1. Thanks, I was afraid you might not allow me even that :P

But no, i'm not generaly unconfortable with heterosexual sex being made in front of me. I loose points for that don't I?

Of course it doesn't hurt to make people, any one, feel more accepted. But it's simply to naive for anyone to expect it to be his right that nobody dislikes anything about them. Just because it concerns a "minority" it's sudenly much more important when the same thing can apply to much more people not defined that way.

Actually, it's funny that minorities can't be too small if they are to get all this special treatment. I can see the practical side of that, but truth is we'll always have differences and that's why I think it's stupid to try and frigthen and shame people for specific feelings about an specific issue while there are many, many more nameless minorities out there.

The focus should simply be tolerance. Dislike as much as you please, but respect and behave. No one should feel entitled to give anyone else shit for not wanting to be friends, that's just fricking ridiculous. Thankfully though, most people don't really have a problem having gay friends, so it's even more ridiculous, it's giving people shit for disliking an aspect of a part of something you are while still holding you in high regard. Shit, that describes how I feel about every single friend I have, why does it have to become a big deal when it comes to defined characteristics?

I realise these characteristics have been specifically harassed and since they create a relatively big group with a huge anti-group that felt strong about it the situation goes to new levels. But the problem has never been the dislike itself, but the way people acted on it. And they didn't act just because they disliked it, but out of shock and fear and ignorance. The thing that should stop those from happening, of course, is an open, tolerant mind, not shame.

I think it's important here to remember that the situation as I see it today and the situation as it was in the not so distant past are two very different beasts, and that most of what I say refers to the former.

2. Have you even read what I wrote? I opened with:

"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."

You opened your rebutal with:

"The fact that people have practiced slavery forever doesn't excuse white people from doing it."

oO

No it's not ok for you to shoot anyone, but should your grandchildren be made to feel ashamed of who they are if you do that? Are they guilty? And say you shot a guy who also intended to kill you, should this guy's grandchildren be seen as poor santified victims?

When you have very little discrimination, the effect comes from starting conditions. It comes from being born poor and that's it. Now sure, they were born poor in that location in part because of the intervention of slavers. I guess they'd be much better off in Africa.

Everyone's life is a consequency of history, if we start repaying for things that happened to people who are not even alive, done by people not even alive, we're never stopping. Everyone will be paying and receiving. We shouldn't try to be so politicaly correct and intangible, but more practical, tackling problems that actually exist right now and the reasons for them to be instead of some ghost.

See, if you take a white kid who has studied in a shity private school for just a few years in early grades, but had an abusive father who beat him and his family down all the time and maybe raped his siter now and then before eventually being arrested, leaving his mother an alcohoolic whore until she comitted suicide, this kid has ZERO right to the quotas I mentioned earlier.

Now take a rich black kid, son of doctors, who has never really been discriminated or ostracized and always studied in the best schools and had the best preparatory courses avaiable. He has acces to those quotas.

Now, tell me, how is this fair again?

We're fucking capitalists. We have a social debt with EVERYONE not rich for that matter.

But again, my main point that you seem to have missed was simply victims are not always that pure, so if you want go get people guilt ridden, you'd better be careful not to be hipocritical.

3. I guess when you have a deep conviction rooted in your being that your beloved kid is bound to spend the rest of eternity suffering beyond imagination that might be just a bit tormenting. But what do they know right, they're just religious nuts, let's pretend what they feel is any less real because of that.

Of course that's just a single exemple, and I do agree people are selfish and not always great parents.

Anyway, the main part of this point, which you haven't addressed in the last reply, has kind of been fused with point one, so let's try to cut this down shall we? :P

4. Yup, I was just point out requesting acceptance of one's pride and being proud are two different things.

5. first you tell me people can only have "something pride" if thry are first made by others to feel bad about it. Then you tell me people whose ancestors did anything wrong - and ancestors shouldn't be read strictly, as in just blood mattering - should be made to feel ashamed. I believe you know where I'm going with this :P

This is Brazil we are talking about.

OT: Dont they already have a straight parade? I recall it is called "carnaval".

They do actually. Thing is, heterosexual 'events' are seen as so normalized, that people never even take notice of them anymore.

Ah, thats why the world has yet to notice brazilian carnaval.

1. Yes, there's nothing wrong with enjoying people (especially attractive people) having the type of sex you enjoy in front of you. We all love it when that happens.

And I can understand that you may think that traits of minorities get more attention when it comes to discrimination. However, a minority is born when a group that is dominant takes one of it's features and considers it superior (often a justification for dominance), and then labels all people with the opposite feature as inferior. There are some groups out there that you can say are 'disliked' (emos, goths, punks etc.), but you can't really compare it to a discrimination that takes place on the level of the whole society, and that even extends to legal aspects (like in the case of blacks and gays).

2. No it's not ok for you to shoot anyone, but should your grandchildren be made to feel ashamed of who they are if you do that? Are they guilty? And say you shot a guy who also intended to kill you, should this guy's grandchildren be seen as poor santified victims?

In the case of social groups (or better yet, nations), the group is still the same, even if the individuals have changed. Your ancestors did the crime, you're the one stuck paying for it.

