Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1083887 Posts in 71760 Topics- by 19136 Members - Latest Member: Weirdness28
Jump to:  
The Trombone ForumPractice BreakChit-ChatPurely Politics(Moderators: bhcordova, RedHotMama, BFW) Student and Feminist reaction to the election
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  All   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Student and Feminist reaction to the election  (Read 4217 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Molefsky

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ohio
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 1144
"Very old photo..."


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: Nov 14, 2016, 11:00AM »

Most want a bully in the white house. They just want a bully that agrees with them and will fight the fights they want fought.

The reality of how that usually turns out is not so bright...
Hence the libertarian argument.
Logged

Molefsky
freelance trombonist
Full-time Environmental Engineering Consultant
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5594

View Profile
« Reply #21 on: Nov 14, 2016, 11:02AM »

Hence the libertarian argument.
Nah, that's a completely different set on non sequiturs.

but hey, you got the bully you wanted. Now just to see how he does.
Logged
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 506

View Profile
« Reply #22 on: Nov 14, 2016, 11:49AM »

The OP is bent out of shape because some people who aren't pretty enough for him are still against Trump after the election.

No, I think he's expressing disdain at the need for adults (albeit student adults) to play with play-doh and puppies because they didn't get the result they wanted. And also disapproval and mockery of the anti-male, anti-white and anti-heterosexual opinions put forth in the links he provides.

And elmsandr, I think it was not cool to post a picture of the OP and (I assume) his family. But he's a handsome man with a happy- and healthy-looking daughter and wife. In my opinion.
Logged
elmsandr

*
Offline Offline

Location: Howell, MI
Joined: Apr 12, 2004
Posts: 3285

View Profile
« Reply #23 on: Nov 14, 2016, 06:31PM »

No, I think he's expressing disdain at the need for adults (albeit student adults) to play with play-doh and puppies because they didn't get the result they wanted. And also disapproval and mockery of the anti-male, anti-white and anti-heterosexual opinions put forth in the links he provides.

And elmsandr, I think it was not cool to post a picture of the OP and (I assume) his family. But he's a handsome man with a happy- and healthy-looking daughter and wife. In my opinion.
I was hoping to get a response from the OP on that.  It is perfectly fine.  If he feels the need to pour on to people he does not know with comments on their appearance, as robcat noted, feel free to show your own face. Note that I made no value judgement there at all.

Heck, I almost called his boss and gave him a link to the post to see what they thought about it. Do you think they have corporate statement on diversity? I bet they do. Didn't think it was worth it, however.  No matter how many times he decides to get #madonline about stupid things.  We should have the ability to be stupid online.  But it should be called out.

Cheers,
Andy
Logged

Andrew Elms
jalapeno

*
Offline Offline

Location: San Antonio
Joined: Feb 6, 2014
Posts: 558

View Profile
« Reply #24 on: Nov 14, 2016, 07:09PM »

the bitter beer face is palpable
Logged

Marmalade
elmsandr

*
Offline Offline

Location: Howell, MI
Joined: Apr 12, 2004
Posts: 3285

View Profile
« Reply #25 on: Nov 15, 2016, 05:27AM »

the bitter beer face is palpable
Man, look at me wanting people to be accountable for the silly things they say and not hide behind a veil of anonymity.

It happens to be his PUBLIC FB profile picture.

Unlike you, he has not made himself an 'angry egg.'  Maybe the OP, and others, will remember that they are people as well and they should treat others how they wish to be treated.

Cheers,
Andy
Logged

Andrew Elms
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 506

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: Nov 15, 2016, 06:12AM »

Man, look at me wanting people to be accountable for the silly things they say...


It cuts both ways. One of the nice things about freedom of speech is that it's self-regulating. If you say something stupid and nasty, you make yourself look stupid and nasty. If you say something funny or clever, you make yourself look funny or clever, or whatever. Free speech carries its own punishments and rewards.

The OP had some valid points but, in my view, diminished their weight with intemperate expression in a couple of places.

You posted a picture of the man and his family and told us all you were contemplating calling the guy's boss to complain - like a schoolyard tattletale. That earns my derision and disdain.

