Community

The PokéCommunity

We are still working on a better slogan!

Visit Index



Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > Discussions & Debates
Notices

Discussions & Debates The place to go for slightly more in-depth topics. Discussions and debates about the world, current events, ideas, news, and more.

Post Reply
Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.  
Thread Tools
  #101    
Old August 27th, 2014, 06:23 AM
Oryx's Avatar
Oryx
Of the pigeon, by the pigeon, for the pigeon
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by obZen View Post
You can try to be objective as humanly possible. Even if it's not 100% possible, you still try. It's when people stop trying to achieve objectivity do they begin hindering their abilities to reason.
I do agree with Keiran about showing support, but I didn't agree with the whole, keep your mouth shut because you aren't ______. I do not like this whole, "people like you" concept either, because we're all capable of forming our own opinions. Just because my mom, dad, brothers, dog, whoever though A, doesn't mean that I may subscribe to B.

You're right about using our voice, but taking over what? I don't see how someone not directly affected by a movement can really take it over (correct me if I'm not understanding this)
I don't have an example ready-made but I can give you a general idea of what I'm talking about - this is a big problem for mainstream feminist sites when it comes to women of color. A WoC will start talking about an issue that is specific to other women of color, such as fast tailed girls, and then a mainstream feminist site will have a white writer write an article on it without so much as quoting the people that started it, the people actually affected by it. The people that are actually marginalized by the issue are ignored in favor of talking to someone in a more privileged position about it, who does not have experience in the topic and can only talk about what they've read from a detached position. Just from a common sense perspective, if we accept that a person not in that marginalized group does not experience the marginalization and thus are less equipped to talk about it, then we come to the logical conclusion that these people should, instead of starting the conversation around themselves, use their influence to bring the conversation to someone who is more equipped to talk about it.
Theme
Pair
VM
PM
  #102    
Old August 27th, 2014, 08:05 AM
daigonite's Avatar
daigonite
[insert artsy user title here]
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: With the Birds
Age: 21
Gender:
Nature: Impish
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom View Post
*Lives in Midwest*

Where the hell are you? Compared to other parts of the country, it's pretty damn peaceful up here.
I would say that there are still problems regarding social segregation in the midwest, but they seem to be mostly divided on lines of income as opposed to the more commonly cited gender and race. I mean, like I've stated in the past, I live near Detroit, and I know that most businesses will not segregate on the fact that you're black (there are exceptions: I'm looking at you, Howell) - but they will if you aren't dressed well, which comes more with income than race - it's just that people of certain races have not been able to close the income gap as effectively as others, namely because they were unable to leave low income areas like Detroit and Pontiac.

On the subject title, YES, most minorities deserve rights. The problem is when they conflict with the rights of the majority. It is NOT equal rights to dissolve rights of the majority to compensate the minority - you have to be fair with how you treat people. I go by a simple rule of thumb with approving or disapproving ideas - if it helps a large majority of the minority, and it does not harm a large majority of the majority, then it should probably be implemented. If the minority is extremely small and it does harm a large majority of the majority, it is unreasonable to assume that the majority must compensate for the minority. If the majority negatively impacted by the minority's suggestion is very large, then it is also unreasonable to assume the majority to change for the minority. There are some extremely out there causes that are a determent to the overall well being of society. What these are are up to individual opinion, but usually these are beliefs either rooted in deluding oneself (such as anti-vax or or anti-doctor), beliefs that apply to an extremely small amount of people who's behaviour is a determent to others ("nounself" ********), beliefs of superiority (claiming that autistic people deserve more rights than neurotypicals, citing superiority as a reason) or people with stances that are harmful to others accessing required assistance (people who believe that transgender is something you can just tack onto yourself with no dysphoria required). Most of these extremely radical opinions are absent from in-real-life encounters though, bar anti-vax/anti-doctor, so I usually do not bring them up.

I think, ultimately, most segregation in that sense boils down to income differences. There are always exceptions to the rule, but this seems to be the highest dividing factor and the most difficult to address - if you cannot afford to do something that everyone else pays for, do you deserve special privileges? What if that thing is water? The water problem in Detroit is an excellent example of this question.

