theSoulciologist
2042
108
27
Some scientific themes she's touching on:
My OC content goes into sociology concept but like you said you've got a job. Social facts: The given state of relationships; gatekeeping: exclusive criteria for being part of a group (white); cultural boundaries; the lines dividing groups (white/nonwhite, men/women); privilege: perks of identity that are often invisible to the in group members; political violence: state sanctioned harm; moral reparations: the emotional cost of undoing unearned privileges in an equitable fashion
@professionalyapper19 on TT
tinydog
Short version: Walk the walk, and understand that there will be risks.
taez555
smorsdoeuvres
AgingApe
Hear me out on this...the "soft" whites are the ones leaning towards white supremacy or engulfed in it, because they are afraid to lose the "privilege" in a diverse society. The whites who aren't afraid to stand up to injustice don't care, need or want "privilege" because that doesn't work for a fair and equitable society. The only privilege we should have is the one where we all get to live in a world without war and hate.
ICountFrom0
Cory Doctorow wrote out a story on this, though he made a point that even Superman would end up a non person. Check out Model Minority.
I'll leave a link to GoodReads
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61029671-model-minority
Cruxia13
It's why they posted his camera feed. It did nothing to show Renee Good acted violently against him or that she did anything wrong. It was to show that she was a white woman, but not one of THEIR white women. She was gay, and around other protestors, and has decals on the back of her car, and any other bullshit reason republicans can use to say "okay she was white, but she wasn't one of ours so she deserved to die." Any excuse they can find to other her and justify cold-blooded murder.
PwnageHobo
Reminds me of Flobots - Anne Braden https://youtu.be/1U3BSDARRuc
"Why is a nice Southern lady makin' trouble for the governor?"
"I guess I'm not your type of lady, and I guess I'm not your type of Southerner."
mieper3
What does "closeness to whiteness" mean in this context?
ElroydIsGone
It means that racists define "whiteness" as being white and racist, i.e. running with them, and that this is the only parameter that defines how you are treated by them, not your actual skin colour. "Closeness to whiteness" means how much you stand with them and not against them.
Stand against racists and they put you in the "dark skinned" group and act accordingly against you.
alt86er
The opposite of being free game by association.
Shifuede
First they came for the ....
ElroydIsGone
Yep, that's the implied warning here. No matter how much you consider yourself being in the group with the oppressors and therefore "good" in their eyes, you can never be sure, that they won't just add arbitrary criteria you need to fullfill to still be in their group, and that you can quickly fall out of it and lose all protection without realizing it before it's too late.
LeoGrun19401
I'm not online enough to have context or know this jargon can someone explain this for old people with jobs?
backrideup9
Turn on Fox News, listen to everything they say. The exact opposite is happening.
ElroydIsGone
I think she says, that white people considering themselves non-racist think that racism is only about actual skin colour, and that their skin colour protects them against racist maltreatment, so they can fight against racism and still be protected from its violence b/c they're white, while in reality, racists see "beeing white" as being white and racist, so white people fighting against racism will be treated by racists like people with dark skin colour and should know what they're facing. >
ElroydIsGone
This also explains, why racists always yammer and cry about "anti-white" this or that, while in reality, most of what they complain about is all just anti-racist. "We always have to apologize for being white". No, it's about being racist, not about being white. They want to define being racist as "being white", so that they can accuse anyone fighting against racism as "anti white" and therefore racist themselves. It's basically a "No, YOU!" reversal.
andexer
It's just in-group ("us") and out-group ("them"), but with "whiteness" as the term for in-group.
ElroydIsGone
Yeah, and that white people considering themselves non-racist think "whiteness" is only about skin colour, while racists see "whiteness" as being with them (i.e. supporting racism) and not only about skin colour.
goodbyeitwasfunwhileitlasted
She's saying that people were shocked Renee Good was killed because she's white, and that if she weren't white it would have been the expected outcome of ICE being racist. Furthering that, she says that when you stand up to racist, they'll treat you the same as who they're racist against. She then concludes that we all need to step into that role, standing up to racists and facing the uncomfortable consequences of it, in order to actually be able to end racism.
GallusTadius
Thanks, good explanation. I have to wonder if OP is capable of holding a conversation with real people.
theSoulciologist
My OC content goes into sociology concept but like you said you've got a job. Social facts: The given state of relationships; gatekeeping: exclusive criteria for being part of a group (white); cultural boundaries; the lines dividing groups (white/nonwhite, men/women); privilege: perks of identity that are often invisible to the in group members; political violence: state sanctioned harm; moral reparations: the emotional cost of undoing unearned privileges in an equitable fashion
LaCantaloupeMisanthrope
This reads like AI, right? Delete them semi columns before posting next time ;)
mieper3
Just a bit of constructive criticism: thats a whole lot of words but it clarified very little to me. It reads like a whole bunch of post-tags, but the commenter above you likely expected more like a explain-like-im-5.
You sound like Albert Einstein opening a talk with the effects of metric tensor fields on the unified field theory, but forgot that over 95% of his audience doesn't even know what C in C=MC2 stands for
[deleted]
[deleted]
CitrusyGarlic
As a *privileged European, who has been shielded from the fact that plenty of ignorant and hateful Europeans exist
faethorferenc
I did not knew that you know me and what i gone through as a minority. But thanks for correcting my status from european to privileged.
CitrusyGarlic
That's your privilege speaking. You can deny it all you want but Europe is not a racism-free land
[deleted]
[deleted]
bolobass
As a European I can say we are FAR from problem free, and we need to keep addressing inequality and subconscious discrimination. Our societies are unfortunately still rife with it.
alt86er
While I know exactly what you mean, I still have to point out that in our systems here in the US it is not daily business that citizens get killed because a cop got trigger happy for no reason and nothing happens. And on top of that, for some magical reason the probability for that happening get immensely high if that skin color is just dark enough. We got racists POS in our police forces as well, probably over-proportionally. But it's not half as dangerous to be black around here as in the US.
