Category: the Rant Board
Sooo...I consider myself pretty enlightened, as people go. I try to be as open-minded and forward-thinking as possible. I support the LGBT community. I hate homophobia, transphobia, and racism. I hate bigotry of any sort, really.
In just about every space devoted to feminists, transgenders, homosexuals, etc. etc. there is someone screaming about how the white people screwed them all over. There have even been cases where, after facing constant harassment from others, white feminists have left Twitter entirely. When they did leave, those who had been harassing them dismissed this as "hiding from their failure". These are the same people who turn around and complain of harassment directed at anyone who is either oppressed in any way, or who happens not to be white. In other words, if you're a straight white girl, you're automatically assumed to be a bigoted piece of scum, even if you do your best to demonstrate otherwise; even if the people in question have never actually spoken to you before; even if you have the same technical rights to express yourself in "safe spaces"; even if harassment is reviled when directed at absolutely anyone else.
If I judged someone based on the colour of their skin, sexual orientation, or gender identity, I'd be accused--and justly so--of bigotry. And yet even when I stand behind these groups on a consistent basis, my opinions aren't valid because I'm white, so what do I know?
I'm blind, so to a very small extent I understand what it's like to be judged on sight. I understand oppression. I understand discrimination, and stereotyping. I realize that this is just a taste of what other minorities deal with every single day, but I still get it. And yet people just assume that, since I'm white, I must be completely incapable of any good whatsoever.
I'm sick to death of this.
I can't help being born white any more than a gay person can help being born gay, or a black person can help being born black. To judge me on sight, without even taking the time to get to know me, is no better than the actions of so many bigoted people around me. I realize that many, many white people around the world have done and are doing horrible things. I get it. It's horrible. But I can't be responsible for that. All I can do is try to repair as much of the damage as possible, and do as little harm and as much good as I can.
Oh yeah...and this is way, way harder if you're male. If you're a straight white male, and you try to speak up about anything at all in a "liberal" space? Good luck to you.
Now ... let the fur fly.
Meglet, I totally agree with you. "Privilege" is the Left's idea of Original Sin. Be born a white, or a straight, or yes, a male too, and you are guilty of having eaten the fruit.
All people groups have done good and horrible things.
There is honor and nobility to be found in all people groups, also.; Other groups will be tossed on the dungheap just like us, as soon as someone beats them out in the oppression Olympics.
You're right to be upset, and I know this sounds a bit tinfoil-hat, but I think it's just another way for powers that be, or powers that wish they were, to divide and conquer.
Thank you so much, Leo. It's nice to know I'm not completely crazy.
I understand their bitterness. I really, really do. But I do feel that they are doing exactly what we used to do, and are still doing in many cases. They say reverse racism/sexism doesn't exist, but sometimes I wonder. I am in no way trying to diminish the experiences of oppressed minority groups. I am not trying to claim that what I go through is worse, or even remotely comparable. But I don't think it's right to turn around and take the "eye for an eye" approach, particularly when I was not the aggressor in the first place.
You are spot on the money, miss Meglet. I could not have have said it better
myself.Couldn't have said it better myself, Meglet. If judgement were based only on the
relevant immediate situation and behaviour,
Smile.
I can see your point and agree with it.
The only thing you can do about it, is, be who you are.
If it comes to you directly, you explain your part in it.
But, sadly, it won't go away, because people love to hate.
Next, and this is on both sides, when they hate, they do harm to each other.
When they do harm, now, they have legit cause to bitch, or so they see it.
You know at one time on applications, I've stopped answering the question as to my race. I check other.
If you think about it, what does your race have to do with a job, credit application, apartment lease, telephone contract? Nothing at all, unless someone wishes to use it against you.
You've been asked for your race on a job application? How is that even legal?
Sorry, but white privilege is a real thing. No, you can't control the fact that
you were born white, but that doesn't mean you don't benefit from it. Until we
are actually on equal playing fields, we can't claim to be equals. Now, do some
people blow it wildly out of proportion, yes, but it still exists and is still
something we need to deal with. The sad fact is that we simply aren't dealing
with it. We're better at sweeping it under the rug than dealing with it.
