An experience I had

[The SSB Intern]

I heard there's black lesbians in this thread.


Did... did I miss them?

[Magic_Marker]

Originally Posted by The SSB Intern

I heard there's black lesbians in this thread.


Did... did I miss them?

I...

Wah?

Did Token and Premmy get a sex change and start dating?

Is that what the PC thing was about?

[shiney]

That said, the vast majority of the insane knuckle-dragging opposition that this current GOP panders to is indeed old and white, largely male, and if not protestant at least christian. The GOP stands probably to make short-term gains for another election cycle, maybe two, and then they're completely fucked if they keep this current trend. Fat, old, white, racist, sexist christians are in decline and even the most furious breeding program is failing to keep their children from the truth as the internet becomes more prevalent. They are attempting to institute nuances of fascism to control the flow of information, education, as evidenced by a lot of their recent proposals, but again it won't work. I tihnk they realize they are on a precipice of a huge downslide and doing everything in their importent, raging power to slow the fall.

It isn't going to work but it's going to be really, really painful in the interim.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by shiney

The GOP stands probably to make short-term gains for another election cycle, maybe two, and then they're completely fucked if they keep this current trend.

The problem is really that I don't think this nation will survive another session or two of Republican dominance. I'm reasonably certain (if I were to guess) that Obama wins 2012 (but has less Dems in the House / Senate) but a fresh-faced Republican wins 2016, and I do think it's possible that we'd see outright Republican House and Senate majorities around that timeframe.

If that's the case, I'd say we'll be in for a rough time between approximately 2016 and 2022. Assuming Obama's lame duck by late 2014 or so, maybe it'd start then.

After we get past, say, 2025, I think the nation's demographics will have sufficiently shifted to ensure that the Republicans would become absolutely outdated. The question is whether by that timeframe the Democrats will have much of a nation left to save. I have a feeling that conservatives in the Baby Boomer generation will ride one last wave of backwater phobias in that 2016-2020 timeframe, and if so we could be in for a rough ride.

[Premmy]

Originally Posted by Magic_Marker

I...

Wah?

Did Token and Premmy get a sex change and start dating?

Is that what the PC thing was about?

yes.

Originally Posted by rpgdemon

Does anyone else find the term WASP incredibly racist? Look at it objectively. Like, 3/4th of the definition for it is saying "White dude", and the other part is saying "Protestant". To say, "Dude, all white protestants are X" is -incredibly- short sighted and silly, and just as dumb as saying something about "All those black kids in the ghetto who are all doing crimes".

Well, It's alot better than just "black" or "asian" where you don't even get an ethnic or national identity and a Religious background as indicators.
It's less a broad sweeping term and more a very specific term as indicated by having two other modifiers.

Originally Posted by rpgdemon

No, what I mean is, why's it matter? Like, if they were black gay women, would you go, "What do 1800s black gay women know about anything?" There's no reason that you'd mention it as a factor in their decision making abilities, if you didn't think that it was a factor in their decision making abilities. Regardless, I was mainly against the term in general as opposed to the specific case, because WASP is just used to label a sweepingly broad group as being a certain way, based on skin color and culture, which is the same as any other racist language. The only difference is that it's white protestants that it's labeling, which is okay, apparently?

Edit: I mean, if you can think of a good reason for the term that -isn't- just to sweepingly label people, I'm open to hearing it. But it seems like you'd want to rail against it the same way that you'd rail against people saying, "The ghetto rap music", and such.

People can only act from their own experiences(well the can only act/speak from their own experiences accurately and honestly anyways.) When said group is not only NOT everyone, which should be obvious, but also from the majority in power they can only have second-hand information concerning what is important/relevant/needed for/to everyone else.

A White guy who is a Protestant Christian of Anglo-Saxon descent doesn't know what it's like to be a Lesbian of African descent. You put five of said white guys in a room and they STILL won't know unless a Lesbian of African Descent was involved on some level. If forced to take other groups into consideration when acting, they will pull things out of their asses.

Now, you could go out of your way to keep black lesbians as uninvolved as possible in things and just have White Protestant Christian Males of Anglo-saxxon descent who happen to be experts in African-American Lesbianology be your reference dude but why in the ever-loving fuck would you do that when you could just be sure to involve more than just white dudes all the time in everything?

People have unique experiences and when what one group experiences is so skewed the way it has historically been this has to be taken into consideration when doing things like forming a country/business/group f almost any kind.

[Aerozord]

I have a question for the OP though.

Did your experience show you GOP are well, insane. Or just that those running and representing them have absolutely no idea what they are talking about?

[Bob The Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

I have a question for the OP though.

Did your experience show you GOP are well, insane. Or just that those running and representing them have absolutely no idea what they are talking about?

The thing is, they are perfectly sane, in that they are reacting appropriately to the information being given to them. However, that information is for the most part bullshit. So yeah, moreso the latter.

As for my stepdad, I am so sure he would die for me or my mother given the chance, but bless his heart he is the most god damned racist person I've ever met. He's also susceptible to conspiracy theories and loses his temper way too quickly.

My work in transforming them has been slow and arduous, but I've already changed them from YECs to evolutionists. But, their political views are pretty much set in stone.

[Premmy]

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

I've already changed them from YECs to evolutionists. But, their political views are pretty much set in stone.

I'm interested in hearing about this, man.

[shiney]

Bob, just keep after them with facts. Facts facts facts. Research the next issue you want to tackle, come up with mountains of empirical evidence, and destroy their counterarguments one by one (respectfully as they are family). The truth is on your side...the current GOP only, only still have power because they have done nothing but bald-faced lie int he past several elections. Were it not for the lies & propaganda in 2010 they wouldn't have retaken shit.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Premmy

yes.


Well, It's alot better than just "black" or "asian" where you don't even get an ethnic or national identity and a Religious background as indicators.
It's less a broad sweeping term and more a very specific term as indicated by having two other modifiers.

Yeah, but as a Caucasian who is a Christian Protestant, I can tell you we aren't all Republican nutjobs. :P
(My predominantly Italian / Irish descent might eliminate "Anglo-Saxon" from the picture, though.)

I'd say the difference is certainly the fact that "WASPs", as beneficiaries of institutional privilege, lack many of the legitimate hardships faced by minority groups that members of those groups face solely due to their minority status. So I'd say stereotyping white Anglo-Saxon protestants is less offensive than stereotyping a minority group because there's no historical or cultural repression lacing the insult. Calling all whites "ignorant" or "rednecks" kind of loses its sting when those categorized still by and large have an institutional and socio-political framework in place that facilitates their success and ensures their acceptance.

That being said, suggesting that stereotyping a privileged group is less offensive than stereotyping a repressed group isn't the same as suggesting that it's not offensive at all. Stereotyping of all forms and kinds is objectively "bad," and while you can and should parcel it out in terms of variants and degrees, in the end an "enlightened liberal" only hurts his cause if, in the process of arguing against stereotyping gays or blacks, he or she stereotypes whites or Christians. That same person still is right to claim that his or her ethnic or religious stereotypes are "less offensive," but they still can offend, and thus they still detract from his or her argument.

(/my opinion)