Anyways, people never really pay for their ancestors mistakes on a wider scope, but they can still try to fix injustices that go on in their own countries. I do agree though that social programs should aim to help disadvantaged indidivuals, and should take into consideration current realities.

3. Ultimately, it's the gay kid who suffers the most, and is persecuted by his parents for who he is. Whose fault is it that the parents are following a hate-filled ideology that has nothing to do with reality, which psychologically hurts both them and leads them to hurt their child?

5. The shame that persecuted groups experience is a result of the persecution, and the dominant rhetoric which demonizes them and alienates them. The 'shame' that former persecutors would feel is simply remorse for doing terrible deeds.

Problems with windows :P

They do actually. Thing is, heterosexual 'events' are seen as so normalized, that people never even take notice of them anymore.

@mantlepiecek:

Except unlike hitler I have nothing against the muslims.

Yes, despite the fact that you think they're very dangerous due to the fact they make up so much of the world's terrorist population, they're quite nice, right?

I don't understand...Is it impossible for you to like a population when some parts of the population is being criminal? Obviously muslim people are nice people usually. Many of them are a bit too religious for my taste (I am an atheist) but that's ok since most people are as well. And I have never met a muslim criminal let alone a terrorist so why would I hate them.

1. Sure, just remember this discussion is supposed to be based in present day reality, where discrimination is low on a practical level. The only big legal problem I see is adoption, but please, it's understandable and I'd say not just discrimination. As I said before it's just too damn different. Still, the way things are going it might not take too long for it to become a reality.

Also, I wasn't even talking about emos or goths or punks necessarily, there are lots of traits (as opposed to "ideologies", used here in the vaguest of senses) which are seen as bad by the mainstream and are really nameless minorities, and these can suffer as much or even more, it's just harder to quantify.

And seeing as in reality most people don't really mistreat gays, only certain groups, I don't think the difference to even groups as the ones you mentioned is that big. The difference there comes more from the way the groups position themselves so that they are "less affected". Point in case are atheists, who, according to some polls I can't find for the life of me, are less accepted than all sorts of gays, including transexuals.

2. I can see a nation reapaying direct damage it did, but that doesn't mean the descendents of the perpetrators should be guilty ridden. And in reality, in the cases we're discussing, there's no clear cut nations to be talked about. Everyone has fucked everyone else over as much as they could for the most part. Again, I have no problem with helping the disavantage people within a society, I just don't see taking the differences of ancestors as metric as a healthy or even logical way to do it.

3. It's the Jews fault of course. BURN THEM! Muahahahah!

It's no ones fault. Please, you're much more intolerant in some aspects than the people you attack.

But again, I agree parents can be pretty awfull. Thankfully even this is already, and has been for awihle, a declining problem. But cut them some slack too. People generarily like the idea of their bloodlines going on, I can't fault them for that :P

5. It's not simply remorse. It's persecution when you tell people they should be ashamed and guilty ridden, and you have very much been demonizing the mainstream this entire topic while making minorities to be always exempt of any bad intention. You're essentially trying to do a role reversal and hoping that will remedy the situation. That's why I mentioned earlier the focus should be tolerance, not shame and guilty.

See, you seem to believe that making people ashamed of their "heritage" (it varies what exactly they should be ashamed of depending on which minority you are defending) and feeling guilty is a good defence for those things not to be repeated.

I disagree with that. A couple points:

First, you're essentially telling people they are the same as their ancestors and also responsible, even people who disagree with those things done in the past. That's the shortest way to loose an ally (luckly you won't create an enemy most times since people are relatively calm nowadays). You shouldn't be pissing people who are helping you because of some non-practical pseudo-issue.

Also, people who are not already pretty warm to you and people who value "their" past will only get more offended and more angry. Expecting shame and fear to constantly keep people in check is also risk and tormenting, which sucks. It's just too prone to backfiring.

The second point I want to make now is that since people have pretty much the same nature and in many (not all of course) cases the victim would have gladly switched sides with the prepretator, you're not only just trying to put a portion of people in check (the ones that succeeded in fuking others up), you're also letting other people who have essentially the same nature go by with no mechanism to stop them from doing anything.

More than that, by painting them as the poor little victims completely exempt of any fault or evil and the other guys as the big bad you create a pretty fucked up mentality that actually raises the chances of them doing something similar (albeit different) to some other group (not even necessarily their former opressors).

It's just not a healthy attitude overall. Much better is to make everyone, no matter which group(s) they fit in, aware of the necessity for acceptance and respect. Trying to suppres peoples feelings, making them ashamed and forcing them to negate such feelings is never gonna be a good strategy, it's not even healthy. On the other hand, if people learn to live side by side with that which they find different as long as both respect each other, you not only eliminate self-anguish, you eliminate prejudice and discrimination, solving the practical side of the issue in a much healtier and more stable way as well as preventing new cases much better.

6. Yup, it's a real shame gays are not allowed anywhere near carnaval. Imagine how cool would it be if they were pretty accepted there, actually part of the thing, able to express themselves. Woudn't it be even cooler if you even had heteros dressing as the opposite sex and ect?

Oh well, one can dream. Or simply wake up and actually experience carnaval:)