I tend to think the focus here to ‘combat’ or even ‘end’ racism is misguided. The theoretical aim of the workshop is to increase ‘awareness’ of minority experience - it’s just poorly executed, or poorly understood by the facilitators. — Possibility

That seems fair.

What I mean by ‘minority experience’ is basically an experience of humility, or devalued conceptual identity that is common to minorities. The resistance to it is normal, but the capacity to experience this kind of humility is important to understanding the subjective experience of racial disadvantage, even when active discrimination does not occur. — Possibility

I like this bit, but unfortunately, I don't see humility being particularly valued by society (we don't even demand the appearance of humility from our leaders anymore). Humility is just taken as a lack of confidence. So, while I get your point (and agree), I would expect to see some humility in pop culture before I see it becoming a norm. Heck, if we look at anyone who considers themselves to be "woke" - even those who do somewhat understand the minority experience have no idea what humility is.

What if the participants decided, rather than resist and deflect by blaming managers or the decision-makers, to ‘take the hit’ and experience the humility and sense of persecution that comes with their conceptual identity being devalued. “I am harmful to minorities for no other reason than that I am white.” Forget the question of whether or not this is accurate, and just go with the affective experience of humility and guilt that comes from attributing significance to the thought itself, and the impact of cognitive dissonance it creates in relation to how you see yourself. — Possibility

I don't quite get this part? For me "take the hit" was just accepting that things have been favoring white males for a long time so we should accept that the pendulum may have to swing the other way before we get to the right place. I don't need to "learn" through an affective experience that black people have been given a hard time in America/Australia...that's what history books are for (I entirely understand that most people need to "feel" something before they "understand" it...I have found that I do not experience emotions with the same intensity as most, so maybe that explains my confusion here).

Now, let’s change the conceptual identities: “I am harmful to whites for no other reason than that I am black.” What I understand from the expressed experiences of minorities (particularly here in Australia) is that this fairly closely matches the information they receive from the sum of their everyday interactions with our shared conceptual systems. — Possibility

Yep. Sounds crappy. But I feel that I can understand this without doing the thought experiment you described above...but maybe it is more important for other people.

Perhaps people shouldn’t get so defensive. — Possibility

That was pretty much my whole point. I wasn't really disagreeing with the people that said the diversity training was messed up, just suggesting that being called bad names is nothing compared to actual persecution.

like this bit, but unfortunately, I don't see humility being particularly valued by society (we don't even demand the appearance of humility from our leaders anymore). Humility is just taken as a lack of confidence. So, while I get your point (and agree), I would expect to see some humility in pop culture before I see it becoming a norm. Heck, if we look at anyone who considers themselves to be "woke" - even those who do somewhat understand the minority experience have no idea what humility is. — ZhouBoTong

I agree, this is a problem. Why do we have to wait to be shown the value of humility in pop culture before we can see the value for ourselves? It’s a task for philosophers, I would think.

I don't quite get this part? For me "take the hit" was just accepting that things have been favoring white males for a long time so we should accept that the pendulum may have to swing the other way before we get to the right place. I don't need to "learn" through an affective experience that black people have been given a hard time in America/Australia...that's what history books are for (I entirely understand that most people need to "feel" something before they "understand" it...I have found that I do not experience emotions with the same intensity as most, so maybe that explains my confusion here). — ZhouBoTong

Not everyone can understand the effect of humility at this level of awareness, so I think it does certainly help for people to experience it in order to relate, not just to the fact that black people have been given a ‘hard time’ (which they can certainly get from history books), but understand that this continues to impact on their conceptual identity, even when there is no active or conscious discrimination taking place.

It’s ever unsettling truth in the context of these race issues: “whiteness” is the villain. On some level recognising issues of white supremacy means taking issue with many aspects of how white people exist, including some base assumptions they make about their own identity. It means understanding one’s group, oneself, to be villainous on one level or another. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It's also because calling anyone a villain and saying their identity is villainous puts them on the defensive and sounds like an attack. It could be framed differently than an identity issues. Saying there's institutional racism many white people aren't aware of, and here's the minority experience of that doesn't make it personal identity crisis thing for white people. Rather it's something that needs to be reformed in society.

But I understand your point.

The stated goal is to move toward an equal society with no groups in power.

But our focus is to be race. — Marchesk

That all depends on how we group, or categorize, people. What do blacks want that would be different than what whites want? Don't we all want freedom and happiness? If we all want the same thing then why are we separating ourselves into different groups as if we want different things? It shouldn't matter what color the other person's skin is. It would only matter what our goals as human beings are.

It would only matter what our goals as human beings are. — Harry Hindu

Sure. But let's say for sake of argument, since I don't know what to think about all this, that black people feel like the white people want them to act white and lose their identity in order to be accepted. That the white notion of equality is a homogenization of race that conforms to whatever norms whites already have.

If that's so, then it's a legitimate concern and impediment to the goals we all agree on as humans. We're just not agreeing on how to get there. Diversity might be the better road than conformity.

To be more precise, the explanation was that majority populations for things like race, gender and orientation have had the power to oppress the other groups, and setup society to benefit the majority more so than others. However, the majority tends to not recognize how things continue to be that way, so it can be uncomfortable for the majority to confront the accounts of lived experience of discrimination form the groups not in power. — Marchesk

The majority doesnt necessarily oppress the minority. A constitutional republic, like in the U.S., is designed to protect the minority from majority oppression, unlike a full-blown democracy. There are plenty of blacks in positions of power (police officers, judges, etc.,) that could change my life for the worse they wanted to.

Minority groups can have power over the majority.

Power has nothing to do with majority vs minority. It simply has to do with the resources and skills you have at your disposal vs what others may or may not have.

We can already see how the minorities of both race and gender have the power to frame whites as evil oppressors. The minorities are dictating the grounds of these conversations. When you have the majority walking on eggshells in order to not appear as bigots, then the minority has successfully gained power over the majority. The minority has Supremacy over the majority's free speech.

Sure. But let's say for sake of argument, since I don't know what to think about all this, that black people feel like the white people want them to act white and lose their identity in order to be accepted. — Marchesk

But that is what I'm saying. What does it mean to act white or black when there is already diversity of actions and needs and wants within those groups themselves?

What does it mean to act white or black when there is already diversity of actions and needs and wants within those groups themselves? — Harry Hindu

This exactly. When I see black people criticize each other for “acting white”, it looks like they’re being racially prejudiced against their own kind. Any way a black person chooses to act is “acting black”, and criticizing them for not conforming to some stereotype of “blackness” is almost as bad as a white person criticizing another white person for “acting black” because they, I dunno, listen to rap and sag their pants and wear gold chains? I don’t even know what the current stereotype is.

Or like how the movie In And Out determined that its protagonist is gay because he meets a bunch of gay stereotypes, without ever asking if he’s attracted to men.

Will people always devalue other humans based upon insufficient evidence and irrational reasoning?

Probably.

That doesn't mean that we ought not do everything we can do to eliminate such.

Right?
— creativesoul

I am questioning what that would look like? — ZhouBoTong

It would look exactly like the right kind of effort. It would result in less people being suspicious of everyone. It would make it virtually impossible for people to be taken advantage of. It would result in much happier, healthier community of interdependent social creatures.

You should try it sometime.

It would be everyone agreeing that one who does not care about the people over whom they wield tremendous power - have absolutely(I do not just throw such words around carelessly either) no business wielding such power.

Only an elected official ought be writing laws in a true representative form of government(purportedly self-directing people).

Power over people is gotten in only one of two ways. It is either usurped or granted by consent. That is me paraphrasing the admirable revolutionary type thinker Thomas Paine.

When the people know that those making the decisions have taken deliberate actions resulting in clear apparent negative consequences for the people, and those same people will not use the power that they have to adress, overturn, redress, and/or otherwise correct the harm, then the people have learned that that power has been usurped.

It would look like exactly the right kind of effort.

You knew I was off base earlier... that I had not correctly understood the work situation. I had thought all along that that someone who said the contentious remark actually was a part of the diversity training team.

That led to things based upon misunderstanding.

My apologies for my part. Reading too much into it. You really never specified. Did you realize that that was unbeknownst to me - to even be a problem - because your replies never objected?

I take back what I said about the quality of the diversity training team. It was based upon my own misunderstanding of the actual situation. My apologies to the team.

I just re-read, and either we cross-posted and you edited to add more to the OP or I have no clue why I was on about...

I tend to think the focus here to ‘combat’ or even ‘end’ racism is misguided. — Possibility

End racism.

What on earth could be wrong with that as a goal?

The theoretical aim of the workshop is to increase ‘awareness’ of minority experience - it’s just poorly executed, or poorly understood by the facilitators...

