Discrimination

This forum is the place to have more serious discussions about politics and religion, and your opinions thereof. Be courteous!

Moderators: Global Moderators, Forum Administrators

Forum rules
When a registered user insults another person (user or not), nation, political group or religious group, s/he will be deprived of her/his permission to post in the forum. That user has the right to re-register one week after s/he has lost the permission. Further violations will result in longer prohibitions.

By default, you are automatically registered to post in this forum. However, users cannot post in the politics forum during the first week after registration. Users can also not make their very first post in the politics forum.
User avatar
Aurinĭa
Forum Administrator
Posts: 3389
Joined: 2008-05-14, 21:18
Gender: female
Country: BE Belgium (België / Belgique)

Discrimination

Postby Aurinĭa » 2015-06-08, 22:13

Given the number of threads about various kinds of discrimination, I thought it might be a good idea to open a general thread about the topic, in which any kind of discrimination can be discussed. There are a number of threads for specific kinds, these can be discussed there (feminism, sexism, racism, homophobia).

I have a few examples to start the thread with, all things that appeared in the media recently.
A woman has to crawl into a plane because no ramp was provided for her wheelchair, severly dyslexic student has to leave university because she wasn't given the necessary support, discrimination on the job market after depression depends on the gender of the recruiter and candidate. I also read an article last year which talked about what essentially amounted to legal trading of severely disabled people across national borders in the EU. It surprises me how widespread discrimination against disabled people is, and how little it is considered to be a problem.

Edit: The discussion about the thread has been moved to Unilang - Information, Input, and Questions.

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 17645
Joined: 2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name: Vijay John
Gender: male
Location: Austin
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Discrimination

Postby vijayjohn » 2015-06-13, 23:18

New post about casteism then.

I found this video (on the All India Bakchod YouTube channel), apparently about the difficulties Indians face nowadays in trying to get into college even if they get very good grades. A lot of the comments are really casteist and basically criticizing affirmative action in favor of lower caste people. I remember my dad saying that this kind of affirmative action has actually proven to be very effective in India.

In fact, this reminds me of the movie I had posted earlier (twice, actually), which has since been taken down from YouTube. The relevant parts are the end of this clip (from 7:58), showing upper-caste people in Gujarat complaining about and protesting against affirmative action:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-xzZ0-Ex8E
Also, the end of this clip (from 7:56) and the beginning of the next one (below it, upto about 1:57), showing first a Hindu priest from Varanasi known for his extreme views in favor of the caste system and who claims that Dalits just don't have it in them to get an education, immediately followed by a Dalit woman with a master's in philosophy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKTxr30h8CE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyWQab8fkoE

CityBird
Posts: 48
Joined: 2012-07-30, 2:53
Gender: male
Country: SG Singapore (Singapore / 新加坡 / Singapura)

Re: Discrimination

Postby CityBird » 2015-09-10, 1:59

Interesting videos. Although many wouldn't want to admit this but you'd be surprised how much class segregation there still is in far more developed societies, both institutional and habitual, maybe not to the same extent as shown in this video, still far from completely absent. A bit ironic if you ask me since not a single day goes by in this day and age without being confronted in the media with racial, gender, or sexual orientation discrimination.

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 20489
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Discrimination

Postby linguoboy » 2015-09-10, 3:13

That's "ironic" in the Alanis Morrisette sense, I take it.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

Koko
Posts: 5265
Joined: 2013-11-29, 6:50
Real Name: Jon Stockman
Gender: male
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Discrimination

Postby Koko » 2015-09-10, 7:05

I watched a VSauce video a while ago, and he noted that a lot of what doesn't appear to be irony (and just misfortune and such) could be, not situational irony (as many only associate the word with), but dramatic irony in the point of view of life. I forget examples, but one was where like in the song she says something about having so many spoons when all you need is a knife: you think you need a knife, but life knows you actually need a spoon or two (or 100).

And sorry that I have no real contribution to this thread :oops: . I just simply don't really have any experiences (first-, second-, or third-hand) with discrimination and don't know much on issues involving it.

