The only real solution that could ever be effective is to raise enough awareness of institutionalized bigotry so there's a critical mass of people interested in real change. Realistically this means that issues will get raised and dealt with on smaller scales, slowly bringing awareness to more and more people. Over time more and more people will clamor for the destruction of cultural traditions rooted in bigotry.
Which is precisely what's happening. The tech community, with its forward-thinking outlook, has become a foremost battleground. The larger feminist movement has been grappling with trying to include more men among their numbers, the vast majority of them just tune out feminist ideology.
You can't destroy institutions. What you can do is change peoples' consciousness so social injustices within those institutions gain attention instead of being ignored.
Sounds like the plan is just more bolt-ons. Unless we are converging on a universally preferable society, this is a struggle that will go on forever as society evolves. I do agree that institutions can't be destroyed, as they're simply abstract concepts, but they can be disarmed in such a way that their influence is inconsequential (from the perspective of voluntary association).
I do think the future is bright, the free exchange of information being key.
It's a messy solution to a messy problem. I do think eventually sexism will go the way of eugenics. Replaced with another social struggle. There will always be some people aware of how things could be better that have the motivation to raise awareness.
Thankfully I am a programmer and not a social worker, because that perspective seems totally unacceptable to me. It feels like the Windows 98 solution - instead of figuring out the cause of infrequent bluescreens, just reboot, save often and hope that the problem is resolved in the next release :)
sighsigh, you appear to have been hellbanned for the first comment in this thread, which was flagged enough times to get it killed. I can't reply directly to your posts for this reason. Your posts won't show up on people's pages unless individual posters have showdead turned on in their profile. I suggest you find a different outlet for your views.
I would suggest you figure out how to have a real conversation with someone instead of just spouting off whatever vaguely-logical, overly-reactionary BS that's on your mind, but it doesn't look like you're interested in that. Best of luck to you.
You got four down votes but also a lot of flags. You won't see the number of flags you got like you do the down votes.
Precision and accuracy aren't always possible within the constraints of a discussion. One has to learn to operate without them.
But I'll indulge you one more time. "Racist" is a highly charged word. It should be reserved for those who truly deserve the label, i.e. Nazis and modern white supremacists. Unfortunately marginalizing just those people doesn't solve the problem. There's plenty of subtle behaviors and attitudes that don't quite reach the level of the white supremacist but still contributes to an overall lower opinion of black Americans than of white Americans.
This phenomenon needs to be studied and understood, because it's a big problem and contributes to generational poverty. A workplace that one wouldn't call overtly racist can still have their black employees make less than their white employees for the same work. The phrase that the social justice movement has decided on to call this phenomenon is institutionalized racism. It's racism, but no one person or group of people is the culprit, instead it survives because people don't care enough to examine how or why they make certain decisions.
> Good to know social justice inquisition can be conducted without actually engaging with someone. Silence the infidel! He speaks heresy!
There does seem to be a quasi-religious aspect to the social justice movement. I consider it a feature rather than a bug. Just be glad it's not a real inquisition. If you think this is bad...
> Institutions can be precisely and accurately defined. We can start with units of individuals.
Okay, let's give this a shot. How about the institution of Hollywood? You have the film makers, actors, film crew, producers. Then you have the major studios, the lawyers. How about the accountants? Are they part of the institution? They work on location in the industry, so let's throw them in.
What about the cinemas? They're not in Hollywood proper, but they license the movies and make a profit off of them. Doesn't feel completely right, but lets add them in too.
The people that go to the cinemas? They're the ones that keep the system going, that ultimately decide what movies get made. Feels even less right, but let's throw them in for good measure.
People that watch movies and television? You mean, "everyone"? That's the problem with your approach. The line that says whether someone's in an institution or not is always going to be at least somewhat arbitrary. Institutions are intended to be this way, to have wide-ranging social effects.
What about the institution of slavery? Is everyone that profited from slavery a part of the institution? If so, you're back at "it's no one's fault". If not, you're ultimately being arbitrary as to who is contributing to an institution.
I hope this satisfies your desire for precision. I spent five paragraphs outlining one specific concept. Imagine if I had to do this for everything you bring up in your long posts. I'd need even more words to be as precise as you'd want me to be. That's why I said precision and accuracy aren't always possible. It was as precise as I could convey that concept without writing a book about it.
Now that I've spilled all these words on one topic, I find myself with little left in the tank for the rest of your points. Now I shall silence and marginalize and conduct a crusade against you by not replying to any of your future posts. Think about that for a moment.
take heart in the fact that this random reader found your exploration of "What is an institution if you can't say who is an is not a part of it?" enlightening and will probably use your words in some later conversation.
Yeah, I think of troll-feeding as an excellent opportunity to think more deeply about things that I hadn't really considered previously. The problem is that, at least in this community, it produces these crazy ginormous threads that totally overtake the rest of the discussion. And to be honest, most people don't do it well at all. So not only is there this huge blob, but there's nothing really interesting in it.
Not every form of discourse is appropriate for every forum.
The only real solution that could ever be effective is to raise enough awareness of institutionalized bigotry so there's a critical mass of people interested in real change. Realistically this means that issues will get raised and dealt with on smaller scales, slowly bringing awareness to more and more people. Over time more and more people will clamor for the destruction of cultural traditions rooted in bigotry.
Which is precisely what's happening. The tech community, with its forward-thinking outlook, has become a foremost battleground. The larger feminist movement has been grappling with trying to include more men among their numbers, the vast majority of them just tune out feminist ideology.
You can't destroy institutions. What you can do is change peoples' consciousness so social injustices within those institutions gain attention instead of being ignored.