Discrimination

[Koko]

Lauren, I'm really finding it difficult to side with you. You keep going on this double-standard that Varislintu explained. Not only that, but you're ignoring that the people you're arguing with do not see reason behind using hierarchies to justify your statement. Like has been stated, you were originally venting, yes, but then you could either have edited when you realized what you wrote or clarified and apologized when confronted.

I would not accept a non-White to generalize their hatred to all whitemen, regardless of how a big portion of Whites treat us. Nor would I accept myself, a demiboy (and so other NBs), to express general hatred toward any other gender. All it does is keep the hierarchy strong. There are ciswomen who mistreat men much the same way some cismen mistreat women. Are these actions justifiable? No. At a different extreme, no hate-generalizing of any kind is justifiable, because no matter where you "are" in society, you have 0 right to hurt another human being; verbally or physically.

You made a rash comment in rage, and tried to justify it after dismissing it as just ranting. What you should've done, regardless of what your gender is, was amend this comment.

On the other hand, I tried really hard not to say anything on the matter. And just as linguoboy tried to do, so should others have done. If anything, dEhiN and [other person who I forget], should just have said something like "Lauren, your comment was a little hurtful." Then she could've explained that in rage she wrongfully directed her hatred toward all cis men when she was really hating on misogynistic people (men in particular). Neither of the two parties' reactions were right. Can we just all agree on that and be done with this? Are shall we continue being stubborn and ignore that this could've gone a lot better? (probably not a good idea to be condescending when you're trying to be the mediator, but whatever )

[Marah]

Actually speaking of racism, let me illustrate my point with an example. Based on what linguoboy and Lauren are arguing, it would be ok for me to write "I can't stand white people and I'm doing my best to avoid them" on here. Further, if then someone who is white were to take offense to that, or argue in any way that I couldn't write that, I could say "well I'm brown and you're white, and you don't know what it's like to face racism but I do, so it's completely acceptable for me to say that".

And to me, that isn't acceptable!

If I understand them correctly their definition of racism is that of the "institutionalized racism". So if there's no system behind you because you're not white in a white majority country, you can't be a racist, you're just bigoted or prejudiced at most.
Isn't that a dangerous definition? Aren't you making unacceptable behavior that can result in violence somehow less unacceptable?

What do you make of situations like those I've seen in France when black Africans face a lot of hate when they want to marry North African women? These people have suffered and still suffer from institutional racism in France and yet some of them still despise these interracial relationships.

What do you make of the Nation of Islam for instance? Black supremacism? Are they racist or just prejudiced?

Or antisemitism expressed by racial minorities?

Or Mugabe's policies in Zimbabwe?

I prefer to stick to a simpler definition of racism that seems to be more widespread in Europe
"Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics"

[kevin]

It's more the expectation of being shouted down if I express in some way that I'm not happy about that.

Funny thing: people often say I'm "shouting" when I'm just talking at normal volume. Interesting how subjective these things are, isn't it?

Here's another funny thing: As I say above, I wasn't happy with how Lauren expressed herself either. It struck me as an unduly harsh and negative thing to say. It bothered me enough that I complained to my husband about it over dinner that night (inbetween complaints about my stupid cold and an annoyingly busy workday). And then we started talking about what we were doing this weekend. Because that's how little impact a remark like that has on my life in the absence of a general background of societal cis-phobia to reinforce it.

I had briefly considered responding in the thread, but I just couldn't see any benefit to it. She tends to stick to her guns and there was the potential there for things to get really unpleasant. And then I took a moment to think about some of the bullshit the transgender people I know go through on a daily basis and I really couldn't see any point in challenging one on account of a passing remark. It wasn't like she was looking to start something; vijayjohn asked her a question and she answered based on where she was at the time. Plus, as I said, I have my own issues with cis men and it wouldn't be uncharacteristic of me to say something like that on a day they were really getting me down. (Goddess knows I make sweeping complaints about gay men generally often enough.)

