Privileged people calling less privileged people "stupid" doesn't seem to be working...

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Everyone to blame for twats like Trump ‘except the people who vote for them’

 

[Treacle Toes]

This response feels a bit 'smug' to me. If you read my post in good faith it's clear that I used the phrase 'unnecessary jargon' as shorthand to acknowledge that technical language can sometimes be useful and that critical thinking can involve hard work, before going on to make a point you seem to broadly agree with.

You asked for an example so instead of plucking some randomness out of the air I saw an opportunity to use something from our current conversation. Nothing smug about that.

Equally, I did read what you wrote in good faith, you used the term 'dumbing down' on a thread about priviledged people not calling others stupid, do you not see why I would pick up on that? I used the term 'passive', as I wasn't accusing you of doing it purposely.

Also, my point was about not perceiving jargonless conversations as dumb or that 'value' is lost by using everyday language and examples to illustrate political concepts.

I'm genuinely interested in what theories and terms people who talk in terms of class on Urban75 use, which you see as irrelevant.

Where have I said that any theories or terms are irrelevant?

If you are gonna start putting words into my mouth i'll not continue.

 

[eoin_k]

This is what I have been trying to get you to elaborate on:

... Championing the rights of the W/C yet speaking in theories/terms that the average w/c person I am in contact with daily wouldn't connect to or care for.

I'm genuinely interested in what theories and terms you are referring to by this. (Obviously there is a general failure to get enough momentum behind an alternative to the status quo, but we all share in that.)

You've misconstrued what I have said about 'dumbing down'. I was trying to describe the need to communicate in a way that avoids the twin pitfalls of unnecessary jargon and patronising those you are trying to communicate with by using simplistic arguments.

 

[Treacle Toes]

This is what I have been trying to get you to elaborate on:

Ah I see. I wasn't referring to any one theory or term. I meant the use of theory/jargon when unnecessary and/or the failure to illustrate political concepts using everyday situations so not to exclude. It was a general comment aimed at looking at what can be done differently in terms of engagement and building solidarity.

I think chilango alluded to similar when he was discussing 'how' to discuss certain things at the school gates for example.

You've misconstrued what I have said about 'dumbing down'

On your word I will accept that I have misconstrued what you meant by dumbing down.

I still have issues with the term though and hope you can understand my points about how such terms can passively manifest attitudes with regards knowledge/intellect. Arguments don't need to be complicated to have validity afterall.

 

[killer b]

You don't have to take his word for it, you just have misconstrued it.

 

[Treacle Toes]

You don't have to take his word for it, you just have misconstrued it.

I am taking his word for it that he didn't mean it in that way.

 

[killer b]

I don't understand. In the original post and in his explanation it's clear what he meant. Why do you have to 'take his word' for something thats a misunderstanding on your part?

 

[Treacle Toes]

I don't understand. In the original post and in his explanation it's clear what he meant. Why do you have to 'take his word' for something thats a misunderstanding on your part?

I don't use the expression 'dumbing down' when I am referring to speaking in non-jargony terms, therefore misunderstood his intention when using it. He has now clarified. I take his word for it and have been clear about my issue with such terms.

Maybe you can stop splitting hairs?

 

[Athos]

I don't use the expression 'dumbing down' when I am referring to speaking in non-jargony terms, therefore misunderstood his intention when using it.

Neither did he. It was clear that he was saying that we should aim for the space between the two extremes; one being jargon, the other being the stripping away of all/any terms of art. You misunderstood what he was saying, but are trying to portray it as his failing, rather than your own.

 

[killer b]

I don't use the expression 'dumbing down' when I am referring to speaking in non-jargony terms, therefore misunderstood his intention when using it. He has now clarified. I take his word for it and have been clear about my issue with such terms.

Maybe you can stop splitting hairs?

I'm not splitting hairs, I think it's pretty important - you misunderstood something, but saying you'll 'take his word for it' suggests you still don't understand (in fact, implicit in the phrase is the suggestion that you don't take his word for it - it's just a way of closing down the conversation, not any kind of acceptance of the other person's point)

People get shit wrong all the time, I know I certainly do - I think part of having the open and honest debate you say you want involves holding up our hands when we do so, rather than huffily shrugging it off.

 

[eoin_k]

yep. Most certainly. I don't think anyone is saying 'don't talk about race/gender'.

I'm trying to get at something more than being able to continue to talk about these things though. Exploring how racial and gender divisions perpetuate class relations and vice versa is central to the best class analysis. Not only is this important for understanding social changes but also if there is to be any chance of class politics re-emerging as a serious 'political' force, otherwise railing against identity politics might seem like some white guys having nostalgia for a time when everyone else knew their place.

 

[Treacle Toes]

I'm not splitting hairs, I think it's pretty important - you misunderstood something, but saying you'll 'take his word for it' suggests you still don't understand (in fact, implicit in the phrase is the suggestion that you don't take his word for it - it's just a way of closing down the conversation, not any kind of acceptance of the other person's point)

People get shit wrong all the time, I know I certainly do - I think part of having the open and honest debate you say you want involves holding up our hands when we do so, rather than huffily shrugging it off.

I'm not huffily shrugging it off ffs and you are splitting hairs IMO. I have openly accepted I misunderstood him/his use of the term and here you are telling me that I don't really mean that and I'm in a huff. Great.

 

[killer b]

Oh, OK then. I'll take your word for it.

 

[Athos]

I'm trying to get at something more than being able to continue to talk about these things though. Exploring how racial and gender divisions perpetuate class relations and vice versa is central to the best class analysis. Not only is this important for understanding social changes but also if there is to be any chance of class politics re-emerging as a serious 'political' force, otherwise railing against identity politics might seem like some white guys having nostalgia for a time when everyone else knew their place.

I think you're right; it's important for class-based analysis to be seen to encompas race, gender etc., etc., rather than exclude it. To acknowledge the importance of those issues to class, and vice versa. To show focus on class as a win/win, rather than a zero sum game.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Oh, OK then. I'll take your word for it.

That would be nice actually, cheers.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm trying to get at something more than being able to continue to talk about these things though. Exploring how racial and gender divisions perpetuate class relations and vice versa is central to the best class analysis. Not only is this important for understanding social changes but also if there is to be any chance of class politics re-emerging as a serious 'political' force, otherwise railing against identity politics might seem like some white guys having nostalgia for a time when everyone else knew their place.

Sure. But at the same time, explaining and understanding does not need to include excusing. People still need to be taken to task and held responsible for the consequences of their racism, for instance. To understand is not necessarily to excuse.

 

[killer b]

Tbf I think the only people doing any excusing are the racists.

 

[chilango]

Sure. But at the same time, explaining and understanding does not need to include excusing. People still need to be taken to task and held responsible for the consequences of their racism, for instance. To understand is not necessarily to excuse.

"Taken to task"

How? By who? For what end?

 

[chilango]

Also who are these people?

All Trump voters? All UKIP voters? All Brexit voters?

...or just the racist ones?

 

[bimble]

I think you're right; it's important for class-based analysis to be seen to encompass race, gender etc., etc., rather than exclude it. To acknowledge the importance of those issues to class, and vice versa. To show it as a win/win, rather than a zero sum game.

Yes! I'm one of the most clueless randoms on here, politically uneducated for sure, and this would help a lot. I'm willing to accept that I've got the wrong end of the stick on this exact thing here (repeatedly), I keep thinking that I hear people doing exactly that (talking as if its a zero sum game, that there is no room for talk of racism or feminism etc).
Instead of anyone trying to show me my error though, I've got anger instead, been called things worse than stupid, because people assume i'm doing it on purpose. Which just ends up reinforcing the feeling that this whole class based analysis excludes me. I hope a way forward can be found where this is made clear, so that people a bit like me who who might read the leaflet that eoin_k was imagining can feel included and not made to feel like the enemy.

 

[Athos]

Yes! I'm one of the most clueless randoms on here, politically uneducated for sure, and this would help a lot. I'm willing to accept that I've got the wrong end of the stick on this exact thing here (repeatedly), I keep thinking that I hear people doing exactly that (talking as if its a zero sum game, that there is no room for talk of racism or feminism etc).
Instead of anyone trying to show me my error though, I've got anger instead, been called things worse than stupid, because people assume i'm doing it on purpose. Which just ends up reinforcing the feeling that this whole class based analysis excludes me. I hope a way forward can be found where this is made clear, so that people a bit like me who who might read the leaflet that eoin_k was imagining can feel included and not made to feel like the enemy.

It's not really for others to show you your error, though. I'm sure that you're capable of spotting most of the issues yourself, if you tried. Take your post I criticised, earlier, for example. It was a series of fale assumptions and faulty conclusions, that you'd have noticed if you'd pur anything beyond the most superficial thought into it. Not having a pop, but you can't really ask to be spoonfed if you don't appear to make an effort.

 

[bimble]

It's not really for others to show you your error, though. I'm sure that you're capable of spotting most of the issues yourself, if you tried. Take your post I criticised, earlier, for example. It was a series of fale assumptions and faulty conclusions, that you'd have noticed if you'd pur anything beyond the most superficial thought into it. Not having a pop, but you can't really ask to be spoonfed if you don't appear to make an effort.

Again, you think i'm doing it on purpose or am being wilfully obtuse. Calling people stupid isn't working so lets call em lazy instead.

 

[Athos]

Again, you think i'm doing it on purpose or am being wilfully obtuse. Calling people stupid isn't working so lets call em lazy instead.

No, it's precisely becasue I don't think you're stupid that I put it down to laziness (which is more charitable that the third possible explanation).

What do you understand class to mean, and how does it interact with e.g. race and sex?

 

[treelover]

Who are ‘the left behind’?

By Tom O’Leary

Following the Brexit vote here and the victory of Trump in the US Presidential election there has been much ill-informed discussion of the ‘left behind’, sometimes spuriously described as the white working class who have not benefitted from rising living standards, or even globalisation in general.

It is not the purpose of this article to untangle the web of half-truths, distortions and falsehoods that comprise those statements. To take one example, the first great political and social exposition of the effects of ‘globalisation’ can be found in the Communist Manifesto. This sets out the enormous capacity of capitalism to dominate the globe by raising production up to a new, much higher level and so increase the exploitation of both natural resources and labour. It has nothing in common with radical ‘anti-globalisation’, that is protectionist and increasingly anti-immigrant movements in the Western countries.

Instead the focus here is narrowly on who are the ‘left behind’ in the UK. They are not the old white workers of the former industrial north, as is commonly portrayed. They are youth, dsiproportionately Asian and black youth. These are the very people who oppose Trump and who largely voted to Remain (71% of them).

Socialist Appeal(Livingstone and CO) don't seem to think the 'white working class' exists and if it does, then its not doing badly compared to other minorities.

 

[emanymton]

Socialist Appeal(Livingstone and CO) don't seem to think the 'white working class' exists and if it does, then its not doing badly compared to other minorities.

The link doesn't say what they claim it does.

 

[treelover]

The link doesn't say what they claim it does.

There has been much ill-informed discussion of the ‘left behind’, sometimes spuriously described as the white working class

 

[treelover]

In Britain, the real left behind, much more likely to be unemployed and low paid are youth and especially black and Asian youth. Black people and Asian people in general are also more likely to be unemployed and, if in work, face pay discrimination. Women are also more likely to be discouraged from the workforce, yet Asian women are the sole category of women whose unemployment rate is higher than their male counterparts, even after taking this obstacle into account.

They may be right about who is hit the hardest, but this article seems to be trying to nip in the bud any other analysis such as the IWCA one.

 

[LDC]

but it doesn't matter that the liberal-left didn't attend does it? they're not the audience surely that we need.

Better they don't tbh. Enough problems to deal with without liberals turning it into some charity drive.

 

[bimble]

No, it's precisely becasue I don't think you're stupid that I put it down to laziness (which is more charitable that the third possible explanation).

What do you understand class to mean, and how does it interact with e.g. race and sex?

Thanks, i think. Will come back tomorrow if that's ok and have a go at answering this.

 

[redsquirrel]

Also who are these people?

All Trump voters? All UKIP voters? All Brexit voters?

...or just the racist ones?

3rd party voters? Non-voters?

yep. Most certainly. I don't think anyone is saying 'don't talk about race/gender'.

No but that is precisely what some people on here have been accused of.