Intersectionality - societal divides and power

KyussBishop

On a thread about feminism in TGC, someone touched on a point that got me thinking about how different societal divides (women vs men, public vs private etc.), seem to distract from more important (but less-interesting) issues, that support those who wield disproportionate power in one form or another (such as the church in the past), and I wonder what people think about this topic? (a wider field of study that touches on this, is called Intersectionality)

You don't need to read the whole quote below (highlighted bits can suffice):

Super_Sonic wrote: »

...
After all, some feminists would lead you to believe that if you reject their views you reject equality.

It's a very powerful position to be in for feminists, where any criticism of them results in the critic being turned on by society.

Of course it's not a new concept, where two mutually exclusive things (feminism and equality) get tied together as one. Two that spring to mind in 20th century history are from Germany and the USA regarding patriotism and nationalism. The Nazi government lead people to believe that if they didn't support fascism and Hitler they were not patriotic Germans, they were traitors and the enemy. In the 50's and 60's the American government convinced people that anyone who didn't support them could be a communist.

I'd love to know the private thoughts of radical feminists, the thoughts that are too extreme to make public, it might not be comforting.
...

This is a very, very important point, in my view (though I may be overstating this ), and in those two cases you see a divide/dichotomy created, in order to support power, and in those two cases the message is overtly about power.

With a lot of other societal divides/dichotomies (pitting men/women, homosexual/heterosexual, nationals/non-nationals, public/private workers against one another), I really wonder if many of them are promoted to provide a covert way of supporting power - to distract from the more important/complicated issues in our society/economy/politics, that support power (such as economics itself - a field of study where the dominant school is, in my view, built with flaws deliberately designed to support power, and to dissuade the public from being interested in looking for these flaws).

The British have (arguably) done this and fostered this in colonial nations in the past, as a means of controlling them (e.g. fostering ethnic divides everywhere they have previously colonized), and I think (with some of what I've mentioned above) it may be ingrained at a very deep level into our actual societies as well - just, I don't know if it's intentionally used to support power, or whether it just co-incidentally supports that, or whether it is a real lingering set of societal problems, that are just being opportunistically lengthened/exploited by some in power (which, lacking any evidence, can only be a conspiracy theory, so it's not something I believe, just wonder about - it doesn't seem totally implausible).

Hell, a lot of our societal divides/problems that we are only slowly resolving now, have been created by the church and religion, who have wielded power in one form or another for (I think) a millenium+; who's to say it's not politically advantageous for 'the powers that be', to continue exploiting and milking the last out of these divides as well, before they are gone forever?


What makes me especially suspicious about stuff like this, is when you see people who are extremely ideological about whatever their niche 'cause' is (EDIT: to the extent that they support increasing the rights of the group that is the focus of their cause, while harming the rights of another group - sowing division), and who don't seem to have any rational reason for it, and seem smart enough to know better - sure, most of them are probably just deluded in one form or another, but I wonder if some proportion of them may be deliberately proliferating ideas supporting their divisive 'cause', knowing full well that they are nonsense, in order to promote divides in society that support power.

There's a very interesting field of study related to this called Intersectionality, which I've been meaning to learn more about.

Links234

KyussBishop wrote: »

What makes me especially suspicious about stuff like this, is when you see people who are extremely ideological about whatever their niche 'cause' is, and who don't seem to have any rational reason for it, and seem smart enough to know better - sure, most of them are probably just deluded in one form or another, but I wonder if some proportion of them may be deliberately proliferating ideas supporting their divisive 'cause', knowing full well that they are nonsense, in order to promote divides in society that support power.

See, this here is where you're losing me with your post. Different things are important to different people, and one person's "niche cause" is an extremely pressing matter for another person.

Lets take for example people on this forum, we can see that some are very concerned over Catholic-run schools and how there are little to no options available for secular parents. To many, that's a divisive issue, it's an insignificant matter in the grand scheme of things and it distracts from 'more important' issues, but if you're a parent in that situation then it becomes an incredibly pressing, urgent and serious issue. The same could be said for LGBT rights, or women's reproductive rights in this country, or a myriad of other issues.

Gary L

Yeah It's pretty undeniable that the English fostered sectarianism in the north of Ireland to hamper the unity of the labour movement in the early 20th century. Divide and rule has been a common tactic among ruling classes historically as far as I know. Best to keep the unwashed masses distracted by each other whether it be by race, creed, religion or nationality.

seamus

What makes me especially suspicious about stuff like this, is when you see people who are extremely ideological about whatever their niche 'cause' is, and who don't seem to have any rational reason for it, and seem smart enough to know better - sure, most of them are probably just deluded in one form or another, but I wonder if some proportion of them may be deliberately proliferating ideas supporting their divisive 'cause', knowing full well that they are nonsense, in order to promote divides in society that support power.

I reckon you're thinking too much into it. You're veering into conspiracy theory territory here, basically wondering if there's a small but not insignificant number of people deliberately trying to influence opinions on the ground (rather than on a public stage) for the purposes of strengthening the power of a 3rd party.

Think about that for a second. It means that a tangible number of people that you meet have an overriding and single-minded agenda to consolidate power for someone else.