...What I mean by ‘minority experience’ is basically an experience of humility, or devalued conceptual identity that is common to minorities...

...The resistance to it is normal, but the capacity to experience this kind of humility is important to understanding the subjective experience of racial disadvantage, even when active discrimination does not occur...

...What if the participants decided, rather than resist and deflect by blaming managers or the decision-makers, to ‘take the hit’ and experience the humility and sense of persecution that comes with their conceptual identity being devalued. “I am harmful to minorities for no other reason than that I am white.” Forget the question of whether or not this is accurate, and just go with the affective experience of humility and guilt that comes from attributing significance to the thought itself, and the impact of cognitive dissonance it creates in relation to how you see yourself. — Possibility

So, rather than end racism, you are advocating making everyone suffer from it?

'Misguided', you say? Hmm.

Surely there's a much better way to improve the racial relations in the US aside from glorifying and further perpetuating it's(racism) existence.

My apologies for my part. Reading too much into it. You really never specified. Did you realize that that was unbeknownst to me - to even be a problem - because your replies never objected? — creativesoul

Yeah, I should have reread it and changed how it was worded. It kind of makes a difference to how people discuss the issue. There are some things the presenters said that could be controversial, but they didn't say that simply being a white person, or male, or straight, or of one gender was harmful. And I could be misunderstanding what the one employee meant by that.

But mainly I just wanted to discuss the notion of whether there should be an attempt to abolish an identity of a group that has discriminated against other groups. If we say we want to end sexism and create an equal world, thus demolishing the patriarchy, does that entail that males should no longer think of themselves as male? Or that white people should no longer identify as "white"? And if that's so, should "black" and other racial categories also go away?

I did listen to a podcast fairly recently where a feminist was saying the goal of feminism (or a goal of some feminists anyway), was to abolish gender. An ideal world is one in which people don't identify as a certain gender. Yes, the biological reality of sexual differences still exists, but the identity and roles around gender no longer would.

I think that's a pretty controversial and rather strong claim, but it is interesting.

t would look exactly like the right kind of effort. It would result in less people being suspicious of everyone. It would make it virtually impossible for people to be taken advantage of. It would result in much happier, healthier community of interdependent social creatures. — creativesoul

Sounds great.

You should try it sometime. — creativesoul

Try what? Their are no behavioral instructions above...just results of some behaviors you have not described.

It would be everyone agreeing that one who does not care about the people over whom they wield tremendous power - have absolutely(I do not just throw such words around carelessly either) no business wielding such power. — creativesoul

Sounds good, what would cause this great agreement?

Power over people is gotten in only one of two ways. It is either usurped or granted by consent. That is me paraphrasing the admirable revolutionary type thinker Thomas Paine. — creativesoul

Good stuff...I might add maintained/inherited...but it still had to be usurped or given in the first place.

It would look like exactly the right kind of effort. — creativesoul

So everyone just needs to act right? I am still questioning how and why that will occur?

So, rather than end racism, you are advocating making everyone suffer from it?

'Misguided', you say? Hmm.

Surely there's a much better way to improve the racial relations in the US aside from glorifying and further perpetuating it's(racism) existence. — creativesoul

Wow - if you really think I’m glorifying racism by what I’m suggesting, then either you haven’t been paying attention, or you’re misunderstanding me.

I’m not advocating making anyone do anything, least of all suffer. We all experience humility, pain and loss anyway - there’s no avoiding that in general. It’s when we have the courage to acknowledge this suffering alongside the suffering of others, without trying to deflect it, attack it or retaliate for it, that we can collaborate on dismantling the social and conceptual structures that perpetuate and contribute to it.

Trying to ‘end racism’ by broadening the concept is not a solution. This is why it’s called a ‘diversity’ workshop, not an ‘anti-racism’ workshop. It doesn’t help to label what they’re trying to reduce with this kind of intervention as ‘racism’. We have to question and critically examine the underlying conceptual structures - the thoughts, beliefs and feelings - that enable these experiences to persist. To do that, everyone should be roughly on the same page:

1. These experiences (whether or not we label them ‘racism’) devalue one’s conceptual identity;

2. We should reduce experiences for each other that devalue one’s conceptual identity.

If they had simply stood up and said, ‘racism is bad’, then everyone would have said ‘they’re not talking to me because I’m not racist’. Likewise, if they had drawn a line in the sand and stated ‘this is racist behaviour, so stop it’, then there would have been plenty of argument against the definition. What they did was create an environment where ‘white people’ could show compassion for their ‘minority’ co-workers by expressing an experience of humility in recognition of the humility that minorities experience every day - regardless of whether or not this humility was caused by the actions of their co-workers.

