Apparently one of the newer boogeymen conservatives are up in arms against is the teaching of "critical race theory" in schools. Having heard the name, but never read about it before, I give the wiki page a gander to see what the deal is. Having read the article, I honestly have very little understanding of it. At the very least, I could understand why some of the aspects would rankle social conservatives, but undoubtedly these people with their motivated interests don't have a thorough understanding of it, either. I dare say they might be criticizing it in bad faith...
They're mad because one of the basics of CRT is recognizing that white supremacy is an issue in the US that needs to be tackled, and they're tired of being called racists or whatever. White guilt is the ultimate injustice done to white people.
Like everything the pendulum has swung too far, I'm sure we could fill the school day with Critical Red Indian Theory, Critical Anti-Semitism Theory, Critical Misogyny Theory, Critical Animal Cruelty Theory, Critical Planet Raping Theory, Critical Everything White Men Have Done is Bad Theory etc. There'd be no time for maths, physics, etc.
No other race beats itself and allows itself to be beaten as much as the white anglo-saxons.
Does anyone think the Chinese, Russians etc agonise about putting other races ahead of themselves, or beat themselves up about historic wrongs?
Not while they're busy sterilising the Uighurs and exterminating the Chechens.
Same for everyone tribe in Africa which is still trying to get itself ahead in the hope everyone else will starve.
This nonsense will be the end of the modern democratic world which almost exclusively white men created.
No other race beats itself and allows itself to be beaten as much as the white anglo-saxons.
Does anyone think the Chinese, Russians etc agonise about putting other races ahead of themselves, or beat themselves up about historic wrongs?
Not while they're busy sterilising the Uighurs and exterminating the Chechens.
Same for everyone tribe in Africa which is still trying to get itself ahead in the hope everyone else will starve.
This nonsense will be the end of the modern democratic world which almost exclusively white men created.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-12-29 23:15:09)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
That's almost a perfect snippet of what I'd quote here as an example of insane pushback from white people resentful about "white guilt." It's possible to recognize that there's a problem without slitting your wrists over it or making absurdist arguments ("there won't be time for physics!").
"Hillary called us deplorables!"
Sure though, don't talk about history because it makes people uncomfortable.
"Hillary called us deplorables!"
Sure though, don't talk about history because it makes people uncomfortable.
i don't know how white men can be credited with inventing the modern democratic world, either.
accounting for the fact that the 'advanced west' got ahead because of a huge pyramidal base of slave labour and imperial expansion is not exactly controversial. the founding fathers of the united states owned slaves. the entire early economies of the 'world's best' nations were propped up by masses who weren't white anglo-saxon protestant men.
a huge number of civil and legal rights have been gained through protest and organisation, not granted out of the goodness of 'white men's hearts. dilbert wants to denigrate protest movements or critics of the status quo and at the same time celebrate democracy in this bland, ahistorical way as if white men set it up one day as a charity and it's all been brilliant ever since. most of the workplace benefits and legal protections you have, if you live somewhere like the UK, are there as the consequence of poor non-whites, often women, often working-class, etc, bothering to get together to do something about it. these histories are conveniently forgotten about and weirdly cultural conservatives don't like them being taught in schools, either.
women have only been able to vote for the last 100 years. please spare me the claptrap about the great achievements of white men through the ages.
accounting for the fact that the 'advanced west' got ahead because of a huge pyramidal base of slave labour and imperial expansion is not exactly controversial. the founding fathers of the united states owned slaves. the entire early economies of the 'world's best' nations were propped up by masses who weren't white anglo-saxon protestant men.
a huge number of civil and legal rights have been gained through protest and organisation, not granted out of the goodness of 'white men's hearts. dilbert wants to denigrate protest movements or critics of the status quo and at the same time celebrate democracy in this bland, ahistorical way as if white men set it up one day as a charity and it's all been brilliant ever since. most of the workplace benefits and legal protections you have, if you live somewhere like the UK, are there as the consequence of poor non-whites, often women, often working-class, etc, bothering to get together to do something about it. these histories are conveniently forgotten about and weirdly cultural conservatives don't like them being taught in schools, either.
women have only been able to vote for the last 100 years. please spare me the claptrap about the great achievements of white men through the ages.
Talking about racism with white people is definitely like walking on eggshells. Often you'll get people who are randomly defensive (no shit you've never owned a slave bro) or white knight af and argue incessantly over whether native american or indigenous american is more insulting. If there's much of a middle ground, they seem to stay out of it.
See dilbert post above, "waaah white men are evil, what about the Russians and Chinese, stop analyzing western history."
See dilbert post above, "waaah white men are evil, what about the Russians and Chinese, stop analyzing western history."
I'm really doubtful slavery was the massive benefit to the UK or America that people make it out to be.uziq wrote:
i don't know how white men can be credited with inventing the modern democratic world, either.
accounting for the fact that the 'advanced west' got ahead because of a huge pyramidal base of slave labour and imperial expansion is not exactly controversial. the founding fathers of the united states owned slaves. the entire early economies of the 'world's best' nations were propped up by masses who weren't white anglo-saxon protestant men.
I'm also doubtful that most of my legal protections are thanks to 'non-whites'.most of the workplace benefits and legal protections you have, if you live somewhere like the UK, are there as the consequence of poor non-whites, often women, often working-class, etc, bothering to get together to do something about it. these histories are conveniently forgotten about and weirdly cultural conservatives don't like them being taught in schools, either.
Progress is imperfect and takes time. Would a single woman in africa be able to vote if it weren't for white people? Would they even have democracy? Pretty sure they'd all be under actual patriarchies and not invented ones. How many women in the middle east have the vote today?women have only been able to vote for the last 100 years. please spare me the claptrap about the great achievements of white men through the ages.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
i honestly can't imagine what all this 'critical race theory' discourse is meant to be doing that's so harmful. achieving recognition for past suffering? zOMG! trying to establish fair and equal relations in the present? SHOCKING! scrutinising and asking that a democratic society delivers on its principles? OUTRAGEOUS!
dilbert says that all this study of the past from so many various angles or schools of interpretation '[leaves] no time for maths, physics, etc'. i mean, what complete and utter bunkum. haven't STEM subjects been on the ascendant in america now for about two generations? aren't certain liberal arts disciplines and classical liberal-humanist curricula in terminal decline? how many people study third-wave techno-babble trans-feminism compared to physics or engineering? amazing that our resident scientist can't apply even one iota of level-headed, objective analysis to the issue. nobody is turning down a future as a mathematician so that they can study queer history.
it seems pretty fair to me to say that every education should involve a certain amount of civics, just as it should probably involve physical education, some small amount of home economics, and so on. i don't see how studying and recognising the immense role that slavery had to play in modern america 'robs' time away from biology or maths. i mean it's just a mystifyingly stupid statement.
dilbert says that all this study of the past from so many various angles or schools of interpretation '[leaves] no time for maths, physics, etc'. i mean, what complete and utter bunkum. haven't STEM subjects been on the ascendant in america now for about two generations? aren't certain liberal arts disciplines and classical liberal-humanist curricula in terminal decline? how many people study third-wave techno-babble trans-feminism compared to physics or engineering? amazing that our resident scientist can't apply even one iota of level-headed, objective analysis to the issue. nobody is turning down a future as a mathematician so that they can study queer history.
it seems pretty fair to me to say that every education should involve a certain amount of civics, just as it should probably involve physical education, some small amount of home economics, and so on. i don't see how studying and recognising the immense role that slavery had to play in modern america 'robs' time away from biology or maths. i mean it's just a mystifyingly stupid statement.
the entire american agrarian and then industrial economy was based on slavery, freeholders, and an urban poor of made of immigrants and 'non-whites' (latterly irish, italians, polish, etc.). what the fuck are you talking about? white anglo-protestant lawyers in new england and scots plantation owners in the south weren't driving america's economic engine. read a fucking book for christ's sake.I'm really doubtful slavery was the massive benefit to the UK or America that people make it out to be.
almost all of regency england's splendour and landed whig/aristocratic wealth came from plantations or slave ownership. all this is public record too. you really think the georgian terraces of bath or the luxury of west london was built off the back of really, really hardworking white people? LMAO. luckily for you, you don't have to look very far or hard to see where all this unimaginable luxury and finery came from.
why do you have such a vested, emotional interest in defending things like slavery? in stressing that white civilisation is the only one that has ever allowed women positions of power or political responsibility (demonstrably false)? it's a bit weird, to be honest. you take all this very personally. i don't consider it a self-insult to point out that some of my ancestors in the 1700s were rapacious and exploitative.Let’s consider the study of an archive in the 1830s, the Legacies of British Slave Ownership, showing all slave owners in Britain in 1834, after slavery was abolished. It contains some startling truths. This record – discussed in David Olusoga’s Britain’s Forgotten Slave Owners, a two-part BBC series that aired in 2015 and is now available again on iPlayer – shows how the slave trade and its profits were entrenched within British society. It is the only record of British slave owners at a given moment in time, showing all the claims for compensation across the British Empire following abolition. It gives the claimant’s name, address, biographical information where available, how many slaves they had and how much compensation they received. There were 46,000 claimants, 800,000 slaves and £20 million (£70 billion in today’s money) was paid in compensation.
On this record there were 182 people resident in Bath in 1834 who applied for compensation for the loss of their slaves, and these slave owners made a total of 275 claims (a ‘claim’ represents a claim for however many slaves a person owned in a certain plantation; some owned one slave, others hundreds). There were 131 people resident in Bristol that applied for compensation, and these slave owners made a total of 583 claims. Of the Bristol and Bath claimants, seven were Church of England vicars and 125 were women. You can look them up and find their payments and their addresses – Bristol brings up addresses in Catherine Place, York Place, Clare Street, Meridian Place and Lower Park Row; in Bath we find Sion Hill, Great Pulteney Street, George Street, Henrietta Street and Sydney Buildings included.
The sobering thing about this study is that it reveals not only that massive fortunes were amassed by those exploiting slave labour in distant lands, but that a vast number of the slave owners named in the study were not aristocrats but ordinary people – including lawyers, doctors, vicars, shop owners and manufacturers, from all over the country. And 40 per cent of these slave owners were women, many of them widows who relied on the income they received.
Its unbalanced and unhinged, we're at the point that everything wrong with the world is due to white men and everything right is thanks to black women.
Kids are being taught its better to be gay or trans than normal, and if they're white they're guilty.
White 'criminals' were treated as slaves in Australia, I don't hear their descendants whining endlessly.
Kids are being taught its better to be gay or trans than normal, and if they're white they're guilty.
White 'criminals' were treated as slaves in Australia, I don't hear their descendants whining endlessly.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
i don't recognise any of those things and i've studied extensively on humanities courses. it teaches one to think analytically and critically, not to say 'white man bad, black woman good'. honestly what on earth are you on about? all you can offer are tabloid columnist tropes about 'post-marxist cultural relativism'.
are you sure you're not jordan peterson? first comparing human behaviour to ant or lobster societies, and now this punch & judy caricature stuff.
are you sure you're not jordan peterson? first comparing human behaviour to ant or lobster societies, and now this punch & judy caricature stuff.
https://www.history.com/news/slavery-pr … rn-economy
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworking … 9bce217bd3With cash crops of tobacco, cotton and sugar cane, America’s southern states became the economic engine of the burgeoning nation. Their fuel of choice? Human slavery.
If the Confederacy had been a separate nation, it would have ranked as the fourth richest in the world at the start of the Civil War. The slave economy had been very good to American prosperity. By the start of the war, the South was producing 75 percent of the world’s cotton and creating more millionaires per capita in the Mississippi River valley than anywhere in the nation. Enslaved workers represented Southern planters’ most significant investment—and the bulk of their wealth.
who would have thought, having free and unlimited labour for over half of your national economy and export would be advantageous?!?Contrary to popular belief, the small farmers of New England weren’t alone responsible for establishing America’s economic position as capitalism expanded. Rather, the hard labor of slaves in places like Alabama, South Carolina, and Mississippi needs to be kept in view as well. In fact, more than half of the nation’s exports in the first six decades of the 19th century consisted of raw cotton, almost all of it grown by slaves, according to the book, which was edited by Sven Beckert, the Laird Bell Professor of History at Harvard University and visiting professor at HBS, as well as Seth Rockman, Associate Professor of History at Brown University.
The slave economy of the southern states had ripple effects throughout the entire U.S. economy, with plenty of merchants in New York City, Boston, and elsewhere helping to organize the trade of slave-grown agricultural commodities—and enjoying plenty of riches as a result.
“In the decades between the American Revolution and the Civil War, slavery—as a source of the cotton that fed Rhode Island’s mills, as a source of the wealth that filled New York’s banks, as a source of the markets that inspired Massachusetts manufacturers—proved indispensable to national economic development,” Beckert and Rockman write in the introduction to the book. “… Cotton offered a reason for entrepreneurs and inventors to build manufactories in such places as Lowell, Pawtucket, and Paterson, thereby connecting New England’s Industrial Revolution to the advancing plantation frontier of the Deep South. And financing cotton growing, as well as marketing and transporting the crop, was a source of great wealth for the nation’s merchants and banks.”
dilbert: the UK is doomed, what a dumb nation, beholden to a bunch of landed aristocratic numpties who all went to eton and oxford, and whose great-great-great-grandfathers went to eton and oxford, and who have inherited immense amounts of wealth and privilege since the dawn of modern capitalist britain.
also dilbert: i cannot see how slavery benefited anyone really. so what that the UK minted hundreds of billionaire families and tens of thousands of millionaire families due to slave abolition payouts and wealth acquired from plantations and colonies. it was a minor ripple and of no great moment whatsoever.
bonggggggggg
the richest conservative and member of parliament today, richard drax ... whose family were slave plantation owners.
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/uk- … ds-4794513
but dilbert: slavery was totally OK and did no harm to anyone! the Africans should thank us.
also dilbert: i cannot see how slavery benefited anyone really. so what that the UK minted hundreds of billionaire families and tens of thousands of millionaire families due to slave abolition payouts and wealth acquired from plantations and colonies. it was a minor ripple and of no great moment whatsoever.
bonggggggggg
the richest conservative and member of parliament today, richard drax ... whose family were slave plantation owners.
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/uk- … ds-4794513
bongggggAn MP is earning money from a Caribbean sugar plantation where thousands died during the colonial slave trade.
The 621-acre estate in the name of South Dorset MP Richard Drax – a lord of the manor worth an estimated £150million – has been dubbed a "killing field" over its past, the Mirror reports.
Today’s workers allegedly earn as little as £24 a day, half the average wage in Barbados.
The Mirror reports the Conservative politician has put the business in his name, but it is yet to be declared in the MPs’ register of interests.
dilbert: the UK's ruling class are driving the country into the ground.Mr Drax, 62, lives 4,000 miles away in his family’s ancestral seat of Charborough Park. It is bordered by the “Great Wall of Dorset”, a three-mile boundary made up of three million bricks.
He holds the lordship of the manor of Longburton and is the largest individual landowner in Dorset, with 13,870 acres.
The plantation house, Drax Hall, was built around 1650 – about 20 years after James and William Drax sailed to Barbados to make a fortune. It is the oldest house in the Western hemisphere.
The family owned enslaved people in Barbados from the mid-17th century and later expanded its empire to Jamaica.
Some five million enslaved people were taken to the Caribbean. Deaths ran into millions. There is no specific mention of poor treatment at the hands of the Drax family.
After slavery was abolished in 1836, the family lost 189 workers but received £3million compensation, at today’s rate, from the UK Government.
but dilbert: slavery was totally OK and did no harm to anyone! the Africans should thank us.
Last edited by uziq (2020-12-30 05:29:22)
uziq wrote:
i don't recognise any of those things and i've studied extensively on humanities courses. it teaches one to think analytically and critically, not to say 'white man bad, black woman good'. honestly what on earth are you on about? all you can offer are tabloid columnist tropes about 'post-marxist cultural relativism'.
uziq wrote:
i don't know how white men can be credited with inventing the modern democratic world
most of the workplace benefits and legal protections you have, if you live somewhere like the UK, are there as the consequence of poor non-whites, often women
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-12-30 05:52:24)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
how are those contradictory statements? any materialist would have to admit that huge amounts of unpaid labour paid for the trade surpluses and economic ascendancy of the west. we got ahead because we were driven by an infernal engine. so who gets the 'credit', the rich landowners who kept slaves under the whip or, um, the tens of millions of labourers who actually harvested and processed the material, manned the machines, peopled the factories?
your view of history is moronic. 'white civilisation is the best ever and that's why we're no. 1'. as if we pulled ahead in the modern era of imperialism and capitalism because we had some innate racial genius.
and, yes, the history of the labour struggle, like the histories of emancipation and suffrage, is populated by plenty of non-white males. why do you want to discredit and ban the teachings of black history or feminism in schools? to what purpose? why does it injure you so much to admit these nuances or complexities? really very fucking bizarre. they all form extremely important parts of modern democratic society today, our current state-of-affairs, our present legal rights and liberties, and so on.
i'm sorry that reality doesn't conform to your narrow precepts, but there we are. history can't apologise.
your view of history is moronic. 'white civilisation is the best ever and that's why we're no. 1'. as if we pulled ahead in the modern era of imperialism and capitalism because we had some innate racial genius.
and, yes, the history of the labour struggle, like the histories of emancipation and suffrage, is populated by plenty of non-white males. why do you want to discredit and ban the teachings of black history or feminism in schools? to what purpose? why does it injure you so much to admit these nuances or complexities? really very fucking bizarre. they all form extremely important parts of modern democratic society today, our current state-of-affairs, our present legal rights and liberties, and so on.
i'm sorry that reality doesn't conform to your narrow precepts, but there we are. history can't apologise.
Last edited by uziq (2020-12-30 06:02:37)
To move away from Dilbert's usual tendencies: I have a lot of family on the right end of the political spectrum and critical race theory was coincidentally brought up a few weeks ago. This is in a European context so the ideas have apparently now travelled beyond the borders of the United States, it seems to have become a particularly popular subject within right wing circles since BLM.uziq wrote:
i honestly can't imagine what all this 'critical race theory' discourse is meant to be doing that's so harmful. achieving recognition for past suffering? zOMG! trying to establish fair and equal relations in the present? SHOCKING! scrutinising and asking that a democratic society delivers on its principles? OUTRAGEOUS!
dilbert says that all this study of the past from so many various angles or schools of interpretation '[leaves] no time for maths, physics, etc'. i mean, what complete and utter bunkum. haven't STEM subjects been on the ascendant in america now for about two generations? aren't certain liberal arts disciplines and classical liberal-humanist curricula in terminal decline? how many people study third-wave techno-babble trans-feminism compared to physics or engineering? amazing that our resident scientist can't apply even one iota of level-headed, objective analysis to the issue. nobody is turning down a future as a mathematician so that they can study queer history.
it seems pretty fair to me to say that every education should involve a certain amount of civics, just as it should probably involve physical education, some small amount of home economics, and so on. i don't see how studying and recognising the immense role that slavery had to play in modern america 'robs' time away from biology or maths. i mean it's just a mystifyingly stupid statement.
Now, their objection is mostly against the idea of equal representation and against the arguments that follow to achieve this, mostly quotas and a percentage driven view on positions of power. On the notion of what constitutes an 'equal society', which to many on the left does revolve around representation, i.e. what number of people in positions of power are female or of a different racial background. I can agree that superficial characteristics shouldn't be dominant driving markers in our conception of diversity. There's a hypocrisy in this too (to unfairly advantage groups based on their % representation in power, be it management or politics).
Their other objection centred on the notion of them having privileged positions based on skin colour. Particularly for those who grew up working class in low income households in the 70s-80s, this seems to hit a nerve. There's also a counter reaction here, paraphrased: 'I've always been taught not to judge people by their skin colour yet now there's some commonly accepted framework that ascribes certain qualities to me based on my skin colour, and which problematises my skin colour versus that of someone else'.
Last is a harsher argument; that some immigrant identity groups come from foreign backwaters with toxic cultural norms that have no place in western society. The accusation to the left is that in the quest for 'equality' left leaning politics refuses to criticise or acknowledge negative group behaviours in established immigrant suburbs and externalises those problems on the rest of society. Be it about treatment of women, gay people, other minorities, religious law etc.
Just relaying the arguments here.
Last edited by Larssen (2020-12-30 09:24:24)
it's just typical bad faith stuff. working-class white people have more in common with blacks, migrant workers, marginalised groups such as homosexuals, etc. than they do with 'ruling class' ideology. ok, so your relatives were working-class in the 1970s and had it rough: is it the fault of black people? does it invalidate the fact that someone in the 1970s who was working-class AND additionally non-white would have had it far worse? that, for however 'hard' they thought they had it, many people actually, in fact, structurally and systematically, had it worse?
there's too much defensive pulling up of drawbridges in this attitude. black people aren't taking anything away from working-class white people. more often, they're helping to raise the general water level. they're holding the powerful to account, not beating on the white proletariat.
there's too much defensive pulling up of drawbridges in this attitude. black people aren't taking anything away from working-class white people. more often, they're helping to raise the general water level. they're holding the powerful to account, not beating on the white proletariat.
That's what it's represented as by dodgy conservative op-eds and talk show hosts, but that's not what it is. Presenting the history of a country in terms of a more stark reality is not an assault on white people. The aim is not to crucify white people (and western nations) on their own history, but to analyze history and current events as a cohesive unit. Things like slave labor, other exploitative foreign labor, and Indian Wars conquests helped build the US. White supremacy and groups built around it is still an issue that needs to be addressed. Not sweeping all this under the rug is an important step to healing the country as time goes forward. Not a member of the Aryan Nations? Good on ya.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its unbalanced and unhinged, we're at the point that everything wrong with the world is due to white men and everything right is thanks to black women.
Kids are being taught its better to be gay or trans than normal, and if they're white they're guilty.
It should also be noted that this ties into economic inequality and the wealthy's ongoing exploitation of the poor (including white poor). Consume "eat the rich" memes? Frequently post guillotines to social media? Read a book instead and maybe help address the problem through more productive means.
Honestly you sound like such a boomer sometimes. Next you'll be citing fringe black preachers as general opinion.
Australia has its own legacy of advancement through slavery to be absurdly hyper defensive about, I admit. I can see why you'd be on the bandwagon for defending America's.White 'criminals' were treated as slaves in Australia, I don't hear their descendants whining endlessly.
Aren't there still investigations into questionable contracts Australian companies pigeonhole foreign workers into? Also not to forget aboriginal labor of days yore. "The White Australian isn't complaining about their past!" Yo, you (an immigrant to Australia) just brought it up. I've also heard about the nasty exodus to Australia from a number of Australians.
I think the problem exists in this being new group divides that barely existed domestically until about the turn of the century. It's the lens of 'white vs black/immigrant' that ticks them off, mostly because a number of them grew up in villages/neighbourhoods that were almost 100% white. Their identity formation was not oriented along racial divides. So the fact that this is all recent stuff seems to piss off quite a few of them as in it they're seeing a push for societal/cultural change through a group that has only manifested itself politically here in the last 40 odd years. It's essentially a non-acceptance of immigration.uziq wrote:
it's just typical bad faith stuff. working-class white people have more in common with blacks, migrant workers, marginalised groups such as homosexuals, etc. than they do with 'ruling class' ideology. ok, so your relatives were working-class in the 1970s and had it rough: is it the fault of black people? does it invalidate the fact that someone in the 1970s who was working-class AND additionally non-white would have had it far worse? that, for however 'hard' they thought they had it, many people actually, in fact, structurally and systematically, had it worse?
there's too much defensive pulling up of drawbridges in this attitude. black people aren't taking anything away from working-class white people. more often, they're helping to raise the general water level. they're holding the powerful to account, not beating on the white proletariat.
they were living in a society enriched by and propped up by colonialism. tough luck they lived in villages 'that were 100% white'. that doesn't mean they have no historical responsibility for dutch colonialism or whatever other fen you're from. that's not how it works.
in any case, nobody is asking for recompense from them personally. no one is accusing them of moral crime. what's the problem, here? equality of opportunity? for women and non-whites to have equal access to top jobs? wow i bet your relatives cowering in their villages are really affronted by this idea.
I'm more interested in talking about building broad solidarity between groups, not accepting the right-wing's logic of endless division and fractiousness, pitting one group against another to argue over their 'right' to the scraps from the table. bad faith argument.
in any case, nobody is asking for recompense from them personally. no one is accusing them of moral crime. what's the problem, here? equality of opportunity? for women and non-whites to have equal access to top jobs? wow i bet your relatives cowering in their villages are really affronted by this idea.
I'm more interested in talking about building broad solidarity between groups, not accepting the right-wing's logic of endless division and fractiousness, pitting one group against another to argue over their 'right' to the scraps from the table. bad faith argument.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +635|3719
Everyone has a mother and mothers do most of the childrearing in every society. So when you talk about the accomplishments of white men, you need to talk more about the role of white women who are responsible for 50%+ western civilization's accomplishments by virtue of carrying and taking care of every great white man.
left wing discourse is very big on recognising unpaid and often unprotected domestic labour.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +635|3719
It is called the Double burden.uziq wrote:
left wing discourse is very big on recognising unpaid and often unprotected domestic labour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_burden
affective labour is another area, especially in advanced services economies.
So since Brexit january 1st a few dozen British tourists have already been refused entry into the country. As they're no longer part of the EU they no longer have the right to travel freely on the continent, esp. considering the covid lockdown restrictions (essential travel only from outside EU).
Apparently most of them were outraged and angry at being sent home again. Most of them were also middle aged. I bet this is the same crowd that voted for brexit.
Apparently most of them were outraged and angry at being sent home again. Most of them were also middle aged. I bet this is the same crowd that voted for brexit.
Last edited by Larssen (2021-01-03 10:28:58)