Welcome to the ‘White Identity Retreat’: The Rise in Student Segregation – The Daily Beast
“A 2004 study that examined “ethnic enclaves” within college universities, surveying incoming freshmen at the University of California, Los Angeles the week before classes began and those same students each spring for the next four years, found that “membership in ethnically oriented student organizations actually increased the perception that ethnic groups are locked into zero-sum competition with one another and the feeling of victimization by virtue of one’s ethnicity.”
Source: Welcome to the ‘White Identity Retreat’: The Rise in Student Segregation – The Daily Beast
Fascinating stuff. Sometimes I get the impression we’ve got a whole generation of people who don’t quite understand The Enlightenment – or why rights were framed as they were in the revolutionary period. The great thinkers of that time knew that creating distinctions or assigning rights to specific groups based on those distinctions would land society back in a system of aristocracy and segregation. The second you have a system that highlights distinctions, the next step is to hierarchize those distinctions. Because some animals are more equal than others. Or in more modern terms:
I read a (well meaning) blog post a while back on the term Latinx. As if the term Latin as a human identifier wasn’t absurd enough already. “A native or inhabitant of a country whose language developed from Latin.” What sort of measure is that? It doesn’t describe (legal) nationality, or even culture because cultures vary widely from, let’s say, Romania to Angola to France to Guatemala. So Latinx is apparently the genderless version of that pointless term. Obviously created with the best of intentions- but wholly misguided.
By embracing (and creating even more) pointless, unnecessary distinctions we end up creating more pointless and unnecessary divisions. People can’t have it both ways, which seems to be what they want. In essence the mindset is “I want to be singled out for a difference in my identity, but I want that done only in a positive way.” The problem is humans ascribe value to practically everything. It’s part of our DNA. It’s how we’ve come this far. The more we put a spotlight on the differences the more opportunities we create for hierarchization.
What we must aim for is the opposite. It’s breaking down the pointless distinctions. To the dismay of the nationalists everywhere and Britain’s new prime minister, yes, we are citizens of the world. Here I am, a French citizen who was educated in English, lived most of my adult life in Spain and is writing a blog post that will be read by people in Brazil, Australia, the UK, Canada and the US, just to name a few. And just the fact that you’re reading this makes you a citizen of the world as well. My nationality is nothing more than a legal status. It doesn’t represent my temperament, my skin colour, or the food I prefer. The origin of the language I speak even less so.
My Mazamet 
We are (still) tribal… and for just as long as we’re trapped on this rock, it will remain so. Sadly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely- the thing is, how many more tribes do we need to create?
LikeLike
Market optimisation means we’ll eventually have just a handful, perhaps even two. Makes the killing far, far easier.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As proud Austrian-German-Canadian hybrid I resent that. :p
LikeLiked by 1 person
How fluent are you in German? 😀
LikeLike
Sadly my German is pretty crap even though my mum spoke mostly German all my life. I was born here and am as Canadian as a beaver covered in maple syrup. 😛
LikeLiked by 2 people
Read by a Canadian!
The new cultural appropriation makes even more distinctions. I’m with you on this. We are all just people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Especially the entirely pointless distinctions. Were you born on green, blue or white sheets? 😀
LikeLike
Red and white baby! My first word was ‘eh’.
LikeLike
Black Americans have gotten everything they’ve ever dreamed of with regard to civil rights.
America even elected itself a black American president nearly 8 years ago who promised to do away with racial prejudice.
And under his leadership more black Americans are being gunned down in the streets than ever before, by their own black brethren, no less.
And now black Americans are taking themselves back to the future of racial segregation.
97% of black Americans have voted Democrat Party left for decades and continue to do so because those leaders promised solutions to the ravages of racism.
And now, based on the comments to this post, the international left is standing there with their pants down around their ankles totally convicted that this sordid situation just happened all by itself.
LikeLike
So your theory is Blacks *have it all*, and at the same time they’re being gunned down on the streets? How do you reconcile the two things?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mr. Merveilleux,
You need to get out more.