User avatar
Lauren
Posts: 3581
Joined: 2012-04-09, 7:50
Real Name: Lauren
Gender: female
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: US United States (United States)

Random language thread 4 [SPLIT - merge with discrimination]

Postby Lauren » 2015-11-10, 3:07

I was trying to find a let's play of Ni no Kuni on YouTube by someone that wasn't a man. I finally came across a woman she's playing the game in German and speaking German. At first I was sad since I don't speak German, but the game's voice recordings are in English still, and I decided to take it as an opportunity to do something with languages as well, and passively brush up on my decrepit German a bit. 8-) I did something similar when trying to find a woman on Twitch and came across a Spanish channel and stayed a bit to learn some Spanish. :D
Native:            (en-US)
Advanced:       (eu)
Just started:    (cs)
Trans woman  Image

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 17645
Joined: 2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name: Vijay John
Gender: male
Location: Austin
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby vijayjohn » 2015-11-10, 3:31

How do you tell whether they're a man or not?

User avatar
Lauren
Posts: 3581
Joined: 2012-04-09, 7:50
Real Name: Lauren
Gender: female
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby Lauren » 2015-11-10, 3:36

I just can't stand to watch/listen to cis men for stuff like this anymore. Haven't really been able to stand cis men in any way at all lately. So I do my best to avoid them.
Native:            (en-US)
Advanced:       (eu)
Just started:    (cs)
Trans woman  Image

User avatar
Vlürch
Posts: 544
Joined: 2014-05-06, 8:42
Gender: male
Location: Roihuvuori, Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby Vlürch » 2015-11-10, 18:20

Lauren wrote:I just can't stand to watch/listen to cis men for stuff like this anymore. Haven't really been able to stand cis men in any way at all lately. So I do my best to avoid them.

Oh boy... :roll:

Seriously, though, since you're transgender and all (it does matter in this context; this is literally one of the few contexts where it does), I'm going to have to repeat Vijay's question: how do you know if they're a man or not? I mean, no offence, but unless they specifically state that they're male eg. by having a male name, then judging by their voice (or appearance if they have a facecam) is sexist and cisnormative and stuff, right? Also, what about trans-closeted people? And what if the man you're referring to used to be a woman? Isn't calling them cis not only offensive but contributes to the FTM oppression that everyone is always going on about despite how it seems that FTM are generally ignored while MTF are called all kinds of shit and threatened because they're trying to "trick men into being gay" and as a result get raped and murdered every single day?

In case you're going to call me a shitlord who doesn't give a shit, that's true, but the fact is that if that's your response to any "problematic questions" regarding gender identity and such, it really just sounds like you don't give a shit except when it's directly related to your personal wellbeing; I think that's perfectly understandable and much better than the alternative, and I'm the same way about things, and I think more people should be able to not give a shit about things that really don't matter in 99% of all contexts (such as whether a person is cis or trans; I mean, c'mon, transgender is called transgender with the prefix "trans-" and in a perfect world nobody would be trans since technology would have reached the level where literally not even doctors could not tell the difference, thus transgender people would be cis once they take the step to transition), but for someone who obviously does at least pretend to care about these things... well...

I mean, you can obviously do whatever you want and I don't want to sound like an asshole, but avoiding cis men is literally impossible in damn near every context and is only going to lead to marginalisation and sexist extremism in the long run. Think about how, if you and a bunch of other transgender/non-binary/whatever people create a society in which you isolate yourselves from all cis men for, say, a year, and then you come across one walking down the street or something. How would you react? You've lost all tolerance for cis men and our inherently oppressive behaviour like not having a problem with the fact that 99% of the world's population is cis, and if a legit cis man happened to smile at you in a grocery store... well, you'd probably assume that he's going to rape you, right? I hear people already do that all the time in America, even without having isolated themselves from cis men, and post on tumblr about how they think they should have the legal right to kill any cis man who looks at them... like... what do you think would happen? Because, even if you personally are not the kind of person who thinks it should be ok to kill a man for smiling at you, if you isolate yourself from cis men, you are also most likely going to isolate yourself from cis women except for lesbians because the majority of cis women have the same worldview as cis men whether you like it or not, and as such you will by definition end up hearing only one side of the story; the story of oppression. If you hear "he raped me, then his friend raped me, and then his father raped me, and then his friend's father raped me, I MEAN THEY LITERALLY PHYSICALLY LOOKED AT ME" (and, in case you don't know, there are a lot of people out there who include that in the definition of rape) every day for a while, you will start to believe it's true; you'll think that a man looking at you is the exact same as him violently forcing you to have sex with him; and that only leads to paranoia and prejudice, which results in discrimination and oppression.