If you disagree with the OP's criticism of the comments in the links he posted, tell us why. I'd also like to know why you think the OP's own appearance alters the validity of his comments on other people's attractiveness.
Logged
elmsandr

*
Offline Offline

Location: Howell, MI
Joined: Apr 12, 2004
Posts: 3285

View Profile
« Reply #27 on: Nov 15, 2016, 09:01AM »

It cuts both ways. One of the nice things about freedom of speech is that it's self-regulating. If you say something stupid and nasty, you make yourself look stupid and nasty. If you say something funny or clever, you make yourself look funny or clever, or whatever. Free speech carries its own punishments and rewards.

The OP had some valid points but, in my view, diminished their weight with intemperate expression in a couple of places.

You posted a picture of the man and his family and told us all you were contemplating calling the guy's boss to complain - like a schoolyard tattletale. That earns my derision and disdain.

If you disagree with the OP's criticism of the comments in the links he posted, tell us why. I'd also like to know why you think the OP's own appearance alters the validity of his comments on other people's attractiveness.
I think it is pretty clear that I disagree with his methodology.  I think it is also pretty clear to you.  I don't think the OP will learn or listen to any criticism in that vein.  Not even a little.  The guy ain't exactly a new poster here. Will he learn when he realizes that people know that he is a real person?  The only point of my 'tattletale' sentence was to provide a thought to him (and any potential others engaging in trolling behavior*) is a reminder that this is a real-world space with real-world people.  The screen tends to make us forget that part.  I don't think the OP's appearance does matter, but apparently he does.  Good for the goose, good for the gander.  And again, it was to make him think about his own position as a person.  Maybe he will have empathy for somebody's photo being posted in a story.  The screen running a little interference here does (and you can see it around the web), is that it breaks that self-regulatory feature you have mentioned.  Read through this guy's posts here.  He comes back around every few months or weeks with the same schtick.  There doesn't seem to be a feedback loop at all.

*Couple of points on this... First, I'd describe many of the quotes in the OP's complaints as trolling behavior as well.  No better, regardless of the direction it spews from.  Secondly, I do not believe that any person is a troll.  Much like I don't think that anybody is a racist...  There are behaviors and actions, each which are more appropriately assigned than giving a person a label that is too binary for my tastes.

Cheers,
Andy
Logged

Andrew Elms
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18506
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: Nov 15, 2016, 09:17AM »

Secondly, I do not believe that any person is a troll.  Much like I don't think that anybody is a racist...  There are behaviors and actions, each which are more appropriately assigned than giving a person a label that is too binary for my tastes.

Good stuff!
 
Also bear in mind, though, that we're not really dealing with whole people online, we're dealing with personas. Any given persona may or may not reflect a very clear image of the person behind it. There do seem to be some indications, but I wouldn't trust them very far at all, so we can't really say much about the people behind the personas with any degree of confidence. We can, however, assess the personas based upon what's posted.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Piano man
*
Online Online

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9924

View Profile
« Reply #29 on: Nov 15, 2016, 10:30AM »

I don't normally cotton to complaints about political correctness, because it seems as though people are just complaining about being asked to have decent manners. But on college campuses, the exaggerated fear of giving offense (and the determination to take it) and the ever-more-arcane rules surrounding acceptable behavior are starting to encroach on the educational mission. If you have to call something a 'micro-aggression' it just might not be worth mentioning.

To the extent he has a point, the OP undercuts it by centering his complaint on the fact that the women quoted didn't have the decency to look exactly the way he wants them to. He has an attractive family, but he wouldn't want his wife and daughter spoken of that way, and that's one of the things that people found repellent about Donald Trump.

Trump is a repulsive human being, missing a couple of pieces that people should have, in my opinion. He seems to be completely unqualified to be president. His qualifications seem to center around his business acumen, but his record of actually managing businesses profitably is very spotty, and his main successes have been related to self-promotion and branding. By his own account, he sexually assaults women, and some of his victims have corroborated Trump's account of this behavior.

So people have a right to be upset by his election. I'm absolutely dismayed by his election, not because he's a Republican (I vote for Republicans) but because he's an appalling choice, as many in his party have acknowledged.

I still think the hyperbole and the protests and the puppies and Play Doh and so forth are a bit silly, but let's not forget that not long ago people were talking about this being the last election ever if Hillary won, and promoting the idea that there should be a second American Revolution if Hillary was elected. KY governor Matt Bevin publicly mused that Hillary's election might call for bloodshed.

