Posie Parker Interview

[wprice81]

Is anyone else aware that Posie is doing an interview with controversial youtuber, j.f. gariepy? didn't expect to see that...

Are you saying racists are created because white people keep being told they are rubbish? I'm just trying to get my head around what yr saying DuMonde because that doesn't ring true to me? (IIf that's what you mean). Surely racism has been around since the white man was considered the absolute pinnacle of human perfection!
Isn't it like saying that telling the truth about male violence makes men hate women more, so don't do it? Maybe there's a tiny proportion of young guys who can't handle the truth and become your typical MRA/Incel bitter angry basement dweller, but does that mean we can't tell the truth in case that happens?

I think because the point of YouTube is to get more hits for your channel and more subscribers (because that earns you more money) then the benefits of interviews like these are to the host, rather than the guest.

This isn't fundamentally different than other types of interview formats. even good news shows or print interviews will choose subjects that they believe will interest their viewers, get them watching or buying the publication, and not necessarily because they will agree with them.

That's not to say it isn't worth thinking about whether the interviewer will allow you to say your piece, or will misrepresent you, or if there is enough exposure to make it worth your time. This will all depend on your goal, and to some extent guesses about the behaviour of the host and program.
But that is really very different than saying that you will not be interviewed by someone whose views you find terrible, or disagree with on very basic things, because somehow this indicates that you don't care about that issue or that you consider these people allies etc. There are plenty of examples out there of people who are interviewing or being interviewed by, or sharing a platform with, someone who is a communist or a facist or a white nationalist or a black nationalist, or an atheist or a fundamentalist, or criminals or cultists, and so on, that we simply would not have if people thought that somehow they'd be contaminated by talking to those who they disagree with.

Are you saying racists are created because white people keep being told they are rubbish? I'm just trying to get my head around what yr saying DuMonde because that doesn't ring true to me? (IIf that's what you mean). Surely racism has been around since the white man was considered the absolute pinnacle of human perfection!

Race exists as a concept in order to enable discrimination of whatever group of people you designate as belonging to the other group, be that based on geography, or ethnicity, or skin colour, whatever. That's what it's for.

The first thing any attempt to get rid of racism requires is to undermine the concept. Not necessarily that it doesn't exist as a live idea, clearly it does, but that it has no basis. This is very difficult to do because the nature of racism creates effects that are really experienced and it not only reinforces the idea of racial identity in the oppressors, but also in the oppressed.
One of the terrible things about identity politics is that it doesn't challenge the idea of race at a basic level, on the contrary, it reinforces it. It absolutely encourages some people to see race as a core part of their identity, it tries to insert it into every possible context it can. But you can't somehow make this happen for some people and not others. If you encourage people to see embracing something like black or Muslim identity as defining who they are (this sort of approach used to be called black nationalism), you can't draw a line and say, this doesn't also apply to white identity, white nationalism. If people think racial identity is objective, they will want to know how to define that in something like scientific terms, hence the interest in IQ studies and similar things. And if you start trying to privilege oppressed racial voices, you will tend even more to create a strong sense of racial identity in those who are being told they've had too much privilege and now have to withdraw or hand it over. Which is ridiculous of course, the fact that some white 35 year old in Michigan has a similar skin colour to some 17th century toff is pretty meaningless to the former. You are essentially discounting him as an individual because of his racial profile, which is the essence of racism. And nothing creates racial identity so quickly or strongly as feeling like you are being personally dismissed for some set of arbitrary characteristics that you can't control.

Do you apply the same concept to men and women?

Should we stop saying men have privilege and women are oppressed, because this is why men beat women?

Wow Goosefoot that was a very in depth explanation -thank you.
I get what you are saying about racism as an artificial concept put in place to opress another type of person. That makes sense to me-it benefits certain groups to create racism, for example when ransacking and colonising countries. Then terrible acts can be justified. To my mind most events in history are triggered by a drive for economic gain, and racism would fit into that.
But as you said, the effects of a few hundred years of racism on black and brown people is really experienced, it's in everyday life.
I agree that someone's race should be an incidental part of their identity, not the whole thing (and I'm iffy about the whole idea of identity full stop) but it seems a little convenient that now racism is generally seen as bad ..hey! We're all equal now, no need for dwelling on things!
Again, if you equate it to the women's struggle-are we not allowed to point out injustice, or bias against women in case men start getting defensive? I mean, they DO get defensive, but are we supposed to avoid the truth? I am not defined by being a woman but the fact is that it does disadvantage me.
I dunno. I need to work. I'm gonna process all this later!

Are you saying racists are created because white people keep being told they are rubbish? I'm just trying to get my head around what yr saying DuMonde

Not all of them, no. Certainly not historical racists. This is an Internet-age phenomenon.
I’m saying that some of the current culture war is being caused by this, and it’s pushing people who weren’t particularly bothered or were perhaps natural centrists into the arms of the right.

Same as the left parties/left leaning media is pushing women who know what biological sex towards the right (hence feminists such Julie Bindel now writing for the Telegraph/Times/Spectator and Posie talking to the person at the start of this thread).

And yes, all identity politics contribute to the culture war, where feminism sits with that is not quite clear - what feminism currently is isn’t quite clear either (hence us all being branded swerves and terves).

As Douglas Murray says, if Germain Greer can be cast out of feminism for wrongthink, and Kanye West can be declared not really black because he supports Trump, what is identity politics actually doing anyway?

My personal feeling is that the material reality of inequality has to be proven if we we are ever to fix it - otherwise we end up with stuff like the trans thing - trans people have exactly the same human rights as everyone else, so what exactly are they asking for when they say ‘trans rights now’?

The material reality of inequality between the sexes is easily proven, Early, look at the figures for who owns the most property and capital worldwide for starters.
However, I think you’d be hard pressed to say, for example, that girls receive a lower standard of education than boys in GB 2019, so we need to pick our battles appropriately.

Do you apply the same concept to men and women? Should we stop saying men have privilege and women are oppressed, because this is why men beat women?

We'd have to think it through and see if the same logic applied, wouldn't we?
I think there are some ways that it's similar, and some that it's not. But in the main I would say that while the idea of race exists in order to allow racism, sexual dimorphism is a material reality with all kinds of material effects and complications. I'm generally quite suspicious of arguments that simply claim male privilege or blame "the patriarchy" though, they have a similar way to identity politics of avoiding the material reality and just substituting a generalised sort of sense of maleness and femaleness that they take for granted.

I dunno.

The white 35 year old is much less likely to be killed by police than his Black counterpart. White woman are much less likely to die in childbirth than Black women.

“Privilege” is not just money or power (many white people have neither) or how you feel.

It is how others treat you, based on how they see you. The difference can be life and death.

The material reality of inequality between the sexes is easily proven, Early

And the material reality of inequality between race isn’t?

Unemployment rates in the UK are double for ethnic minority’s compared to white.
Black kids are excluded at 3 times the rate of white kids, white kids chances of going to a Russel group uni are double that of black kids.
White people are 3x less likely to live in substandard housing.
Black women have a mortality rate 4x higher than white women.
Black women are 7x more likely to be detained than white women.
Black people are 3x more likely to be denied entry or thrown out of a public space.
43% of black people feel they’ve been overlooked for a promotion....

But we should all just forget about race. It means nothing, right.

Jesus.

2B

Yes, that may be the case, in which case it's something to be accounted for. Even there though it's important to be very caful not to simply say "that's systemic racism" because there is no mechanism being described, it's like a sort of maical explanation. Its not actually because some guy is white that he is less likely to be killed by police. There is a specific series of causes and effects that leads to that situation, and it's really important to know what that is.
An example of why this is true is that if you look at the history of the civil rights movement, there was a feeling at one time by some activists that a way to change that would be to have more blacks in leadership positions - mayors, governors, in the police, etc. And yet they found that isn't really the case. You still get the same problem when you have a black mayor, a black city council, a black chief of police, a black police officer, and the kind of city where you have those people in power. So, what does systemic racism really mean there? Is that even the answer or is it something else? You don't really know, or know what you might do about it, until you look at the mechanisms.

But I was really getting at the idea that identity politics privileges certain voices and experiences, supposedly as a way to redress oppression. But you are still creating a group of people who are now being told they don't get to have a say. Saying that white Joe from Michigan has to keep quiet because white men as a group have a lesser change of being shot is not some sort of balanced neutral effect in accordance with his personal actions.

And the material reality of inequality between race isn’t?

The material reality of sexual dimphism is based on the fact that women have babies and men don't. Unless we change the nature of women and human beings somehow, that's how it is. Most women historically spend a lot of time pregnant, nursing and caring for small children, men don't, that's not something that's imposed by a social construct, and it has all kinds of direct causal effects in terms of other social roles.

The material reality of racial oppression comes from the myth of race. It's been applied in all kinds of ways throughout history, as it's been useful to someone. It's only been related to skin colour for a relatively short period of time compared to the idea of race itself. The colour of your skin, or your nationality, are not the actual cause of the effects of racism. If you live in 19th century America, or 12th century China, or the 5th century BCE in Greece, the effects of "race" will attach to quite different groups of people as the social constructs dictate. because being non-Greek, or dark skinned, does not inherently determine your social role or capabilities.

Did you actually read my posts or are your eyes too full of self righteousness, Early? 😂

I said, we haven’t achieved equality. In the post I made ABOUT race! FFS!

But if you blame ALL current white people for racism, on the basis of an accident of birth, then it stops being a fixable problem, and instead becomes something like original sin.

An inner city boy who is raised on benefits studies hard and becomes the first in his family to go university - where he is promptly told to sit down and keep quiet because ‘straight white men have had their turn’.
That’s how you make racists. They might not say it out loud, but if you judge a person by immutable characteristics, you can’t be surprised if they do it back to you.

Does this fix the material problems in society or does it just make the other side even less likely to listen to your evidence? Or worse still, does it make them go rooting around for things to prove your evidence invalid?

Push it too far and we end up with an over correction and a backlash. I’m not saying it’s fair, but you can’t take the humans out of human nature. People will dig in and self defend and if equality is the aim, well, it’ s not going to be achieved by warfare, is it?

But if you blame ALL current white people for racism

Who’s done that?

he is promptly told to sit down and keep quiet because ‘straight white men have had their turn’.That’s how you make racists

I can’t imagine that’s a common occurrence? Racists are formed in many ways - groomed by people like the man in question here, racist parents, bad company, the media... ever noticed how white murderers and murders of colour are portrayed differently in the news?

Push it too far and we end up with an over correction and a backlash

So what do you propose? We ignore that people of colour are oppressed, and white people are born with a level of privilege, in the same way men are, so as not to upset them?

Shall we not discuss racial inequalities because that’s the reason white supremists go and shoot up mosques?

Genuinely, what are you suggesting? We excuse racists because maybe they were called privileged once and it upset them?

You really should get up to date with what’s happening in the USA, Early. It’s fucking terrifying.

I wish I had the answer, but I don’t, yet.
I’m continuing to search for one though, because digging ourselves into IDPOL trenches (aka echo chambers) won’t do jack shit for equality (but it will get Trump elected for another term).

"Black kids are excluded at 3 times the rate of white kids"

The stats would seem to point out that Gypsy/Roma and Irish Traveller groups who are both white, are excluded at a far higher rate than black kids.

www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/absence-and-exclusions/pupil-exclusions/latest#temporary-exclusions-by-ethnicity

The permanent and fixed period exclusion rate for boys is around three times that of girls.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/726741/text_exc1617.pdf

If we accept that there is a high exclusion rate for black boys, then why is that? Do they often lack a role model, or possibly choose role models who are unsuitable? Are they more likely to get involved in drugs or gang culture, where the norms and behaviour are steeped in violence and misogyny?
Is the above, the reason for high levels of unemployment?
As for sub standard housing, well housing today is nothing like it was back in the sixties. We lived in a three bed terraced house, where it was so cold in the Winter, that ice formed on the inside of the windows and we had an outside loo.
Every child in the UK should have an education, an equal education, where it is up to pupils whether or not they wish to learn, or would they rather take the other route of disrupting lessons, getting into fights, tagging along with their peers, listening to "drill music", carrying knives and belonging to "County lines" drug gangs.

www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/health/physical-and-mental-health/illicit-drug-use-among-adults/latest

www.vice.com/en_uk/article/dp5npk/foi-uk-drug-conviction-ethnicity-282

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/living-on-the-edge-the-real-reasons-why-black-boys-are-falling-to-violent-crime-in-london_uk_5c405edae4b0a8dbe16df465

David Webb’s take on ‘white privilege’ is thought provoking.

It certainly made me examine where some of my leftie liberal views had come from:

www.youtube.com/user/RubinReport

Direct link:

Genuinely, what are you suggesting?

You keep to the topic of a thread instead of doing a look over here to distract from anything that could possibly be successful in opposing genderism?

Pipe dream, I know.

Even your flounces self-identify.

This isn't fundamentally different than other types of interview formats. even good news shows or print interviews will choose subjects that they believe will interest their viewers, get them watching or buying the publication, and not necessarily because they will agree with them.

I think it is fundamentally different. A YouTube channel is a niche market. The only people likely to watch the channel are already followers. They already agree with the host and share his views. All this has done is given him more hits to his channel (including those on here who have gone to view it) and given his opinions an air of respectability.

I agree that mainstream TV programmes should interview people with these grotesque views but they should do it as a way of showing them up for what they are and challenging their viewpoint. Not agree with them or fail to challenge them.

Time and time again on this board I see the argument made that men should be responsible for the behaviour of other men. That it's the responsibility of good men to call out other men on their behaviour yet here posters are saying they aren't responsible for another woman's behaviour and that they won't criticise her.

What other good points does PP have going for her other than she agrees with you on the trans debate? Did she help women in the US for example who are being denied abortions or contraception on her recent visit?

I find it astonishing that posters on here who are always do quick to flash their feminist credentials are willing to turn a blind eye to this.

Time and time again on this board I see the argument made that men should be responsible for the behaviour of other men. That it's the responsibility of good men to call out other men on their behaviour yet here posters are saying they aren't responsible for another woman's behaviour and that they won't criticise her.

Agreed, it's hypocritical

Oh lang get over yourself, I have just as much right to respond to people as anyone else. You’re not the gatekeeper of FWR

andy you make good suggestions as to the why, but you’ve missed out a key option, Racial profiling, we know the police do it, we know that subconsciously most people have a white preference and that people make snap assumptions based on race.
Why are you not examining that perhaps black kids are cast off as ‘the naughty ones’ easier than the white kids? Just like the police, in some places, black boys were ‘random searched’ at a rate 25 times more than white. Research in the USA shows black men are sentenced for 20% longer than white men for the same crime.

I don’t think it’s as clear cut as black people are just instinctively ‘naughtier’

If we accept that there is a high exclusion rate for black boys, then why is that?

There is research that has pointed to the unconscious biases of teachers, who swear they aren't racist but unintentionally view the behaviour and capabilities of ethnic minority children differently to their non minority peers. It can act like a self fulfiing prophecy. Of course there are many factors.

TequilaPilates 👏🏾👏🏾 Absolutely agree.

There’s a gatekeeper of FWR?

Whoever she is, she’s sacked.

Andy those arguments are similar to the ones used when women complain about discrimination.

We don't make choices in a vacuum. What's making young black boys choose gang culture, or drugs, or rap music or whatever (if they indeed are) over getting an education and making a good life for themselves? Why do they feel that some parts of society just aren't applicable to them and that they aren't a part of it?

That's where racism comes into it and as a white person it isn't something that I am forced to think about (in the same way that men don't have to think about some of the things that women have to think about). It's white privilege isn't it?