I have a question. I am not stating an opinion or looking for a verbal brawl. It is simply a question that I would like everyone to think on....As I will as well. I have heard many people on here speak that violence does not fix violence I only perpetuates it. Even if the violence is only in retaliation to violence. Why then do so many people(and I do not necessarily mean on here, I mean in society in general) seem to feel that all the so-called, for lack of a better term, "reverse racism" is acceptable? For example, excluding another race from anything because at one point in time a race was excluded. Or the name calling or word usage that is accepted or rather allowed (unfortunately) from.....I hate that I have to word/state it this way but I'm afraid I'm tired and I can't think of more proper wording or a better example....racial minorities but if a white person were to use those words all hell would break loose. I have been called a peckerwood, cracker, he'll I've even been called a Kyke (and I'm not even Jewish...and not sure where the term truly comes from), and multiple other derogatory names and to me they are just words and to some they are not but either way society as a whole seems to take no offense to this. But if the position were reversed then everyone goes crazy. I feel that if we cannot fix violence with violence because it only perpetuates it then the same should be with racism because more racism the other direction will only perpetuate more racism. If peace is the answer to violence then shouldn't seeing past the color of skin and viewing a person for who they are be the answer? Shouldn't we lead by example instead of perpetuating the ongoing struggle? Anyway, this is my belief and has been for as long as I can remember but as I said, I will meditate on this some more and perhaps find a new way to see it. I hope that you will all join me at least in an attempt.

Jamie Stick wrote: By McBride's own standard, Audre Lorde is the most qualified to speak on black women's anger. You're welcome to disagree with me, but at least be consistent.

I think that's the difference between me and people who care about unimportant garbage like identity politics. I don't think anyone is more or less qualified to talk about any issue due to circumstances beyond their control. You and I are just as qualified to talk about any issue facing any person or group of people. I just wanted to point out that it's not exactly a solid resource. Nothing I've said has been inconsistent.

I too have studied psychology and know of its troubled past, however I cannot dismiss it wholesale and neither can you. If you want to do your own research and furnish evidence that suggests Tatum's work is bunk, be my guest.

Never heard of her before. You could've linked to a study or something with at least some statistics behind it. I'm not going to read a huge publication like a book or novel just to see if someone's a trustworthy resource or not, lol. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would. That's a lot of work for very little purpose, and if it's scientifically based the information should be readily available in an easily read graph or chart, like with most psychology publications I've seen. Scientists tend to streamline information in an easily accessible manner, at least in all of the modern publications I've read.

EDIT: Also, it seems a bit funny that someone has to get a PhD to be taken seriously and yet somehow someone has the nerve to try to discredit them with a 5-second Google search.

5 second Google search is enough to figure out that Melissa Click is an idiot regardless of her Ph.D. It's enough to find any resource on Plato or Nietzsche or Kant I might want. I've met plenty of Ph.D. holders who didn't seem like they had a brain between their ears. I legitimately know homeless people with no formal education who are far more intelligent than half of the Ph.D.'s I've met. In my experience, most people with Ph.D.'s who are working at research universities have a very, very poor understanding of the common people. Ivory tower and all that. Including in clinical psychology programs. Degrees mean pretty much nothing. Smartest person I know is a drop-out, and I know plenty of Ph.D.'s.

I work with APA academically and professionally. Just because something coincides with public opinion doesn't mean it's abandoned the peer-reviewed methodology (in fact, it's usually because of public opinion that research on certain issues ever sees the light of day).

Oh come now, the primary source of dissatisfaction that I and most other people in the field I know have towards the APA is their tendency to move towards the politically correct. I know quite a few L.P.'s with their Ph.D.'s who consider the newest DSM to be an absolute joke and a disgrace to the field. It's not as if I'm the only one saying this.

Alright, not that I don't love a good ego-stroking, but clearly I am arguing with people who have already made up their mind. I mean it's whatever, I'm always really disappointed when people don't offer solid arguments and evidence to support their claims, but I'm also aware that when a person is convinced they are right about something no amount of evidence to the contrary of their beliefs is going to convince them. Ideological gridlock.

For the record, I read books all the time to understand and critique; it's part of the critical thinking process. In fact, it's hard to read a book any other way now (which gets really annoying when I'm reading fiction for fun). I do it with television and film as well. I'm not saying it's easy and it's definitely time consuming, but it means that I can sniff out a flimsy argument pretty quickly (ironically, it can be hard to see my own). So please, if you're going to argue with me you're going to have to do a lot better than "You have to agree..." and "I did a quick Google search" because there is no way in hell I can take your argument seriously when that's your approach.

First gathering was $100? For Charles yes. It was actually nearly free up to $25. Prices got higher the more privlaged Jedi got. (Wanting plush beds, WiFi, Catering, ect ect)

That...really, is the only Critique I have for Charles's speach.