Now, I know according to feminism men can't be discriminated against or oppressed, but that's because of societal attitudes. Even if it was true that it does not constitute discrimination for you to not associate with a man because he's a man, what if that became the norm? It might never become the norm, most likely never will, but it would absolutely be discrimination. And, it already is the norm in some parts of the internet, so the mindset is already out there and it's influencing more and more people. As more and more women get government positions (which I believe is a good thing), it's more and more likely that one of them will be a radical feminist who will end up proposing a law to allow any non-cis and/or non-man to kill any cis man for looking at them. Will it pass? No. Absolutely not in hell... but the more and more likely it will become that such a law is going to be proposed, and similar laws that are not as harsh will be passed and already have been passed. It may not bother you as it won't affect you, but what about the people it does affect? Aren't all people equal? Or are cis men not included in equality because we're "not even people" like many of the most radical feminists are proclaiming? Do you agree that we should be put to camps until we learn to behave like humans and that 90% of us should be killed just for being cis men? I'm going to assume you don't, but there are more and more people out there who do, and they are getting louder and louder and gaining more and more political power; sure, they may still be far from even opening their mouth without getting laughed at, but it's inevitable that eventually they'll have positions in government jobs and the justice system and whatnot.
Last edited by Ashucky on 2015-11-11, 22:52, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Removed off-topic content.

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 20489
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby linguoboy » 2015-11-10, 18:43

Vlürch wrote:I'm going to assume you don't, but there are more and more people out there who do, and they are getting louder and louder and gaining more and more political power; sure, they may still be far from even opening their mouth without getting laughed at, but it's inevitable that eventually they'll have positions in government jobs and the justice system and whatnot.

[citation badly needed]

Classical slippery slope fallacy. I know it can be frightening to see an oppressed group finally achieving some redress after centuries of uncontested domination, but it doesn't follow from this that they will eventually gain enough power to turn the tables and oppress you instead. But if the possibility worries you, then it behooves you to do what you can do to meet more moderate demands for equality, since this will have the effect of undercutting support for more radical solutions.
Last edited by Ashucky on 2015-11-11, 22:52, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Removed off-topic content.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
dEhiN
Posts: 4711
Joined: 2013-08-18, 2:51
Real Name: David
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)
Contact:

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby dEhiN » 2015-11-11, 2:40

linguoboy wrote:
Vlürch wrote:I'm going to assume you don't, but there are more and more people out there who do, and they are getting louder and louder and gaining more and more political power; sure, they may still be far from even opening their mouth without getting laughed at, but it's inevitable that eventually they'll have positions in government jobs and the justice system and whatnot.

[citation badly needed]

Classical slippery slope fallacy. I know it can be frightening to see an oppressed group finally achieving some redress after centuries of uncontested domination, but it doesn't follow from this that they will eventually gain enough power to turn the tables and oppress you instead. But if the possibility worries you, then it behooves you to do what you can do to meet more moderate demands for equality, since this will have the effect of undercutting support for more radical solutions.

Probably going OT here, but redress is quite different from some of the things Vlürch was referring to. And though I agree with you about citation(s) being needed, and I especially agree with you about the usage of the word "inevitable", responding specifically to Lauren's comment, I second much of Vlürch's points. At the core, I see Lauren's comment as going beyond simple redress to reverse discrimination. On what grounds has she not been able to stand cis men in any way lately? If mostly or solely on the basis of them being cis, while everyone is entitled to their personal opinion, I contest her ability to state that in a public forum if the reverse were not true. That is, if I or any one of the cis men here, were not able to state that they have not been able to stand trans women in any way lately without getting a backlash from at least Lauren herself, then I don't think she should have a right to state that. At the least, a statement like that from her, based on her responses and comments in the past, sounds hypocritical. And at the most, it sounds out and out discrimanatory.
My TAC for 2017.

(en-CA) (fr) (es) (pt-BR) (ko) (sv) (sq) (ga)

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 20489
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby linguoboy » 2015-11-11, 3:13

dEhiN wrote:At the core, I see Lauren's comment as going beyond simple redress to reverse discrimination.

Which would be a valid complaint if "reverse discrimination" were a thing. But Aamer Rahman lays out pretty lucidly why it's not:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw_mRaIHb-M

dEhiN wrote:On what grounds has she not been able to stand cis men in any way lately? If mostly or solely on the basis of them being cis, while everyone is entitled to their personal opinion, I contest her ability to state that in a public forum if the reverse were not true. That is, if I or any one of the cis men here, were not able to state that they have not been able to stand trans women in any way lately without getting a backlash from at least Lauren herself, then I don't think she should have a right to state that. At the least, a statement like that from her, based on her responses and comments in the past, sounds hypocritical. And at the most, it sounds out and out discrimanatory.