LikeLike
wow, no surprise that SOM doesn’t limit himself to making false claims about religion. That these claims are utterly unsupported and largely incoherent is a bonus. So, what is your point, SOM, that people of color in the US have “gotten everything they ever dreamed of” or that they haven’t e.g. “the ravages of racism”?
You’ve contradicted yourself quite nicely as Mr. M has pointed out and rather than explain yourself, you try to insult.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One can’t usually go wrong quoting The Hitch: “Beware of identity politics. I’ll re-phrase that: have nothing to do with identity politics.”
Of course, I’ve been trying to argue against the anti-enlightenment values of identity politics what seems like forever on the basis that one cannot reduce divisive ways of thinking about the world by relying on them, but the Hitch says it much better, of course:
“People who think with their epidermis or their genitalia or their clan are the problem to begin with. One does not banish this specter by invoking it.”
And yet this is exactly what the Snowflake Movement is trying to do: to get even intelligent people saying the most alarmingly and appallingly stupid things not on the basis of thoughtful merit but on uneasy feelings of inheriting some undeserved privilege and then acting on the associated feelings of guilt motivated by good intentions to correct it. This accomplishes the opposite.
Sort of like the bombing-the-village-to-save it kind of po-mo mentality so popular among the Regressive Left these days… create race-based policies and retreats and members-only clubs… to fight discrimination and promote diversity they are convinced.
Yeah, good luck with that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Snowflake movement 😀 I’d never heard that before, I LOVE it!
Do you think it’s derived from a shame society mentality or a guilt society mentality?
LikeLike
i only use the term ‘society’ as a convenience to describe an overall population so I don’t attribute any additional meaning to the term because it inevitably leads people into believing that society is a ‘thing’ itself rather than a conglomeration of its constituent parts. The error of thinking society is a meaningful term beyond this conglomeration of individuals becomes compounded when people start acting as if ‘society’ were a separate agency, an agency with power and influence (as in “Society tells me/makes me/ forces me to ____.” This way of thinking shifts the burden of responsibility for decisions and actions away from the individual who owns them outward as if belonging to some nebulous controlling agency. This is a real problem.) I mention this because of how I approach your question.
There are systemic problems based on the discriminatory results from institutionalized identity thinking. The way to address/redress these problems is to change the system by making changes to the institutions wherever we encounter these results. And the way to do that is to move away from identity thinking and reaffirm the principles of enlightenment values. One will never succeed correcting the imbalances if one first incorporates the same thinking that caused them in the first place and actively supports actions based on it.
So, to answer your question means we first have to see the disconnect between systemic problems and the intentions of individuals who staff these institutions, who are empowered to act as agents of those institutions. For example, holding the individual Obama – as the agent of the institution of government holding the office of President of it – responsible for historical racial imbalances derived from US slavery is shockingly stupid because his identity crosses the artificial boundary set up by those who advocate for identity politics. Holding the individuals of a certain subset of the population – whites and blacks – to account for an historical imbalance – whether by shame or guilt – is equally counterproductive because it promotes the same thinking that caused the systemic imbalance. Solutions do not lie in this direction. More problems do.
What’s needed for these kinds of systemic corrections is a reaffirmation of the enlightenment principle of shared rights and freedoms, meaning no system can use privilege for the benefit of one subset if there is a cost to another that creates an imbalance. That practice is correctable by enacting enlightenment principles in law and by enforcement. The enlightenment principle of individual autonomy in law must be supreme and so actions by individuals have to be legally held to those individuals who commit them and not their progeny, not their neighbourhoods,not their tax brackets, not their skin colours, not their genders, and so on.
When equality of treatment by agents of some institution of the system is demonstrated to be different, demonstrated to be contrary to shared rights and freedoms and autonomy, then we know we are dealing with a systemic problem that requires institutional systemic correction that aligns with the principle of shared rights and freedoms and autonomy. And we know that addressing these these differences are doomed as soon as advocates for change, for correction, use the language of identity as the basis for the correction. We know we’re using the wrong language, using the wrong ontology, using the wrong approach.
Guilt and shame are the requisite tools for emotional manipulation and we recognize this by the language used to promote them. Manipulation is never a good basis for institutional correction yielding positive change back to the principle; rather, compelling principled reasons enacted by policy changes to these institutions will win out every time when all individuals of every subsets of the population are treated on the same shared basis.
It is this move away from principled enlightenment values – by both the Regressive Left AND the far right wing(nuts) – that is a move directly towards the kind of values clash that produces only some version of fascism. That’s the problem the Snowflake Movement is oblivious to. And it endangers all of us… including those who think their feelings matter more than respecting the rights and freedoms of others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again you’ve written a post in regards to something I’ve written and missed the point.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I didn’t miss the point 🙂 I’m pointing out that there’s no way of adequately framing what you’d like. At least I still haven’t seen any instance where it was done.
You see, you can’t say I don’t want to be treated differently because of X, and then go on to say you want X to be acknowledged.
(The acknowledgement of X implicates differential treatment because of X, good or bad.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s not like I’m making this stuff up, these are things that are already in place. You took a distinction between two terms and turned it into a completely different situation. And what you also aren’t acknowledging is that ethnicity (by definition) is self-defined so you don’t get to tell other people how they can or can’t call themselves. I also don’t see why being gender inclusive is “pointless”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Absolutely! I’m not blaming you for creating the term 😀
I just want to show how certain policies can be self-defeating. Take the anti-trans feminists as an example. On the one hand they say they don’t want their gender to count against them in any circumstance; but then they’re opposed to trans-women using female bathrooms because of their birth-gender. See what I mean?
LikeLike
Now I see what you mean. I still don’t agree with your argument and it’s still not up to you anyway
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not saying it is up to me. Just pointing out how that technique is self defeating. Instead of breaking down racial constructs it foments the phenomena.
LikeLike
I disagree. Self identification and pride in heritage and culture don’t create barriers. Not being able to accept other people’s cultures and how they identify does
LikeLiked by 2 people
Artificial distinctions create barriers. Like, for example,”Latin”. It’s not a heritage or a culture. A Mexican and an Argentinean are not the same thing.
LikeLike
No one said that they were
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s the implication of using a term like *Latin* or LatinX.
LikeLike
It’s not at all, but if you say so
LikeLiked by 1 person
Except it is because the term attempts to put all people whose languages originate from latin in the same boat. All latin.
LikeLike
We’ve already had this conversation and acknowledged that fact that it actually doesn’t include all languages that originated from Latin which was a part of the reason that it was confusing
LikeLike
Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_peoples
LikeLike
I’m not saying that the word itself doesn’t include all romance languages. I was saying that the term Latino did not include them because it was only in reference to countries in Latin America. I’ve agreed that is problematic but that’s how people use it
LikeLike
Student segregation…well, now we have academics segregation:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/07/lse-brexit-non-uk-experts-foreign-academics
No doubt you’ll have seen this already. And wept.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hadn’t. How utterly depressing.
LikeLike
I can’t… even… ahrgh. As a someone who has contributed in the past to UK policy-drafting processes, this one riles me to the very core 😦
LikeLike
Well said, Pinky. This is why I call myself a humanist rather than a feminist. With individuals you can like them or hate them…for who they are, not what they represent. Smoosh everyone into neat boxes and it becomes very easy to hate ‘the box’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You said it best when you talked about The Substitutions 😉
LikeLike
Do you think it’s possible to write a post without referencing Rae? Without referring to her, tagging her, singling her out? Because you can do all of that, seriously, without feeling the need to single her out. Your constant need to bring her into everything is insane. You do realise this post could have easily been written without the tag? Without the reference to Rae’s blog at all? Why do you feel the need to personally attack her? And before you say you’re not, you are. You’re writing a piece about how her blog is wrong, and you’re linking it to her. For god knows how many times. It is possible to disagree with someone and not constantly feel the need to let them know.
LikeLike
1. This is the second time, ever, that I link to a Bookmark Chronicles post.
2. Disagreement isn’t a “personal attack”. Debate isn’t a “personal attack”. The way humanity makes progress is precisely by having debates, by studying different points of view, by looking at different angles. Challenging ideas makes everyone think. Whereas sitting in a circle where everyone nods and agrees all the time makes for no progress at all. It creates an echo chamber where people simply have their pre-existing ideas and prejudices confirmed and reconfirmed.
