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

Re: Discrimination

Postby Lauren » 2015-12-09, 21:26

I've seen so many people on Facebook news articles say shit like "Those Black Lives Matter people would be taken more seriously if they weren't so angry all the time." Maybe if you stopped to fucking think why they're so angry?!?!?

That is an example of tone policing. And clearly those people are ignorant as fuck and at least implicitly racist and their input is definitely not welcome.
Native:            (en-US)
Advanced:       (eu)
Just started:    (cs)
Trans woman  Image

User avatar
Varislintu
Posts: 15297
Joined: 2004-02-09, 13:32
Real Name: M.
Gender: female
Location: Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Discrimination

Postby Varislintu » 2015-12-21, 15:58

vijayjohn wrote:
How did this go back to being about 'ranting' again?

Um...because that's what she actually...did? :hmm:


Sorry to bring up this dead topic again. But I'm still curious, vijayjohn --- what exactly were you alluding to by saying this, after I had said this just a couple posts earlier?:

Varislintu wrote:I don't have a problem with Lauren ranting against cis men. If that is what's actually being talked about in this thread, then I have no bone to pick. Of course she has a right to do that.

I have a problem with the sentence "I hate men" being thrown out in an apparent not-hyperbolish, not-silly-dramatic way. More like in a deeply-held-disgust kind of way. And then doubling down on it when criticised. That sentence has nothing to do with feminism or oppression or fighting for a cause anymore. Of course people's emotions can't be controlled by others, but I think it's part of normal social behaviour not to tell people you hate their kind, when they haven't asked you to open up about it.


I mean, what were you trying to tell me by saying that when I say 'I mean X not Y', I am actually saying 'I mean Y'? I guess it's a critique of some kind but I just cannot get what exactly you were pointing out.

And well, I guess I have to comment somehow for my part since the last thing I said was I declared taking a break (and then it stretched a bit longer than planned :lol: ). I still feel very strongly that there has to be room within the "minority" grouping to be called out on excessively hurtful language, when that language expresses sentiments that are not part of valid critique but just broad-brush insults of an entire kind (like gender, religion, race or nationality etc), expressed not between two pairs of ears but "publically". I realise that there were many different discussions going on simultaneously, and part of the ensuing reaction was not about principles, but about social relationships. I hope Lauren notices and appreciates how much she is respected here, in that many people stood up and defended her right to make an above-mentioned "broad-brush insult to an entire kind". To the extent that me calling it out generated a "In Varislintu's defense..." post! By a cis man! :lol: :D I have to raise my hat to some of you cis men. :)

There was also a discussion about what is more or less oppressive (depending on who it's expressed by). I agree with that as linguoboy layed it out on the most part, however, I think the imagined "measuring stick" of offensiveness becomes almost useless when we are talking about events in very small social circles and their repercussions (like in a casual discussion on Unilang). What I mean is, the idea that 'men saying they hate women is not as oppressive as women saying they hate men' is absolutely true in our historical and cultural context. However, I also notice that pretty much everybody here agreed that it's not actually ethically right (not really, truly) for a woman to say "I hate men" either. Even Lauren does think she was venting in anger there. Therefore, I gather that the claim is that Lauren's "I hate men" is much less hurtful than a man's "I hate women", but still hurtful and somewhat (ethically, socially) wrong.

Now, this might be a useful observation if we were in an imaginary Who-was-More-Wrong courtroom and handing out imaginary sentences for these exclamations, and had to measure their hurtfulnesses against each other. Lauren's would be judged to earn, say, a fine of 100 dollars, but a man's would earn a fine of 1000. But of course, we're not in a court, and not measuring 'a little hurtful' against 'very much hurtful'. We're in a small social situation where one party was hurtful at all. (Or should I say, in the first place or to begin with -- my English broke down right now.) And we even all agree on this. Topsy turvily (in my view), the "wrong" in this case seems to have been me ally-failing by pointing out this obvious truth that we all agree with, out loud. :hmm:

