It's International Workers Day

DouglasDanger · May 2012

Captain Marcus wrote: »

Hunter wrote: »

If you see someone wearing that shirt, counter with this:

SCOREBOARD!

Sherman actually didn't do that much damage, according to things I have read lately. It was Confederate policy to destroy their own supplies as they retreated in an attempt to stall the Union.

Langly · May 2012

At my first CARW meeting, I shared a story from when I lived in the Central District. Driving the narrow streets, I'd notice that young black men would sometimes walk in the middle of the street and refuse to move for cars. They'd downright lope, slow like the South, where African American families coming to work at Boeing in the 1950s hailed from when they moved to this neighborhood—the only area of the city where they were allowed to live until the middle 1960s. To me, this loping was a form of historical communication, intentional or not: This is our street.

But the reason this communication was happening was the opposite: Clearly, this was no longer their street, as the neighborhood steadily homogenized, growing whiter as well as wealthier by the year. I would drive slowly behind them, as in a funeral dirge. We were getting nowhere. But I noticed that often, white drivers would honk at the men to move aside. It seemed to me the reason they honked was that they were irritated at having an experience that people of color know well: that you're not just entitled to live anywhere you please, that there might be consequences. Honking was an attempt to reassert privilege.

I was feeling this article until this passage. Jesus Christ.

Buttlord · May 2012

HeadCreeps wrote: »

Saw a customer at work wearing this and I was like :?

ironically it's because i took history classes that i feel confident in calling anyone who wears that shirt a shitbag

Solar · May 2012

Yeah if that shirt doesn't offend you

then you should take some lessons in history

Aneurhythmia · May 2012

Langly wrote: »

At my first CARW meeting, I shared a story from when I lived in the Central District. Driving the narrow streets, I'd notice that young black men would sometimes walk in the middle of the street and refuse to move for cars. They'd downright lope, slow like the South, where African American families coming to work at Boeing in the 1950s hailed from when they moved to this neighborhood—the only area of the city where they were allowed to live until the middle 1960s. To me, this loping was a form of historical communication, intentional or not: This is our street.

But the reason this communication was happening was the opposite: Clearly, this was no longer their street, as the neighborhood steadily homogenized, growing whiter as well as wealthier by the year. I would drive slowly behind them, as in a funeral dirge. We were getting nowhere. But I noticed that often, white drivers would honk at the men to move aside. It seemed to me the reason they honked was that they were irritated at having an experience that people of color know well: that you're not just entitled to live anywhere you please, that there might be consequences. Honking was an attempt to reassert privilege.

I was feeling this article until this passage. Jesus Christ.

It being an awkward illustration is kind of the point. It comes right after the author talks about how difficult conveying privilege in conversations can be. The context of privilege isn't the individual motivation of either the driver or the pedestrian. It's the societal trends that temper and are tempered by these specific incidents. Neither party considers their own historical impetus or reflects on that of the other party, but each has a sense of what actions, what agency, and what conception of normalcy are appropriate in a neighborhood or passageway that each considers their own. And assuming each actor remains agnostic of the other's agency, privilege will often dictate the ultimate right of way. Hell, privilege often determines who actually owns a car.

Langly · May 2012

Aneurhythmia wrote: »

Langly wrote: »

At my first CARW meeting, I shared a story from when I lived in the Central District. Driving the narrow streets, I'd notice that young black men would sometimes walk in the middle of the street and refuse to move for cars. They'd downright lope, slow like the South, where African American families coming to work at Boeing in the 1950s hailed from when they moved to this neighborhood—the only area of the city where they were allowed to live until the middle 1960s. To me, this loping was a form of historical communication, intentional or not: This is our street.

But the reason this communication was happening was the opposite: Clearly, this was no longer their street, as the neighborhood steadily homogenized, growing whiter as well as wealthier by the year. I would drive slowly behind them, as in a funeral dirge. We were getting nowhere. But I noticed that often, white drivers would honk at the men to move aside. It seemed to me the reason they honked was that they were irritated at having an experience that people of color know well: that you're not just entitled to live anywhere you please, that there might be consequences. Honking was an attempt to reassert privilege.

