Support NeoGAF

[commedieu]

If I'm telling you people that I believe that there are no 'white behaviourisms' why would I react with 'White Fragility'? You have all missed my point:

I'm not saying 'Ew don't blame me for being white'.

What I am saying, is that if you identify this as 'White Fragility' you are creating a circlejerk and not a solution. It doesn't get us anywhere.

On the flip side of people like you. Others have posted that fully understand the subject at hand, and aren't rushing to rephrase a very real historic and systemic issue in america.

I've read some great posts from white people in this thread that recognize the issue, and the problems around tackling it. It is quite the opposite of going no where. But the key part of having a conversation about white frailty is not trying to restructure it, or redefine it. It is a real thing that makes people uncomfortable to discuss, or it makes people apprehensive that don't understand it. As we see in this thread.

However those with an actual understanding, These are the people that are part of progress. Not people that want to debate a definition in order to ___what your point is__. Race relations suck in America. To address the problem, you have to acknowledge it exists as others are experiencing it.

White people are born into an environment that has systemic racism coursing through the nation that doesn't affect them. It's not a knock on white people to generalize this. Just as it's not a knock to say white men make more money than most other people. Or that white men are more likely to x,y, or z. Based on social structure. You can't ignore race when having a discussion about how race is impacting others by just being born a certain race. Poor people, likely to be minorities are more likely to do xyz because we know these things.

There is nothing noble or honest about wearing blinders.

 

[D i Z]

In a real world, one on one conversation, sure, but on GAF this conversation is causing the topic to receive attention that it otherwise wouldn't.

I mean, I wouldn't put it past Frozenprince to post sassy reactions into the void for 600 posts, but realistically, this thread would have died on page one if people on both sides weren't coming to the table and arguing about it.

Instead, a topic about white fragility has almost 40,000 views now. That doesn't seem like a complete waste of time to me.

I can't really argue against page views and exposure. With no practical way to measure any thoughts about what is going on here, I can't put much value in that. From where the topic began to what it has devolved into, all you can really hope for is that someone is getting something useful out of the muck. Not gonna count on it though.

 

[Bergerac]

On the flip side of people like you. Others have posted that fully understand the subject at hand, and aren't rushing to rephrase a very real historic and systemic issue in america.

I've read some great posts from white people in this thread that recognize the issue, and the problems around tackling it. It is quite the opposite of going no where. But the key part of having a conversation about white frailty is not trying to restructure it, or redefine it. It is a real thing that makes people uncomfortable to discuss, or it makes people apprehensive that don't understand it. As we see in this thread.

However those with an actual understanding, These are the people that are part of progress. Not people that want to debate a definition in order ___what your point is__. Race relations suck in America. To address the problem, you have to acknowledge it exists as others are experiencing it.

White people are born into an environment that has systemic racism coursing through the nation that doesn't affect them. It's not a knock on white people to generalize this. Just as it's not a knock to say white men make more money than most other people. Or that white men are more likely to x,y, or z. Based on social structure. You can't ignore race when having a discussion about how race is impacting others by just being born a certain race.

There is nothing noble or honest about wearing blinders.

There is absolutely nothing I do not understand about the 'intent' of the concept.

Jesus.

You do not have to throw away historical accuracy, to deny responsibility as a society, for the events of past and present, to simply avoid making presumptions. My point is, instead of saying 'White Fragiles', NAME THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY.

Don't say 'White person is having a fragile reaction', say '*RESPONSIBLE PARTY* is having a fragile reaction'. That's my point. It's me that's arguing the virtue of putting responsibility where it belongs.

For the same reason, 'on the flip side', we say Rosa Parks' name and don't just generalise her.

Yes?

...

 

[dohdough]

I can't really argue against page views and exposure. With no practical way to measure any thoughts about what is going on here, I can't put much value in that. From where the topic began to what it has devolved into, all you can really hope for is that someone is getting something useful out of the muck. Not gonna count on it though.

There's no practical way to measure it, but from my experience, I can guarantee that more than one person came away from lurking the thread more educated and understanding of the issue.

 

[LionPride]

There is absolutely nothing I do not understand about the 'intent' of the concept.