I'm not saying that just because this was the way I decided to handle it that this is how Vlürch and dEhiN should've handled it, too. (Although I don't see anything preventing them from doing that.) They are completely entitled to their own reactions and to express those reactions publicly. Had they done only that, I would've passed over their posts without responding as well. But they didn't stop there. They had to go further, into the realm of nonsense slippery slope arguments about a careless vent being tantamount to randomly executing people and eye-rolling false equivalences about how trans women expressing dislike of cis men is exactly as bad as the reverse, despite the fact that we live in a world where cis men unprovokedly attack and kill trans women by the hundreds whereas I have never ever heard of a single verified occurrence of the reverse.

I think you're missing my point. I'm not really talking about Lauren's comment or other people's reactions. As I said I wasn't happy to read it, but there's enough stuff on the internet that I don't like. It's not a big deal, and with her now saying that she didn't mean it that way, it's no problem at all.

My posting was really more about whether Unilang is a "safe" place and I thought that self-censorship might be related to that. I just shared how I perceive the athmosphere in this forum. That's all. And yes, perception is as subjective as it gets.

[Aurinĭa]

Incidentally, I don't perceive this space as a welcoming or a safe one and that has nothing to do with the sentiments expressed by particular members and everything to do with how power is exercised within it.

I'm not sure how to interpret this. What exactly do you mean? That we use (abuse) the power we've been given to do as we see fit? My own partner, who was then a member of admin team, left UniLang because he was made to feel unwelcome and unsafe; do you really think I wouldn't have permabanned the people responsible for that if I felt fine exercising power as I see fit, instead of adhering to the forum policy, trying to be as fair as possible? Years ago, we drew up a forum policy and a ban policy, to avoid arbitrary decisions, and to make the decision-making process as fair as possible. We published these policies, so that all members can see them and know how this forum is moderated. If there is anything you or any other member would like to see changed, or would like to be clarified more, there is a whole subforum for information, input and questions. We may not always react (immediately), but your post/suggestion/... will be read and discussed.

I find it really hard to comprehend how the presence of one lone person ranting against cis men in this forum can have the effect of making this an "unsafe space"

Because one person's ranting can be all that's needed to make you feel very unwelcome indeed.
We want this forum to be a welcoming space for everyone, not only for those who might have a harder time being welcomed in society at large.

A "welcoming space" and a "safe space" are not the same thing, although they have some aspects in common.

So if somebody tells you they wish they could kick you out, saying they would if it were a physical meeting instead of an online discussion, would you describe this as "not a welcoming space" or "not a safe space" for you?

Because one person's ranting can be all that's needed to make you feel very unwelcome indeed.
We want this forum to be a welcoming space for everyone, not only for those who might have a harder time being welcomed in society at large.

But that isn't really possible anyway, is it? People can and do feel unwelcome for all sorts of reasons that aren't necessarily under our control. I have seen all of the following happen on this forum:

► Show Spoiler

a) Some people feel unwelcome because they feel a social privilege that they have is being taken away and they perceive that as a personal attack or even a crisis.
b) Others feel unwelcome because they do not have certain social privileges and find themselves being attacked on those grounds.
c) Still others feel unwelcome because they hold political views that are unpopular with other users or even get them banned.

There are also people who feel unwelcome because:

d) no one (including the admins) seems to like them even though they're really very nice people if you bother to try making friends with them,
e) they have witnessed other people being attacked or even banned and that scares them away from the forum or at least from certain parts of the forum where it turns out they actually are welcome, or
f) they have a mental disorder/illness/whatever that prevents them from getting along with other people or even sometimes from being civil to other users, or that causes them to perceive personal attacks where others can see that none were made.

g) And finally, there are people who feel unwelcome because of some combination of the above reasons.

So who do you want this to be a welcoming space for, exactly? Surely it's obvious that you can't please everyone. You really have no choice but to take some sort of clear stand on who you will and will not accept beyond just "we will not accept spammers or people who we think consistently break the rules."

Obviously, the raison d'être for this forum is to provide a place where people can practise and discuss language(s), but we want this forum to be a welcoming space for everyone who adheres to the rules (I'd like to refer to the forum policy here, specifically point 2: behaviour and general rules).

