Nerd
I had sex with a vacuum, it sucked.
User ID: 1024
Nerd
12d ago
What made you want to resurrect these two ancient (by internet standards) videos for discussion today?
We still hear complaints about privilege in today's politics, especially as it relates to race and gender. There are all sorts of stories around transgender people and how they experience both sides of gender privilege. I also just happen to love counter arguments and wish he was still around.
But fundamentally, I just don't think this is a good way to frame the discussion around the issues of disadvantaged people. Unfortunately, because it doesnt appear to be designed to actually do that.
Nerd
13d ago
A Privilege is an unearned advantage according to this theory, and if you are born into a position of privilege, you dont know what its like to live without it. I think this idea has many flaws, but I'll let the author go more indepth:
The theory of privilege saying that being born a certain way makes certain outcomes more likely still appears to be a fair observation. So maybe the problem with this theory isn't the theory itself, but rather the way in which it is often applied.
Privilege is often not approached abstractly, but rather concretely. The notion that success is more likely with privilege is bastardized into the assumption that success requires privilege.
What could possibly go wrong when that assumption is made?
David Webb interviews Areva Martin:
I've chosen across different parts of the media world, done the work so that I'm qualified to be in each one. I never considered my color the issue. I considered my qualifications the issue.
Well, you know, that's a whole nother long conversation about white privilege—the things that you have the privilege of doing that people of color don't have the privilege of.
How do I have the great privilege of white privilege, David?
By virtue of being a white male, you have white privilege.
Whole long conversation. I don't have time.
Areva, I hate to break it to you, but you should have been better prepped. I'm Black.
Okay then, I—
You went to white privilege. This is the falsehood in this. You went immediately with an assumption.
So who gives you the wrong information?
...the wrong information that I'm white, to come on my radio show? What do you think about that for a minute?
What did she say? Her team.
What was the bad information they gave her?
The wrong information.
So what does that mean?
Well, that's my question. How do you give someone the wrong information about my skin color during this interview?
Areva Martin used the abstract theory of privilege as the basis for a concrete assumption about David Webb.
Martin's argument was that Webb could not have possibly accomplished all of the things that he had accomplished if he was Black.
Well, we know that's not true because David Webb is Black.
So what was wrong with Martin's argument?
Simply put, her argument took the theory of privilege out of the abstract and applied it improperly by making an assumption about an individual.
The theory of privilege states that certain characteristics make certain outcomes more probable. It does not state that certain outcomes are guaranteed.
Thus, this theory should not be used to make concrete predictions.
Unfortunately, that's often how it is.
I can't be the only one who dislikes the accusatory structure of Privilege to begin with? It kind of leads to the concrete argument inherently. Privilege is applied to the group that, by definition, lacks the disadvantage. Wouldn't a more productive conversation be around how to fix the disadvantages of others? If I say someone has Male Privilege, what is that meant to do? I cant say I've ever seen this used very productively. It just feels more like a bludgeoning fist than a helping hand.
Perhaps another argument could be that those with this advantage have an obligation to help others without it, but Its not like a lack of disadvantage is the same as being in a position to do anything, and its not automatically the case that the disadvantage have no power either. Maybe those with wealth privilege could give money to the poor, but that might not affect much if the reasons someone is poor is structural/government policy reasons, or due to their own personal failings. And some one who is poor could very well change their circumstances to become middle class if they work hard and stay in school. Yes this obviously has its limits, but it'll still put you in a better spot than doing nothing. Same with thing with male privilege: I can't stop other men from raping women and using money & power to get away with it unless I possessed a similar level of wealth and power. The fact that I am less likely to experience rape myself doesn't change this idea.
Its a frustrating conversation to have, because it pivots and assigns blame and responsibility to the "Privileged" group, instead putting focus on how to fix the issues of the less fortunate. It gives me the gist that many of these folk are just looking to shit on people and shut them up, rather than actually solve any real problems.
Nerd
20d ago
You probably have to to the extent you live around strivers and immigrants from India and China.
My parents are immigrants, and that was part of it. But in their defense, not doing this is detrimental to the end goal of renting an apartment or owning a home with modern house prices, especially if you want to live in a decent area. If you want the kinda job that can pay for that you don't have much of a choice.