I was feeling this article until this passage. Jesus Christ.

It being an awkward illustration is kind of the point. It comes right after the author talks about how difficult conveying privilege in conversations can be. The context of privilege isn't the individual motivation of either the driver or the pedestrian. It's the societal trends that temper and are tempered by these specific incidents. Neither party considers their own historical impetus or reflects on that of the other party, but each has a sense of what actions, what agency, and what conception of normalcy are appropriate in a neighborhood or passageway that each considers their own. And assuming each actor remains agnostic of the other's agency, privilege will often dictate the ultimate right of way. Hell, privilege often determines who actually owns a car.

My problem with the example is that it seems to be making up and assigning hidden intent where there obviously is none. Any sane person would honk at someone walking slowly down the middle of a street. It's illegal, it's unsafe. There isn't any privilage present in this scenario. I realize the thrust of the essay is how awkward it can be to discuss the subject, but that doesn't mean the examples need to be forced or made up. The drivers here are not acting in or benefitting from privilage. She highlights that they are white drivers, but that's misleading, because any driver would do that.

I guess I don't see the point in using an example where she injects a perspective, when she had just rattled off a list of statistics that showed the real ramifications of privilege. Detractors of the argument are just going to zero in on this passage and say she's just making things up or is trying to say that everything white people do is an act of oppression/racism/privilege. There are really easy, solid examples to show the pervasiveness of racial privilege. You don't need to make it up.

Hunter · May 2012

Well Langly, you see, white drivers honk like this, and black drivers honk like that.

Abracadaniel · May 2012

sarukun · May 2012

Langly wrote: »

Aneurhythmia wrote: »

Langly wrote: »

At my first CARW meeting, I shared a story from when I lived in the Central District. Driving the narrow streets, I'd notice that young black men would sometimes walk in the middle of the street and refuse to move for cars. They'd downright lope, slow like the South, where African American families coming to work at Boeing in the 1950s hailed from when they moved to this neighborhood—the only area of the city where they were allowed to live until the middle 1960s. To me, this loping was a form of historical communication, intentional or not: This is our street.

But the reason this communication was happening was the opposite: Clearly, this was no longer their street, as the neighborhood steadily homogenized, growing whiter as well as wealthier by the year. I would drive slowly behind them, as in a funeral dirge. We were getting nowhere. But I noticed that often, white drivers would honk at the men to move aside. It seemed to me the reason they honked was that they were irritated at having an experience that people of color know well: that you're not just entitled to live anywhere you please, that there might be consequences. Honking was an attempt to reassert privilege.

I was feeling this article until this passage. Jesus Christ.

It being an awkward illustration is kind of the point. It comes right after the author talks about how difficult conveying privilege in conversations can be. The context of privilege isn't the individual motivation of either the driver or the pedestrian. It's the societal trends that temper and are tempered by these specific incidents. Neither party considers their own historical impetus or reflects on that of the other party, but each has a sense of what actions, what agency, and what conception of normalcy are appropriate in a neighborhood or passageway that each considers their own. And assuming each actor remains agnostic of the other's agency, privilege will often dictate the ultimate right of way. Hell, privilege often determines who actually owns a car.

My problem with the example is that it seems to be making up and assigning hidden intent where there obviously is none. Any sane person would honk at someone walking slowly down the middle of a street. It's illegal, it's unsafe. There isn't any privilage present in this scenario. I realize the thrust of the essay is how awkward it can be to discuss the subject, but that doesn't mean the examples need to be forced or made up. The drivers here are not acting in or benefitting from privilage. She highlights that they are white drivers, but that's misleading, because any driver would do that.

I guess I don't see the point in using an example where she injects a perspective, when she had just rattled off a list of statistics that showed the real ramifications of privilege. Detractors of the argument are just going to zero in on this passage and say she's just making things up or is trying to say that everything white people do is an act of oppression/racism/privilege. There are really easy, solid examples to show the pervasiveness of racial privilege. You don't need to make it up.

Or in very simple terms, "Hey guy in the middle of the street, fucking move."

Skin color ain't izzactly come into play when there is a man standing in front of your car and you are driving to a place.

LTM · May 2012

But you see, white privilege is what allows the honky honker to honk.

Aneurhythmia · May 2012

Dang ol' double postin' forums.

Aneurhythmia · May 2012

Langly wrote: »

Aneurhythmia wrote: »

Langly wrote: »

At my first CARW meeting, I shared a story from when I lived in the Central District. Driving the narrow streets, I'd notice that young black men would sometimes walk in the middle of the street and refuse to move for cars. They'd downright lope, slow like the South, where African American families coming to work at Boeing in the 1950s hailed from when they moved to this neighborhood—the only area of the city where they were allowed to live until the middle 1960s. To me, this loping was a form of historical communication, intentional or not: This is our street.

But the reason this communication was happening was the opposite: Clearly, this was no longer their street, as the neighborhood steadily homogenized, growing whiter as well as wealthier by the year. I would drive slowly behind them, as in a funeral dirge. We were getting nowhere. But I noticed that often, white drivers would honk at the men to move aside. It seemed to me the reason they honked was that they were irritated at having an experience that people of color know well: that you're not just entitled to live anywhere you please, that there might be consequences. Honking was an attempt to reassert privilege.

I was feeling this article until this passage. Jesus Christ.

It being an awkward illustration is kind of the point. It comes right after the author talks about how difficult conveying privilege in conversations can be. The context of privilege isn't the individual motivation of either the driver or the pedestrian. It's the societal trends that temper and are tempered by these specific incidents. Neither party considers their own historical impetus or reflects on that of the other party, but each has a sense of what actions, what agency, and what conception of normalcy are appropriate in a neighborhood or passageway that each considers their own. And assuming each actor remains agnostic of the other's agency, privilege will often dictate the ultimate right of way. Hell, privilege often determines who actually owns a car.

My problem with the example is that it seems to be making up and assigning hidden intent where there obviously is none. Any sane person would honk at someone walking slowly down the middle of a street. It's illegal, it's unsafe. There isn't any privilage present in this scenario. I realize the thrust of the essay is how awkward it can be to discuss the subject, but that doesn't mean the examples need to be forced or made up. The drivers here are not acting in or benefitting from privilage. She highlights that they are white drivers, but that's misleading, because any driver would do that.

I guess I don't see the point in using an example where she injects a perspective, when she had just rattled off a list of statistics that showed the real ramifications of privilege. Detractors of the argument are just going to zero in on this passage and say she's just making things up or is trying to say that everything white people do is an act of oppression/racism/privilege. There are really easy, solid examples to show the pervasiveness of racial privilege. You don't need to make it up.

I don't think it's assigning intent at all; the author offers the qualifier "intentional or not" to the behavior. That seems straightforward to me. And yes, there are obviously more pervasive examples of how privilege works, but as I already said, I think this is pointedly an example about how we discuss privilege. The article is about how privilege intersects perception, not about how privilege manifests as overt mechanisms of discrimination. The emphasis on the driver being white isn't that a white driver honks and a black one doesn't, it's that prior to gentrification the neighborhood ostensibly didn't see as much vehicle traffic that doesn't respect the common pedestrian use of the roadway. I say ostensibly, because it may be a hard thing to objectively determine, but I also think it's weird to assume an example of the perception of privilege in gentrification is made up.

sarukun · May 2012

Aneurhythmia wrote: »

Langly wrote: »

Aneurhythmia wrote: »

Langly wrote: »

At my first CARW meeting, I shared a story from when I lived in the Central District. Driving the narrow streets, I'd notice that young black men would sometimes walk in the middle of the street and refuse to move for cars. They'd downright lope, slow like the South, where African American families coming to work at Boeing in the 1950s hailed from when they moved to this neighborhood—the only area of the city where they were allowed to live until the middle 1960s. To me, this loping was a form of historical communication, intentional or not: This is our street.

But the reason this communication was happening was the opposite: Clearly, this was no longer their street, as the neighborhood steadily homogenized, growing whiter as well as wealthier by the year. I would drive slowly behind them, as in a funeral dirge. We were getting nowhere. But I noticed that often, white drivers would honk at the men to move aside. It seemed to me the reason they honked was that they were irritated at having an experience that people of color know well: that you're not just entitled to live anywhere you please, that there might be consequences. Honking was an attempt to reassert privilege.

