watching this show leaves me sooooo anxious. too anxious. there’s something about it ._.
I don’t know about this “abusive marriage” episode of Fix My Life…you beat me? Ain’t no Iyanla come help me…there’s gonna be a search party for yo body. You accidentally blink at me the wrong way and I’ll slit ya throat.
let’s stop making jokes about girls and start making jokes about white boys
here i’ll start
*white boy voice* chill out man it was just a joke
[walks into class 10 minutes late with a can of Monster] sorry I’m late I got frontpage on Reddit
[wipes cheeto dust off onto cargo shorts] so if you support gender equality does that mean it’s ok to hit women now?
[arrives in the winter with shorts and flip-flops] reverse racism is just as bad as being in the KKK
[pauses Macklemore song] why aren’t there scholarships for white men
who wore it best?
Sister Citizen:Shame Stereotypes and Black Women in America
-by Melissa Harris-Perry (one of our many heroes)
submitted to us by (megaspectrum)
still love this.
daniphantomgone asked: Would you treat us to a rant about Kant?
You had but to ask!
First, I would ask that you read the following articles.
The first article posits an argument that Kant’s racism (as developed in his anthropology) thoroughly infects his moral theory in such a way as to render it morally bankrupt. The second article is an attempt at a defense of Kant’s moral theory on the grounds that his racism does not reach into his deep moral theory. The third article is an example of Kant’s conversations about race which have generated much controversy and have resulted in questions as to the applicability of Kant’s moral system.
I am skeptical of attempts to defend Kant’s moral theory from the charge of racism, particularly given how the Kantian system is, itself, a search for the grounding principles of human reason. In so far as Kant built engaged in a taxonomy of races in order to discern the differing capacities of morality, his ascription of a limited capacity for rationality and morality to non-white subjects undercuts the project. Either people of color are not human, or less human, as they cannot actualize morality and rationality in their being, or there is no universal morality and rationality. Defenses of Kant, in my view, fail to resolve this complication without denying Kant’s racism or appealing to critiques of scholars who point out this racism.
Kant’s moral theory itself has numerous issues, and there are far more skilled scholars who have gone to work on this. The issue that I have a problem with is his categorical imperative and his concept of the good will. From a racial perspective, if we are to take his statements on Africans as fact, since the African person can only perform his “duty” as a result of “training,” by which Kant intends colonialism and slavery, it follows that the African subject cannot possess a good will. To this end, actions taken by the African person can never proceed from duty, and are thus not moral or good, since the source of moral actions is from adherence to duty without coercion or force.
Even if we are to ignore the racism in Kant, his moral structure gives us no room to decide between competing duties. Kantians have struggled to defend themselves against this claim for years, however, I have not been satisfied with the solutions (postulation of a ranking of duties or the thought that some duties override others) because they cannot deal with the lived experience of individuals. Sartre has a pretty good critique of Kant’s inability to resolve conflicts using his experience of living in Nazi occupied France as a basis.
More specifically, the concept of the Maxim which underlies the Categorical Imperative means that those Maxims which cannot be universalized are not moral, in a simplified version of Kant’s system. Kantians try to defend this by modifying the categorical imperative to say that we should only act if we could will that every rational person would act in the same way in the same situation. This makes the categorical imperative situational as opposed to universal: we can only have imperatives that apply to certain situations and then disappear once the situation no longer holds. This is antithetical to Kant’s project of looking for universal maxims that hold in every situation.
My biggest contention, and it’s the one that Kantians hate, is the absence of considerations of emotion in Kant’s thought. Kant assumes that our adherence to duty emerges from our rationality which he divorces from our affective states. The affective response that our performance of our duty produces is secondary to the duty itself: a mother who cares for her child out of her affective feeling towards her child is not a moral agent because her actions do not proceed from duty, they proceed from emotion. Emotion cannot be the basis for moral actions.
When I have to teach Kant, I do so with full knowledge of Kant’s racial failings. The three pieces above are always included in any course that I will teach on Kant, much to the dismay of many professors. If I were to exclude Kant’s racial thought from his moral though, I would be colluding in the perpetuation of structures of oppression and the centering of the European/white mind as the ground of rationality.
I will not tell people not to study Kant, but I will ask that they do so with Kant’s racial thought in mind.