So how exactly are you, I, or any of the other cis men on this forum being "discriminated against"? How does Lauren's opinion as expressed here have any impact on our lives at all? Are you some how being prevented from doing or saying any of the things you would have before she spoke up?

As for your "rights", this is as perfect an example of the right to freeze peach as anyone could ask for. She expressed an opinion you dislike and you and Vlürch expressed your dislike of that opinion. No one has faced any sanction for their words, so where exactly is the problem?
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
dEhiN
Posts: 4711
Joined: 2013-08-18, 2:51
Real Name: David
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)
Contact:

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby dEhiN » 2015-11-11, 3:56

linguoboy wrote:
dEhiN wrote:At the core, I see Lauren's comment as going beyond simple redress to reverse discrimination.

Which would be a valid complaint if "reverse discrimination" were a thing. But Aamer Rahman lays out pretty lucidly why it's not:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw_mRaIHb-M

Perhaps the term "reverse discrimination/racism/prejudice/etc." is not correct, but I disagree that someone from a group that has traditionally been discrimnated against cannot themselves become a discriminator. It all depends on your motivation, in my opinion. If I start having a dislike or even hatred toward anyone whose skin colour is white, solely on the basis that their skin colour is white, how is that not being racist?

linguoboy wrote:
dEhiN wrote:On what grounds has she not been able to stand cis men in any way lately? If mostly or solely on the basis of them being cis, while everyone is entitled to their personal opinion, I contest her ability to state that in a public forum if the reverse were not true. That is, if I or any one of the cis men here, were not able to state that they have not been able to stand trans women in any way lately without getting a backlash from at least Lauren herself, then I don't think she should have a right to state that. At the least, a statement like that from her, based on her responses and comments in the past, sounds hypocritical. And at the most, it sounds out and out discrimanatory.

So how exactly are you, I, or any of the other cis men on this forum being "discriminated against"? How does Lauren's opinion as expressed here have any impact on our lives at all? Are you some how being prevented from doing or saying any of the things you would have before she spoke up?

As for your "rights", this is as perfect an example of the right to freeze peach as anyone could ask for. She expressed an opinion you dislike and you and Vlürch expressed your dislike of that opinion. No one has faced any sanction for their words, so where exactly is the problem?

You're right; no one has faced any sanctions and and all this was were opinions being expressed. I admit I made assumptions - first of how I thought Lauren would respond if a cis man on here were to make an equivalent statement of trans women; second of your response to Vlürch's comments as an attack on his ability to express dislike of her comment.
My TAC for 2017.

(en-CA) (fr) (es) (pt-BR) (ko) (sv) (sq) (ga)

User avatar
Yasna
Posts: 1769
Joined: 2011-09-12, 1:17
Gender: male
Location: Boston
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby Yasna » 2015-11-11, 3:59

linguoboy wrote:Which would be a valid complaint if "reverse discrimination" were a thing. But Aamer Rahman lays out pretty lucidly why it's not:

You and that comedian are just playing word games. When people talk about reverse racism/discrimination, they aren't talking about the ivory tower brand of racism that depends on societal power structures. I don't know what you like to call these phenomena (racially insensitive language? racially motivated hate crimes?) but they certainly exist, even if people don't express it with the terminology you prefer.
Ein Buch muß die Axt sein für das gefrorene Meer in uns. - Kafka

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 20489
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby linguoboy » 2015-11-11, 4:07

dEhiN wrote:Perhaps the term "reverse discrimination/racism/prejudice/etc." is not correct, but I disagree that someone from a group that has traditionally been discrimnated against cannot themselves become a discriminator. It all depends on your motivation, in my opinion. If I start having a dislike or even hatred toward anyone whose skin colour is white, solely on the basis that their skin colour is white, how is that not being racist?

You can be bigoted against any class of people you like--cis men, Estonian-Americans, people named "Sylvia". But if you don't have significant societal power reinforcing your prejudices, their impact will be nugatory. We've explained this dynamic several times over by this point, in the Racism thread and elsewhere.

I'll ask again: in what way are you being "discriminated against" here? What is the concrete effect of Lauren saying she's fed up with cis men and how does it differ from the concrete effect of someone else saying they've had it with people on Facebook or guys who wear vests?

dEhiN wrote:second of your response to Vlürch's comments as an attack on his ability to express dislike of her comment.