It's not as simple as "everyone deserves water". It goes so much further than that - see, Detroit City Water is very clean water but it needs to be regulated and cleaned and the treatment of water is fairly expensive. While it is true that not all of the funds from water bills go to that, it is true that much of that money does go directly to the treatment of the water and the upkeep of such facilities. Do people who are not going to contribute, unwillingly or otherwise, deserve the benefits of something like this?

If it were something considered a commercial good, of course the answer would be "NO!". But this is water we're talking about.

I'm personally very split on the subject. Of COURSE I think these people deserve water, however, the plants that treat the water also need money to be able to do those things. And considering the crisis that Metro Detroit already is in, raising taxes higher is an extremely unsuitable option. There is no easy answer.

Ultimately, the point of the matter is, trying to strawman an extremely complex situation because you feel very opinionated on it ignores the multitude of factors going on behind the scenes. You can't just boil things down to a simple matter of "HE'S [whatever]-IST" most of the time, because it's often so much deeper than that. Similar to what I saw in the Ferguson thread (I am still appalled that people were offended by my posts that basically warned people of the dangers of non-peaceful protest, despite being a minority), people tend to judge extremely quickly what something should be and then has it that-be-that, without considering other possibilities. This is dangerous thinking. Question yourself sometimes to improve your responses to incidents.

Also, can we PLEASE stop this trend of referring to people who are not white as people of colour? There's a very good reason why most people do not use it, and I think it might have something to do with this or this or this or this or this. There's a very good reason why the NAACP only refers to itself as its abbreviation.

It also assumes that people who are nonwhites are homogenous enough to include into a single group which completely ignores individual differences in the issues that they face between them. Not only this but it completely ignores people who are mixed race, who face their own issues, or people with various ethnicities who have light enough skin who are also ignored (such as various types of Hindu people). It's practically like saying that black people, asian people and latinos have so much in common with each other that ignoring the individual issues that each type of race faces is okay. It's not. Alright?

Last edited by daigonite; August 27th, 2014 at 08:14 AM.
  #103    
Old August 27th, 2014, 10:39 AM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by daigonite View Post
Also, can we PLEASE stop this trend of referring to people who are not white as people of colour? There's a very good reason why most people do not use it, and I think it might have something to do with this or this or this or this or this. There's a very good reason why the NAACP only refers to itself as its abbreviation.

It also assumes that people who are nonwhites are homogenous enough to include into a single group which completely ignores individual differences in the issues that they face between them. Not only this but it completely ignores people who are mixed race, who face their own issues, or people with various ethnicities who have light enough skin who are also ignored (such as various types of Hindu people). It's practically like saying that black people, asian people and latinos have so much in common with each other that ignoring the individual issues that each type of race faces is okay. It's not. Alright?
Have to agree with this line of reasoning. As a "person of colour", I've always found the term conceptually cumbersome. Personally, I'd be happy with minority (because that's what I am) versus a PoC (which is a meta-identity which seems artificial). I don't know why people are so intent on using PoC in an attempt to be politically correct if it doesn't seem ... polite at all. IMO it's better to call me as not-something (non-white) than call me as something which isn't something I organically identify with (person of colour). It makes sense as a scientific term, but it isn't exactly dignifying and doesn't really jive with me outside of a research context, tbh.
Denny Hamlin. ugh so late
  #104    
Old August 27th, 2014, 01:32 PM
Grey Wind's Avatar
Grey Wind
heterophobe
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Dragon Roost Island
Gender: Male
Quote:
Originally Posted by daigonite View Post
The problem is when they conflict with the rights of the majority. It is NOT equal rights to dissolve rights of the majority to compensate the minority - you have to be fair with how you treat people. I go by a simple rule of thumb with approving or disapproving ideas - if it helps a large majority of the minority, and it does not harm a large majority of the majority, then it should probably be implemented. If the minority is extremely small and it does harm a large majority of the majority, it is unreasonable to assume that the majority must compensate for the minority.
How and when would this happen? I don't really understand how people come to this conclusion. Like... how does speaking out about the injustices queer people face harm straight people?


Quote:
Also, can we PLEASE stop this trend of referring to people who are not white as people of colour? There's a very good reason why most people do not use it, and I think it might have something to do with this or this or this or this or this. There's a very good reason why the NAACP only refers to itself as its abbreviation.

It also assumes that people who are nonwhites are homogenous enough to include into a single group which completely ignores individual differences in the issues that they face between them. Not only this but it completely ignores people who are mixed race, who face their own issues, or people with various ethnicities who have light enough skin who are also ignored (such as various types of Hindu people). It's practically like saying that black people, asian people and latinos have so much in common with each other that ignoring the individual issues that each type of race faces is okay. It's not. Alright?
I won't comment on the first point because it's not really my place, but I don't think the term really ignores each group's issues? It's usually just used instead of saying non-white, the same way queer is often used to refer to people who aren't straight. Like there are problems with generalising and blanket statements and stuff but I don't think the term is really the problem.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you an advocate of the whole "human rights, not queer/black/whatever else rights" thing? Because the bolded is the problem with that pretty much, except on a larger scale.
  #105    
Old August 27th, 2014, 02:40 PM
daigonite's Avatar
daigonite
[insert artsy user title here]
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: With the Birds
Age: 21
Gender:
Nature: Impish
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey Wind View Post
How and when would this happen? I don't really understand how people come to this conclusion. Like... how does speaking out about the injustices queer people face harm straight people?
Your instance doesn't. Specifically, there are rare instances where a minority of people may attempt to advocate for something that is irrational or doesn't provide benefit. These people are known as extreme radicals. Some things that I have personally seen that would fall under this category include:
  • Forcing white people into slave labour camps or being killed because "they enslaved black people"
  • Saying that cis people should die for being cis
  • Misgendering is as bad as murder
  • Doctors should be banned from trying to convince patients to lose weight
  • Banning vaccines because they cause [whatever]
  • Claiming that women should be lesbians because men are evil
  • Denying men benefits because they are men
  • Claiming that neurotypical people want autistic people dead
  • Claiming that blind people deserve special caretakers to do things which could clearly be done by the person at hand with little to no difficulty

These are all things I have heard people say. Do these minorities deserve their words to become a reality? No. Because these words imply things that either hurt others directly or are completely unnecessary, and are attempting to use pity to garner special privileges. This is not acceptable, nor is it progressive.

Quote:
I won't comment on the first point because it's not really my place, but I don't think the term really ignores each group's issues? It's usually just used instead of saying non-white, the same way queer is often used to refer to people who aren't straight. Like there are problems with generalising and blanket statements and stuff but I don't think the term is really the problem.
I don't really agree with the use of either, but people who are called "queer" have a lot more in common with each other than people who would be put under a blanket of "non-white". Non-white is such a varied group of people that putting them under a single phrase is inadequate, especially when you try to advocate for such a large group with blanketing tactics.

What I have specifically noticed with the term "PoC" is that it is almost always advocated by people who are black. The problem with that is that "colour" as used as an inverse to "white" does not just include black people. It includes people from all races, bar whites. The implications that it spreads are that a wide variety of people are covered by an umbrella of issues that may not be applicable to them. Since "PoC" is a commonly used term with black people, it implies that issues that apply to black people are the same for other races. This is not true and an oversimplification of the problems that people face.

Quote:
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you an advocate of the whole "human rights, not queer/black/whatever else rights" thing? Because the bolded is the problem with that pretty much, except on a larger scale.
I am, it's just that I believe that claiming that the issues that black people, asians, hindus (of all colours), native americans, latinos, aboriginals and all other people who could be considered non-white is an extremely oversimplification of their issues, and a disgrace to their differences and unique traits. Because I believe in all human rights, I believe that they should not be grouped into a catch-all term and should have their individual problems that they face dealt with individually, since they all have very different histories and origins affecting how they are treated today.

I understand that no blanket terms will solve all of their problems (I don't believe this with sex based issues, but that's because I believe that almost all sex-based prejudices are based in a single root cause) and therefore it is important to recognize the differences and the root of all the causes of all the problems. Some may have roots in similar places, others don't.

