The comment lists several ideas, but doesn't really what the problems are. It just presumes that the problems are self-evident.
> "systemic white supremacy” and “cisheteropatriarchy”
For example, the idea that there is systemic white supremacy in the U.S. is hard to challenge - the evidence is overwhelming - nor is the proposition that many white people are unaware of it (the 'privilege').
Cisheteropatriarchy means, based just on reading the word here, merely the obvious fact that politics is dominated by heterosexuals whose gender identities are 'near' the stereotypes (i.e., they are not transexual, etc.). It's hard to name anyone in power who doesn't fit that description.
I'd love it if we could talk about the ideas, and had some curiosity about them, rather than just dismissing it all as a "cult".
> safe spaces
That doesn't sound objectionable on its face, and in a society with a lot of racism and sexism, it might be a good idea. I've talked to black people who say they very often feel vulnerable - they never know what someone might do, and if something happens the black person often will get the blame (and be fired, arrested, kicked out of the restaurant, etc.). The Weinstein Company could have used some safe spaces. What harm is it doing?
Sorry, I don’t believe in this new religion. This idea that white supremacy is “systemic” is not at all self evident, and pretending that it is portends that individual white people have some kind of original sin, forever, for past racial transgressions. I do not buy this, and it’s dangerous to teach people this. It’s dangerous because immediately people attribute personal failures and successes, at least in part if not in whole, to external immutable factors. It denies individual agency.
As for safe spaces, intentionally insulating people from “triggering” things seems like the exact opposite thing to do if you’re trying to build a society of resilient, dynamic individuals. I’m sorry your friends have experienced racism in real life. That’s awful. However, I fail to see how safe spaces have anything to do with either diagnosing or treating the problem. How would a safe space have stopped Weinstein, exactly? I have no idea.
The argument for systemic racism isn't anything like some sort of "original sin" for white people. Black people were legally second-class citizens, denied access to the education and employment of white citizens. The consequences of segregation did not evaporate with the civil rights movement. It will take several generations to escape that shadow.
That is the 'systemic' part of systemic racism. The opportunities that I was provided were in part based on the opportunities that my parents were provided.
Yes, people will blame 'systemic racism' for their personal failures; people will blame God, or the weather, because people will blame anything for their failures. I don't think that is an argument to ignore reality.
As for the "triggering" thing, I somewhat agree. On the one hand, you are going to math class to learn math, not to have flashbacks to past trauma; on the other hand, it seems absurd to slap an "ingredients" label on social interactions so people who are allergic to certain topics can steer clear. I think this is an area where society is still refining its tools, and the current 'safe spaces' wont be the way we collectively settle on dealing with these issues.
>It will take several generations to escape that shadow.
How many? Because this ideology most certainly doesn’t put an expiration date on white privilege and “systemic” white supremacy. There’s no way anyone would agree on a date, and even if they did it would be necessarily arbitrary so as to be rendered meaningless.
>The opportunities that I was provided were in part based on the opportunities that my parents were provided.
And the lesson to be gleaned from this is to work hard so you can provide a good life for you and yours, not make people feel bad (which is what inevitably happens) for their prior generations’ successes.
>Yes, people will blame 'systemic racism' for their personal failures; people will blame God, or the weather, because people will blame anything for their failures. I don't think that is an argument to ignore reality.
It’s not a reason to ignore reality, and it’s also certainly not a reason to invent new ones. The last thing we need children thinking today, with all the external stimuli they get from social media, is that they did or didn’t achieve something because of their privilege or lack there of.
Calling it an ideology is an easy way out and baseless. There is plenty of fact and research to support it.
> How many [generations]?
I don't see the point of predicting it. It's happening now. Ignoring the problem or denying it won't fix it.
> the lesson to be gleaned from this is to work hard so you can provide a good life for you and yours
The opportunity to do that is what people are after. Many minorities don't have that opportunity. The government provides poor schools, they are discriminated against by the justice system, the job market, and throughout society.
> invent new [realities]
Widespread discrimination against minorities is in no way new and does not need to be invented; again the facts and research are overwhelming.
> The last thing we need children thinking today, with all the external stimuli they get from social media, is that they did or didn’t achieve something because of their privilege or lack there of.
