SimplyScripts Discussion Board
Blog Home - Produced Movie Script Library - TV Scripts - Unproduced Scripts - Contact - Site Map
ScriptSearch
Welcome, Guest.
It is September 23rd, 2021, 1:35am
Please login or register.
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login
Please do read the guidelines that govern behavior on the discussion board. It will make for a much more pleasant experience for everyone. A word about SimplyScripts and Censorship


Produced Script Database (Updated!)
The 'something' is the September One Week Challange

scripts due to SimplyScripts.com/owc


The January Project!
If you want access to the January Project, click here

Short Script of the Day | Featured Script of the Month | Featured Short Scripts Available for Production
Submit Your Script

How do I get my film's link and banner here?
All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Forum Login
Username: Create a new Account
Password:     Forgot Password

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board    Discussion of...     General Chat  ›  I'll just leave this one here... Moderators: bert
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 1 Guests

 Pages: « 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 » : All
Recommend Print
  Author    I'll just leave this one here...  (currently 4858 views)
eldave1
Posted: June 6th, 2021, 7:30pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Southern California
Posts
6909
Posts Per Day
2.65

Quoted from Andrew


Peterson can be not to someone's taste, which is all good, but we do need to treat his ideas honestly, and he doesn't believe what many say he does.

I'm keeping this short not in a dismissive way, but because we could go on and on about it forever, but I don't believe we are actually that far apart on the subtsance here.


We'll let this one lie. Think we have beaten the horse sufficiently


My Scripts can all be seen here:

http://dlambertson.wix.com/scripts
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 180 - 238
Robert Timsah
Posted: June 6th, 2021, 10:14pm Report to Moderator
New


Story Is Structure

Posts
291
Posts Per Day
0.06

Quoted from eldave1


The best example I have is from someone who described it as a monopoly game. Three white dudes sit down to play monopoly. They are all giving the exact same amount of money, follow the exact same rules, etc. They play for four hours building up their bankrolls, buying property and hotels, etc. At hour five, they decide that they ought to let black people play. AND – to ensure no discrimination, the Black player will start out with the same bankroll and follow the exact same rules as the three white players.  Not an ounce of difference in the game rules based on race. Problem is – the white dudes have been playing for 5 hours and already have larger bankrolls and multiple properties with rents that will bankrupt the black player the minute he lands on one. So, the fact that the rules are color blind doesn’t make up for the disadvantage of the black dude not being allowed to play the first 4 hours.

Now – how does someone determine if black monopoly players are disadvantaged? Certainly, couldn’t do it by looking at the rules – they are identical. Only the outcome and the disparate results by race would tell you that there may be a problem.



If we add Asians into the mix, they join the game at the end and still kick everybody's ass. LOL


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 181 - 238
Andrew
Posted: June 7th, 2021, 7:30pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1772
Posts Per Day
0.39

Quoted from eldave1


A bit surprised by your answer here.  Postmodernism and Deconstruction are just one of dozens of philosophical movements that have developed since man crawled out of the caves.  I do think you absolutely nail what they are – but not what the catalyst is for their emergence (their growing popularity).  In my view, philosophical constructs are not mandated – they are adopted by people and/or institutions.  The critical issue remains why are they adopted? What needs are being satisfied? Certainly not Derrida’s, Quine’s or others – long dead.


This is one of the areas where we have a gap between us.  We will probably not see eye to eye on this.  The best example I have is from someone who described it as a monopoly game. Three white dudes sit down to play monopoly. They are all giving the exact same amount of money, follow the exact same rules, etc. They play for four hours building up their bankrolls, buying property and hotels, etc. At hour five, they decide that they ought to let black people play. AND – to ensure no discrimination, the Black player will start out with the same bankroll and follow the exact same rules as the three white players.  Not an ounce of difference in the game rules based on race. Problem is – the white dudes have been playing for 5 hours and already have larger bankrolls and multiple properties with rents that will bankrupt the black player the minute he lands on one. So, the fact that the rules are color blind doesn’t make up for the disadvantage of the black dude not being allowed to play the first 4 hours.

