I think this political cartoon is worth discussing as it is all side that do this

[Swammerdami]

Metaphor: Are you one Prof. Pape is speaking of?

Americans who answer Yes/Yes to the questions "Was the Election Stolen? Would you participate in a violent protest about that?"

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor: Are you one Prof. Pape is speaking of?

Americans who answer Yes/Yes to the questions "Was the Election Stolen? Would you participate in a violent protest about that?"

Since I'm not American I think that categorically excludes me.

 

[Rhea]

Metaphor: Are you one Prof. Pape is speaking of?

Americans who answer Yes/Yes to the questions "Was the Election Stolen? Would you participate in a violent protest about that?"

Since I'm not American I think that categorically excludes me.

And you post so much about American white male grievance, you are clearly being disingenuous. You had an opinion on New Hampshire vaccine distribution, and US college curricula. Why not answer? Would you say yes/yes?

 

[Bomb#20]

Rhea didn't provide any links or further context. I don't know the incident she is referring to. But by her own description. she appears to be dismissing any and all grievances against men and boys as hysterical non-grievances.

Her own description was highly erroneous. The government was not reducing caste discrimination; it was ramping it up. India has been practicing affirmative action against Brahmins and other high-caste Hindus a lot longer than the U.S. has been doing it to white and Asian males. There was of course no law reserving 75% of the jobs for Brahmins. What there was was a law reserving 22.5% of government jobs for low-caste Hindus (and some non-Hindu tribes); the other 77.5% were open to anyone and were filled according to qualifications. (Nominally. India of course has a typical third-world corruption and nepotism problem.) What "qualifications" means in practice is that more education gives you better job prospects. When Rhea says the Brahmins have 75% of the jobs "reserved" for them, well, she probably thinks 25% of Harvard admissions are "reserved for Asians". The phenomenon she's misinterpreting is the outcome that Brahmins get a higher proportion of the jobs than their overall numbers in India. But that actually happens because the Brahmins typically educate their kids more other castes do so they're more likely to have the best qualifications. They get more of the jobs not because they're reserved, but because they're unreserved.

In 1990 the federal government reduced the number of competitive job offerings from 77.5% to 50%. The state governments have various quotas; in some states the number of job openings that everyone is eligible to compete for is a lot less than 50%. High-caste Hindus complain about this policy a lot. Of course only the craziest of the crazy immolate themselves over it -- the sensible ones simply pay bribes to get paperwork certifying that they're low-caste.

 

[Patooka]

So, linking to stories is 'presenting' every white male grievance as a 10?

You, or anyone here, can go to your user profile and click on “threads started by Metaphor,” and see the topics you choose to start, the word choices you select for your thread titles, and the language you use to demean those you think are taking privilege from you. They are not threads that promote discussion, or seeking context or reaching out to understand other points of view.

That is the context that provides the impression of complaints about minor issues being delivered with demands of high priority. ~Shrug~. That’s what you write, that’s your theme. I assume your choices are voluntary.

This week in the strange death of Europe: Scotland's new hate-crime law

Erase men from your lives: this week in feminism

This week in feminism: The Hottest Thing a Man Can Do Is Not Be a Jerk About Astrology

This week in the strange death of America: Professor removed for using Mandarin word that sounds like a slur in English

This week in Woke: Actresses justly cancelled for committing atrocities

This week in Woke: Wellcome Collection dragged for womxn's event

This week in feminism: Sex-neutral university fee changes decried as an 'attack on women'

This week in the feminist insane-o-sphere: Oxford teacher worried Oxford will find coronavirus vaccine

Rhea, I don't really see a pattern of outrage porn here. Maybe if we revisit this next week.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor: Are you one Prof. Pape is speaking of?

Americans who answer Yes/Yes to the questions "Was the Election Stolen? Would you participate in a violent protest about that?"

Since I'm not American I think that categorically excludes me.

And you post so much about American white male grievance, you are clearly being disingenuous. You had an opinion on New Hampshire vaccine distribution, and US college curricula. Why not answer? Would you say yes/yes?

There was nothing disingenuous about answering the question "Am I an American who thinks..." with "no, I am not an American".

Do I think the 2020 election was stolen: no. However, there were some results that looked anomalous that the left crucified people for asking questions about. I witnessed some of these in real time myself - like the updating of a State result that added something like 1,400 votes for Biden at once without a single vote added for Trump. The point is not that this is necessarily cheating, the point is asking "how did that happen" is not an outrageous question.

I don't participate in protests of any description much less violent protests.

