Page 5 of 7 [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

sg33
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Age: 124
Gender: Female
Posts: 119

10 Aug 2009, 9:13 am

greenblue wrote:
sg33 wrote:
Sand wrote:
With time you might change your mind.


This is offensive

Well, you might change your mind on wether that is actually offensive or not, regardless of this reply being offensive to you or not.


Anyone can change their mind about anything. So what? That does not invalidate anything I have said, in the slightest.

greenblue wrote:
sg33 wrote:
just as it is offensive to suggest to a pansexual or gay person that they might "change their mind" and become straight, or that a childfree person might "change their mind" and have children.

hmmm, a childfree person, well that is not necessarily an issue, some childfree people may end up having a child at a later time, some of them can indeed change their minds or for any other reason ending up with a child, and that is always a possibility.

You're missing the point. The point is that the act of using the arguments on the Breeder Bingo card is usually borne of of ignorance about childfreedom, and sometmes of the desire to attack an unfamiliar choice. If, when someone else comes out with their identity or lifestyle choice, you find yourself immediately feeling defensive or argumentative despite not having identified any specific way in which their identity or choice harms you or anyone else, that is a really good indicator that it is time to check your privilege.

greenblue wrote:
sg33 wrote:
The suggestion is offensive because the subtext is that the person's identity as an asexual/queer/childfree/whatever person is less acceptable or less preferable than having a sexual/straight/childbearing/otherwise-conforming identity.

You can argue the suggestion wether to be incorrect or correct regarding the issue of asexuality and childbearing, which in this case the issue seems to be aimed to that rather than homosexuality if I'm correct, the term offensive is something that seems questionable given the subjective nature of it and the aggresive nature of such responses.

This run-on sentence is very poorly constructed. I will state my (possibly completely incorrect) attempt at interpretation, and my response to my interpretation.

sg33 interpreted greenblue's words to mean:
Whether your suggestions about the issues of asexuality and childbearing are correct is open to argument. In this case, the suggestions seems to be focused mainly on those two things, rather than on homosexuality. If I'm correct, I question your use of the term offensive, given the subjective and aggressive nature of the term.

sg33's response:
I tried to cut down on the bulk of material I included for the sake of readability. If you really want me to wax on and on about how privileged folks discriminate and oppress LGBT people I would be happy to do that but I don't think it would aid your understanding at all. Consider that LGBT rights is a more visible and commonly-understood issue than either asexual rights or childfree rights.

greenblue wrote:
sg33 wrote:
Check out what people are saying about whose job it is to educate ignorant privileged people

Where does ignorance play a role on the issue exactly? Is ignorance always the case?
Does someone disagreeing with me = ignorant?
These would be questions relavitely justified when getting claims of ignorance given the case.

And well, I don't grasp this "the job of educating the ignorant privileged people" thing, not only the term seems questionable enough, but also the issue of proselytizing.

Ignorance plays an important role, in that people who are ignorant of the harm they cause within a privileged system are still responsible for it because the luxury of being oblivious to one's privilege is another form of privilege.

Does someone disagreeing with you mean that they are ignorant? I don't know what you mean or how to answer this.

Regarding whose job it is: did you even look at the link I provided? The point is that it is not the job of a minority member to "maintain an outpost as an on-call free tour guide for ignorant privileged folks". It is not the job of oppressed people to "educate" their oppressors. That expectation is, itself, oppressive. Certainly, oppressed groups may educate others if they choose, but that choice (or the choice not to) does not make their oppressors' ignorance the oppressed folks' responsibility.



Last edited by sg33 on 10 Aug 2009, 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

sg33
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Age: 124
Gender: Female
Posts: 119

10 Aug 2009, 9:15 am

Orwell wrote:
sg33: You have been making some reasonable points, but you have been doing so in too combative a manner to be productive. You are not going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you, and you could well be alienating people who would otherwise lean towards agreeing with you. Preaching to the choir while denouncing and ridiculing unbelievers doesn't win many converts.


I didn't know there was a choir, here. :P

Just in case you're correct :wink:: do you have any suggestions of resources that could help me phrase my arguments more... palatably? I already know about Dale Carnegie. :D



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

10 Aug 2009, 9:37 am

sg33 wrote:
Just in case you're correct :wink:: do you have any suggestions of resources that could help me phrase my arguments more... palatably? I already know about Dale Carnegie. :D

Well, avoiding derogatory terms such as "breeder" and losing the condescending attitude would be a start. Both of those "Bingo" cards make the case in a somewhat humorous way to people who are part of the club, so to speak. They will only serve to alienate others by mocking people outside of the childfree/asexual circles. Tolerance and respect have to go both ways, and (whether this is right or wrong) the minority group has to be the first to open a dialogue and stay respectful, because otherwise there is little incentive for a privileged group to care about your problems. This may be unfair, but it's how the world is. Also, if you're going to advocate for LGBTQ/Asexual/childfree rights, there's no need to insist that you should not be educating people on the subject and demand that people go research it for themselves. Once you start talking about the issue, you have taken on the task of educating others. Telling people "you need to go learn about it yourself, it's not my job" does nothing to help your case. Remember, “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” -Martin Luther King, Jr. You're basically demanding that this be changed and the oppressor has to give freedom. Nope, the oppressed have to stand up and demand their freedom, or they simply are not going to get it.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Maggiedoll
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jun 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,126
Location: Maryland

10 Aug 2009, 1:19 pm

Orwell wrote:
Well, avoiding derogatory terms such as "breeder" and losing the condescending attitude would be a start. Both of those "Bingo" cards make the case in a somewhat humorous way to people who are part of the club, so to speak. They will only serve to alienate others by mocking people outside of the childfree/asexual circles. Tolerance and respect have to go both ways, and (whether this is right or wrong) the minority group has to be the first to open a dialogue and stay respectful, because otherwise there is little incentive for a privileged group to care about your problems. This may be unfair, but it's how the world is. Also, if you're going to advocate for LGBTQ/Asexual/childfree rights, there's no need to insist that you should not be educating people on the subject and demand that people go research it for themselves. Once you start talking about the issue, you have taken on the task of educating others. Telling people "you need to go learn about it yourself, it's not my job" does nothing to help your case. Remember, “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” -Martin Luther King, Jr. You're basically demanding that this be changed and the oppressor has to give freedom. Nope, the oppressed have to stand up and demand their freedom, or they simply are not going to get it.

*hugs Orwell* TY, I greatly admire your logic and articulate-ness.



makuranososhi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,805
Location: Banned by Alex

10 Aug 2009, 1:32 pm

Orwell wrote:
sg33 wrote:
Just in case you're correct :wink:: do you have any suggestions of resources that could help me phrase my arguments more... palatably? I already know about Dale Carnegie. :D

Well, avoiding derogatory terms such as "breeder" and losing the condescending attitude would be a start. Both of those "Bingo" cards make the case in a somewhat humorous way to people who are part of the club, so to speak. They will only serve to alienate others by mocking people outside of the childfree/asexual circles. Tolerance and respect have to go both ways, and (whether this is right or wrong) the minority group has to be the first to open a dialogue and stay respectful, because otherwise there is little incentive for a privileged group to care about your problems. This may be unfair, but it's how the world is. Also, if you're going to advocate for LGBTQ/Asexual/childfree rights, there's no need to insist that you should not be educating people on the subject and demand that people go research it for themselves. Once you start talking about the issue, you have taken on the task of educating others. Telling people "you need to go learn about it yourself, it's not my job" does nothing to help your case. Remember, “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” -Martin Luther King, Jr. You're basically demanding that this be changed and the oppressor has to give freedom. Nope, the oppressed have to stand up and demand their freedom, or they simply are not going to get it.


QFT.


M.


_________________
My thanks to all the wonderful members here; I will miss the opportunity to continue to learn and work with you.

For those who seek an alternative, it is coming.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!


Stone_Man
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2009
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 266
Location: retired wanderer in the Southwest deserts

10 Aug 2009, 1:53 pm

Irvy wrote:
Belief is a strange thing. Believing in something has absolutely no effect on that thing. Having belief in God does not make him pop into existence, and not believing in him doesn't make him disappear.


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.

Quote:
If you really want to annoy an athiest, tell them that it requires the same amount of faith to disbelieve in God as it does to believe in him.


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.



MissConstrue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,052
Location: MO

10 Aug 2009, 2:58 pm

Orwell wrote:
sg33 wrote:
Just in case you're correct :wink:: do you have any suggestions of resources that could help me phrase my arguments more... palatably? I already know about Dale Carnegie. :D

Well, avoiding derogatory terms such as "breeder" and losing the condescending attitude would be a start. Both of those "Bingo" cards make the case in a somewhat humorous way to people who are part of the club, so to speak. They will only serve to alienate others by mocking people outside of the childfree/asexual circles. Tolerance and respect have to go both ways, and (whether this is right or wrong) the minority group has to be the first to open a dialogue and stay respectful, because otherwise there is little incentive for a privileged group to care about your problems. This may be unfair, but it's how the world is. Also, if you're going to advocate for LGBTQ/Asexual/childfree rights, there's no need to insist that you should not be educating people on the subject and demand that people go research it for themselves. Once you start talking about the issue, you have taken on the task of educating others. Telling people "you need to go learn about it yourself, it's not my job" does nothing to help your case. Remember, “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” -Martin Luther King, Jr. You're basically demanding that this be changed and the oppressor has to give freedom. Nope, the oppressed have to stand up and demand their freedom, or they simply are not going to get it.


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.


_________________
I live as I choose or I will not live at all.
~Delores O’Riordan


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Aug 2009, 8:05 pm

Orwell wrote:

And yeah, you are encouraging hatred by referring to the overwhelming majority of the population in derogatory terms.


Do the derogatory terms fit or don't they?

If the shoe fits....

ruveyn



MissConstrue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,052
Location: MO

10 Aug 2009, 8:29 pm

You wear them perfectly ruveyn. :wink:


_________________
I live as I choose or I will not live at all.
~Delores O’Riordan


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

10 Aug 2009, 9:19 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Orwell wrote:
And yeah, you are encouraging hatred by referring to the overwhelming majority of the population in derogatory terms.


Do the derogatory terms fit or don't they?

If the shoe fits....

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.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

10 Aug 2009, 9:25 pm

Quote:
If you really want to annoy an athiest, tell them that it requires the same amount of faith to disbelieve in God as it does to believe in him.


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.



sg33
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Age: 124
Gender: Female
Posts: 119

11 Aug 2009, 9:43 am

Orwell wrote:
if you're going to advocate for LGBTQ/Asexual/childfree rights, there's no need to insist that you should not be educating people on the subject and demand that people go research it for themselves. Once you start talking about the issue, you have taken on the task of educating others. Telling people "you need to go learn about it yourself, it's not my job" does nothing to help your case.


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.



sg33
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Age: 124
Gender: Female
Posts: 119

11 Aug 2009, 9:54 am

Orwell wrote:
sg33 wrote:
Just in case you're correct :wink:: do you have any suggestions of resources that could help me phrase my arguments more... palatably? I already know about Dale Carnegie. :D

Well, avoiding derogatory terms such as "breeder"... would be a start.


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?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Aug 2009, 10:15 am

sg33 wrote:

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



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

11 Aug 2009, 11:05 am

sg33 wrote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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.

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.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

11 Aug 2009, 11:07 am

sg33 wrote:
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?

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.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH