I respect that. Now if I may I will attempt to clarify.
You started out by saying this pertaining to SJWs:
Then followed with this:
You established your belief that the various actions of SJWs and the expanding PC culture in America was beginning to bleed over into areas that effect us all. I would agree with you on this. You also established that certain extreme sections of the PC culture were idiots.
You went on the say this:
Oh ok, I see now. I think you misunderstand a bit, but that's my fault for being unclear.
To clear up those posts, what I was talking about was being annoyed/worried about the spread of the really really crazy things that I gave examples of. The stuff that we both agree is basically harmless because nobody really takes it seriously. The reason I brought the topic up to start was because I thought the Boy Scouts did take it seriously and made this change because of those lunatics.
I'm was NOT sitting here like "oh damn, I hate that the Boy Scouts are being more inclusive towards people outside my demographic!"
I was thinking "oh shit are people actually starting to take the type of people who defend dogs gender rights seriously??????" because I don't think anyone other than the extreme "SJW's" would waste their time trying to fight against the Boy Scouts being all boys. I wasn't worried about normal PC culture spreading, I was specifically worried about the potential spreading PC extremists.
This was because the twitter posts I initially read led me to believe that was the case, which was incorrect.
My main point is that the extreme end of the SJW side is innocuous. It has no power to achieve its goals and minimal support even from the populations they advocate for.
Which I agree with and which is why I was so shocked when it sounded like they actually did achieve their goals in bullying an organization into making such a change. I want that extreme side to remain innocuous so that's one less distraction. I don't want that stupidity to spread.
Does that make more sense?
Indicating that there’s an equivalency to both polarities. This I don’t agree with. So I explained that PC people act the way they do, ostentatious and in your face, because they don’t have power or the ability to affect change besides causing a stir in the public eye. This is a tactic to raise awareness of their particular issue and get people thinking. Which is better than the alternative because, since they don’t have power, the masses will just ignore them.
The opposing side of the spectrum, hyper conservatives and white supremacists, have power, money, and influence. They utilize them every day and indeed the nation’s history is built on these ideals. Both sides are playing with different sets of rules and resources. To think of them equivalently ignores both the context of history and the present day. Once again, Trump is an example of this in play.
My main point is that the extreme end of the SJW side is innocuous. It has no power to achieve its goals and minimal support even from the populations they advocate for. People often equate the spread of PC culture with a vice grip on free speech but its not that at all. Its a movement, at least its aim, is to introduce a greater sense of accountability across racial and class lines to our shared history as Americans. No more ignoring racism, denying sexism, and enabling homophobia. These are good things. These are movements that have been gaining steam across the world since the end of the Dark Ages. It isnt just millenial rage, though that is a funny part of it.
The extreme end of the other polarity is very much in power and it is a current and present danger to every American regardless of race, economic status, or creed. To map both perspectives as equal is willfully ignorant of both the prevalence of systemic oppression in the US and the major issues driving the PC movement in the first place (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.).
I didn't say extreme PC people and extreme anti-PC people are equal issues, I only said that both are examples of people going too far on both sides. Obviously one side is a bigger problem than the other.
You explained why normal PC people act the way they do, but I already know that, which is why I said it feels like you think I'm arguing against you on every point you're bringing up, when that's not the case.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this. Any grown adult is fully cognizant of the fact that growing up black in America is very different than growing up white which is very different from growing up Asian and in turn growing up Latin. Its not that a child is born with a different culture. Its that he/she is taught from birth by the systemic racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. ingrained in the US’ DNA that he/she is different from others. American culture in and of itself is factional and mainstream American culture is indeed white culture. A child of color, a woman, an LGBT person does not have to change completely but they do have to learn from the earliest age how to maneuver in a nation, a world, in which the basic unit of humanity is white, male, and straight. You imply that economics and geography have more to do with a particular culture than race but if that were true then why are these black athletes with million dollar contracts rocking the boat every Sunday while their owners and colleagues wring their hands? They live in the same place, make the same kind of money, are all American, have grown up in the same sports culture. They should be of one mind for the most part, right? These athletes are rich and successful. America has been good to them. Shouldnt they all just sit back in their mansions and enjoy life? Or maybe the past histories of these athletes differ greatly and just making a certain amount of money and belonging to a certain social class isn’t enough to offset the issues held therein.
Because the vast majority of those NFL players grew up poor, which seems to be what shaped their beliefs more than race did, and becoming wealthy doesn't change your upbringing.
That's why I was talking about the difference between someone who grew up poor vs someone who grew up rich, regardless of race. If both of those people are black, I don't think the rich one will automatically have the same beliefs/culture as the poor one. It's different cultures based on upbringing, not solely on race.
If it were race dependent then every single person of a race would have the same culture and beliefs as any other person of the same race. But that's not the case.
And lastly by your own admission:
You can walk away. Some cant. Think of the implications of that for a second. These issues are nothing more than a distant annoyance to you and thats fine. To you, PC culture is a mild distraction with the potential to really reach out and touch you one day. To the people behind these movements they represent a defining aspect of their life and a pressing issue concerning their families and friends. There are several Americas. You live in one, the supremacists live in another, the more middle ground people live in another. The fact that you can look at a certain social or political development and then walk away from it right after while others feel the need to devote all their time to the same issue is a clear indicator that there is not one objective American culture but several. A mainstream and several undergrounds which are often antagonistic and at odds.
Again, you seem to think I'm talking about PC culture in general when I was specifically talking about my interactions with the crazies.
You've made a lot of assumptions, like the bolded, which I think is a bad idea in a discussion like this. Especially when you're making them based on race. As if I care or don't care about certain things because I'm white or as if every black person is automatically engaged in, and supportive of, what's going on. Generalizations are almost always a mistake. It's particularly strange that you made it seem like I'm separate from middle ground people.
I think the majority of people are the same, we believe that nobody should be discriminated against based on anything that's out of their control. I don't care if you're the exact opposite of me, a gay black woman, your worth is 100% based on your character. However, every time I see people talking about systemic/institutional racism it appears as if all their examples are more about wealth than it is about race.
I'm 100% open to hearing anything that can prove that these people are being treated unfairly based solely on race, but so far I haven't heard it. People mention police brutality, but that isn't exclusive to any one race. Poverty isn't exclusive. Violence isn't exclusive. Lack of education isn't exclusive. And so on. I need someone to point out a specific racist target so we can focus on changing it... that's the only way any progress can be made. I think the NFL drama going on right now is accomplishing nothing. Their cause is merely "stopping racial injustice". OK, good, I absolutely agree that there should never be unjust things happening to anyone because of the color of their skin. So that's now the focus, stopping injustice that targets a specific race... but we have to be more specific otherwise nothing can be done.
Do you see what I'm saying here? I want to be on your side, I want to agree with you, I want us to find a target for every single good person in this country to focus on fixing... but we need to find it first and I don't think we have. I think blaming vague things like "systemic racism" actually hurts the cause, which is awful. If people just accept that that's what's happening then it does more harm than good because we're wasting time and energy on ghost hunting a broad concept instead of a specific problem. Did it exist in the past? Absolutely 100% without a doubt yes. Segregation is a perfect example of institutional racism that is 100% based on race and not on wealth or anything else. But that doesn't exist today because people were able to recognize it as a specific clear target and fix it.
And please remember if you respond... I'm not against you, I'm not arguing with you, I'm not disagreeing with what you ultimately want... I'm only saying I think the crosshair is in the wrong place.