Now – how does someone determine if black monopoly players are disadvantaged? Certainly, couldn’t do it by looking at the rules – they are identical. Only the outcome and the disparate results by race would tell you that there may be a problem.

And it still rears its ugly head – just very recently, the NFL got caught “race norming” concussion settlements.  In its use of race-norming, the league compares a given player's current cognitive test scores with the supposed norm for his demographic group. Under the methodology, black players are assumed to possess a lower level of cognitive function than the average white player. A pretty good article about it here:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57336282

And of course, there are dozens of other examples. Job applications are a good one.  For example, studies have proven that even when credentials are identical – there is a fifty percent difference in employer call back rates for white sounding names (Emily, Greg) then there are for black sounding names (Lakisha, Jamal).  The same has been proven in mortgage rates, credit card approval – etc. etc. i.e., Institutions are still absolutely without a doubt discriminating against people solely on the color of their skin.   One’s race is still more than just a multiplier, regardless of whether the black person is a have or have not.

I don’t think we’ll ever reach agreement here – but it has been a worthwhile discussion.



The core issue here is how we define white.

As if white is a monolith of privilege and equality within the race.

It’s this faulty assumption at the heart of the issue.

Those who push these theories always just refer to “whites”, meaning they jumble up the enormous disparities between rich whites and poor whites. It’s deliberately done, because if class is a variable factored in, it completely blows the race-based argument apart.

Yes, if the three whites in the example are from the upper strata of society, the point is valid. The reality, however, is that those three white men will statistically include whites representative of the economic ladder, and will show the same core disadvantage. Yes, there are race-based multipliers, but the reality is economic privilege (or class privilege) is what matters.

Large data blocks labelled “white” do no segment by class. It’s such a frustrating flaw in the theory, and is eventually going to be what downs these ideas. They simply don’t stand up to scrutiny. And they misapply their source material (postmodern thinking). It’s definitely true Foucault and Derrida did not directly create the woke-ism that followed, but their ideas around power, knowledge, etc, absolutely created the framework that subsequent thinkers used to build out ideas that present simple thinking as profound.

It’s flourished because of a lack of leadership (accelerated by Trump) and a generally vapid society that wants right and wrong answers > nuance and uncertainty.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 182 - 238
Andrew
Posted: June 7th, 2021, 7:36pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1772
Posts Per Day
0.39

Quoted from eldave1


Again - we are not going to reach an agreement here. I will ask you a follow-up question.

In your view/context, if one believes that:

- Systemic racism still exists at a material level, and,
- That it is important to not only assess rules and processes but also to investigate disparate outcomes to determine if racism is a factor.

Does that make you woke. Is that wokeism?  






Systemic racism is borne of the same faulty thinking.

Intrinsically, it is meaningless, because it’s not supported by fact or data. It utilises select correlations, refuses to explore causation, and then frames scrutiny as evidence of its thesis.

If I ask you, how do you define systemic racism in practical and demonstrable terms, how would you go about it?

Because that’s really what matters. We need to be able to support the claim of systemic racism.

None of this is to say there are not factors within the system governing outcomes, but data points to class being the driver, with race as a multiplier.

Liberalism has the better approach to rectifying the multipliers, but also generally addressing inequality.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 183 - 238
Andrew
Posted: June 7th, 2021, 7:48pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1772
Posts Per Day
0.39
https://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/2016/systemic-racism-is-real

This is a good example of how systemic racism is presented and explained. Which is to say point out correlation and refuse to explore causation, or drill down into causes or deeper analysis of the data.

The point here about white population and white wealth. Fundamentally dishonest, or intellectually challenged. It is hard to know which, quite honestly.

The obvious question here is: what proportion of that 90% is owned by the 70%.

That’s the next step that is ignored, because to explore that shreds the race-based argument. It shows the wealth is concentrated in an extremely small %, who happen to be white. Being white isn’t what drives the accumulation of wealth. What drives it is access to networks, economic privilege and the luck of being born into an elite.