The implication of ‘racism’ as such seems to have come from responses by several ‘white people’ in the sessions, which led to interpretations that they were overreacting to experiences which shouldn’t be labelled as ‘racism’. I agree that they shouldn’t be labelled as such, but I also disagree with comments that they shouldn’t have expressed their experience of humility as a ‘white person’. It may not have been well-received by their ‘white’ co-workers who may have felt discomfort or resistance at the thought of identifying with that humility, but I’d be willing to bet this expression of compassion would have been felt by their minority co-workers.

For all the animosity it appears to have caused, I think it did establish an environment that made it particularly uncomfortable for people to perpetuate an ‘us vs them’ environment (identifying either as minority or majority), and did so without defining ‘racism’ or singling out specific behaviour to attack or label as ‘racist’. I think those who participated should all be spending some time asking themselves honestly why they were uncomfortable with what was said, as @Marchesk is clearly doing here.

Someone should also have offered the white person who thinks that their whiteness is harmful to others a cyanide pill and advised them to "do the right thing". — Bitter Crank

That's the interesting part. People are willing to say all kinds of absurd things in the name of social theory, but seem unwilling to follow those statements to their logical conclusion.

Of course, if you rationalize enough, you can make this sort of thing sound reasonable - that works on anything. Better to just ignore it, though.

...mainly I just wanted to discuss the notion of whether there should be an attempt to abolish an identity of a group that has discriminated against other groups. If we say we want to end sexism and create an equal world, thus demolishing the patriarchy, does that entail that males should no longer think of themselves as male? Or that white people should no longer identify as "white"? And if that's so, should "black" and other racial categories also go away? — Marchesk

Abolishing the identity of a group... whatever that means... does nothing at all to help end male chauvinism, racism, sexism, ageism, etc.

I did listen to a podcast fairly recently where a feminist was saying the goal of feminism (or a goal of some feminists anyway), was to abolish gender. An ideal world is one in which people don't identify as a certain gender. Yes, the biological reality of sexual differences still exists, but the identity and roles around gender no longer would. — Marchesk

Abolishing all gender is to impose one's own belief(gender nihilism, if you will) upon everyone else in society. It is an authoritarian style attempt to force everyone to hold the same belief. No different in kind than the oppressive problem it's meant to be correcting.

Different people have different beliefs concerning what's acceptable/unacceptable regarding everyone's behavior. Different people are going to have their own unique reasoning, moral underpinnings, and/or guiding principles for believing whatever they believe, and they will all have shared belief as well. There is so much overlap. We agree on much more than we disagree. Those agreements provide solid footing for substantive communication and/or discussion about how we ought treat others.

That's what underwrites this conversation, no? Racism is about that. Sexism. Ageism. Feminism.

When regarding one's thought and belief about how men and/or women ought act, what duties they ought have, etc., that is their own personal right to believe whatever they want; providing that their right to exercise those freedoms do not knowingly cause unnecessary and demonstrable harm to someone else by doing so.

Try what? Their are no behavioral instructions above...just results of some behaviors you have not described. — ZhouBoTong

Not just behaviour... belief. Discussion is how it's started, about universal morality. Universally held/shared moral beliefs... regardless of that which is subject to individual particular circumstances. Common sense agreement upon who ought wield power over people.




You're just not making any sense at all to me. Clearly stating that a goal to end racism is misguided is itself quite the contentious claim. It's false on it's face, no matter what method one employs to meet that goal... diversity training notwithstanding.

Some people do not need diversity training, for they've already had a diverse group of loved ones, friends, and family members for long periods of time. Some of these people find it all rather telling...

Do you have black, asian, latino, and/or an otherwise diverse group of loved ones, family members, and friends? Just curious.

Not just behaviour... belief. Discussion is how it's started, about universal morality. Universally held/shared moral beliefs... regardless of that which is subject to individual particular circumstances. Common sense agreement upon who ought wield power over people. — creativesoul

Sounds great...reminds me of Anakin Skywalker's solution to government:

"We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problems, agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and then do it."