Nerd
24d ago
ersonally I am a bit of two minds about the Ukraine war. On the one hand, I am all for my taxes paying for Ukrainian weapons for as long as Ukraine cares to fight Russia. Punishing a defector against the rule based international order while also weakening the main NATO adversary seems an excellent investment.
I think we need to continue giving Ukraine money in the long run. For the sole fact that saving the innocent people in the country is a good for its own sake.
Nerd
24d ago
For a regular man, this implies that becoming marriageable now requires clearing exceptional bars: a degree (with the debt that comes attached) and an income well above the male median (also — 6ft, muscular physique, etc. etc.). Likewise social media has raised the expectations against which men are measured to make-believe levels. A working man in 1965 was marriageable by default in a way that his grandson is not. Again, all of this leverages tremendous economic pressure on men to overperform.
I will say this as a man, it really sucks ass having to compete with other men for stuff like good jobs, girls, etc. I'm in the gym 4 days out of the week, calorie deficit, I just got out of another 2nd round job interview, gonna do another tomorrow, hoping to get something high paying with the degree i got (in my lucky case, for free) and the certs. I've done damn near 4 -5 internships and a part time job. Thankfully i live in a city that actually builds housing so its not horribly bad, but I'm not anywhere near where I'd like to be in my life. I got lucky with a girl Im seeing by complete accident. Its just better to date as a man when you have your own place and a decent paying job, and those things are insane amounts of work to get your hands on. Im glad someone's validating my (and others) experience, instead being told about how "good" we have it now compared to the past.
Nerd
26d ago
One thing that annoys me about the term "adapt" here is that its assumed that the adaptation is gonna be gleeful, or wont involve any kind of major societal shift in a major direction that would be negative. I can adapt to diabetes by taking insulin, i can adapt to blindness by reading brail, but its a lot better for me if I avoid getting those in the first place, and said adaptations i can do while still being alive in those instances suck ass!
Nerd
26d ago
Women, when given the choice, do not choose children, and so by allowing them to support themselves and choose whether to have kids, they choose not to.
Meh, its not that, most data shows people not even pairing, despite evidence for the desire to do so.
Nerd
1mo ago
Numbers don't back that story though, Gen Z is the least sexually active generation ever.
Nerd
1mo ago
It even lets you find a mate far away who is a great match, basically for free, which was impossible before.
Very few people end up finding matches on dating apps, or through instagram and facebook, if thats what your referring too. Dating is far superior if you go and talk to the girls in person. The people that arent pairing up via the phone arent cursed - the medium itself is flawed.
Meh, smartphones may be contributing somewhat. But the more likely factor is the fall of earlier marriage due to the pursuit of education and jobs, collapse of socialization & communities (predates smartphones: read Bowling Alone) & the rise in single-hood that follows, rising secularism, and a decline in education and well paying employment in the (non college degree having) male population. The whole decline is multi-factorial and isnt really just one thing.
Nerd
2mo ago
This isnt exactly a slam dunk argument, though? Bringing it into the light arguably legitimizes the industry and the harms it brings.
Nerd
2mo ago
There is something that bothers me about watching progressive/feminist content on youtube, especially regarding the topic of objectification, and its particularly emphasized in this video, as follows:
So if something doesn't serve a purpose (nudity and sex scenes), it's clear the only purpose it serves is to scratch an itch of the artists. This is something called Chekhov's gun, which is a storytelling principle that says if a gun is shown on screen, it must be fired later in the story. And if it isn't, the filmmaker made a promise to the audience that they didn't keep.
It's absolutely the same with female nudity and violence on screen. If it serves no artistic purpose, then the sole purpose becomes the objectification of women and the normalization of violence.
You know, like that scene where Cassie (Refering to the show euphoria) turns into a giant. Absolutely unnecessary. And it's completely inconsistent with the show's genre, which has no magical elements up until that point. We already got the point that Cassie is defined by her breasts from the 15-minute montage leading up to that scene and the other 200 shots of her naked throughout the show. Like, we got it, right? We got that point.
