I don't see why integration should necessarily be associated with subservience, but it has been so every time you've referred to it. But anyways, more discussion on how terms should be used would only lead to more pedantry so I'll cut it off here.
An ally shouldn't be 'educating' someone else with their opinion. They should be using what they've learned from trans persons, in this case. An allies opinion is irrelevant (and most likely harmful and wrong) because they have not experienced that specific injustice.
Integration or assimilation isn't the answer. Visibility and educating people before they become bigoted adults is a better way.
I question alliances with people that speak over and get angry when they're told they're wrong. I question the support from people that get angry when they realize their opinion isn't wanted or valid in every situation.
..do you even know how activism works, or....
Well, at least a black persons opinion matters to you when it helps your argument, I guess. But his opinion is awful and he doesn't speak for anyone but himself.
Human rights are won when people who face a specific injustice are respected and listened to. Not because allies find that group of people to be subservient to allies and beneficial to their egos.
I'm not here to convince you. I recognize that some people are beneath convincing, but hopefully my posts can help others that are confused about how to be a proper ally. This is a public debate, not an argument between me & you. :')
You brought up the topic of teaching children not to grow up to be bigoted adults. There's been quite a debate about this in some places. Such as should that be taught by parents or the school? Should school time really be spent teaching students about morality? Is it even a teachers place to teach morality, especially when different teachers have different views and the like. So it's quite a can of worms, but an interesting one to think about.
I think that a teachers role in the fight for equality is to establish that everyone should be respected equally on day one, and give no student special attention (beyond their issues with the subject being taught that is, and help getting in and out of the room if disabled). Also if anyone says anything that crosses those lines to talk to the student as soon as possible that they're disrespecting another, and explain why that isn't right (again).
Teachers are often unaware of the gender distribution of talk in their classrooms. They usually consider that they give equal amounts of attention to girls and boys, and it is only when they make a tape recording that they realize that boys are dominating the interactions. Dale Spender, an Australian feminist who has been a strong advocate of female rights in this area, noted that teachers who tried to restore the balance by deliberately 'favouring' the girls were astounded to find that despite their efforts they continued to devote more time to the boys in their classrooms. Another study reported that a male science teacher who managed to create an atmosphere in which girls and boys contributed more equally to discussion felt that he was devoting 90 per cent of his attention to the girls. And so did his male pupils. They complained vociferously that the girls were getting too much talking time.
I care because your position is saying that as a straight, white male I cannot have an opinion that disagrees with yours or that I am not worthy of being listened to due to my skin colour, sex and orientation. That is the epitome of racism, sexism and heterophobia. Your movements are just one sided reversals of what others did to you in the past. I should be able to debate or disagree with the content of what a trans person wants and not have it labelled as opression just because I was born as a man with fair skin and a penchant for the ladies. Minorities have an inability to see past the unchangeable factors that they so rail against as disadvantageous to them being not the fault of those born of a different creed.
Allies are truly a sad bunch. "We're going to use you as pawns to further our agenda but you have no say in that because you weren't born a certain way." It can be compared to slavery, you can work for us but have no right to disagree, just shut up and do what you're told. As a cis white man you've alienated me from whatever suffering you may face because you're going to be a jerk about things I have no control over. That's exactly what you're supposed to be fighting against yet you embody it to people who don't fit minority status.
I care because your position is saying that as a straight, white male I cannot have an opinion that disagrees with yours or that I am not worthy of being listened to due to my skin colour, sex and orientation. That is the epitome of racism, sexism and heterophobia. Your movements are just one sided reversals of what others did to you in the past. I should be able to debate or disagree with the content of what a trans person wants and not have it labelled as opression just because I was born as a man with fair skin and a penchant for the ladies. Minorities have an inability to see past the unchangeable factors that they so rail against as disadvantageous to them being not the fault of those born of a different creed.
Allies are truly a sad bunch. "We're going to use you as pawns to further our agenda but you have no say in that because you weren't born a certain way." It can be compared to slavery, you can work for us but have no right to disagree, just shut up and do what you're told. As a cis white man you've alienated me from whatever suffering you may face because you're going to be a jerk about things I have no control over. That's exactly what you're supposed to be fighting against yet you embody it to people who don't fit minority status.
Remember that many researchers do not go in depth into what they are researching, and even when they do go above and beyond, in many cases trying to find a causal relationship is extremely difficult. In most cases there are a multitude of causes, and as soon as one is hinted at, the general public all latches on to that one and excludes any others.Some of the issues I have noticed when speaking to minority and non-minority people alike, is that there is a cross-over in variables being assessed in the information they cite.
...
This is one of many examples, but coalitions white, black, religious or not religious, tend to make coalitions in many cases when it doesn't seem pertinent, or it's unclear if membership has ANY causal relationship to their concerns.
Most people that identify as egalitarian are white twenty-something pseudo-intellectuals that just want to speak over other groups of people.
Like for example...what place does a cishet person have in speaking about trans rights? Literally none. There's no problem with keeping things seperate..and no one seems to have a problem with that except bored cishet/white people that are upset theres no 'movement' for them. Egalitarians are kind of like those people that get mad over the lack of a White History Month when white history is already celebrated all year long.
If you're not ____, why do you care how _____ people campaign for their equality/liberation? If you want to show support just start listening to what _____ people say and call out problematic behavior done by people like you. That's how human rights are won.
Sorry Keiran, but this is actually my problem with the Tumblr community, who does not in any way, shape, or form represent an efficient model of civil rights. Last time I checked, anyone who is objective and can use his/her brain should be allowed to offer an opinion.
Literally no one in the world has an objective opinion. We are all raised in our culture, steeped in the prejudices that formed our world, and look at said world from our own point of view even if we believe we're looking at it 'objectively'. I mean, even in your own post you assert your right to offer an opinion, and justify it with subjective reasoning. Humans are not objective.
You claim Keiran is wrong because allies should "help sway the thinking of the newer generation," when Keiran said "If you want to show support...call out problematic behavior done by people like you." Where is the disagreement there? Unless you believe that allies should be public mouthpieces for the movement they are supporting, which is what Keiran is against; allies have more privilege and a louder voice than the people they're supporting, which means their job is to use that voice to make the people who are experiencing the marginalization louder, not to take over.
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)
*Lives in Midwest*
Where the hell are you? Compared to other parts of the country, it's pretty damn peaceful up here.
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?
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?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.
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, 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?
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?
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 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.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.
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.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'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.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.
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?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.
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.