I didn't make any mention of Lauren's comments in my response to Vlürch. My reply focused solely on an argument he made in his third paragraph of tangential ranting about how the "radfems" are coming someday to cut our balls off.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
Lauren
Posts: 3581
Joined: 2012-04-09, 7:50
Real Name: Lauren
Gender: female
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby Lauren » 2015-11-11, 8:19

Alls I'm gonna say is:

1) Cis men like Vluerch are why I need intersectional feminism. And
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.

Read this for a bit more insight on why I tend to hate cis men, because I do not have the desire right now to write more about it. I even admitted that I don't hate every single cis man alive in that post. Happy? :roll:
Native:            (en-US)
Advanced:       (eu)
Just started:    (cs)
Trans woman  Image

User avatar
dEhiN
Posts: 4711
Joined: 2013-08-18, 2:51
Real Name: David
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)
Contact:

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby dEhiN » 2015-11-11, 9:18

linguoboy wrote:
dEhiN wrote:Perhaps the term "reverse discrimination/racism/prejudice/etc." is not correct, but I disagree that someone from a group that has traditionally been discrimnated against cannot themselves become a discriminator. It all depends on your motivation, in my opinion. If I start having a dislike or even hatred toward anyone whose skin colour is white, solely on the basis that their skin colour is white, how is that not being racist?

You can be bigoted against any class of people you like--cis men, Estonian-Americans, people named "Sylvia". But if you don't have significant societal power reinforcing your prejudices, their impact will be nugatory. We've explained this dynamic several times over by this point, in the Racism thread and elsewhere.

I agree that systemic bigotry wherein societal prejudices are feeding into your bigoted worldview exists, and the impact of said systemic bigotry is large. But I don't believe that means the impact of someone who is a bigot but toward some group where there is no societal prejudice is nugatory. At least it may seem that way to the general populus. But not if that person decides to take harmful action against a member of the group they have a prejudice toward. And while I don't have a specific example to give you, I am fairly sure that somewhere in this world, at some point in time, somebody had a prejudice toward a class of people that wasn't reinforced by society, and in their bigotry caused harmful action toward a member of said class. I am fairly sure of this because anybody is capable of harmful actions, and you don't need to have society explicitly or implicitly back up your worldview in order to act based on that view, if that's what you so desire. (I'm trying to over-generalize here; so you've lost my logic, I can give an example to illustrate).

linguoboy wrote:I'll ask again: in what way are you being "discriminated against" here? What is the concrete effect of Lauren saying she's fed up with cis men and how does it differ from the concrete effect of someone else saying they've had it with people on Facebook or guys who wear vests?

In my eyes, the difference between someone saying they've had it with people on Facebook versus they've had it with a particular cross-section of society that's based on race/gender/sexual orientation/religion is potentially quite large. The reason being historical experience. If someone gets fed up with people on FB, there isn't the possibility of them deciding to carry out unwelcoming and potentially eventually harmful actions toward all those on FB. That clearly is not the case with grouping those of a particular race/gender/etc. and then getting "fed up" with them. To me, that's the big reason why all Human Rights Codes specify race/gender/etc. but not groupings such as "guys who wear vests".

And as for how was I being discriminated against, it was the thought of what an attitude such as what she wrote could lead to. Meaning, I've experienced this "anti-cis-men" attitude of hers in the past with respect to posts I've made. And I am fine with, if I post something that indicates I am being close-minded or prejudiced, being alerted to it or even challenged on it. That's not the sense I got from her responses. It seemed to be one more based on the phrase she's used several times "check your privilege".

Please don't get me wrong: regardless of my own personal views on things, I believe that someone should be free to express themselves - their thoughts, feelings, opinions, etc. But I responded to all of this because I honestly don't believe that if someone had written "I'm fed up with trans women" or even "I'm fed up with women", it would have been left alone as 'that's that person's opinion'. In fact, and I'm definitely being presumptious here, I'm fairly certain Lauren would be one of the users who, had someone written that and she saw it, responded strongly. So that's really what I'm attacking here - the fact that if someone on this forum could not write "I'm fed up with women" without facing a backlash, then someone on this forum should not be able to write "I'm fed up with cis men" without also facing a backlash.

linguoboy wrote:
dEhiN wrote:second of your response to Vlürch's comments as an attack on his ability to express dislike of her comment.

I didn't make any mention of Lauren's comments in my response to Vlürch. My reply focused solely on an argument he made in his third paragraph of tangential ranting about how the "radfems" are coming someday to cut our balls off.

Yeah, I'm aware of that. I was trying to concede that my intial comments were based on assumptions, instead of what was actually written.

Lauren wrote: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.

Do you think you are the only one to have ever experienced being discriminated against (in general, not with respect to specific prejudices)? Further, do you think that cis men (as a group since that seems to be how you are referring to them) have never experienced discrimination? Or rather, let me be specific: do you think no cis man have ever experienced discrimination? I do agree with you that the majority of cis men have and still experience great privilege due to many of today's societies being patriarchal. But just as how I'm sure you would not want anyone to group you in with all trans women and make general, sweeping statements about trans woman as if it applied to all, please don't do that to all cis men. I'm not asking you to be nicer to cis men. I'm not trying to say I understand what it's like to be the target of transphobia or misogyny. But I am saying even if the stats were to show 99% of cis men have never experienced any form of discrimination and/or fear at the hands of another human being, those same stats would still say that 1% of cis men have. Which means that 1% (and I'm pretty sure it's more than 1%) may actually be trying to keep an open mind and seek to understand the view of anyone who faces discrimination. So, maybe don't generalize because it hurts no matter who you do it with.
My TAC for 2017.

(en-CA) (fr) (es) (pt-BR) (ko) (sv) (sq) (ga)

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 20489
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby linguoboy » 2015-11-11, 14:55

dEhiN wrote:I agree that systemic bigotry wherein societal prejudices are feeding into your bigoted worldview exists, and the impact of said systemic bigotry is large. But I don't believe that means the impact of someone who is a bigot but toward some group where there is no societal prejudice is nugatory. At least it may seem that way to the general populus. But not if that person decides to take harmful action against a member of the group they have a prejudice toward.

So what you're saying is that a person's harmful actions targeted against another specific person are more injurious to that person than a harmful action targeted against a class of people to whom that specific person happens to belong?

dEhiN wrote:
linguoboy wrote:I'll ask again: in what way are you being "discriminated against" here? What is the concrete effect of Lauren saying she's fed up with cis men and how does it differ from the concrete effect of someone else saying they've had it with people on Facebook or guys who wear vests?

In my eyes, the difference between someone saying they've had it with people on Facebook versus they've had it with a particular cross-section of society that's based on race/gender/sexual orientation/religion is potentially quite large. The reason being historical experience. If someone gets fed up with people on FB, there isn't the possibility of them deciding to carry out unwelcoming and potentially eventually harmful actions toward all those on FB.

Why not, in your opinion?

dEhiN wrote:And as for how was I being discriminated against, it was the thought of what an attitude such as what she wrote could lead to.

In other words, you weren't. It was literally all in your own head.

dEhiN wrote:So that's really what I'm attacking here - the fact that if someone on this forum could not write "I'm fed up with women" without facing a backlash, then someone on this forum should not be able to write "I'm fed up with cis men" without also facing a backlash.

So you've lashed back. Good for you! I guess that means we're done here?
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
dEhiN
Posts: 4711
Joined: 2013-08-18, 2:51
Real Name: David
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)
Contact:

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby dEhiN » 2015-11-11, 17:37

linguoboy wrote:
dEhiN wrote:I agree that systemic bigotry wherein societal prejudices are feeding into your bigoted worldview exists, and the impact of said systemic bigotry is large. But I don't believe that means the impact of someone who is a bigot but toward some group where there is no societal prejudice is nugatory. At least it may seem that way to the general populus. But not if that person decides to take harmful action against a member of the group they have a prejudice toward.

So what you're saying is that a person's harmful actions targeted against another specific person are more injurious to that person than a harmful action targeted against a class of people to whom that specific person happens to belong?

I never said one is more harmful than the other. You used the term nugatory, and I'm arguing that in my view it is not nugatory. I think both are equally harmful. I also think that discrimination of any form, regardless of societal influence or not, is not correct.

As for the rest, yeah I guess it was my perception and I was lashing out against that. So yes, we are done. :D
My TAC for 2017.

(en-CA) (fr) (es) (pt-BR) (ko) (sv) (sq) (ga)

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 20489
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby linguoboy » 2015-11-11, 18:53

dEhiN wrote:I also think that discrimination of any form, regardless of societal influence or not, is not correct.

So you give absolutely equal attention to each and every post made by each and every person here? You don't ignore any on the basis of, say, the subject matter, the language they're written in, or the poster? Because if you do, then that's "discrimination".
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons


Return to “Politics and Religion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest