This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The 2022 Wypipo Awards
Yes, that's an actual headline at Yahoo News, published just a week ago. It's basically a long anti-white rant by a bigoted ethnic activist. I am fascinated that white Americans are so sissified in the face of this open bigotry. In many ways, their patience is Christ-like. I for one don't hope for a tit-for-tat development, because this world needs less tribalism and conflict. But as long as anti-white racism isn't called out, I can't take people who claim to be anti-racists seriously. And the editors at Yahoo news allowing this vile rant to be published shows that its ingrained in US culture.
If White Americans are Christ-Like in the face of the slings and arrows of outrageous (checks notes) Yahoo News articles...it's more Craig Christ than his brother Jesus. I'm sure everyone has seen most of this online dating data before, along with the income data, prison odds, marriage patterns, as long as you aren't poor or stupid or both {in which case there's a good chance I don't really care anyway} being white is awesome in America.
I get irrationally annoyed at white male grievance studies types who have fully internalized the minority narrative of oppression and try to apply it themselves. There is a substantive difference between my wife slapping me and me slapping my wife. The relative strength and power of the two actors changes the meaning. To pretend it doesn't is a sign that one simply doesn't understand the burdens of patriarchy, that one is substantively unprepared to be a paterfamilias. One who is so sissified that he must constantly bark his head off at every perceived slight isn't an alpha, he's a chihuahua who needs to prove how threatening he is.
To be young and smart and white and male in America is perhaps not to be born on second base and think you hit a double, but it is certainly coming into your at-bat with a 2-0 count and a runner in scoring position. If you can't convert, it's on you.
That's true by some cultural standards. In other cultures, a man would be expected to respond to any insult. I don't think either of these cultures is necessarily more of a true expression of masculinity.
Being a Mediterranean is even worse than being a chihuahua.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Have you actually tried to threaten an alpha? I don't think that's how actual alphas in hierarchical animal societies behave. I think if a lower ranking animal gets bold enough to challenge an alpha, there would be a fight. Or at least show of dominance that ensures the alpha is still an alpha.
I mean we as humans do not have to follow animalistic patterns, but if you bring that in - I don't think "true alpha is so secure in their power you can spit on him all day and he'd just smile" actually how it works. The point of chihuahua barking is to look threatening, yes. The point of Cane Corso not barking it already looks fucking terrifying. If you're sissified, you're not looking fucking terrifying. I don't think anybody can seriously claim that people in the US right now live in terror of white patriarchy. They certainly don't behave like it. I don't say they should be - but if it's not happening, you can not pretend it is and bring it as an argument.
I think the disconnect between us, in this comment, is that you view the article above as "being spit all over" and I view it as more like "absolutely nothing, done by an absolute nobody, I don't care about any of this." You, and other commenters, appear to perceive your life as being spit all over. I perceive my life, based on those same demographic characteristics, as more like this than it is like being spit all over.
When I walk my dog down the back road, the chihuahua barks its head off whenever it sees another dog, because the existence of another dog is a threat to him. If a fight breaks out, he's dead, my dog will shake him until his little neck breaks, it'll be over before I get ten words out. When we run into the St. Bernard or the pit bull, they don't give a shit about us, we're either friends or we're beneath notice.
My dog is somewhere in between, she's kinda big but she's a real asshole, less tracking to size and strength than to deep emotional problems I failed to work out of her after adoption, but now we're really getting off track of the metaphor.
The problem is not a single article. By itself it is indeed nothing. The problem is what gave raise to this article and what made it possible and normal and in some circles, laudable. Because it also made it possible to have racial quotas, people being fired for being of a wrong race, people being hired solely for being of a right race, mandatory racist trainings, "professors" calling whole races criminals and calling for their elimination, and, ultimately, people hearing those calls.