The rest i wholeheartedly agree with. To answer the OP's question

"Is this the right direction for Jedi to go?"

No. It is not.

Jamie Stick wrote: I know this is going to sound as though I'm just being a contrarian or picking a fight for the sake of it, but most of what you posted doesn't surprise me nor is it racist.

i dont think youre just being contrary, i think that we see things very differently

youre promoting the ideas that you think are best for society, as i am

Jamie Stick wrote: There is a rub between moderate liberals, left liberals, and leftists about what the goal should be: tolerance, diversity, cultural competence, etc. Each has a historical place within the development of socially progressive thought and each has a connotation in today's context. Tolerance is a farce.

that would depend on what you mean by "tolerance" and also what you think "intolerance" means

when someone is promoting ideas that will increase the amount of hate and violence in society, bigotry and racism for example, it is farcical to claim oneself "an instrument of peace" while turning a blind eye and responding with only silence

but the extreme end of intolerance is outright extermination, not simply of the ideas but of the people who believe them

i am curious, what do you think about the extermination of white people?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEqa90XpPw0

there is no one else who posts here who is as overtly racist as you are, so when i ask "what do you think about the extermination of white people?" it is because i wonder how much the idea appeals to you
?
i mean, its a pretty intolerant solution, which would perhaps be naturally attractive to one who holds that "tolerance is a farce"

but do you not see how tolerance is something that also works in your favor?
american society has violent and hateful elements in it but i dont think theres ever been a MORE tolerant generation than todays-
it seems to me that each generation or so is more tolerant than those before, more open to racial and gender and orientation equality than their parents or grandparents were?

but i would point out on that note, that the obnoxiousness of the current gen might just backlash and create less tolerance in the near future, because when you promote racism and bigotry, thats what you create: intolerance

Jamie Stick wrote: Furthermore, there's a paradox in racial justice: white people stuck together often times tend towards racial prejudice. People of color in their own cultural or ethnic groups often times become more capable and confident in who they are and able to help others (even white people) develop understanding and empathy. Of course, having these people of color-specific circles can be difficult because people on the outside looking in don't understand the benefit. For more on this, I'd suggest Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria: And Other Conversations About Race by Dr. Beverly Daniel Tatum .

lol ive been to schools and jails and ive lived in low income black neighborhoods and mexican neighborhoods, and my own experience has shown me that blacks and mexicans at leas are just as likely to be violent and bigoted when they get together as whites are

and even if this werent true, the more you are successful in pushing the "white people are scum" ideology, the more racist and violent people of all the other races are going to be towards whites

if you think that will make society better then youre crazy, more violence is not good, even if it makes you feel good to see that your enemy is being punished

also, this idea that everyone who is not white is "poc" and has the same cultural experience is just utterly stupid lol

not being white doesnt unify people or make people any more alike to each other than not being left handed, or not being born after 1990 - its just another example of the racist over-simplification of the SJW movement, which is why i refuse to use the term

lol "POC"; sounds like the name of a boy-band or something
"YOU DOWN WITH POC YEAH YOU KNOW ME" lol

Jamie Stick wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote: At one point, protesters reported, “white allies” were “asked to leave.”

This would make sense if you gave it a good long think, maybe. I'll help by way of metaphor: If I've had multiple traumatic car accidents, would it be unreasonable to ask that I not be forced to socialize with new friends in a parked car?

i think this is insulting to people who have actually been in traumatic car accidents!

but your metaphor is great because it demonstrates the silliness of the thinking: you left your house to go to a public event, then you told members of that public event that they have to leave because you are traumatized

well that's pretty ***** stupid lol

i agree that it would be unreasonable if those friends of yours drove their car into your therapists office (right through the walls!) while you were trying to come to terms with what the frailty of human existence actually means to you personally

or if they came into your home where you were recovering and yelled "beep beep OMG LOOK OUT AAHHHHH!!" really loud and crashed some pans and pots together

but if you choose to go out to the event then you cant really say youre being "forced" to endure the presence of the people who are there can you?
i mean you could just leave right?

and if you want to host an event with no white people, or with only people of a certain race or ethnicity, you could just say so from the beginning right? make it clear from the get-go that your event is only for a specific group

and this is a fundamental difference of perspective that we have: i dont think that it is societies responsibility to adapt itself to my frailties, i think it is my responsibility to make myself capable of interacting with society in a functional and effective way

and i would never EVER think that i should tell other people in a public space to leave because i am uncomfortable around them, i would leave myself or i would bear my discomfort

the idea that the of the rest of society should bow down and submit themselves to my demands as a result of the fact that i cannot function properly in their company is just ridiculous to me (ridiculous: worthy of ridicule)

i have been robbed, chased and pelted with rocks, jumped by groups, in school, in church, and in my neighborhoods, and in lockup, ive been beaten unconscious and stomped on while unconscious
ive had to go to the emergency room because of violent injuries, for which i still bear scars
ive been in situations where i had to fight because if i didnt fight i was going to get fu*ked up lol

these events all happened as a consequence of my socioeconomic status and most were racially motivated, in the sense that i was a targeted because of my race

and it would never ever occur to me to ask "my allies" to leave when we are working together to achieve a common cause, whatever color they might be
thats the stupidest, most petulant (and counterproductive) thing ive ever heard lol
i think those kids are idiots, not victims

poor little snowflakes lol

i dont believe any one of them have been so traumatized that they cant function around white people, especially white people WHO ARE ON THEIR SIDE

and if they had, then i believe they shouldnt go out in public: if youre so effed up that you cant handle society without having a mental breakdown or losing your emotional equilibrium, then YOU need to stay out of society until you get yourself together

OB1Shinobi wrote: [Jamie's note: from the article in the second spoiler] In response to her adoptive white father making jokes at her expense, Sarah Weiyun Otterstrom (SC ‘17) posted “I just need to get this out. I hate having white parents so much.” Another student responded by instructing Otterstrom to tell her father that “his pale ass is worthless and the sun doesn’t even like him. Talk about his receding hairline, the fact that he probably looks 20 years older than he actually is, and that he probably has a small penis.”

Jamie Stick wrote: I'm laughing my ass off. Where's the bad part? For more on this, I'd suggest: “The Uses of Anger: Women Responding to Racism” by Audre Lorde .

i understand that you can come up with all kinds of justifications for why racism and bigotry are OK as long as its your preferred groups targeting the group/s that you despise, but thats more a result of you being racist than of it actually being ok

you ask "where is the bad?"
well im not even saying that its so bad, per se
i mean, theres nothing new about whiny, privileged little girls saying they hate their parents, or mean spirited people taking an opportunity to be venomous to someone they dont even know
those are common occurrences, especially among people who are basically spoiled and self centered

see? im doing it too! so its actually in my best interest to have some compassion here: but its not something that ought to receive institutional support from a college campus is it?

i mean its not really making the world a better place or anything

Jamie Stick wrote: I know that people love a good story that reminds us how weak and pathetic liberals are, how fragile millenials are, and how social justice is nothing more than a ploy to oppress white cis straight men, but this stuff is really like two people talking to each other in the cleanest city in the world and one saying, "Can I have a stick of gum?" and the media reports, "GUM IN THE STREETS OF THE CLEANEST CITY IN THE WORLD!"
It's ill-informed fear mongering.

well, i disagree
i dont think that "“his pale ass is worthless and the sun doesn’t even like him. Talk about his receding hairline, the fact that he probably looks 20 years older than he actually is, and that he probably has a small penis.” is anything at all like "can i have a stick of gum?"

thats not even close lol

its more like "whinny kids claim "safe space" then use it as a medium to practice their own version of hatefulness"

some of these are stupid but some are great
"emotional tantrums dont lead to reforms" and "why did you make riot-shaming a thing? people who riot SHOULD BE ASHAMED!"
lol exactly.
thank you, black people on the internets: high-five

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEHb-5s4jW4

Kit, your words sting even though they're true. hahaha. I love my wifi at the gatherings... lol :whistle:

Connor L. wrote: Kit, your words sting even though they're true. hahaha. I love my wifi at the gatherings... lol :whistle:

Hey who doesn't? It is, as you say, still true I am not excluding myself from the word "Privileged" I have two kids and not as fit as I used to be. I have my comforts i want to have at gatherings....I am Privileged in my own way However...We had WiFi access when it was $100 per person. And comfortable enough beds. AND catered food (By Me - The Jedi Cook) And we still managed to keep prices...."Reasonable"

Last two years has been way above "Reasonable" IMO

Regardless Off topic now! Haha!

ive thought about a couple of things that is i said, but its too late to edit

OB1Shinobi wrote:
well that's pretty ***** stupid lol

i dont mean that you personally are stupid

OB1Shinobi wrote: and this is a fundamental difference of perspective that we have: i dont think that it is societies responsibility to adapt itself to my frailties, i think it is my responsibility to make myself capable of interacting with society in a functional and effective way

this is an assumption i have made based on things youve said, and maybe there is merit to it and maybe there isnt but i shouldnt state it as if its a proven fact or as if i really know

and that should have been "society's" and not "societies" lol

like i said in the beginning of that last post, i believe you are promoting the ideas that you think are best for society, which i certainly respect

my opinion is that your ideas, the ones i have seen at least, are going to contribute more resentment and hostility to our culture than alleviate, and will cause more problems than they solve

i have the impression that your ideas are more about attacking the group that you dont like than they are about about empowering the groups you do like, and so all i see is an attack

i dont know if you see it that way but thats how it comes across to me as an observer, and thats why i respond as i do

but i also believe that everyone here at totjo is here for the right reasons, and that we should be able to share our views respectfully

i dont have anything against you as a person, i just see things differently