Author Topic: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site  (Read 38563 times)

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2266
  • Age: 58
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #150 on: July 11, 2017, 09:58:10 PM »
Wow Glenn Beck has nothing on you.

[link removed]

[MOD NOTE: Whatever that was about ... make it clear to whom you are responding and respond appropriately]



« Last Edit: July 14, 2017, 04:13:58 PM by FrugalToque »

nnls

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1132
  • Location: Perth, AU
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #151 on: July 11, 2017, 10:20:23 PM »

Quote
No one has been persecuted or injured historically, or currently, for driving an SUV (rare exception aside, but not as a group). Think: Homosexuals, black people, women, etc.

2) Immutable traits that aren't changeable or by choice.

We disagree about the set of traits that are mutable by choice.


Which of these do you think are changeable by choice?

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 633
  • Location: Canada
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #152 on: July 12, 2017, 04:13:23 AM »

Quote
No one has been persecuted or injured historically, or currently, for driving an SUV (rare exception aside, but not as a group). Think: Homosexuals, black people, women, etc.

2) Immutable traits that aren't changeable or by choice.

We disagree about the set of traits that are mutable by choice.


Which of these do you think are changeable by choice?

I give an example lower. I'd define the set larger and include religion/spiritual beliefs.

prognastat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Location: Texas
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #153 on: July 12, 2017, 08:52:28 AM »
Has to do with several factors, most notably two things:

1) Historically and/or currently discriminated or injured minorities.

No one has been persecuted or injured historically, or currently, for driving an SUV (rare exception aside, but not as a group). Think: Homosexuals, black people, women, etc.

2) Immutable traits that aren't changeable or by choice.

One can stop being an SUV driver. One cannot stop being gay, or black, or change their gender (though they possibly can change their sex, they count in this group).

There's lots of interplay, but that's where the line is, typically, around those two items.

I would say there is a spectrum of how mutable traits are, of course stopping being an SUV driver isn't that big of a deal, however I would say for example changing your religion on that spectrum is a lot closer to changing your sex than changing what kind of car you drive. There are also studies that speculate that ones propensity for religiosity has at least some limited genetical basis.

Quote
See above definition.  You can be offended that people want to "murder babies," or offended that others want to "control your body," but being prolife or prochoice isn't typically a historically oppressed group, nor an immutable trait. So they need less protection.

What if those people feel the babies that are aborted are an oppressed group with an immutable trait in need of their protection the way many other people try to stand up for the rights of minorities that you agree need protection? I'm pro-choice myself, however your argument is on based on opinions on who constitutes as oppressed and in need of protection. Pro-Lifers opinions differ on this and feel the "babies" are being oppressed rather than the women in this situation.

Quote
It is tough. It's often a judgement call, and a difficult one, at that.

But can you see how sluring homosexuals is different than an athiest bashing on a Christian, or a Christian bashing on an atheist? Both have had some discrimination in the past in certain cases, but it's not a generally discriminated thing today, nor is it a trait anyone is born with.

In the end, the overriding #1 site rule is "don't be a jerk." That's to everyone, all the time.

Posting an opinion isn't being a jerk.  Calling someone a name is. The athiest and christian mentioned above may cross that line, if bashing someone, or may not, if sharing their opinion in a polite way, even if it offends someone.

Don't be a jerk is a clearer line, and chances are, if you're offending people, you're being a jerk. We'll still allow you to say it, we'll just strike it out so that it's clear it's not acceptable*.

*Assuming we, mods, see it, or it's reported to us.

Except that atheists have historically been oppressed all around the world and in many places still do. In many African and middle eastern countries you can be put in to prison or put to death for admitting to be an atheist and in even more of them you will face those if you advocate for atheism the way others advocate for their religion. Even in many countries where atheists are tolerated they have to accept being a marginalized group, even in the US no politician wants to admit to being an atheist and any that do generally don't get very far. In polls about trustworthiness atheists rank below homosexuals in the US, so if it can be said that gays are oppressed then I fail to see how they end up ranking higher in public opinion than atheists do.

I would also say that being atheist isn't a choice for most. I can't force myself to believe something I don't. I could act as if I do to make things easier, but would that be any different than a gay or lesbian acting straight and hiding their true feelings?