What happens when people disagree? I am not convinced that most people will be willing to give up much of their belief systems to focus on what is shared. Jesus, Allah, the Buddha, etc are not shared beliefs. Is it just going to be that easy for people to give them up? Do republicans and democrats in America FEEL like they have anything in common? (I get they are actually rather similar in their governance, but good luck getting either side to admit that).

Not just behaviour... belief. Discussion is how it's started, about universal morality. Universally held/shared moral beliefs... regardless of that which is subject to individual particular circumstances. Common sense agreement upon who ought wield power over people.
— creativesoul

Sounds great...reminds me of Anakin Skywalker's solution to government:

"We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problems, agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and then do it." — ZhouBoTong

In a system that is clearly broken in some important respects, it takes more than politicians. Afterall, we already have a bunch of politicians sitting down and discussing the problems, and regardless of who did what and when... regardless of blameworthiness... it is not working.

Particularly in a representative form of government in which the elected officials have voluntarily entered into the duty to act in the best interest of all Americans. When that is just simply not the case, the people themselves must have a say, must be privy to the conversation, must be the oversight committee. The people must be knowledgable about what's really going on, otherwise they are misinformed.

Properly implemented representative governments end up increasing the overall well-being and quality of life of the overwhelming majority of the people. That is clearly not happening to the degree and in the ways that it can and ought be.

What happens when people disagree? I am not convinced that most people will be willing to give up much of their belief systems to focus on what is shared...

The beauty of it all is that there is no need to give up all individual belief. As a matter of fact, there is no need to give up any belief at all in order to rightly assess the commonality, the shared belief that we all have.

I feel like I could write a novel-length post on this subject, so I'll be intentionally brief.

Intersectional feminist theory draws from the post-modern idea of "deconstructionism" (see: social constructs). It aims to "deconstruct" the harmful systems (of oppression) that have presumably been responsible for all of forms inequality perpetuation.

Within the informal systems analysis that this perspective generates, demographic identities (abstractly) receive labels like "victim" and "oppressor", and things like "the progressive stack" and "the problem of whiteness" naturally and casually emerge. The problem in this approach, like with most of post-modernism, is that it eschews any idea of objective truth or reality, replacing it with a self-referential spiral that can take people wherever they wish to go. The opening premise that all injustice is the result of social constructs (and the ensuing premises that state races/genders monolithically maintain these constructs) can always be used as a circular appeal to hypothesize about why X person or Y group or Z idea is bad because it has strong emotional and moralistic appeal (and where it becomes a sign of guilt to question the premise).

Ironically, in setting out to eliminate inequality and inter-group prejudice, they foment confusion, anger, and the reciprocation of apparent prejudice (see: why the alt right exists). If it wasn't so insidious and tragic, this would all make for excellent laughing stock...

Not true, the claims at stake are of objective truth, a specific social relation and power. The philosphies grouped as post modernism have never claimed there is no objective truth.

The argument isn't "social constructs" are some instance of a casual force which institutes one specific event over another (such as pressing a button causing a door to open), but referencing the fact our social organisation is formed in a certain way (we have built our society this way, in how we have socially organised), constructed out of the behaviours we do, rather than being an afterthought of some initial state.

You're just not making any sense at all to me. Clearly stating that a goal to end racism is misguided is itself quite the contentious claim. It's false on it's face, no matter what method one employs to meet that goal... diversity training notwithstanding.

Some people do not need diversity training, for they've already had a diverse group of loved ones, friends, and family members for long periods of time. Some of these people find it all rather telling... — creativesoul

I understand your emotional response to the statement in isolation, but you misunderstand why I said it. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t ‘end racism’ as such. My opinion is that declaring the goal of anything to be to ‘end racism’ in an environment that already generally accepts the negative connotations of ‘racism’, establishes a dichotomy of ‘racist/non-racist’ that does nothing to change the situation.

I’m saying that assuming this is the immediate goal of a ‘diversity training’ session - especially by those involved in the session - is misguided, and contributes to an unproductive environment of defensiveness on the part of those who object to the implication that someone here is being ‘racist’. These sessions are about creating opportunities to be aware of, question and challenge any damaging correlations we may still make as a community (not necessarily as individuals) between diversity and value.