Jesus.

You do not have to throw away historical accuracy, to deny responsibility as a society, for the events of past and present, to simply avoid making presumptions. My point is, instead of saying 'White Fragiles', NAME THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY.

Don't say 'White person is having a fragile reaction', say '*RESPONSIBLE PARTY* is having a fragile reaction'. That's my point. It's me that's arguing the virtue of putting responsibility where it belongs.

For the same reason, 'on the flip side', we say Rosa Parks' name and don't just generalise her.

Yes?

...

If you take issue with it being said that white people are fragile, when you yourself think you are not fragile, you are fragile.

 

[archangelmorph]

There is absolutely nothing I do not understand about the 'intent' of the concept.

Jesus.

You do not have to throw away historical accuracy, to deny responsibility as a society, for the events of past and present, to simply avoid making presumptions. My point is, instead of saying 'White Fragiles', NAME THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY.

Don't say 'White person is having a fragile reaction', say '*RESPONSIBLE PARTY* is having a fragile reaction'. That's my point. It's me that's arguing the virtue of putting responsibility where it belongs.

For the same reason, 'on the flip side', we say Rosa Parks' name and don't just generalise her.

Yes?

...

You seem to have a fundamental inability to disassociate the concept of an observed behaviour demonstrated [overwhelmingly predominantly] by a racial group, to that racial group.

Your argument fails because you are not really reading what people are saying here and just keep spinning round in logical circles because you fail to get past that basic premise to this discussion.

There is no real mandate to remove the term "white" from "white fragility" just so as to absolve you from your [seemingly deliberate] misunderstanding of the term and it's semantics. The line of reasoning that calls for this, is as flawed and a flakey as calling for a revision of the term "masculine" to remove its "male" connotations, ignoring the observable fact that it's a predominantly male-exhibited trait, based purely on the notion that, well women can be masculine too, or because we're naively assuming the concept of masculinity with some thoroughly confused notional connotations of some kind of universal domain of attribution (across all men) inherent in the term itself...

"White fragility" doesn't in any reasonable way attempt to infer a global domain of attribution so why do you insist on forcing it, in-order to prop up your vein and unnecessary line of defense?

"Stop attacking us white folk with your generalisations! It will shut down the conversation and impede progress!" - except it is not a generalisation, a lot of rational white folks have accepted the intended meaning of the term and are engaging in fruitful discussion even in this thread, as has already been stated.

Ultimately the only person shutting down the conversation is you, with your seemingly deliberate attempts at filibustering, with the aim of trying to redefine the accepted terminology into something much more seemingly insidious than what is implied, so that you can wax righteously to try to "fix it".

If you really have so much of a problem with the term, just don't engage in the the discussion and leave us to have it without you. It's not like you have skin in the game here anyway so I'm sure your contributions will be sparsely missed.

 

[Nepenthe]

Don't say 'White person is having a fragile reaction', say '*RESPONSIBLE PARTY* is having a fragile reaction'. That's my point. It's me that's arguing the virtue of putting responsibility where it belongs.

For the same reason, 'on the flip side', we say Rosa Parks' name and don't just generalise her.

Yes?

If Jake is white, and if Jake is having a fragile reaction, it doesn't matter whether I acknowledge Jake as "Jake" or "white."

Jake is gonna default to the same defensiveness you are if I call him out at all, because by the very nature of having a fragile reaction Jake has displayed he doesn't have the coping skills to enter a racial discussion that puts the spotlight on whiteness as a harmful sociological construct without losing his ever-loving shit.

You also do recognize we're talking about millions upon millions of people, right; because millions upon millions of people have this reaction all the time.

 

[Silent Chief]

I think you're just perpetuating old cliches.

I mean, one officer purchasing several boxes of donuts?

 

[Messofanego]

Ebro said this in a video about Kanye West not being deemed typically traditionally American which I found relevant in the tone policing that happens towards the part of the minorities and not coming from the top down:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agy11wvGD9E

"Why is it always time for us? Why do we - the black, brown, poor, oppressed, the women - always have to take the high road and do the bridge building? How come someone else isn't doing the bridge building?"

