sapphi_snake said:
Farmageddon said:
sapphi_snake said:
1. I had a problem with the 'choice' part, not the 'your' part. 
And you're free to dislike anyone for whatever reason. Doesn't change the fact that, for example, if you dislike a black person for being black, then you're a racist. Hating someone for an intrinsec quality, that ultimately doesn't affect you in any way, is just wrong.
And why do you dislike seeing two guys hook up? Do you also dislike seeing heterosexuals hook up? Have you never hooked up yourself? Do you also dislike the ideea of gays having romantic relationships, kissing or showing affection to eachother? These may be actions, but they're certainly determined by a need caused by a part that is intrinsec to gays.
2. Except, it's really not quite like that with slavery. Also, it's not as if discrimination and prejudice disappeared along with the evil ancestors, or that society hasn't perpetuated these evil practices. Also, you do seem like a slavery apologetic.
3. Thinking that an intrinsec quality of a person is wrong is actually quite a hateful thing to do. Especially when you yourself have a quality that is opposite to that. It's essentially how a certain category of people declare themselves to be the best, superior human being due to said feature, while all the other people who do not have such a feature are inferior. Examples:
a. The racist (dislikes people who do not share the same skin colour as him): I'm white, non-white skin colour is a sign of inferiority, being white is superior than being non-white;
b. The sexist (dislikes people of another sex): I'm a man, being a man is superior to being a woman, women are inferior to men;
c. The homophobe (dislikes people who do not share his sexual orientation): I'm heterosexual, anything that's not heterosexual is wrong, heterosexuals are superior to non-heterosexuals, they're more moral etc.
And I think that it's perfectly possible for a christian to not hate gays... provided he/she goes aginst christian teachings, or follows 'liberal' interpretations of those teachings. Christianity (in it's orthodox view) however, is one of the main (if not the main) opressors of homosexuals (and women for that matter).
4. I do not get what you were trying to say.
|
1. Well, ok, choice, not choice, as I said that didn't really matter for the point I was making.
You seem to fail to realize that humans are ultimaly not really rational in the way the FEEL about things. To me there's no objective reason to dislike seeing two guys hooking up, but so what? I dislike it, but then comes the rational part and I don't "act on it" (this may not be the best expression, might imply something more akin to hate, but that's not the way I mean it). So what's the deal? No harm no foul right?
But I'd argue even if someone sees a rational reason (perceived rationality is very much subjective) for disliking it, it's their right and it doesn't affect anyone as long as they just "respectfully disagree". But you seem to not believe in that expression.
Also, notice I was talking this whole time how it has to do with being too different and etc naturaly making people unconfortable. This is just natural and more pronounced cases will cause it more. Extremely affeminate guys might be one such case, but the truth is this concept applies to much, much more than just sexual orientation.
Now if you think that "preference" should be called homophobia, well, allright, but it's a useless definition when you're "criminalizing" people who never hurt and actually antipatize with the people hurting you, lumping them all togheter.
Besides, your exemple is flawed. Disliking a black person for being black is akin to disliking a gay for hooking up with another guy, not akin to disliking to see the act of two guys hooking up. It does bear more resemblance with being unconfortable with highly effeminated guys, but even then it's not the same thing, it's about the way he behaves and shows himself. You may argue "well, but that's who he is". Ok, and that's why, rationally, I ignore that, uh, displeasure. But this is no different then disliking it when people are, idk, too loud. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's utter PC crap to try and make people feel guilty for feeling that way even though they're causing no harm.
2. When you have black people selling black prisioners as slaves to white people, just for exemple, I'd say yeah, it very much is. I'd venture to say it's racist to lump people together like this and believe most would have behaved widely differently when it all comes down to basic human motivations.
The discrimination that exists is beyond the point of the argument. I was talking about heritage and pride (which I personally don't give a crap about to be honest) and the "deification" of the victim that always seems to take place. My point might apply to affirmative actions but it exists independent of them and your position regarding them.
3. Thinking an intrincical quality of someone, that differs from yours, is wrong is indeed a necessary condition for prejudice, just as much as oxigen is to fire. But it's a leap to say one will cause the other.
I believe in civil disagreement :P
Take anyone and most people would find intrinsical qualities which they don't agree with, and there's nothing wrong with that. It only becomes a problem when people are intolerant of these differences, which, granted, is one of the dangers of group mentality.
But lots of people are not intolerant, and as such disagreement not always translates to hate.
Talking about the situation here, I'd there are people who believe it's a sin to be gay and still treat gay people well, even have gay friends. How can you reconsile that? You know, no matter the argument you make, reality simply disagrees. People who think it's wrong, people who don't really like seeing somethings, they still have gay friends, accept them on their house, etc. It's just not as simple as something is wrong so I hate everyone who is/has/thinks/etc it, or everyone would hate everyone else.
I had to stop midway and rush this point, so I'm sorry if it's structure is not the best. Still, I believe you can understand it.
4. As I said, w/e, but earlier you agreed that "You really can't be straight and proud I mean...YOU HAVE YOUR RIGHTS..". I just don't understand it. As if proud means demanding or something.
|
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?