 

[Metaphor]

So, linking to stories is 'presenting' every white male grievance as a 10?

You, or anyone here, can go to your user profile and click on “threads started by Metaphor,” and see the topics you choose to start, the word choices you select for your thread titles, and the language you use to demean those you think are taking privilege from you. They are not threads that promote discussion, or seeking context or reaching out to understand other points of view.

That is the context that provides the impression of complaints about minor issues being delivered with demands of high priority. ~Shrug~. That’s what you write, that’s your theme. I assume your choices are voluntary.

This week in the strange death of Europe: Scotland's new hate-crime law

Erase men from your lives: this week in feminism

This week in feminism: The Hottest Thing a Man Can Do Is Not Be a Jerk About Astrology

This week in the strange death of America: Professor removed for using Mandarin word that sounds like a slur in English

This week in Woke: Actresses justly cancelled for committing atrocities

This week in Woke: Wellcome Collection dragged for womxn's event

This week in feminism: Sex-neutral university fee changes decried as an 'attack on women'

This week in the feminist insane-o-sphere: Oxford teacher worried Oxford will find coronavirus vaccine

Rhea, I don't really see a pattern of outrage porn here. Maybe if we revisit this next week.

Some good threads here! I highly recommend.

 

[Metaphor]

Rhea didn't provide any links or further context. I don't know the incident she is referring to. But by her own description. she appears to be dismissing any and all grievances against men and boys as hysterical non-grievances.

Her own description was highly erroneous. The government was not reducing caste discrimination; it was ramping it up. India has been practicing affirmative action against Brahmins and other high-caste Hindus a lot longer than the U.S. has been doing it to white and Asian males. There was of course no law reserving 75% of the jobs for Brahmins. What there was was a law reserving 22.5% of government jobs for low-caste Hindus (and some non-Hindu tribes); the other 77.5% were open to anyone and were filled according to qualifications. (Nominally. India of course has a typical third-world corruption and nepotism problem.) What "qualifications" means in practice is that more education gives you better job prospects. When Rhea says the Brahmins have 75% of the jobs "reserved" for them, well, she probably thinks 25% of Harvard admissions are "reserved for Asians". The phenomenon she's misinterpreting is the outcome that Brahmins get a higher proportion of the jobs than their overall numbers in India. But that actually happens because the Brahmins typically educate their kids more other castes do so they're more likely to have the best qualifications. They get more of the jobs not because they're reserved, but because they're unreserved.

In 1990 the federal government reduced the number of competitive job offerings from 77.5% to 50%. The state governments have various quotas; in some states the number of job openings that everyone is eligible to compete for is a lot less than 50%. High-caste Hindus complain about this policy a lot. Of course only the craziest of the crazy immolate themselves over it -- the sensible ones simply pay bribes to get paperwork certifying that they're low-caste.

Thank you for explaining the details that corrected Rhea's misleading story.

 

[untermensche]

Yes and this week Israel attacked Gaza with right wing sycophants cheering. Including right wing Democrats who show themselves on this issue.

That's right.

There was also some serious news that involved killing and the destruction of media towers to keep out one side of the story.

Why do we never get both sides of the story when Israel attacks people?

What some outliers on the left do and rare events may be interesting but they do not form the norm.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes and this week Israel attacked Gaza with right wing sycophants cheering. Including right wing Democrats who show themselves on this issue.

That's right.

There was also some serious news that involved killing and the destruction of media towers to keep out one side of the story.

Why do we never get both sides of the story when Israel attacks people?

What some outliers on the left do and rare events may be interesting but they do not form the norm.

The destruction of that building couldn't have stopped the reporting from Gaza as it didn't exist in the first place. Anything that purports to be "news" from Gaza is basically straight from Hamas. The only reports with any credibility are those that come from reporters who have left and aren't going back.

 

[Rhea]

Thank you for explaining the details that corrected Rhea's misleading story.

The story was from my memory of when it happened, 30 years ago, reading it in print newspaper.
The point remains the same. He set himself on fire because the government said that the 88% of the population should really get at least 50% of the jobs, right? And the privilege that made that not happen - that instead made much more than 50% of the jobs in the hands of 12% of the people - was being dismantled.

And he burned himself up over the fact that the 12% of the population was nw vying for “only” 50% of the jobs, when they used to be able to dominate almost all of them.


The accuracy of the story is diminished in the memory of 30 years, but the point is unchanged. He set himself on fire because he was losing privilege. Bomb wants you to think that since the privilege was enacted by custom and not enshrined by law that it was not privilege. Facts remain: prior to the law, he had a much easier time getting a job because 88% of the population was shut out. And then equality started to be enforced. Partway. And he was outraged.


So the facts remain, and the story still reminds me of you.

 

[Metaphor]

Thank you for explaining the details that corrected Rhea's misleading story.

The story was from my memory of when it happened, 30 years ago, reading it in print newspaper.
The point remains the same. He set himself on fire because the government said that the 88% of the population should really get at least 50% of the jobs, right? And the privilege that made that not happen - that instead made much more than 50% of the jobs in the hands of 12% of the people - was being dismantled.

And he burned himself up over the fact that the 12% of the population was nw vying for “only” 50% of the jobs, when they used to be able to dominate almost all of them.

Whilst it is my opinion that the entire population should be considered for the entire population of available jobs without prejudice, what you are saying is still misleading.

The accuracy of the story is diminished in the memory of 30 years, but the point is unchanged. He set himself on fire because he was losing privilege.

Except no, he wasn't "losing privilege". He was being discriminated against even further by the government.

Bomb wants you to think that since the privilege was enacted by custom and not enshrined by law that it was not privilege. Facts remain: prior to the law, he had a much easier time getting a job because 88% of the population was shut out.

No, 88% of the population was not shut out.

88% of jobs were offered without discrimination.

And then equality started to be enforced. Partway. And he was outraged.

So the facts remain, and the story still reminds me of you.

I disagree that your story illustrated the loss of illegitimate privilege. But even if it did, I disagree that complaining about discrimination against men and boys is complaining about the loss of illegitimate privilege, and that the complaining is the equivalent (or it is reasonable to remind you of) someone torching himself.

 

[laughing dog]

So the example here is that a field of study in colleges examing the existence and mitigation of racism is “the wrongdoing,” the sketchy stuff,

No. The wrongdoing is leftists gaslighting everyone else by denying that critical race theory is hegemony at American universities.

I realize that opinions need not be based on fact, but your opinion is spouted in such vague terms that is almost meaningless.
What do you mean by "leftists".
Do you mean all leftists, most leftists or some leftists.
What do you mean by "hegemony at American universities"?
Do you mean critical race theory is hegemony at all or most or some American universities?

For example, I know that at my American university, critical race theory is not hegemonic at all. Does that negate your claim of fact?

 

[Metaphor]

I realize that opinions need not be based on fact, but your opinion is spouted in such vague terms that is almost meaningless.
What do you mean by "leftists".

I mean the group of people on the left wing side of politics. I didn't realise it was an ambiguous term. For example, the majority of people who post on this forum are leftist and they would identify as such.

Do you mean all leftists, most leftists or some leftists.

I mean the leftists who do it. Some leftists don't deny it and some leftists are silent about it.

What do you mean by "hegemony at American universities"?

I mean it is the prevailing view about race and race relations, or, if not prevailing, it is the publically acceptable view. Policy is formed that is compatible with this view.

Do you mean critical race theory is hegemony at all or most or some American universities?

When feminists say that women are rightly afraid of men, do you think feminists mean all women and all men?

No, they mean it as something that is generally true. Finding a single instance of a woman who was not afraid of any man wouldn't invalidate the general statement, and finding a single instance of a man who didn't frighten any woman wouldn't invalidate it either.

For example, I know that at my American university, critical race theory is not hegemonic at all. Does that negate your claim of fact?

I'd have to know what you meant by 'not hegemonic at all'. I don't know your university. I don't know the rhetoric it has put out. I don't know what policy documents it has written. I don't know what academics discuss behind closed doors.

As calibration, do you think critical race theory is hegemony at Princeton?

 

[laughing dog]

I mean the group of people on the left wing side of politics. I didn't realise it was an ambiguous term. For example, the majority of people who post on this forum are leftist and they would identify as such.



I mean the leftists who do it. Some leftists don't deny it and some leftists are silent about it.

What do you mean by "hegemony at American universities"?

I mean it is the prevailing view about race and race relations, or, if not prevailing, it is the publically acceptable view. Policy is formed that is compatible with this view.

Do you mean critical race theory is hegemony at all or most or some American universities?

When feminists say that women are rightly afraid of men, do you think feminists mean all women and all men?

No, they mean it as something that is generally true. Finding a single instance of a woman who was not afraid of any man wouldn't invalidate the general statement, and finding a single instance of a man who didn't frighten any woman wouldn't invalidate it either.

Your documented history of exaggeration makes clarification of your statements helpful.