As Links234 points out, it's far more likely that you simply don't give the same importance to these issues as they do, so you have difficulty wondering why it's such a sticking point for them. You, for example, have a specific economic viewpoint that you are extremely ideological about. Should we therefore assume that your level of passion for this generally mundane topic is a form of subterfuge to divide and conquer on behalf of a 3rd party? Of course not.

Does "divide and conquer" propaganda happen? Oh yes. But it's rarely very secretive or grassroots. It's usually right up there on the public stage. Look at the public sector -v- private sector debates which flare up every now and again. Do they start with a post on boards, or a conversation in the pub? Nope, they start with a column in a national newspaper or an interview with a high-ranking politician.

KyussBishop

Links234 wrote: »

See, this here is where you're losing me with your post. Different things are important to different people, and one person's "niche cause" is an extremely pressing matter for another person.

Lets take for example people on this forum, we can see that some are very concerned over Catholic-run schools and how there are little to no options available for secular parents. To many, that's a divisive issue, it's an insignificant matter in the grand scheme of things and it distracts from 'more important' issues, but if you're a parent in that situation then it becomes an incredibly pressing, urgent and serious issue. The same could be said for LGBT rights, or women's reproductive rights in this country, or a myriad of other issues.

I should have made that clearer (I've edited the OP there to try and do this): I focus there, not on people who are really into fighting for one particular cause, but people who take an extreme interpretation of their particular cause that is not logically consistent (e.g. radical feminists who end up advocating non-egalitarian policies that sow division/inequality against men, people supporting gay rights while denying trans rights - just some extreme examples).

I'm definitely not including here, someone who focuses singularly on feminist issues or LGBT issues (nothing wrong with that), to the exclusion of other issues - but someone who puts such an ideologically extreme slant on their particular cause, that it explicitly sows division between different societal groups.

KyussBishop

seamus wrote: »

I reckon you're thinking too much into it. You're veering into conspiracy theory territory here, basically wondering if there's a small but not insignificant number of people deliberately trying to influence opinions on the ground (rather than on a public stage) for the purposes of strengthening the power of a 3rd party.

Think about that for a second. It means that a tangible number of people that you meet have an overriding and single-minded agenda to consolidate power for someone else.

As Links234 points out, it's far more likely that you simply don't give the same importance to these issues as they do, so you have difficulty wondering why it's such a sticking point for them. You, for example, have a specific economic viewpoint that you are extremely ideological about. Should we therefore assume that your level of passion for this generally mundane topic is a form of subterfuge to divide and conquer on behalf of a 3rd party? Of course not.

Does "divide and conquer" propaganda happen? Oh yes. But it's rarely very secretive or grassroots. It's usually right up there on the public stage. Look at the public sector -v- private sector debates which flare up every now and again. Do they start with a post on boards, or a conversation in the pub? Nope, they start with a column in a national newspaper or an interview with a high-ranking politician.

It is a conspiracy theory, yes, and I don't support that this is what is happening, so this topic is more about fostering a discussion about it, to see what historical precedence there is of it that people can provide (like British colonialism), and to look at evidence others might be able to provide to see just how plausible it may be (e.g. state/corporate surveillance and 'agent-provocateur'ing of political groups - which there is precedence of).

I highly doubt that the whole conspiracy theory is true (like, we know the state isn't creating/controlling all of these divisive groups, as that'd be quite silly), but I do think parts of the overall idea could be plausible for smaller more limited areas, where this kind of sowing of division does occur.


Like for instance (related to what you mention), a newspaper owned by a person with a conflict of interest, where he has a lot of entangled business interests (and a lot of power as a result), may focus on stories which promote his business interests at the expense of the public, and may also promote stories that sow division among the public about an issue (say, public vs private, employed vs unemployed), to distract from the problems and unethical issues that would be created, by successful promotion of his business interests.

That's just on business/economic issues - an interesting thing, is that there may be a political incentive to not resolve, or to block resolving, lingering societal issues like gender/sexual equality; not because a person has anything against those concepts, but because they are useful as a distraction, and a way to harmlessly plow excessive amounts of the publics attention and efforts, into a cause which keeps them distracted from and uninformed/inactive, on other important issues that benefit those who have power, at the expense of the rest of society.


Also, it's worth pointing out that people who end up becoming a mouthpiece for vested interests (or who indirectly act in their benefit), don't have to be part of any conspiracy - they just have to be fooled into believing and propagating a particular narrative, that benefits those in power.

KyussBishop

seamus wrote: »

You, for example, have a specific economic viewpoint that you are extremely ideological about. Should we therefore assume that your level of passion for this generally mundane topic is a form of subterfuge to divide and conquer on behalf of a 3rd party? Of course not.

What third-party would that even be benefiting? None of the policies I support, advance the interests of those who want to consolidate power.

Gary L

KyussBishop wrote: »

Also, it's worth pointing out that people who end up becoming a mouthpiece for vested interests (or who indirectly act in their benefit), don't have to be part of any conspiracy - they just have to be fooled into believing and propagating a particular narrative, that benefits those in power.

Agreed 100%. This is widespread and obvious. Anyone at all who is at the same time right wing and poor falls into this category.

KyussBishop

Gary L wrote: »

Agreed 100%. This is widespread and obvious. Anyone at all who is at the same time right wing and poor falls into this category.

While there's a lot of truth to that, it feels somewhat ironic thanking it, in that it tends to foster another type of societal divide (left vs right), that acts in much the same way as the others I talk about, heh :pac:

Gary L

Yeah I get what you mean but i do mean it literally. The class divide is a legitimate one and the fear of open class war leads our shadowy overlords to stir the pot in a hundred other ways.

Karl Stein

KyussBishop wrote: »

Also, it's worth pointing out that people who end up becoming a mouthpiece for vested interests (or who indirectly act in their benefit), don't have to be part of any conspiracy - they just have to be fooled into believing and propagating a particular narrative, that benefits those in power.

The 'Tea Party' astro-turf movement of dupes comes to mind.

clairefontaine

If I understand what you are saying, you are talking about "If you are not with us you are against us" preying upon people's good sense of loyalty.

Yes I'd agree with you, it's there to prop up power. Loyalty is an admirable and necessary quality, but in it you also lose objectivity. And if you are too adhered to any ONE ideology the inevitable fall out is a loss of empathy for the other, and sustain to zero empathy for the other, also sustains conflict with the other, and conflict is what makes money, and also makes heroes.

KyussBishop

Carlos Roca wrote: »

The 'Tea Party' astro-turf movement of dupes comes to mind.

Absolutely, yes - promoting a message that says it would (in theory only) provide a better world for everyone, but which in reality would consolidate power into the hands of a few at the expense of everyone else.

With them being overtly funded by the Koch's as well, who are not shy about their promotion of causes which aim to divide the public, and which explicitly try to fool the public into inaction, by promoting anti-science/anti-intellectual propaganda (like spreading FUD about everything from climate change research, to a wide variety of topics that affect business interests in general too).


I think economic/business topics, are where these kind of divides are most visible, that separate and pit the public against one another - and where it is most obvious (but rarely looked at or stated), that the intent of this is to distract from the massive power grab being gradually undertaken by a diverse range of powerful/wealthy people (and their acolytes), throughout business/finance/banking and other industries.

I would say the vast vast majority of people playing a part in supporting that, actually are not entirely aware, and believe the narrative that supports it too (and the narrative isn't just limited to Tea-Partiers - bits of it exist throughout all mainstream economic thinking).

KyussBishop

clairefontaine wrote: »

If I understand what you are saying, you are talking about "If you are not with us you are against us" preying upon people's good sense of loyalty.

Yes I'd agree with you, it's there to prop up power. Loyalty is an admirable and necessary quality, but in it you also lose objectivity. And if you are too adhered to any ONE ideology the inevitable fall out is a loss of empathy for the other, and sustain to zero empathy for the other, also sustains conflict with the other, and conflict is what makes money, and also makes heroes.

The loyalty aspect is a good way to put that, yes - the way it creates "Us vs Them" type thinking; that would definitely be one of the primary ways in which this works, in which people are divided, yes.

What I'm getting at though, is that I think these divisions (almost all types of divisions like this, throughout society), actually benefit those in power by pitting the public against one another in various ways, which causes the public to divert a lot of their attention/energy into areas that don't affect the powerful.

The powerful don't really need to play a regular active part in these divides either (though in some cases this does happen, issues can be stirred up when politically advantageous, or kept maintained for multiple decades for long-term political goals, such as rolling back societal/economic equality); like the British have done in colonial times, seeds can be sown for dividing people (agent-provocateur's have done this in the past), and then the public takes over and does the rest to themselves (as many Internet debates show, cognitive dissonance can be easy to create in people, and can sometimes be near-impossible for some of them to get rid of).

jank

Gary L wrote: »

Agreed 100%. This is widespread and obvious. Anyone at all who is at the same time right wing and poor falls into this category.

One is part of this grand conspiracy if they have right wing views and are less well off than the average person? Would you say the same about people who are wealthy yet are of left leaning politics, the classic champaign socialists?

jank

KyussBishop wrote: »

that the intent of this is to distract from the massive power grab being gradually undertaken by a diverse range of powerful/wealthy people (and their acolytes), throughout business/finance/banking and other industries.

Has a company ever taken over a state, killed millions of people, thrown people in jail for a belief? Because one can think of many many examples where state denied people their rights due to some ideology or other for the perception 'greater good' of those in power.

So here you are decrying big business yet totally ignoring the states involvement in various acts of repression. In some eyes the state can do no wrong however in my eyes they are the one to be most fearful off. There is nothing, nothing more powerful than the state.

clairefontaine

jank wrote: »

Has a company ever taken over a state, killed millions of people, thrown people in jail for a belief? Because one can think of many many examples where state denied people their rights due to some ideology or other for the perception 'greater good' of those in power.

So here you are decrying big business yet totally ignoring the states involvement in various acts of repression. In some eyes the state can do no wrong however in my eyes they are the one to be most fearful off. There is nothing, nothing more powerful than the state.

They certainly have collaborated, IBM, Prescott Bush, Haliburton. This was of free will.

Now you have the state, such as the NSA forcing private companies to collaborate with them.

But ultimately yes, the state are the law makers and enforcers, and much more worthy of our fear.

KyussBishop

jank wrote: »

Has a company ever taken over a state, killed millions of people, thrown people in jail for a belief? Because one can think of many many examples where state denied people their rights due to some ideology or other for the perception 'greater good' of those in power.

So here you are decrying big business yet totally ignoring the states involvement in various acts of repression. In some eyes the state can do no wrong however in my eyes they are the one to be most fearful off. There is nothing, nothing more powerful than the state.

This is an example of exactly the public vs private social divide I mentioned earlier, which divides people and distracts them from the more important issue:
Power is not limited to the state, and exercise/consolidation of power happens both privately and with the co-operation (sometimes actively, sometimes through neglect) of the state; there is a level of co-opting (different to co-operation) that occurs, of the state by private interests, and in other cases, of private interests by the state.

Undemocratic consolidation of power, should be called out and challenged in whatever forms it happens, and should not lead to a division where one side says only private issues should be tackled, and the other side says only public issues should be tackled - that leads to a division where attention/efforts are wasted, when both should be tackled.


The issue is 'undemocratic power', and when you then divide that issue into multiple parts (public vs private, power through wealth vs power through bureaucracy), that just serves to divide people and extinguish their efforts in a way that is harmless to power, even though there may be agreement on the core issue. The issue should not be divided into parts like that.

What this division also does, is it makes people forget the core issue as well (in this case, undemocratic power), and even get them defending their 'side' of the divide, in a way that undermines that issue (e.g. defending undemocratic power remaining in private hands, while saying tackling undemocratic public power should be the priority).

jank

KyussBishop wrote: »

This is an example of exactly the public vs private social divide I mentioned earlier, which divides people and distracts them from the more important issue:

You are an example of this I am afraid. You even admit it yourself

While there's a lot of truth to that, it feels somewhat ironic thanking it, in that it tends to foster another type of societal divide (left vs right), that acts in much the same way as the others I talk about, heh

When I point out the simple facts that the state is to be feared more than private business (not that they are angels either) you point the finger. If went off on a spiel of the tea party or some other right wing group you would have agreed with me and thanked my post.

I dont pretend to be impartial but please don't condescend in claiming you are while siding with a certain narrative.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Power is not limited to the state, and exercise/consolidation of power happens both privately and with the co-operation (sometimes actively, sometimes through neglect) of the state; there is a level of co-opting (different to co-operation) that occurs, of the state by private interests, and in other cases, of private interests by the state.

Undemocratic consolidation of power, should be called out and challenged in whatever forms it happens, and should not lead to a division where one side says only private issues should be tackled, and the other side says only public issues should be tackled - that leads to a division where attention/efforts are wasted, when both should be tackled.

Yes, both should be tackled. Therefore to reduce the enabling force of the state and those involved in big business and their fellow politicians who are bought and paid for by means of lobbying what one should have is less state involvement not more, as if you increase the power of the state to dictate such matters then all you will get is more money thrown into the political sphere to buy laws favourable to their own needs, leading the average citizen and consumer to carry the can while others feather their nest. When the state has ultimate control on our affairs we get totalitarianism.

KyussBishop wrote: »

The issue is 'undemocratic power', and when you then divide that issue into multiple parts (public vs private, power through wealth vs power through bureaucracy), that just serves to divide people and extinguish their efforts in a way that is harmless to power, even though there may be agreement on the core issue. The issue should not be divided into parts like that.

What this division also does, is it makes people forget the core issue as well (in this case, undemocratic power), and even get them defending their 'side' of the divide, in a way that undermines that issue (e.g. defending undemocratic power remaining in private hands, while saying tackling undemocratic public power should be the priority).

Instead of focusing on big business when throwing about the term 'undemocratic power' like confetti we should also throw in the unions, lobby groups for the 'vulnerable', the church, Atheist Ireland, OAP groups, state owned media just to name a few.

KyussBishop

Right, just ignore everything in my post, and keep repeating "but the state", "but the state" - and ignore that nobody ever defended the state.

Whataboutery: Based on the claim that if you don't equally criticize all 'sides' at once, you are not impartial, and support the 'sides' you fail to criticize.

Also a key tool used to divide debate in exactly the way this thread describes: First find a way to divide a group over an issue, then wedge open that divide with whataboutery, and have both 'sides' bicker over who's worse, while completely ignoring the wider problem.

jank

No just outright bias in ones view when claiming to be impartial. You honestly think you should not be called out for it?

KyussBishop

jank wrote: »

No just outright bias in ones view when claiming to be impartial. You honestly think you should not be called out for it?

You have failed to show any bias, because when a person criticizes someone or some group, he does not need to 'balance out' that, by criticizing every other possible example of someone/some-group acting in a similar way - to claim that as evidence of bias, is fallacious.

When I criticize Israel, I don't need to criticize Palestine at the same time, when I criticize the US, I don't need to criticize Russia/China at the same time (or half the other countries on the planet that may meet the same criticism), when I criticize the private sector, I don't need to criticize the public sector at the same time - and in none of these cases, does this mean that I don't have criticisms of Palestine/Russia/China or the public-sector.

Neither does it mean someone has to 'prove' themselves by changing the subject and criticizing one 'side' or the other, as that is shifting the burden of proof from the person claiming bias, to the person accused.
It is also a rhetorical tactic used to try and control the course of a debate, to try and force someone to criticize the 'side' the accuser disagrees with, by making false claims of bias every time the 'side' the accuser supports is disagreed with.


In fact, arguing with such a 'balance', is actually a form of logical fallacy in itself, known as a false balance:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy


Your 'whataboutery' has been pointed out to you multiple times in most debates that occur over this public/private topic, to the point that you know full well that it is a fallacious method of argument (one of many that you like to routinely use), and it makes clear you are fully aware of your dishonesty in using such a method of argument - it reeks of shít-stirring, and of trying to take a dump on the thread just for the sake of it.

jank

KyussBishop wrote: »

You have failed to show any bias, because when a person criticizes someone or some group, he does not need to 'balance out' that, by criticizing every other possible example of someone/some-group acting in a similar way - to claim that as evidence of bias, is fallacious.

When I criticize Israel, I don't need to criticize Palestine at the same time, when I criticize the US, I don't need to criticize Russia/China at the same time (or half the other countries on the planet that may meet the same criticism), when I criticize the private sector, I don't need to criticize the public sector at the same time - and in none of these cases, does this mean that I don't have criticisms of Palestine/Russia/China or the public-sector.

Neither does it mean someone has to 'prove' themselves by changing the subject and criticizing one 'side' or the other, as that is shifting the burden of proof from the person claiming bias, to the person accused.
It is also a rhetorical tactic used to try and control the course of a debate, to try and force someone to criticize the 'side' the accuser disagrees with, by making false claims of bias every time the 'side' the accuser supports is disagreed with.


In fact, arguing with such a 'balance', is actually a form of logical fallacy in itself, known as a false balance:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy


Your 'whataboutery' has been pointed out to you multiple times in most debates that occur over this public/private topic, to the point that you know full well that it is a fallacious method of argument (one of many that you like to routinely use), and it makes clear you are fully aware of your dishonesty in using such a method of argument - it reeks of shít-stirring, and of trying to take a dump on the thread just for the sake of it.

Yes, sure..

While there's a lot of truth to that, it feels somewhat ironic thanking it, in that it tends to foster another type of societal divide (left vs right), that acts in much the same way as the others I talk about, heh

smacl

jank wrote: »

One is part of this grand conspiracy if they have right wing views and are less well off than the average person? Would you say the same about people who are wealthy yet are of left leaning politics, the classic champaign socialists?

Not really, though. A financially impoverished right winger is clearly failing to reap the supposed rewards of the politics of their choice. A champagne socialist could well just be a bit cynical, enjoying the affluence while championing the plight of the common man while in the public eye. Same could be said of the senior union rep on a top salary drawing public sympathy to the grotty conditions suffered by nurses and other front line workers.

I suspect your comparing a sheep in wolf's clothing with a wolf in sheep's clothing

KyussBishop

Reading this slightly relevant Charlie Brooker article (regularly fun to read/watch his stuff), someone dropped in a good comment, which is precisely relevant to this topic (and picks up on some more notable divides pushed in society - such as religion):
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/12/benefits-street-poverty-porn-british-fury

Shaukit Sadiq wrote:

I agree completely. I stopped watching TV quite a while ago because it just seems to want to put sections of society at each other's throats and ignore the real problem: namely the wanker elite who run our lives and tell us what we should be doing. If more people turned off their TV sets and tried to see what the world around us was actually like it wouldn't be such a bad place.

Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Jew, Atheist: They're all people. They don't need to be 'profiled' and put in a category with their own stereotypes, that kind of thinking is what the govt. want you to think. Are you going to go along with their distorted vision of the future? More fool you if you are.

If we are going to get the elites to work for us, rather than us work for them we need to stick together, and that is what scares the elite the most. Which is why they put so much effort in trying to divide us all.

It's a powerful tool to have the media repeat the same old stereotypes about the various sections of our society, but unless you see everything through your own eyes, you are going to be at the mercy of those who will keep you down at any cost.

Agree pretty strongly with the sentiment of that - tend not to watch TV myself (other than what I download), due to the intelligence-numbing effects of it.

It's been long enough since I've really watched it as well, that I'd completely forgotten about the way it can foster divisive attitudes within entire populations, that even the smartest of people can't avoid being affected by (some of it will sink in through sheer repetition, usually - TV ads in particular, which regularly promote gender stereotypes and such, which can be divisive).

smacl

Originally Posted by Shaukit Sadiq
I agree completely. I stopped watching TV quite a while ago because it just seems to want to put sections of society at each other's throats and ignore the real problem: namely the wanker elite who run our lives and tell us what we should be doing.

But all this says is that instead of fighting with each other on the basis of creed, we should be doing so on the basis of class and entitlement? Not exactly a new idea there.

Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Jew, Atheist: They're all people. They don't need to be 'profiled' and put in a category with their own stereotypes, that kind of thinking is what the govt. want you to think. Are you going to go along with their distorted vision of the future? More fool you if you are.

More them and us stuff, this time with the government as the bad guy, rather than the well off.

It's been long enough since I've really watched it as well, that I'd completely forgotten about the way it can foster divisive attitudes within entire populations, that even the smartest of people can't avoid being affected by (some of it will sink in through sheer repetition, usually - TV ads in particular, which regularly promote gender stereotypes and such, which can be divisive).

And again, this time with the media as the bad guys.

These type of arguments that pit good guys against bad guys, on the assumption that the reader supports our arguments and hence is one of us (i.e. the good guys), are exactly as divisive as what they seek to attack. To reduce intersectionality, we need to drop the 'us and them' rhetoric, and simply focus on the 'us'. If we start by replacing the terms 'you', 'your' and 'them' with the terms 'we', 'our' and 'us' we foster an implicit notion of inclusion rather than division. We all have our pet hates, and would dearly like to pin the blame of our current predicament on others who we can then attack, but taking ownership of our own current problems could prove to be a better philosophical starting point in terms of finding solutions. Smug as shíte, but there it is.

KyussBishop

smacl wrote: »

But all this says is that instead of fighting with each other on the basis of creed, we should be doing so on the basis of class and entitlement? Not exactly a new idea there.

It's not about class and entitlement though, it's about undemocratic power - that's something that often gets simplified into a class/entitlement issue, but that is actually another way of dividing the population and diverting the issue.
It's easy to pick a single identifier, such as wealth, and use that to judge somebody - but that's too much of a generalization and is actually the wrong way to go about it.

What needs to be looked at, is how people gain undemocratic power (important to note that money=power as well, and the way economics itself is practiced, allows much more room for undemocratic power), to see where that occurs, and to investigate/correct it; that is what gets ignored by almost everybody - it's often difficult/boring to investigate, and attention is so easily diverted away from it to other locations (even towards the 'wealthy' in general, which misses the point, since so many of the wealthy are beneficial to society and have truly earned their money), which also diverts all political pressure away from it too.

smacl wrote: »

More them and us stuff, this time with the government as the bad guy, rather than the well off.

Okey, that's a bit general alright, but it's true that the government play their part in bolstering the 'elite' (because of a degree of political capture), either through direct action/policymaking (particularly on economics), or through negligence/inaction - as well as through media outlets like the BBC (not overtly though, just through having a poor quality of journalism that is not adversarial enough towards authority).

smacl wrote: »

And again, this time with the media as the bad guys.

These type of arguments that pit good guys against bad guys, on the assumption that the reader supports our arguments and hence is one of us (i.e. the good guys), are exactly as divisive as what they seek to attack. To reduce intersectionality, we need to drop the 'us and them' rhetoric, and simply focus on the 'us'. If we start by replacing the terms 'you', 'your' and 'them' with the terms 'we', 'our' and 'us' we foster an implicit notion of inclusion rather than division. We all have our pet hates, and would dearly like to pin the blame of our current predicament on others who we can then attack, but taking ownership of our own current problems could prove to be a better philosophical starting point in terms of finding solutions. Smug as shíte, but there it is.

Pointing out how a lot of media fosters a divide in society, is not promoting an 'Us vs Them' attitude, it is pointing out legitimate criticisms - and I've spread the criticisms pretty widely, it's not limited to any one place.
There's nothing wrong with pointing out the 'bad guys', wherever they are, so long as you're not using one set of 'bad guys', to argue in favour of avoiding dealing with another set of 'bad guys' (this is what the whole public vs private whataboutery is about: "attack the 'bad guys' in government, leave the 'bad guys' in the private sector alone").

The entire idea that "we are all to blame" for societies current faults is simply wrong - that's based on the assumption that there is no undemocratic power which negatively influences society, preventing reform (which there is, in multiple forms - the entire set of divides this topic discusses even, help divert/diminish the publics political energy).
That's also another way people are divided: "Look to yourselves, not to the undemocratic elite who wield disproportionate power over society".


The central issue is undemocratic power, so there should be a divide, but the divide should not be between public/private, employed/unemployed etc., but the public vs undemocratic elite, and between pushers of truth vs pushers of bullshít (because this is a key part of what the 'elite' use to divide people, and maintain their undemocratic power).

Personally, I've already figured out myself where most of the problems lie (mainly economics), and the most important of the solutions as well (I know pretty much how to end the economic crisis, anywhere) - the point is we already have the necessary solutions, but they are a part of complicated/boring topics like economics, and (in among the massive amount of FUD surrounding this topic) all of the various divides kept alive within society, help to distract from this - and this is intentional, because it's largely economic issues that help keep the current undemocratic elite powerful.

smacl

KyussBishop wrote: »

I've already figured out myself where most of the problems lie (mainly economics), and the most important of the solutions as well (I know pretty much how to end the economic crisis, anywhere)

Who's problems exactly? Mine? Yours? People living in Dublin? People living in the Sudan? And which problems? Starvation? Childhood obesity? Keeping warm? Drinking too much? Depression? Global warming? The ever growing world population? The end of oil?

Apologies for being facetious but the sweeping nature of the above statement demands some serious qualification.

KyussBishop

smacl wrote: »

Who's problems exactly? Mine? Yours? People living in Dublin? People living in the Sudan? And which problems? Starvation? Childhood obesity? Keeping warm? Drinking too much? Depression? Global warming? The ever growing world population? The end of oil?

Apologies for being facetious but the sweeping nature of the above statement demands some serious qualification.

That is pretty facetious...it's very clear I'm talking about the problem of undemocratic power, and all of the various ways that is manifested (particularly in economics).

Your previous post suggested there are no ready solutions to these problems, I've pointed out that there are ready solutions (particularly in economics), and that the idea that we 'just have to look harder' for solutions, is just a delaying tactic, and the idea that we should 'look to ourselves' for finding the problems (and placing the blame) is a divisive tactic, when we should be looking at the undemocratic elite.

All of that is a problem for everybody who cares about democracy.

smacl

That still doesn't answer my question regarding who's problems you claim to be able to solve and what those problems are. Advocating a solution to an undefined problem or set of problems is meaningless.

Even if we're limiting ourselves to purely economic problems, which IMHO form a small enough percentage of problems faced by humanity at present, suggesting that you know how to solve all of them where so many others have failed comes across as either naive or delusional.

Saying that the principal problem lies with an undemocratic elite has been the core message of every revolutionary back to Roman times. Human nature is such that as soon as you wipe out one such power monger, another takes their place. This has been as true of far left communist regimes as far right regimes.

KyussBishop

smacl wrote: »

That still doesn't answer my question regarding who's problems you claim to be able to solve and what those problems are. Advocating a solution to an undefined problem or set of problems is meaningless.

Even if we're limiting ourselves to purely economic problems, which IMHO form a small enough percentage of problems faced by humanity at present, suggesting that you know how to solve all of them where so many others have failed comes across as either naive or delusional.

This seems to be nitpicking - I did answer that. The problem is undemocratic power (in whatever forms it takes), and that problem affects everyone who is interested in having a democracy, i.e. almost everyone.

In economics, this is manifested in a multitude of ways, most notably the way mainstream economic theory itself is designed to favour moving more power over society into private hands, at the democratic expense of the public, and removing restrictions on the exercise of private power, even where that leads to large undemocratic consolidation of private power, again at the expense of the public.

This isn't even the start of it either, when you consider that money itself confers great amounts of power, the more excessive someones access to or control over it is.


You're also trying to selectively reinterpret my words, from me saying "I know pretty much how to end the economic crisis", to saying I know how to resolve all problems in economics.

smacl wrote: »

Saying that the principal problem lies with an undemocratic elite has been the core message of every revolutionary back to Roman times. Human nature is such that as soon as you wipe out one such power monger, another takes their place. This has been as true of far left communist regimes as far right regimes.

This implies that trying to challenge any undemocratic elite (or as I would put it, those wielding undemocratic power) is pointless, and seems like it's moving towards defending inaction against that.
It is also false as well, because a far greater proportion of power is democratically controlled now (even though that is being eroded), than in Roman times.

It's worth pointing out as well, that if someone is against doing anything about undemocratic forms of power (even when there are practical ready solutions to it available), that's pretty much synonymous with being against democracy itself (or of giving some people within a democracy, preferential treatment - i.e. creating/maintaining an elite).

A fair number of people really believe that's how things should be - but because they know it is discreditable, they are afraid to say it, and try to hide it under layers of quite superficial arguments.
It's a form of intellectual fraud, and it can be seen quite a lot when discussing economics - though there are many who genuinely believe what they are stating, you can sniff out the ones that don't, due to the wide swathe of dishonest methods of arguments they use; it takes a while of seeing the same repetitive arguments, to properly sniff it out though.

KyussBishop

There's a very odd statistic here, where increased political polarization over issues such as abortion in the US, seems to be driven by those closer to the 'elite' classes:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/01/raw-data-its-elites-who-drive-polarization-not-working-class

The polarization seems to specifically be among those closer to the elite, not among the mid/working-class population - which is very interesting, I wonder what the cause of that is (it's hard to draw many/any conclusions from it though).

That's a societal divide that exists between those who have greater power in society, rather than between society overall - and that does seem to have a disproportionate effect on these issues, within politics (or maybe the other way around, or in a self-reinforcing way, with politics being particularly prone to causing that group/class of people, to polarize into ideological extremes).

KyussBishop

Really interesting article here from Yanis Varoufakis, on an empirical study which shows that people will find a way to discriminate against one another, even when what distinguishes them is as meaningless as being assigned an arbitrary colour 'red' or 'blue':
http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2014/03/21/how-do-the-powerful-get-the-idea-that-they-deserve-more-lessons-from-a-laboratory/

So this shows that social divides, for creating an advantaged class and a disadvantaged class, can arise out of nothing - among ordinary people - and that the advantaged class will tend to claim this is deserved, using reasons fabricated after-the-fact, even though their distinction (a meaningless colour) is entirely arbitrary.
Much like you hear arguments, that the wealthy in general, have gained their riches through 'hard work' and merit - rather than, for many of them, their myriad of special advantages/privileges that handed them very unequal/favourable opportunities.

After the main article, there are a series of questions, and one of them is particularly good - it shows how people even within the disadvantaged class, will try to dissuade attempts of other disadvantaged people, away from changing the social order, and removing the advantaged classes privilege:

Advantaged members feel entitled to their winnings. What sense do the disadvantaged members feel? Is it injustice, etc?

Yes and no. The disadvantaged experience a mix of emotions. Partly a sense of injustice, partly a sense of pride for not being exploiters, partly an indignation against the advantaged but also partly moral condemnation of other disadvantaged people who are ‘uppity’, who think they deserve better and who seek to subvert the advantage of the advantaged. After all, the greatest opponents of feminists have been women (who proclaimed that women should stay in the home) and the police forces that attacked anti-Apartheid protesters in the South Africa were mostly black…

I'd say this goes a long way to explaining the kind of apathy you see among people, in the face of the economic crisis, and increasing income inequality (in among other forms of inequality) - it is ridiculous the extent people go to, to excuse the actions (even when likely fraudulent) of people like bankers, financiers and many of the wealthy, even though this is really arguing against their own interests as well.

It also helps explain why 'divide and conquer' is so successful a tactic, among almost any population.

robindch

KyussBishop wrote: »

Really interesting article here from Yanis Varoufakis, on an empirical study which shows that people will find a way to discriminate against one another, even when what distinguishes them is as meaningless as being assigned an arbitrary colour 'red' or 'blue':

Strikingly similar to the "Blue eyes, Brown eyes" school experiment that Jane Elliott has been running since, I think, the 1960's:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQAmdZvKf6M

The jury is out on whether this experiment, and others like it, actually reduce factionalism, but they do raise awareness of it and show how dreadfully easy it is to fall into an "I'm better than you" way of thinking.

Ambersky

Well that had me up for the last hour watching that and links that lead from the link you posted robindch. I had heard about those experiments but didnt realise they were on YouTube. Thanks

KyussBishop

robindch wrote: »

Strikingly similar to the "Blue eyes, Brown eyes" school experiment that Jane Elliott has been running since, I think, the 1960's:

The jury is out on whether this experiment, and others like it, actually reduce factionalism, but they do raise awareness of it and show how dreadfully easy it is to fall into an "I'm better than you" way of thinking.

Very interesting experiment - bizarre actually, when you read some of the stuff inspired from it:

At seminars given at U.S. federal agencies such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), white males were verbally abused by black peers and then forced to walk a gauntlet to be touched by female workers.

Kind of going beyond teaching people about discrimination (by picking an arbitrary thing to discriminate against, like eye colour), and just going straight on into full-blown reverse-racism/sexism, which is ironically implicitly racist/sexist (implying there is no racism against white people, and no sexism/sexual-harassment against men, due to how the seminar is setup).


I also like the quote in the wiki article, from a letter complaining about the ethics of the classroom experiment:
"How dare you try this cruel experiment out on white children."

oscarBravo

I remember a team-building/leadership seminar (shudder) years ago, where we were divided into two teams, and each team was asked to rank some items in order. It was a fairly arbitrary exercise, with no objectively correct answers, but the idea was to be able to justify the ranking afterwards.

Where it got interesting was the follow-up session on negotiation. Each team had to nominate two representatives to negotiate with the other team, with the goal of arriving at a consensus between the results each team had separately come up with. Bizarrely, the talks deadlocked, and no consensus could be reached. Both teams managed to get the idea that the goal was to convince the other team to agree to their own result, and neither was for budging.

At one point, when the negotiators were back reporting on "progress" to the rest of us, they insisted that they had the other team on the ropes and were determined to press the advantage. I suggested that maybe we should consider offering to change some of our results to see if they would reciprocate, but was shot down immediately - "why should we offer anything? we're winning!"

It may or may not be worthy of note that the negotiators on both teams were ardent union men.

robindch

^^^ In another one of my oft-repeated, and entirely ignored, public service initiatives, I reckon that study of the Prisoners' Dilemma, iterated and otherwise, should be mandatory in schools.

KyussBishop

Came across this very good article yesterday - very relevant to Atheism vs Religion - it describes an interesting way with which people end up getting divided into hard-set "Us vs Them" positions, even when the positions they hold are not extreme:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/

It describes very well, a kind of grey area in narrative/debate, where if someone criticizes a particularly extreme group on your 'side', you may still be compelled to counter the argument by saying "not all of us are like that" (which can help keep you entrenched in "Us vs Them" positions), but if you don't counter that argument, you allow your opponent to shift the overton window, so that they can get away with generalizing about your whole 'side'.

Anyway - the article describes it a lot better than my attempted summary :P (and it touches on a LOT of different topics) it's well worth a read.

KyussBishop

A good example of the above article actually, is an AH thread on feminism, and how extreme-but-unrepresentative things about feminism tend to be highlighted, which skews peoples view of feminism overall; in the AH thread, what was highlighted was a really silly/minor concern, where feminists want teachers to be labelled "Sir" instead of "Miss".

I think I explained the above article better in that thread:

KyussBishop wrote: »

I read this article yesterday, which I stuck in the A&A forum, about the 'weak man' logical fallacy (it's like straw man, but a lot more subtle).

It gives a very interesting/new perspective, of when you see minor/insignificant things like this, as being posted as representative of feminism (or minor things about any societal subgroup, presented as representative):
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/

I think that explains a bit, why people are prone to seeing feminists as really extreme/hyperbolic:
All of these little unrepresentative things like in the OP are highlighted, yet if you want to challenge that by saying "that's not representative", you're damned if you do and damned if you don't - if you do point that out, people can paint you as defending minor/ridiculous stuff like in the OP (and it will look like you are), but if you don't point out the generalization, it will allow people to smear a whole group of people, and shift the 'overton window' so that they are all viewed as extreme (which is what has happened with feminism - is why a lot of people view it as extreme now).

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057209728&page=4#post90382642