 

[The Kree]

If you take issue with it being said that white people are fragile, when you yourself think you are not fragile, you are fragile.

Arguing with someone who's just gonna stand on the sidelines anyway is futile. He doesn't need his hand held through the discussion. He needs to be ignored. 13 pages in and we're still not even talking about what the article is actually about.

 

[Frozenprince]

Ebro said this in a video about Kanye West not being deemed typically traditionally American which I found relevant in the tone policing that happens towards the part of the minorities and not coming from the top down:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agy11wvGD9E

"Why is it always time for us? Why do we - the black, brown, poor, oppressed, the women - always have to take the high road and do the bridge building? How come someone else isn't doing the bridge building?"

God damn Ebro went in hard.

 

[LionPride]

Arguing with someone who's just gonna stand on the sidelines anyway is futile. He doesn't need his hand held through the discussion. He needs to be ignored. 13 pages in and we're still not even talking about what the article is actually about.

I hate people sometimes.

Ebro said this in a video about Kanye West not being deemed typically traditionally American which I found relevant in the tone policing that happens towards the part of the minorities and not coming from the top down:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agy11wvGD9E

"Why is it always time for us? Why do we - the black, brown, poor, oppressed, the women - always have to take the high road and do the bridge building? How come someone else isn't doing the bridge building?"

It's always been this way, it's up to black people to bridge the gap and take the high road and wait our turn. Hispanics/Latinos just have to wait their turn or be the bigger man/woman and try harder. We all must try harder to bridge the gap with white people, otherwise we will fail. It's our fault they are racist towards us, not their's or a larger societal problem.

Some ol bullshit

 

[Yaboosh]

White people (rich, poor and middle class) have a vested interest in maintaining the oppression.

Those in power are not likely to give it up willingly.

 

[CountAntonius]

"Why is it always time for us? Why do we - the black, brown, poor, oppressed, the women - always have to take the high road and do the bridge building? How come someone else isn't doing the bridge building?"

Because they don't need to. Where is the benefit for them? Certain social issues literally have no effect on many of them.

Honestly the only solution I see is this country becoming more racially diverse in places where it isn't. It's too late for a lot of the adults and old folks but when you go to school and grow up with diversity you tend to care more about social issues because you get to care for people personally that are affected by them.

 

[Bergerac]

You seem to have a fundamental inability to disassociate the concept of an observed behaviour demonstrated [overwhelmingly predominantly] by a racial group, to that racial group.

Your argument fails because you are not really reading what people are saying here and just keep spinning round in logical circles because you fail to get past that basic premise to this discussion.

There is no real mandate to remove the term "white" from "white fragility" just so as to absolve you from your [seemingly deliberate] misunderstanding of the term and it's semantics. The line of reasoning that calls for this, is as flawed and a flakey as calling for a revision of the term "masculine" to remove its "male" connotations, ignoring the observable fact that it's a predominantly male-exhibited trait, based purely on the notion that, well women can be masculine too, or because we're naively assuming the concept of masculinity with some thoroughly confused notional connotations of some kind of universal domain of attribution (across all men) inherent in the term itself...

"White fragility" doesn't in any reasonable way attempt to infer a global domain of attribution so why do you insist on forcing it, in-order to prop up your vein and unnecessary line of defense?

"Stop attacking us white folk with your generalisations! It will shut down the conversation and impede progress!" - except it is not a generalisation, a lot of rational white folks have accepted the intended meaning of the term and are engaging in fruitful discussion even in this thread, as has already been stated.

Ultimately the only person shutting down the conversation is you, with your seemingly deliberate attempts at filibustering, with the aim of trying to redefine the accepted terminology into something much more seemingly insidious than what is implied, so that you can wax righteously to try to "fix it".

If you really have so much of a problem with the term, just don't engage in the the discussion and leave us to have it without you. It's not like you have skin in the game here anyway so I'm sure your contributions will be sparsely missed.