That certainly puts the OP's complaints in a different perspective. People have a right to complain, and at present an excellent cause for complaint.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 506

View Profile
« Reply #30 on: Nov 15, 2016, 11:06AM »

The screen running a little interference here does (and you can see it around the web), is that it breaks that self-regulatory feature you have mentioned.  Read through this guy's posts here.  He comes back around every few months or weeks with the same schtick.  There doesn't seem to be a feedback loop at all.

Ah, now I understand a bit better where you're coming from with the picture post, although I had to read it a couple of times to understand running a little interference. This is a tactic in American football where teammates get in the way of defenders in order to protect the ball-carrier, am I right? Anyway, is your idea that anonymity removes the disincentive of unfavourable reactions to forms of expression?

I agree with you that people are a mixture of qualities, and that we vary from time to time. Some days we are just in a bad mood for some reason, or no reason at all. Sometimes we mis-speak or are misunderstood. Sometimes we just need to rant for a couple of minutes.

Some of the comments the OP quotes are unambiguously meant as an expression of hatred. If their object were jews or gays or women the comments would attract much criticism and possibly criminal sanctions (Which, by the way, I strongly oppose. Saying nasty or horrible or stupid or ridiculous stuff imposes its own sanction by making you look nasty or horrible or stupid or ridiculous). For some reason I don't understand, little similar criticism is forthcoming when the target is white heterosexual men. I assume the OP is a member of the group to whom hatred was expressed, so I can appreciate that there is a valid grievance.
Logged
Piano man
*
Online Online

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9924

View Profile
« Reply #31 on: Nov 15, 2016, 11:26AM »

SS, I think that it's natural to recognize that some groups are dominant and some dominated, to one extent or another, and to be more tolerant of ridicule of the former than of the latter. It's the same reason most people would be more accepting of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People than of the National Association for the Advancement of White People. It's the reason that a stock joke in broad comedies is a guy unexpectedly taking a painful shot to the groin, but the equivalent scene with a woman wouldn't make people laugh.

I don't think we need to wring our hands over the oppression of the straight white male. All but one of our presidents has fit that category (as far as we know) including the new one. We dominate Congress, state government, local government, and business as well. People instinctively want to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable rather than the other way around.

The lament of SWMs isn't that we will become oppressed, but that we might become slightly less dominant.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
elmsandr

*
Offline Offline

Location: Howell, MI
Joined: Apr 12, 2004
Posts: 3285

View Profile
« Reply #32 on: Nov 15, 2016, 12:33PM »

Ah, now I understand a bit better where you're coming from with the picture post, although I had to read it a couple of times to understand running a little interference. This is a tactic in American football where teammates get in the way of defenders in order to protect the ball-carrier, am I right? Anyway, is your idea that anonymity removes the disincentive of unfavourable reactions to forms of expression?
Exactly.  The OP is not viewing either us or the people he is posting about as people, just concepts.  Crazy lack of empathy... though in this case many he listed do not deserve a ton, but this isn't the first time around with the OP.
Quote
I agree with you that people are a mixture of qualities, and that we vary from time to time. Some days we are just in a bad mood for some reason, or no reason at all. Sometimes we mis-speak or are misunderstood. Sometimes we just need to rant for a couple of minutes.
I concur. I've needed a lot of this benefit of the doubt myself.  Again, this was not the OP's first post like this.

Quote
Some of the comments the OP quotes are unambiguously meant as an expression of hatred. If their object were jews or gays or women the comments would attract much criticism and possibly criminal sanctions (Which, by the way, I strongly oppose. Saying nasty or horrible or stupid or ridiculous stuff imposes its own sanction by making you look nasty or horrible or stupid or ridiculous). For some reason I don't understand, little similar criticism is forthcoming when the target is white heterosexual men. I assume the OP is a member of the group to whom hatred was expressed, so I can appreciate that there is a valid grievance.
As for legal consequences, there's a lot better to theorize on it here.  But groups are protected for good reasons that are based in real-world scenarios that threaten the life and safety of those groups repeatedly.  Never in my life will I be pulled over by the authorities for being a middle aged white guy (you can look for yourself, my FB profile picture is also public).  I will never be threatened just for looking a certain way while at a gas pump.  Doesn't enter my world. It does for transgendered people.  It does for brown/black people.  I can understand why if you were in those groups that you would want to wail and lean on a puppy.  Seems a bit silly to me, but my right to existence was not just put into question by a solid chunk of the population.