We actually didn't need you to bend the genre of the show in order to show her boobs in a giant form. In general, the amount of unnecessary nudity and the way that the camera lingers on women's naked bodies, or bodies in general, is beyond what is needed to make the point that they're in a lurid, exploitative industry.
To rehash for someone not familiar, objectification is defined as: the act of treating a person as an object, a commodity, or a tool, rather than as a whole human being with their own agency, feelings, and rights. The most common form, (sexual) occurs when a person is reduced to a mere object of sexual desire. It often involves judging someone solely based on their physical attributes or breaking their body into separate, "consumable" parts (e.g., focusing only on legs or a torso).
The main issue here is that this idea, at least on the surface is that it seems to be fundamentally in conflict with the the sexual revolution and sex positivity of many previous & current progressive movements. Pornography, prostitution, and strip clubs all fit the objectification bill quite neatly, and the data seems to support the authors argument that "sexual objectification" leads to or plays some role in many of these harms:
Sex workers are a vulnerable group of individuals that experience sexual violence on the job, but it is difficult and limiting for workers to report their assault (Sex Workers Project, 2020). Sex workers are adults who receive money or goods in exchange for consensual sexual acts. According to research, globally, sex workers have a 45% to 75% chance of experiencing sexual violence on the job (Sex Workers Project, 2020).
I struggle to see how these individuals may square this perspective that sex work is valid, despite fitting the bill of objectification. Perhaps there is something I'm missing?
Nerd
2mo ago
Yeah, that's the plan. I will say this though: I don't want to have children, then have them deal with poverty or a bad mothers. I'd need to find: 1) A good job (working on that, almost there hopefully) 2) finding a women who'd be a good mom (I'll do that once I find the job).
Reproduce, yes. But it should be done responsibly.
Nerd
2mo ago
Meh, kind of. But its not like not being able to find someone is all that bad either. Single and non married are a significant and rising portion of the population. At this point, its fairly normal, even if it doesn't give the same social brownie points.
Nerd
2mo ago
Why avoid relationships for this? You can just get the tubes tied or snipped in that case.
Nerd
2mo ago
I agree with this for those who actually dont want to have children, however as far as a childless world goes - the main reason for this is because people are not getting into relationships or having sex in the first place. So any policy that tackles childlessness needs to tackle why people arent pairing up to begin with. Perhaps thats an aside, but still something worth pointing out.
Nerd
2mo ago
This actually a really good write up, and not something I thought about. I dont think mothers get a worse deal, but they are definitely under appreciated!
Nerd
2mo ago
that it would be unclean and abominable for anyone to invade or modify your body without your consent
And yet, fascinatingly enough, female genital mutilation is considered evil and immoral, but circumcision is regularly practiced. Tells me all I need to know about the "body is a temple" argument.
Nerd
2mo ago
If a maniac demanded that you rape your preteen daughter or else he'd kill your family, what would you choose?
Its intresting, because I think rape (particularly child rape) might just be a special case. If it was "let me harvest your daughters lung and kidney" or "let me chop off your sons leg", you might get greyer results. And in most cases, as far as I'm aware, murder is punished more severly than organ harvesting, and its about equal to rape in terms of maximum sentencing. The psychological effects of rape are probably what make it really bad, not necessarily the violation of bodily autonomy.
Nerd
2mo ago
And weirdly enough, their logic is looking to actually become true in the near future if AGI and full automation actually happens. Each new person really does just become someone else to share the robots with in that scenario. Why would you ever want to encourage the population to grow if that just means you have to share more?
Would having to share even be relevant at that point? You could probably produce enough resources to satisfy pretty much everyone. We already produce enough food to solve world hunger several times over. The pie isn't some limited resource.
"The Russians are coming right now to destroy our country" is an obvious immediate direct threat. If we don't fight right now, it's over as a nation.
Meanwhile "in the next few generations we'll have the same population we did a few decades ago" both isn't obvious or immediate, and to many people isn't even seen as a threat.
Those individuals are wrong in my eyes. South Korea is on track to lose 85% of its population. This is pretty catastrophic, and has negative implications going forward primarily with civilizational downscaling like @professorgerm & @gattsuru has explained. And there isn't much reason to believe that not gonna keep going down the toilet.
For an analogy, here is how i see this. The draft is like getting a seizure, birth rates are like a being obese & eating unhealthy. Obviously, you need to treat a seizure right then there to save the person. But being obese, even if it doesn't end you immediately, is still something you ought to curve because obesity will catch up to you eventually.
But even besides the negative consequences, its just a net bad to see humans and families dwindle, in the same way many mourn and are sad about extinct animals.
Nerd
2mo ago
To me this reads like another of those situations where a hypothetical burden on men, regardless of its actualization, is used to justify oppressing women in a way that does not seem, to me, very justifiable.
According to pew research, Men do feel the pressures of masculinity as mentioned, and they are punished more by society for stepping out the gender expectations. (And yes, women do have the whole "expectations to an involved parent" situation, but I'd wager thats more for a person already in the parenthood position - not having the kids itself.)
The primary point of what bothers me here is this: If you want to remove gendered roles and expectations, ok, we can discuss that (not something I'd agree with but still). But it seems to me that many don't want to be rid of the "patriarchy" and gender norms in reality. Switzerland, for example, had an opportunity to remove the draft via ballot measure, it failed. People like gender norms when it benefits them (or when they benefit women), and actively dislike them when they hurt them (or women). It basically ends in a situation where mens rights are up for grabs, while womens are off limits, because reasons.
Its "justifiable" if you look at it from a fairness standpoint. Either everyone has gendered roles and expectations or no one does.
And for the record here, I'm not in agreement with any crazy islamic style patriarchy, if thats your primary concern.
Nerd
2mo ago
Meh, I kinda see what you’re saying. But going to war and fighting is probably a lot worse morally and on the psyche compared to raising a child.
Nerd
2mo ago
I've been really thinking about this tweet.
Forcibly draft men to die for their country and no one bats an eye
Suggest that women have children for their country and suddenly everyone starts freaking out
We can force men to die, but can't even ask women to become mothers
This point is interesting, and I think rather noteworthy. There were many protests over the Vietnam conscription, Muhammad Ali's being the most famous example, so perhaps saying no backlash at all is a bit hastey. And who could forget our poor friends in Ukraine.
Still, I think she raises an interesting point. Most men still, (both legally and socially). Have to abide by the traditional man script. And this pressure is more on them then womens end of the social contract, which (from what I can see) is basically non existent.
Now the easiest explanation for this double standard is probably just gender bias: we simply have less empathy for men as a whole.
The way I see it, there are a couple of plausible solutions to make things for fair or consistent(any additional ones are welcome):
-
Gender "Equality". Extend "bodily autonomy" rights (for those who are actually consistent and believe in the concept, as a side note, I believe this is just a silly excuse) to men and end the draft, eliminate male disposability. Both men and women ask each other out. Stop valueing men as pure economic units. Men aren't wallets or soldiers, their people! Ect. Basically "Masculism" or some variation of MRA movement.
-
Extend the social contract obligations to women, and all that entails. Basically bring back some (or all) of the "patriarchy".
From what I can tell, 1 has kinda been tried, and has basically failed, probably due to the gender bias mentioned. I imagine Lauren favors the 2nd option, (& I kinda do). Implementing it may be unrealistic, however, due to various political and environmental constraints. I think realistically though, we are probably gonna have take a hard examination at the female end of the social contract at some-point, when birth rates and their implications become more severe and un-ignorable. Maybe we get lucky technology bails us out, but fundementally, I find the prospect of a society with no children, no families, etc, to be deeply dystopian.
I think one thing conscription shows (and the fact that many societies have it) is that, no society really wants to cease to exist. Nor should we. There is something valuable about societies existing, and continuing on into the future, even if we have to make some sacrifices for it. I think one can make a case (and many indeed do!) for extending some modified version of the social contract/roles to women. I've been deep thought about if societies might attempt this in the future, or what a modified variation of feminine roles/obilgations would look like. What do you think?
Hmm fair enough. Give me a few seconds & I'll add some more context.
More options
Context Copy link