However, in fact in hind-sight I don't think this has anything to do with patriarchy or feminism, but me and Lauren clashing over meanness. Long-timers here might know that that is the one thing she and I have clashed over repeatedly, and I don't think there's anything to do about that. I can't stand meanness, she likes that style.
Det finns ingen
tröst. Därför
behöver du den inte
(Gösta Ågren)

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 17650
Joined: 2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name: Vijay John
Gender: male
Location: Austin
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Discrimination

Postby vijayjohn » 2015-12-21, 23:18

Welcome back, Varislintu! It's so nice to see you on UniLang again. :)
Varislintu wrote:I mean, what were you trying to tell me by saying that when I say 'I mean X not Y', I am actually saying 'I mean Y'?

I'm sorry, but I think I'm missing something here. When did I tell you anything about what you meant? :hmm: You said "I mean X not Y," and IIRC I was trying to say Y was what Lauren actually was talking about in the first place.
I still feel very strongly that there has to be room within the "minority" grouping to be called out on excessively hurtful language, when that language expresses sentiments that are not part of valid critique but just broad-brush insults of an entire kind (like gender, religion, race or nationality etc), expressed not between two pairs of ears but "publically".

I dunno, I mean, you have every right to feel that way, but I see it differently. Maybe that's because I keep remembering how my grandfather apparently hated all British people until the day he died. (OK, granted, I don't recall him ever saying this publically, but still). When my dad told me that, at first I thought he was nuts to think that way - and if you were Indian, you might have felt the same way. But now that I'm reading his diary, I can kind of see why he might have felt that way. Not all British people were absolutely horrible to him; he himself says some were actually very nice to him. Yet even they encouraged him to go risk his life in a fucking war for the sake of an empire that was all too eager to keep him and his people oppressed. Almost half a century later, he felt nothing had changed in the British people's racist attitudes since that war.

Was that an extreme sentiment on his part? Sure. Do I agree with him? No. But can I blame him for the way he felt? No. Maybe if he had met British people at that time who were against the war, he might not have insisted on that characterization of an entire country. But he never got that opportunity.
I hope Lauren notices and appreciates how much she is respected here, in that many people stood up and defended her right to make an above-mentioned "broad-brush insult to an entire kind".

"Many" people? I think it was a grand total of three. (Excluding herself, of course).
To the extent that me calling it out generated a "In Varislintu's defense..." post! By a cis man! :lol: :D I have to raise my hat to some of you cis men. :)

Thanks, because that's awfully nice of you, but that's just the thing, right? You don't have to because we shouldn't be discriminating against women anyway. Besides, the cis man you speak of used to be way more misogynistic than he is now. :P
What I mean is, the idea that 'men saying they hate women is not as oppressive as women saying they hate men' is absolutely true in our historical and cultural context.

Wait, don't you mean the other way around, i.e. that it's true in our historical and cultural context that men saying they hate women (misogyny) is more oppressive than women saying they hate men (misandry?)?
Topsy turvily (in my view), the "wrong" in this case seems to have been me ally-failing by pointing out this obvious truth that we all agree with, out loud. :hmm:

Taken out of context, I'm not sure there would be anything wrong with this at all. But this came after Vlürch wrote one of his long anti-feminist rants and then dEhiN started out expressing agreement with it, so in that context, it kind of comes across as taking sides with that POV, even though of course that's not what you meant to do.
However, in fact in hind-sight I don't think this has anything to do with patriarchy or feminism, but me and Lauren clashing over meanness. Long-timers here might know that that is the one thing she and I have clashed over repeatedly, and I don't think there's anything to do about that. I can't stand meanness, she likes that style.

You're probably right. I also don't like it at all when people are just mean, especially because it's so easy to go from there to actually discriminating against exactly the same people you say you're trying not to discriminate against. Remember how I was talking with Johanna about how Indians might not see asexuality in the same way as Westerners, and then Lauren tried to call me (and others) out for supposedly not listening to the asexual person? And then after Johanna confirmed that she didn't feel that way about the discussion, I pointed out how what Lauren did amounted to a white person telling a brown person to shut up?

That being said, I don't get the impression that Lauren is just trying to be mean while complaining about misogyny (although maybe that's just me). I think she feels genuinely angry and doesn't feel compelled to be nice about it, either. I agree she isn't compelled to feel nice about it, although I also feel that if I was as angry about racism as she is about misogyny, I think that would actually affect my own health pretty badly. Especially my mental health.

User avatar
Varislintu
Posts: 15297
Joined: 2004-02-09, 13:32
Real Name: M.
Gender: female
Location: Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Discrimination

Postby Varislintu » 2015-12-22, 11:50

vijayjohn wrote:
Varislintu wrote:I mean, what were you trying to tell me by saying that when I say 'I mean X not Y', I am actually saying 'I mean Y'?

I'm sorry, but I think I'm missing something here. When did I tell you anything about what you meant? :hmm: You said "I mean X not Y," and IIRC I was trying to say Y was what Lauren actually was talking about in the first place.


Well, when asking me "Do you really think ranting is that bad?" (Y) right smack in the context of me and Lauren talking about the rightness of X, I really don't know how you can see that as not referring to what I mean. :para: But ignoring that, it seems there's an answer here: the point you were making by ignoring the difference I made between X and Y, was that there is in your opinion no qualitative difference between X and Y, and therefore if I accept Y (ranting) I must logically accept X (insulting kinds while ranting) as well.

If that's so, I finally understand your critique, but disagree -- to me there is a qualitative difference that makes X and Y different levels of hurtful and justified.

vijayjohn wrote:I dunno, I mean, you have every right to feel that way, but I see it differently. Maybe that's because I keep remembering how my grandfather apparently hated all British people until the day he died. (OK, granted, I don't recall him ever saying this publically, but still). When my dad told me that, at first I thought he was nuts to think that way - and if you were Indian, you might have felt the same way. But now that I'm reading his diary, I can kind of see why he might have felt that way. Not all British people were absolutely horrible to him; he himself says some were actually very nice to him. Yet even they encouraged him to go risk his life in a fucking war for the sake of an empire that was all too eager to keep him and his people oppressed. Almost half a century later, he felt nothing had changed in the British people's racist attitudes since that war.

Was that an extreme sentiment on his part? Sure. Do I agree with him? No. But can I blame him for the way he felt? No. Maybe if he had met British people at that time who were against the war, he might not have insisted on that characterization of an entire country. But he never got that opportunity.


Oh dear, I just had a fun couple of minutes rewriting part of this debate as if your grandfather was alive and had posted here "I fucking hate Brits!", but I think it was veering towards the mean, and I shouldn't put even satirised words in his mouth. So never mind all that. Erase, erase. In short, I think if he was happily chatting with Brits here one second and saying he fucking hates them the next, it wouldn't be completely, totally horrible to ask him if he probably means he hates the racist, colonial Brits, and not all of them.

vijayjohn wrote:Thanks, because that's awfully nice of you, but that's just the thing, right? You don't have to because we shouldn't be discriminating against women anyway. Besides, the cis man you speak of used to be way more misogynistic than he is now. :P


Still, it was a show of patience and willingness to forgive. I hope Lauren keeps you in her mind the next time she feels she feels certain words on their way out of her mouth. If you say it, you'll be saying it to vijayjohn, too! :doggy:

vijayjohn wrote:Wait, don't you mean the other way around, i.e. that it's true in our historical and cultural context that men saying they hate women (misogyny) is more oppressive than women saying they hate men (misandry?)?


Oh shit, yes, I do. A proof-reading fail.

vijayjohn wrote:
Topsy turvily (in my view), the "wrong" in this case seems to have been me ally-failing by pointing out this obvious truth that we all agree with, out loud. :hmm:

Taken out of context, I'm not sure there would be anything wrong with this at all. But this came after Vlürch wrote one of his long anti-feminist rants and then dEhiN started out expressing agreement with it, so in that context, it kind of comes across as taking sides with that POV, even though of course that's not what you meant to do.


