HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Waiting For Everyman » Journal

Waiting For Everyman

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: Mon Jun 23, 2008, 12:17 PM
Number of posts: 7,858

About Me

My namesake... http://youtu.be/GgXzWhexJh0 ... If I were asked to recommend only one political / history book it would be this one... http://www.amazon.com/Treason-America-Anton-Chaitkin/dp/0943235006 ... Treason in America: from Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman, by Anton Chaitkin. I do NOT endorse all of the views by Chaitkin external to this book, nor all of his actions, nor all of his associations, but I DO highly recommend this book. It is one every US citizen and everyone interested in its history should read. It it well written, meticulously sourced, and it is eye-opening -- even for those who consider themselves already knowledgeable. If you have not read it before, you need to read it, it is need-to-know information, and what it has to say is not going to be found in many places, if anywhere, else. That is my tip for whoever is passing by.

Journal Archives

The problem with flipping discrimination around into white privilege

(or any other sort of privilege, the point is the same), is that it goes from an actual action (discrimination) to a passive state of being (privilege), which in fact is condemning or blaming people for acts they didn't do but other people of their race did... which is racism again... definition:" n. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. "

That unchangeable fact of being white becomes the focus of the issue instead of actually changing acts of discrimination where it is found to exist. Hence, actual change for the better is sidelined. Instead, people focus on purifying other peoples' attitudes which is a pointless waste of time, and can be dangerous (the example of the religious right for instance).

The bottom line of it is that instead of judging people as individuals, with concepts of privilege we are back to judging people as a race (or gender etc.), which is a step backwards. And that stepping backwards is why many resist it.

The OP asked a question, seemingly to point out that there is no answer, and I answered it, mostly to make the point that there is an answer. It goes to the old saying, if you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question.

I am white, but I am also a woman, so I can understand both sides of the issue of privilege. And I can sum up my viewpoint the most succinctly by saying this: anybody who wants to replace the supposed privilege of one group by setting up a similarly abusive privilege by another group can fuck right off. I am not the tiniest bit interested in that. I am interested in equality as humans and equal treatment under the law for all. Regardless. (Sort of along the lines of this general idea...)

As to societal attitudes, I'm not into telling anybody what they ought to think. I believe that attitudes tend to correct themselves over time when there is equal treatment under the law, as much as they are going to be corrected in a given person that is.

But whatever people here want to do about their political causes is up to them. As of course mine are up to me, and the same for all of us. We prioritize what we feel is the best way to go.
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Sat Jan 11, 2014, 05:33 AM (1 replies)

Good post!

The paradigm of the power structure has shifted since the '70s, but some people who are into "-isms" and "-ists" haven't noticed yet. They'll catch on eventually, some number of years behind the curve, after everyone else has already arrived at a larger and more current consensus.

People who fancy themselves spokespersons for "-isms" and "-ists" develop their hobby horses for the purpose of getting something out of riding them. They don't want to give that up, even if it becomes obsolete, the personal payoff is more important than the issue itself.

This, below, is what political power is...

The age of that song is testament to the fact that we were on the right track that many years ago, but we slipped off of it and have been wrangling each other in the ditch on the sidelines ever since. When people give up their divisions, and unite in addressing what the hub of the problem actually IS, then some progress will be made. Not until then though, any progress at all is the price that our petty attitudes and willful blindness costs us.

(Case in point example: look at any video or photos of the August 28, 1963 march on Washington, and see how many signs and placards there are about "white privilege" or white anything, and see whether blacks and whites are largely interspersed or rigidly separated in the crowd. There is something we should be noticing about that, something we used to know that we have forgotten.)

Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Fri Jan 10, 2014, 02:19 PM (1 replies)

Oh, no.

I liked MFM too, and will miss seeing him here. For you, (((MFM))).