Why... do I have to be taking this personally? Why is that the only possibility? I'll leave you guys to it then, but most responses have been:

a) '[We're the majority, go away]' - which I find amusing;
b) '[You don't understand what the term means]' - I do understand its meaning, it's the result I'm questioning. My argument is purely that I feel that 'White Fragility' is not guaranteed successful, as a differentiation of acknowledgement versus denial, in approaching white people about racism;
c) '[You're exactly what we're saying you are because you didn't completely agree]' - logical fallacy, at best.

I don't agree with the term 'White Fragility' not because it has anything to do with me, but because I feel it does a disservice to those white people who aren't having that reaction when approached about the topic of racist white perpetrators, even if the term isn't intended to refer to them.

It's just not accurate enough a nomenclature, shit's more complicated than such a wide stroke. Personally, I'd rather be more specific, but whatever.

Arguing with someone who's just gonna stand on the sidelines anyway is futile. He doesn't need his hand held through the discussion. He needs to be ignored. 13 pages in and we're still not even talking about what the article is actually about.

I will address this though - Hey I haven't stood on the sidelines about a damned thing, thanks.

 

[Psychoward]

Why... do I have to be taking this personally? Why is that the only possibility? I'll leave you guys to it then, but most responses have been:

a) '[We're the majority, go away]' - which I find amusing;
b) '[You don't understand what the term means]' - I do understand its meaning, it's the result I'm questioning. My argument is purely that I feel that 'White Fragility' is not guaranteed successful, as a differentiation of acknowledgement versus denial, in approaching white people about racism;
c) '[You're exactly what we're saying you are because you didn't completely agree]' - logical fallacy, at best.

I don't agree with the term 'White Fragility' not because it has anything to do with me, but because I feel it does a disservice to those white people who aren't having that reaction when approached about the topic of racist white perpetrators, even if the term isn't intended to refer to them.

It's just not accurate enough a nomenclature, shit's more complicated than such a wide stroke. Personally, I'd rather be more specific, but whatever.



I will address this though - Hey I haven't stood on the sidelines about a damned thing, thanks.

How would you address the phenomenon then? What's your idea for the term that a lot of white people are fragile about their race and racial discussions? I'm hearing a lot of moaning about how the term white fragility is a racist stereotype against white people in this thread but conveniently no ideas to what the term should be called.

I can say as a fellow white person the term "white fragility" doesn't bother me an inch because it's not referring to me.

And I'll give you a helpful hint, no matter how much it's watered down or streamlined it's still going to offend a lot of white people's sensibilities. Just look at BLM.

 

[archangelmorph]

How would you address the phenomenon then? What's your idea for the term that a lot of white people are fragile about their race and racial discussions? I'm hearing a lot of moaning about how the term white fragility is a racist stereotype against white people in this thread but conveniently no ideas to what the term should be called.

I can say as a fellow white person the term "white fragility" doesn't bother me an inch because it's not referring to me.

And I'll give you a helpful hint, no matter how much it's watered down or streamlined it's still going to offend a lot of white people's sensibilities. Just look at BLM.

Preach bro

 

[akira28]

We really need to put to rest to this idea that everybody (white, black or otherwise) has an equal part to play in deconstructing and "ending" racism.

Black people have been the abused wife for over 3 centuries but now the white husband wants to talk about our role in stopping the abuse as if it's not completely on them.

Do better.

hrm, actually there is something like this in Spousal Abuse grooming, where the spouse methodically(predatory efficiency) flips out on the victim. For example the husband beats the wife, or the wife beats the husband, and later tells them "baby if you had only done xyz. You know how I get, and you know I don't mean to hurt you. When you see me starting to get upset you have to calm me down and make sure to have the house clean when I get home." So the abuse is not only couched in the lie of the possibility of a better relationship, but the blame for the victimization is placed with the victim, as part of a grooming or mental conditioning method. Its insidious, diabolical, and genius. Ask yourself how many are victim to it.

 

[International Iron Man]

Because they don't need to. Where is the benefit for them? Certain social issues literally have no effect on many of them.

Honestly the only solution I see is this country becoming more racially diverse in places where it isn't. It's too late for a lot of the adults and old folks but when you go to school and grow up with diversity you tend to care more about social issues because you get to care for people personally that are affected by them.

Yeah...so here's the thing about that...

http://www.vox.com/2017/1/18/14296126/white-segregated-suburb-neighborhood-cartoon

 

[Bergerac]

How would you address the phenomenon then? What's your idea for the term that a lot of white people are fragile about their race and racial discussions? I'm hearing a lot of moaning about how the term white fragility is a racist stereotype against white people in this thread but conveniently no ideas to what the term should be called.

I can say as a fellow white person the term "white fragility" doesn't bother me an inch because it's not referring to me.

And I'll give you a helpful hint, no matter how much it's watered down or streamlined it's still going to offend a lot of white people's sensibilities. Just look at BLM.

I suggested 'racial fragility' back at the beginning. Personally I would specify i.e 'X white people experiencing 'racial fragility' in response to BLM', because it's lighting the situation in a more factual manner. That's different. 'White Fragility' is more speculative, it's suggesting a behaviour likely to occur where it may not necessarily. It's completely removed of the sociopolitical context as a term in of itself, and just presents a race connotation.

BLM I'd argue is completely different because it purports community strength in a reasonable fashion, unlike say, 'White Power'. If a white person has problems with 'Black Lives Matter' as a reaction to how they felt about it as a white person, I'd agree they are experiencing what you would refer to as 'White Fragility', all I'm saying is I certainly wouldn't call it that.

 

[CountAntonius]

Yeah...so here's the thing about that...

http://www.vox.com/2017/1/18/14296126/white-segregated-suburb-neighborhood-cartoon

Thanks for sharing this. Kinda heartbreaking to read but not surprising. I honestly believe if they don't start having relationships and caring about people who are minorities they will never stand up for their rights.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

Hrm, white fragility. Yeah, that's a good phrase for it.

I deal with it every day in the South. There aren't as many racists in the urban areas in the South as most people up North think, but we all have those family members, those co-workers with whom you can't start a conversation about anything regarding race or sexual orientation or religion without them reacting instantly as though they're being attacked, cornered, taken advantage of, misunderstood.

It's part lack of empathy, part lack of imagination, part historical revisionism, part personal frustration and insecurity, part like you're picking on their favorite sports team, part like you're insulting their grandparents. If only they could take a step outside themselves and realize the irony that they are experiencing in these moments some flavor similar to the marginalization they deny exists in others, to use these moments as a kind of emotional tourism to a place they have the choice to leave, maybe...... well, maybe not.

 

[drtomoe123]

We really need to put to rest to this idea that everybody (white, black or otherwise) has an equal part to play in deconstructing and "ending" racism.

Black people have been the abused wife for over 3 centuries but now the white husband wants to talk about our role in stopping the abuse as if it's not completely on them.

Do better.

I'd really recommend reading through Paulo Freire's Psychology of the Oppressed. True liberation from social injustice means that there has to be an intervention in the dialogue between the oppressed and the oppressor because both sides are inherently dehumanized. We have to realize that when we accept the struggle for humanization we also accept, from that moment, our total responsibility for the struggle. An ideology has to be something you live by.

 

[commedieu]

There is absolutely nothing I do not understand about the 'intent' of the concept.

Jesus.

You do not have to throw away historical accuracy, to deny responsibility as a society, for the events of past and present, to simply avoid making presumptions. My point is, instead of saying 'White Fragiles', NAME THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY.

Don't say 'White person is having a fragile reaction', say '*RESPONSIBLE PARTY* is having a fragile reaction'. That's my point. It's me that's arguing the virtue of putting responsibility where it belongs.

For the same reason, 'on the flip side', we say Rosa Parks' name and don't just generalise her.

Yes?

...

Are those the rules then?

It's amazing to watch you be so abundantly obtuse.

But, it's relieving to see others understand, and as I've said before, that's where fruitful progress comes from. Not from you. You're providing no understanding, or insight other than changing of a moniker.

You're arguing with everyone in the thread, black, white, and other, about what you demand to hear. Without a shadow of irony.

Jesus.

 

[OG Shaka Zulu]

Ebro can help by airing socially conscious rap music.