The last thing we need is for that to be true. We should work to create the society you envision, rather than just insisting it exists.
Not really a factual argument. To call these ideas or support for them "new" is to overlook decades and centuries of history. Civil rights and postmodernism are older than probably most people reading HN.
> For example, the idea that there is systemic white supremacy in the U.S. is hard to challenge
What is there to challenge? What is the claim, even?
> politics is dominated by heterosexuals
For years we fought against discrimination based on sexual orientation because it wasn't relevant. Were we wrong? Is sexual orientation an important aspect of a person's identity that should factor into our decisions?
> safe spaces. What harm is it doing?
You might as well ask what harm racial segregation does, since that is often the proposal, although they would never use the word segregation. But it is often suggested that we should set aside public space where people who claim membership in certain ethnic groups can be temporarily free from "Whiteness", under the assumption that they are persecuted.
Or, what harm does it do when people equate criticism with violence, and try to be "safe" from it?
I'll assume that you are asking serious questions and want a serious conversation. No offense is intended, but I'm not interested in the sort of trolling conversation that often happens. It would be great to have an intelligent discussion about it!
The fundamental answer is the issue is not discrimination, but power; discrimination is just one bad outcome of the problem of political power. Minorities naturally lack political power (being outnumbered) and therefore are politically vulnerable and subject to abuse, including discrimination. There is a long history of terrible abuse happening that I don't have to recount, but a conceptually perfect example is some U.S. state legislatures where the majority votes to restrict voting by minority citizens. Protecting minorities so they have the same liberty and opportunity as everyone else is the objective.
It's philosophically and rhetorically interesting to call it all "discrimination" and debate the differences, but about theory of language - what meanings does a word have and to what extent does the using the same word mean that the things we describe are the same; the map is not the territory and that's still talking about the wrong word. The issue and the word, in practical reality, is power.
>> politics is dominated by heterosexuals
> For years we fought against discrimination based on sexual orientation because it wasn't relevant. Were we wrong? Is sexual orientation an important aspect of a person's identity that should factor into our decisions?
Again, it's a power issue. People who don't have a seat at the table of power generally don't have their concerns addressed; that's a fundamental reason why democracy is important - it's the only way to address everyone's issues. They aren't addressed because hateful people can abuse the minority, who have no recourse without power; because others don't care about the minority; and because even good-willed people don't really understand what the minority needs or has experienced. I learned the same in IT - the system will be designed to meet the needs of the people at the table; if you exclude department X, their needs will be mostly ignored.
Heterosexuals have plenty of seats at that table (almost all of them!); their needs and experiences will be addressed. The idea is to give others a voice too. One example that comes to mind is the AIDS crisis in the 1980s, where governments for years ignored an epidemic killing masses of people, but those were people without a seat at the table. Another is stop-and-frisk practices in some US cities, where African-Americans in poor neighborhoods are humiliated by law enforcement; if it happened to someone with access to power - if a banker on Wall Street was made to drop his pants for a search, the program would end before he or she zipped them back up.
The same issue, the power issue, applies to the other points in the parent, so I'll stop here to avoid redundancy.
> what harm does it do when people equate criticism with violence, and try to be "safe" from it?
I don't see this happening too much. Could you cite some examples? I usually see it applied to hate speech and other actual discrimination. If it is happening more broadly, what do its practitioners say? I don't know enough to understand it.
> "systemic white supremacy” and “cisheteropatriarchy”
For example, the idea that there is systemic white supremacy in the U.S. is hard to challenge - the evidence is overwhelming - nor is the proposition that many white people are unaware of it (the 'privilege').
Cisheteropatriarchy means, based just on reading the word here, merely the obvious fact that politics is dominated by heterosexuals whose gender identities are 'near' the stereotypes (i.e., they are not transexual, etc.). It's hard to name anyone in power who doesn't fit that description.
I'd love it if we could talk about the ideas, and had some curiosity about them, rather than just dismissing it all as a "cult".
> safe spaces
That doesn't sound objectionable on its face, and in a society with a lot of racism and sexism, it might be a good idea. I've talked to black people who say they very often feel vulnerable - they never know what someone might do, and if something happens the black person often will get the blame (and be fired, arrested, kicked out of the restaurant, etc.). The Weinstein Company could have used some safe spaces. What harm is it doing?