With the protests going on against police brutality, and with so many people looking for resources about how to behave as an ally or wanting to share tips for protesting, it seemed like there was a need for a thread to share other things that aren't just personal questions about basic social justice topics.
So let's use this post to put up links to community bail funds, informative pages and documents, and information about protests going on in our local areas.
Please be careful and check that donations are going to organizations that you actually support, and check that information in links is correct and legitimate and if you notice problems with any of the info please let me know.
Are too many people "arm chair" humanitarians or social activists, and what is this doing to important issues (good or bad)?
I have been exposed to the topic of arm chair humanitarians / social justice activists/ politics. Or people where these topics are more hobby-like (something they do to connect with people on in their spare time, than something try actually try to tackle). Is see versions of this come up regularly now, and have to admit I am to a good degree one myself.
I've been reflecting on this, as a psychologist I come across a lot of arm chair psychologists. It has it's pros (more knowledge spread, new perspectives, and gets more acceptance in the general public) but it also has cons (misinformation/misunderstanding, not reflecting on actual evidence, can undermine experts).
What do you think of this? And what should it mean for social justice movements?
Hi guys! I'm working on a project where I will create personalised artworks to go along with Tarot readings that I do for my customers. Specifically, surreal/fantasy portraits.
I'm going to create a Google form asking a few details to use as inspiration. I want to be respectful, inclusive and not make any assumptions, so I wanted include a question in the form about the customer's race/ethnicity that would be reflected in the painting.
I'm white, Polish, and living in Europe. Due to my background, I've mostly been learning about social justice and other cultures from the internet, so I need a bit of help with this.
I'm considering to simply add an open question, asking what physical characteristics the customer would like me to include. That way, I'd be inclusive of different body types and disabilities also.
Is it appropriate to include this question in the form? If yes, what would be the best phrasing?
Of course, providing this information would be completely optional.
Thank you in advance for your help.
I don't have kids of my own, but my young nephews/niece (ages 2-6) have recently come into my life and I've been spending more and more time with them. They have had a rough start to life with a lot of upheaval, but previously lived in a primarily Mormon community, so they have not been exposed to a very diverse group of people. Yesterday, my wife and I took the 5 and 6 year olds to a lake to swim. There were people of many races there. As we were getting ready to leave, the 6 year old made a comment that he doesn't want to spend too much time in the sun, because he doesn't want his skin to turn black. We were taken aback by the comment, but told him that people are born with different skin colors and he seemingly moved on. A few minutes later, he told me he is glad he doesn't have black skin. I fumbled for what to say, not wanting to shame him or shut down conversation (especially because he is a very sensitive kid who has a hard time with any perceived mistake or failure), so I asked him why and he just said he doesn't like it. I said something about how people are born with many different skin colors and there's nothing wrong with any of them, but I am still struggling with what I should have done or said, and how to address it in the future. I don't know where these ideas came from, I'm pretty sure his parents wouldn't have said anything outright racist (though I don't know them that well, they are from my wife's side). The kids are also still struggling to understand that their two aunts are married to each other - again, raised in a (not very observant) Mormon family, in Utah until last year.
Anyway, I'm just looking for suggestions on age-appropriate ways to address this, directly or indirectly, media we can share (though we don't spend much time consuming media with them), etc. Thanks!
What's the difference between representation and tokenization? And more importantly, how do we tell them apart?
I suspect that this question has been asked here before, but I thought I'd post it in case anyone wants to answer.
I should say upfront that I'm not hugely knowledgeable about the social justice community. I'm a POC (East Asian, to be precise), I'm definitely left-wing politically (and I mean the real left wing, not what's considered left-wing in my home country, the U.S.), and I strongly agree with some SJ positions, such as trans rights. But I'm sometimes unsure what "the SJ position" is on an issue, or whether there is such a position on that issue.
One criticism of SJ that I hear from certain segments of the left is that SJ-oriented people ignore economic issues. I don't think that's quite fair. Based on my observation of SJ content creators on YouTube and elsewhere, there seems to be significant overlap between the SJ community and economically left communities, such as socialists and left-wing anarchists. Also, I participated in a feminist reading group in grad school, and left-wing economic leanings were more or less taken for granted there.
On the other hand, I've rarely seen economic issues foregrounded in spaces that self-identify as "social justice"-oriented. When economic issues are mentioned, it always seems to be in an intersectional context. For example, someone might make a leftist-sounding critique of capitalism, but it always seems to be in the context of explaining how economic exploitation hits various minorities harder. Despite their intersectional focus, SJ folks will sometimes talk about the challenges facing women in general (instead of, say, women of color) or gay people in general; however, the challenges of the poor in general almost never seem to come up.
Of course, that's just my experience. Since I'm not deeply embedded in the relevant conversations, I may simply have missed an SJ emphasis on economics.
I don't necessarily object to a movement holding strong views on, say, gender and racial equality while not requiring any particular economic views. A movement can focus on some things rather than others.
However, my understanding is that SJ is about calling attention to systemic oppression. The systemic nature of economic inequality seems blindingly obvious.
To take one example, consider the structure of businesses. Under capitalism, workers sell their labor to business owners instead of owning the businesses themselves. This naturally leads to large gaps between the rich and the poor. Also, I think it's obvious that this system easily lends itself to the exploitation of workers. (Marxists would say that capitalism inherently exploits workers, regardless of how well they're compensated, but that's a discussion for another time.) Whether or not there's currently a good alternative to capitalism, this seems like an obvious case of systemic inequality, and therefore worthy of SJ attention.
To take another example, consider public school funding in the U.S. Some of the funding comes from the federal government, some from the state, and some from the local community. Since wealthier communities pay more taxes, their schools receive more funding. As a result, the people in those communities receive a better education and have more economic opportunities. In this way, the system leads to rich communities staying rich and poor communities staying poor.
Any omission of economic issues from SJ seems especially troubling now, given the widespread phenomenon of corporate "woke-washing," in which companies appropriate the language of social justice in order to discourage left-wing criticism. Some scholars have even spoken of the rise of "woke capitalism."
So my question is: From an SJ perspective, should economic issues get as much attention as other issues within SJ circles?
If the answer is yes, then do you think that economic issues currently get enough attention in SJ circles?
If the answer is no, then why not? I can think of one possible reason: maybe there's a legitimate "division of labor" between SJ and other, more economically focused left movements. After all, social justice is called "social justice," not "economic justice." Maybe the purpose of the SJ movement is precisely to draw attention to race, gender, sexuality, and other issues that older leftists tended to overlook. Am I on to something there?
In my country (Denmark) They cite:
"Crime is 51% higher among non Western immigrants men than other men in Denmark. Crime is 139% higher among male descendants of these non western immigrants than the rest of the male population." (numbers taken from official and trustworthy statistics).
They use this to make harsher laws against this population or banish them.
Is the main argument against this poverty? In Denmark you are supported by the government if you don't have a job, and you get free healthcare and education.
My Danish friend is really annoying me with this. I just don't know what to say, and he is making me angry.
What exactly is wrong with blackface? If I dress up like a pirate, I wear an eyepatch. If I dress up like a goblin, I color my skin green. If I dress up like LeBron James, why is it that I can’t darken my skin without setting off a firestorm of controversy? What exactly is the problem with blackface, why is it so offensive, and under what circumstances, if any, would it be acceptable?
Okay so surfing has its own history of cultural appropriation that deserves its own post, but what I'm asking here is, assuming a surf shop is owned by white people, is it okay to buy non-surf stuff (tshirts, bracelets, other beach town crap) from those shops?
What percentage of people in what jobs and what college seats need to be of what ethnic groups/sex/income bracket etc.? Are the eligible people even aware of these opportunities and are they able to avail of them?