 

[Adam_Vania]

"fragile" is just a bad term. it is a loaded word, much like "hostile", "aggressive", or "lazy". it should be obvious that nobody would want that word applied to them.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

"fragile" is just a bad term. it is a loaded word, much like "hostile", "aggressive", or "lazy". it should be obvious that nobody would want that word applied to them.

Uh...

What word would you suggest then?

 

[watershed]

One, of many reasons, why people have difficulty with "generalizations" in these types of conversations is because they do not consider themselves as having a group identity. White Americans is a group identity. It is a useful group identity for discussing shared/similar lived experiences, cultural features, power and privilege, relationship to systems, etc.

But a lot of people, not just White Americans, see their lives solely through an individualistic frame. They do not consider themselves as part of a group, a society, or even a culture. I have had students tell me that they reject the idea of there even being such thing as White culture. And yet, these same people who do not see themselves as part of a larger group or culture tend to have no problem seeing others through their group identity such as Asian Americans, African Americans, LGBTQ Americans, women as a group identity, etc.

The truth is we do have group identities and shared cultures. There is a way of looking beyond the individualistic frame that helps explain people's different relationships to power and privilege. But for some, the inability to see beyond an individualistic frame shuts down all conversation. They only see themselves as 1 person, not a member of a larger group of people with similar and shared features.

 

[BrutishMrFish]

"fragile" is just a bad term. it is a loaded word, much like "hostile", "aggressive", or "lazy". it should be obvious that nobody would want that word applied to them.

If a phrase as seemingly benign as "Black Lives Matter" makes people lose their shit, there's no possible term to describe a phenomenon of this kind that wouldn't offend a bunch of white people.

 

[Psychoward]

"fragile" is just a bad term. it is a loaded word, much like "hostile", "aggressive", or "lazy". it should be obvious that nobody would want that word applied to them.

compared to supremacist or nationalist it's a huge step up and yet people still flip out


the word doesn't matter, racists will find a way to deflect

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

"fragile" is just a bad term. it is a loaded word, much like "hostile", "aggressive", or "lazy". it should be obvious that nobody would want that word applied to them.

Then don't be fragile

looking at your posts in here and in certain other threads is pretty interesting

 

[Adam_Vania]

Uh...

What word would you suggest then?

i don't see why you need to define people at all before you try to educate them. it's counter-productive.

 

[The Kree]

All things considered, 'fragile' seems pretty tame. They could have gone with bitchassness.

 

[Psychoward]

i don't see why you need to define people at all before you try to educate them. it's counter-productive.

ok, then how do you explain the concept of white fragility to someone (even if they themselves don't exemplify it) without using the word fragile? White Insecurity? oh, shit, they're gonna be offended again

words exist for a reason in social movements, to highlight the problem

fighting white supremacy would be much harder if people weren't allowed to say white supremacy because it may offend some white supremacists or people sympathetic to white supremacy

 

[Ketch]

I don't even know how to participate in this conversation. I feel like no matter what I write next, someone will attack me for it... does that make me a fragile white guy?

I read the OP, the article, and the last two pages of the thread. My first reaction to the article was that i think having those specific conversations in twitter is a big contributor to why they failed... like someone writes an article about any topic and says look at these sensitive conversations about a complicated matter and then has a bunch screen shots of tweets I'm kind of not taking that article seriously any more.

In regards to the concept of white fragility though, I think that's real... maybe kind of obvious. I don't think anyone appreciates being called a racist, and I think that writing BLM on an order, or just saying Black Lives Matter to a cop or a white person you've never met before could easily be interrupted as insinuating that they're racist. But I guess the reason that's true is because they're already self conscious about it.... thus the whole white fragility thing. It kind of reminds me of the scene from super troopers where farva orders a liter of cola. Except in this case the officer acting like an ass contributes to social injustice.

I don't think that I'm racist, but I'm not foolish enough to believe that My worldview is unaffected by prejudice. I think if someone wrote BLM on my doughnuts I wouldn't say anything and just continue on with my day, but I'd probably think to myself: what's that guys problem? But I'd probably have the exact same reaction if they wrote Jesus is the way, or fuck trump. I don't want to have any of these conversations with strangers. I think my default reaction to dealing with strangers is just that I want them to give me what I want and then leave me alone.

