| sapphi_snake said: Regarding your first paragraph, I already said I'd have to read the article in question before being able to have an opinion on the matter. His article could've been totally misinterpreted, if just the words used were taken into consideration, and not the global message. Regarding the 2nd paragraph, a majority is simply a group that dominates society by being more numerous than all others (50+%). I never said women are a minority, whatI said was that they're a historically oppressed group. They may outnumber men, but they have no real power within society. Society simply considers that men are more "valuable" than women and this starts from birth. Studies actually show that the birth of a boy is considered a much more joyful even in basically every culture (exception being some South American country, I think either Colombia or Venezuela). T This extends well after birth, and in society women don't really have any power (how many world leaders are women?), women being confined to the household and dependent on men for survival. he practice of the Chinese you pointed out being proof of how valued women are. You may be the lowest on the "hate speech totem pole", but that's because you're at the top of the society totem pole (especially if you're also a christian). Regarding political correctness, isn't it's purpose not insulting anyone in order to minimize conflict? I think that insulting a man is just as bad as insulting a woman, and I don't see a problem with being anti PC, as long as you're willing to accept the consequences of insulting others. Affirmative action was set up to protect minority groups from discrimination in universities (and to some extent assure that the number of educated people within these minority groups rises), no? Why are you bringing this into the conversation? Regarding the 3rd paragraph, words can hurt people, and I'm not talking about feelings. Words spread ideeas, and ideeas lead to actions. I already mentioned that hate speech is speech that promotes violence and discrimination of high risk groups. If words weren't effective, there would be no problem, but reality shows that words have a great power over people. Tell people group X is evil, wants to outnumber them and steal their country, and you'll see lynch mobs forming. Ending discrimination requires treating the cause, not the symptom, as you propose. |
I brought up affirmative action to show how counterproductive and unfair things can become when self-righteous politicians set out to right a societal wrong. Lots of minorities and women have done very well for themselves in America. They idea that they are oppressed simply because they belong to Group X, Y, or Z is... well, it's frankly incredibly fucking retarded. My biggest problem with the left is that they like to divide people into groups and treat them as nothing more than a representative of said group rather than as an individual. A poor white (or Asian, for that matter) male is at a considerable disadvantage due to affirmative action, since it is entirely race based rather than means based. The fact of the matter is that the son of a rich black actor or football player simply doesn't need the government's help the way he would have decades ago. Things have changed, but affirmative action hasn't changed with the times, and leftists' slavish devotion to that outdated program resembles nothing more or less than old-tyme religion.
"Oh dear! Words spread ideas! We'd better regulate them, then!" That is so hilarious and creepy. You don't think that is treating the symptom? Forcing people to have only government-approved conversations is nothing anyone who fancies themselves a liberal should want any part of. The answer to bad speech is not less speech, but more speech.
