(08-21-2021 02:57 PM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 02:53 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(08-20-2021 06:21 PM)KickItToScotty Wrote:  

(08-20-2021 04:33 PM)bcp_jmu Wrote:  

(08-20-2021 04:17 PM)CarRamrod Wrote:  Wow, wished I'd never ventured into this nonsense of a thread. A bunch of middle-aged/senior dudes complaining about be oppressed to hide from their own prejudices and uncomfortable histories. Come on fellas, get it together.

If you cant see that blanket-labelling so many people as oppressors is a problem, then you are part of the problem

People are taking this way too personally. White, Christian men are oppressors, not oppressed, and always have been in America. Don't look at it as "hey I'm a white, Christian man so you're saying I'm bad!" It's just about what groups are generally oppressors/privileged and what groups are generally oppressed/targeted.

If it's not a matter of taking it too personally for anyone here and is a matter of thinking white men are oppressed or that oppression doesn't exist then holy crap.

So you just called maybe around 1/2 the posters on this board oppressors..

BDK - He's saying that the point is that people who LOOK like you and me and KITS (and I'm going to make some assumptions here) - white straight Christian men - have historically oppressed others who do not look like us. These are facts. And they are not unique to America BTW.

Yeah I just figured I'd keep it simple and say in America so people wouldn't go "wrong! What about in Africa?!" but then they still did.

BDK you managed to take my point as the exact opposite of what I said. My whole point was that JMU was talking about which groups generally are and have been the oppressors and that it's not such a personal "you're a white, straight, Christian man so you're an oppressor!" and then you reply back saying that I'm calling you and most of us here oppressors.

(08-21-2021 03:08 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 02:57 PM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 02:53 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(08-20-2021 06:21 PM)KickItToScotty Wrote:  

(08-20-2021 04:33 PM)bcp_jmu Wrote:  If you cant see that blanket-labelling so many people as oppressors is a problem, then you are part of the problem

People are taking this way too personally. White, Christian men are oppressors, not oppressed, and always have been in America. Don't look at it as "hey I'm a white, Christian man so you're saying I'm bad!" It's just about what groups are generally oppressors/privileged and what groups are generally oppressed/targeted.

If it's not a matter of taking it too personally for anyone here and is a matter of thinking white men are oppressed or that oppression doesn't exist then holy crap.

So you just called maybe around 1/2 the posters on this board oppressors..

BDK - He's saying that the point is that people who LOOK like you and me and KITS (and I'm going to make some assumptions here) - white straight Christian men - have historically oppressed others who do not look like us. These are facts. And they are not unique to America BTW.

So what? People on every inhabited continent of every race have oppressed others throughout history.

That is a fact sir.

Would you agree that it's wrong when a privileged person or group exerts power over another person or group?

I found some slides from this training on Facebook. Earlier I posted that white straight Christian men have historically oppressed others (which is true throughout history), however, the training isn't even suggesting that. The slides group single privileges that have exhibited oppression against those of other identities. For example: it is more common for middle aged people to take advantage of young and/or old people, able bodied people more often oppress those with physical/mental/emotional disabilities, upper class tends to be oppressors over lower class, white over black/asian/latino, men over women, straight over gay, athletic over obese.... and so on. This is stuff most people learn by 3rd grade on the playground.

In order to discuss what it means to be inclusive, you have to be able to discuss and recognize privileged identities and the effect it has on marginalized groups. This is not offensive stuff.


edit - i see those slides are linked in the other thread too. Having a hard time keeping up these days. No free time anymore.

(08-21-2021 11:43 PM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  I found some slides from this training on Facebook. Earlier I posted that white straight Christian men have historically oppressed others (which is true throughout history), however, the training isn't even suggesting that. The slides group single privileges that have exhibited oppression against those of other identities. For example: it is more common for middle aged people to take advantage of young and/or old people, able bodied people more often oppress those with physical/mental/emotional disabilities, upper class tends to be oppressors over lower class, white over black/asian/latino, men over women, straight over gay, athletic over obese.... and so on. This is stuff most people learn by 3rd grade on the playground.

In order to discuss what it means to be inclusive, you have to be able to discuss and recognize privileged identities and the effect it has on marginalized groups. This is not offensive stuff.


edit - i see those slides are linked in the other thread too. Having a hard time keeping up these days. No free time anymore.

So, censorship is the answer? Delete posts of those you disagree with?

The big, poor (we were mostly all poor), 1st generation Italian kid beat up everybody on my 3rd grade playground. He did not discriminate. That was a very long time ago so I am sure things have changed.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk

(08-22-2021 09:21 AM)Purple Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 11:43 PM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  I found some slides from this training on Facebook. Earlier I posted that white straight Christian men have historically oppressed others (which is true throughout history), however, the training isn't even suggesting that. The slides group single privileges that have exhibited oppression against those of other identities. For example: it is more common for middle aged people to take advantage of young and/or old people, able bodied people more often oppress those with physical/mental/emotional disabilities, upper class tends to be oppressors over lower class, white over black/asian/latino, men over women, straight over gay, athletic over obese.... and so on. This is stuff most people learn by 3rd grade on the playground.

In order to discuss what it means to be inclusive, you have to be able to discuss and recognize privileged identities and the effect it has on marginalized groups. This is not offensive stuff.


edit - i see those slides are linked in the other thread too. Having a hard time keeping up these days. No free time anymore.

So, censorship is the answer? Delete posts of those you disagree with?

I removed several posts that you made that were in violation of the AUP that you agreed to. That is not censorship.

(08-21-2021 11:43 PM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  I found some slides from this training on Facebook. Earlier I posted that white straight Christian men have historically oppressed others (which is true throughout history), however, the training isn't even suggesting that. The slides group single privileges that have exhibited oppression against those of other identities. For example: it is more common for middle aged people to take advantage of young and/or old people, able bodied people more often oppress those with physical/mental/emotional disabilities, upper class tends to be oppressors over lower class, white over black/asian/latino, men over women, straight over gay, athletic over obese.... and so on. This is stuff most people learn by 3rd grade on the playground.

In order to discuss what it means to be inclusive, you have to be able to discuss and recognize privileged identities and the effect it has on marginalized groups. This is not offensive stuff.


edit - i see those slides are linked in the other thread too. Having a hard time keeping up these days. No free time anymore.

I'm guessing you didn't see the video of the training. I watched it and still missed the overweight slide. Both were shown for maybe 15 seconds in total (and I'm being safe there cause I actually think it was 3-5 seconds per slide), they didn't even discuss the groupings. People are running with the screenshot versus what was actually "taught" during the training.

(08-22-2021 09:21 AM)Purple Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 11:43 PM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  I found some slides from this training on Facebook. Earlier I posted that white straight Christian men have historically oppressed others (which is true throughout history), however, the training isn't even suggesting that. The slides group single privileges that have exhibited oppression against those of other identities. For example: it is more common for middle aged people to take advantage of young and/or old people, able bodied people more often oppress those with physical/mental/emotional disabilities, upper class tends to be oppressors over lower class, white over black/asian/latino, men over women, straight over gay, athletic over obese.... and so on. This is stuff most people learn by 3rd grade on the playground.

In order to discuss what it means to be inclusive, you have to be able to discuss and recognize privileged identities and the effect it has on marginalized groups. This is not offensive stuff.


edit - i see those slides are linked in the other thread too. Having a hard time keeping up these days. No free time anymore.

So, censorship is the answer? Delete posts of those you disagree with?

Control of the flow of information and thought is always a good way to control the scope of outcome.

I think that is what some rather nasty historical leaders used to indoctrinate as well.

(08-23-2021 11:10 AM)ShadyP Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 09:21 AM)Purple Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 11:43 PM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  I found some slides from this training on Facebook. Earlier I posted that white straight Christian men have historically oppressed others (which is true throughout history), however, the training isn't even suggesting that. The slides group single privileges that have exhibited oppression against those of other identities. For example: it is more common for middle aged people to take advantage of young and/or old people, able bodied people more often oppress those with physical/mental/emotional disabilities, upper class tends to be oppressors over lower class, white over black/asian/latino, men over women, straight over gay, athletic over obese.... and so on. This is stuff most people learn by 3rd grade on the playground.

In order to discuss what it means to be inclusive, you have to be able to discuss and recognize privileged identities and the effect it has on marginalized groups. This is not offensive stuff.


edit - i see those slides are linked in the other thread too. Having a hard time keeping up these days. No free time anymore.

So, censorship is the answer? Delete posts of those you disagree with?

Control of the flow of information and thought is always a good way to control the scope of outcome.

I think that is what some rather nasty historical leaders used to indoctrinate as well.

Guys I don't make the rules. Other posters reported the posts, so I removed them. I believe both of you advocated for Dukester and I to become mods with Hburg. We don't pick and choose post we disagree with. Please participate in the forum according to the acceptable use policy.

(08-23-2021 07:03 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 11:43 PM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  I found some slides from this training on Facebook. Earlier I posted that white straight Christian men have historically oppressed others (which is true throughout history), however, the training isn't even suggesting that. The slides group single privileges that have exhibited oppression against those of other identities. For example: it is more common for middle aged people to take advantage of young and/or old people, able bodied people more often oppress those with physical/mental/emotional disabilities, upper class tends to be oppressors over lower class, white over black/asian/latino, men over women, straight over gay, athletic over obese.... and so on. This is stuff most people learn by 3rd grade on the playground.

In order to discuss what it means to be inclusive, you have to be able to discuss and recognize privileged identities and the effect it has on marginalized groups. This is not offensive stuff.


edit - i see those slides are linked in the other thread too. Having a hard time keeping up these days. No free time anymore.

I'm guessing you didn't see the video of the training. I watched it and still missed the overweight slide. Both were shown for maybe 15 seconds in total (and I'm being safe there cause I actually think it was 3-5 seconds per slide), they didn't even discuss the groupings. People are running with the screenshot versus what was actually "taught" during the training.

Imagine that! I cannot imagine somebody manipulating an image to fit their narrative

There are two sides to every story. I'd still like to hear more from the JMU side. When I get it I'll share it.

so if someone reports a post as offensive..it's removed? if that's the standard, that seems very easily abused...can you share more Deez?

My understanding is reported posts that violate AUP are generally removed right away.

I don’t think anyone has to be offended in order to report violations though.

(08-23-2021 12:44 PM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  

(08-23-2021 07:03 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 11:43 PM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  I found some slides from this training on Facebook. Earlier I posted that white straight Christian men have historically oppressed others (which is true throughout history), however, the training isn't even suggesting that. The slides group single privileges that have exhibited oppression against those of other identities. For example: it is more common for middle aged people to take advantage of young and/or old people, able bodied people more often oppress those with physical/mental/emotional disabilities, upper class tends to be oppressors over lower class, white over black/asian/latino, men over women, straight over gay, athletic over obese.... and so on. This is stuff most people learn by 3rd grade on the playground.

In order to discuss what it means to be inclusive, you have to be able to discuss and recognize privileged identities and the effect it has on marginalized groups. This is not offensive stuff.


edit - i see those slides are linked in the other thread too. Having a hard time keeping up these days. No free time anymore.

I'm guessing you didn't see the video of the training. I watched it and still missed the overweight slide. Both were shown for maybe 15 seconds in total (and I'm being safe there cause I actually think it was 3-5 seconds per slide), they didn't even discuss the groupings. People are running with the screenshot versus what was actually "taught" during the training.