Why the postmodern thinking is so crucial is that it centres on power and knowledge, and the subsequent thinker framed that power and knowledge theory entirely on race, so of course they refuse to go deeper, because it fundamentally disproves their thesis.

Bernie 2016 was on the right page. He was going after the economic structure. The same economic structure that drilling down on the white and proportion of wealth example would showcase. Poor whites and poor blacks have the same common enemy: an economic system that benefits so few.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 184 - 238
eldave1
Posted: June 7th, 2021, 8:01pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Southern California
Posts
6909
Posts Per Day
2.65

Quoted from Andrew


The core issue here is how we define white.

As if white is a monolith of privilege and equality within the race.

It’s this faulty assumption at the heart of the issue.

Those who push these theories always just refer to “whites”, meaning they jumble up the enormous disparities between rich whites and poor whites. It’s deliberately done, because if class is a variable factored in, it completely blows the race-based argument apart.

Yes, if the three whites in the example are from the upper strata of society, the point is valid. The reality, however, is that those three white men will statistically include whites representative of the economic ladder, and will show the same core disadvantage. Yes, there are race-based multipliers, but the reality is economic privilege (or class privilege) is what matters.

Large data blocks labelled “white” do no segment by class. It’s such a frustrating flaw in the theory, and is eventually going to be what downs these ideas. They simply don’t stand up to scrutiny. And they misapply their source material (postmodern thinking). It’s definitely true Foucault and Derrida did not directly create the woke-ism that followed, but their ideas around power, knowledge, etc, absolutely created the framework that subsequent thinkers used to build out ideas that present simple thinking as profound.

It’s flourished because of a lack of leadership (accelerated by Trump) and a generally vapid society that wants right and wrong answers > nuance and uncertainty.


Poor blacks are in fact disadvantaged versus poor whites. The job applicant study is just one of hundreds of studies on this.

Rich blacks are disadvantaged versus rich whites. For example, the NFL’s race norming practices are emblematic of that. These dudes all make the same boatload of money. Blacks were assumed to have a lower cognitive baseline simply based on the color of their skin.

The monopoly example applies regardless of income level. Assume that all of the players are poor – have the exact same economic status. The fact that the three white players got to start long before the black one is what creates the advantage. Now, make that wait generational – and the impact just piles up.

Now, I do detest terms like white privilege because I do not believe that one person’s disadvantage equates to another person’s privilege. I do hate when the news reports that blacks were more likely to get Covid than whites when in fact income, in that case, is the relevant factor. etc. etc. etc. So we share a disdain for many of the modern-day mechanics employed by those pushing agendas – but may disagree on the extent of the existence of racism.

I believe that blacks in general, regardless of income level, are at an individual and systemic disadvantage.  I believe that often that is not detected until one examines outcomes as well as processes.

I also believe that I can hold those beliefs while at the same time rejecting postmodernism is a philosophy. I believe that the rejection of that ism and the belief that there is individual and systemic racism are not mutually exclusive.




My Scripts can all be seen here:

http://dlambertson.wix.com/scripts
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 185 - 238
eldave1
Posted: June 7th, 2021, 8:07pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Southern California
Posts
6909
Posts Per Day
2.65

Quoted from Andrew
https://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/2016/systemic-racism-is-real

This is a good example of how systemic racism is presented and explained. Which is to say point out correlation and refuse to explore causation, or drill down into causes or deeper analysis of the data.

The point here about white population and white wealth. Fundamentally dishonest, or intellectually challenged. It is hard to know which, quite honestly.

The obvious question here is: what proportion of that 90% is owned by the 70%.

That’s the next step that is ignored, because to explore that shreds the race-based argument. It shows the wealth is concentrated in an extremely small %, who happen to be white. Being white isn’t what drives the accumulation of wealth. What drives it is access to networks, economic privilege and the luck of being born into an elite.

Why the postmodern thinking is so crucial is that it centres on power and knowledge, and the subsequent thinker framed that power and knowledge theory entirely on race, so of course they refuse to go deeper, because it fundamentally disproves their thesis.