3. Your comment is interesting because it proves what I’ve been saying about *safe spaces* activism. Safe actually means that people want to be exempt from criticism. You’re asking me to refrain from disagreement. It’s an absurd notion. If you disagree with my friend please don’t say it out loud because she can’t handle it?
LikeLike
It becomes personal when you link her in. It’s not fair for anyone to wake up and feel bombarded and have no understanding as to why.
I have no problem with you writing your piece. I doubt Rae does either. You can have a difference of opinion, no one gives a shit. But do you have to link it to her? She doesn’t follow you deliberately. But when you link her in, and make it a big thing, you are attacking her.
I have no problems with people disagreeing with me. I know Rae has no problems with you disagreeing with her either – she likes to be challenged.
It’s an entirely different thing when you keep trying to bring her into something. If you’d written this article, and never linked her in, she’d never have known. I’d never have known.
Rae can handle whatever you throw at her. It’s not about whether you disagree with her or not – it’s about asking you to stop bringing her into these things. You know how she feels. I saw your discussion when she wrote that post. We know how you feel.
How about you try to write your next post without tagging someone who doesn’t want to be involved?
LikeLike
You obviously do have a problem with disagreement. A link is just a link. I’m not “bringing her in” to something. I’m illustrating an idea with things that are said in a public context. In this case said by Rae.
When a person publicly expresses an opinion, they open themselves to equally public dissent. That’s the nature of a free society. I don’t need either your permission nor hers to criticize an idea. What you’re asking for is, pardon the term, childish. You’re saying I can disagree but I can’t let her know I disagree. I have to disagree in silence or behind her back. But yes, she can handle disagreement? Seriously?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, it’s not childish. And she’s not the one – as far as I know – making the request.
Tell me: what is gained by bringing her in? I can see what is gained by discussing the post, but what is gained by making sure she knows you wrote the post? I’m not talking about her stumbling across it; I’m talking about you linking it to her so she knows about it, whether she wants to or not. What does that gain you?
I’ve written about other people’s blogs and ideas before. I also give them the courtesy on anonymity if they want it (others don’t, and make it a thing).
But I’ve also been on the other end. Where I’ve been a target because someone doesn’t understand something, made assumptions, or just plain decided they wanted to attack me. For the most part, it’s nothing. Every now and then it comes as a bit of a shock, but usually it’s someone writing something pathetic that literally doesn’t matter.
So I ask you again: what do you gain by linking the blog to her?
LikeLike
Darling, debate is what is gained! That’s the whole point of discussing ideas publicly. It’s how we exchange experiences and try to find the best possible way forward. A running monologue where people are only speaking to others they agree with is a pointless endeavour.
What you’re doing is making ideas about the personal ego. That’s the last thing they should be. We should be able to examine, embrace and dismiss ideas based on their merit and not the identity of the people proposing them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have to interject here, we talked about the safe space thing already. Which was something that you criticized without even knowing what it was and I proved to you that your misguided assumptions about it were wrong. And I think we all know that I can “handle” what you have to say quite well. To be honest, your opinions, jokes, and reactions don’t mean much to me. You almost only ever comment when you disagree, want to take something that I find important and make a joke of it, or question if im capable of advocating despite the fact that I already do – not that you would know that anyway. What I’ve learned about you so far, Mr. Pink is that you are the type of person that disagrees with everything that you don’t understand or haven’t experienced for yourself. At least that’s how it seems from all of our conversations and if that observation is incorrect, I am still waiting for you to prove otherwise
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, Carla proved I was right about the “safe space” theory… Here she is pleading for you not to be disagreed with. It’s an ideology where people can’t be challenged and you simply misled me on it.
And yes, obviously I’ll comment to question something. I don’t feel the need to comment if I have nothing to add to a discussion or if a proposition makes perfect sense. To pat people on the back? Give out trophies for participation?
Your issue (and Carla’s) is hypersensitivity. Any differing opinion is met with automatic aggression. You take dissent personally. As if someone questioning what you say is a personal attack. It’s childish.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s not how safe spaces work and I didn’t ask her to defend me. But no you don’t need to tag me in your post because I don’t care.