Anyone who says reverse racism/sexism doesn't exist is fooling themselves. . It absolutely does exist. You're spot on, Meglet. I understand the bitterness of various minorities too, but that still doesn't make the reverse attitudes any better than the ones that made them so bitter in the first place. If we're really supposed to be color blind, as the saying goes, or not to care about someone's sexual orientation, then that side needs to play by their own rules...and usually they don't. It's the height of hypocrisy, and maddening to say the least.
Cody does have a point.
However, I think that tarring all people in a specific group with the same brush is just downright silly. The only exception to this is if all people in a given group are engaged in something bad, and there can't possibly be a way to be part of that group while not being guilty of whatever this bad thing is; at that point, brush away.
But whites, white males in particular, aren't guilty just because they're white. Yes, we have it easier. Yes, we may sort of buy into the system in some ways without even thinking about it because we know no different (we might, for instance, have certain perspectives that aren't terribly accurate). But should we be blamed the same way as truly guilty parties are? No, I think not, and in that light, I think Meglet's got it pretty much dead to rights.
People, we just had a city where 88 percent of the city employees quit
because they would have had to work under a black person. We had dozens of
black people murdered in cold blood by white police officers. We can't even have
a black woman in a relationship with a white man in a movie because its rating
skyrockets and no theater will touch it.
If you think racism, sexism and homophobia are in the past, you're fooling
yourself, and as long as one white person does it, we're all guilty. We're the
majority here people, its our responsibility to protect those who can't protect
themselves. So when a woman is raped by a guy who says he couldn't control
himself, its our responsibility as men to kick him out of the group and make it
clear that behavior is no longer acceptable. As long as black people are
prevented from living equal lives, we're at fault. We benefit from the system,
thus we are guilty of accepting the faults of that system. Plain and simple.
I absolutely agree that racism, sexism, and such things still exist. But that's no justification for it going the other way around. That won't solve anything. I strongly disagree that we're all at fault for the actions of one person of the same race, gender, or whatever category you choose to put here. Are all blind people responsible because one self-entitled blind idiot abuses the system, for example? I'd say not. No one group is entirely at fault for the actions of one individual, or even several individuals. But, to each their own views.
It really depends on culpability, and where it stops. I can tell you that I wouldn't continue communicating with a man I knew to have raped someone. Friend or not, that'd be the end of that. I wouldn't just let it pass as if it hadn't happened.
But really, where does it stop? Every moment you're sitting at your computer engineering a pithy, funny or vitriolic response to someone you don't know, you're not going out there and being a champion for the causes you say we're all guilty of perpetuating. I think it has to stop somewhere.
We aren't guilty just because some of us are assholes, frankly. You're absolutely right when you say that the assholes have to stop what they're doing though, and I don't think anyone's trying to say that sexism, racism and homophobia are in the past. Another board proves the homophobia argument pretty strongly, and you'll see racism and sexism everywhere if you bother looking.
Cody, I see what you're saying, though I don't believe I ever said white privilege did not exist or that I did not benefit from it. I can't help white privilege any more than I can help my skin colour. And I do agree that while we can't necessarily make up for what others do, it is our responsibility to call others out on it when they behave in a bigoted manner. What I'm speaking out against, Cody, is the way in which anyone who is not white automatically expects me, personally, to be a horrible person before even having met me. Being contemptuous of my ideas out of hand and dismissing me as a bigoted bitch isn't fair until I prove myself to be that. And I don't think I've ever, ever been that.
And, as Alicia said, what does it actually help, to turn it back on others? What does a homosexual gain from being bigoted himself? What does, say, a First Nations person here in Canada gain by hating all white people on sight? What does a blind person gain by dismissing all sighted people and "sticking to their own kind?" Isn't that fighting hatred with more hatred?
I don't know about Canada, but here on applications one of the questions is to your race.
Now, granted, it always suggest this information is voluntary, but you have to wonder why that section is even on the application.
It has been said it is for stat reasons, and other excuses.
As long as we have people doing things to each other, and I mean major stuff as to your race status, you will be lumped in the group.
I was lucky.
My parents, the news, living in general made me aware how just being a black man was going to cause me problems.
But, I had good experiences with all races, so learned that all weren't out to get me.
You can be angry about the reverse, but until the hate stops, we'll be going back and forth.
Trying to be color blind is difficult, not because you can't do it, people refuse to allow you to be.
I was surprised how much color matters in the blind community.
No, I wasn't like, oh, I am shocked, but I did feel, if you were already blind, and you dealt with that, why would a persons color, or race matter to you?
It is due to teaching.
Parents say, you're a white girl, you can't be with a black man, it just isn't done.
You are a Spanish man, you need to live over here, because it is what Spanish people do.
Until we stop teaching that color matters, and serten people get ahead based on it, and others go to jail for life based on it, the tides going to flow back and forth.
Meglet, is it right that some black people assume white people will all be
assholes, no. But, imagine if every day of your life you had to deal with racism.
And now imagine if someone who has never dealt with racism a day in her life
comes in and tries to sympathize with you. I doubt your first reaction would be,
"yeah, you probably know the struggle". Your first reaction would be, "shut the
hell up, you don't know the first thing about suffering racism".
Let me give an example that's a bit closer to home. Imagine you and some of
your blind friends were out to lunch, and you started chatting about how it
sucks to have sighted people grab you and assume they know where you're
going, and how it sucks to have to answer the same damn questions day in and
day out, and how you're absolutely sick of being told how precious and inspiring
you are, and how you swear to the virgin fucking mary that the very next
person who asks if you want to touch their face you are going to claw their eyes
out. Now, imagine a sighted person sits down and starts trying to sympathize
with you. starts going, "yeah, I hate when that happens. Its just awful." You're
not going to be accepting of her, she doesn't have the first clue what she's
talking about. You might even assume she's part of the problem because she's
probably only feeling sorry for you, and that makes you want to hurl your
scalding hot coffee in her face. Now imagine you get called a racist because you
don't accept her ignorance at face value.
Cuz that's what you are Meglet. You are, and Creg is, and I am. we're all
ignorant. We're never going to have to know what it feels like to be pulled over
by a cop as a black person and wonder if we're going to die this time. We're
never going to have to deal with people crossing streets to avoid us. We're
never going to have to deal with people assuming we're going to mug them if
we walk by them. We're never going to have to see people locking their car
doors as we walk by. We don't have to deal with that, and until we can accept
that, its best to let them take the lead. Does that make sense?
Again...I need to clarify. Cody, I really wish you would read what I write and not what you expected me to write. I never, ever, ever implied that I know what it's like to be black. I even said so in an earlier post (something to the effect that I know my struggles aren't anywhere comparable). I'm not sitting there with gays, transgenders, and blacks going "I totally get what you're saying! Sooo annoying, right?" All I'm doing is trying to lead by example by
1. Not being a racist, bigoted jerk and
2. Getting behind any cause I can participate in
And, if a sighted person did their absolute best not to make the same mistakes most sighted people make, I'd be fine with them. Unlike so many others, I don't spend my life being angry all the time. I don't spend my whole life being angry at all men, who oppress me as a woman. I don't spend my life hating all sighted people because some of them oppress me. Sometimes it's hard to take them all at face value before I've gotten to know them, but I damn well try, because returning hatred with hatred is about the most ridiculous thing I can think of. Hate the system; hate institutions; hate ideas. Don't hate all people.
I might complain about what some sighted people do, but I also try to educate. I also try to understand why they do it, and correct them in a polite manner. You will never influence those for whom you hold contempt. I forget who said that, unfortunately, but it's not my quotation.
I never tried to say that I understand what it's like to face racism every day of my life. I am ignorant, you're right. But if I am actively speaking out against bigotry, don't throw my words out the window simply because I happen to be white. It's possible to be white and still be a good person, and until people realize that, nothing is really going to change.
The problem with that Meglet, is that the people are the system.
We like to think that we're not part of the system because we know that the
system is bad. We aren't racists, and we know the system is racist, so how
could we be part of the system? The problem is, it doesn't work that way. We
don't get to remove ourself from the machine because we don't like getting
greasy. We have to learn to accept the grease. Then we can go about fixing it. I
don't see a lot of that in your posts, nor in mine for that matter. Its not an easy
thing to do.
I dunno. That last argument feels a little stretchy to me, personally.
You aren't part of the problem if you both admit the problem is there and wish to help. Yes, you may be ignorant as to its exact ramifications, you may not know on a gut level how something feels and you may not be able to sympathize the way some people claim to. But that doesn't mean you're guilty by association, and it doesn't mean your feelings ought to be dismissed. Reverse racism and sexism are very real and they're causing many of the problems which birthed them in the first place to grow even bigger.
Let's use that example from a couple of posts back. If a sighted person sat down and tried commiserating about life being grabbed or dragged around, I'd probably ask them how often that happens to them. If I quickly found out that they were ignorant, then I'd probably wonder why they were trying to fake it, but would otherwise just shake it off. If said sighted person was obviously ignorant but still seemed to have the sense to know that what was happening to blind people was wrong, I wouldn't want to throw my coffee in her face. I also wouldn't think she was part of the problem, because that's the sort of oversimplification that started things like racism and sexism flaring up in the first place. I might, at the very worst, be annoyed at her pretentiousness, but I'd do the smart thing and try and give her a little rope, so to speak. Sometimes people can be ignorant, even a little stupid, but may have good intentions. Rather than slam the door on them because some among them are much worse, we ought to try to hear them. It's really just as simple as that.
Yes, a great way to live.
I know you don't know, and I don't know what you feel, so lets deal with it civilly.
I don't want to hit anyone, or get mad with them, I want to understand why they are there, and by them sitting down to talk, they've opened the door for discussion.
Maybe we learn something after it. Maybe we don't.
But, until more think this way Meglet, you and I and people that think as we do, will have to relax and over look the anger.
We'll not change it, and we can't fix the reasons that cause it.
We just have to live as we can, and do the best we can to the people we are in contact with.
This situation isn't only a black, white thing, it is a human thing, because people have there picks on others for whatever reasons.
The thing that makes me laugh is to hear someone say, I'm not prejudice.
I ask them, okay, would you marry, and I use a different race then they are.
Oh, no, I couldn't see myself with a...
Okay, would you mind if your daughter or son married one?
Yes, you know, people should stay with their own kind.
Professing to be color blind and liberal, and being it, are different.
Yes, that kind of cognitive dissonance has always made me shake my head. If you claim you're not racist but don't personally approve of interracial couples, then you're racist, sorry.
I do generally relax, Wayne. I just wanted to get this out somewhere I knew I'd get some levelheaded responses. If I dared to express this on Twitter or Facebook, I'd be silenced quicker than you can say 'ignorant white girl'. It's nice to know that a few others have experienced this, too.
Try it.
You might find others agree.
You will however, get a sense of what the world is thinking.
I think that help you put some perspective on how you are a small group.
It be interesting.
I don't use either, but I'd give it a go.
Ugh, no thanks--not with the groups of people in my life.
Okey dokey. Smile.
I understand seriously.
These new social justice movements are far too similar to the McCarthyist era
tactics to my liking. Recently at an Atheists metope I met a man who had lived
through, and remembers, McCarthy. The same types of moral panics that Meg is
talking about here is exactly what was done in the 1950s. Different crowd being
persecuted, same problems and same mentality thgouh.
The problem with the online situation is the way the mob mentality gets into it.
This may be social, but makes a complete mockery of justice.
When I look at a movement or group, my personal question is: What problem is
it addressing? And what is the solution it poses?
If the solution involves making an entire group responsible for the actions of
some, that movement is no better than the Ku Klux Klan, or the skinhead nazi
kids of my youth. Shallow, black-and-white, fundamentalist thinking, incapable
of making adult judgments, incapable of nuance. Nothing but children given
adult capacity without having to take adult responsibility. I said as much to a
Son of the Confederates in Florida, and I say as much to this so-called social
justice crowd.
Very well-said, Meglet. While I haven't personally encountered that attitude very much, I know it exists and you're right, it doesn't accomplish anything. That being said (and funnily enough, I was arguing this on Facebook recently), I can still understand it, because my being white is the only so-called privilege I have. I'm a multi-disabled, bisexual, low-income, non-Christian woman. I've certainly experienced judgment and discrimination. I'm fully aware that all types of prejudices still exist and that they're a hell of a lot worse than many people would like to think. And hate and discrimination lead to the same terrible things, no matter to which oppressed group they apply. I could just as easily be denied a job because I'm blind as an Asian could be denied a job because they're Asian. I could just as easily be shot for kissing my girlfriend in public as a black man could be shot for simply walking down the street. Each group may have a unique set of circumstances to deal with, but it all amounts to the same horrid thing that needs to be stopped. That's why I hate the idea of privilege. You can't say that a white person is privileged just because they're white because you never know to what other minority groups they might belong and what they might have suffered because of it. What's worse (and I've discussed this on other boards) is the idea of privilege within oppressed groups (e.g., bisexual privilege, the hierarchy of disability, light-skinned privilege, etc.). All that does is divide people who should be working toward a common goal, just as the concept of white privilege alienates those of us who fight for the equality of all races. I don't feel privileged. I feel judged and stereotyped in almost every facet of my being, and in my... for lack of a better way of putting it... Caucasian capacity, I feel a responsibility to do whatever I can to balance out the harmful actions of others of my kind and help put an end to the hate once and for all.