You seem to think it's all nothing, mere noise, because The Patriarchy is strong and never changes and since every white person is a member, there's nothing for any of them to worry about, however much hate and abuse is directed towards them. I think the situation is a bit different. Something like The Patriarchy does exist, but I am not a member and you are likely not a member either, and most people who are being called "white" aren't a members (tbh, most people that aren't being called "white" also aren't). And it absolutely does not care what you look like, if you're not a member - but willing to use how you look like to keep you under control, and if needed - to destroy you. And when people like the author of that article think by writing something like that they fight The Patriarchy, the do exactly the opposite - they spread the Approved Narrative because that's what was deemed useful. And if you happen to be fired, or denied opportunities, or not promoted, or plain old beaten up due to this narrative - it's all on you, because that's what the Narrative says.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm sure this guy appreciates that him being fired for being white is all on him. How dares he, indeed? Or this guy. Or this guy. Or this guy.
On the plus side, Harvard has finally, in 2022, achieved its long-term goal of getting the percentage of Jews getting in to no more than 10%. They have been working on it since 1920s. So if you happen to be young and smart and Jewish, and you didn't get into Harvard - it's totally on you. Maybe you can pretend to be 1/1024th Cherokee or something?
More options
Context Copy link
This sort of macho attitude is just going to lead to a death by a thousand cuts through unilateral disarmament.
Your response could equally be pointed at white women. After all, they have it pretty good, hardly much to complain about. And Jews too, they’re ultimately doing fine so can’t the ADL just chill out? Neither of these groups have disarmed their constant advocacy despite lack of any substantive complaints.
This kind of flex is frustrating to read, because there’s really no response that doesn’t sound uncool by comparison to your “git gud bro.” Of course it seems cool to never be bothered by anything, but that sort of response could basically shut down any and all discussions we have here. Abortion? Who cares dude, women still have it so good here compared to Iran. Affirmative action? Bro just study harder. SBF? Brah just don’t make stupid investments, not that hard.
I appreciate that you recognized the rhetorical trap; rather than disappointingly falling right into it by replying with a series of whines about how white men really are discriminated against or with weird Turner Diaries masturbatory fantasies about Black men murdering my family.
While clearly we disagree on some ideological points here, I also don't see why you feel that grievance is the only rhetorical mode for White nationalism. While grievance has been the traditional mode of nationalism since roughly when the Germans got ahold of it, grievance and narrative of oppression are not necessary components. I have a longer effortpost in my notes app about this with regards to the John Wayne movie McClintock (of all things!), but while a grievance based White Supremacy doesn't appeal to people like me an excellency based ideology of the Supreme White does have some emotional pull. An honest Kipling; John Wayne arming his own enemies so they can get a fair shake from the government. When White supremacists are people who either don't themselves seem all that proud of being white, or are people I wouldn't be proud to be white with, it's not going to appeal to me.
If victimization politics are so bad when every other group does it, let's leave it to them, n'est pas?
"If." An interesting choice of word. I have to wonder: are they so bad, or am I being told that the right thing to do is always to be the bigger man, to take the high road, and choose "cooperate" no matter what, by parties who intend to defect against me? After all, superweapons are indeed terrible things, but they are also effective ones, so unilateral disarmament often leaves one staring down the business end of "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" eventually, even if one is confidently strong right now.
I mean, I'd really like to keep believing that victimization politics are so bad; that mutual cooperation really is an end that's still possible and still worth striving for; that the values I hold actually weren't instilled in me just to breed a mark, a chump, a sucker. But seeing them defended in ways like this risk cracking my faith.
Edit: to summarize what I would stand for: if something is bad, it's bad, and let us not excuse badness on account of its perpetrators or the act's magnitude being too weak or harmless or unimportant, primarily because that is injustice and corruption in itself, but also because this renders the appearance of weakness or harmlessness or unimportance the currency of power, which is itself corruption.
More options
Context Copy link
I find people's confusion on this kind of strange. It's not a complicated phenomenon. Much like people who really care about 2A for the ward against tyranny reason still end up getting into arguments on the utilitarian grounds of whether the increased ability to defend yourself actually makes us safer than the reduced access to guns of near do wells there is actual real value in defeating your ideological opponent using their own values. If you can successfully argue that guns actually make us safer then there is no where left for the anti-gun people to retreat, it is a total victory. If you fall back to your ward against tyranny position then it's a conflict of incomparable values and they are still able to justify their policy preferences.
