Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

And no white dude ever was a shitlord to them in their whole entire lives

And what's your point here?

[Owlga]

The point she's making is if someone says they hate black people because one assaulted them or a friend, odds are they were already racist.

[Frumple]

I was more talking about the line (paraphrased to my understanding of it) "Our majority view of conservatives is of the ones that are constantly trying to infringe apon the rights of others, so thats how we view any conservative at base level"

And yeah, nah, it's not necessarily that conservatives are, it's that conservative leadership, by and large, is. So the power base catches a degree of flak. Usually not a full metaphorical burst to the face, but...

[IronyOwl]

Isn't that the same mentality that is what is offensive about those groups though? "We know some people of that group are harmful, therefor all people of that group are harmful"

Because transgendered people are somehow harmful relative to cisgendered people, and women are harmful relative to men, and people of color are harmful relative to white people, and queer folks are harmful relative to straight ones... ?

Might not be getting your point, but.

Well, yes. If somebody hates transgendered people, it's because they feel they have valid reasons to. You can argue that your reasons for hating people who hate transgendered people are better than theirs, but that's not the same as being any different on a conceptual level.

Isn't that the same mentality that is what is offensive about those groups though? "We know some people of that group are harmful, therefor all people of that group are harmful"

Hn... not quite, I'd say. The problem is more or less the reverse -- some people in the group aren't harmful, but the group as a whole is (in this case, particularly to specific other minorities, some of which are well represented around here). And so even someone overall non-threatening may catch some of the vitriol, specifically because while they, themselves, are not proponents of harm, their political ideology supports and empowers people that are. And not, like, incidentally or as a side-effect. Directly.

Like this. If I acknowledge that some transgendered people don't erode the fabric of society, but that it's understandable that they catch flak for it anyway because as a whole they're just awful, ruinous people... well, we might conclude that I'm wrong after a long series of discussions about it, but it's still less tolerant and civil a viewpoint than might be ideal.

[Kedly]

I was more talking about the line (paraphrased to my understanding of it) "Our majority view of conservatives is of the ones that are constantly trying to infringe apon the rights of others, so thats how we view any conservative at base level"

And yeah, nah, it's not necessarily that conservatives are, it's that conservative leadership, by and large, is. So the power base catches a degree of flak. Usually not a full metaphorical burst to the face, but...

Fair enough 

[Glowcat]

So, like, if people want to avoid shitstorms it's probably best to not equate actual minorities with a minor demographic presence in terms of what needs protection. Nevermind the whole distinction between hating somebody's ideology and hating people for irrational reasons such as race, sexuality, or gender.

[Owlga]

Can we all at least agree that age 0 cisgendered potatos are the major oppressors of humanity in the 21st century? Because this is an agenda no one is pushing and I'm starting to get worried we won't know it's happening till we're all covered in roots and eyes. Boiling in a soup of hate. And carrots.

More seriously though I think Glowcat's got it right here.

[IronyOwl]

So, like, if people want to avoid shitstorms it's probably best to not equate actual minorities with a minor demographic presence in terms of what needs protection.

I don't see the difference between being in the minority in general or in a specific location. If homosexuality is generally accepted globally, does that make a discussion of particularly harsh laws against it in a given country irrelevant?

More to the point, I don't think the issue is one of "protection," as in, it's not fair to speak ill of conservatives because we don't have many. The issue, as far as I've seen, is one of civility and assumption- you probably shouldn't speak ill of conservatives in the same ways and for the same reasons you shouldn't speak ill of homosexuals, whites, or ice cream vendors.

Nevermind the whole distinction between hating somebody's ideology and hating people for irrational reasons such as race, sexuality, or gender.

You can hate on the former for irrational reasons, and any of the latter for rational ones.

[Frumple]

Like this. If I acknowledge that some transgendered people don't erode the fabric of society, but that it's understandable that they catch flak for it anyway because as a whole they're just awful, ruinous people... well, we might conclude that I'm wrong after a long series of discussions about it, but it's still less tolerant and civil a viewpoint than might be ideal.

Wouldn't exactly disagree that it's less than ideal.