"In the Embers" by Sleeping At Last

We live and we die like fireworks
Our legacies hide in the embers
May our stories catch fire and burn
Bright enough to catch God's eye
We live and we die like fireworks

We pull apart the dark
Compete against the stars with all of our hearts
'Til our temporary brilliance turns to ash
We pull apart the darkness while we can

May we live and die a valorous life
May we write it all down in cursive light
So we pray we were made in the image of a figure-eight
May we live and die like fireworks

We pull apart the dark
Compete against the stars with all of our hearts
'Til our temporary brilliance turns to ash
We pull apart the darkness while we can

Like fireworks we pull apart the dark
Compete against the stars with all of our hearts
'Til our temporary brilliance turns to ash
We pull apart the darkness while we can
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Fri Jan 10, 2014, 10:16 AM (0 replies)

1983 Nissan 280ZX 2+2 Turbo

Mine was a white T-top with red leather and suede interior, limited edition much like the one below except it was longer in the back, having the back seat. I bought it new, and kept it until 2 years ago, putting over 200K miles on it. Loved that car, so much fun to drive. The two-seater was surprisingly practical too -- I moved a set of floor to ceiling bookshelves in it once.

I don't like the new rounded body styles though, I like the ones that look like baby Jags. The 83/84 was the last year for that body style.

My (late) husband used to rebuild/restore Z's, and so he owned/crewchiefed a showroom stock race team for promotion purposes. His car beat Paul Newman at Charles Town in 1983 (as second, Newman was third, and I forget who won). It was a rainy mess, everybody was muddy.

Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Tue Dec 31, 2013, 09:28 AM (1 replies)

Before this thread wears out, I'd like to add a point.

"Tone" is a word used by the vocal feminist minority on DU. They like to frame the problem they're causing here in terms of tone in order to confuse it with "the tone argument", which is the term for a tactic used against women in real life but not applicable here.

Here we have rules and standards that define what kind of language we can use, and not use. Women don't have to talk nicer to anyone here to get promoted, for example, as it would be in the real world, or to voice their opinions. We all can do what anyone can do here regardless of gender, and tone won't do much to determine that, the rules do. Nicer tone might make someone more likable, but that's about it. So this is not a matter of "the tone argument" as it's used in feminist terms.

Tone really isn't the issue, per se, that most of us are complaining about. We are talking about abusive behavior, which is quite different. I don't need to spell out here what that is because all of us complaining about it know of course, and the vocal minority feminists know good and well because each of the many of us with complaints have told them in detail dozens of times. You could read this thread and see lots of examples right here, or any other thread on this subject, and even some other subjects too. They make it clear that they have no intention of stopping. We merely have to take it, they think.

What's ironic is, that in a very small metaphorical way (and I don't mean in any way to diminish rape by referring to it this way, but to illustrate a relevant point to make it understood better), what they are doing has similarities to rape, which they profess to advocate against. The bad behavior we're talking about, although very much different of course, also is forced on us after repeated and insistent objections are raised, and ruthlessly ignored.

So this is not about "nice words". This is about chronic, long term abusive behavior. And it's done in public because we all (who read this board) have to watch, and be party and victim to it.

Is that a problem? I think so. Does it have to happen? Nope. It's a choice, that a small number of people here make, and decide to do. That's all I have to say. Just want to make clear that tone is not what we're talking about. I went along with the thread "as is" because you included the word "approach" in the title which I took to cover it at first. But late it the thread the victimizers started pressing hard on reinforcing the nice/tone understanding of it, and that is NOT what this is.

The vocal minority feminists very much want to conflate our complaints about their abusive tactics with the tone argument, because then they can dismiss those complaints and persuade others to dismiss them too. They know full well that is what they are doing in trying so hard to confuse the issue. It's just another underhanded tactic in the long parade of them that we've seen.

As several posters said in the thread, the point of this effort on their part is to persuade the DU community to give them a "free pass" on their behavior when it's alerted to juries. They think that DU's standards don't apply to them. Most people don't seem to agree with that so far, fortunately, although some are understandably confused into it. The problem may take care of itself to some degree and become moot after the changes to DU's rules kick in, in a few days. I hope so, but it is still worthwhile understanding the psychological play that's being tried in our midst. Our awareness of it is the key thing that will keep it in check.
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Mon Dec 30, 2013, 08:18 AM (4 replies)

Wow, thank you!

Joke is right! That link is very interesting, to say the least.


(An extra thanks, for several cool things I've seen you do lately. I miss a lot, but I catch on to a little bit, now and then.)
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Mon Dec 30, 2013, 03:46 AM (0 replies)

Because we have Community Standards on DU.

People participating here get treated by those standards, and pulling the "tone card" is not a free pass to be abusive to other DUers. Simple.

The tactic of a small group demanding the utmost respect for themselves, yet having no intention of showing any at all to those they disagree with, has gone far enough. It's not me who's saying so, it's lots of people -- especially women who disagree with the small vocal minority of feminists.

It's this kind of attitude that we're tired of:





We are not ok with being subjected to abuse right here ourselves, just because the vocal minority abusing us claims to be against abuse. Not gonna fly. If they gave a rat's butt about women, they wouldn't be abusing women right here. This isn't the outside world, where the tone argument is applicable, this is a message board, where basic behavior is required no matter how many minority issues a person has in real life.
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Sun Dec 29, 2013, 02:25 AM (5 replies)


Just read the thread for the first time, all the way through. This is a classic. Not to mention the offshoots spun off. Awardable art work too.

Have a donut, all.
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Sat Dec 28, 2013, 08:58 AM (0 replies)

"one of the eager female cohorts"?

Went to have a look-see what's going on.

This seems to be it, from a HoF thread called "The Tone Argument is sure being flung around a lot here lately" ... reiterating once again as we saw in Meta their right to be rude. Maybe the hide on the post in reply to you was their idea of a "tone argument" by the jury?

Another thread lists numerous comments that if made by their critics, are a tell that they must be MRA. (Seems to have originated from an exchange with me, above in this thread.) It's a long list, bottom line of it is, any disagreement with their "line" means that you're MRA. As the other thread informs us, if the disagee-er is female, then she is "one of the eager female cohort" as well. So I guess now we know what we're officially allowed to be called... MRA and the EFC. (Nine more of us cohorts and we have a legion, lol.)

Apparently, there is a "let's run back to the secret clubhouse and talk shit about people" party going on. Perhaps this thread didn't go quite as they expected?

I'm thinking after seeing that, some people can only relate in terms of gangs... to disagree with one gang, one must be in the rival gang. Those of us who won't join gangs, are a bewilderment and won't compute on the radar.

(I'm assuming it's ok to post links here because this thread is being discussed there.)
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:35 PM (1 replies)

I think this is why women get disgusting catcalls on the street.

Really??? Do we really think that men are going to look at images of a performance like that (which can be seen on any dance floor anywhere by the way, including on mass media tv), and then walk out on the public streets and look only at women's eyes, respectfully? To assert that we do expect that is dishonest bullshit! Look at the OP images again -- we're quite clearly encouraging men to treat women in a particular way, and it isn't good! And when it's presented as something that is ok to see in public, it's presumed to be ok public behavior. It's simply "monkey see, monkey do". I'm sitting here wondering, do we really not get this? Just how dumb are we today?

If this is the acceptable norm for pop culture entertainment now, as it certainly seems to be from all I can tell (and it must be, because there is no noticeable objection to it from DU's feminists in this thread), then it is preposterous to complain about leering behavior on the streets, as several current threads in GD are heatedly doing. The lack of objection in this thread shows that those leering threads are completely phony "fighting only for the sake of fighting", without any point.

If this isn't encouraging people to see women as "sexual objects", then that term has no definition left at all, and the whole issue has no frame of reference anymore.

Feminists, if this is ok with you, then your complaints about objectification are bullshit, a meaningless joke and a fraud. "Friends of women", if you care about how women are treated, and a pop culture like this is ok with you, the same goes for you.

Yes, I have a problem with those images -- I think they are degrading to all women (of which I am one). I may not be able to do much to change pop culture, but I'll be damned if I'll sit by anymore and say that it's ok with me. No, it sure isn't. I'm sick and tired of seeing it, getting more and more disgusting each year, while everybody says sure it's fine -- just as if they wouldn't say "shit" if they had a mouthful of it. Well figuratively, that's the case alright. And it's about time to say so, and quit feeding the mass pretense.

Miley Cyrus, you're a dangerous, destructive twit (although certainly not the only one, more's the pity). And it's a real shame our society can't find something more worthwhile to reward that much.
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Tue Dec 24, 2013, 12:19 PM (1 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next »