I didn’t mislead you on anything, I told you the truth. Your vision of a safe space is nothing like the one that I had. And I admitted to you that some people probably do use them for that reason but that wasn’t how ours worked.
No one asked for a pat on the back. I simply made a statement. For someone who complains so much about others not being able to handle disagreement you certainly seem to have an issue with it yourself.
I was aggressive? In this entire conversation, when did I get aggressive toward you?
I said nothing about a personal attack. I was defending my argument, not myself so where is any of that coming from? You on the other hand made this a personal attack by calling me childish because of a conversation that I wasn’t in
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your description of a safe space isn’t the only one. There are articles about them in the NYT, in the Guardian, all over the media- and you expect people to set those aside and believe your version is the only one? Here’s an amusing one about Brown:
“became entangled in controversy last fall after a student-group organized a debate about campus sexual assault between radical feminist Jessica Valenti and libertarian feminist Wendy McElroy, who has written about the politicization of the term “rape culture.” Some students were offended that McElroy was being given a platform. In response, they set up a “safe space” for people who might find comments “triggering” — a nurturing place to recuperate with cookies, calming music, play doh and pillows, as well as trained trauma counselors.”
You weren’t aggressive in this conversation. Your responses however are always on the defensive. So technically passive aggressive rather than outwardly aggressive.
LikeLike
Mr. Pink, I have said that people may not use safe spaces the same way that we did. I’ve acknowledged that they may not be used in the correct manner.
How am I being passive aggressive? Because I’m defending my argument? What about you? You’re the one that’s called me childish (for no reason) and said I was too sensitive (for no reason). So if I’m being passive aggressive, what does that make you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
That means safe spaces aren’t just one thing, right? That in turn undermines your promotion of safe spaces, right?
LikeLike
No. Ir means that people misunderstand the purpose. It’s like the example you used the other day with so called feminists who exclude trans men and women. Same concept
LikeLiked by 1 person
Which is why it’s a more complex issue than you made it seem. When I questioned you on the issue you dismissed it as if that simply wasn’t the case.
LikeLike
I never said that it wasn’t complex and I never dismissed anything that you said. I explained MY experiences. I said multiple times that the purpose could be misconstrued and explained how it SHOULD be
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you think your experience is reflective of the majority or minority position?
LikeLike
I don’t know. But I believe that my experience is the one that should be had and I am hopeful that most universities that have safe spaces use them for the right reasons. The ones that we hear about, do. I don’t know if that’s majority or not
LikeLiked by 1 person
Carla, all you seem to be wanting is that no one has to take responsibility for what they say. That responsibility is what is gained. Opinions can be pointed out for their benefits and failings, and those opinions belong to someone. fussing that no one should be held accountable is nonsense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They’re part of the “safe-space” crowd. There was an interesting article on the phenomena last month:
http://newbostonpost.com/2016/09/12/brown-confronts-safe-space-criticisms-schedules-free-speech-forum/
LikeLike
that’s interesting article. I think that there is some difference where someone wants to address an idea but isn’t willing to be responsible for it (like someone anonymous twit spraypainting epithets where everyone passes) and where someone is indeed being willing to be responsible for their words. I have no problem in pointing out someone has certain ideas and that I find those ideas good or bad. I also have no problem in my posts being linked to if someone finds them objectionable or wonderful. Indeed, I much prefer and demand that someone be willing to link to exactly what I’ve said so there is no question.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honestly I find the idea of asking to “be be linked to” somewhat ridiculous. The only explanation to that is someone doesn’t want to be criticized- and if that’s the case, then they shouldn’t write in an open forum. They should have a private/closed blog or be part of an email group.
LikeLike
I never said no one should be held accountable, and I would never say such a thing because it’s ridiculous. But I also think that constantly bringing someone into something – who’s taken steps to deliberately avoid someone – is annoying. The post could have been written without notifying Rae at all, and still had the same effect.
I dislike the fact that it’s happened so many times in so many ways. Not that he disagrees, but that Rae always seems to be the subject in some way.
I’ve never suggested that “no one takes responsibility”. I’ve suggested that Rae be left out of it directly. Indirectly? Go for it. But if someone is trying to avoid you, on purpose, why continue to insert yourself into their life?
