Reddit mentions of Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression

>Yes, but you are setting a double standard here. You in one breathe say that you didn't say all, but then in the next breathe lump them all together as if all conservatives are oppressing minorities, destroying the environment, etc, etc. Shit, I get lumped in with both sides, by the other side and I know I'm not the only one.

I am listing things that conservatives do. I'm not lumping them in together, just presenting counterexamples that contradict your narrative. I could provide more such as antagonizing our close ally (Mexico), the Bush tax cuts which had an overall destabilizing effect much like massive tax cuts such as the Reagan tax cuts are largely to blame for the current budget deficit (the national debt tripled under Reagan).

It's a narrative not borne out in the facts is what I'm saying. Not all conservatives are racist but most racists are conservative. Squares and rectangles.

>I could try to answer the question of what they were hoping to stave off, but you and I both know, we don't actually know. We can make speculations and assumptions till the we're red in the face, but honestly, I think we can both conclude some was malicious and some just wanting try and keep the peace the best way they knew how. If all these people were truly spiteful, hateful, and bigoted during the Civil Rights Movement, what honestly makes you think it would of succeeded in the first place?

I'd suggest you read Social Dominance by Sidanius and Prato. You can probably find it at a local university library. Basically, the WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) population wanted to retain its relatively high social standing and views the subjugation of minority population as a means of retaining power. This may be subconsciously or consciously. Of course, part of it is just ignorant tribalism without any broader intent. it's hard to draw a fine distinction between the two.

>I'm confused by your desegregation comment as there is a backlash against it now for occurring in the first place from the left. So... how can one ask what they were hoping to hold back back then, but then give lip for it having gone through in the first place. It's an unwinnable situation for the right side to even win. A literal damned if they do and damned if they don't situation.

This is demonstrably false. The parties have evolved over the years with the Democratic Party beginning to reflect progressive values starting in the 1940's while the Republican Party was a liberal party in the 1850's (under Lincoln) but liberal ideology is separate from party affiliation. (this of course sets aside the more obvious rebuke, being that the schools were desegregated under Kennedy and the Civil Rights Act passed under Johnson with conservatives protesting and Kennedy having to push back hard to desegregate the schools. Johnson went as far as saying that passing the Civil Rights Act lost the South to the Democrats for the next 50 years).

Look further at union busting, the Vietnam War protestors, the War on Drugs (conservatives lashing out against the interests of working people and minorities.)

>Criminal justice reform has seen a rise in false crime reporting towards LGBTQ and women in the past few years. Surely, this isn't the end goal. I agree, there needs to be reform. Legalize pot for starters and remove people from jail for minor drug offenses. Issue being though, an increase in people reporting crimes that didn't happen and funny enough, people reporting crimes they did themselves to make themselves look like they were targeted and getting caught in the act.

Source?

>You know, I have a question of my own, a little while ago, To Kill a Mockingbird, was under fire for racism simply being in its pages, even though the book has the strong message that racism is bad. The issue is that, it was the left trying to say it needed to be banned and removed from school curriculum and libraries. Why exactly? Also, why an outcry for censorship while there are claims of not trying to censor?

Single parent, single school district. Not a representative sample of liberals. Balled faced propaganda.

>While the right wants to sit back and claim the left is trying to take away their rights, the left is sitting back saying the same thing. There are crazies on both sides and I think we can both agree to that. Which side is crazier... depends on the situation if I had to be honest from where I sit.

The issue is that most of the "rights" that conservatives are worried about are actually just their power to dominate over other groups and enforce their ideology over the whole society (e.g The War on Christmas, Prayer in School, LGBTQ bathroom bills.) The left are trying to bring greater justice to society through things like the Black Lives Matter movement and are met with a textbook belittling counterpoint (All Lives Matter) which doesn't even actually contradict BLM (it just attempts to shout it down and delegitimize it.)

>Bromide argument, so my arguments obvious? Sorry, but I've heard the word used before, but I can't find anything on a "bromide argument" specifically. If I'm right about its meaning, I was intending for them to be for easy understanding and rather trite. The internet isn't full off misinterpretations just by dumb luck. Simpler is usually better for these things.

I've heard this argument many times. It's bromide in the sense that it is an unoriginal attempt to placate both sides but actually glosses over the substance of the debate.

>Your "traditional political divides" in America are universal and not special to just the US.

I know. American is not different, special or exceptional. The same rules apply here as elsewhere. I am staunchly anti-nationalism.

>There will never be a utopia as it will always live up to its Greek coined pun name's meaning, No Place.

There is a lot of improvement that can be made before we start worrying about perfection. We are no where near the limits of progress.

> Just out of curiosity, if you had to name a style to replace what is current, what would you suggest or go about renovating it?

I could right a book or two on this question.

Long story short, I'm somewhere on the spectrum economically between Libertarian Socialism, Market Socialism and Democratic Socialism for the economy. A free market but one that is heavily regulated and one with even distribution of wealth.

I'm somewhat technocratic in my view of government (policy based on science and expert knowledge, carried out but subject matter experts) but support local control (things should be resolved at the lowest level administratively feasible).

I also believe in global civil society built on the principles set out in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights with the goal of eliminating global poverty. I am also an extreme social libertarian. I believe in the legalization of drugs, elimination of censorship, legalization of public nudity, etc.

I'm a staunch environmentalist.

I support Rank-Choice Voting and National Popular Vote for a nonpartisan affiliated president to a single 6-yr term as well as Shorest Splitline Districting for legislative districts.

EDIT: I'm also in favor of term limits on judicial appointments rather than lifetime appointments.

That's a good question. The fact is, despite what the majority of people think, after we factor out wealth, intelligence, and a host of other demographic variables there's still a clear bias against minorities in things like work-hires and academia. So we have these policies because without them a minority has to perform much better than someone else to get the same treatment. I know someone will probably say "well this funding calculator says the other way QED you're wrong, bro," and yeah I guess that's an exception, but it's an exception-by-design amongst a sea of non-exceptions. The research within schools is pretty clear that teachers and admin treat black kids worse (in fact, some studies find smart black males get the worst end of it all; theoretically, because they're seen as a threat). This book provides a good coverage of the research if you're genuinely interested. Or you could just google-scholar "hiring prejudice."

One of the tragedies of it all is that affirmative action, although 'needed', will never really be a long-lasting solution because people in power are sort of hard-wired to think the world is fair (you can see it by browsing this thread, and people on the net are generally more liberal than the average) even when told otherwise. The funniest example I've seen was a study where they rigged a game of monopoly; the 'winners', even when told it had been rigged, still believed they'd earnt their success. I can't recall the study anymore, but it's cited somewhere in that book if anyone cares.

This isn't my area of expertise, but if anyone has any follow up questions or counter-points I'm happy to answer them. I might get back right away, but my response also might be delayed by a week (as I'm supposed to be writing a a paper right now), but I promise to answer everything in turn.