StrangeSox

iamshack does, he can probably help

btw posts like reddy's are why I refuse to self-identify as an atheist.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 11:50 AM) You cant talk about Old Testament and New Testament as if they are the same. Old Testament is supposed to be the actual historical story. As if you were watching a true historical documentary starting from the beginning of the universe. I read this book a year or two ago. It gave me a much greater appreciation for the cultural traditions of the Hebrew Bible and the history of the Jewish people and their faith. http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Arch...t/dp/0684869136

Well are we talking about your preferred response or what's actually possible legally?

after taking about 2 months off, finally got back into it today. I'm sure I'll be feeling it tomorrow.

Advocating violence isn't illegal unless it's likely to cause imminent violence as in "go kill this man right now." I think that can be extended to saying what your own actions might be. I don't know what else you think should be done to him.

Aaron Swartz, the hacker ruthlessly prosecuted by the government for hacking into JSTOR to make it publicly available, killed himself on Friday. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013...nformation.html

had to pour water over my car door to get in it this morning. what were you saying about the weather?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 07:54 AM) Since it's kinda on subject of "law enforcement looking the other way"...we already have a lunatic in Tennessee going on Youtube and saying that if the government tries to pass any sort of gun control, he's going to have to start "Killing people". In response, the state of Tennessee came down hard on him...by temporarily taking away his concealed carry permit. Is what he said in any way illegal though?

Fwiw any gun control legislation is going to grandfather in existing stock

strong finish in the first half by Houston

Is tice calling plays for Seattle?

You gotta admit, that was an impressive list, tying basically everything that person is against directly to Nazi Germany.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 12, 2013 -> 01:18 PM) I know this is a little off topic but did you know that the government considers pizza a vegetable? In Will county the schools can now only serve cheese pizza. This is because if it has anything like sausage it won't meet the State governments criteria for a vegetable. IIRC this is because of lobbying, e.g. ketchup producers lobby to get ketchup considered a vegetable so that schools will buy more of it.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 04:53 PM) Strangesox, I know what passing is. That is a different phenomenon where you are not part of the privilege group, but you are getting the benefits. What I am discussing is the exact opposite of passing. Its where you look like the privilege group, but you are not getting any benefits, yet at the same time being grouped with those who are. This is my problem. These people are using vast generalizations that are almost universally unsupportable. Probably because these are broad explanations of the concept and not specialized examinations of a certain society at a certain time. Yes, it absolutely is. Read the one scholarly article I posted way back in the first post on this for some examples, keeping in mind that privilege isn't only (or even mainly) about economic advantages, it is about social interactions. This isn't about you, period. It's about an aggregate. You and jenks both keep trying to individualize this when it is exactly the opposite of what the topic actually is.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 04:24 PM) This sort of ties into both this discussion and the one yesterday about why a white affluent dude offering advice on how to get out of poverty can be useless at best: http://www.theroot.com/buzz/if-i-were-poor...ck-kid-pushback This serves as an awesome example of both class and white privilege, by the way. The original Forbes piece was essentially "if I were a poor black kid, I'd be a middle-class white kid!" Read through the original and then the numerous responses if you want to see white privilege in 2012 in explicit detail.

It's incoherent to even talk about privilege outside of a social setting. Society isn't an entity itself, it's people and how they interact and privilege is part of that. You keep phrasing it as a deliberate action, too, that it's society's "doing." No, it's simply something that falls out of the way people interact with each other and what is believed on a communal level. I can't stress enough that it isn't about always deliberate, conscious actions or the legal system actually being intentionally and explicitly unjust (though there's still plenty of racial issues in our system).

would romney's $10,000 bet have been legally enforceable?

Soxbadger, here, this might expand a little bit on what you're saying and show that this is something routinely addressed in social research: http://veerserif.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/...r-on-privilege/ These authors, all of them, would be right there with you in recognizing that Irish or Jews haven't (or still don't in some places) been seen or treated as 'white' where white privilege is a dominant thing.

This sort of ties into both this discussion and the one yesterday about why a white affluent dude offering advice on how to get out of poverty can be useless at best: http://www.theroot.com/buzz/if-i-were-poor...ck-kid-pushback

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 03:39 PM) I don't disagree with a lot of what's being said here, my problem is when you label this as a societal problem when it's not. Society provides equal opportunity to everyone. Whether or not someones parent is a drug addict or a rich judge doesn't matter in that respect. I hate the term social injustice because it does have the connotation that society is somehow inherently rigging the system against those in less fortunate situations, when in reality it's not society (2013 society) that's doing that. And to that point i'm not sure what society can do. I know that providing people with public housing has been a failure. I know that giving them food and healthcare and everything else like that has been a failure. Simply giving disadvantaged people things doesn't change behavior for future generations. Incentive needs to be instilled. You would think showing kids of life full of misery and crime would be enough, but it's not. Absent taking those types of kids away from their situations, I really don't think "society" can do anything about the problem. You can't say you don't disagree with social justice/privilege issues and then object to it being a social issue. You're rejecting the entire concept at that point. Society confers advantages to some and disadvantages to others and not in a planned or conscious way. That's what's meant by social justice, not that it's rigged. That's what's meant by institutional racism.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 03:28 PM) I think most would agree that there is some sort of WASP privilege in the US. But that is far different than white privilege, where you are basically saying that the Irish slave was somehow privileged. The Irish weren't, but now they are viewed as white. Nobody ever said these categories are static across time and place. That a group that is now seen as white wasn't at some point doesn't mean white privilege didn't and doesn't exist. It just means that who gets included in the privilege isn't 100% static. eta: which is exactly why ss2k5's earlier racism accusations are such bulls***, because this framework explicitly rejects a people or a culture as inherently inferior.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 03:25 PM) Okay so Ive done a lot of reading and Im pretty sure the problem here is the idea of "white privilege." The reason that this is a problem is that its incorrect. When they mean "white privilege" what they actually are referring to is WASP (white anglo saxon protestant) privilege in the United States, which is a very specific issue based on very specific historical events. White privilege isn't restricted to the United States. This is covered under intersectionality and there's lots of writing and literature on it. You're taking two articles I posted as intentionally base-level, remedial "here is what this concept is" things and criticizing them for not being scholarly works. You're right, and a couple of blog posts explaining the basic concepts of what privilege is aren't trying to be a whole bunch of dissertations on the causes of and changes of privilege. You're rejecting these articles for not being something they weren't trying to be. Italians and Irish didn't benefit from white privilege at one point, but now they do because in society as a whole they're viewed as "white." Just the opposite problem happens with "one drop" disqualifying mixed racial backgrounds, or why someone of mixed racial backgrounds like Obama are going to identify as black and not white--they're going to be viewed as black by society. I don't know man, it seems like you absolutely get the subject but are attacking broad, general discussions of privilege for not being hyper-focused with historical analysis.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 04:07 PM) Jenks, The problem that most of these articles fail to address is that you cant change the playing field over night and they also dont recognize that for at least the last 100 years the playing field has become more equal. None of them seem to be saying that it can be changed overnight, or that things haven't improved in many aspects. You're projecting that into them.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 02:46 PM) Okay so I read the next article and it linked the article I just crucified. Is there not one legitimate academic article to be found? I have to imagine they will almost universally support my position that privilege is not something that can be apportioned to any race, religion or gender as depending on the time and place, you may or may not have been privileged. I looked for blog posts instead of big, boring dissertations. Nobody would disagree that what is or isn't privileged, aside from maybe wealth, is dependent on numerous factors. That's the whole point of recognizing it as a societal force--it depends on the society. Neither of those articles I linked would disagree with what you say here at all.