Bernie 2016 was on the right page. He was going after the economic structure. The same economic structure that drilling down on the white and proportion of wealth example would showcase. Poor whites and poor blacks have the same common enemy: an economic system that benefits so few.


Read that article a while back. Some things in that article were inflammatory and misleading and some things were accurate.

Yes - many things labeled as racism are more closely aligned with income disparities - regardless of race. However, many discriminatory practices are based simply on race. And many of the differences in success are attributable to historic racism (see Monoploy game)





My Scripts can all be seen here:

http://dlambertson.wix.com/scripts
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 186 - 238
Andrew
Posted: June 7th, 2021, 8:10pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1772
Posts Per Day
0.39

Quoted from eldave1


Poor blacks are in fact disadvantaged versus poor whites. The job applicant study is just one of hundreds of studies on this.

Rich blacks are disadvantaged versus rich whites. For example, the NFL’s race norming practices are emblematic of that. These dudes all make the same boatload of money. Blacks were assumed to have a lower cognitive baseline simply based on the color of their skin.

The monopoly example applies regardless of income level. Assume that all of the players are poor – have the exact same economic status. The fact that the three white players got to start long before the black one is what creates the advantage. Now, make that wait generational – and the impact just piles up.

Now, I do detest terms like white privilege because I do not believe that one person’s disadvantage equates to another person’s privilege. I do hate when the news reports that blacks were more likely to get Covid than whites when in fact income, in that case, is the relevant factor. etc. etc. etc. So we share a disdain for many of the modern-day mechanics employed by those pushing agendas – but may disagree on the extent of the existence of racism.

I believe that blacks in general, regardless of income level, are at an individual and systemic disadvantage.  I believe that often that is not detected until one examines outcomes as well as processes.

I also believe that I can hold those beliefs while at the same time rejecting postmodernism is a philosophy. I believe that the rejection of that ism and the belief that there is individual and systemic racism are not mutually exclusive.




Completely agree that individuals can hold views that cross ideological boundaries.

But you’re not woke.

And the woke absolutely do believe systemic racism and white privilege are bound. I’m not really presenting your views. I’m presenting the views of the woke, who believe as I’m presenting. And this thinking is clustered (across races) in media, sports, politics, and disproportionately by people of wealth.

It’s not a set of ideas generally held by everyday people, because they’re living the reality, and know full well the theory is utter bullshit. But these everyday people have no one representing them on the left, and had Trump on the right. And they have a media in thrall to these ideas.

This is the core problem, and it’s why we see videos like those that started the thread.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 187 - 238
eldave1
Posted: June 7th, 2021, 8:11pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Southern California
Posts
6909
Posts Per Day
2.65

Quoted from Andrew

Bernie 2016 was on the right page. He was going after the economic structure. The same economic structure that drilling down on the white and proportion of wealth example would showcase. Poor whites and poor blacks have the same common enemy: an economic system that benefits so few.


I agree with your characterization of Bernie - but I am not a fan. e.g., I don't believe in free college. I believe in affordable college. I don't believe in eliminating a private insurance option. I believe in strong border security, etc - so he left me out in the cold in several places although I agree with his emphasis on economics is a key driver and I do believe he is sincere. But I am very pleased that Biden beat him.


My Scripts can all be seen here:

http://dlambertson.wix.com/scripts
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 188 - 238
eldave1
Posted: June 7th, 2021, 8:21pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Southern California
Posts
6909
Posts Per Day
2.65

Quoted from Andrew


Systemic racism is borne of the same faulty thinking.

Intrinsically, it is meaningless, because it’s not supported by fact or data. It utilises select correlations, refuses to explore causation, and then frames scrutiny as evidence of its thesis.

If I ask you, how do you define systemic racism in practical and demonstrable terms, how would you go about it?

Because that’s really what matters. We need to be able to support the claim of systemic racism.

None of this is to say there are not factors within the system governing outcomes, but data points to class being the driver, with race as a multiplier.

Liberalism has the better approach to rectifying the multipliers, but also generally addressing inequality.