[deleted]
[deleted]
gcleff19101
"No idea but as an european, i don't understand that there still are people who have to refer to other people on the basis of skin color.". Makes it seem like you very much didn't think Europeans have problems with racism.
[deleted]
[deleted]
thepandasbum
The ws's have no issues with killing anyone that disagrees with them. Maybe we need to step up or game.
[deleted]
[deleted]
ABrokenThing
Indeed
thepandasbum
At no point did i say i had a different skin color. What made you jump to that ridiculous conclusion? I was agreeing with the woman in the video that us non-ws white people need to step our game. *You* took it completely wrong and then in your idiocy and anger tried to turn my words into hate speech. You have issues my friend and I'm now thinking you're a Russian bot or maga troll.
[deleted]
[deleted]
thepandasbum
Jesus Christ dude. "ws's" = "white supremacists"
thepandasbum
This person is completely clueless. Tried to let them know the "WS" is "white supremacist"
ElroydIsGone
You should clarify, what you mean with "ws's". If it's "White supremacists", I think it does very much make sense, but I guess some people read it as "whites" and this would make it very problematic.
tallyhoho
They're saying what the video is saying, if white people were treated like minorities it would radically change the way they accepted how we currently treat minorities. You can't pretend there isn't a racial divide no matter where you live in the world
thepandasbum
That person is either a Russian or Maga troll or are being willfully ignorant. Might also be outright ws.
[deleted]
[deleted]
thepandasbum
You doth protest too much. Perhaps you are projecting your own racism.
ElroydIsGone
If you understand "ws's" as "white supremacists", like I did, it does make sense, if it should just mean "whites" then it would be very problematic indeed.
intrepidsea
I see a lot of stupid questions and responses here but on the off chance some of people are actually confused by her statement, it means white people are going to have to be willing to lose the racial benefit of being a part of systemic segregation.
What she is asking for is impossible because the majority of people do want to be treated like minorities. They understand the treatment is unfair, dehumanizing, and they don’t want it happen, but they are certainly not willing to go through it.
Gin2ki
That's also the wrong approach. We should raise everyone up to the same standard, not lowering everyone down to the same.
intrepidsea
Ah, so being a minority is a lower standard. Thanks for pointing that out. I had no idea. The entire history of America/Europe/ and general western dominance hasn’t made that clear.
[deleted]
[deleted]
intrepidsea
The only thing I know is a large number of civil rights organizations have pointed out the amount of coverage Renee Good is getting compared to the other people ICE have killed. Everyone knows why the coverage is different. Everyone also knows why white people are suddenly so up in arms about ICE now. It was fine when it was just happening to brown people but now that a white woman has died it’s a tragedy.
I am tired of Gin2ki’s “Mr. Rogers” idea. It is not new, and it is only lip service.
[deleted]
[deleted]
HandsomePenguin
You dont get it. The systems in place make it impossible to raise anyone up. People with privilege are going to have to fight first to destroy the system as it is. And that means they are going to have to "lower" themselves to the same level as the oppressed in the eyes of the oppressor.
HandsomePenguin
And then guess what happens after that? After the fighting and victory, now your idea is a reality. The now previously oppressed are all on the same level, and you get the happy ending you want. But it doesnt happen without the currently privileged being uncomfortable for a while first. You don't get to see positive change by sitting on your hands and wishing for peace.
Gin2ki
I absolutely do get it and yes, the current systems needs to be torn down and built up again without individuals hoarding everything for themselves, but that is the only solution that will actually work long term and for the majority. Everything else is just a temporary tiny win but nothing more (a tiny win is also great, so don't get discouraged from doing good, just because it's a bit)
Gin2ki
And yes, there will be have to be made sacrifices, but the end goal should always be to lift upwards, not just dismantling everything down to the lowest possible lows.
HandsomePenguin
ITS THE SAME THING. You are arguing semantics. Once you "lower yourself" fight and win, the result is raising everyone up. Its just that the people with privilege MUST lower themselves first. No one is saying you lower yourself and then remain oppressed.
Slugsie
I think I get the point she's making. But I don't want to lose the benefits of being white. But I do want to give those benefits to my non white neighbours.
HandsomePenguin
She is talking directly about peopke like you. You will sit on your hands while they take away the brown and black people because you are afraid of losing the privilege afforded to you by being white. But, what happens when all the brown and black people are gone? Well, they are going to come take your white privilege away anyways.
Her point is that you need to do it yourself if actual change is ever going to happen. Take action or lose it all.
Sironagold
... Right but... You don't get to. Because the people with guns, and the people with power, will treat you like those you want to protect. And that is what you lose.
Slugsie
That's an unfortunate truth to which I wish I knew the answer, but I don't. Doesn't change the fact that I wish everyone have the same opportunities and privileges.
onushka
Sweet view, but this can only managed by getting rid or the ability to oppress someone. I am sure your suggestion is not to go with your non-white neighbors against Tranzpeople or against physically or mentally disabled people.
If no one is privileged, everyone is privileged.
Slugsie
I also don't think anyone should be able to oppress anyone else. The logical conclusion to that is that someone could opress me. So even from a purely selfish standpoint being able to oppress people is bad.
onushka
You got it.
Slugsie
I am absolutely against marginalising anyone. I want everyone to have the same opportunities, and thus the same privileges.
HandsomePenguin
Okay, So if you wont fight to get them those opportunities how is it going to happen?
Slugsie
Exactly where did I say I wouldn't fight?
HandsomePenguin
In your first comment. Where you said you want them to have rights, but you dont want to lose your privilege.