Maybe my reaction would be different if I was a cop in uniform I guess though. I think the right reaction for a police officer would be to say "you're absolutely right, and I'm sorry that some police officers don't feel that way".

I don't know. Is it even meaningful for me to chime into this conversation?

 

[Not]

I don't even know how to participate in this conversation. I feel like no matter what I write next, someone will attack me for it... does that make me a fragile white guy?

Don't mean to fulfill your prophecy in a kind of a meta manner, but who cares if people attack you? Just say what you think. If it matters that much that people are disagreeing with you or criticizing your viewpoint, that MIGHT be "fragility." Your dissenting viewpoint isn't guaranteed to be revolutionary or worthy of universal respect.

 

[D i Z]

i don't see why you need to define people at all before you try to educate them. it's counter-productive.

Counter-productive to who's process though? Are you honestly telling us and yourself that educating people without defined terms is realistic?
And who's education are you talking about? The education that minorities give to each other, or the oft times seemly more important education that minorities are held at the ready to give to any white person, whether they're prepared to accept it or not?

 

[NoblesseOblige]

i don't see why you need to define people at all before you try to educate them. it's counter-productive.

Some people can't be educated.

All things considered, 'fragile' seems pretty tame. They could have gone with bitchassness.

Can we hold a vote to change 'white fragility' to 'white bitchassness'?

 

[The Kree]

Your only reaction to the phrase Black Lives Matter should be, "I know. I agree."

For fucks sake.

 

[AlphaDump]

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

It is "a unilateral moral commitment to the well-being of the other without the expectation of anything in return".

It is called The Golden Rule for a reason. We all must practice it. It is our obligation to eachother.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

It is "a unilateral moral commitment to the well-being of the other without the expectation of anything in return".

It is called The Golden Rule for a reason. We all must practice it. It is our obligation to eachother.

As a masochist I believe that will get me into trouble.

 

[Sunster]

Don't mean to fulfill your prophecy in a kind of a meta manner, but who cares if people attack you? Just say what you think. If it matters that much that people are disagreeing with you or criticizing your viewpoint, that MIGHT be "fragility." Your dissenting viewpoint isn't guaranteed to be revolutionary or worthy of universal respect.

Exactly. Stop being so scared of "attacks" from others. If you are so afraid of that then you are fragile and have no place in this fight. The white people who are allies like other posters before me have said more articulately, will catch stray insults here and there by some angry individuals. It's inevitable. But it's not a big deal and it sure as shit isn't oppression of any shape or form. So either get over it and join the fight or step aside.

 

[Not]

I think the first crucial step in the process of escaping "fragility" is to disassociate yourself from your own whiteness, if only briefly, and just see yourself as a human. That way you can observe the actions of other people without any lingering tribalism or partiality. "White" is a political qualifier anyway, not an actual physical attribute.

Next step? Put yourself in the shoes of someone else who happens to pass as "nonwhite," or research the history of civil rights in the country you live in.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

I read the OP, the article, and the last two pages of the thread. My first reaction to the article was that i think having those specific conversations in twitter is a big contributor to why they failed... like someone writes an article about any topic and says look at these sensitive conversations about a complicated matter and then has a bunch screen shots of tweets I'm kind of not taking that article seriously any more.

I don't know. Is it even meaningful for me to chime into this conversation?

I'd suggest reading it all first to see if whatever it was you were hoping to say was already said and responded to, instead of just skipping to the last two pages while blaming twitter for the lack of conversational success

 

[MikeBreezy92]

One, of many reasons, why people have difficulty with "generalizations" in these types of conversations is because they do not consider themselves as having a group identity. White Americans is a group identity. It is a useful group identity for discussing shared/similar lived experiences, cultural features, power and privilege, relationship to systems, etc.

But a lot of people, not just White Americans, see their lives solely through an individualistic frame. They do not consider themselves as part of a group, a society, or even a culture. I have had students tell me that they reject the idea of there even being such thing as White culture. And yet, these same people who do not see themselves as part of a larger group or culture tend to have no problem seeing others through their group identity such as Asian Americans, African Americans, LGBTQ Americans, women as a group identity, etc.

