Homosexual Bigotry

Post Reply New Topic

It is indeed a very strange thing. But I think belief does, or at least can, have influence on things. That's one of the bizarre results of quantum physics ... some things don't even exist until you try to measure them ... which is to say, until you believe there's something to be measured.

And although you specifically mentioned God and not subatomic particles, it's possible the same idea applies. The Big Bang which created the entire universe can be explained using the laws of quantum physics. It's not much of a leap to go from that to using the same laws to "prove" that God exists. I've seen attempts to do just that, and in my opinion they're at least somewhat convincing.



Haha ... very true.

Similarly, if you really want to annoy someone ranting against religion, point out that their rants are just as boring and ineffectual as someone ranting for it. It's the intolerance and the ranting that are the problem, not the religion ...

But back to the original point about homosexuals ...

Perhaps one day we will live in a world where no one is hated or persecuted because of who or how they love. For now, the best we can do is to counter that hate any way we can.

Well said Orwell.

This really helps me to better understand ignorance as it comes in many forms. I've never understood this contradiction in claiming one is better than their "superiors" by calling them names or opening up a dialogue without at least giving them a perspective.

Do the derogatory terms fit or don't they?

If the shoe fits....

ruveyn

You wear them perfectly ruveyn.

Does it matter? A minority group fighting for equal rights would be well advised not to be excessively judgmental towards the majority, as otherwise they are just shooting themselves in the foot. I do not refer to homosexuals as "fags" and I would rather not be referred to as a "breeder." I don't refer to black people as "n****rs" and I would rather not be called a "cracker." But the more someone from a minority group attacks the majority, the less the majority of people will be interested in granting equal rights. There are more productive ways of getting the message across. By attacking the majority in the fight for equality, a minority can only hope to bring everyone down to their underprivileged level. This leveling benefits no one.

There are, no doubt, people who believe in nothing. And there are people who are pragmatists and use ideas as tools that either function or don't. When they don't function they are not useful. Tools don't require belief. They require utility.

Of course people in oppressed groups are likely the only ones who care enough about their welfare to take on the task of educating others. Of course engaging in self-advocacy is often the most efficacious tactic available. This is not news.

However, judging by your final comment and by the chorus of "hear, hear"s, you and many others apparently have missed my point. That point is: regardless of what members of an oppressed group do, at no point do members of that group become responsible for their oppressors' ignorance. Period. Any other belief involves blaming oppressed people for their own oppression, which, being a form of victim blaming is, itself. oppressive.

Thus, it is wrong to claim that a member of a privileged group bears no responsibility for the annoyance they produce in obliviously heckling members of an oppressed group with the same stupid questions that members hear every day from other privileged folk. Such is to suggest that the members of the oppressed group have failed to do a good enough job relieving their oppressors of their own ignorance. As ignorance-of-privilege is itself a form of privilege, such ignorance does not relieve oppressors of their culpability.

This is why it is so important to approach any line of questioning about a group about which you know little with extreme sensitivity, both to whatever emotions drive you to ask, and to the effect your questioning has upon the other person. This goes tenfold for Aspies.

Hey! I never used the term "breeder": I referred to a document (which I did not create) by its name, which happens to contain the word "Breeder". I do not believe in censorship and would not invent a new, false name to refer to this document. You yourself used several slurs in this post, without censoring them, in order to make a point. By your standard, isn't that "worse" than stating the name of a document?

Behold! The B-Word is born!

ruveyn

OK. I never claimed that members of an oppressed group are responsible for their own oppression. They are, however, responsible for standing up and demanding an end to that oppression. No one else is going to do it for you. Again, this may not be fair, but it is reality.


But once you have taken on a role of advocacy, you have also accepted the task of educating others about the problems that confront a minority group. This is not a suggestion that "members of the oppressed group have failed to do a good enough job relieving their oppressors of their own ignorance." It's just to say that if you want more awareness of your problems, you have to be willing to answer (sometimes foolish) questions that are asked of you. Again, I'll reference the MLK quote. “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” The question is not whether this is "right" or not. It's whether it is true. You can not realistically expect a privileged group to go out of its way to accommodate any other group unless you demand that we do so. As a young upper-middle-class white natural-born-American Protestant heterosexual male, there's rather little incentive for me to just wake up one morning and say "Hey, it's not fair the way we've been treating [blacks/agnostics/homosexuals/asexuals/women/immigrants], I think I should fight to change this." The oppressed group has to demand equal treatment, and they have to do so without attacking and alienating the majority. Feminism has gotten a bad name because too many feminists were too vocal in blaming men for everything and attacking men. All this served to do was discredit the movement, rather than moving the cause of equality forward.

I was pretty sure you had, but perhaps I am confusing you with another poster or just read too quickly. A few of your posts have been edited, so I can't really be sure of their original contents. If I have misattributed something to you that you did not say, I apologize.