Systemic racism = Systems and structures that have procedures or processes that disadvantage a race. It can be current or it can be past and still have a modern-day effect.


My Scripts can all be seen here:

http://dlambertson.wix.com/scripts
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 189 - 238
eldave1
Posted: June 7th, 2021, 8:24pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Southern California
Posts
6909
Posts Per Day
2.65

Quoted from Andrew


Completely agree that individuals can hold views that cross ideological boundaries.

But you’re not woke.

And the woke absolutely do believe systemic racism and white privilege are bound. I’m not really presenting your views. I’m presenting the views of the woke, who believe as I’m presenting. And this thinking is clustered (across races) in media, sports, politics, and disproportionately by people of wealth.

It’s not a set of ideas generally held by everyday people, because they’re living the reality, and know full well the theory is utter bullshit. But these everyday people have no one representing them on the left, and had Trump on the right. And they have a media in thrall to these ideas.

This is the core problem, and it’s why we see videos like those that started the thread.


You're presenting the views of extreme wokeism.  Which we both agree is harmful. There is also a rational woke. Just like there is an extreme Right and a  rational Right.


My Scripts can all be seen here:

http://dlambertson.wix.com/scripts
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 190 - 238
Andrew
Posted: June 7th, 2021, 8:26pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1772
Posts Per Day
0.39

Quoted from eldave1


I agree with your characterization of Bernie - but I am not a fan. e.g., I don't believe in free college. I believe in affordable college. I don't believe in eliminating a private insurance option. I believe in strong border security, etc - so he left me out in the cold in several places although I agree with his emphasis on economics is a key driver and I do believe he is sincere. But I am very pleased that Biden beat him.


This goes back to my previous point about what I called, "the economic left" being great at identifying symptoms, but terrible at solutions.

Bernie perfectly articulates this point.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 191 - 238
eldave1
Posted: June 7th, 2021, 8:28pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Southern California
Posts
6909
Posts Per Day
2.65

Quoted from Andrew


This goes back to my previous point about what I called, "the economic left" being great at identifying symptoms, but terrible at solutions.

Bernie perfectly articulates this point.


The economic left elected Biden. Bernie was rejected because his solutions were too extreme.


My Scripts can all be seen here:

http://dlambertson.wix.com/scripts
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 192 - 238
Andrew
Posted: June 7th, 2021, 8:30pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1772
Posts Per Day
0.39

Quoted from eldave1


Systemic racism = Systems and structures that have procedures or processes that disadvantage a race. It can be current or it can be past and still have a modern-day effect.


Therein lies the problem. It sounds nice and sensible, but we have to quantify what those procedures and processes are. When those questions are asked, the very act of questioning is used as evidence of the thesis, i.e. a white person asking this is unwilling to accept their white privilege, hence their defensiveness.

It's obviously a dumb, transparent tactic, but is extremely effective when people have no backbone to call it out.

If anyone makes a claim that requires proof, then of course they're expected to provide prood to substantiate the claim. The woke response is that the very nature of that (claims requiring proof) is a construct of white supremacy, and was baked into the idea of objectivity itself which is to support and protect white men.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 193 - 238
Andrew
Posted: June 7th, 2021, 8:34pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1772
Posts Per Day
0.39

Quoted from eldave1


You're presenting the views of extreme wokeism.  Which we both agree is harmful. There is also a rational woke. Just like there is an extreme Right and a  rational Right.


Woke-ism / whatever you want to call it is extreme. The ideas inclusive in a coherent body of ideas (white supremacy, white privilege, cultural appropriation, intersetionality, and on and on and on) is what "woke" is. Not some fluffy and inherently meaningless term used previously to describe a mindset. This appropriation of woke was done by the very people pushing the ideas I just mentioned. That's the issue. And these ideas are inherently illiberal. By definition.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 194 - 238
 Pages: « 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 » : All
Recommend Print

Locked Board Board Index    General Chat  [ previous | next ] Switch to:
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login

Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post polls
You may not post attachments
HTML is on
Blah Code is on
Smilies are on


Powered by E-Blah Platinum 9.71B © 2001-2006