Neoliberal wokesters will stencil "End Racism" in NFL endzones

11 months - 105 posts - Latest - RSS
OP: 9 Goods vs 6 No Goods
Thread: 216 Goods vs 185 No Goods

Sociology Job Market Rumors » Off Topic » Politics

Neoliberal wokesters will stencil "End Racism" in NFL endzones

« Previous 1…345 6 Next »

Sociologist
e740

Ah, so tangents it is. The NFL does not follow the guidelines of anti-racism as proposed. The premise, which serves no function in guaranteeing the conclusion, is flawed.
Who "proposed" anti-racism? Wasn't it corporate foundations in the 1970s, as a way to fight against leftism? Isn't this all common knowledge to any student of 20th century US history especially those familiar with leftist political criticisms of mainstream liberalism?

This is why you followed up with another class argument. I've published on class apart from race and definitely think it needs a little more love. Somewhere between MED on racism and classism as intersecting and Reed's institutionalized racism is real, but anti-racism does not work.
But that's an aside. Can you established that your unsound argument is at least valid?
You're not clarifying what 'argument' you're talking about, at any point. When you tried to earlier, you presented an extremely crude strawman.
Corporations sponsor "anti-racism" which is really a codeword for "diversification," which has massive macro-level implications regarding immigration, to divide workers into hostile camps aimed against one another and prevent revolution from happening -- Marx noted the core of that 150 years ago.
Reed is the most prominent left-wing critic of "anti-racism" as being a right-wing discourse.

This is a strange response. First, you pretend not to know what argument I am talking about. In the very next sentence, you identify it.

No, you called it a straw man, were then cited making it verbatim, and you have yet to rescue it.

Not sure I disputed that on Reed, but ok.

So no substantiation of these corporations being committed to the substance of the perspective. Didn't think so. This is why you are shifting the goalpost and now arguing for its origins instead of shared commitments. And, by the way, that has got to be the worst historical recons
...See full post

11 months ago # QUOTE 4 GOOD 6 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
a9bd

Why does this bother you?

If they were truly liberal they would accept similar pro sla/very viewpoints and messages such as this.

11 months ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 2 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
ba42

The funny thing about OP is that they have convinced themselves that their job market failing (evidenced in their ceaseless earnest trolling on this site) is a form of capitalist exploitation exercised at the level of academic sociology departments, in the form of interest in race scholarship.

I might even agree with 30% of their criticisms. But their victim-identification is as off-base as many of their other arguments.

11 months ago # QUOTE 4 GOOD 5 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
46bc

The funny thing about OP is that they have convinced themselves that their job market failing (evidenced in their ceaseless earnest trolling on this site) is a form of capitalist exploitation exercised at the level of academic sociology departments, in the form of interest in race scholarship.
I might even agree with 30% of their criticisms. But their victim-identification is as off-base as many of their other arguments.

I don’t think they made it through grad school. It’s just a strange fixation with sociology.

11 months ago # QUOTE 2 GOOD 4 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
2639

You guys lost the debate again for invoking ad hominem fallacies, which in this case are not even applicable. Even worse than the strawman on page 1.
You really never took any debate class at any level of education?

Audit an undergrad logic course, please. I feel like I'm arguing with Buggs (please tell me it's not true, I'll try to have the same debate with some golfdfish otherwise).

11 months ago # QUOTE 5 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
bd48

Ah, so tangents it is. The NFL does not follow the guidelines of anti-racism as proposed. The premise, which serves no function in guaranteeing the conclusion, is flawed.
Who "proposed" anti-racism? Wasn't it corporate foundations in the 1970s, as a way to fight against leftism? Isn't this all common knowledge to any student of 20th century US history especially those familiar with leftist political criticisms of mainstream liberalism?
This is why you followed up with another class argument. I've published on class apart from race and definitely think it needs a little more love. Somewhere between MED on racism and classism as intersecting and Reed's institutionalized racism is real, but anti-racism does not work.
But that's an aside. Can you established that your unsound argument is at least valid?
You're not clarifying what 'argument' you're talking about, at any point. When you tried to earlier, you presented an extremely crude strawman.
Corporations sponsor "anti-racism" which is really a codeword for "diversification," which has massive macro-level implications regarding immigration, to divide workers into hostile camps aimed against one another and prevent revolution from happening -- Marx noted the core of that 150 years ago.
Reed is the most prominent left-wing critic of "anti-racism" as being a right-wing discourse.
This is a strange response. First, you pretend not to know what argument I am talking about. In the very next sentence, you identify it.
No, you called it a straw man, were then cited making it verbatim, and you have yet to rescue it.
Not sure I disputed that on Reed, but ok.
So no substantiation of these corporations being committed to the substance of the perspective. Didn't think so. This is why you are shifting the goalpost and now arguing for its origins instead of shared commitments. And, by the way, that has got to be the worst historical reconstruction of anti-rac
...See full post

You can proxy vote your own posts, but that doesn't change that you are not saying anything rational, much less logical. I do feel you have a poor grasp on terms like "sound" and "valid" and would benefit from an undergrad PHI course on formal logic.

I don't think you're a published critic on identity politics, because you're arguing so vociferously against all left-wing criticism of such. Are you a right-wing cultural critic of identity politics, whose criticism is not primarily economic, then?

You were shown tevidence that corporations like Amazon invoke "diversity" as a drive to prevent unionization, and that the entire hegemonic "anti-racism" discourse was artificially disseminated through corporate liberal media (NYTimes and WaPo foremost) by their ownership as a campaign against economic leftism. You did even remark on those links, and it was like your eye just glazed over those.

11 months ago # QUOTE 5 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
bd48

1. Marx says capitalists import ethnically diverse workforces as a strategy to divide the working class and prevent revolution:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm

2. Reed (the most prominent of present Marxists in US academia) says "anti-racism" is a right-wing discourse sponsored by corporate foundations to divert political struggle away from a universal justice and toward the desires of privileged classes:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10624-017-9476-3

3. Critical race theory is an obscurantist, postmodern philosophy that is diametrically opposed to Marxism:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/08/30/crit-a30.html

4. Critical race theory is based on claims that, when analyzed in objective economic terms, are demonstrably false. In reality, a black woman has greater opportunity in the United States to escape poverty than either a white woman or white man:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/04/06/ine2-a06.html

5. "Anti-racist" concepts like "white privilege" are not only demonstrably false but socially harmful and only have the effect of worsening social empathy of white liberals (which includes the majority of sociologists) toward impoverished whites:
https://psmag.com/news/talking-about-white-privilege-can-reduce-liberal-sympathy-for-poor-white-people

That alone, not even considering the next link, shows you why structural power would favor the discourse -- the
...See full post

11 months ago # QUOTE 4 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
bd48

https://psmag.com/news/talking-about-white-privilege-can-reduce-liberal-sympathy-for-poor-white-people
That alone, not even considering the next link, shows you why structural power would favor the discourse -- the majority of impoverished people in the United States are white, and blaming poor people for their own poverty under capitalism, as white liberals now do under influence of hegemonic CRT discourse (now sponsored in almost all walks of life from employment training to public education of children by corporate power). In other words, the net effect of "anti-racism" is just to divert mass social anger of white liberals against a larger group of poor people than happened in the past. It's just a false hate discourse used to erode human empathy toward other humans, the same as in any other fascist system in which the power structure names groups as enemies on basis of race.

6. Corporations like Amazon understand the points Marx made 150 years ago, perhaps too well, and deliberately pursue strategies of racial diversification in order to divide the workforce and prevent unionization:
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=61403

That applies not just on micro-scale regarding workplaces but on macro-scale regarding immigration policy, which at government level is influenced by corporate lobbying. Ironically, most white liberal sociologists have the same view as corporate oligarchs (and the same as right-wing pro-market conservatives, for that matter) on immigration.

^ You're not addressing even one of those points, you just wave your hand as say "I'm the one that knows things, I once published on something tangentially related to this. Now let me repeat the words 'sound' and 'valid' a bunch of times to try to pretend to so
...See full post
und like I'm smart."

11 months ago # QUOTE 2 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
bd48

The substance of the perspective of "anti-racism" is workplace racial diversification and violent racial animus against impoverished white people. I just showed you that Amazon's internal analytics show pursuit of workplace diversification happens precisely to prevent unionization from happening, which is something Marx would not be surprised by since he a similar/same process in the mid-1800s. The idea that corporations are conducting internal reviews to pursue racial diversification to improve their ability to dominate workers, but then are "not really" committed to racial diversity stretches credibility.

It would be very unusual for corporations to work together with government to saturate and dominate the entire social order with "anti-racist" messages, which we have shown coincide with their anti-labor profit interests toward workplace racial diversification, if they somehow did not really mean it as you claim. Corporations could spend the same resources promoting basically any cause -- they're promoting the causes that coincide with their profit interests.
The fact that you somehow find this to be an unusual argument makes it clear that you have no real knowledge of leftist or Marxist discourse in general, as these are standard, really mundane observations made often by the left against liberals.

11 months ago # QUOTE 3 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
bd48

And --
7. "Anti-racism" was not the hegemonic corporate liberal ideology until somewhat recently, circa 2015:
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/media-great-racial-awakening

The New York Times and Washington Post obviously serve the interests of the oligarchic class. The Washington Post is directly owned by one of the world's richest men who is a famous union-buster. Can we see obvious alignment between the "anti-racism" promoted by Bezos in the Washington Post with the labor diversification policies pursued by Bezos in relation to Whole Foods? Isn't the former merely the propaganda intended to drive the latter?

11 months ago # QUOTE 4 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
bd48

Another example:

The Rockefeller Foundation is one of the key long-term sponsors of wokester discourse, and hands Kimberle Crenshaw obscene amounts of money through the Bellagio Project.

See their board of trustees:
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/about-us/board-of-trustees/

Includes Adam Silver, NBA commissioner.

So this is not exactly six degrees of separation, or we see that the same hegemonic "liberal" corporate foundation that bankrolls CRT also includes a professional sports commissioner who brands his league with slogans inspired by CRT. We even see the foundation is headed up by a retired Navy admiral at the same time the military brands itself with the same rhetoric.

11 months ago # QUOTE 3 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
d20f

CRT such a joke.

11 months ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
ba42

OP wants a gold star sticker

11 months ago # QUOTE 2 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
f6f7

You guys lost the debate again for invoking ad hominem fallacies, which in this case are not even applicable. Even worse than the strawman on page 1.
You really never took any debate class at any level of education?
Audit an undergrad logic course, please. I feel like I'm arguing with Buggs (please tell me it's not true, I'll try to have the same debate with some golfdfish otherwise).

You never once defended your argument as valid. You dodged the key question on the premise of anti-racism in the corporations. Just because they’re kicking you while you’re down doesn’t mean you didn’t get knocked down.

Speaking of straw men, no, I haven’t uttered a single line of criticism of left wing criticism of identity politics. You keep bringing up these general arguments as a dodge. If you think my critique of your invalid and unsound argument requires a rebuke of left wing criticism of identity politics, then you neither understand my argument nor major left wing critics of identity politics.

This is why you are sending obsessed tangential rants. You are floundering after failure. My argument is not that corporations like Marx, lol. This is really unhinged.

So I’m not biting.

Show me how your argument is valid.
Show me that the NFL has equitable staffing, pay, and hierarchy. With a sound empirical approach. Not anecdotes. I won’t engage anything else.

11 months ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 3 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
2639

58% of players in the NFL are black.

11 months ago # QUOTE 2 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
2639

58% of players in the NFL are black.

And the median NFL player salary is around $900k per year, mean salary is $2 million per year, lowest salaries in the league are above $450k.

What percentage of all black millionaires in the US are/were professional athletes?

It seems strange to claim the NFL does not embrace racial diversity, unless the complaint is that black players somehow enjoy an advantage structurally leading to their over representation.

You're also not addressing the bigger picture which is how these issues are dealt with economy-wide.

Do you agree or disagree that Amazon deliberately seeks to racially diversify its workforce to prevent unionization, and that the "anti-racist" editorial line of the Washington Post is determined by this interest?

11 months ago # QUOTE 2 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
2639

NFL rewards teams with draft picks for developing black coaches/management:
https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-owners-pass-resolution-rewarding-teams-for-developing-minority-coaches-execs

11 months ago # QUOTE 2 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
2639

NFL mandates teams must interview minority candidates for open head coach and coordinator positions:
https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-instituting-changes-to-rooney-rule

11 months ago # QUOTE 2 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
2639

This analysis finds there is no discrimination by race in NFL player salaries, and salaries are commensurate with productivity:
https://stamford.econ.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1361/2016/05/nfl-salary.pdf

11 months ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
f6f7

58% of players in the NFL are black.

Lol too easy. I thought you were at least better than this. Do the hierarchy now.

And show me that your argument is valid, since you brought up introductory logic…wait..you don’t know what validity is, do you?

11 months ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 3 NO GOOD !

« Previous 1…345 6 Next »

Neoliberal wokesters will stencil "End Racism" in NFL endzones

Reply »