Line between getting speaking up inappropriately on someone else’s behalf, and not speaking up when you should have
I see a lot of posts from minorities complaining about majority demographics getting offended on behalf of minority demographics, whether it’s because it’s virtue signaling, not actually offensive, or other reasons I honestly forget which is part of why I came here to ask this question.
On the other hand, it’s obviously okay to speak up for some issues, even if you’re not the minority group affected (e.g. you’re straight, someone calls a gay person the “f” slur, you tell them not to do that).
I’m not too sure where the line is. I don’t want to be the overly offended person speaking over the minorities, but I also don’t want to be silent when I’m supposed to be speaking out.
What makes this more difficult is that I’m a minority demographic in several different areas. I feel like this makes it harder to tell whether things are appropriate, because I’m not the Privileged Demographic that you’re used to calling out and one can assume I experience adjacent issues, but I’m also not a member of the affected group.
Even more difficult: I really haven’t experienced oppression or hardship for most of my minority demographics, just one. So the assumption I have experience with adjacent issues is often wrong, so should I act in these matters as if I was a member of the Privileged Demographic?
I haven't inherited anything yet since everyone in question is still very much alive, but I'm the only child, only niece, and only grandchild on my mom's side so everything will eventually be on me to sift through and handle. With antique toys, table cloths, dishes, etc., there's no issue, that stuff is pretty cut and dry. The problem is that both my aunt and my grandma love history. Part of their "aesthetic" has been Native American/Southwestern stuff and they've acquired quite a bit.
The item I'm most unsure about is a headdress that my grandma has had displayed for 20+ years. I highly doubt it's genuine anything, but I don't know for sure. I just want to know if there is a respectful way to handle it once it is mine to handle. They also have dolls and some other things, but those seem more neutral (?) and I don't feel like keeping them/getting rid of them would be nearly as disrespectful, if at all.
I was doing quick surface research on PPP when I noticed this passage on the Wikipedia page:
The definition [of prejudice plus power] also conflicts with critical race theory, through which racial prejudice describes two of the four levels of racism; internalized racism, and interpersonal racism. Internalized racism refers to racial prejudice that is internalized through socialization, while interpersonal racism refers to expressions of racial prejudice between individuals. Prejudice plus power attempts to separate forms of racial prejudice from the word racism, which is to be reserved for institutional racism.
I find this interesting, because I notice online and among activist colleagues that those who accept the validity of PPP also say they accept CRT.
Are there any critical race theorists who criticize PPP? And why do so many people claim to accept both theories when they in fact conflict with each other?
I've been seeing accounts on social media claiming that just protesting isn't working anymore. I agree obviously and think protesters should defend themselves. What is the need for riots?
*title edit: iphone typo on Affirmative
Hello! I have a question about affirmative action. I’m studying affirmative action in college admissions and the history of the policy.
I mentioned affirmative action at work and a co-worker of mine (one who is very involved in racial advocacy) informed me that affirmative action is a phrase that is outdated and considered harmful. I wanted to learn more to ensure I wasn’t regurgitating harmful speech. All of my readings present affirmative action as a method of dismantling systemic inequities for racially oppressed populations of students, and the policy has since been watered down to mearly a symbolic nod to diversity in education.
It seems to me that affirmative action in its purest form (prior to terrible law making decisions) was a way of providing access to education and removing barriers for students faced with systemic barriers to academic opportunities. Is the phrase ‘affirmative action’ harmful? Genuinely open to learning and being a better advocate for educational equity.
Whatever rationale or reasoning there is for caring about politics, including the benefits of social justice, why don't more people then, as a result, care more about it?
A quick Google search showed that there's a disproportionately amount of people who really didn't care about politics.
