What do you guys think about Shaun King's latest bombshell article? He's actually right on this one.
inb4 >Shaun King
The White Privilege of the "Lone Wolf" shooter
What do you guys think about Shaun King's latest bombshell article? He's actually right on this one.
worthless obnoxious drivel
Go back to Holla Forums, I know you were praying for him to be a Muslim but sorry to "disappoint"
The only reason I don't hate Shaun King is that he's perfected the art of pissing off every single person online, and trolling like that is hard to come by these days
if you're going to him for serious takes though just off yourself instead
If there is no overarching ideology prompting the action, that action is said to have been committed by a "lone wolf."
If the perpetrator has been influenced by an ideology which has already persuaded others to take similar action, that is not a "lone wolf."
Super simple stuff.
WTF i love capitalism now.
The problem isn't that some people have nice things. It's not even really that other people don't have nice things. It's that other people are actively shit on. Cops killing black people isn't because of white muh privilege. The muh privilege concept is just a way to divert anger away from the problem toward something mostly unrelated and thus neutering potential movements for change.
It's not trolling if he's actually retarded.
What if it's so inherently amusing that his intention doesn't matter? The internet drama is real and funny as shit every time.
I think you've nailed what I don't like about it in a way I haven't been able to quite put my finger on before. Honestly it isn't wrong to say "blacks have it worse than whites", but to make it about the white half of that equation is so fucking weird.
This. Black Power was a better movement because it was about empowering blacks. The problem wasn't the 'privileges' of whites, but the lack of such for blacks. This white muh privilege narrative just attempts to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator and leave everyone worse off.
Everyone in this thread has teleiophilia muh privilege.
Privilege politics works on the same mechanism as "Wow, you guys are upset because the economy is fucked up here in post-WWI Germany. You know who's at fault for this?"
you muh privilege white antifa need get the fuck out of the way.
You didn't read the article
WHERE'S MY FUCKING GEORGE SOROS CHECK?
Its a job app for antifa you stupid european caveman no job app for black lives matter because white supremacist control the system.
Holla Forums won't agree because they are determined to suck the stormnigger cock
Dunno what else there is to say?
It was hilarious watching Fox last night with all the bitching and crying about those ebil dems politizing a tragedy.
I did. King goes so far as to cite fucking imaginary muh privileges that Paddock "enjoys" like the posthumous labels he gets. Labeling people who acted alone as "lone wolves" is accurate, and getting mad at a dead person doesn't happen because there's nobody left to get mad at. With organizations, there are people still alive to get mad at. Exactly like I described here he's pointing to how well a dead white person is supposedly being treated as "the problem" and reducing the way other people are treated to support for that claim. If there's a useful topic to discuss here, it's probably the question of why white terrorists tend act alone more often than others.
As a socialist and an anarcist, ypu should understand how stupid the concpt of "acting alone" is.
What are you talking about? The distinction between someone who acts as part of a larger organization/network and one who doesn't is a useful one. The causes of individual violence have to be traced back to systemic problems (if traced at all) rather than some organization's practices.
Fuck off back to /r/socialism/
What's /r/socialism about knowing that Holla Forums is retarded and comes here to post idpol takes 24/7?
Why do they all wear the same shoes?
He's not wrong, but his focus on muh privilege stunts his argument. It's a pretty weak premise to connect Trump's bias to some sort of innate societal muh privilege of white folk. To talk about how the media paints people based on certain characteristics however, would be a much stronger/reasonable article. Too bad it wouldn't get them clicks.
If race is to be considered corollary to class then white muh privilege absolutely DOES exist as whiteness is a class rather than a biological distinction.
He's right in the sense that he's correctly identifying a phenomenon but by attributing it to "white muh privilege" he's effectively doing the exact same thing that he accuses USA Today etc of doing. IMO, attributing things to "white muh privilege" is as ridiculous and intellectually lazy as attributing something to "black criminality" or whatever.
For those that benefit from it, a great deal of effort and treasure has been expended in the creation of a monolithic white identity. Historical religious, national, and cultural distinctions among the various European immigrant populations have been almost completely eradicated as meaningful delineations. The overriding attribution is whiteness, and the attribution of "white muh privilege" seeks to constantly reaffirm that. Rich, poor, protestant, catholic, none of that is treated as a serious distinguishing characteristic in regards to whiteness. The only thing that comes close is maleness or femaleness.
Yeah, white mass-murderers and terrorists are treated different, but it's not because of some fantastical "privilege."
The social convention of racial categorization itself, and its overriding supremacy in regard to popular distinctions, has to be maintained at all cost. Without this polarization of society, other distinctions, ideological for instance, begin to make themselves apparent. Without keeping "white crime" separate from "black crime" or "muslim terrorism," instead of the vertical orientation of society along racial lines (Trump is just as white and Obama as black as the poorest white or black, etc), horizontal strata assert themselves–for example, class. If white people can be terrorists too, then what separates Caucasians from Semites? The Holla Forums illusion of being on the same "team" on account of your skin color evaporates. If white people can be terrorists too, and especially when they prey on other white people, then what "team" can you actually count on? Black crime and white crime become meaningless distinctions. Instead it's just crime. Whether you're white or black you have an interest in seeing crime diminished. Without the similar monolithic perception of Muslims and their attribution of terrorism, it's no long "Muslim terrorism" but simply terrorism. Without the racial cop out, other explanations must be found, other examinations made.