Also, out of curiosity, in which city was this that 88% of the employees quit?
Namaste,
Becky
Interesting comparison, Leo; I hadn't thought of it quite like that, but you're right. I don't know if I'd go quite so far as to dismiss it all as moral panic, since a lot of the anger and bitterness comes from real, constant oppression. Still, as several of us keep asserting, fighting fire with fire won't accomplish anything at all. And, while I am socially minded and keep up with social justice, I often stay well out of the "Twitter movements" because they seldom accomplish much beyond raising awareness (which can be done in better ways anyway), and often result in a whole lot of innocent people being trampled upon. Just as black feminists will run roughshod over one white feminist who tries to speak up without a trace of hatred, so too will young white men with nothing better to do run roughshod over any woman at all trying to talk about privilege in any sense. It devolves into a lot of screaming and namecalling, until people have to be very careful what they say for fear of being piled on. Recently, I saw a prominent guy on Twitter lamenting that he now has to ask permission before retweeting someone's controversial opinion, lest he bring a storm of harassment down upon them.
People say if you put it out there, then face the criticism. But I don't think irrational barrages of hateful kicking and screaming really amount to just criticism. People could approach things so much more productively if they thought about it for more than five seconds.
Becky, thanks for sharing your perspective. You make some excellent points about hierarchy and invisible privilege or lack thereof.
I think a major problem is that some people are unaware of their prejudices, and at times refuse to admit that they are prejudice because they don't see themselves as so. It can come down to a number of social agents, from the person's family, cultural environment, etc. For a while I didn't realize how much my familys political views influenced me. Until I started reading about a number of social problems, I didn't realize my own political identity which is still more middle-of-the-road, but it is not as hard-core Republican as most of my family is.
I still don't understand how those who face oppression can turn it on others. I've just wasted valuable time setting a black woman straight as to why transgender people are oppressed (she thought they were "bitching about nothing"), and explaining to her why her logic is in need of cleaning up. I just don't understand. On a small-scale example, I'm blind so I would never turn around and go "black/transgender/gay/other disabled people are bitching about nothing". It's just insane to me! How do people develop such blind spots (pardon the pun)?
Meglet, calling something moral panic isn't dismissing it. I know it's unpopular to say so, but the moral panic in the 1950s was actually grounded in some real fears. Communism wasn't just some academe's ideal. It hadn't even demonstrated itself to be a total failure yet: it was thriving -- if one can call it such -- in the Soviet Union. And we were at war. People were really concerned that nuclear intelligence was going to get sold to the Soviets. The Soviets had their own concerns, exactly like ours, only they were afraid of us and spies from us giving Soviet technology to us.
So when we say something has devolved into a moral panic, it doesn't mean the claims don't have merit. What it does mean is that ideologues -- usually ideologues who have no concern for the rule of law, nor the rights of the accused, are willing to sack civil liberties and other hings just to "send a message" or "prove a point".
If I didn't believe there was privilege, I wouldn't be involved in the community projects I am involved in. But that's the key: McCarthy didn't want the discussion to be about how we could secure our technologies from espionage, and the social justice warriors of today don't want the discussion to be about what we can do to help. Cody is doing a great job of parroting the academics' propaganda: we all in <insert target group here> are responsible. Which by extension means that those who are actually responsible for real crimes are technically less responsible than they would be, if justice were applied, and the individuals doing individual acts were themselves held accountable.
Oh and by the way, in terms of collectively holding groups responsible, few can match hitler. What you probably didn't learn in school is why he targeted Jews and other groups. The original reason behind his ideology was a mistaken notion that it was Jews who initiated the use of mustard gas against Germany in World War I. It was what we now would call a war crime against Germany. It was total devastation. The Germans were valid in being upset. However, although some Jewish people were involved, it wasn't their Jewishness, and Jews were not collectively responsible. Although banks had historically been under the control of Jewish families, Jews by extension are not collectively responsible for the economic collapse of Germany after World War I.
