Minority Rights vs Human Rights or something

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.

Keiran said:

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. :')

Click to expand...

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).

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire said:

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).

Click to expand...

Did you know that boy students talk far more than girl students in the classroom? There was a study done where they forced a teacher to give boys and girls equal talking time in the classroom. The boys complained that the girls were taking over the conversation and talking way too much. The teacher agreed that it felt like there was way too much girl talking time.

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.

Click to expand...

Source (under Perceptions and Implications). I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you that teachers need to be fair and not give students special attention, but if we go by "don't give students special attention" then boys will always be the ones to talk the vast majority of classroom time because even teachers that feel like they're giving boys and girls equal talking time tend to give boys significantly more. This is why I balk when people mention "special attention" - is it special attention to weight the classroom in such a way that boys and girls talk evenly? A lot of people would claim it is, because to do so you have to go out of your way to find girls to speak so you're favoring the girls. But without that special attention, the boys would dominate the classroom, which has ripple effects through a person's whole life - the example on that page of a meeting with one female member who tries to speak once and is cut off by a man saying "What she's trying to say is..." is a common one among people who notice microaggressions in their world. These things are interlinked; boys are taught at a young age that the "normal" speaking time for boys is far more than for girls, and act accordingly without even thinking about it when they're adults. But the only way to "fix" that is special attention to women and girls. But you're against special attention, as are a lot of people here.

This is why, to me, special attention is necessary and in fact encapsulates the point of the thread, why we need to focus on specific issues and not just "equal rights for all". This is a woman's issue. There is no issue that men don't talk enough and are not encouraged to speak and are socialized into meekness. To solve it, special attention needs to be paid to women and girls. However, talking in class is actually a zero-sum game - notice how the boys complained when they could no longer dominate class time. So an "equal rights" approach would take their complaints into account as just as valid as the wish for the girls to have equal talking time, which I don't think is right.

Limerent said:

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.

Click to expand...

Imagine your car breaks down on the side of the road. Your cellphone is dead, but you're with a friend (let's call him Lemon) who has one.

Lime: Lemon, will you call my AAA for me?
Lemon: Nah, you don't really need AAA. It's warm outside, you need some water. I'll jog a couple miles down the road to the next exit and get you some.
Lime: Uh...no, what I really need is someone to fix my car. That would be really helpful to me right now.
Lemon: Okay, I'll look at it for you!
Lime: But...you don't even own a car. You've never driven a car. You can't fix cars.
Lemon: Hm, looking at this, I think the problem is that the engine isn't on. Have you tried turning on the car?
Lime: PLEASE JUST CALL MY AAA
Lemon: Why are you mad at me? I'm just trying to help! Don't you want my help?

Twist that you totally saw coming: you're lemon in almost all social justice issues.

Limerent said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm saying that people who don't suffer a specific injustice have very little worth in their opinions when it comes to how an injustice is dealt with. I'm not saying the role of allies is useless or unwanted, I'm trying to explain that most allies do more harm than good.

For example, in the infamous "That's So Gay" thread we had lots of actual queer people explain how and why using a word in such a way was harmful. But they were drowned out by "allies" stating that people offended by it are sensitive etc blah blah blah. This is what I'm talking about when I say speaking over injusticed people is wrong, and why ally opinions are largely harmful to achieving equality - aka they're useless and unwanted by people that actually desire justice and equality.

Part of growing up is learning when and where your opinion is wanted and necessary, just saying. You mentioned you have the right to disagree and debate with a trans person on trans issues. But with what experience as a trans person will you back your debate up with? How many trans people are you close to and speak with regularly about trans issues? It's kinda like calling Domino's and ordering a pizza instead of 9-1-1 to put out a fire; not very helpful and probably harmful right?

Again, I'm not saying you have no place in the human rights movement; I appreciate your desire. I'm just explaining how a certain behavior commonly displayed by allies is not helpful in reaching equality at all.

I think it's pretty obvious that not all groups of people have the same rights, even though they are technically supposed to under the law. There are social, political, economical and cultural factors that play into that, in the United States at least. I would think though, that by helping to raise up disenfranchised minority groups, you're doing collective society a favor - I think this is what people miss or fail to understand, that you're actually helping society at large, aka everyone. And doing so doesn't bring down the majority like that misquoted-Abraham-Lincoln-Tea-Party viral propaganda facebook post says it does. Think of the big picture.

As far as being an "ally" goes, I would just say that you need to be informed about the big issues, and to be active, empathetic, and vocal in fighting discrimination that you see and come across, whether that be through social activism or at a voting booth.

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.


For instance, we have issues with examining minority populations because of tertiary variables. We are exposed to a variety of correlations, but not causal relationships that are pertinent to minority groups.

If for instance, we are to examine voting behaviors by race, controlling for Z-variables such as socioeconomic status, black people are MORE politically active than any other race in the United States despite having lower voting turn-outs.

Being a minority increases political activeness.
Being wealthier increases political activeness. (Being less wealthy decreases political activeness.)

Multivariate correlations are mostly the only bits of information that "informed" Americans have. In reality, causations are the important relationships in ascertaining what causes the phenomena in the united states.

Furthermore, our own experiences are often framed in terms of correlations. I am a [blank] American and [blank] happened. Therefore, because, I am [blank] that happened.

So, going back to the political participation example in voting behaviors, there are two observations/concerns.

1) Black rights groups targeting poor black voters doesn't make sense since the condition of being black has nothing to do with voting habits, though poverty does; remember, impoverished white groups vote in lower volumes. Why not assist all low socioeconomic groups?

2) There is however a legitimate concern of why black populations in the US have a greater tendency to fall into a lower socioeconomic group. Therefore, it's a matter of assessing why. Is it race? Or is this a common condition that all impoverished people have, in that, the ability to increase socioeconomic status is inhibited among all impoverished Americans? (and Black Americans have inherited their current issues with poverty from old legal and social structures rather than current ones.)

I have no idea myself! It would be an interesting research project for sure! To see if black poverty is caused by current laws that affect ALL impoverished people. Or, if this tendency to remain impoverished occurs in greater quantities to impoverished blacks than impoverished whites.

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.

The Dark Avenger said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

People also tend to generalize and jump to conclusions, one of the most common being, "well, if this one [X] is this way, then all [Xs] are that way, too."

Hm, oh, and one more thing. I think everyone in this topic should remember that you're lucky to even be able to voice your opinions on this forum. You know what? Egalitarians, the ACLU, minority civil rights activists? They've helped you live in a country that allows you to even say these things. Why fight?

Tek said:

*racism in Midwest*

Click to expand...

*Lives in Midwest*

Where the hell are you? Compared to other parts of the country, it's pretty damn peaceful up here.

Keiran said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.
According to your logic, only ______ people should be allowed to talk about ______ rights? In that case, all civil rights would be is a giant popularity contest between the ______ minority (whatever minority of your choosing) vs. a white majority (in the US anyway).

That's not how it's done. People form groups (with allies, who CAN be inspired despite what these Tumblr "activists" think), to help sway the thinking of the newer generation (and hopefully that of current politicians). Like it or not, most middle-aged people just don't change what they were literally raised with their whole lives. Too many people don't realize that. Next, the newer generation gets shown a new vantage point, contrary to their parents'. Next is social evolution, where rights become more and more of a reality.

Example: The Williams Institute claims that there are 700,000 transgendered people in the US. That leaves what, another 200,000,000 people who aren't transgenedered? Sadly, a certain prototypical model runs this country (straight, white, rich men). These 700,000 people need the backing of as many people in general as they can, especially at such a low number. Once a highly ranked politician garners interest, then things will happen.
Finally, why should non-_____ people care about _____ campaigns? It depends. I do agree listening to the people directly affected by a campaign is important. In fact, it's crucial (for obvious reasons...).
I hate when people say, "I'm not gay, I don't care about gay marriage." There are so many things wrong with this sentence. This implies that only people running a campaign should really care, which will bring no results. A social issue is something that everyone should educate themselves about, and keep current. The more people involved the better. In the US, I feel like too many people sit around and do nothing to help stomp these issues.
I help campaign for LGBT+ rights, and try my absolute best to stay in touch with its recent happenings. I'm always open-minded in generally, but I even more so with my LGBT+ friends whose mind I love to pick
I care for personal reasons, but I'll leave that to PMs for now.

EDIT: Who the hell campaigns for "straight rights?" I've literally never heard of this in my entire life. And white history month? Egalitarians are nothing like that, please don't obfuscate us with those types of people

obZen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Oryx said:

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.

Click to expand...

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)

obZen said:

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)

Click to expand...

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.

Phantom said:

*Lives in Midwest*

Where the hell are you? Compared to other parts of the country, it's pretty damn peaceful up here.

Click to expand...

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?

daigonite said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

daigonite said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Grey Wind said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

daigonite said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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 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.

Click to expand...

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?

Grey Wind said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.