The value in engaging progressives on grievance is because their entire edifice crumbles to the ground if they lose on that point and conservatives sense this intuitively. If white grievance is proven then the progressives just lose, permanently and forever. You may find this step unnecessary and unsightly, I also find debates on defensive gun use very boring and unimportant, but surely you can recognize the value?
Yes, it is actually worth dismantling bad and dangerous ideas about how the world works when they are sufficiently influential.
More options
Context Copy link
I know I catch a lot of complaints here, and accusations of "no true scotsman-ing" here for pointing out that the woke-left and alt-right are effectively identical (in some cases literally the same people) but I really do think it is that simple.
Having drunk the woke kool-aid they either can't or wont recognize a rhetorical mode that isn't based in grievance. Or less charitably, despite all the talk of being "red pilled" they're still in the progressive Matrix and still think it's air they're breathing.
It's the old "the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house," alt-righters can't defeat progressives using their own tools.
But this progressive matrix exists within yet another matrix, the Enlightenment matrix, where in a similar way, late 20th century conservatives engage in a Sisyphean struggle to dismantle the works of theliberal left using the tools of liberalism. The only way conservatives can win is to reject the liberal frame entirely. Cthulhu swimming left isn't mysterious, it's simply carrying Enlightenment ideas towards their logical conclusions. These conclusions are too monstrous to reach in a single generation, but over many generations under the Enlightenment framework we will inevitably reach them, no matter how hard people stand athwart history shouting "Stop!"
More options
Context Copy link
Being above it all works fine when you actually ARE strong. The Great Dane can ignore the chihuahua's challenge. Doesn't work so well when you're not; if the barking results in the Great Dane's master whipping him for "making the chihuahua bark" and refusing to feed him until the chihuahua is satisfied (which he never will be), the Great Dane needs to do something more than quietly endure.
was this supposed to be a reply to @FiveHourMarathon?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
With regards to every one of those metrics, being young and smart as anything other than white is better than being young smart and white. So I don't really get your point.
I am assuming, if some institution drags you and your family through the coal because of your race, that you put on your big boy pants, as the paterfamilias, and eat shit with a big proud smile on your face. I don't understand what you would propose to do as an alternative given that any advocacy on behalf of your race is prone to get you irrationally annoyed.
I mean, if an institution announces they won't be hiring your children because of their ancestry, you don't get annoyed?
I mean, if a group of blacks beat your son to death and the justice system practically lets them walk, what does a paterfamilias do? Is it not "annoying" that the guys who caved in your sons skull whilst laughing about it get to walk free?
I mean, if a black guy executes your 5 year old and the media refuses to cover the story, does that make you more or less irrationally annoyed than seeing white males engaging in grievance studies?
In all seriousness, I am having a hard time understanding the relative strength and power of the 'slapper' from your analogy. Are you, as a paterfamilias, 'stronger' than the justice system? Media? Corporate America? The implied pride you take in being above racial grievance feels more like the cope of a servant father who tells himself that one day, at least, his son might become a janissary.
More options
Context Copy link
I agree with everything you say except for the male part. White women have it even better than white men. There is a reason that people say white women live life on Tutorial Mode.
For some reason, while smart feels like a reasonable ask, attractive feels like too much. And I'd much rather be a man than an ugly woman, white or not.
Of course that doesn't fit into your popular stereotype joke because ugly women are invisible.
More options
Context Copy link
There's no denying that there are advantages of being female, but I personally wouldn't trade off my maleness. Being bigger, stronger, faster, and generally more physically capable is fantastic and I think generally underrated in these sorts of conversations. Subjectively speaking, it seems to me that men just generally have more fun than women do.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You are comparing the ”score” (to use your terminology) of successful white Americans against groups that were largely illiterate and undeveloped in 1800. You should be comparing white American “wins” against Germany, Switzerland, Korea, and Japan. You’re doing the equivalent of pitting a struggling middle school sports team against the little league, and then announcing that the middle school sports team is great (and privileged!) because they do better. In fact, this team might have legitimate grievances on coaching methods, funding, and so forth
So I'm guessing you're not familiar with baseball?
A 2-0 count isn't a measure of score, it's a measure of situational opportunity. When you have 2 balls and no strikes on you, you're in a great position: there's a fair chance the pitcher walks you even if you keep the bat on your shoulder, but it's almost certainly you'll see at least one hittable pitch. The runner in scoring position means a hit is highly likely to turn into points, but you haven't scored any points yet.
Compared to anyone in the world, I don't think a young smart white American has anything to complain about in terms of opportunity. Euros have certain advantages it's true, but no other country delivers the opportunities the USA does to start something great. If he swings at pitches in the zone he's very likely to get some RBIs; he almost can't strike out unless he lets multiple hittable pitches go by without swinging or swings at pitches out of the strike zone.
More options
Context Copy link
White Americans have much more disposable income than Germans, Koreans, and Japanese people in their native countries (see here, note that this includes all American races and that white Americans fare better than the American median). The Swiss are closer, but I can't find it in me to care about a small country that can't be replicated in any meaningful way. Good for the Swiss though, it's probably an awesome place to live.
That median white American can still have perfectly legitimate complaints, but they absolutely should be aware that they have it better than almost everyone, ever, anywhere.
This is not correct when you account for greater complexity. In the case of Germany,
Free or less expensive colleges
Better public education, so no need for costly private school
Up to three years of maternity leave, which has a benefit far in excess of simply lost wages (as it benefits the child and family as a whole; reduces risk of personality disorder in the child)
More biking and walking than cars
More green spaces, less noise pollution, increasing health
More vacation time and regulation on hours
Greater mental healthcare (and health) both preventative and curative
Etc
American state universities are free or cheap for in-state residence and many state flagships are superior to their German counterparts.
Maybe. I'm skeptical and haven't seen evidence. White Americans and Germans are almost exactly even when we look at PISA scores.
Germans seem to kill themselves about as often as Americans, so I'm more than a little skeptical of the mental health benefits there. American incomes suffice to allow substantial maternity leave (including a full stay-at-home parent) if this is a priority. The tradeoff here doesn't seem to have actually led to Germans wanting to have children, for whatever that's worth.
I like these things and have elected to live in one of the most bike-friendly, park-heavy cities in the United States. I wish more places in the United States were like that and I'm genuinely disappointed that people don't seem to have the same revealed preferences. This is probably my least favorite part of being an American.
Yeah, this is why they're comparatively poor.
The United States spends a staggering amount of money on mental healthcare. I don't think it actually works all that well in the United States or Germany, at least judging by the intractability of Americans and Germans both killing themselves fairly often. My opinion of mental healthcare professions is sufficiently low that I regard marginal dollars spent here as a net negative, although I certainly wish the United States would return to spending on institutionalizing the severely mentally ill rather than medicating the moderately neurotic.
16.6% of Americans are on antidepressants whereas only about 1.5% of Germans are. 12.5% of Americans are on benzodiazepines, only 2% of Germans are
German suicide rate is 12 per 100k. White American suicide rate is 18 per 100k. This white American number is significantly underestimated because of the fentanyl crisis, leading to some suicides labeled overdose, and killing those who have a high chance of killings themselves.
Terrifying numbers for benzodiazepines. Even 2% seems too much but 12.5% is total crisis.
And the fact that Germans are more likely to use benzodiazepines than antidepresants (even though low in absolute numbers) is also not a good sign of their healthcare system.
I don't care about antidepresant use rates. They are not addictive and side-effects are generally mild and if people are fine with those side-effects then why should we care.
Not checked, 2022 study claims tricyclics are the most common antidepressant class in germany. Tricyclics have worse side-effect profiles than SSRIs, and have mostly been phased out in the US, so idk what's up with that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"Smart" is doing all the heavy lifting there. Holding intelligence constant, white and male is probably the second worst demographic combination you can roll, after Asian and male, but the differences aren't that big, and being smart and born in a rich country is playing life on easy mode for any race/sex combination.
Smart is probably doing a ton of heavy lifting in that smart is more my in group than any race/gender/religion/nation combo. I genuinely think that opportunities with high ceilings for smart people are more important than outcomes with low floors for dumb people.
More options
Context Copy link
I dunno, I think men tend to have it easier than women. Mostly due to physical strength and social dynamics. I’d pick male social drama any day, and the less said about harassment the better.
Maybe discrimination is most socially acceptable against white and Asian men. I don’t feel like that actually has much impact on how much discrimination really happens. I’m not really competing against women for my job or for marriage.
It's not really about what we personally think. Statistically it's very clear that being a woman is better than being a man in the west. Especially when controlling for intelligence.
Really depends on what you mean by "better". Women get preferential treatment in hiring but still manage to undernegotiate their salaries and also have to face the undesirable decision of having kids or making money.
In a middle class western environment i'd way rather be a guy, but maybe thats just my solipsistic mind worms poking out of my eye holes again.
Despite undernegotiating their salaries, in an apples to apples comparison women make more than men on top of everything else in multiple professions. Moreover, men don't get to decide to have kids and have money. If you have children, as a man, you are either married, and will be paying for everything, or you are going to be paying alimony.
Again, this isn't about what we personally think. In a statistical comparison women have it better than men in the west. Inserting our personal biases, wills and wants into the equation is pointless obfuscation.
Theres no way to apples to apples compare being a man biologically and all the natural advantages we have versus the sociological advantages women have, unless i'm missing something.
The term 'apples to apples' here refers to job market comparisons. To reiterate: In multiple white collar professions women make more money than similarly experienced and educated men. The education and experience is the apple being compared. If being a woman was worse you would not see this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Undernegotiate compared to what? That only tracks if you assume that men and women are equally productive, which I think is unlikely because the top people in virtually every field that humans compete in are men.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Of course it bothers me. I’d rather not have any discrimination at all, and I certainly don’t want more of it against any population. (This does not preclude wanting to stigmatize certain behaviors.)
No, I’m suggesting that the level of discrimination faced by a white or Asian man is lower than for most other groups, particularly women—even though the social acceptability of discriminating against the former is much higher. There are obviously some jobs (childcare, nursing) where a woman gets a discriminatory advantage. There are, likewise, situations where an Asian man’s chances are relatively penalized, such as college admissions. How common are these scenarios? How much damage do they do?
I went to a rather white school alongside a bunch of pasty Midwesterners. Now I work a tech job with a bunch of white men. My girlfriend is not scoring other men by race, looking for one who’s otherwise equivalent. When have I been passed over for “losing” the genetic lottery? I’m not saying it can’t happen; on margin, encouraging more of it is a bad thing! But I’ve got it pretty good, and I suspect that all else equal, white men of comparable intelligence and background are likely to say the same.
It is possible that, as a population, the total harm caused to white men by this discrimination outweighs that for other groups. Given that I think the acceptability/amount link is tenuous, getting upset about rage-bait articles doesn’t seem very efficient. If it is, though...new EA cause area?
Oh, there are plenty of jobs where women get a discriminatory advantage, and not necessarily always in stereotypically female fields either. STEM for example is a good case study of a field which is thought to be discriminatory against women, but actually favours them.
This paper by Williams and Ceci finds that faculty members in STEM, when evaluating hypothetical applicants for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology, "preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced), with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference."
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112
This review in Psychology Today considering the evidence regarding gender bias in science shows that studies showing egalitarian attitudes or bias against male scientists are more common than those showing bias against female scientists. There were 4 papers showing bias favouring men, whereas there were 8 showing no gender bias and 6 showing bias favouring women.
The Williams and Ceci paper included in the review reported 5 studies, however, so if we shift our focus to number of studies instead of papers the empirical data shows that there were 4 studies showing bias favouring men, 8 showing no gender bias and 10 showing bias favouring women. On the whole, the evidence as presented in this review seems to lean towards "there is bias in favour of women in STEM".
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201906/are-scientists-biased-against-women-scientists-part-ii
The author goes on to state that "there was far more evidence of egalitarian or pro-female bias than there is of pro-male bias". He also notes that studies showing peer-reviewed science is unbiased or favours women tend to have larger sample sizes than those which show biases favouring men, but are cited much less (largely due to an ideological bias in academia in favour of the "discrimination against women" hypothesis).