I was feeling this article until this passage. Jesus Christ.

It being an awkward illustration is kind of the point. It comes right after the author talks about how difficult conveying privilege in conversations can be. The context of privilege isn't the individual motivation of either the driver or the pedestrian. It's the societal trends that temper and are tempered by these specific incidents. Neither party considers their own historical impetus or reflects on that of the other party, but each has a sense of what actions, what agency, and what conception of normalcy are appropriate in a neighborhood or passageway that each considers their own. And assuming each actor remains agnostic of the other's agency, privilege will often dictate the ultimate right of way. Hell, privilege often determines who actually owns a car.

My problem with the example is that it seems to be making up and assigning hidden intent where there obviously is none. Any sane person would honk at someone walking slowly down the middle of a street. It's illegal, it's unsafe. There isn't any privilage present in this scenario. I realize the thrust of the essay is how awkward it can be to discuss the subject, but that doesn't mean the examples need to be forced or made up. The drivers here are not acting in or benefitting from privilage. She highlights that they are white drivers, but that's misleading, because any driver would do that.

I guess I don't see the point in using an example where she injects a perspective, when she had just rattled off a list of statistics that showed the real ramifications of privilege. Detractors of the argument are just going to zero in on this passage and say she's just making things up or is trying to say that everything white people do is an act of oppression/racism/privilege. There are really easy, solid examples to show the pervasiveness of racial privilege. You don't need to make it up.

I don't think it's assigning intent at all; the author offers the qualifier "intentional or not" to the behavior. That seems straightforward to me. And yes, there are obviously more pervasive examples of how privilege works, but as I already said, I think this is pointedly an example about how we discuss privilege. The article is about how privilege intersects perception, not about how privilege manifests as overt mechanisms of discrimination. The emphasis on the driver being white isn't that a white driver honks and a black one doesn't, it's that prior to gentrification the neighborhood ostensibly didn't see as much vehicle traffic that doesn't respect the common pedestrian use of the roadway. I say ostensibly, because it may be a hard thing to objectively determine, but I also think it's weird to assume the perception of privilege in gentrification is made up.

It's not that the perception of privilege in gentrification is a made up thing, it's that relating it to a person honking at some blockhead in the middle of the dang street is preposterous.
A dude lingering on front of your car for no reason is not common pedestrian use of the roadway, and honking at him doesn't deal with the question of privilege in any way. There's "Man, get out the way of my car so I can drive" and not much else. Flip the color or circumstances of either person involved, and the result is the same: guy in the middle of the street gets honked at.

Aneurhythmia · May 2012

Well, hanging out in the street is pretty common in poor neighborhoods in Atlanta and New Orleans. I can't speak to anywhere else, though.

sarukun · May 2012

Aneurhythmia wrote: »

Well, hanging out in the street is pretty common in poor neighborhoods in Atlanta and New Orleans. I can't speak to anywhere else, though.

Where it occurs in So Cal people generally move out of the way of on coming traffic.

Not like, in a big hurry, but then I don't imagine people just immediately start honking as soon as they see kids in the street. If that's the case then yeah, I can start to see the beginnings of an argument, but my perception from the article was that people are intentionally loitering and making forward progress for traffic difficult.

Ubik · May 2012

car!

game on!

Maximum · May 2012

When I was a little kid my Mom came up with a game for us to play with my hot wheels and army men.

It was called "kill the pedestrian" I''d get a point for every one I ran over and she'd randomly assign a few of the army men as "mothers with baby carriages", I'd get bonus points for hitting those.

Ubik · May 2012

and your mother went on to invent Carmageddon

LTM · May 2012

Ubik wrote: »

car!

game on!

That's an inherently privileged viewpoint, as white children are more or less the ones who have the leisure time to play in the street.

Aneurhythmia · May 2012

sarukun wrote: »

Aneurhythmia wrote: »

Well, hanging out in the street is pretty common in poor neighborhoods in Atlanta and New Orleans. I can't speak to anywhere else, though.

Where it occurs in So Cal people generally move out of the way of on coming traffic.

Not like, in a big hurry, but then I don't imagine people just immediately start honking as soon as they see kids in the street. If that's the case then yeah, I can start to see the beginnings of an argument, but my perception from the article was that people are intentionally loitering and making forward progress for traffic difficult.

There are neighborhoods where this happens, yes. Cars do not have roadway primacy everywhere.

Gumpy · May 2012

Cars have become too reliant on their automotive privilege

Antimatter · May 2012

goddamned autobot elite ruling the road

won't let the poor working class tanks or jets drive the highway

IT IS TIME TO TRANSFORM AND RISE UP, DECEPTICONS

Solar · May 2012

why would jets drive

surely they would fly

Buttlord · May 2012

decepticons are fascists

Antimatter · May 2012

Buttlord wrote: »

decepticons are fascists

decepticons are freedom fighters! abused by the senate to stay where they are, unable to leave the oppressive caste system.

Solar · May 2012

I am still waiting for a reason as to why jets would drive down the road, anti

do not evade this inquiry

sarukun · May 2012

Ubik wrote: »

car!

game on!

Exactly

Antimatter · May 2012

Solar wrote: »

I am still waiting for a reason as to why jets would drive down the road, anti

do not evade this inquiry

because they have wheels and the ability to do so

would you force them to remain in the air because that's what they were built for, and deprive them of the ability to choose

BIGOT

Maximum · May 2012

I'm just imagining some poor downtrodden Go Bots meandering across the streets of their ghetto while the Transformers honk their horns vigourously at them.

Solar · May 2012

Antimatter wrote: »

Solar wrote: »

I am still waiting for a reason as to why jets would drive down the road, anti

do not evade this inquiry

because they have wheels and the ability to do so

would you force them to remain in the air because that's what they were built for, and deprive them of the ability to choose

BIGOT

Well I mean

they drive using their jet engines

and it kind of sets everything behind them on fire

look all I am saying is that they have the whole sky to fly around in and yet they are still on the tarmac, burning the paint off everyone else

Who is the real monster here

sarukun · May 2012

Aneurhythmia wrote: »

sarukun wrote: »

Aneurhythmia wrote: »

Well, hanging out in the street is pretty common in poor neighborhoods in Atlanta and New Orleans. I can't speak to anywhere else, though.

Where it occurs in So Cal people generally move out of the way of on coming traffic.

Not like, in a big hurry, but then I don't imagine people just immediately start honking as soon as they see kids in the street. If that's the case then yeah, I can start to see the beginnings of an argument, but my perception from the article was that people are intentionally loitering and making forward progress for traffic difficult.

There are neighborhoods where this happens, yes. Cars do not have roadway primacy everywhere.

Technically, cars never have roadway primacy.

That doesn't mean I don't expect to get honked at if I linger in front of one for no good reason, or even sometimes if I have a good one! Dude passed out from too much drinkin' in the middle of a small town in central Japan and I was trying to help him up and get him out of the road! Still got honked at!

Antimatter · May 2012

Maximum wrote: »

I'm just imagining some poor downtrodden Go Bots meandering across the streets of their ghetto while the Transformers honk their horns vigourously at them.

this pretty much happens

go-bots die in transformers stuff a lot as easter eggs because wouldn't it be funny if they did

Antimatter · May 2012

Solar wrote: »

Antimatter wrote: »

Solar wrote: »

I am still waiting for a reason as to why jets would drive down the road, anti

do not evade this inquiry

because they have wheels and the ability to do so

would you force them to remain in the air because that's what they were built for, and deprive them of the ability to choose

BIGOT

Well I mean

they drive using their jet engines

and it kind of sets everything behind them on fire

look all I am saying is that they have the whole sky to fly around in and yet they are still on the tarmac, burning the paint off everyone else

Who is the real monster here

still you

Solar · May 2012

it's true

I am the monster

now get those Decepticons to work in the acid mines

I want to see them work until they melt!

Buttlord · May 2012

maybe if decepticons werne't such dickheads they wouldn't be locked into the worker caste doing shit where htey could die

i mean

they're fucking dicks

autobot pride

Aneurhythmia · May 2012

sarukun wrote: »

Aneurhythmia wrote: »

sarukun wrote: »

Aneurhythmia wrote: »

Well, hanging out in the street is pretty common in poor neighborhoods in Atlanta and New Orleans. I can't speak to anywhere else, though.

Where it occurs in So Cal people generally move out of the way of on coming traffic.

Not like, in a big hurry, but then I don't imagine people just immediately start honking as soon as they see kids in the street. If that's the case then yeah, I can start to see the beginnings of an argument, but my perception from the article was that people are intentionally loitering and making forward progress for traffic difficult.

There are neighborhoods where this happens, yes. Cars do not have roadway primacy everywhere.

Technically, cars never have roadway primacy.

That doesn't mean I don't expect to get honked at if I linger in front of one for no good reason, or even sometimes if I have a good one! Dude passed out from too much drinkin' in the middle of a small town in central Japan and I was trying to help him up and get him out of the road! Still got honked at!

Yes. Your experiences inform your perceptions. That is a very baselines premise of any discussion on privilege.

Antimatter · May 2012

Buttlord wrote: »

maybe if decepticons werne't such dickheads they wouldn't be locked into the worker caste doing shit where htey could die

i mean

they're fucking dicks

autobot pride

learn your history, revisionist scum
http://tfwiki.net/wiki/IDW_timeline#1.2C000.2C000.2B_years_ago

Megatron, a lowly miner who believes in changing the corrupt Senate with non-violent actions, is left embittered after being subjected to police brutality. Police officer Orion Pax is moved by his treatise and confronts the Senate, but is ignored. At the same time, some Senators make a grab for more power by ordering an attack on Nominus Prime, using it as an excuse to obtain the Matrix of Leadership and initiate the Clampdown.
The Autobots evolve into a corrupt galactic police force and spark a riot when shutting down an energon-mining operation. One of the miners, Megatron, escapes in a shuttle and joins the illegal gladiatorial games in the city of Kaon. Megatron takes over the games and is approached by Soundwave, an emissary of Senator Ratbat to cause terror throughout Cybertron. Megatron unites his gladiators under a common banner — the Decepticons, but they are captured by Sentinel Prime's forces. Starscream and Soundwave's forces massacre the Senate, and release the Decepticons from prison. Megatron badly beats/kills Sentinel Prime, and the Decepticons occupy Kaon. The Autobots withdraw to Iacon.

Buttlord · May 2012

Antimatter wrote: »

Buttlord wrote: »

maybe if decepticons werne't such dickheads they wouldn't be locked into the worker caste doing shit where htey could die

i mean

they're fucking dicks

autobot pride

learn your history, revisionist scum
http://tfwiki.net/wiki/IDW_timeline#1.2C000.2C000.2B_years_ago

Megatron, a lowly miner who believes in changing the corrupt Senate with non-violent actions, is left embittered after being subjected to police brutality. Police officer Orion Pax is moved by his treatise and confronts the Senate, but is ignored. At the same time, some Senators make a grab for more power by ordering an attack on Nominus Prime, using it as an excuse to obtain the Matrix of Leadership and initiate the Clampdown.
The Autobots evolve into a corrupt galactic police force and spark a riot when shutting down an energon-mining operation. One of the miners, Megatron, escapes in a shuttle and joins the illegal gladiatorial games in the city of Kaon. Megatron takes over the games and is approached by Soundwave, an emissary of Senator Ratbat to cause terror throughout Cybertron. Megatron unites his gladiators under a common banner — the Decepticons, but they are captured by Sentinel Prime's forces. Starscream and Soundwave's forces massacre the Senate, and release the Decepticons from prison. Megatron badly beats/kills Sentinel Prime, and the Decepticons occupy Kaon. The Autobots withdraw to Iacon.

i would contend that the IDW timeline is the revisionist history designed to paint the heroic autobots as tyrannical despots

Antimatter · May 2012

are you seriously arguing in favor of the history as detailed by the Primax 984.17 Alpha source

how naive

Grey Ghost · May 2012

Antimatter wrote: »

are you seriously arguing in favor of the history as detailed by the Primax 984.17 Alpha source

how naive

this post gave me a nosebleed

Penny Arcade

It's International Workers Day

Posts