LikeLike
That’s an outright lie. What so many times?
I’ve linked to a Bookmark Chronicles post once before. Once before. Once. And if people don’t want their ideas scrutinized they can’t make those ideas public.
LikeLike
I wasn’t talking about links. I was talking about how many times you’ve had debates with Rae – on both the Coalition and her page – and, as a result, she doesn’t want anything to do with you. You can think that’s fair or unfair, and whatever you feel, that’s fine. Just like the way she feels is fine.
But the fact of the matter is that you keep inserting your life into someone who doesn’t want anything to do with you.
And sure, her posts are public. But so are yours. And just like you can think I’m childish or stupid, I can think the same of you.
I’m all for debate. I’m all for discussion. But I’m finding it hard to understand why you keep going to so much effort to someone who wants nothing with you, who actively goes out of their way to avoid you, when it’s not necessary.
LikeLike
Everything you say boils down to, yet again, exempting someone from criticism. Do you not see how absurd that is?
Consider all the people you’ve criticized on your blog. Now if I tell you you should delete all that because they want nothing to do with you, what would you say? Let’s assume Brock Turner wants nothing to do with you. Should you then delete your posts on him?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not talking about exempting someone from criticism. I’m talking about someone who is actively trying to avoid you. I’m not saying don’t write about Rae. I’m asking if it’s possible for you to not link it to her. There’s a big difference. The answer is clearly, and obviously, no.
I never asked you to delete anything. I didn’t even ask you to delete the link. I wouldn’t. I simply asked if you could stop bringing Rae into the conversation. If you don’t want to, fine. I’ve explained why. You’ve explained why you disagree. I’m not forcing you to do anything, nor have I asked you to delete your post.
So … your question should be about links I’ve made to other bloggers, not about subjects within the media.
LikeLike
I only see what she writes when it’s on Coalition. That’s the only reason I know her. And I’ve often disagreed with what she has to say. And as I normally do, I comment on things I disagree with. There’s nothing unusual or malicious about it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You did post on her blog, the Latinx post, a while back. I saw your comments (I just wrote about them, and how I thought it’d been resolved nicely). I understand that completely. I like to write about those types of things, too. And if it seemed like I was ‘demanding’ you stopped, that wasn’t my intention. I guess I just read too much into your comments on Rae’s previous post, and I thought things were all okay. Which was good, because I like some of your posts, and I like some of Rae’s, and I think points can be taken from both. (Point in case … I think you wrote about what Trump said today? Great post/link.)
If it helps, feel free to write about me. I don’t care. Everyone usually does. But … if you piss me off, I will bite back. Which you’ve seen me escalate rather quickly 😉 (That’s meant to be a joke. I’m sorry if it’s a poor one. Just trying to lighten the mood.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
But that’s the thing: Everything is okay! I insist that disagreement is good. More than good. It’s excellent. It’s how we learn about 1001 different things. It’s also okay that some people like us more or less. It’s all good. Some people love pineapple, others hate it. It’s okay.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Personally, I love pineapple. A lot.
Secondly … I think I’m sometimes too defensive of my friends. Both a fault and a virtue, I feel. I’m sorry if I misworded my post, and made you feel a way you shouldn’t have. I don’t think I was clear, because you were clearly not the only one who misunderstood my intent, and that’s my fault. Not yours.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But you have demanded that no links be made to exactly who said what. Is this correct? Which seems to indicate that the writer should not be held accountable for exactly what they said.
You insist that no one be “brought” in for what they have said. Why not if they are indeed willing to be responsible for what they have written? The blogosphere is a public area with public debate. If that isn’t wanted, if someone doesn’t want others to see what they have written, then the blog can be private. The blog could have been written but it is honorable to link directly back to exactly what was written, if that writing is being criticized so no claims of being dishonest and misrepresentation can be made.
From my experience, all that happens when someone links to my posts is that I get a notification. That’s it. If I’m curious, I’ll look. If I know who it is, and that they are someone I don’t like, then I ignore it. Not hard at all. Now, if something else happens, and if it does, please do indicate what, you may have a point. As it stands right now, you don’t.