Attributing Paddock's designation as a "lone wolf" to "privilege" is a mistake, and by making it Shaun King inadvertently (hopefully) does his part to maintain the whole charade. Being upset about his appellation is bourgeois ideology. It doesn't really matter what you call him. At the end of the day, 50+ people are dead and hundreds more injured. The distinction is largely an academic one. What's important is why he and others do the things they do.
I hope this is a coherent post. Right now the only reason I'm upright is because of caffeine. Now that I look, I think
put what I was trying to say much more succinctly.
What is happening to leftypol?
Are we seriously dipping into deepest corners of liberal idpol now?
We should really just have a liberal cringe cyclical, and delete threads like this.
Fuck whitey am i ritey
But it isn't
Race isn't about class? Blacks don't occupy a global underclass?
No they don't. Do you even know what South America is? Or eastern Europe? Shit what about almost the entirety of Asia? Your beliefs literally have such little nuance they don't consider half the world.
bumplock this garbage thread or somethin
No they don’t. On a global context American blacks are much better off then most people.
I'm talking about "black" as in those dark individuals that constitute the lowest rungs in every society they're found in, black is a class because of the phenomenon of colorism. There is not ONE country where "blacks" aren't the underclass (that isn't homogeneously black).
I'm NOT denying there are other poor people but if we're talking globally, then DARK people are living in the MOST impoverished conditions on the planet - they are also the least cared for and - can - be the most exploited because of said lack of care.
Race is not a class. A class is a distinct functional relationship with clear boundaries and a power imbalance that exists by definition. Race is a set of biases that conditionally exists depending on just how racist the people in a given interaction are.
Race was initially conceived as a class, the way race has been used by governments in the past was parallel to class. I don't give a fuck about what individual is racist or not, stop thinking that I'm attacking you moron.
You people can't even discuss this objective reality without thinking we're divulging in IDpol. Race was, and is, a very REAL phenomenon in America, you can't just simply dismiss it. Heck, even in europe race supplanted class with fascist government, with jews taking the role of an exploitative bourgeois.
W E W
That doesn't make it class.
I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about structural racism. For instance, a cop/judge can have varying levels of racism. A more racist one is going to treat certain people under their power worse than the less racist cop/judge. It's not something you can sort into clear categories the same way you can based on control of production. The way it operates depends too much on highly variable context for it to function as class. You need a different model to understand the phenomenon.
W E W
Oh, hi Holla Forums.
Class is one's objective relation to the means of production.
Identity is a subjective notion separating one to varying degrees from other identities, and its use for racial supremacist ideology vastly antedates the existence of economic classes or the capitalist system that supports them.
There is no similarity whatsoever between the two.
Fortunately I am trying to be a better leftist so I can conceive to being wrong, I understood my mistake 5 seconds after posting that rebuttal. I wasn't thinking in materialist terms but rather ideology.
I didn't articulate my point in the way that I'd like, I wanted to say that race and class have such a huge overlap in america that "white muh privilege"can be construed as the muh privilege wealthy people enjoy in general. Not saying ALL whites are wealthy, only that is what people probably mean when they say "white muh privilege".
I think he's addressing a correct point, but in the wrong instance. The media and the political culture do treat white/western terrorists by different standards than brown/muslim/other terrorists. There's no question in my mind that if this guy was named Muhammad instead of Stephen everyone would have been calling it terrorism and him a terrorist instantly, and before any facts were in. It's also perfectly fair and accurate to call this a form of "white muh privilege".
However, where he's wrong is that there just is no indication Paddock was actually a terrorist, which would require at least some form of political motivation for the action, for which there's no evidence so far. So it's a poor case to use to make the point.
Holla Forums dosent even need to make false flags the libs do it for them…
Why do I care about the opinion of a self-hating white man?
So you're saying blacks are always the underclass except when they aren't? Stunning insight.
I was thinking of countries with more than 2 ethnic groups with blacks being the second minority; invariably being below the other ethnicity in most countries.
Commendable. But I take the same approach so maybe that's my ego talking. I don't disagree that white muh privilege "exists" in the sense of being a coherent way to frame the subject. I just find the framing to be unhelpful for addressing non-white people's problems, and see it often used as a way to blame white people (as a group rather than a concept) for those problems. Lots of people playing the ideological deconstruction game don't properly couch their terms, so unfamiliar people (on either side) read their shit and take it at face-value (to them), which is often identity-essentialist. And then when you bring back the consideration of whether the frame is useful to begin with, and the picture I have is that it really only functions as a way to worsen tensions and waste academics' time.