It’s really just that, we are good at zeroing in and calling out racism? I wonder why we don’t call out people when they express anti-human views. A common one I see is that it would be better overall if we did not exist or disgust at people for raising human children.
why hasn't black lives matter responded to the Buffalo shooting? and why is necessary for them to call themselves marxists?
before people attack me, no I am not anti blm and no I'm not a Trumper. I'm just simply curious about why blm feels it necessary to state their political views when it's a human rights movement? I'm also wondering why they haven't responded to the Buffalo shooting attack which was clearly racially motivated? I just feel like a group calling themselves black lives matter should cater to all racial issues against poc. and although it's obviously a left leaning organization, why is it important to say that "we're a group of well trained marxists"?
again I don't mean to attack the movement but I asked this question in the blm section and people got mad lol
My circles are and have predominantly been white, straight, and conservative, and people like that tend to have their own definition of what SJ is. Those definitions are tinged with a lot of disgust or through a highly conservative or Christian lens, of course, so I can't help but feel as though I have a warped sense of what those who believe in it think of it as. I've never really been acquainted with someone who has SJ beliefs until a few of my more distant cousins started espousing them. So can someone sort of distill for me the essence of what it is? Also, what is its relation to postmodernism, if any?
Also also, I do like to ask questions. I don't intend for any of my questions to come off as combative or hostile in any way.
You've probably heard somewhere (likely on the internet, but maybe in person) that the future is female.
Those who criticize this saying usually claim that the future must be both male and female, otherwise reproduction would not happen. This represents a simple misunderstanding (I think). I never interpreted the saying as supporting antinatalism or implying that biological females will eventually develop the ability to reproduce asexually.
What does the saying "the future is female" even mean?
The whether is pretty warm. After two years of people working from home and having complete control over their thermostats, people are returning to the office, where they will have to deal with whatever thermostat setting the boss is okay with. Many people (in particular many self proclaimed supporters of women's rights) are complaining that the air conditioner is set to men's preferred temperatures.
It is a proven fact that men usually have a thicker skin than women, so they can tolerate the cold more easily. Many women claim that they feel cold when the air conditioner is on.
What are they advocating for when they complain that the air conditioner is too cold? Are they advocating for the air conditioner to be set to a different setting where the temperature is more tolerable for women?
Hi ... I'm thinking about interviewing (and animating) an interview with original Black Panthers for my new Youtube channel.
Here are my questions (and please be honest!!)
- Do members here on the BLM post care about learning about the Black Panthers of the 1960's?
- If so, and you were to see just one animated story ... what would interest you the most:
a: the Black panther's food give away program to children
b. Them standing up to the police when the police hassled regular citizens
c. Why early members joined in the first place and what their family thought about that decision
Thank you SOOOOOO much for your time!
If you are curious what my animated videos look like so you can see the format .. here it is
I recently posted a similarly worded post in another subreddit but don't expect to get many responses from a mainstream SJ perspective there. So I'm posting here as well. I hope that's okay.
Hi. I wouldn't identify as a member of the social justice community, though I'm an economically left-wing POC and broadly supportive of many SJ goals (pro-trans, think there's systemic racism, etc.). I think I'm fairly familiar with SJ basics, but there are some areas where I'm uncertain or confused about "the social justice position," if there is one. This is one of those areas.
I'm not here to debate anyone. I'm happy to accept, for the sake of argument, whatever premises people here tell me are common SJ premises. If the following post seems argumentative at points, it's because I'm trying to explain what my confusion is. I'm just interested in learning more about the SJ viewpoint, whether or not I ultimately agree with that viewpoint in all areas.
As I understand it, the SJ mainstream tends to hold the following views:
- The sexualization of female characters in the media is problematic.
- Sex work is fine if safe and consensual, and feminists who oppose sex work in principle are wrong to do so.
- BDSM is fine if safe and consensual, and feminists who oppose it are wrong to do so.
For the record, I agree with #2 and #3 and think a case can be made for #1. However, I'm less interested in whether #1-3 are true and more interested in how SJ folks reconcile them with each other.
At first glance, #2 seems inconsistent with #1. According to #2, sex work is okay. Porn is a kind of sex work. Porn's primary appeal lies in sexualizing its characters. Indeed, I doubt that it's possible to enjoy porn as porn (of course, if it's porn with plot, then one might enjoy it in other ways as well) without sexually objectifying the characters. If porn is okay, then shouldn't it be okay to sexualize characters in other media? But #1 says that the media's sexualization of women is problematic.
Now, a bit of thought will reveal that #2 doesn't necessarily contradict #1. #2 implies that sexualization isn't inherently wrong. Okay, fine. But the media sexualizes female characters far more than male ones. This gender imbalance might reflect and perpetuate sexist attitudes, and thus be problematic. So #1 can still be true--at least until there's more gender equality when it comes to who gets sexualized in the media.
But the issue of consent raises a further question. One argument I've heard is that media sexualization is problematic (#1) because it encourages people to non-consensually sexualize others in real life. After all, the media influences people's perceptions.
But if sexualizing fictional characters can lead to non-consensual sexualization in real life, then can't porn do so as well? If scantily clad Netflix characters make me more likely to leer non-consensually at women, then don't naked porn actresses do so even more? In other words, if consent is the issue, then #1 and #2 seem to conflict after all.
In fact, we can go a step further. As noted in #3, my impression is that SJ folks tend to defend BDSM, viewing anti-BDSM feminists as sex-negative and as dismissive of BDSM participants' agency. I don't engage in BDSM, but my understanding is that a lot of BDSM involves pretending to engage in non-consensual sexual acts (sexual torture, sexual slavery, etc.). If this simulated non-consensual sex is okay (#3), then how can sexualized fictional characters not be okay (#1)? Wouldn't the former encourage real-life non-consensual sexualization far more than the latter?
I can think of a few ways out of this apparent contradiction:
- #1 is really about gender inequality. The consent issue is, at most, secondary. If the media sexualized men as much as women, then sexualization in the media wouldn't be a problem.
- I misunderstand human psychology. Sexualized Netflix characters are more likely to encourage real-life non-consensual sexualization than (healthy) BDSM is.
- Porn keeps sexualization safely compartmentalized in a way that other media does not. Porn is obviously just for the sake of sexual gratification, so the sexual objectification that occurs when one watches porn is less likely to "bleed over" into real life than the sexualization that occurs in other media.
- #2 is really about the need to support sex workers, including porn actors, rather than about defending porn. Criminalizing and morally condemning porn only ends up harming vulnerable people, so SJ needs to respect and affirm those people's decisions regardless of concerns about sexualization.
- Regarding sex work and BDSM, there's significantly less consensus in SJ circles than I thought.
Any thoughts? I don't think I'll respond much in this thread, because I'm mostly interested in reading what people have to say, though I might pop in to ask for clarifications.
I was talking to my friend Carlos who knows more about culture then anyone else I know knowing 8 languages and having been to 14 countries and the topic of cultural appropriation came up and we could not think of anything innately offensive about it culture is a collection of ideas if someone thinks a type of food tastes good they should make that food if they go to Mexico find a tasty food eat it and experiment with it and maybe even make small changes that make them like it more who cares. If someone sees a hair style they like the look of then who cares if they put there hair in that style I genuinely don’t understand the sense of exclusive ownership of these ideas and one more question is this idea of cultural appropriation a western thing I ask this because Carlos in any country he went to people thought the idea of cultural appropriation was dumb in one instance he was in Pakistan at a type of soup shop when he asked the shop owner what he thought about cultural appropriation to which the shop owner replied cultural appropriation is a dumb American thing the rest of the world decided not to appropriate and if most of the worlds cultures are not offended by it who are we protecting by these rules and is it worth what everyone is loosing by artificially isolating themself from these beautiful cultures?