Until the earth moves beneath, feet will continue to tread upon it. sg33, while I do not condone ignorance by any means, I am very concerned that you presume that everyone else, society as a whole, is expected to do all the work - it is a mechanism to further blame others instead of addressing the real issue of the feeling of inequity. If I want to better interface with people, then it is I who has to speak up, and I who must initiate the change - not one is going to to do it for me, and anyone who does 'change' on my behalf isn't making things any easier but instead makes it more difficult. You take on a form of victim avoidance when the issue of word choice was brought up earlier; knowing that it is an inflammatory selection, yet blaming others for being offended because that was the name of a document another person created. The decision to perpetuate that unfortunate decision was yours, not the authors.


M.

You're confusing responsibility with accepting blame. There is no blame here. If your group wishes others to agree with it, then they have to spread their message. Period. If you don't, then other groups won't blame you for it. They just won't believe you, since they've never even heard of you.

You're responsible for spreading your message for the simple reason that there is no one else.

There was a religious sect once, that required its members to take a vow of celibacy. They also did not proselytize. Unsurprisingly, they died out. The old members eventually died of old age. The new members ... well there weren't any new members.


This is incredibly whiny. Why shouldn't you have to answer frequently asked questions? Why should your group, of all the groups on the face of the earth, be immune to hearing the same question more than once? Shouldn't your group, which appears to suffer from the ignorance of others more than anything else, rather be eager to spread information?


I've only just joined the thread, and haven't read it from the beginning, so please forgive any ignorance on my part of what has already been discussed.

It seems to me that you are saying that there is a group (or groups) of non-breeders who are being 'oppressed' by the ignorance of the breeders. This group is extremely touchy, and doesn't like being asked questions about themselves, especially questions they've heard before. They also wish to deny any responsibility for informing anyone about the situation.

In other words, they suffer from the lack of knowledge of their message, which they don't bother to spread. I think, if that is an accurate description, that blaming them for not spreading their message would be appropriate in this case.


You are equating ignorance with culpability -- which is nonsense. You can't be responsible for something you aren't even aware exists. You are also equating privilege with oppression -- sometimes (but certainly not always) the case.

I have no idea what you mean by saying that 'ignorance of privilege is itself a privilege', as any definition of privilege that I've ever heard of does not make sense in that sentence. But I think it should be pointed out that with this logic, you can easily blame absolutely anyone for being an oppressor. Simply accuse them of being ignorant, when they say, 'ignorant of what?', say 'ha! I caught you being ignorant! Ignorance is privilege, and privilege is oppression, hence you are an evil dastardly oppressor!'


Bull. Why should I have to engage in 'extreme sensitivity' when asking people about themselves? If I don't know much (or anything) about a group, then by definition I don't know what they're going to be sensetive about. Why should I walk on eggshells the rest of my life, fearing constantly, lest I might possibly offend some oversensetive person without knowing it?

I have spent enough time on this already. My previous posts contain many useful links with which people can educate themselves about privilege, how it functions, how to recognize it and what to do about it. I will respond to these two things:

Are you saying that oppressed people should be pleased about the prospect of fighting the injustice that they have to live with every day? ... that they should feel grateful or happy that they have to spend their precious time addressing an unjust system rather than pursuing the desires of their hearts? ... that they should relish the opportunity to have to deal with irrational hatred and mistrust?

You do realize that privileged groups often react to civil rights movements with violence, right?

People fight injustice not because it is fun, but because they have to. Is it possible to gain personal satisfaction and meaning from fighting injustice? Yes. Is it a sound method of making the world a better place for oneself and others? Yes. Would most people prefer to wave a magic wand and eliminate the injustice instantly, so they could go do something else? Yes!



The fact that privileged people can be unaware of their privilege is, itself, a privilege. People who are not privileged are not afforded this luxury. People without privilege are acutely aware of the injustices they face, the discrimination and violence, the blame heaped upon them by oblivious privileged folks.

I said nothing at all about how anyone should feel about it. I was pointing out that, wherever the blame may rest for the original situation, the group that has a message to spread is responsible for spreading that message, because nobody else can.


You didn't clarify anything here, you just reapplied the label. I still can't see how a lack of awareness of something is in any way a privilege. Merriam-Webster defines privilege as, "a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor." Not knowing something is not a privilege.

I love the Bingos. I hadn't heard of those before.

This thread seems to be more argumentative that is necessary. sg33 is saying a lot of challenging things that are true. Don't get bogged down in literalism and bickering.

Society is evolving from being domination-based to being pluralistic. The 'other' has historically been denigrated, and power has been maintained by encouraging hatred of 'others'. We're learning that most of the differences that used to seem so important really don't matter much, and society is better off maximizing diversity, and recognizing the uniqueness of individuals and that everyone has a place and can contribute to the greater good.

It started with racial civil rights, spread to gender equality, then sexual orientation. And now it's starting to include neuro-diversity.

The arguments based on biology or religion or whatever can be interesting, but don't really mean much. Everyone should be treated with respect.

Aren't you tired of NT assumptions and misconceptions about aspies? How do you feel when they think they know what's 'wrong' with us? That's how it is being gay in a non-gay world. But in a pluralistic world (I live in San Francisco) there is a lot more acceptance of 'different' people of all types.