Most jarringly is perhaps the difference between Asian Americans and Black Americans. While the former still has some problems in terms of racism and the like, they are generally treated with more respect than the latter. In my area, I attribute this more to lagging income gaps than straight out racism, but I know elsewhere in the country this can be attributed to pure racism. To claim that the face the same issues because they are non-white is absolutely ignoring the individual problems that both races face in society.

In fact, claiming that all non-white races are all the same is a gross oversimplification of the issues that they face.

In addition, there are some groups that would fit under the label "PoC" who may or may not be so fond of each other, and have their own prejudices towards each other. Take Asians with black people for example. Living near many high-black populations, I've heard a lot of racist things said from black people about asians. But I've heard the other way around as well. Not only this, but the issues that white people face in places mainly governed by "PoC" people are varied as well - while in Hiroshima, Japan, white people are considered foreigners and are treated with disdain, there are places in Africa where white people are being outright murdered based on the concept of the "sins of their fathers". It's much more complicated than "White versus Non-white".

As a side note, I do believe that issues in the LGBT community as well as the disabled should also be individually highlighted due to the fact that they are extremely varied and face different pressures based on different prejudices. The issues that blind people face are extremely different than what autistic people face, for example, and placing it under an umbrella ensures that some of these issues will be pushed to the wayside. Some things that blind people require would be problematic to an autistic person, such as issues with mobility courses, and things that an autistic person may advocate for, such as special classes for social development, may be considered demeaning for a blind person who's social skills are normal.

It's not hypocritical, unfortunately for you. Sadly, your defense of the term only shows that you are strawmanning a very particularly delicate and complex subject into a simple idea of "white vs non-white". I really hope that you travel somewhere outside of a western society and learn that it is so much more than that. I had that benefit when I was young, but I know many naive young people do not have that benefit. The fact that you completely ignored a member of this forum's opinion on this subject with the very post above you who fits into the term because their opinion did not coincide with yours shows that you are unwilling to accept those who do not agree with your position.
  #106    
Old September 7th, 2014, 08:58 AM
Grey Wind's Avatar
Grey Wind
heterophobe
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Dragon Roost Island
Gender: Male
Quote:
Originally Posted by daigonite View Post
Your instance doesn’t. Specifically, there are rare instances where a minority of people may attempt to advocate for something that is irrational or doesn’t provide benefit. These people are known as extreme radicals. Some things that I have personally seen that would fall under this category include:

list

These are all things I have heard people say. Do these minorities deserve their words to become a reality? No. Because these words imply things that either hurt others directly or are completely unnecessary, and are attempting to use pity to garner special privileges. This is not acceptable, nor is it progressive.
You do know that most of the stuff on that list is said by trolls, right? There is a HUGE number of fake social justice people that attempt to derail discussions and the movement in general by posting extreme stuff like this. Otherwise, it’s more than likely just being used as a hyperbole or as a joke (not that I agree with people doing that, but that's a different discussion). The amount of people who’d genuinely believe that stuff are such a small minority that I don’t think they’re even relevant.

As for some of the other things you mentioned (like anti-vac people), I don't really see how they fit into the idea that minority rights can "conflict" with the rights of the majority.


Quote:
I don’t really agree with the use of either, but people who are called “queer” have a lot more in common with each other than people who would be put under a blanket of “non-white”. Non-white is such a varied group of people that putting them under a single phrase is inadequate, especially when you try to advocate for such a large group with blanketing tactics.

What I have specifically noticed with the term “PoC” is that it is almost always advocated by people who are black. The problem with that is that “colour” as used as an inverse to “white” does not just include black people. It includes people from all races, bar whites. The implications that it spreads are that a wide variety of people are covered by an umbrella of issues that may not be applicable to them. Since “PoC” is a commonly used term with black people, it implies that issues that apply to black people are the same for other races. This is not true and an oversimplification of the problems that people face.
You’re not really wrong here, but like… the idea behind the term is to refer to non-white people or people who face a large amount of racism. Like, there ARE problems with people using it to generalise but I don’t think the idea behind the term itself is the problem, it's the people who end up using it to generalise that are. Like as long as you're wary of making blanket statements and are aware of the different types of racism faced by PoC I don't really see the problem in using it.


Quote:
I am, it’s just that I believe that claiming that the issues that black people, asians, hindus (of all colours), native americans, latinos, aboriginals and all other people who could be considered non-white is an extremely oversimplification of their issues, and a disgrace to their differences and unique traits. Because I believe in all human rights, I believe that they should not be grouped into a catch-all term and should have their individual problems that they face dealt with individually, since they all have very different histories and origins affecting how they are treated today.
Yeah, I agree with that. But as far as I can tell from this thread, the whole idea of being an egalitarian or whatever is not seeing race/sexuality/whathaveyou and promoting a general sort of equality, and as far as i know, you were on board with this. If you can see the differences between the racism that various poc face can't you see the importance of focusing on individual issues and rights instead of promoting a blanket movement?
  #107    
Old September 7th, 2014, 12:55 PM
daigonite's Avatar
daigonite
[insert artsy user title here]
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: With the Birds
Age: 21
Gender:
Nature: Impish
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey Wind View Post
You do know that most of the stuff on that list is said by trolls, right? There is a HUGE number of fake social justice people that attempt to derail discussions and the movement in general by posting extreme stuff like this. Otherwise, it’s more than likely just being used as a hyperbole or as a joke (not that I agree with people doing that, but that's a different discussion). The amount of people who’d genuinely believe that stuff are such a small minority that I don’t think they’re even relevant.
Poe's law, sadly. There are people who very do believe those things, that do not just do it for "trolling". The only difference between them and trolls is that trolls don't usually have a history of saying that stuff, while those who truly believe those things have a long archive of these things.

What is frightening is that you are wrong about this being a minority. Since I'm autistic, I specifically notice the things regarding autism more than other minorities, but I can confirm that this is indeed not a minority (Thankfully, with the blind, this IS a minority and is often self regulated into obscurity) in this specific case. This vocal group of individuals contributes to the reason why autism is viewed as a complete joke in the internet as well as in real life. I was diagnosed older, so I know how to be independent and I know that a lot of the things they are saying is complete garbage, but a lot of younger individuals are exposed to these extremist opinions and since the autism community absolutely refuses to self regulate itself, it has run rampant. I cannot even begin to describe how crippling such behaviour is not only to their activism but to autistic people themselves. Quite frankly, I have never encountered such a close minded community in my life - they continually erase my professional diagnosis, but will defend people who claim that 99% of people are trying to get them killed or some crazy **** like that.

I think things are less out of control in other arenas, but they have enough vocal pressure to make people try to accommodate their quite unreasonable requests.

One that in particular is jarring to me, as someone who is frequently misgendered, is the attitude towards people who either have difficulty adjusting to a new gender after years of knowing someone, or, don't know them and misgender them. I have never seen such an antagonistic group of people because someone made a mistake. In the former case, it's frankly difficult to adjust to someone who you've known and used to saying "whatever" for years. As long as someone tries to make an effort and adjusts over time, I'm fairly sympathetic. And the latter? Unless they're purposely antagonizing you, politely correct them and move on. Most people are willing to back off if you make a mistake. It's when they refuse to fix their mistakes when it's a problem.

I'm not going to really address the rest of your post since it seems a lot more reasonable than what you usually put out, and, while I don't really agree with it, I will agree to disagree. I'm not really sure why you believe I support a blanket movement though. My only blanket mentality is basically "judge people on who they are as a person, nothing else". Certain groups do need certain things addressed individually because they face different problems. I do think some do have a blanket cause (as stated with sex) but I do believe for the most part it they have various origins, outside of income.
Post Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 05:10 AM.

About Us
© 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com. Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.

Copyright
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com. PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator. Header artwork by Jordanice of deviantART.

Social Media
If you would like to stay up-to-date with us on the go, when we're down, or other such things, follow us on social media sites--most notibly Twitter, Facebook, and Google Plus--by clicking on the links provided.

Design presented by Peitharchia. Special thanks to Hiroshi Sotomura and Ausaudriel.