sapphi_snake said:
1. Is there a difference between disliking black people and disliking seeing black people? Is a person who says 'I have nothing against black people, I just don't like seeing them or having them around me' not a racist? Not to mention, promoting segregation, and hurtful to the black people, who will become alienated. And what do you mean by 'hooking up' more precisely? I'm sure you're not meaning seeing to guys have sex in front of you, no? 2. Victims are 'deificated' because they're, well, victims. You can't really erase the past, nor can you rub it off as an 'honest mistake'. The vitims suffered greately at the hands of the persecutors. The whole 'black peopel sold black slaves to whites' is just a despicable argument of racism apologetics. It doesn't change the fact that whites bought those slaves, and kept them as slaves for centuries. It also doesn't change the fact that whites developed a whole racist rhetoric which actually justified their right to own slaves, and led to the prolonging of slavery in some places like the US (not to mention that it created justification for them to invade different countries and whipe out the native population). It's important to not forget such things, and also instill the feeling of shame in the former oppressors, to avoid something like this ever happening again. Also, since such things have ramifications in time, persecution of the former enslaved groups will still continue. 3. I'd say that it invitably leads to discrimination. And it certainly leads to psychological persecution (think of gay kids tormented by their christian parents). Ultimately, thinking that being gay is a sin is homophobic and hateful, and degrading homosexuals. It's no different than how christians used to think that the state of being a woman is a sin in itself, and that woman are no better than excrements (some still hold that view). 4. Not having rights does actualy get in the way of being proud. If you don't have rights like everyone else, if you're thrown outside the law (like homosexuals used to be, remember it used to be illegal to be gay), if there's a rhetoric constantly painting you as a freak and an aberration, as a monster, then how can a gay person feel anything but ashamed for who they are? Gay pride is a counterraction to that. What possible reason could heterosexuals have for 'straight pride', when they've never been anything elogiated for the fact that they're heterosexual? |
1. There sure is a big difference between disliking to see guys hook up and flat out not wanting gays around, don't you think?
And hook up is porpusefully vague. As I was pointing out, the more extreme the worse. In most cases it's not really a problem. But two guys having sex in front of me would be on one end of the spectrum, yes. Would it be ok to me not to like that though, or am I a filty homophobe for that?
2. You completely missed my point. It's not about slavery apologetics, or denying the harm done to this or that people, or pretending no one suffered and no one gained with it.
It's about the fact that people have done this kind of thing forever. Slavery, wars, they are not the invention of any race, they are human nature trhown in bigger numbers. Does that mean we shouldn't care about the suffering and fight those practices? Hell no, but understanding them and accepting that which makes them be as part of our nature, using these big brains of ours is the first step to actually changing something. But this is besides the point.
Being ashamed for something an ancestor of yours did in a time and a culture when anyone, including the offended, would have done the very same given the opportunity is just ignorant. Thinking you're entitled to something just because someone upper in your family tree suffered is just as ridiculous.
Do I mean all affirmative actions are bad? Not really, that's not what I'm saying. But not all black people today, for example, are actually considerably affected by their color. Actually, most are not in many (most?) places, so why should they still be seen as victims? And why should people who haven't, and wouldn't hurt them be seen as guilty?
Here in Brazil poor people who have also taken public education have some programs to make their access to universities easier, one of them in the form of quotas. Then black people, of all incomes and schools, have something similar and, on top of that, the two are not exclusive, so a black guy who's poor and has taken public education has a huge advantage.
Why is that? Why should he have more incentive than a white poor kid? Is there really any considerable descrimination still going on against him? Not really. Some isolated cases, sure, but are we gona have quotas for anyone who is given trouble now and then for something intrinsic to them? Because that's a lot of people, and most don't really fit in a neat little group. And what about fat kids, bullied kids, kids with too much acne or who are too shy? What's, in practice, the difference? I will tell you what it is, the latter kids get away more shit than the avarage black ones, and more constantly.
So yeah, again, there is such a thing as over-victimisation and yes, people can ride it and take benefit, and that's people from all races and religions and orientations and opinions and tastes. I really don't see how anyone could deny that.
3. Please, you're just being too sensitive. People disagree with other's virtues, that's just life. Learning to live with it is all one can do.
Simple observation shows that disagreement doesn't have to lead to discrimination, you just can't argue with that.
Also, do you realise the gay kid torments its parents just as much? Sure, it all sucks, boohoo, that's the burden of being different, and it shouldn't be a problem, a social problem that is, unless it's taken too far.
Now you're gonna tell me it has been taken too far. And it's true, but it's also got nothing to do with what I'm asserting, that such a thing as respectfull disagreement exists in practice.
4. pride
noun /prīd/
prides, plural
A feeling or deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements, the achievements of those with whom one is closely associated, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired
- - the team was bursting with pride after recording a sensational victory
- - a woman who takes great pride in her appearance
I don't see how not being made to be ashamed of yourself gets in the way of being proud, that's all I was pointing out.
I understand it in the sense that you only "need' a movement to validate your pride (as opposed to simply celebrating it) if such pride is widely denied, and that it has been used as a way to find acceptance, and that in that sense it would make no sense to people whose pride is already validated. Granted. But that doesn't mean you can't be proud or celebrate such pride.
Personally I find it stupid to parade one's proud wither way. Besides I don't even get how anyone could be proud of something like their sexual orientation, wathever it may be. I don't buy into national pride either for that matter. So yeah, w/e :P
Btw, isn't it your position that people whose ancestors have "done bad" (as if that would leave anyone out) should be ashamed of it as to never repeat what has happened?