Now everyone, except maybe a few holocaust deniers, agrees with this. So it's very easy to understand, and by logical extension distance oneself from, groups who unilaterally hold other groups collectively responsible.
This is a very religious attitude, and it's my opinion groups who do this shouldn't be called science, and should be placed under the same hospices we do religion.
Forgive me, Leo. I have always heard moral panic used in a negative context. It came up a lot in my sociology classes, and it was always used to describe a panic that was not truly founded upon anything logical.
Not at all, Meglet. And again, your sociology classes were in part correct. It is based on claims that have merit, but the claims get wildly distorted.
I know a woman who is a rape survivor. She feels very affronted when people want to derail the real issue of rape by changing the word's meaning to include nonconsensual staring. I didn't know that was a thing, but she says it is a thing now, to call that "stare rape." That's really tragic, for some narcissistic kids to run all over her and similar people so that they can hijack the kind of exceptions decent people make to help support these survivors. It's like faking a disability to cut in line, only far far worse.
But stil: the trouble isn't so much the ideology, as closely as that ideology resembles religion, and as free from rational discourse as it is. We could be talking cabbages and potatos here and still have the same troubles. In your first post, you raised objections that any reasonable sane human being can certainly understand. And by understand, I mean possibly object to in a rational way, if they want. But these movements, be they the anti-abortionists, the social justice warriors, the "conscientious objectors" in Indiana, have one thing in common: very black-and-white thinking. It's possible for you to agree with four out of five of their proposals, for sake of argument, and then disagree with proposal five. But they would take your disagreement -- that you wrote about in Post 1 -- and then claim that you are guilty of the other four. Not even just mistaken, or incorrect, guilty. And of the other four which you actually agree with. When you see them turn to name-calling, vitriol, and guilt, I think that's when you know they've lost the argument.
You have one advantage that I also have: you were inside religion once. Not to put words in your mouth, but you've already overcome the fear associated with eternal torment in a supposed afterlife. People like us have a supreme advantage: we can see through this nonsense very easily. That's why I found it so refreshing to talk to a man who had lived through the McCarthy scare.
And McCarthy in the 50s so bungled everything by his "social justice" activities that kids today don't even know there were actual concerns about insider arms trading and espionage. McCarthy had no business being involved in any of those proceedings: that was up to Intelligence alone.
Think what these kids are going to do to rape, or sexual assault, or any number of other crimes. Or prejudice, like the shootings of black youth in some cities. These kids want to hold everyone in a particular grou collectively responsible, about as efficient as eye surgery with a chain saw.
If before this post, you didn't know there were legit claims by the German people of the 1920s and early 30s, or that there were actual insider arms trading and espionage going on in the 1950s, you have Hitler and McCarthy to thank for that.
In fifty years, if kids are coming up that don't know there were real issues to contend with, within the bounds of the Constitution, where rights are being violated in various communities, they will have these crazy tumblr otherkins and social justice types to thank for this.
Ah, very interesting. I can understand your friend's objections to this trend of calling anything unwanted or uninvited "rape." While I don't agree with harassment any more than anyone else does, I do think it gets way out of hand in certain cases. Yes, it's disconcerting to have someone stare intently at you, especially if they're doing so in an overtly sexual way when it's clearly unwanted. But to compare that small violation with rape? I think that really cheapens what your friend went through. Both concerns are valid, but to place them side by side is unfair and very, very dangerous.
Almost every moral panic comes from claims that have merit, you're right. It's not like Hitler rose to power and said "Hey guys, Jews are bad!" and everyone else was like "Oh...okay." The Germans had been trampled upon after World War I, and frankly, they did face some real concerns. Does that tjustify what they went on to do during the Hollicaust? Of course not. But I do think you need to see where these things start if you want to understand and prevent them. Jesus and George Bush had one thing in common: they both said "...either you are with us, or you are against us." This simplifies every issue to the point where it's too distorted to be realistic. This idea that you have to agree with every tenet of feminism, or Christianity, or secularism, etc. ... this idea that either you think a certain way, all the way, or you're a horrible person and part of the problem...I just don't buy it. The world is far too nuanced for that kind of thinking. When you say to someone, "either you think this way or you're a bigot", you are essentially using dogma to back yourself up. That dogma arises from anger, and I understand that anger. When you watch groups being treated unfairly your whole life, you are understandably angry and bitter. But to think that anyone who does not directly support all of your ideas is to resort to the same black-and-white dogma that the oppressors do.
The internet is supposed to be democratic, but it is no more democratic than, say, a council meeting. If you speak your mind, and that opinion is not accepted by those around you, you will be silenced. End of story.
My daughter's 20 now, so probably baby info I have is pretty "dated" according to many.
I would like to put one thing out here though: Parenting is hard enough without all the unsolicited and often contradictory advice. For the most part, if you do the best you can, your kids will come out all right. Drama-infested teenagers that can't let go of the cell phone long enough to do the dishes, but all right nonetheless.
So don't forget to cut yourself some slack, especially around the smug mugs who want everyone to think they're doing every single little thing just perfectly for their kids. A parent's worst fear is failure, and seems to plague our minds more than anything else. So don't be afraid to smack the smug mugs around just a bit and tell them to shove it.
Oops I posted this in the wrong topic, sorry guys.
Meglet, I totally agree. I'll never know how someone from one marginalized group could discriminate against someone from another. You'd think we'd all want to unite and fight all types of prejudice. But the sad truth is, a black person could be prejudiced against a gay person, a gay person could be prejudiced against a blind person, and a blind person could be prejudiced against a Muslim. It happens all the time. The most extreme case of this that I've ever witnessed was a woman who is not straight, not Christian, and not white, who was poor and disabled, and was prejudiced against another racial minority. I thought my friggin' brain was going to implode from trying to process that.
Becky
I object Leo.
You have one advantage that I also have: you were inside religion once. Not to put words in your mouth, but you've already overcome the fear associated with eternal torment in a supposed afterlife. People like us have a supreme advantage: we can see through this nonsense very easily.
Everyone in religion is not there in fear, nor do people like you see through everything clearly, nor are you supreme. Smile. .
I tend to see the statement “You are with us, or against us.” Not to mean you are wrong, just that we disagree.
Because you are against us, doesn’t mean we have any rights to change you, persecute you, hate, or anything else, but it does mean we should be aware you are against us and we should protect ourselves if necessary.
When Jesus said it, he was talking about the people that wanted to kill him for what he was saying, and teaching.
These people were for sure against him, were they not?
At no time did he hate them however, nor do as is happening to you.
I do believe that Jesus was speaking generally, Wayne. After all, will God not sort the goats from sheep? Wheat from chaff? And when that sorting is done, all those who were not with him...well, they get snuffed out, right?
But seriously, can we please, please, please not turn this in to a Christian vs. atheist board again? We already have enough of those.
One thing I would like to point out is that I'm not sure I agree with people who are ex-religious having an advantage. I suppose getting out of the whole mess requires strength or resolve, but doesn't being in it to begin with require a whole lot of really iffy logical choices? For every supposed strength I could cite a weakness, that's all I'm saying. It is definitely a unique perspective, however, and lends you ex-religious people insights that nonreligious people like me have probably never had on a gut level. That much I'll grant.
It's different if you're raised in it, though. actually, We who eventually abandons religion
based on critical examination of our lives are not only able to be logical, but also able to
move on from indoctrination.. That's a really big deal. Of course it seems illogical to you,
Gregg: you were never religious to begin with. So, yes, we have a slight advantage. We
understand the dogma because we lived it, but know enough to denounce it.
It is not illogical to assume that defeating indoctrination affords you perspective that someone who has always been free of it does not have.
At worst, what I mean to suggest is that being indoctrinated in the first place implies the weakness I spoke of, whether it happens when you're very young (being surrounded by it) or when you're a bit older and are captivated by particularly clever, kind or devoted practitioners.
Even if you have beaten it, you had to be in it to begin with. The only way you can empathize with the indoctrinated is because you were once the same way. In a way, it is similar to, but worse than, saying that being an ex-crackhead grants you some sort of advantage over someone who's never done drugs.
Do you have a more innate understanding of how it feels? Yes.
Does that understanding actually grant you anything a nonreligious person, who has never been indoctrinated, does not possess, and thus give you any sort of advantage when it comes to the understanding of minorities, oppression, moral panic or any of these other hot social topics? I daresay it doesn't.
Wow...really? You think that every religious child is weak in a way you are/were not? Trust me, if your parents had been absolutely sure of a god, you would have been too, at least until you got old enough to start asking really penetrating questions. I realize you were more critical than most at a young age, but please--don't spit on the rest of us just because we believed something you didn't.