Point I'd be making is it's harder to reach that point of being wrong when the group in question is actively in the process of doing, y'know, what they're accused of. It'd be pretty easy to go against transgender folks if they their leadership were trying to legislate for random violent sodomy to be legal. Not necessarily the most intellectually pure of things, but folks were asking for reasons, not perfect ones

And hey, it's my conjecture. Maybe folks aren't more likely to come down on individual conservatives because the major conservative powers are actively and demonstrably trying to screw them and theirs. But that's my guess.

[Tack]

No one ever tells you the eye colour of someone who commits a crime, they'll likely point out the race however.

Dislike. When the police are under an investigation, being politically correct is dumb. And it's generally hard to see someone's eye color.
Being a minority color is an immediate identifier. If you got robbed by a white guy with glasses, you'd say 'A guy with glasses'.
If you got robbed by someone with a massive tattoo on their face, you'd say 'A tattooed guy'
And if they were a different race, you'd say it.

HOWEVER. I think you're right in some respects. If a crime was committed against a Nazi family, they'd be pretty quick to point out if the criminal had brown eyes.

[MaximumZero]

Can we all at least agree that age 0 cisgendered potatos are the major oppressors of humanity in the 21st century? Because this is an agenda no one is pushing and I'm starting to get worried we won't know it's happening till we're all covered in roots and eyes. Boiling in a soup of hate. And carrots.

Gorram potatoes. I will crush them all!

[Glowcat]

I don't see the difference between being in the minority in general or in a specific location. If homosexuality is generally accepted globally, does that make a discussion of particularly harsh laws against it in a given country irrelevant?

More to the point, I don't think the issue is one of "protection," as in, it's not fair to speak ill of conservatives because we don't have many. The issue, as far as I've seen, is one of civility and assumption- you probably shouldn't speak ill of conservatives in the same ways and for the same reasons you shouldn't speak ill of homosexuals, whites, or ice cream vendors.

You seem to be under a misconception as to what a minority is, since you apply it to geographic area as a mere population comparison. Minorities, as in actual minorities, are groups which can be extremely small in population but what primarily defines them is how they are discriminated against by those in power. And "speaking ill" about somebody for their personal characteristics is far different than doing so for their profession (ice cream vendors?) or speaking ill of them in relation to the ideology they accept. Sure, it would be wrong to make a blanket statement that conservatives are across the board tax frauds, but calling conservatives evil based on the policies that can fairly be held as the norm within conservative circles isn't a personal attack.

Nevermind the whole distinction between hating somebody's ideology and hating people for irrational reasons such as race, sexuality, or gender.

You can hate on the former for irrational reasons, and any of the latter for rational ones.

If you believe there is a rational reason to be sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic.. please go away and tell us what it is because I sure as heck can't see one.

[Tack]

Can we all at least agree that age 0 cisgendered potatos are the major oppressors of humanity in the 21st century? Because this is an agenda no one is pushing and I'm starting to get worried we won't know it's happening till we're all covered in roots and eyes. Boiling in a soup of hate. And carrots.

Not nearly as bad as the female common fly population.
I mean, they automatically get full military clearance just for being born: in every country

[Leafsnail]

Well, he is complaining about people, so that's obviously passive-aggressive. 

Doing so without identifying the people you're complaining about is definitely passive aggressive, yes.

Why is it okay on this forum to tell conservative to grow a thicker skin or sod off, while we'd never do that to any other minority group?

Because it's ok to criticize ideas, and if someone cannot deal with having their ideas criticized they should sod off.

[Kedly]

No one ever tells you the eye colour of someone who commits a crime, they'll likely point out the race however.

Dislike. When the police are under an investigation, being politically correct is dumb. And it's generally hard to see someone's eye color.
Being a minority color is an immediate identifier. If you got robbed by a white guy with glasses, you'd say 'A guy with glasses'.
If you got robbed by someone with a massive tattoo on their face, you'd say 'A tattooed guy'
And if they were a different race, you'd say it.

HOWEVER. I think you're right in some respects. If a crime was committed against a Nazi family, they'd be pretty quick to point out if the criminal had brown eyes.

I was talking more about gossip level communication, but your right, skin colour is a LOT more identifiable than eye colour. I was more talking about confirmation bias there though. In that you see things that support your beliefs more than you see things that don't.

Glowcat: Most people don't see a logical or rational reason to be racist anymore, but the people who are still significantly racist probably see their reasons as logical and rational.