/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11187423]

Was his the greatest debate of 2018? Or was it a complete waste of time?

[Anonymous No.11187425]

Sage

[Anonymous No.11187429]

>>11187423
It was a complete waste of time. The nigger literally implied to Peterson that simply investigating racial differences in IQ was racist and Peterson didn't challange him because he's a pussy
From there it was just everyone soap boxing their own dumb positions rather than getting to the heart of the problem (the inferiority of non-whites and women)

[Anonymous No.11187431]

>>11187423
no literature, fuck off

[Anonymous No.11187433]

>feminist harpy: "Political correctness isn't bad, minorities oppression tolerance what's the big deal?"
>Jordan Peterson "Individualism is good, collectivism is bad, why don't you guys admit that collectivism is bad?"
>black guy "RACISM REEEEEEEEEEE"
>Stephen Fry "I don't have much to say other than that political correctness makes me uncomfortable and you guys are talking about politics instead of political correctness"
>Black guy: YOU RAYCISS
>JBP: No u!
Repeat for 2 hours.

[Anonymous No.11187448]

>>11187423
considering that the debate was on free speech and the opposing side did nothing but talk about sexism and racism I would say on that alone it was a waste of time. If the debate was about sexism or racism then it would be fine but no one except fry stuck to the topic at hand.

[Anonymous No.11187457]

Are Brits the only people who can debate properly in the English language?

[Anonymous No.11187481]

The black guy went full woke (read; nigger).

[Anonymous No.11187506]

>>11187457
It would seem so

[Anonymous No.11187514]

>>11187423
i thought tom wolfe is dead

[Anonymous No.11187538]

>>11187423
I sided with Fry. They were too interested in discussing politics and identity rather than the chosen resolution for the debate. Bad form all round.

[Anonymous No.11187545]

>>11187433
Sounds about right. It’s amazing to me that professionals lack this much self awareness.

[Anonymous No.11187550]

>>11187423

I wanna ask something to /lit/, what is your the greatest debate in 2018, or just 2010s? no need to be JP.
not the "Jordan Peterson CALMLY CRUMBLING DOWN 'some unknown' FEMINIST" kind of shit,
but really impressive at both perspective.

[Anonymous No.11187559]

>>11187514
ayyyy low-key pretty solid sartorial joke 7.8/10 aaite

[Anonymous No.11187572]

>>11187423
>le-lunatic-dad-man
>le-english-comedy-man
>le-retarded-black-man
>le-woman-because-there-has-to-be-one

[Anonymous No.11187574]

>>11187550
debate is a pleb medium, there's no such thing as a good debate

[Anonymous No.11187581]

>>11187423
I thought Dyson performed well. He did lose his temper at one point, but whatever lost 'points' emerged from that he gained back when he forced Peterson into the "why should I have to?" petulance -- the lack of self-awareness there was just breathtaking.

It's giving me a little bit of a chuckle to read all the comments about his comments being one-note, manipulative ('playing the race card), or folks siding with Fry in saying he's a snake oil salesman. It just proves his point about eloquence in a black man coming off as shrill, which -- by extension -- make a point about political correctness. The ruling class he talks so much about would have less hurt feelings if he shut up.

[Anonymous No.11187588]

>>11187581
>eloquence in a black man
He made more jokes than he did cogent points. He’s no Cornell West.

[Anonymous No.11187590]

>>11187423
It was pretty shit.

[Anonymous No.11187591]

>>11187581
>they hate us because of our freedoms
best be trolling

[Anonymous No.11187597]

>>11187588
I think the ability to mix high and low register is indicative of a superior rhetor to, say someone who is always rambling in a loquacious mode (a la Bill Buckley), but yeah I guess I agree he could have spent more time expanding his points.

The biggest weakness on his part was his inability to tie the history of class struggles he invoked to political correctness.

[Anonymous No.11187601]

>>11187581
"why should i have to" is not petulance, it's staying on point, refusing to go off the rails which is what dyson, the question dodging sophist, wanted

[Anonymous No.11187611]

>>11187601
I dunno man, Peterson hit that "where does the left go too far" question just as frequently, dismissed the one answer (a credible one) that was given, then promptly returned to it. It is a sophist strategy, yes, and both of them engaged in it -- the only difference is that it made Peterson lose his cool and his self-awareness.

[Anonymous No.11187615]

>>11187448
>considering that the debate was on free speech and the opposing side did nothing but talk about sexism and racism

Peterson was just as bad, he just kept pressing them on saying Communism is bad despite it having nothing to do with the subject.
Fry was the only one who managed to have intelligent things to say about the topic

[Anonymous No.11187618]

>>11187574
This. Intelligent people have conversations not debates

[Anonymous No.11187620]

>>11187581
The man made absolutely no point whatsoever. All he did was emotional slam oppression poetry in an American Evangelist register that I personally find distasteful.

[Anonymous No.11187624]

>>11187597
My impression was that, he wasn't able to think for himself. Dyson was only capable of spurring the final points of others' analysis in a preacher/rap rythm.