Some, as you say, have value systems inclusive of this diversity, while others need such experiences to be sensitively ‘set up’ for them - in diversity training, for instance. Unless you’ve been brought up in an exclusive environment or without a diverse group of loved ones, then it can be difficult to understand what experiences might facilitate some people to challenge their own existing correlations between diversity and value. Stating ‘combating racism’ as a goal would NOT achieve this. Most people with ‘racist’ attitudes have elaborate ‘logical’ arguments to support their beliefs that they conceptualise as ‘non-racist’.

Do you have black, asian, latino, and/or an otherwise diverse group of loved ones, family members, and friends? Just curious. — creativesoul

I’m not American, so these diversity concepts you refer to (and their perceived correlations of value) are not quite the same in my experience. But my mother’s family were minority ‘Eurasian’ in Singapore before moving to Australia to join the minority ‘asian’ population, and my husband’s family moved over as minority southern European ‘migrants’.

So I understand what it’s like to consider myself to have a ‘diverse’ group of loved ones, family members and friends, and yet still recognise the need to challenge my own conceptual correlations between diversity and value that can manifest as ‘racist’ attitudes or behaviour. Humility is a significant part of that process, and in a politicised work environment I imagine that can be a difficult experience.

If you want diversity training to be effective in changing the culture or shared conceptual structures of the group, then your approach needs to ‘normalise’ an experience of humility, and also be inclusive of those who find even the suggestion of value difference to be offensive, as well as those who have quietly or even subconscious ‘racist’ attitudes towards their co-workers.

I've been following this discussion and I'm basically in agreement with you. I just approach the topic from the disability side as opposed to the racial side. I think it could very well be therapeutic for POC/the disabled or who ever is on that panel to share their lived experience in a reasonable, honest way. There are just so few outlets for this type of thing in actual civil life. When it works it can work very well, but I can see how things can get out of hand when you basically have one "teacher" group sharing their lived experience with an outsider group who needs to adopt an attitude of humility.

But I do really like the approach that we're not looking to "end racism" or "end ableism" through this panels or whatnot; the goal is understanding.

You sound like you've been a part of a few of these panels on the racial side, how have they gone in your experience? Do you find that they're achieving their objective? Are there ways that they could be improved?

I appreciate the edification. I work in public relations and marketing for non-profit, and my educational background includes media, social psychology and corporate culture. I haven’t been on a panel like this - I’m drawing from experience managing (and observing poorly managed) internal corporate communications on sensitive issues.

Properly implemented representative governments end up increasing the overall well-being and quality of life of the overwhelming majority of the people. That is clearly not happening to the degree and in the ways that it can and ought be. — creativesoul

I am not convinced of this. Historically, it would be difficult to provide evidence. Industrialization has been shown to increase the quality of life for the overwhelming majority, but that is about it. China never "properly implemented representative government" and yet if we compare their lives to one hundred years ago (or even just 50 in China's case), they have improved the quality of life massively for hundreds of millions of people.

Why are the happiest and "most representative" countries typically small, wealthy, and have homogeneous populations? How much does representative government matter when everyone in the country wants the same things?

Why is Russia a corrupt mess no matter what form of government they attempt to enact?

Don't get me wrong...I don't have any ideas for a better government than a representative one...but I don't think the system of government matters as much as the attitudes and desires of the people.

And here is a thought...what if the "beta" type personalities want representation? If I want an extremely humble person who is somewhat uncomfortable in their own skin, because I think this is a useful perspective that should be part of our political process..then I AM OUT OF LUCK. Everyone (ok, maybe 99.8%) running for office has a huge ego. They know the problems and they are the best one to fix them. For example, I like Bernie, but the dude is old as dirt (along with most of the viable candidates and trump). Surely, he could find some 55-60 year old protege that he could back as the next President? Bernie could put in the exact same amount of effort campaigning for that person. If his goal is to change things, then that would seem the best way to accomplish it. But HE is the ONLY one to understand the problems and have the RIGHT solutions...:roll:

Not true, the claims at stake are of objective truth, a specific social relation and power — TheWillowOfDarkness

What do you mean by "a specific social relation and power"?

If you mean something like "the power of whites", then you're not being specific at all. That said, my point about the post modern rejection of objectivity is meant to convey my criticism that intersectional feminist ideas are entirely bound up in their own starting assumptions, and the untested interpretations people choose to make of them.

For instance, if you would say that it's objectively true that only white people can be racist, and that all white people benefit from white supremacy....

How can I disagree? The way you define racism might make it tautologically true that all white people are racist; and you might get there purely by statistical generalization.

