Homosexual Bigotry

Post Reply New Topic

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.

I've honestly always believed that the people who are the most threatened are the only most insecure about themselves and their own choices. Because, clearly, if not everyone on the planet chooses to behave/believe/respond/percieve the way I do, then that means that somehow, maybe I didn't do the right thing! Maybe that feeling I had... NO, THEY'RE WRONG FOR NOT BEING LIKE ME!

Some people cannot be secure on their own and require a group mentality to feel anchored and "correct" and anything that threatens that security is the enemy.

Also, hey duke666, SF4eva.

But this is why I, as an Aspie, am always available to answer questions people might have about Asperger's, even if I've heard them asked before. You can't go around demanding an end to misconceptions about any particular group, and then refuse to educate others. How much would autistic advocacy be advanced if Ari Ne'eman just told people "Go research Asperger's and learn why we're not inferior"? If you're going to be an advocate for a group... then be an advocate for that group. sg33 is trying to weasel out of that. To gain equality, a minority group has to be willing to stand up and fight for it. Otherwise, it's just not happening.

I agree with this 100%. In college, I was very much a guru about stuff like this. A lot of people liked to talk to me about my experiences and looking at homosexuality as an intellectual curiosity. I was always available to just let people know that I wasn't really any different from them, minus the facial glitter and lubricant, of course.