Really, this reminds me of how every single case of police misconduct BLM shone the spotlight of national attention on were either unsympathetic thugs or cases where nothing improper actually happened, with the exception of that one video where the guy had a gun planted on him after they gunned him down.
Even when they're making the right point, identitarians can't help but say it completely the wrong way.
The guy who shot up the Orlando Nightclub was called a lone wolf. He was Islamic:
The Black guy who shot all those white cops was referred to as a lone wolf:
His entire premise is bullshit. The points he pushes, like how whites make up the majority of mass shootings are misleading in that whites make up the majority of the population. The people who shoot the most innocent people are Muslim Extremists, and the Black people Talcum X LARPs as.
Nothing he says is right. He simply completely failed to do his due diligence and look into if people other than white people were also referred to as "lone wolves". They are, because the overwhelming majority of terrorism in the US is "lone wolf" terrorism. Apparently a lot of leftypol is fucking retarded too and also failed to think about this.
The only legitimate point he has is that Trump, being a racist, is more angry about people protesting at football games than he is domestic terrorism. This is true, however, this point has already been made and he's simply rehashing the same argument. Trump is now effectively expected to swear any time somebody does something more disagreeable than protest at an NFL game or be subject to more articles exposing his hypocrisy, which means very likely, people are going to be going on about this shit for years.
I've always used "white" as a concept and not an inherent trait imputed to people. That was my mistake in making a false equivalence out of class (I thought was a concept) and whiteness (A concept). I live in the UK, so class actually has cultural distinctions as well as material.
Do you think the romani are treated better than Indian immigrants in Britain because they're whiter?
People who are that reactionary will most likely be very shallow so I would assume yes. They'd only start to care about the romani person if they look distinct enough or they hear them speak. The indian person (assuming they're dark) will be judged instantly.
White muh privilege is just a way for people to try and get deeply triggering and problematic racism under the radar. This is not to say deeply triggering and problematic racism is unjustified, it is just transparently clear that is what is going on. It's a way for smug ivy league black women who have never left the city bubble to condescendingly look down on impoverished whites and tell them how easy they had it even though that makes no sense.
I see complaining about "White privledge" as equivalent to complaining about "black culture". Where you have bigots telling somebody who worked their ass off their entire life keeping their head down the reason they aren't successful is "black culture".
If peoples problem was with people not acknowledging their muh privilege, they would just stick to the more generic "check your muh privilege".
That's why when Saudi princes come to the united states people assume they're poor and dirty. They just look at that dark skin. Also why Indian engineers are treated worse than Mexican laborers. That skin is just a tad darker and really that's all people are looking at.
Doesn't work that way, it's very binary for most people. All dark people probably appear the same to them and all people past a certain threshold of lightness are elevated to a more esteemed position. People aren't that precise in their grading unless they come from a country that has a A LOT of mixing or dark people - like brazil or india itself.
Except this is what literally 99% of black people in america - nay - the world, believe. Impoverished as fuck africans believe in white muh privilege as well (when they've had active contact with them).
don't see it that way really. most of the prominent BLM cases were clearly improper, a couple questionable.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I'm a burger and we have pretensions of classlessness so drawing that distinction is less necessary here. But yeah in a nutshell class is a material relationship while race is an ideological one. The two aspects affect each other, but are fundamentally different.
What the fuck is this pre-wordfilter?
Yeah, and this right here is a perfect example of the distinction between race and class. There's almost no such thing as a wealthy prole who looks down on a poor bourgie. The closest would be something like a Hollywood liberal looking down on a struggling small business owner, but once a prole reaches a certain level of wealth they tend to transition into the bourgeois class by having their own companies, buying stocks, etc.
Damn. I had not considered this; that's a good point. Racists do love using culture as a cover for racism, don't they? Similar thing happens with Islam.
Who believes it isn't the point, fam. The point is that people take it as an excuse to ignore nuance and pretend like Oprah has a worse time than some white sewage worker.
I do think it's odd how some of the more clear-cut cases didn't blow up so much, but I suspect that's got a lot to do with BLM's opposition in the media selectively fanning the flames over the most questionable cases they could find.
Shut it down guys, he's figured out our secret light skinned people club. You get all the muh privileges once you make it past the color test. Can't believe we convinced all those other idiots it had anything to do with money.
I'm not saying that, stop.
People DO judge rich saudi's negatively because of their appearance - does everyone? No. Yet there are a lot of people stupid and shallow enough to lump them into the same monolithic bloc as every other "non-white".
I feel like it's the same reason people in the alt-right aren't as hostile to light skinned east asians (if they are at all, most seem to worship them) as they are to every other "non white".
You're the one posting idpol you supernigger
Just when I thought I found a publication minimally worthy of respect.
the intercept has really gone to shit if it's hiring Talcum X. guess it's not a big surprise when it's owned by Pierre Omidyar who wants to be part of the "in" crowd in the elite nowadays.
What the fuck, first that spineless cretin from Gawker and now this phony idpoler scumbag? Is Glen Greenwald the only journalist worth a shit at the Intercept? Does he realize how much his reputation suffers in the company of these charlatans?