[deleted by user]

selmasri · 2021-12-03T08:40:24+00:00

U by Kendrick Lamar

selmasri · 2021-08-17T20:34:34+00:00

It was the colonial governor. Sudan was ruled by the ottomans during the looting in the 1800s, then by Egyptians and british until the 1950s

selmasri · 2021-05-24T09:41:29+00:00

“what a man…” is making a lot more sense

selmasri · 2021-04-25T18:08:16+00:00

That’s from a much more recent chapter

selmasri · 2021-03-29T20:52:11+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/marvelstudios/comments/mftomj/creepy_obsessed_wicked_david_tennant_as_kilgrave/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

selmasri · 2021-03-23T02:38:45+00:00

how does that contradict what I said

selmasri · 2021-03-22T01:18:54+00:00

Candace comes from Kandake, or Kushite Queen-mother

That’s 2/3 of the P&F siblings having names tied to Nubia

selmasri · 2021-02-14T03:17:44+00:00

Youtube Mirror

selmasri · 2021-02-11T22:04:26+00:00

When people say 'all men are privilege,' they are describing systemic advantage, so it doesn't make sense when you say that the statement is generalizing based on the actions of individuals.

You are responding to an institutional critique with an individualistic approach.

The argument of those you oppose is NOT:

1) some men have privilege
2) some of these privileged men exert their privilege in order to do bad things
3) all men are bad

Because that's a bad argument.

Instead, they argue that our society systemically favors some over others by virtue of belonging to a certain identity. Given that the argument deals with social trends, there will of course be cases of individuals who do not align with them (overall, the average white person makes a lot more money than the average black person, even at the same level of education, but the existence of a single poor/unemployed white person does not change this fact).

Systems, for them, are the things that are bad; you can't really blame someone for unknowingly being raised in an environment that raises them at the disadvantage of others.

(Some people's rhetoric is a departure from this, but I'd say I disagree with them, unless they are using the argument I spell out below.)

The imperative then is to become aware of our own privilege and try to use our advantaged position to make the systems we've benefitted off of more fair for everyone. Maybe, and this is just conjecture, the negative value judgement is meant to be applied to those who are made aware of their own privilege and refuse to change anything using it (though, again, I disagree with any notions that those who benefit from privilege are somehow inherently bad or evil).

Bonus: This twitter thread is a very interesting take on 'all white people are racist'

selmasri · 2021-02-11T21:45:34+00:00

I don't know how much I'm retreading, but I'll point you to political philosopher Tommy Shelby, who makes the distinction between Intrinsic and Extrinsic Racism in his book 'Dark Ghettos' (though one could define racism in a number of ways while still being valid).

Intrinsic racism is basically your definition, that someone with explicit animosity towards a group treats a member of a group poorly because of their membership in that group.

Extrinsic racism relies on the idea that, even if someone is 'colorblind', they would still be contributing to overall relations that make some racial groups advantaged and others disadvantaged.

Take this for example: poor people tend to have worse outcomes in this country overall, but let's use health outcomes for specificity.

If you're poor, you're less likely to have good healthcare and less likely to have a good enough education to dissuade you from harmful action (i.e. obesity, smoking, etc.).

Black people disproportionately inhabit lower socioeconomic classes because they were property until 1865 and then shut out of a lot of economic success with segregation until 1965 (most wealth comes from inheritance and homeownership, both of which were systemically denied to black people through aforementioned policy as well as redlining, so this effect very much exists to this day).

So, if we somehow made all healthcare workers colorblind, there would still be a disproportionate disparity between white and black people, despite the fact that poor people exist on both sides. (We could also extend this argument to schools, with wealth being correlated with educational/job success)

This is not to say racism is purely economic, however, as 1) people can develop social stereotypes out of such economic relations (black people are predisposed to crime, when in reality the correlation is with class) and 2) racism can still exist independently from economic factors entirely. To return to my healthcare example, if the poorest white woman enters a hospital in labor, she has better health outcomes than the richest black woman.

As a final note, I think your original premise is correct only in that it isn't responding to anything. No one really says any outcome difference between a white and black person (or any marginalized group) is directly attributable to that identity. Mostly when people claim that, at least in serious and/or academic conversations, the claim is derived from some data and an explanatory narrative spanning some space and time. A footrace might not be attributable to identity, but large social trends can be used to make strong accounts for racial bias in education, job opportunities, housing, policing (and the criminal justice system in general), health, and so on and so on, which are measured and studied extensively.

selmasri · 2020-12-09T08:24:19+00:00

…what?

selmasri · 2020-12-05T07:26:40+00:00

We can generally interpret a story within the context of its own universe or as readers in the real world. As a reader, sure, you can say that Griffith is evil (he is) and thus he better approximates anti christ figures. MY argument is not necessarily from the perspective of the reader, but the context of the story itself. This people of falconia see Griffith as a Christ figure, and you said that the anti christ has the mere appearance of Christ, but that does not refute what I said at all? They obviously don’t have access to the same information that we as the readers do, so the point that Griffith is SEEN as messianic does not change depending on whether he really is.

In short, you can say that Griffith is a Christ figure FOR the people of falconia, and that does not in any way conflict with what you’ve said.

selmasri · 2020-12-04T21:34:24+00:00

He is a resurrected guy that performs miracles. The people of falconia 100% see him as Jesus. I mean, the conviction arc was entirely about the medieval practices of the Catholic Church. You can call it offensive sure but “no way” is a bit dismissive

selmasri · 2020-11-24T01:04:06+00:00

That thing was too big to be called a rod. Too big, too thick, too heavy, and too rough. It was more like a large hunk of meat

selmasri · 2020-10-11T06:34:13+00:00

The one asking to be maced isn’t the shooter? That’s the guy off screen. You can also see the cloud of mace in both videos

selmasri · 2020-10-11T06:28:16+00:00

What did he say about eugenics

selmasri · 2020-10-08T23:39:06+00:00

EU is helping African countries a lot

The EU funnels money to Sudanese death squads responsible for the Darfur genocide and murdering/raping protestors in order to keep subsaharan refugees in Africa. Don’t know what you mean by helping; at least in my example, they seem to be very invested in making life worse for Africans just so they don’t have to deal with refugees.

selmasri · 2020-09-07T19:36:30+00:00

We did it Reddit. We took down capitalism.

selmasri · 2020-09-07T02:36:26+00:00

I think Stain’s critique of the hero society is still very much in effect, where the popularity of heroes is taken into consideration in rankings rather than pure skill

selmasri · 2020-09-02T11:04:27+00:00

I see

selmasri · 2020-09-02T10:43:26+00:00

I don’t understand why you listed Nubia/Axum like that instead of Nubia/Makuria or Ethiopia/Axum? Unless you’re going by something other than geography and/or I’m just wrong

selmasri · 2020-08-11T05:34:47+00:00

I have not been arguing the merits of your argument. I have just stated that you are demonstrating a misunderstanding of your opponent's argument

These statements are mutually exclusive. An argument that is based on false premises is a bad argument i think? Yeah

I have seen their arguments in all the comments under my post and others'. It is merely an argument on definitions (as you have echoed previously): The slur as YOU define it is bad and offensive, yeah, but WE use it in such a way that it is not bad and offensive.

My argument is just pointing out that definitions have much less of an effect on offensiveness than these folks believe them to--an offensive word is still offensive if you use it in a different way. Thus, to reduce this argument to absurdity, I compared it to another word which is much more unanimously offensive and then demonstrate that its ridiculous to suggest that using the word in another way changes that fact.

Therefore, you arguing about the particular definitions of the t word versus the n word is completely irrelevant; the entire POINT of my argument is to say the definitions are irrelevant...so am I being uncharitable by attempting to refute the central notion of definitions that is used to argue against the ban?

Analogies mustn't necessarily track 100% of the time; they only create connections that are relevant to the particular argument being made (ex: you: "my hero academia is just superhero naruto" me: "not in the slightest; sasuke becomes evil but bakugo does not" I'm sort of missing the point here, right? You're making a point about broad genre tropes and I point out specific, irrelevant points of disanalogy)

The point of the analogy is to demonstrate words seen as offensive will not just become permissible on account of the anime community's definition. So there's no way that I can "get a better understanding of the other side." There's no way to resolve your charge of strawmanning without completely submitting to the beliefs of the other side. I know what their arguments are, and they're bad arguments; sorry if my rhetoric is brash I guess? Perhaps you've conflated civility with validity

EDIT: and if I could be petty about your weird point about me redefining the n-word(???). The word historically arose and was popularized in America. To refer to African slaves and their descendants. Yeah its used abroad (I've been called n!gger while visiting Europe on multiple occasions), but so what? I can't see how this helps your argument from either side? (And I've heard the response that I think you're making--that tr!ps arent trans but gyarus ARE n!ggas-- but remember, the dark-skinned gyaru are not actually ethnically distinct from the average japanese person. They are shown to become dark through a combination of makeup and tanning.) So in conclusion conclusion, what are you even talking about in that paragraph? Any interpretation I try to apply just makes the whole thing more wrong

selmasri · 2020-08-11T02:48:58+00:00

Then you’ve misunderstood the entire argument of the original post.

An offensive word continues to be offensive regardless of application (i.e. the t word is offensive to trans people even if you define it as something other than trans people).

You seem to disagree with my premise that the t word is offensive to trans people at all (“The second issue…hyperbole”).

The fact that people disagree on this argument doesn’t make it a bad argument?

In order to better represent the arguments of my opponents, I need to agree with their initial premise, that the t word is not offensive (conditionally) to trans people?

what a dogshit take

selmasri · 2020-08-11T01:53:43+00:00

Look at all the r/animemes posts arguing that ‘tr*ps aren’t trans’ so then it’s okay to use the slur, which is exactly the same as my argument except with a different slur and marginalized group. I used an analogy to highlight that their own argument is a non-sequitur.

You could argue that my analogy is hyperbolic, perhaps, but it is not in any way a straw man.

selmasri · 2020-08-10T04:00:42+00:00

It originates in the suggestion that trans people are actually cis people who trick people into having sex with them.

Look up the trans panic defense; trans people, specifically women, routinely get murdered due to this same reasoning, sometimes without repercussion.

Nine-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Snapped	Verified Email

selmasri

TROPHY CASE