Bus driver forces gay couple to sit at the back of the bus

Fenneking said:

That is frankly false, that is never stated in my posts...Not all discrimination results in a victim. This is discriminatory behavior, that doesn't result in a victim, as there was not harm or loss endured by the party in question. Again, please refer to the points explicitly made in the post please.

Click to expand...

You know, except losing their human dignity and losing respect after being singled out among a group of people.

I would see the gay couple that didn't move and didn't get upset, averting any all attention to the senseless words of the driver in a significantly more respectable light. It shows more resilience to discriminatory words.

Well to be honest I couldn't pretend to care about how you would respect the couple involved or not because it shouldn't be happening in the first place. You're essentially changing the crux of the story at hand into your own agenda and you refuse to acknowledge how dehumanizing it is to be singled out in front of an entire group of people, by later on going "Oh but they should have handled it this way and they really aren't victims because it's not as substantive as other forms of discrimination".

They should have simply not moved though. The bus driver didn't have the authority to move them to the back of the bus for that reason, as he would have if the public policy afforded him that power as it had in the pre-civil rights era against Black Americans. They were not forced to move, and they certainty shouldn't have allow the words of one individual to have such a negative impact on their lives. LGBT people should be exhibiting more strength and resilience to unkind words. This is the mentality and example that should be offered for the youth and community at large. Discrimination will never be eradicated, though improving the resilience of derogatory words toward the LGBT community seems to be a much more effective approach. However, LGBT youth are mostly offered examples like this, and thus, learn that this is the appropriate reaction to derogatory words.

Click to expand...

It's never that simple as simply not moving. Think of their actions in the framework of an OODA loop. Observe: 'Okay, if you're going to do that, you're going to the back of the bus.' Orient: Ouch. Don't hear that too often. Should I be following the rules? Decision: -zip- Action: *moves towards the back of the bus*. No, the bus driver didn't have authority, and they didn't /have/ to move, but under the pressure and fear of the situation, it is very understandable why they did. Or perhaps it is even more complex than that. What if they feared that the bus driver would halt the bus until they got off? Wouldn't that be more trouble than they asked for? Would they have played the waiting game and wait for whatever resolution to arrive? What if the bus driver became emotional? Maybe they were considering this - consciously or not, maybe they weren't. "Exhibiting strength" is easier said than done, especially when there are many unknowns and many unhappy consequences to be feared. You say they should have done something - are they any wrong for not doing so? I get your idea of resilience, but it is naive to apply it so to this situation in particular. Furthermore, people should express their thoughts freely. If they should feel victimized and discriminated against, they should communicate that - yet you seem to pose "resilience" as an alternative. And the fact of the matter is that they didn't get any closure - no apology, nor communication to them from the company. They're only saying what's going on.

Another note, the bus-driver may be a decent person, but might be ignorant and discriminatory due to his socialization. For all we know, he volunteers his time to and money for charity and engages in other selfless acts. Homophobic people are not all terrible, especially taking into account the elderly population that have been programmed to think a certain way.

Click to expand...

It takes one sentence to ruin a person's reputation. And decency is a habit, not one action. And there are better ways of showing your disapproval - which involve not showing your disapproval since you're the face of a company and deal with the public as part of your job. But we can all be our own judge of that.

Though, again, we are educating gay youth to think that all homophobic people are terrible and inhumane.

Click to expand...

Overstatement much? Who's we?

It shouldn't happen in the first place. yes, I never claimed otherwise nor condoned the bus driver's behavior. Though, I mentioned, it's impossible to eradicate discriminatory speech. Odds are, most gay people will face some sort of non-violent discriminatory speech that is ill-spirited but not causing legitimate damage. Again, saying a derogatory statement is not illegal, and litigation is not the appropriate measure. Rather, in a world in which discriminatory speech exists and will always exist, its more beneficial to impart upon the LGBT community the ability to overcome derogatory speech and build a stronger self-esteem. I am not changing the crux of the story, I am simply looking at it in a way that better addresses the remedy to these scenarios, and how the LGBT community is not powerless as individuals and doesn't always need to be reliant on legal counsel. For instance, while driving a car, we simply don't have control over other drivers, there are certain actors of which we have no control over, others actions; however, we still have the ability to improve the situation we are in and our actions need to be analyzed even when we did not instigate an issue, we are all taught on how to react to reckless drivers or when someone flips us off, ect. I am simply analyzing how the couple reacted, and could have reacted more appropriately. There is no point in arguing whether or not the bus driver was wrong, we would simply have no discussion; we would all agree that his actions were wrong. I am broadening the discussion to evaluate simple biases that many us have.

To a broader point, the countless incidents of minorities taking legal action or going to the public media in order to resolve issues of discriminatory speech in many cases is imparting upon the community that such a discourse is the appropriate one. Derragotory speech should not be dehumanizing especially from a stranger; they are only words. A mere sentence or incidence that is able to lower a person's self esteem is indicative of a major issue for the individual being discriminated against. That is the issue here that is often ignored, and obviously ignored because it uncomfortable to discuss. Perhaps I cannot fault the couple, since it may have been imparted to react in this way; however, it does continue to impart this discourse upon other LGBT observers. Also it indicates that the LGBT community should be emphasizing resiliency to mudslinging, but the community has largely done the opposite. In order to build the esteems and grant more personal control and power over discriminatory speech, the emphasis needs to be changed on averting attention to senseless speech, granted it cannot be eradicated.

I appreciate the discussion, though I hope those who are responding are fully aware I am a proponent of LGBT rights and have the interests of the community at mind. It seems that a number of you are getting upset or emotional over my posts, and that is not the point. It's to introduce another aspect in which would allow for a broader discussion of how we, and when I say we, I mean, proponents of the gay community in a broadened sense address different forms of discrimination.