What I was talking about in my earlier post, was not because of any of these reasons.
I'm not going to say anything about people who feel unwelcome because of bans or ban-worthy offenses, because that means they didn't follow the forum rules, so they have themselves to thank for not feeling welcome.

I'm not sure you are talking about in d). I do my best not to let any personal thoughts or feelings I may have about other members or posts influence the tone or content of what I say here; and definitely not what I say or do as an admin. I think I can speak for all other admins here as well.
As for f), there are people in the admin team who've been trying to cope with mental health problems for years, so we do try to be understanding of such things, but surely you can see how being treated uncivilly/attacked without provocation would make other members feel unwelcome? If someone is prone to moods where their abily to judge fairly/behave civilly/..., perhaps something could be worked out? I recently found out there's a possibility for pre-moderating posts. Or less drastic, if you said something you uncivil or perceived a personal attack where none was made, you could go back and edit your post (if it wasn't very long ago), or apologise in the same thread.

[dEhiN]

Actually speaking of racism, let me illustrate my point with an example. Based on what linguoboy and Lauren are arguing, it would be ok for me to write "I can't stand white people and I'm doing my best to avoid them" on here. Further, if then someone who is white were to take offense to that, or argue in any way that I couldn't write that, I could say "well I'm brown and you're white, and you don't know what it's like to face rascim but I do, so it's completely acceptable for me to say that".

And to me, that isn't acceptable!

I wouldn't blame you one bit if you said that, to be honest. I know you're a person of color, and I definitely know quite a bit about racism. As much as an angry white trans woman can know. If you ranted and said you hate white people and have nothing to do with them, I'd understand one hundred percent, because that's exactly the same thing as what I said. People of color have a fuckton of reasons to be mad at and even hate white people. I would completely understand them being sick and tired of racist people. I wouldn't be surprised if there are people of color that wasn't nothing to do with white people, racist or not, and I support them (well, condone, I guess). They have the right to be angry.

So, let me sum up what I did, from my point of view:

1) I was really fucking angry because of really disgusting misogyny and vented about it, saying I hate all men and want nothing to do with them.
2) After I calmed down I don't actually feel that way. I was really fucking angry, and for good reason. There's no way in hell I'll ever just sit idly by and be happy with what misogynists do. I don't actually hate every single cis man though, I was just really frustrated. Sometimes I just get worked up because anger at misogyny. And mental illness.

I've had a friend of color say that they hated white people because they were pissed off at institutionalized racism. Obviously they didn't direct that at me and I understood where they were coming from and didn't take it personally. If they did actually hate all white people I would understand that too.

Thanks for summing it up and clarifying Lauren. In regard to being ok with generalizing, I used to be that way as well. But as I made in my point number 1, generalizing still is in a sense attacking every person who fits in that group you're attacking. And I don't agree with that - I believe in separating out people as individuals, which is really what each of us is.

So I was thinking a lot today about why I was so upset with what you wrote, and why I reacted the way I did, going beyond just saying your comments hurt me. It's because I've been the victim of abuse from women several times in my life, including about a year long sexual abuse situation from a female teacher when I was a toddler, and a more recent situation about 15 months ago. And your comments triggered that fear. It suddenly made me feel not safe here. Rationally I knew of course that your comments were just words. But especially combined with previous rants I've seen you make, I thought maybe this is a general attitude you have - animosity or hatred toward all cis men / cis people - and that attitude could result in you attacking any post I make if it triggers this animosity. And I didn't want to then be afraid of having a potentially innocent comment being attacked.

Granted, that's not the same as fear of being physically attacked, but it would still create the same result - make me feel unwelcome and unsafe here in a space that I feel quite safe in.

And that's why I went beyond just saying "your comments hurt", or "I didn't like them", and even when you responded that it was just a vent/rant, I kept going on about not generalizing. From my point of view, it wasn't about whether you personally hated all men or not; it wasn't about whether you were just ranting or not; it wasn't even about whether you have the right to rant. It was about how I, someone who falls into the general category you railed against, had traumatic experiences and associated fears triggered because of your generalizing.