If you think it is generally true that "the wrongdoing is leftists gaslighting everyone else by denying that critical race theory is hegemony at American universities." then your opinion is unsupported.

I'd have to know what you meant by 'not hegemonic at all'. I don't know your university. I don't know the rhetoric it has put out. I don't know what policy documents it has written. I don't know what academics discuss behind closed doors.

Then you really have no business making general statements about things you don't know about.

As calibration, do you think critical race theory is hegemony at Princeton?

Don't see why that is relevant. You made a general statement about American universities, not Princeton.

 

[Metaphor]

If you think it is generally true that "the wrongdoing is leftists gaslighting everyone else by denying that critical race theory is hegemony at American universities." then your opinion is unsupported.

It is an example of wrongdoing that leftists do. If you believe that leftists don't downplay the reach of CRT, or you believe it is not hegemony, it would mean I am mistaken.

Then you really have no business making general statements about things you don't know about.

I don't know about your particular university and I did not make a statement about your particular university.

"Men are taller than women" does not require me to be acquainted with every man and woman who has ever lived.

Don't see why that is relevant. You made a general statement about American universities, not Princeton.

Either answer the question or don't. If you don't think Princeton counts as an example of a university where CRT is hegemonic, then we ought end the discussion right now. If you don't think Princeton counts, then no university in America would.

 

[laughing dog]

It is an example of wrongdoing that leftists do. If you believe that leftists don't downplay the reach of CRT, or you believe it is not hegemony, it would mean I am mistaken.

Or unsupported (as I wrote).

I don't know about your particular university and I did not make a statement about your particular university.

My obvious point that clearly eluded you is that you don't know the rhetoric American universities as a whole put out and you don't know what policy documents American universities as whole have put out and you don't know what academics discuss behind closed doors.

"Men are taller than women" does not require me to be acquainted with every man and woman who has ever lived.

If you are using that as analogy it fails because it is claim of fact that is measurable and observable - unlike your ill-defined generalization about American universities.

Either answer the question or don't. If you don't think Princeton counts as an example of a university where CRT is hegemonic, then we ought end the discussion right now. If you don't think Princeton counts, then no university in America would.

You made a general statement about American universities. Princeton is does not represent all or even most American universities.

Perhaps I have mistakenly confused your unsupported and ill-defined opinion as a claim of fact. If so, I apologize.

 

[Metaphor]

You made a general statement about American universities. Princeton is does not represent all or even most American universities.

I did not say it represented all or most American universities. I am making the claim that Princeton is an example of what I mean by CRT being hegemonic at a university. I have explained why I have asked more than once. Your continual unwillingness to answer the question is curious to me.

 

[laughing dog]

You made a general statement about American universities. Princeton is does not represent all or even most American universities.

I did not say it represented all or most American universities. I am making the claim that Princeton is an example of what I mean by CRT being hegemonic at a university.

Since I did not dispute that CRT was hegemoni at some universities (even though that claim is pretty vague, since I strongly suspect given your posting history and the term "hegemony" that the notion of CRT hegemony is fairly elastic), one wonders why you even brought it up.

I have explained why I have asked more than once. Your continual unwillingness to answer the question is curious to me.

Please stop mischaracterizing my post. I did answer your question. I have no idea whether CRT is hegemony at Princeton. Frankly, I don't care one way or the other since I believe your unsupported generalization is a statement of your opinion, not a statement of fact. i

Offering up an example does not support a generalization about a group.

 

[Metaphor]

Since I did not dispute that CRT was hegemoni at some universities (even though that claim is pretty vague, since I strongly suspect given your posting history and the term "hegemony" that the notion of CRT hegemony is fairly elastic), one wonders why you even brought it up.

Why do you continually refuse to answer the question?

Please stop mischaracterizing my post. I did answer your question. I have no idea whether CRT is hegemony at Princeton. Frankly, I don't care one way or the other since I believe your unsupported generalization is a statement of your opinion, not a statement of fact. i

Offering up an example does not support a generalization about a group.

If you have 'no idea' whether CRT is hegemony at Princeton--despite the publically available information about Princeton accessible to anyone and not just insiders--then we are done on this topic. At Princeton

*The president wrote an open letter confessing that the institution he ran was racist.
*Faculty wrote a public list of demands to address Princeton's "systemic racism". The demands included reparations and abolishing the police.
*Students who signed a free speech letter were doxxed and called 'fascists' and 'ghouls'.

But as I said, we're done. It is obvious to me that if you have 'no idea' if Princeton is in the grip of CRT, then no university in America would qualify.