Cheers,
Andy


Logged

Andrew Elms
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 506

View Profile
« Reply #33 on: Nov 15, 2016, 12:45PM »


I don't think we need to wring our hands over the oppression of the straight white male. All but one of our presidents has fit that category (as far as we know) including the new one.


Well there's gossip about James Buchanan who never married...
 
But seriously, hand wringing over equality of oppression is not the point. If we hold a moral principle that it is unkind to mock, deride, insult and persecute people for personal characteristics that they have not chosen, then we must hold it true for ALL characteristics. Otherwise it's not a principle. Kant explained it better.
Logged
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12196

View Profile
« Reply #34 on: Nov 15, 2016, 12:50PM »

we must hold it true for ALL characteristics. Otherwise it's not a principle. Kant explained it better.

I would have to take issue with that.

I have tried and failed to read Kant several times.

I would agree with you that he explained it correctly, but "better" implies that he did it understandably. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 506

View Profile
« Reply #35 on: Nov 15, 2016, 12:54PM »

Never in my life will I be pulled over by the authorities for being a middle aged white guy...  I will never be threatened just for looking a certain way while at a gas pump. 

Are you sure you'll never encounter a non-white traffic policeman who hates the evil white man?

And I have heard that there are neighbourhoods in American cities where white people are given a very very poor welcome. Is this not true? Areas in Paris, Marseille and London are a few examples from Europe that I have experienced personally.
Logged
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 506

View Profile
« Reply #36 on: Nov 15, 2016, 12:56PM »

I would have to take issue with that.

I have tried and failed to read Kant several times.

I would agree with you that he explained it correctly, but "better" implies that he did it understandably. 

Oh  :(

Everything I read was in German, so maybe it's become garbled in translation. Do you agree that if we adopt a principle we should apply it universally?
Logged
Burgerbob

*
Offline Offline

Location: Los Angeles
Joined: Aug 12, 2007
Posts: 5396

View Profile
« Reply #37 on: Nov 15, 2016, 02:50PM »

Are you sure you'll never encounter a non-white traffic policeman who hates the evil white man?

And I have heard that there are neighbourhoods in American cities where white people are given a very very poor welcome. Is this not true? Areas in Paris, Marseille and London are a few examples from Europe that I have experienced personally.

Does any of that invalidate the much, MUCH more predominant racism towards non-white people?
Logged

Brasslab 50T3, Greg Glack 1G .312 #2
Bach 50T, ditto
Conn 60H, ditto
Bach 42B, Greg Black NY 1.25
Conn 6H, King 7MD
Yamaha YEP-842S, Schilke 53/59
Yamaha YBH-301MS, Hammond 12XL
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 506

View Profile
« Reply #38 on: Nov 15, 2016, 03:30PM »

It refutes Andrew's assertions that he will never be pulled over for being white and that he will never be attacked because of his appearance. That was my intention.

I wasn't attempting to invalidate or alter the scale of racism directed towards non-whites. However, I'm not sure if it's true, as you say, that racism towards non-whites is more predominant than racism towards whites. It depends on what you mean by predominant. It also depends on what you categorise as racism. It depends on the racial proportions of the population you study to find out how much racism is going on. Globally, whites are greatly outnumbered by blacks so in absolute terms we might expect to see more incidents of racism (however defined) from black to white. In the USA, this phenomenon would probably be reversed.

One indication that follows naturally from Andrew's post is crime statistics. A comparison of black on white crimes with white on black crimes in the USA shows that the former is proportionally many times more likely than the latter. Or so the US Department of Justice figures say. We don't know if race was a motivating factor in any of the incidents.

But we are speaking only in terms of racism between blacks and whites: understandable for a mostly American forum because this is the biggest racial issue in the USA. There is much racism between blacks of different types, and between all sorts of combinations of non-white races. You should hear some of the things the Chinese say about blacks and Arabs. And some of the things Arabs say about Persians etc etc. India has 1.5 billion inhabitants and a pervasive caste system, including over 40 million lower caste members in indentured servitude. There are profound and fixed cultural barriers on what job you can do, who you can marry and where you can live. The scale of racism there dwarfs anything in the USA.

Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51023
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: Nov 15, 2016, 04:29PM »

But, Sonic, NONE of those other societies claim to be egalitarian.  We do.  And if we fail to any extent it reflects a lot more on us than their inequalities do on them.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  All   Go Up
Print
Jump to: