ashenblood

I don't think any government is giving homeless addicts cash to pay their rent, that would be insane.

What happens is that the addicts can get the money either from some other government program, or simply by begging, depositing cans, etc. The shelters don't allow people to use drugs inside and they have a curfew. Otherwise, they would quickly become dilapidated drug dens.

Therefore, some addicts prefer to sleep on the street whenever they can afford heroin, and return to the shelter when they can't.

The average layman has an incredibly naive understanding of the legal system. Police should have to learn all the laws? My guys, even lawyers aren't expected to learn all the laws by heart, the American legal code is insanely complicated.

Law school teaches the interpretation and implementation of the legal code, it's largely irrelevant to the role of police as law enforcement. Police go to the police academy to learn skills that are relevant to their role as the logistical apparatus that enacts the decisions of the legal system.

Similarly, nurses don't have to go to medical school or learn the biological details about various medical conditions. Instead, they go to nursing school and focus more on practical skills that they utilize to support and enact the decisions of the doctor.

Construction workers don't have to go to architecture or engineering school 😅

And so on.

It actually is dangerous to encounter to constantly encounter people that act like assholes because of your identity. This shit can be traumatic and I dont think its useful to call that not dangerous.

So, based on your own logic.

By encouraging women to treat all men as potential deviants, you encourage them to act like assholes toward men because of their identity. This traumatizes men, thus creating more misanthropes who may potentially harm other people in the future.

I don't think I was implying anything negative about you, but if I was then I apologize.

You're implying that the social environment that I was born into is dysfunctional, and also completely disregarding the substance of my comment. In other words, you're being a condescending prick. Case in point.

It's nearly impossible to be sympathetic and polite to every single person you encounter. Especially due to the state of the world today.

If the possibility that a man will treat a woman badly (everything between belittling and straight up murder) is high enough, it is a life insurance to expect every man to be dangerous until proven otherwise. Its the same logic as "don't talk to cops".

No, it's not life insurance. It's pathological paranoia that doesn't effectively improve one's safety. If you go through life with an incredibly simplistic model of judgement, where any interaction with men or cops is dangerous until proven otherwise, you are simply trading one set of risks for another. There are many situations where a certain cop or man could be in a position to help or protect you, and you might fail to recognize that.

If you're not making any distinction between "belittling and straight up murder", then you're really just handicapping your ability to distinguish people who are actually violently dangerous from people who are just normal people. Most people act like assholes on a regular basis, but that doesn't make them dangerous.

It has nothing to do with subjugation, it's just preference. I prefer to spend time with my family, I'm not subjugating other people by doing so.

But in the context of a corporate oligarchy where my absurd wealth means that my family is unfairly enriched to the detriment of the workers that I employ, it becomes subjugation. It's not humans, it's the socioeconomic system that exists that is causing all of this suffering and needs to be supplanted.

Doesn't your paper you linked imply it isn't so obvious?

Yeah sure, in the absence of any other data.

If you refuse to acknowledge that people like people similar to themselves, you're not being honest with yourself, let alone me.

What is the systemic problem/problematic behavior that you are trying to solve? You clearly believe that white men are especially discriminatory towards other groups, which isn't crazy, although I disagree. But are you so naive to think that if we replaced the powerful white men with powerful hispanic women (or any other combination of race and gender), racial and gender-based discrimination would suddenly end? I'm just pointing out the inconvenient truth that the system would still be biased and unfair, just with different winners and losers.

In my view, the fact that some white men are biased for or against certain groups is completely insignificant and irrelevant to solving the problems that society faces today. It's the fundamental structure of the economic and political system that naturally results in the few individuals at the top of the hierarchy expressing a large degree of control and domination over the rest of the society.

That's really nice to hear. Your comment did add something, at least for me!

I agree. People tend to ascribe inherent traits to other groups, when in fact observed behaviors can usually be traced not to inherent dispositions, but to specific environmental conditions that incentivize said behaviors.

For instance, a white man in our current social environment who exhibits a confident, assertive attitude is well situated to succeed. White men are expected to be competent and often rewarded for appearing competent, so they sometimes attempt to exaggerate their competence in order to meet the perceived expectations.

I'm sorry that happened to you.

However, your anecdotal experience is just that. I have been subject to exponentially more racist abuse from black individuals than from individuals of any other race. Does that indicate to you that we should be "pushing back" against black racists? Obviously not, because my personal experience is not enough to draw any conclusions about society as a whole.

In fact, you're condescending me right now. You're implying that your personal judgment supercedes my rational argument. I provide sources and construct an argument, and you respond "this is news to me" (condescending and dismissing my argument) and proceed to explain that what I'm saying can't possibly be true, because it contradicts your personal viewpoint.

That's not my main argument, it's merely a supporting clause.

OP asserted that

white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.

I countered that by pointing out that it's obvious that any human being tends to prefer people who they consider similar to themselves. That's my main argument.

And if that is true, then attempting to frame such behavior as particular to white men is just silly and unproductive.

I obviously can't definitively measure the amount of social stigma around white male prejudice, but I don't need to. I'm not saying that white men are definitely less biased than other demographics, I'm merely pointing out that it's a distinct possibility, even as you all indicate that they are the demographic most deserving of condemnation for such behavior.

Now, one could make the argument that even though white men may not be especially biased, the effects of their bias may have greater impacts on other demographics due to the disproportionate amount of power they collectively wield. I think that's a fair point, but it doesn't really hold any ethical implications, it's simply a description of a material reality.

This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.

Citation needed.

In all seriousness, I understand your point and respect you for trying to deconstruct the mechanics of privilege.

But I just factually disagree with your assertion. I would argue that every human being has an inherent preference for people that they perceive as similar to themselves in some way, and this can result in bias along racial or gender lines. However, this arguably applies less to white men than any other demographic, because such behavior is so consistently condemned and shamed when exhibited by white men.

In contrast, people of other demographics are less frequently made aware of their own biases, because calling it out has not been construed as some kind of ethical imperative, as it has with white men.

It's also well documented that women have a much stronger in-group bias compared to men.

In essence, women can be characterized as “If I am good and I am female, females are good,” whereas men can be characterized as “Even if I am good and I am male, men are not necessarily good.” This sex difference in cognitive balance suggests that a mechanism that promotes female preference in women does not similarly contribute to male preference for men.

https://rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/13979590/rudmangoodwin2004jpsp.pdf