LikeLike
On more than one occasion, Rae and Pink have had altercations, on many different platforms. I have, too, but not on the same level. For a large part, I enjoy a lot of Pink’s insights. For me, I’m tired of seeing Pink and Rae have a ‘thing’. It doesn’t matter how she explains something, he doesn’t understand – which isn’t a dig. It could be that he literally doesn’t understand, because of her experiences, different countries, cultures, etc. Not a dig, but I can’t understand everything Pink’s experienced, either. It could be that their view points are so different that they just clash. It could be bad communication – which has been a problem before. I’ve seen where Rae’s stated the same thing over and over again, and it’s taken a while for Pink to understand the point. To be honest, this post surprised me, because I thought he understood her post about gender identity when it was written. That was the impression I got, and I was like, ‘Oh, wow, this is fantastic. This is great dialogue.’
Now … it just feels like I’m watching it all over again. Rae hasn’t asked for any of this; I’m saying something on my own accord.
And no, I haven’t demanded anything. I asked if it was a possibility. Not quite the same.
But if he wants to write a hundred posts and link it to Rae, there’s not an awful lot she can do about it.
I’ve been harassed by someone before (and no, Pink, not aimed at you) and there wasn’t an awful lot I could do before he decided to stop (I just ignored him). But he created like five different profiles because he was so obsessed. So, with the exception of going private like you said, she will get the notification. And I think she’s genuinely curious why she was linked – I would be. But what Pink decides has nothing to do with me, and if that’s the way I wrote it, I’m sorry. It’s not my blog and it’s not my place. That wasn’t my intent. It was meant to be more exasperation because I thought this situation has resolved.
LikeLike
Carla, if you are “tired” of seeing people have a thing, then don’t read their blogs. What is so hard about that? Or are you looking for a reason to complain to get attention? How were you harassed, Carla? If it was anything more than just getting a notification, then you may have a point, if not, then yuo don’t. Do you consider getting a post that says your blog was linked to harassment? It’s rather like hearing a theist insist that people questioning their claims is persecution. It denigrates what persecution and harassment are. I also call nonsense on your excuses now.
Again, the blogosphere is public. Anyone can comment on anyone else’s post if they are public. And claiming someone doesn’t understand when they do and go to the effort of pointing the problems with the position taken, is rather silly. I
LikeLike
Uhhh, no. I like Rae’s posts, and I like Pink’s. I guess I can avoid Pink’s posts in the future, but I’d prefer not to.
Why would a complaint get me attention? How the fuck would that work?
Uhhh, no. He created a blog, a Facebook page, a Twitter, and then multiple different portals to harass me through. It wasn’t a “link”. It was more like extreme abuse, where he threatened rape, among other charming things. Did you miss the part where I said he created five different things just to harass me? What the fuck is wrong with you? Yes, so many normal people create five different profiles just to harass someone. That’s totally normal behaviour. I can see that.
No, someone can misunderstand. They can see problems that they feel are real – and perhaps they are – but that doesn’t mean they don’t understand the point. And I didn’t see it was the case; I said I’d seen a multitude of different situations between Pink and Rae.
But you know what? Just fuck you. No, I don’t consider a notification to a link harassment. And I’ve never said such a damn thing. Stop fucking twisting words to suit your own agenda. What the fuck is wrong with you? Who reads “someone created five different profiles to harass me” and acts like it was just a notification? Or do you create random fake profiles to track down women and threaten to rape them? Perhaps, like you, I should make assumptions.
Yes, you’re exactly that type of guy. You MUST be the type of guy who creates fake profiles, to threaten women, because of reasons! Attention! Something!
It’s a bitch when people make false assumptions and don’t read what you wrote properly, isn’t it?
LikeLike
well, here you are getting attention, so this is how it works. You have indicated that there is some benefit from to not linking to someone’s post that one disagrees with. It’s been demonstrated that your position is flawed.
nice language and entirely wrong assumptions and accusations and misrepresentation of what I actually said. Nope, I am not the “must” you so desperately need.
LikeLike
Oh, yes, I’m the only one who’s made assumptions here. Let’s play that card. And I’m allowed to swear as much as I want. Isn’t that what you’re advocating for? We say what want? Well, if I want to swear, I fucking can. And I fucking will.