Also kayvent covered this pretty well, someone can be oppressed for their characteristics in one situation and on the other hand someone with the same characteristics can be an oppressor elsewhere. A Christian in the US would be the majority and could be argued to be oppressing, homosexuals, non-christians, atheists etc. However Christians in muslim majority African, middle eastern eastern and asian countries are often oppressed and persecuted. This isn't even going in to who feels oppressed, despite Christians being the majority and often in control in the US many feel oppressed when held to the constitution and the amendments as far as separation of church and state goes by people from other religions or atheists. So in these kinds of situations you have a group that is effectively oppressing another group, yet feels like they are the oppressed group.

You say there is a difference when you have atheists bashing christians and christians bashing atheists and this might mean it is different, however I see plenty of LGBT people bashing back Christians and Conservatives for how they have been treated by those groups. Does this invalidate their feelings of oppression?

Jews have historically been an oppressed group, however I would say Israel can definitely be seen as oppressive by Palestinians. However, non-Israeli Jews in Palestinian territory are also often not treated well.

In my opinion you are acting as if your opinions on who is and isn't oppressed are not just opinions, but facts when the oppressor/oppressed dynamic can be very subjective and inconsistent.

In the end I feel that though oppressor and oppressed may change that we should always fight for as much freedom of speech because one day you might not be the one deciding which speech is and isn't acceptable.

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 768
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #154 on: July 12, 2017, 09:13:04 AM »
Has to do with several factors, most notably two things:

1) Historically and/or currently discriminated or injured minorities.

No one has been persecuted or injured historically, or currently, for driving an SUV (rare exception aside, but not as a group). Think: Homosexuals, black people, women, etc.

2) Immutable traits that aren't changeable or by choice.

One can stop being an SUV driver. One cannot stop being gay, or black, or change their gender (though they possibly can change their sex, they count in this group).

There's lots of interplay, but that's where the line is, typically, around those two items.

I would say there is a spectrum of how mutable traits are, of course stopping being an SUV driver isn't that big of a deal, however I would say for example changing your religion on that spectrum is a lot closer to changing your sex than changing what kind of car you drive. There are also studies that speculate that ones propensity for religiosity has at least some limited genetical basis.

Quote
See above definition.  You can be offended that people want to "murder babies," or offended that others want to "control your body," but being prolife or prochoice isn't typically a historically oppressed group, nor an immutable trait. So they need less protection.

What if those people feel the babies that are aborted are an oppressed group with an immutable trait in need of their protection the way many other people try to stand up for the rights of minorities that you agree need protection? I'm pro-choice myself, however your argument is on based on opinions on who constitutes as oppressed and in need of protection. Pro-Lifers opinions differ on this and feel the "babies" are being oppressed rather than the women in this situation.

Quote
It is tough. It's often a judgement call, and a difficult one, at that.

But can you see how sluring homosexuals is different than an athiest bashing on a Christian, or a Christian bashing on an atheist? Both have had some discrimination in the past in certain cases, but it's not a generally discriminated thing today, nor is it a trait anyone is born with.

In the end, the overriding #1 site rule is "don't be a jerk." That's to everyone, all the time.

Posting an opinion isn't being a jerk.  Calling someone a name is. The athiest and christian mentioned above may cross that line, if bashing someone, or may not, if sharing their opinion in a polite way, even if it offends someone.

Don't be a jerk is a clearer line, and chances are, if you're offending people, you're being a jerk. We'll still allow you to say it, we'll just strike it out so that it's clear it's not acceptable*.

*Assuming we, mods, see it, or it's reported to us.

Except that atheists have historically been oppressed all around the world and in many places still do. In many African and middle eastern countries you can be put in to prison or put to death for admitting to be an atheist and in even more of them you will face those if you advocate for atheism the way others advocate for their religion. Even in many countries where atheists are tolerated they have to accept being a marginalized group, even in the US no politician wants to admit to being an atheist and any that do generally don't get very far. In polls about trustworthiness atheists rank below homosexuals in the US, so if it can be said that gays are oppressed then I fail to see how they end up ranking higher in public opinion than atheists do.

I would also say that being atheist isn't a choice for most. I can't force myself to believe something I don't. I could act as if I do to make things easier, but would that be any different than a gay or lesbian acting straight and hiding their true feelings?

Also kayvent covered this pretty well, someone can be oppressed for their characteristics in one situation and on the other hand someone with the same characteristics can be an oppressor elsewhere. A Christian in the US would be the majority and could be argued to be oppressing, homosexuals, non-christians, atheists etc. However Christians in muslim majority African, middle eastern eastern and asian countries are often oppressed and persecuted. This isn't even going in to who feels oppressed, despite Christians being the majority and often in control in the US many feel oppressed when held to the constitution and the amendments as far as separation of church and state goes by people from other religions or atheists. So in these kinds of situations you have a group that is effectively oppressing another group, yet feels like they are the oppressed group.

You say there is a difference when you have atheists bashing christians and christians bashing atheists and this might mean it is different, however I see plenty of LGBT people bashing back Christians and Conservatives for how they have been treated by those groups. Does this invalidate their feelings of oppression?

Jews have historically been an oppressed group, however I would say Israel can definitely be seen as oppressive by Palestinians. However, non-Israeli Jews in Palestinian territory are also often not treated well.

In my opinion you are acting as if your opinions on who is and isn't oppressed are not just opinions, but facts when the oppressor/oppressed dynamic can be very subjective and inconsistent.

In the end I feel that though oppressor and oppressed may change that we should always fight for as much freedom of speech because one day you might not be the one deciding which speech is and isn't acceptable.

I strongly disagree with this statement.  You may be correct that trust amongst an atheist is just not there. 

I will say this however.  It is still legal to get fired in many states due to being gay.  Also, you can be removed from your home if you are gay.  Trans people have laws in several places that makes it ill eagle to use the washroom of their gender.  The 15th person of color trans woman was murdered in the US, for no other reason then she was trans. 

I do not see this happening with atheists. 

prognastat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Location: Texas
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #155 on: July 12, 2017, 09:17:27 AM »
I strongly disagree with this statement.  You may be correct that trust amongst an atheist is just not there. 

I will say this however.  It is still legal to get fired in many states due to being gay.  Also, you can be removed from your home if you are gay.  Trans people have laws in several places that makes it ill eagle to use the washroom of their gender.  The 15th person of color trans woman was murdered in the US, for no other reason then she was trans. 

I do not see this happening with atheists.

You do realize in the US there are many states with at will employment where being an atheist can and does get you fired. When searching for jobs I have found listings that either outright said you had to be christian or veiled in in a we are a company with strong christian values and you have to fit in to the "culture". Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Also you ignored my mentioning there are plenty of places in the world where atheists are imprisoned or even executed for their beliefs right along with gay and trans people.

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1900
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #156 on: July 12, 2017, 10:21:33 AM »
Let's start a "who's more oppressed" thread and battle it out!

SimpleCycle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Location: Chicago
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #157 on: July 12, 2017, 10:34:15 AM »
I strongly disagree with this statement.  You may be correct that trust amongst an atheist is just not there. 

I will say this however.  It is still legal to get fired in many states due to being gay.  Also, you can be removed from your home if you are gay.  Trans people have laws in several places that makes it ill eagle to use the washroom of their gender.  The 15th person of color trans woman was murdered in the US, for no other reason then she was trans. 

I do not see this happening with atheists.

You do realize in the US there are many states with at will employment where being an atheist can and does get you fired. When searching for jobs I have found listings that either outright said you had to be christian or veiled in in a we are a company with strong christian values and you have to fit in to the "culture". Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Also you ignored my mentioning there are plenty of places in the world where atheists are imprisoned or even executed for their beliefs right along with gay and trans people.

Those employers are most likely violating the law, while people who discriminate in employment because of sexual orientation and gender identity are not in many states.  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on religion for all covered employers (all federal jobs, all private employers with at least 15 employees).  In addition, 47 states and D.C. have laws prohibiting discrimination based on religion (which has consistently held to also be lack of religion), while only 22 states and D.C. have laws prohibiting employment discrimination against LGBT people.  So the whole "it's worse for atheists thing" doesn't hold water in the U.S. context.  I agree that in the international context, things are far worse in some countries than they are here.

All that said, I think it's clear that religion is something people can face discrimination for.  The "immutable characteristics" argument comes from constitutional case law, not anti-discrimination legislation, where it is defined differently.  I don't think something must be immutable for it to be a reason for discrimination.

SimpleCycle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Location: Chicago
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #158 on: July 12, 2017, 10:40:49 AM »
Also, it is possible to be anti-racist and also staunchly pro first amendment.  I think the Slants/Redskins case was the correct holding, no matter how distasteful I find the Redskins trademark.  But the first amendment applies to government action to suppress speech, not communities setting standards of appropriate behavior.

prognastat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Location: Texas
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #159 on: July 12, 2017, 10:52:53 AM »
Those employers are most likely violating the law, while people who discriminate in employment because of sexual orientation and gender identity are not in many states.  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on religion for all covered employers (all federal jobs, all private employers with at least 15 employees).  In addition, 47 states and D.C. have laws prohibiting discrimination based on religion (which has consistently held to also be lack of religion), while only 22 states and D.C. have laws prohibiting employment discrimination against LGBT people.  So the whole "it's worse for atheists thing" doesn't hold water in the U.S. context.  I agree that in the international context, things are far worse in some countries than they are here.

All that said, I think it's clear that religion is something people can face discrimination for.  The "immutable characteristics" argument comes from constitutional case law, not anti-discrimination legislation, where it is defined differently.  I don't think something must be immutable for it to be a reason for discrimination.

At no point have I said that atheist objectively have it worse. I am making the point that your view of who is and isn't oppressed is very subjective and not something to use to restrict free speech.

prognastat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Location: Texas
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #160 on: July 12, 2017, 10:54:46 AM »
Also, it is possible to be anti-racist and also staunchly pro first amendment.  I think the Slants/Redskins case was the correct holding, no matter how distasteful I find the Redskins trademark.  But the first amendment applies to government action to suppress speech, not communities setting standards of appropriate behavior.

In my opinion free speech is not only about the government. The legal aspect is not the only thing I care about. I prefer to foster a community that is also pro free speech as much as possible. Most censorship doesn't originate in the government, most of it originates from the populace even if it does attempt to use the government the enforce their will.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2017, 11:50:40 AM by prognastat »

SimpleCycle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Location: Chicago
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #161 on: July 12, 2017, 10:56:50 AM »
African American is the more technically correct term because if their ancestors were from only north Africa, they'd be classified as white.

.....
And why do black people have to be "of African descent" (I.e. all about their ancestry) whereas white people just get to be white (I.e. All about who they are now) rather than "of European descent"?

A slight correction, the US Census Bureau defines white as people descended from Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans This is a bit too exclusive of a definition but I'll get to that later.

To answer your question, I think the reason why we do this is because all black people have some lineage to Africa whereas the map for "white" people spans five continents. I think this is all bloody aside though and I prefer if we dropped the adjective/modifier in front of nationalities.

Quote
We don't call people "of Saxon descent" or "of Norman descent" in the UK. How many generations before someone gets their own identity?

Pretty much when people stop caring. It is all abitrary. The various statistic departments of countries adapt these terms to fit with what culture has subsumed into various categories. Cameras used to not be considered white for instance but that by and large has vanished. Native Americans used to be considered white but now only a minority are. Slavs and Greeks, like Cameras, used to not be considered white but eventually were.

Some people can't discern someone Idaho from someone from Bangkok. I presume eventually, and by this I mean a few generations, Asians will be considered white. Some already are. I think we are a coin flip away from all people being considered white too. Take former president Omaha. Had he chosen to call himself white only the most bone headed people would have objected; his mother was white so he had equal claim to say he was white as black (ignoring that this is all arbitrary for a second). And if this sounds crazy, I will remind you that Caucasians from India or black skinned people from Iran or North Africa are already considered white.

Kayvent, are you familiar with the phrase the "social construction of race"?  I went to a race exhibit at the Smithsonian American History Museum a few years back and it was fascinating and made a similar point to what you are making.  But they didn't argue it was arbitrary, per se, but arrived at through hundreds of years of evolving social understanding of race.

Take people from the Middle East and North Africa.  There is a proposal to add a Middle Eastern/North African race to the census form for the 2020 Census, because "white" doesn't reflect the social reality of being of Middle Eastern and North African descent in the U.S. these days.  Which is at once arbitrary and deeply meaningful.

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5854
  • Age: 16
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #162 on: July 12, 2017, 10:59:14 AM »
The redskins trademark story was hilarious. The team received an insane amount of vitriol, then the WaPo commissioned a study that found that 9 in 10 Native Americans didn't give two shits.

That's an extraordinary finding. When was the last time 90% of polled individuals agreed on anything?

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1900
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #163 on: July 12, 2017, 11:18:09 AM »
The redskins trademark story was hilarious. The team received an insane amount of vitriol, then the WaPo commissioned a study that found that 9 in 10 Native Americans didn't give two shits.

That's an extraordinary finding. When was the last time 90% of polled individuals agreed on anything?

Exactly, people were "offended" on their behalf... but not really on their behalf.

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #164 on: July 12, 2017, 11:39:57 AM »
Let's start a "who's more oppressed" thread and battle it out!

It makes sense. As others have eluded to, you basically can't have a voice unless you are part of a marginalized group, so we have to compete to see who is the most marginalized and therefore has the loudest voice. 

farfromfire

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 230
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #165 on: July 12, 2017, 11:57:19 AM »
...

Jews have historically been an oppressed group, however I would say Israel can definitely be seen as oppressive by Palestinians. However, non-Israeli Jews in Palestinian territory are also often not treated well.

There aren't any Jews in "Palestinian territory" (AKA Areas A/B). Palestinians have stated several times that no Jews would be allowed in a hypothetical future Palestinian state.

prognastat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Location: Texas
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #166 on: July 12, 2017, 12:04:32 PM »
...

Jews have historically been an oppressed group, however I would say Israel can definitely be seen as oppressive by Palestinians. However, non-Israeli Jews in Palestinian territory are also often not treated well.

There aren't any Jews in "Palestinian territory" (AKA Areas A/B). Palestinians have stated several times that no Jews would be allowed in a hypothetical future Palestinian state.

My point exactly.

farfromfire

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 230
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #167 on: July 12, 2017, 12:16:32 PM »
The redskins trademark story was hilarious. The team received an insane amount of vitriol, then the WaPo commissioned a study that found that 9 in 10 Native Americans didn't give two shits.

That's an extraordinary finding. When was the last time 90% of polled individuals agreed on anything?
Yeah, you usually only get those kind of numbers with pretty subpar polling methodology. Oops.

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5854
  • Age: 16
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #168 on: July 12, 2017, 12:52:15 PM »
The redskins trademark story was hilarious. The team received an insane amount of vitriol, then the WaPo commissioned a study that found that 9 in 10 Native Americans didn't give two shits.

That's an extraordinary finding. When was the last time 90% of polled individuals agreed on anything?
Yeah, you usually only get those kind of numbers with pretty subpar polling methodology. Oops.
The criticism of the methodology is valid, and their rebuttal seems pretty valid as well. The WaPo publishing the results even goes into how it's a little embarrassing for them because they had pretty negative Redskins coverage before they saw the results of their own poll. I trust the WaPo editorial team a little more than the lady for whom this is the life cause.

FrugalToque

  • Global Moderator
  • Pencil Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 863
  • Location: Canada
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #169 on: July 14, 2017, 04:19:25 PM »
[MOD NOTE:

We tolerate neither racism nor homophobia on this site.  Nor sexism, misogyny or any other kinds of bigotry.

However.

We don't read every post.  You can't just sit back, look at a rude, bigoted post and say, "Let's see how long it takes them notice."  You want something fixed?  Flag it for moderation.  These are volunteer positions, basically, and we aren't always on duty, especially over the summer holidays.  We do what we can.

Just because we don't take care of a problem instantly, however, doesn't mean we don't care at all.

Thanks,
Toque

Also, this thread is getting out of hand ---- Thread locked.]