The truth is we do have group identities and shared cultures. There is a way of looking beyond the individualistic frame that helps explain people's different relationships to power and privilege. But for some, the inability to see beyond an individualistic frame shuts down all conversation. They only see themselves as 1 person, not a member of a larger group of people with similar and shared features.

And that's the bottom line really.

 

[TBiddy]

Dont dodge the question. I asked you what social structures can you discuss without assumptions and generalizations. Answer the question, dont spin this off. It is an easy question, answer it. I am not interested in w/e else you have to say until you answer this.

I didn't dodge it. I didn't answer it, because I don't see the relevance. Of course there will be assumptions, when you talk about a group of people. But that doesn't make it okay to generalize about an entire ethnic group, just because they happen to have a different skin color.

It's always amusing to me when people act like saying "some" white people is suddenly the key to ending white fragility and racism. Oh okay, I guess no one was ever smart enough to figure that out and try it. Good thing you have enlightemed everyone.

That was sarcasm for reference.

When have I acted like that? I've never claimed that "not generalizing" will end racism. I'd love to have a discussion with you, but your posts are mostly a combination of strawmen and passive aggressiveness, and frankly, my time is too valuable for that.

What male circles don't have a problem with rape culture? This kind of specification assumes that some men are better than others forever to never commit rape, and therefore they have nothing to worry about. When you can find rape culture, misogyny, and sexism in all male circles, I believe. Liberals, conservatives, nerds, jockeys, men of all colours, all can and have been rapists.

I would personally only find generalisations insulting when they're not even based on statistics or false statistics, and are creating myths or stereotypes that don't ring true for the vast majority. But you are not me, you have been harping against generalisations no matter what of any kind throughout. You and Dalibor68 are absolutist against generalisations. God forbid you two ever make a negative generalisation then about a group of people on this forum, or you'd become hypocrites.

I'm pretty certain the male circles I frequent (friends and family) doesn't have a problem with rape culture. Considering the bolded in the quote, I assume you think, that a vast majority of men support "rape culture" - otherwise you'd consider it insulting, right?

I have made negative generalizations. We all have. But I don't believe I've ever made them about an ethnic group, like some of you do in this thread. If I ever do that, feel free to call me a hypochrite.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

I'm pretty certain the male circles I frequent (friends and family) doesn't have a problem with rape culture. Considering the bolded in the quote, I assume you think, that a vast majority of men support "rape culture" - otherwise you'd consider it insulting, right?

I have made negative generalizations. We all have. But I don't believe I've ever made them about an ethnic group, like some of you do in this thread. If I ever do that, feel free to call me a hypochrite.

Hold up, so someone asks "what male circles don't have problems with rape culture" and states that basically any male from any culture, social group etc CAN and has been part of it....yet obviously doesn't mean that every male is part of it.

Your answer is, "my friends and family don't have a problem with rape culture", as a rebuttal to someone saying males in the world have issues with rape culture.

You then go on to say that if you base your views on stats and not myths, that the poster should feel insulted about rape culture, supposedly because rape culture is a myth and there are no studies or stats to back up it's existence?

You just dismissed rape culture as a way to defend against generalisations?

What are you even doing

 

[TBiddy]

You just dismissed rape culture as a way to defend against generalisations?

What are you even doing

I absolutely did not, no.

edit: This part was the important: "and are creating myths or stereotypes that don't ring true for the vast majority."

 

[mozfan12]

It's probably been brought up before, but bring up white privilage to any white person and see them almost instantly get defensive/angry.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

I absolutely did not, no.

edit: This part was the important: "and are creating myths or stereotypes that don't ring true for the vast majority."

Rape culture is neither a myth, nor a stereotype. By definition.

It is an observed behaviour of some individuals, in the same way that white fragility is not actually a generalisation, due to the fact that facts and stats show that there are people out there who do not feel personally attacked when it is explained to them that their racial background gives them social advantages.

But there are some who do feel personally attacked when this is pointed out. This behaviour, by those certain people, is coined as white fragility.