No fear. I'm not a Christian. Smile.
I'd love to answer my view of the sheep and the goats.
Ask me sometimes.
As to being a Christian, I once was also, and I didn't drop religion, just Christian views, or some of them.
I have no fear at all of not having an after life, nor do I think about it as a reward for being religious.
I do agree, if you've never lived something, you can't exactly understand it, only view it from a logical point of view.
That doesn't give people a right to hate, but it is a reason they do.
I still believe the all, idea is taught, and learned.
All, didn't do anything, but people are to lazy, or whatever, to think.
Most just follow, like these sheep. Smile.
Teaching is a powerful device, and when you not only have the word of your teacher, but some true life examples, you suffer if you are not given a chance to live outside your community to learn all isn't true.
I'm not spitting on anyone, not a bit. I'm simply challenging the assertion that you actually have an advantage. You don't, not really. You have bits of perspective we do not, but those bits of perspective don't actually translate to anything meaningful. There are plenty of nonreligious people who can still support the platforms you support, using the same arguments and ability to reason, and are not impeded in the least by their lack of a religious upbringing. That's why I used the crackhead analogy; you don't have to have been one to know the shortcomings of being one.
The only advantages you have come down to being able to talk about how it feels; on that, the point is uncontested. But that's not really what we're talking about here, as far as I'm aware.
My parents believed all kinds of things that I did not, or which I at least felt it good to question. Granted, they weren't nearly as big as religion.
In any case, we've all gotten sidetracked. Religion vs atheism is so not the point here.
If you are speaking about me, I've never said I have an advantage, Leo did.
If you read any of my post, or just follow me on the bords, you'll note, I never say I have any advantage at all.
I don't believe religion, or not being religious gives anyone the edge on thinking.
Reason, learning, and life experiences do that, if at all.
Having an open mind, and I mean truly open, receptive to thoughts, opinions.
You don't have to believe them, but if you at least give them some marits, you are open to a wider plain of thinking, and why.
I didn't intend to say that *I* am supreme, I only meant to state that having been fooled once, I am without excuse. That is perhaps a better way to have said things. Wayne thought I was being superior, when in fact, my intent was to say that those of us who, perhaps through no fault of our own, were once in to some kind of indoctrination, have an advantage only in that we can smell fear mongering more easily. With that advantage comes great responsibility, I think. And no, I am not saying I am superior to religious people or those people who have not been indoctrinated into anything. No, only that having been fooled once, part of getting out had everything to do with taking sole responsibility for how long I was in.
and by "in" I mean a closed group where there are the "in" and the "out".
Greg, you are understandably misinformed: you were never indoctrinated it sounds like. But childhood indoctrination, strong indoctrination, has profound effects and can cloud the vision. Religion isn't the only thing: out here we have sort of vegan groups that in all ways resemble evangelicals. Black-and-white thinking, the proverbially saved and damned as it were, and so forth. The kids coming up in these have all the same problems.
When someone leaves such a situation, and if upon leaving they take responsibility for what they can, and learn as they go, they can be pretty well equipped to smell this stuff pretty quickly. The responsibility part is more for us who have been in for many years as adults. Kids can't really be expected to do that: A couple years living on your own doesn't count. But for us who stayed in and were in for de decades the responsibility part I think is what I was considering. Anyhow looks like what I said got way misconstrued.
I posted a direct quote Leo. You said.
"You have one advantage that I also have: you were inside religion once. Not to put words in your mouth, but you've already overcome the fear associated with eternal torment in a supposed afterlife. People like us have a supreme advantage: we can see through this nonsense very easily."
That was why I posted as I did.
I reposted your statement, so you can see what I was objecting to. Smile.
Fair enough, my first statement I didn't intend for it to come across as it did,
hence I clarified.
I know, but I couldn't resist it. Smile.
I know this won't ever work, but.
I sincerely believe if the Atheist, and religious, different races, set down and gave each side a fair listen and grounds to believe as they did.
Next, decided on human rights as a whole.
We'd understand more about what happened, and why.
It is exactly that, one side wanting to be supreme that is the headache.
We are better, so we can abuse you, basicly.
As poster 2 stated, it seems to be a sin to be straight, a man, etc. What's wrong with the world?