Imagine that! I cannot imagine somebody manipulating an image to fit their narrative

There are two sides to every story. I'd still like to hear more from the JMU side. When I get it I'll share it.

Wrong! I didn't "manipulate an image." I posted the url with the image. It is right out there in the open on the interwebs.

Just admit it, a post can be 100% honest and possibly posted as humor, but if it isn't "woke" or politically correct, suddenly it is against the AUP.

Demonic Fascistbook and Twitter do the same thing. If a post doesn't agree with their socio-political agenda, it is removed as "a violation of community standards." It is routinely done, and I expect they are going to pay a dear price for it eventually.

Fascistbook and Twitter censor and so do you! Violation of AUP, my ass!

(08-23-2021 03:57 PM)Purple Wrote:  

(08-23-2021 12:44 PM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  

(08-23-2021 07:03 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 11:43 PM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  I found some slides from this training on Facebook. Earlier I posted that white straight Christian men have historically oppressed others (which is true throughout history), however, the training isn't even suggesting that. The slides group single privileges that have exhibited oppression against those of other identities. For example: it is more common for middle aged people to take advantage of young and/or old people, able bodied people more often oppress those with physical/mental/emotional disabilities, upper class tends to be oppressors over lower class, white over black/asian/latino, men over women, straight over gay, athletic over obese.... and so on. This is stuff most people learn by 3rd grade on the playground.

In order to discuss what it means to be inclusive, you have to be able to discuss and recognize privileged identities and the effect it has on marginalized groups. This is not offensive stuff.


edit - i see those slides are linked in the other thread too. Having a hard time keeping up these days. No free time anymore.

I'm guessing you didn't see the video of the training. I watched it and still missed the overweight slide. Both were shown for maybe 15 seconds in total (and I'm being safe there cause I actually think it was 3-5 seconds per slide), they didn't even discuss the groupings. People are running with the screenshot versus what was actually "taught" during the training.

Imagine that! I cannot imagine somebody manipulating an image to fit their narrative

There are two sides to every story. I'd still like to hear more from the JMU side. When I get it I'll share it.

Wrong! I didn't "manipulate an image." I posted the url with the image. It is right out there in the open on the interwebs.

Just admit it, a post can be 100% honest and possibly posted as humor, but if it isn't "woke" or politically correct, suddenly it is against the AUP.

Demonic Fascistbook and Twitter do the same thing. If a post doesn't agree with their socio-political agenda, it is removed as "a violation of community standards." It is routinely done, and I expect they are going to pay a dear price for it eventually.

Fascistbook and Twitter censor and so do you! Violation of AUP, my ass!

I don't believe he meant "manipulate" as in photoshop, but as in the meaning, but please don't let that interrupt your rant.

Purple,
The picture isn't the problem and you know it. You used a racist epithet directed at white people. That is a violation of the forum's acceptable use policy. Unless you're planning to use the "that's our word" defense next, this conversation is over. My agenda is to root for the Dukes. Please observe the community standards established for the board.

(08-21-2021 08:57 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 08:27 AM)Bill Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 07:59 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  Is it really national news if it's only reported by one network? I too would like to see the training video. If one report on Fox makes anybody "cancel their donations" that's a shame. Until I have seen the material, the Fox headline is just a click-bate link as much as a "you won't believe what happened next" article that comes up from buzzfeed/etc.

History fact: white/Christian/male/straight have exerted power/privilege over marginalized demographics more often than the other way around. If you can't grapple with this fact then nobody can help you. Understanding history is how we learn and understand how to prevent history from happening again.

One network? click-bait? Fox News, Yahoo News, the Daily Mail (UK), Christian News, National Review, Breitbart, Newsmax and I'm sure some others all ran their own articles on it and reddit, google news, twitter, gab, and many other aggregators helped it spread quickly.

"you're sure" others ran the story, or you are guessing others ran the story? Can you provide their links? I haven't seen it on any other outlets.

Have you looked? I'm using the same Internet you are:

https://news.yahoo.com/james-madison-uni...12120.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...ssors.html

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/coll...rs-report/

https://christiannewsnow.com/james-madis...ppressors/

https://www.newsmax.com/us/privilege-whi...d/1033084/

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/08/2...ppressors/

(08-21-2021 09:47 AM)bjk3047 Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 07:57 AM)Bill Wrote:  James Madison, a white Christian man, therefore, an oppressor. When do we start the "what's the new name of the university going to be" poll?

I dunno, Bill, maybe not your finest glib example. Dude owned over a hundred slaves. Pretty reasonable example of an oppressor.

By the way, for the folks here on this thread who have been struggling with the whole “can I be an oppressor and oppressed at the same time” thing, Intersectionality has been studied for 30 years. Worth some reading and some personal introspection on the topic.

Blacks (in America) owned thousands of slaves, why aren't they considered oppressors? Some blacks owned some slaves hundreds of years ago, so black people are oppressors. There is no good reason why they shouldn't be on the list. Democrats fought to the death to keep blacks enslaved and voted against laws that gave blacks the right to vote and gave them civil rights. Why aren't Democrats on the list of oppressors? There is no good reason they, too, shouldn't be on the list. Transgendered men in the women's room are oppressors, so why aren't the transgendered listed as oppressors?

I can use facts and cherry picked "categories" to shape a narrative too. But who gets to decide the categories? Who gets to decide who is the oppressor and who are the oppressed? Who gets to decide the factors? Who gets to decide who does and doesn’t make the list?

(08-24-2021 03:16 PM)Bill Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 09:47 AM)bjk3047 Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 07:57 AM)Bill Wrote:  James Madison, a white Christian man, therefore, an oppressor. When do we start the "what's the new name of the university going to be" poll?

I dunno, Bill, maybe not your finest glib example. Dude owned over a hundred slaves. Pretty reasonable example of an oppressor.

By the way, for the folks here on this thread who have been struggling with the whole “can I be an oppressor and oppressed at the same time” thing, Intersectionality has been studied for 30 years. Worth some reading and some personal introspection on the topic.

Blacks (in America) owned thousands of slaves, why aren't they considered oppressors? Some blacks owned some slaves hundreds of years ago, so black people are oppressors. There is no good reason why they shouldn't be on the list. Democrats fought to the death to keep blacks enslaved and voted against laws that gave blacks the right to vote and gave them civil rights. Why aren't Democrats on the list of oppressors? There is no good reason they, too, shouldn't be on the list. Transgendered men in the women's room are oppressors, so why aren't the transgendered listed as oppressors?

I can use facts and cherry picked "categories" to shape a narrative too. But who gets to decide the categories? Who gets to decide who is the oppressor and who are the oppressed? Who gets to decide the factors? Who gets to decide who does and doesn’t make the list?

More importantly, we need to ask ourselves what the end game is for all this. What possible good comes from pitting people against each other who otherwise get along just fine? And most do get along just fine despite these efforts to drive wedges.

There is a goal to all this. I don't know what it is, but "othering" entire classes of people based on junk science (or religion) has never been a first step for anything positive.

Has anyone heard any rumors coming out of today's impromptu BOV meeting? Can only hope significant changes are coming.

(08-24-2021 04:00 PM)91Alum Wrote:  More importantly, we need to ask ourselves what the end game is for all this. What possible good comes from pitting people against each other who otherwise get along just fine? And most do get along just fine despite these efforts to drive wedges.

There is a goal to all this. I don't know what it is, but "othering" entire classes of people based on junk science (or religion) has never been a first step for anything positive.

Has anyone heard any rumors coming out of today's impromptu BOV meeting? Can only hope significant changes are coming.

I don't understand the bold. What is "all this" and how does it pit people against each other?