He didn't possess the logical underpinnings of his arguments, which is why he kept expressing his sentiment by talking about nothing but emotions.

Pseudo intellectual hype preacher. Came for the hype and achieved thus achieved nothing.

[Anonymous No.11187629]

>>11187624
thus achieved nothing*

[Anonymous No.11187633]

>>11187538
>They were too interested in discussing politics
>"political correctness"

[Anonymous No.11187634]

>>11187620
and what about the crusades, my dude?

[Anonymous No.11187637]

>>11187581
You need to go back.

[Anonymous No.11187639]

>>11187620
Saying "all he did" as if that central point is not a good one -- and one that ties intricately to identity politics -- strikes me as silly. Again, the folks who say it was one note prove his point.

[Anonymous No.11187642]

>>11187581
>"beyonce yas qweeeen slayyyyyyyy"
>good

jej

[Anonymous No.11187651]

>>11187624
> rap rythm
What? He never rapped, or came close to it. He once quotes Knowles as a joke, but that's about it.

To address your points that arn't misguided digs at his speaking, I'll agree that he took a turn into more emotional argumentation, but it lasted all of one response (the 'come to a church' response). The rest of the time he was trying to explicate the historical context from which political correctness emerges, and while he did get sidetracked from tying them together, did a good job of that one the whole -- Peterson and Fry did not (and, I think, has a philosophy that cannot) engage with that. The only way to wave that point off is to resort to cheap dismissal -- 'snake oil,' 'race card,' et cetera.

[Anonymous No.11187657]

>>11187639
I don't know what you mean. He anchored the vast majority of his speech to the oppression of blacks in the US and the Northern Hemisphere (absolutely laughable and showing of his historical illiteracy) and how white privilege follows. No explanation as to how it relates to political correctness. He was then challenged by his opposition who asked what he sees as a reasonable retribution/measure for what he perceives as an ongoing oppression of black people, but he couldn't provide an answer. Instead he carried on with a seminary of Pentecostal tongue-speaking pulpit-talk preaching.

[Anonymous No.11187667]

>>11187657
>He was then challenged by his opposition who asked what he sees as a reasonable retribution/measure for what he perceives as an ongoing oppression of black people, but he couldn't provide an answer.
>if you personally can't provide an answer to a problem it means it doesn't exist
some serious thinking going on here

[Anonymous No.11187668]

>>11187633
Politics and political correctness aren't the same thing. They were constantly appealing to emotions and attacking Peterson's character to justify an unjust undermining of cultural mores.
Political correctness really concerns communication and customs - and, within a liberal society, the limiting boundaries of which one is allowed to speak and think. Free speech would be a core value that should have been discussed, but the Pro side wasn't even willing to discuss such things.

[Anonymous No.11187670]

>>11187657
If you find the notion of historical oppression of blacks in the northern hemisphere to be laughable, then you're not going to think he's a particularly effective rhetor, no.

[Anonymous No.11187672]

So when is JBP going to stop with the low hanging fruit like Dyson and have a debate with an actual intellect?

[Anonymous No.11187676]

I wish someone would just say to these race-baiting hucksters that they don't have any arguments they only have slurs and insults.

[Anonymous No.11187678]

>>11187611
>I dunno man, Peterson hit that "where does the left go too far" question just as frequently, dismissed the one answer (a credible one) that was given, then promptly returned to it. It is a sophist strategy, yes, and both of them engaged in it -- the only difference is that it made Peterson lose his cool and his self-awareness.
"credible" What the fuck are you talking about? If violence is the line that has to be passed for people to go too far on left, then inciting violence, even genocide, would be acceptable in their view.

[Anonymous No.11187680]

>>11187668
>They were constantly appealing to emotions and attacking Peterson's character to justify an unjust undermining of cultural mores.
>They were constantly appealing to emotions
>to justify an unjust undermining
>unjust

[Anonymous No.11187686]

>>11187639
Bullshit.
He was dancing on the porch and pissing in the master's soup, and rightly was booed by an intellectual audience.

[Anonymous No.11187692]

>>11187678
Genocide does not occur in a void, even in your absurd hypothetical, and as such violence strikes me as a good-faith effort at an answer. But i'm less interested in litigating the merits of that particular line (in fact, I'm not interested in that at all) as I am returning to the main point: Peterson returning to that tact was sophistry, and when it was turned on him he lost his shit.

[Anonymous No.11187694]

>>11187672
Never.

[Anonymous No.11187696]

>>11187672
>munk debate is not a serious debate stage
>peterson can decide who gets invited to debate him (in the Munk debate stage)
Dyson and goldberg were the most competent people in their view to debate on that side which is why they invited them so to say that it is peterson's fault that there aren't any serious thinkers who think political correctness is a great thing is ridiculous

[Anonymous No.11187697]

>>11187672
Never. He'd be exposed in minutes if he had a debate with someone like Cornel West.

[Anonymous No.11187703]

>>11187686
I heard just as much clapping. But in any case, if what you saw was a caricature, it says more about you than him.

[Anonymous No.11187704]

>>11187696
>>munk debate is not a serious debate stage

Clearly it isn't when they are inviting charlatans like Dyson and JBP into their forum

[Anonymous No.11187706]

>>11187667
He couldn't explain how blacks continue to be oppressed and to what measure an individual member of the group he perceives as the oppressor is responsible for his oppression. By that logic I should unleash my wrath upon descendants of medieval Islamic Chaliphates for enslaving my ancestors and making it harder for that part of the world to catch up. But I don't because I can't answer the same questions that the snake-oil reverend avoided.
>>11187670
He used the Northern Hemisphere as a stand-in for Whitey. Islamic Caliphates are what put the system in place for the transfer of slaves to the northern hemisphere, not to mention there were plenty of black slave-owners both in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres (the vast majority). That's not the point though. Almost all ethnicities were enslaved at some point. What I find laughable isn't the oppression of blacks, it's his White Devil mythology.

[Anonymous No.11187710]

>>11187704
>Still doesn't address his point or the fact that he got unmasked as a sophist

End your life faggot.

[Anonymous No.11187711]

It was average at best.

Peterson looked weak.
Fry didn't add anything to the debate besides his dry one liners.
I can't recall the name of the woman.
The black guy was a crazy, arrogant buffoon.

[Anonymous No.11187720]

>>11187697
Cornel West is howtosay powerful guy, I want to see dabate with Jordan but I think youre right

[Anonymous No.11187724]

>>11187680
Not sure what you want to accomplish here, you think there are a lot of free emotions SJWs on lit?
Emotional relativism and mind control techniques are objectively unjust.

[Anonymous No.11187725]

>>11187706
>He couldn't explain how blacks continue to be oppressed and to what measure an individual member of the group he perceives as the oppressor is responsible for his oppression.
He couldn't explain the latter because it's a dumb question. How do you put in numbers a sociological issue that has a HUGE number of avenues of influence etc? You simply can't create a percentage number and this is where the logic nerds who can't do logic are stumped by real life, because they think everything can be boiled down to verifiable numbers.

[Anonymous No.11187726]

>>11187667
Yet he is perfectly willing to extend his hand and accept Peterson's white privilege tax as some haha lmao sure man I'll take your money -type reparation. There is no reasonable means to an end for the black power play, for the victimized black boy who should be his own man, but is told over and over by his community that blacks are hated in this country and you have to stick together. What a tragedy.
Dyson acted like a complete clown the whole debate. Literally a circus nigger looking for laughs at the expense of any serious attempt to find common ground or solution.

[Anonymous No.11187727]

People on /lit/ unironically view Cornel West and Zizek as the two powerhouses of contemporary intellectualism.

Oh deary me.

[Anonymous No.11187728]

>>11187692
His question was about ideas, not action, and rightly so, because ideas cause violence. Right? To answer "violence" is stupid, because the question was about what viewpoints and ideas cause violence in their view, so answering "violence" is as good as nothing. I think both sides agreed (not sure about Dyson though) on that violence is something to be avoided, so we need to figure out what ideas in the radical left lead to violent behaviour, just like Peterson expressed what ideas are too far right (and therefore lead to violence).

[Anonymous No.11187732]

>>11187706
If, in his explication fo the historical context from which political correctness emerges, you didn't also hear a explanation for how blacks continue to be oppressed (hint: it's in his opening remarks regarding the invention of race), then you're noting going to find him an effective rhetor, no.

That point about holding groups responsible, though -- that one also gave me a chuckle. I find that in the US we're actually quite good at it, and have perfected the methods. We held the civil rights activists responsible with fire hoses and police dogs; at Blair Mountain we did it with bullets and hired mercenaries; with the Suffragists we incarcerated and tortured them. This idea that a group can't be held responsible is absurd, so longs as you reconfigure your notion of which groups we're discussing.

[Anonymous No.11187733]

>>11187724
calling something unjust is an appeal to emotion or at least not an appeal to reason

[Anonymous No.11187734]

>>11187574
https://youtu.be/3wfNl2L0Gf8
(X) doubt

[Anonymous No.11187738]

>>11187725
He couldn't explain the process by which that member of the group he identifies as the oppressor is responsible, nor the degree to which he is responsible. Nor a reasonable course of action for this responsibility.

Keep on making rap songs about it then. That'll surely address what you perceive as systemic oppression.

[Anonymous No.11187739]

>>11187703

[Anonymous No.11187740]

>>11187726
If in his performance you saw a caricature, you prove his points in his closing remarks.

[Anonymous No.11187744]

>>11187728
Okay.

[Anonymous No.11187745]

>>11187727
zizek is a fantastic author when in his element, please read a book for once instead of basing your opinion on memes

[Anonymous No.11187746]

>>11187733
Nice bait.

[Anonymous No.11187750]

>>11187732
It's dishonest the way he frames it. As if quoting LBJ is an excuse for the blacks to stick together in an effort to catch up to whitey. Catch up already niggers.

[Anonymous No.11187752]

>>11187746
no bait, there's no objective scientific definiton of justice ergo banging on about it is an appeal to emotion

[Anonymous No.11187758]

>>11187710
"Dyson and goldberg were the most competent people in their view to debate on that side" is such a demonstrably false statement that it does not even need to be addressed.

End your life faggot.

[Anonymous No.11187759]

Stephen Fry is useless in any debate. Seriously, the man can't discuss anything in depth and he always sounds like he's an edgey memelord pretending to be retarded.

[Anonymous No.11187765]

>>11187740
>if you think a black man speaking like me is foreign or shrill, then you prove my point
Nah this ain't about race nigger, he's a clown making jokes for his audience (hint that's (You))

[Anonymous No.11187766]

>>11187727
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZYbTZLiWxo

These 15 minutes are more profound than the entirety of Peterson's oeuvre. If you think Peterson could hang with someone like this then you are absolutely delusional.

[Anonymous No.11187769]

>>11187734
reduced version of that debate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0dM6j7pzQA

[Anonymous No.11187776]

>>11187759
Seriously? He was the only one who actually stayed on topic

[Anonymous No.11187777]

>>11187745
Well in "the new class struggle" he sure wasn't in his element because the book was utterly shit

[Anonymous No.11187778]

>>11187752
yes there is retard - it's giving others their due (what they are owed).

[Anonymous No.11187779]

>>11187759
but english accent makes him sound as if he is smarter than he is, so it's ok

[Anonymous No.11187781]

>>11187752

[Anonymous No.11187782]

>>11187766
why does he speak like he is dying all the time?

[Anonymous No.11187786]

>>11187777
zizek's political books are just a copy/paste joke he publishes for $$$, the philosophy ones can be ok

[Anonymous No.11187789]

>>11187778
>their due
>owed
none of these concepts are scientific ergo they are emotional and as such can be safely discarded

[Anonymous No.11187791]

>>11187776
No point in staying on topic if you can't contribute or make meaningful points.

[Anonymous No.11187792]

>>11187789
there is no scientific definition of emotion therefore your sentence can be safely discarded :P

[Anonymous No.11187793]

>>11187732
It's blacks and proponents of the theory of 'infinite oppression' who maintain that concept of race. So much so that they associate an entire ethnicity like 'blackness' with a political monolith, a fixed mode of self-expression, while any deviance from that norm is considered treason and uncle tommery.

If his solution is to do away with that sort of identity politics and only use it to congregate as to address oppression, I'm fine with it, but it's quite transparent that isn't his intention.

He identified the group that he perceives as responsible. It's whitey. Not only that, but descendants of white devils still hold responsibility - even though very few have slave-owner ancestors. Okay. What do we do? DO you want money? Do you want equality of outcome? Hold any enterprise legally responsible if their workforce doesn't reflect the ethnic composition of the overall population? WHat do you want? I really want to help so we can get it over with and people can start behaving like human beings first. But you need to say what you want so we can take it from there.

[Anonymous No.11187803]

>>11187651
WTF? you dense motherfucker
Even if the nigger tried to explain why CP exists historically(he didn't do that and if he wanted to really do it he would have stated it clearly) that is no argument at all. That's just the stating of facts. OK blacks were opressed and still are to some extent but that is of social and systemic failure not because the government or society i.e. individuals are against blacks.
He couldn't define CP and he couldn't define how the guilt that the other groups have acquierd is to be paid of. This man didn't engage in any argumentation AT ALL.
He just cried about being a nigger and how people notice that he is a nigger. Guess what, people notice I'm white and people notice im male and people notice im large. My ancerstors were enslaved too and I don't whine about it.

The nigger and the stupid bitch both failed to differentiate themself from the radical left. They didn't want to because they know they would be hunted down and smeared to death if they did. So out of cowardice they through out reason and clarity of mind and started gobbling incoherent emotinal slurs to persuade the last retarded bit of the audience to believe they have any sort of authority.

This "debate" was overall just pathetic and useless. A prime example off the mass neurosis that, once again, relieves a major breakout around the globe.
This will never end. It will always reoccur until we fixed the systemic flaws that thousands of pathological patriarchy has built into society. That doesn't mean patriarchy is intrinsically bad it just means that the system is rigged against every single human being.
Just consider state education systems and all the other useless coercions the state encapsulates us into.
Everywhere you go people want to take your freedom away so they can afterwards sell it back to you bit by bit but with their jizz on it so you wont be able to enjoy any of it. After a while you get mad and kill the guy that enslaved you but that is just follwed by you becoming the slave owner or some other people enslaving you again.
most people want to be irresponsible for their own life and the lifes of others. Just look around. Or simply look inside.

[Anonymous No.11187806]

>>11187766
I remember being 16 myself. It's a phase mate. I don't even dislike West, but god do I find my teenage self's inflated estimation of his disjointed ramblings cringy.

[Anonymous No.11187808]

>>11187725
>it’s a dumb question
No it isn’t. You can’t just make grand sweeping narrative claims, and then when pressed for an actual level of oppression hand wave it away.
>well you have white privilege!
>well what’s my privilege then?
>well uh it’s uh complex you know cus uh there’s just like a lot of uh factors you know
That’s not a real theory, it’s just pure rhetoric.
It’d be like me going to a court of law and arguing for rules of guilt to be thrown out because you know there’s like a lot of factors and stuff and “beyond a reasonable doubt” is just you know it has like a lot of different things going on.

[Anonymous No.11187819]

>>11187793
The irony here is that, as Dyson points out, blackness is not something universally claimed (Chapelle has a great bit on how, if he could, he'd be 'out of the game), but instead hoisted upon that group.

This kind of denial of the conditions of oppression are tied to the need for Dyson to continue to speak, and in many ways to political correctness writ large. Fry and your calls for a kinder (and more quiet, stop with all that pesky mentioning of very real, very much ongoing oppression!) society is an impossibility until the extent of that oppression is acknowledged.

The question of 'what to do' is predicated on 'what is', and based on this thread, there's a number of people -- likely those in positions of power and privilege -- unable or unwilling to acknowledge what is. Thus the need for Dyson, and thus the hollow racist caricatures. So much easier to dismiss what is difficult to accept, even if it shows your whole ass.

[Anonymous No.11187824]

>>11187808
>an actual level of oppression
How do you quantify it, Mr. Numb3rs? Like I said, logic nerds are terrified of the real world because it doesn't fit into their rainmanesque dreams where everything is simple like when they were children.

[Anonymous No.11187826]

>>11187806
>I remember being 16 myself. It's a phase mate. I don't even dislike Peterson, but god do I find my teenage self's inflated estimation of his disjointed ramblings cringy.

[Anonymous No.11187832]

>>11187808
If you're looking for quantifiable specifics, try here: https://www.essence.com/2015/01/06/where-do-we-go-here-essay-isabel-wilkerson

There's also a significant body of peer-reviewed literature on how discrimination is measured across a range of fields and elements of life; try Google.

Also, that is exactly how law works, and many successful defenses have use those tactics but juries are less likely to accept it for black folks, statistically

[Anonymous No.11187838]

>>11187824
You can't quantify it you fuck that's the point.
It's pointless rhetoric.
>the real world doesn't fit into things like statistical analysis
Jesus christ did you never get past third grade?
I'm an analyst for a living, I do statistical analysis on SIGACTS to identify COAs. If you're going to posit something as sweeping as an inherent privilege you can't just piss into the wind and expect people to listen to you.
BUT MY FEELINGS isn't a valid argument.
>>11187832
>try here
>it's literally just an opinion piece muh feelings essay

[Anonymous No.11187839]

>>11187803
Ayy, we made it pretty far into a thread about race without getting to ad hominem. Nice.

[Anonymous No.11187840]

>Feminist: I think that actually, uhm, well, it's a bit of, uhm
>Jordan Memerson: Political correctness is actually stalinism you guys
>Black man: AYO [laugh track]
>Fat gay Jew: Political correctness is actually puritanism you guys, also it doesn't work
Can't believe I watched two hours of this garbage. All four of them should be executed in public plaza.

[Anonymous No.11187842]

>>11187838
> erroneously asks for stats and quantifiable information
> ignores stats and quantifiable information

[Anonymous No.11187843]

>>11187819
You still haven't managed to say anything of substance. You've said nothing. "The question of 'what to do' is predicated on 'what is' ". That is what I'm inviting you to explain.

What do you want me to do? Identify how I'm oppressing you for you, until I come up with an explanation that you agree with? Jesus Christ mate. Keep on making your woke rap then.

[Anonymous No.11187848]

>>11187803
fuck off, libertarian

[Anonymous No.11187849]

>>11187826
My reply was structured in the same way as your recommendation which was essentially "west woke kang, peterson brainlet, betta recognize". Also, being 16 at the time you discovered peterson would put you around 18. Kinda figures.

[Anonymous No.11187852]

>>11187842
>literally not a single piece of quantifiable information on present day privilege of white people
>but there was shitty things in the past!
>but please ignore all the other shitty things that have also happened in the past because MY FEELS say what happened in the past to people related to me is more important!

Retarded arguments like this is why I work in foreign policy.

[Anonymous No.11187855]

>>11187581
Expertly crafted bait.

[Anonymous No.11187861]

>>11187852
>Retarded arguments like this is why I work in foreign policy.
well, there's one of the answers to why the world's in the shitter

[Anonymous No.11187867]

>>11187843
You're being purposefully obtuse like Peterson with the "that a general response," bit, but sure.

What is: oppression. There is a for-profit prison system that lobbied for harsher sentencing laws, violations of basic civil rights like stop-and-frisk, and routinely gets away with what the UN has classified as inhumane conditions. Job applications, home loan applications (even with families with identical credit scores and income to their white counterparts), and credit lines are systematically denied to those with 'ethnic names.' What to do about it: enact and continue to enforce policies that counteract these systemic and oppressive forces. This is tied to political correctness, which is simply the battle over these policies emerging in a public forum.

This isn't a difficult point. It's simply stating reality, which is what Dyson tried to do, and is often difficult to hear.

[Anonymous No.11187869]

>>11187581
>literal twitter-tier quipping over the entire debate
>performed well
- /lit/, 2018.

[Anonymous No.11187871]

>>11187423
Political correctness is such a banal and frankly solved non-issue that I can't imagine anything of value having come of this.

It's really been nothing more than a convenient facet of the persecution complex shared by both sides of the political line since like the eighties.

[Anonymous No.11187878]

>>11187852
The comparative statistics of lynchings and police killings? The discussion of the great migration (a fundamentally statistical shift)? The talk about homeownership rates and how they were directly impacted by predatory loan practices and the housing crises?

Your opinion here is willfully cynical and obtuse. Similar to the last time you used that tired reaction image in regards to the word "totalitarianism."

[Anonymous No.11187879]

>>11187861
You mean because we actually have to back up our opinions in a non partisan manner with facts and statistics instead of “but muh feeeeeelings say this”

I’ll be sure to go and tell my boss that Yemen isn’t actually in a civil war, but REALLY it’s a post-colonial imperialistic propaganda campaign to smear to good Houthis so the Saudi’s can exploit them for resources. If I just use enough academic jargon surely what I’m saying is true.

[Anonymous No.11187886]

>>11187878
You mean past events? Woah you sure fucking got me. Those things clearly give a quantifiable backing for what “white privilege” is.

[Anonymous No.11187899]

>>11187425
fpbp

[Anonymous No.11187906]

>>11187886
If you don't think blacks getting disproportionately affected by police killings and predatory banking loans is not a direct statement on white privilege and white oppression, then there's no discussion to be had.

Similarly, if you don't see how an intellectual writing about totalitarianism in the 50s is not the same as a journalist talking today, I don't know what to do for you. It's good you didn't go to law school.

[Anonymous No.11187909]

>>11187886
Also, I'm not trying to 'get' you. You asked for something, now have it, and are unwilling to accept that it's there. This brings me no pleasure.

[Anonymous No.11187911]

Can it really be called a debate? It reminded me of those awful town halls CNN puts on or some shitty Bill Mahr episode with all the shouting, namecalling, and juvenile rhetorical tricks.

THIS is a debate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8

[Anonymous No.11187919]

>>11187906
>>11187909
Or it's a direct result of blacks being over-represented in low income areas which tend to have a larger presence of institutions like payday loans along with higher crime rates which lead to disproportionate sentencing versus the national average.

But you can always just make everything about abstract systems of oppression and privilege too.

[Anonymous No.11187928]

>>11187911
are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.11187932]

>>11187879
>’ll be sure to go and tell my boss that Yemen isn’t actually in a civil war
lol as I said, this is the kind of people who work on foreign policy
with one corner of his mouth he says yemen's in a civil war, with the other corner he's sending military help to the saudis which is then used on those same yemenis
while keeping quiet about the humanitarian disaster he has a direct hand in

[Anonymous No.11187942]

>>11187919
of course, how they ended up being over-represented in low income areas is a mystery, must be god's plan

[Anonymous No.11187946]

>>11187919
Home loans have nothing to do with payday loan spots.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/10/blacks-and-hispanics-face-extra-challenges-in-getting-home-loans/

While there are elements to systemic oppression that are abstract (and thus what much of the battle over PC is over), the reality is that oppression is codified and often quantifiable. The only lurking variable you can find is "racism."

To not endure this is privilege. It's not complicated, but again, it's hard to accept, which necessitates the existence of folks like Dyson.

[Anonymous No.11187959]

>>11187946
Yes and the average median income of black families in America is literally last.

Which of the two do you think would be responsible for black people not being able to get loans. Codified oppression and racism. Or, and this is a very strong possibility I want you to consider, that they don't qualify for the loans due to their economic situation.

>>11187942
Yes racism, I am aware of such a thing.

[Anonymous No.11187960]

>>11187429
>investigating racial differences in IQ was racist
it literally is.

[Anonymous No.11187972]

>>11187581
this is premium bait

[Anonymous No.11187974]

>>11187867
Thank you for being less vague. We're getting somewhere. I think your grievances aren't issues related to racial discrimination, but at least now we have something to talk about.

>Misaligned incentives in your prison system
I agree. Not a racial matter though. Around 60% of the prison population is convicted for violent crimes. A mere 2% is in for possession of banned substances, which shouldn't (arguably) be punishable through incarceration. As part of these 2%, the majority of the population is indeed black, but this is due to the increased exposure they have to with the police due to being disproportionately responsible for violent crime.

Stop and search does lead to being detained for drug possession, but it certainly is a worthy price to pay in relation to the effect it has on decreasing violent crime. And yes, more black people are bound to be stopped. With limited time and resources, you wouldn't stop an old black grandma or a Khaki chino wearing computer scientist in San Francisco, hoping to find concealed weapons would you? 13% of the population committing 50% of the crime is a basis for sound profiling when time and resources are limited. Same as airport profiling in ISrael for instance - you wouldn't stop a geeky Michael Cera for questioning over a frowny trembling moustacheless Chechen, would you? Also, as a law abiding black citizen who lives in the inner city, you should welcome policy that discourages illegal possession of firearms even if it implies you getting frisked every once in a while. It's not the police's fault that you're a black man surrounded by niggers. And once again mate, 2% are in for possession of illegal drugs.

>Fiscal discrimination
Not true. Or true, but not in the way you think. Almost all western states (specifically the Anglosphere) have borrowing and mortgage schemes that give both individuals from lower economic brackets and ethnic minorities alike advantaged access to loans. Same with small business loans. It's literally fiscal affirmative action.

>Ethnic names
True. I will defend this though. As an employer, when presented with two resumes where all things are equal, but one name goes along the lines of Obamaniqua Leshawniquana and the other, well, anything but that, I will call in the latter for an interview if I don't have time for both. Not because the name Obamaniqua is intrinsically indicative of lower competence, but because that person was raised by parents who gave her that name. Not fair I know. But unless I have the time to assess everyone and discriminate solely based on competence (and I almost never do), I will latch onto various things that stack up and statistically indicate better potential for competence.

>What to do? [...]enforce policies that counteract these systemic and oppressive forces. This is tied to political correctness
Be more specific

[Anonymous No.11187977]

The statistics to which I'm specifically referring are those instances where black and brown families do not get the loan terms their white counterparts do when their income, education, age, and credit score are identical. I believe the PEW source I gave you discusses this, bu if not one is a Google search away.

That's half my point: we can go in this circle where you continue to narrow the goalposts and I continue to fulfill your terms, or you can accept that racism is codified and quantifiable (and, by extension, so is white privilege). Again, the only lurking variable you will find is racism.

Trying to deny the existence of systemic racism is fundamentally unscientific and goes against data, which you seem to lean on.

[Anonymous No.11187986]

>>11187977
>Trying to deny the existence of systemic racism is fundamentally unscientific

Not him, but in other words, attempting to refute a claim through arguments that test it through logic, economic and statistical models (ie engaging with the scientific method) is "fundamentally unscientific" to you. This is your brain on wokeness.

[Anonymous No.11187988]

>>11187977
I mean I fail to see how I am moving the goalposts. I asked for a quantifiable backing for a descriptive level of what "privilege" for a white person is across all strata that would firmly establish what every single white person has that would justify lumping an entire racial group into categories.

But you can't do that, unless you can find me a single (1) current de jure law on the books that codifies a set of privileges for white people that no one else enjoys.

[Anonymous No.11188007]

>>11187960
It is not literally, it is just more than likely being investigated for racist reasons

It could be they want to understand what the impact would be for each race on how many far low IQ members they have, since there is a threshold for being useful to the current economy and IQ. If you have a race that has a higher percentage of these people, you should worry for them and plan for the fallout when they cant participate in the economy

[Anonymous No.11188008]

>>11187988
this is on the level of those "you can't call someone a racist unless he's a literla member of aku klux klan, doesn't matter what they say/do" retards
you're at best absolutely useless to any civil society and at worst are a helper to oppression

[Anonymous No.11188016]

>>11188007
>If you have a race that has a higher percentage of these people, you should worry for them
the pioneer fund is actually full of people who are continually tormented by their concern for the black community

[Anonymous No.11188019]

>>11188008
>if I just change all the meanings of my words so I'm de facto right, that means I can't lose!

Yes you dipshit, unless someone actually does something racist, you can't call them racist.

[Anonymous No.11188032]

>>11187986
The reason why it is unscientific is that the vast bulk of scientific data points to its existence. Unscientific in that it goes against sources, not unscientific in the deployment of the scientific method. Good attempt at a gotcha, I guess?

>>11187988
> Description: Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing to concede or accept the opponent’s argument.

A great example is your post. You refuse to acknowledge the evidence I have now provided, and have instead changed the terms to "systemic racism (and by natural extension white privilege) isn't real because it isn't in a law book."

I could in fact argue that it is, but 'm clearly wasting my breath because you're not engaging this as a good faith actor. There is scientific evidence quantifiably proving the existence of systemic racism, period.

[Anonymous No.11188034]

>>11188032
>that the vast bulk of scientific data points to its existence.
Care to share some of it?

[Anonymous No.11188046]

>>11188019
except your definition of "doing something racist" is carefully structured to exclude everything people might do except calling someone a nigger and having a KKK membership card

[Anonymous No.11188055]

>>11188008
>but if i can't call everybody racist, how will i debate?
wtf

[Anonymous No.11188066]

>>11188034
Read the thread, read those links, and then Google. Housing loans, school-to-prison pipeline, hiring practices, redlining, ongoing lynching (both in the historical act and in police brutality), community standards laws, the systematic infiltration of the police force by hate groups. Google is your friend.

>>11187974
Getting on a bus and meeting with students, will respond because I got angry online again goddamnit

[Anonymous No.11188068]

>>11187988
>unless you can find me a single (1) current de jure law on the books that codifies a set of privileges

nice to see you rapidly deteriorated into david irving levels of argumentation here.

[Anonymous No.11188072]

>>11188032
>first post was that it lacks any backing for a quantifiable measure of what privlege as a a white person means
>you've posted an anecdotal essay, alluded towards past racism, and gave housing loan rates

>this in some way shows that across all strata white people have a privilege that is able to be untangled and quantified in some meaningful way

>but I'm moving the goalposts by repeatedly returning to this point and because I had alternate views of what your data suggested


Activates those old almonds.

>>11188046
No, it means, "doing something that society has agreed across culture as being racist".

Attempting to redefine the word and then use it to label vast groups of people and institutions is nothing more than taking advantage of a societaly charged term to give legitimacy and power to your argument when you can't actually back it up with anything meaningful.

It's the same thing as screaming rape culture, or white genocide, or Islamic groups screaming about the crusader coalition.

[Anonymous No.11188089]

>>11188066
Holy shit, you keep throwing these things out there and then just saying "uhhhh google it sweetie" like I'm somehow a mouth breathing idiot that is unfamiliar with these concepts.

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/32976/411936-Racial-and-Ethnic-Disparities-Among-Low-Income-Families.PDF

Here. Data pointing towards over representation of black families in low income areas.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf

Here. Data showing crime rates being significantly higher in low income areas.

https://vittana.org/26-poverty-and-crime-statistics
Here. Statistics showing how people that live in the above two environments are more likely to participate in criminal behavior.

Wow takes a fucking genius to put the two together to show that black families living in a low income area are much more exposed to these factors than because MUH SYSTEMATIC OPPRESSION. Quit jerking yourself off to your narrative.

[Anonymous No.11188102]

>>11188089
you realize you're supporting his argument aren't you

all the factors you're talking about are literally the definition of systematic oppression

[Anonymous No.11188107]

>>11188066
Housing loans are actively stacked in favour of ethnic minorities. So are small business loans.

School-to-prison "pipeline" is merely woke talk for more black young people end up in prison. To ascribe that to racism alone is absolutely ridiculous. Might have something to do with the fact that they commit more crime.

Hiring practices? We have affirmative action and quotas in place. So much so that Asians are discriminated against because they are too smart. Names? Yeah, maybe don't name your daughter Obamaniqua because that's indicative of the kind of upbringing she received. When you don't have the time to interview everyone, it's perfectly natural to look at differences that would make it more probable for you to hire the most competent person.
>Redlining
You mean, richer people moving into the neighbourhood and street-stalls that sell fried rats not being as popular because of it? Yeah. Totally racial.
>lynching
no such thing. not a trend. And individual cases are punished by law, whilst perpetrators' and victims' race plays no role in sentencing. Unless it's racially motivated in which case it actually adds to the sentence.
>community standards
Like not liking nigger-culture? Plenty of blacks who despise it as well.
>the systematic infiltration of the police force by hate groups
Not systematic. Where identified and proven, legal action is taken and responsible parties are punished.

[Anonymous No.11188109]

>>11188102
>it’s oppression because I define it to be!
Living in a shit neighborhood isn’t oppression. It’s a result of poor socioeconomic factors. And treating it like it is, is akin to telling a cancer patient that yoga will make them feel better rather than giving them chemotherapy.

You’re not addressing any actual problems, you’re just jerking yourself off to win moral goodboy points.

[Anonymous No.11188143]

>>11188072
I was not the first post, but I responded to yours.

You asked for a piece that statistically discusses racism. I gave you the Wilkerson. You said it didn't have statistics. It did. I, acting as your reference librarian at this point, gave you a piece that followed up on one of the specific statistics. You misread it. I clarified. You changed the terms of the argument, and are now asking for more evidence (in addition to misreading again).

What's really mind-numbing is that you're continuing to misread despite multiple clarifications. Thanks for your statistics concerning black life in low-income areas, now try googleing redlining. Additionally, you have yet to address why black get suboptimal conditions in housing than whites when all factors are equal.

It will be the same for everything you Google. The only lurking variable is racism. I am not your reference librarian.

>>11188089
See above. Also, Thanks for your statistics concerning black life in low-income areas, now try googleing redlining.

[Anonymous No.11188151]

>>11187433
>>11187538
Then why was Fry was brought in?

[Anonymous No.11188156]

>>11188107
> explaining away racist institutions with racist beliefs

We're not further away than we seem, I guess.