Ohhhh, I realise now. My problem is that I want attention! I thought my problem was about empathy and compassion. But I guess it’s attention!
Please give me more!!! Please keep talking to me! If you don’t, I’ll freak out! I just need it so badly!
Maybe swear or something. Or threaten me. It’ll make me feel so much better about needing attention. Maybe you could also talk about my looks? It wouldn’t be enough if you didn’t mention that.
LikeLike
well, that was quite a display.
LikeLike
That was nothing. I can do better.
The question is: If you think I’m after attention, why are you giving it? The smart thing to do, if you truly believe I’m after attention, is to, you know, stop talking to me.
It’s crazy how that works with attention-seekers. Either that, or you just wanted to get a rise, and don’t believe I commented for attention.
LikeLike
I am pointing out your nonsense and your hypocrisy; that effort is always worth it. For someone who is has claimed she is very concerned about people’s feelings, it seems that your actions speak louder than your words.
LikeLike
Also, don’t make assumptions about what I can and can’t handle. I am talking to you about why you disagree, am I not? We have had conversations like this before, haven’t we? Haven’t I specifically told you before that I don’t mind that you disagree, but I am asking questions because I am trying to understand? I have. And to be honest, your first post that you linked me in was incredibly rude and written all because I didn’t put one word in my post and you blew the situation out of proportion. But the reason we came to an understanding is because I commented on your post and explained the situation. If that to you means not being able to “handle disagreement” then yeah,you’re correct
LikeLiked by 1 person
What do you think motivated Carla to have her tantrum asking that I not mention or link to you? Is it all her own doing or did it result from a discussion with you?
LikeLike
So you really think that I told her to come and start and argument with you? Seriously? Perhaps she was motivated because she’s my friend and a damn good one at that. Do I think that you need to tag me, no. I’ve explained that in my previous comment.
You know what, go ahead and write posts about me, make jokes out of things that I find important and tag me in all of it. Whatever you have against me is completely unwarranted and I’m tired of having the same conversation over and over and getting no where. And if you’re going to say that you have nothing against me, I’ll believe it when you start acting like it
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s you (again) taking criticism of your ideas personally. People who see the world differently disagree. You can see that in most of the comments here. There are atheists, religious people, some in the middle. That’s how the real world works.
If you want to write for the public, having that speech criticized is part of the process. Especially by people who are part of a different ideological camp.
LikeLike
How am I taking it personally. Let me make it very clear that nothing you say means that much to me. I don’t care if you disagree with me. I’ve welcomed it. I’ve had discussion and debate with you and never taken any of it personally. I mean really. Are you even reading my comments? What did you expect me to do, not defend my argument? If you didn’t want me to defend my argument then you shouldn’t have tagged me. So again, that’s on you, not me. Does it seem like you have something against me yes. Because that is how you’re acting, Or do I need to remind you (again) that you started calling me names in a conversation that I was nor even a part of?
You should really try taking your own advice
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did I start this argument? Scroll up and you’ll note your friend Carla transformed what was meant to be a discussion about the snowflake movement into a discussion about not linking to your blog- or not criticizing you, or at least only criticizing you behind your back.
And then you jumped in to further make it all about you 🙂 Which is totally understandable as that seems to be part of this safe space ideology.
LikeLike
I didn’t say that you started it. I jumped in because you were talking about me. You called me childish and said I couldn’t handle criticism. I jumped in to defend myself. Apparently to you that means I was passive aggressive. I actually hate being the center of attention. But you probably didn’t know that right? Because you know nothing about me but keep insisting that you do and making false accusations. If you have such an issue with me defending myself then don’t call me names and I won’t have to
LikeLiked by 1 person
Instead of Latinx, I’ve seen Latin@ more often, the @ sign being both an a and an o simultaneously. I agree with your evaluation of the current paradox, where we each have to be seen as equal and unique at the same time (both separate and equal?). I think this is related to what you said about growing up in the ’80s; we must have everything. The same acquisitiveness that runs our capitalist economy skews our ideology in a weird direction.
LikeLike