The argument isn't "social constructs" are some instance of a casual force which institutes one specific event over another (such as pressing a button causing a door to open), but referencing the fact our social organisation is formed in a certain way (we have built our society this way, in how we have socially organised), constructed out of the behaviours we do, rather than being an afterthought of some initial state. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, the goings-on in and of society emerge from the collective sum of the actions that individuals take. But this doesn't amount to anything specific. In fact, it's stupendously vague.

It's like racism, inequality,and suffering are merely abstract artful concepts that get casually bandied into pleasing or evocative statements. There are indeed "constructed systems" in our midst that are related to the statistical disparities we both rebuke, but you need to coherently point them out for us to do anything about them. "Down with patriarchy/whiteness" campaigns don't come with useful or coherent suggestions, and they mostly serve to incite feelings of guilt or anger from those who buy into them, and confusion or resentment from those who reject them.

It’s ever unsettling truth in the context of these race issues: “whiteness” is the villain.

I understand where you're coming from here. However, if you were to apply this type of thinking within a disability rights perspective the conclusion would be that the existence or presence of able-bodied people are essentially the problem. There's a certain truth to this thinking, but to actually hold it is just toxic. It's toxic psychologically.

"Whiteness" isn't referencing the existence of a person with white skin, but the existence within the social context of white idenity and its relation to opression. The equivalent in disability context is the able-bodied identity and bias.

I also don't think the it's physcholgically toxic to recognise oneself as the villain. All that's being spoken about here is regonising the harm the presence of the oppressive social context has done, and perhaps a specific role they might have played in that. To recognise harm which has been done to someone is not toxic, it just honest.

Toxicity lies in in thinking one cannot have engaged in such harms, the place in which on takes an implict assumption these said harms are something they could not be involved or related to, for they couldn't possibly be commiting or have relation to such terrible harm. This is why, as others have pointed out, approaching this in terms of "ending" all oppression is a bad idea.

Aside from issues of oppession being vast and complex, certainly not endable by a group of people coming to understand the harms which occur, it attracts the oppressor side to notion of being those who never, ever engage or relate to those harms. The result is likely a lot of white people who cannot recognise harms because they are desperate to be people without any connection to such harms.

Properly implemented representative governments end up increasing the overall well-being and quality of life of the overwhelming majority of the people. That is clearly not happening to the degree and in the ways that it can and ought be.
— creativesoul

I am not convinced of this. Historically, it would be difficult to provide evidence. — ZhouBoTong

What on earth?

It's purely a matter of sensible definition, and rightly so.

If it is not the case that a representative form of government, say... like the US... consists entirely of people who willfully, consciously, and/or intentionally take deliberate action to increase the over-all well-being of those over whom they have such power(the citizens)...

...if that is not the case...

...then that is not a representative form of government. Insisting otherwise is nonsense. Calling a government that does not have that distinct character about it, only pays lip-service to it's sole reason for existence as a representative form of government. If it fails to represent the best interest of the overwhelming majority of the people... it is not representative. To say otherwise is nonsense.

All representative forms of government consist entirely of people who are representing the best interests of the overwhelming majority of people(citizens). If a government consists of individuals who are looking out for the best interest of some faceless corporate entity and the decision being weighed ends up being a situation where there is a conflict of interest between the citizens(the overwhelming majority, in this case) and the aforementioned corporate entity, then they must always err on the side of the people.

If it is also the case that their own best interest aligns better with corporate entities, and we can always know that by looking at the relevant 'financial picture'(evidence), then it is also the case that their best interest conflicts with the very people over whom they have been granted power over.

They must err against their own interests(financial, in this case).

This could be said to be a problem, the solution of which is prevention, and it's already built in to the American Constitution. Unfortunately, that language has been ignored for so long now that the sheer number of guilty parties who've knowingly aligned their own interests against the overwhelming majority of Americans is so numerous that it makes it all too easy to keep getting away with it.

China never "properly implemented representative government" and yet if we compare their lives to one hundred years ago (or even just 50 in China's case), they have improved the quality of life massively for hundreds of millions of people.

I've never claimed that a representative form of government is the only kind that can be accompanied by an increase in the over-all well-being of the society. I'm saying that those results are necessary in order to sensibly say that we have one. It takes a bit more than just an overall improvement in the quality of life of the citizens to count as being a properly implemented representative form of government. That sort of general improvement is true of many different kinds of governments.