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201906/scientific-bias-in-favor-studies-finding-gender-bias
There's also research with a more generalised scope, and a lot of that data does not support the idea that discrimination in the workplace is primarily a women's issue (rather, the findings often indicate the very opposite). For example:
"By utilizing data from the first harmonized comparative field experiment on gender discrimination in hiring in six countries, we can directly compare employers’ callbacks to fictitious male and female applicants. The countries included vary in a number of key institutional, economic, and cultural dimensions, yet we found no sign of discrimination against women. This cross-national finding constitutes an important and robust piece of evidence. Second, we found discrimination against men in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK, and no discrimination against men in Norway and the United States. However, in the pooled data the gender gradient hardly differs across countries. Our findings suggest that although employers operate in quite different institutional contexts, they regard female applicants as more suitable for jobs in female-dominated occupations, ceteris paribus, while we find no evidence that they regard male applicants as more suitable anywhere."
https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/38/3/337/6412759?login=false
The notion that women are "disadvantaged more" is very questionable at best.
Relying on personal perception (which seems to be the main source that you and many other people here are drawing from) is a particularly unconvincing argument, since people have biases. White men in particular have been exposed to a narrative from a very young age that they do not face issues because of their race or sex, in fact they are told they are privileged because of it, whereas women and PoC get it hammered into their head that the society they live in is a white cisheteropatriarchal one that oppresses them. It's not hard to see how this is going to influence perceptions, and how this is going to lead to women and PoC interpreting more events as discriminatory against them than white men since it takes far more for white men to jump to the conclusion that they're being discriminated against because of their immutable characteristics. The narrative that endlessly circulates in society gears white men to perceive evidence of their privilege, not their disadvantage.
Furthermore, in the case of male/female dynamics there are also other factors that influence things. For example women score higher on neuroticism than men which obviously predisposes them to perceive more things as malicious than men do. Women can capitalise on claims of vulnerability in ways men simply can't due to our protectiveness towards women, and thus benefit from perceiving danger and expressing it to others in order to elicit nurturance and help (the opposite is true for men: Men who complain and present themselves as vulnerable and put-upon run the risk of inviting ire). This is obviously going to impact which sex is more likely to perceive slight and complain about that slight.
EDIT: clarity
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you are poor or stupid or both, is it "awesome" being any race in the US. It is precisely those unable to contribute much to society, which is reflected in their meager earnings, or those that actively harm it, who receive less back.
Isn't better to be young, smart, Black and female? If nothing else, ceteris paribus, the latter's achievements are commonly thought to have been harder to get, with "overcoming adversity" and all that.
Throw in slim middle class and reasonably attractive and I'd agree on your hypothetical Black girl; but I'd much sooner be a white dude who was poor or ugly than a Black girl who was similarly situated.
Either way, some other given subset having more opportunities (bases loaded and a 3-1 count) doesn't change my opinions on white male whiners.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You would sing a different tune if the vitriol of this (checks notes) Yahoo News article were going off on Jews instead of wypipo. But Jews would not tolerate that. Heads would roll if something like that got published.
Your relative power dynamics and income data doesn't seem to explain the difference here.
And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.
Or to be less bigoted, if she had rubber tires she'd be a bicycle. Ignoring context does no one any favors.
By income and imprisonment rate, your statistics of choice, Jews owing to possesing higher average IQ, outperform white gentiles. One would expect them, by your logic, to be good sports and take antisemitism in good spirits.
But maybe white gentiles have it better than Jews by some other measure, equally as important as income which would explain the formers "Christ-like" attitude to hate speech, compared to the latters.
I would guess Jewish attitudes have something to do with This chart showing that global Jewish population peaked in 1940; where there are more white Americans today than there were Americans in 1980. But I don't want to open up that argument all over again.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That would have been a better version of my response to the OP.
“This article is so insignificant, even the ADL hasn’t denounced it.”
I started writing a paragraph of what I thought the article would look like, but it was too spicy. It is Christ-like for white people to endure this when nobody else with the power would do so.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link