And if I'm not mistaken, I believe that was the point behind Varislinu and Aurinia's posts as well - making a generalized statement (even in just a rant) has the potential to affect someone who fits the group you're attacking, and you never know who you're affecting.

Edit: Incidentally, personally I work hard to not generalize - to not hate all white people for racism I've faced, to not hate all women for what I wrote above, to not hate all Christians for sexual orientation based bigotry. I work hard to both not have that overall attitude, and also when I experience any of those 3 forms of prejudice in the present, to not even temporarily generalize. To still see it as the person displaying the prejudice is just that - an individual and the prejudice is about who they are, not about any categories they fit into.

[mōdgethanc]

A whole lot of ink spilled could have been avoiding if Vlurch hadn't jumped all over Lauren's post and gotten offended with a capital O and made that bullshit post full of strawmanning and Godwinning.

Lauren was mad when she said that. She didn't mean it. I was briefly annoyed, and I got over it. Certain people here should do the same.

[linguoboy]

Like Varislintu, I felt a need to distance myself from this discussion and this forum for a while. With the time that has passed, I can't see much point in restating arguments I've already made here and elsewhere, but there were one or two outstanding questions I wanted to address.

Incidentally, I don't perceive this space as a welcoming or a safe one and that has nothing to do with the sentiments expressed by particular members and everything to do with how power is exercised within it.

I'm not sure how to interpret this. What exactly do you mean? That we use (abuse) the power we've been given to do as we see fit? My own partner, who was then a member of admin team, left UniLang because he was made to feel unwelcome and unsafe; do you really think I wouldn't have permabanned the people responsible for that if I felt fine exercising power as I see fit, instead of adhering to the forum policy, trying to be as fair as possible? Years ago, we drew up a forum policy and a ban policy, to avoid arbitrary decisions, and to make the decision-making process as fair as possible. We published these policies, so that all members can see them and know how this forum is moderated. If there is anything you or any other member would like to see changed, or would like to be clarified more, there is a whole subforum for information, input and questions. We may not always react (immediately), but your post/suggestion/... will be read and discussed.

When I say that I don't perceive this space as safe, what that means is that I am not comfortable discussing the manner in which this board is moderated on the board itself, full stop. If you're genuinely interested in hearing my opinions, we might be able to do that via PM or email but only with guarantees that what we say remains confidential and will not be shared with other moderators without my express consent.

I'm not going to say anything about people who feel unwelcome because of bans or ban-worthy offenses, because that means they didn't follow the forum rules, so they have themselves to thank for not feeling welcome.

Next time I need an example to illustrate what it means to beg the question, I will use this.

dEhiN, I said before that I'm sorry Lauren's statements made you uncomfortable and I meant that. I don't agree with Varislintu's attempts to twist that into a non-apology apology, since I can't very well take responsibility for remarks which I myself did not make. However, I can and should take responsibility for my own actions. I apologise for not responding to you with more empathy. As I said, it's something I'm working on and all I can do is promise to try harder in future.

Marah, if you want to have a serious conversation here about intersectionality, racial hierarchies, and other concepts necessary to understanding and discussing the effects of structural racism, we can certainly do that (though it would save a lot of time if you would do some reading up on the topic on your own first). Suffice to say it's considerably more nuanced than "non-Whites can't be racist" and your litany of questions comes off more like sea-lioning than an honest attempt to engage the issue.

[הענט]

Who says that only minorities can be opressed or discriminated against?

Alls I'm gonna say is:

2) It's funny how cis men are trying to tell me, a trans woman, who is frequently the target of both transphobia and misogyny, that I should be nicer to cis men, who are privileged as fuck and never targets of transmisogyny. Check your privilege, please.

Could you give me a few examples of transphobia? And how exactly is more okay to say :"I hate cis men!", than "I hate trans women?". Is it more okay to be called a white piece of shit by a black person, than being called a black piece of shit by a white person. It's the same hate stemming from one's fear. I can't tell the difference.

[vijayjohn]

Who says that only minorities can be opressed or discriminated against?

Somebody unfamiliar with the European occupation of countries all over the world, I suppose.

Could you give me a few examples of transphobia?

I think you'll find plenty right here.

And how exactly is more okay to say :"I hate cis men!", than "I hate trans women?". Is it more okay to be called a white piece of shit by a black person, than being called a black piece of shit by a white person. It's the same hate stemming from one's fear. I can't tell the difference.

Because we live in societies where there are measures in place to protect cis men and white people, but not so many to protect trans women or black people. In fact, we have so few such measures that black people are disproportionately targeted by the police in this country and (as you can tell from the Wikipedia article I just linked to) trans people are consistently shot or stabbed multiple times, which surely would not happen if there really were effective measures to protect them.

[Meera]

Who says that only minorities can be opressed or discriminated against?

Somebody unfamiliar with the European occupation of countries all over the world, I suppose.

I think discrimnation can happen anywhere and to anyone. For example when I hear other Muslims in the United States call people of other relegions kaffir or "don't trust him/her because they are kaffir," that is still discrimnation even though Muslims are a minority here. I'm sure there are other examples like this in other cultures but this is one that I see a lot and it really bothers me.

[dEhiN]

Who says that only minorities can be opressed or discriminated against?

Somebody unfamiliar with the European occupation of countries all over the world, I suppose.

Don't you mean somebody familiar with ...? Dr. House is arguing that those in the majority can be opressed or discriminated against too. If you're familiar with (Western) European colonization, then you would probably think that only minorities can be opressed/discriminated against.

Could you give me a few examples of transphobia?

I think you'll find plenty right here.

He may have meant specifically for examples of Lauren being the recipient of transphobia here on UL. I could be wrong, but I'm sure he can think of general examples of transphobia or look up general examples himself.

And how exactly is more okay to say :"I hate cis men!", than "I hate trans women?". Is it more okay to be called a white piece of shit by a black person, than being called a black piece of shit by a white person. It's the same hate stemming from one's fear. I can't tell the difference.

Because we live in societies where there are measures in place to protect cis men and white people, but not so many to protect trans women or black people. In fact, we have so few such measures that black people are disproportionately targeted by the police in this country and (as you can tell from the Wikipedia article I just linked to) trans people are consistently shot or stabbed multiple times, which surely would not happen if there really were effective measures to protect them.

Your answer doesn't counter his point Vijay. All your answer says is that in today's societies, discrimination tends to mostly happen in one or a few directions. But his point (and mine earlier) is that in principle, discrimination can happen to anyone, anywhere.

Yeah, discrimination in most places tends to usually happen in one direction. For example, if a white person is shot by a black person, white people in the US probably don't think they en masse are being targeted because most likely that one particular individual was being targeted. Yet that's probably not the case in the opposite direction.

But in theory that doesn't mean a black person can't discriminate against white people. That doesn't mean that every single murder commited by a black person against a white person was done so against the individual for who he/she was, and not at all for the fact that they are white.

Someone hating cis men as a group is still hating everyone of a group without getting to know each person in that group. They are showing discrimination just as much as the person hating trans women as a group.

[vijayjohn]

Don't you mean somebody familiar with ...? Dr. House is arguing that those in the majority can be opressed or discriminated against too. If you're familiar with (Western) European colonization, then you would probably think that only minorities can be opressed/discriminated against.

No, I mean someone unfamiliar with it, just as I said. Think about the British occupation of India, for instance. British people discriminated against Indians - the majority population - on Indian soil and kept them oppressed.

He may have meant specifically for examples of Lauren being the recipient of transphobia here on UL. I could be wrong, but I'm sure he can think of general examples of transphobia or look up general examples himself.

I've interacted with this user before, and based on that, I don't think so.

Your answer doesn't counter his point Vijay. All your answer says is that in today's societies, discrimination tends to mostly happen in one or a few directions. But his point (and mine earlier) is that in principle, discrimination can happen to anyone, anywhere.

Actually, I feel it's your answer that doesn't counter my point. I never said discrimination couldn't happen to anyone anywhere. I'm not as sure as you seem to feel you are that his point is merely that discrimination can happen to anyone anywhere, but if it is, then well, frankly, duh. That's already been said here; no one questioned that.

[dEhiN]

Yeah maybe I misread the intent behind Dr. House's points. And I get your point about the European colonization now; I guess I assumed noone would ever think that way.

[vijayjohn]

Thanks!

Who says that only minorities can be opressed or discriminated against?

Somebody unfamiliar with the European occupation of countries all over the world, I suppose.

I think discrimnation can happen anywhere and to anyone. For example when I hear other Muslims in the United States call people of other relegions kaffir or "don't trust him/her because they are kaffir," that is still discrimnation even though Muslims are a minority here. I'm sure there are other examples like this in other cultures but this is one that I see a lot and it really bothers me.

Yes, absolutely, you're right, and it can. The reason why I didn't say this was because he also said "oppressed." Anyone can discriminate against anyone else, but I'm not sure whether it's true that anyone can oppress anyone else.

[linguoboy]

Is it more okay to be called a white piece of shit by a black person, than being called a black piece of shit by a white person. It's the same hate stemming from one's fear. I can't tell the difference.

I can. For White people, I think it is primarily "hate stemming from fear" which prompts this sort of reaction. But for Black people, at least in this country, it's more often motivated by anger at what White people have done to them.

[dEhiN]

Is it more okay to be called a white piece of shit by a black person, than being called a black piece of shit by a white person. It's the same hate stemming from one's fear. I can't tell the difference.

I can. For White people, I think it is primarily "hate stemming from fear" which prompts this sort of reaction. But for Black people, at least in this country, it's more often motivated by anger at what White people have done to them.

Fear and also I'm sure institutionalized racist attitudes that white skin means superiority.

[linguoboy]

Fear and also I'm sure institutionalized racist attitudes that white skin means superiority.

But I think a lot of the fear comes from the uncertainty that it really does any more. White people are absolutely terrified of the prospect that POC will treat them the way they've always treated POC--to the point where most think this is already happening.

[Lauren]

Maybe, just maybe, if I'm lucky, someone will read this and finally understand what I've been trying to say. I really hope so.

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/12/ton ... privilege/

[johnklepac]

Maybe, just maybe, if I'm lucky, someone will read this and finally understand what I've been trying to say. I really hope so.

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/12/ton ... privilege/

I agree that tone policing is nothing but a needless dismissal of often legitimate points without even bothering to pretend to be logical. And a lot of people on the right already (and equally rightly so) get upset at this tactic from people on the left; they just have different words for it (e.g. "muh feelings").

However, I also think there are a couple things that are often confused for tone policing:
1. Calling activists out for being jerks. There's nothing wrong with expecting people to at least be civil to you if they're expecting you to pay an open mind to their beliefs. Some will get on the defensive and equivocate around the issue - and this will make them look like even more asinine tone policers because they can't seem to articulate why their feelings are hurt when it's really just that they don't want to be just as boisterous themselves.
2. Advising them on their activism strategies. Granted, this isn't always appropriate, as they may not always be asking for advice. But it's not like it's a foreign concept that people are more willing to listen to opinions that are different from their own when the presenter of these opinions is calm, accommodating, and of an obvious mindset to simply express their feelings rather than to beat you over the head with them. These tone policers may well be on your side, even if it's not the advice you particularly need to hear right then.

Of course, if someone's being even more of a dick than an activist is and yet still accusing them of being worse, then that's dumb.

[linguoboy]

2. Advising them on their activism strategies.

My dad used to say to us that he'd stopped giving us advice because he figured that if we hadn't asked for it, we weren't likely to follow it anyway. This is a rule of thumb with almost universal applicability.

Moreover, I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen where the people expressing their opinion on what the activists in question should do have any real experience with activism themselves.