Yes, I realise that now, and not immediately back then. Because to be honest, I don't usually read Vlürch's posts nowadays.

vijayjohn wrote:You're probably right. I also don't like it at all when people are just mean, especially because it's so easy to go from there to actually discriminating against exactly the same people you say you're trying not to discriminate against. Remember how I was talking with Johanna about how Indians might not see asexuality in the same way as Westerners, and then Lauren tried to call me (and others) out for supposedly not listening to the asexual person? And then after Johanna confirmed that she didn't feel that way about the discussion, I pointed out how what Lauren did amounted to a white person telling a brown person to shut up?


Yes. This article reminded me about that exchange recently as well:

http://skepchick.org/2015/11/neurodiver ... epchick%29

vijayjohn wrote:That being said, I don't get the impression that Lauren is just trying to be mean while complaining about misogyny (although maybe that's just me). I think she feels genuinely angry and doesn't feel compelled to be nice about it, either. I agree she isn't compelled to feel nice about it, although I also feel that if I was as angry about racism as she is about misogyny, I think that would actually affect my own health pretty badly. Especially my mental health.


Sounds sensible.
Det finns ingen
tröst. Därför
behöver du den inte
(Gösta Ågren)

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 17650
Joined: 2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name: Vijay John
Gender: male
Location: Austin
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Discrimination

Postby vijayjohn » 2015-12-22, 20:55

Varislintu wrote:Well, when asking me "Do you really think ranting is that bad?" (Y) right smack in the context of me and Lauren talking about the rightness of X, I really don't know how you can see that as not referring to what I mean. :para:

It's been a while since this whole thing started, so I think I'm just forgetting stuff that happened tbh. :hmhihi:
But ignoring that, it seems there's an answer here: the point you were making by ignoring the difference I made between X and Y, was that there is in your opinion no qualitative difference between X and Y, and therefore if I accept Y (ranting) I must logically accept X (insulting kinds while ranting) as well.

Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head. I'm still not sure I agree with you here, but it's not like your position strikes me as totally unreasonable either. :P
Oh dear, I just had a fun couple of minutes rewriting part of this debate as if your grandfather was alive and had posted here "I fucking hate Brits!", but I think it was veering towards the mean, and I shouldn't put even satirised words in his mouth. So never mind all that. Erase, erase. In short, I think if he was happily chatting with Brits here one second and saying he fucking hates them the next, it wouldn't be completely, totally horrible to ask him if he probably means he hates the racist, colonial Brits, and not all of them.

I don't think it would be bad to ask him if that's what he meant at all, in almost any context. But I suspect his answer would have been very different from Lauren's because I don't think there was a meaningful difference in his eyes between "the racist, colonial Brits" and "all of them." The only way I can see him even possibly having changed his mind is if (a) there were British people who honestly condemned British imperialism even during the war and (b) he learned about that, preferably in detail.
Because to be honest, I don't usually read Vlürch's posts nowadays.

That's probably a good idea. :lol: I actually did read it because I wanted to respond to everything he said point by point but then just gave up because there was so much being said in the ensuing discussion in the time it would have taken me to do that.
Yes. This article reminded me about that exchange recently as well:

http://skepchick.org/2015/11/neurodiver ... epchick%29

Tbh, that exchange in turn kind of reminded me of this, because this woman also claimed to be bipolar afterwards. Not that I found what Lauren said to be as offensive as this must have been to this guy, but still:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPVUeQtQQ_o

User avatar
харийн хүн
Posts: 22
Joined: 2015-12-12, 9:14
Country: MN Mongolia (Монгол улс)

Re: Discrimination

Postby харийн хүн » 2016-07-04, 1:06

A group of teen boys beat me and spit on me because I spoke Guti on the phone with my mother. my shoulder dislocated, kicked on the junk and a tooth fell off, and got bruises and bleeding nose. Nothing broke but they said dislocated shoulder arm should not be used much for two weeks to a month, and its fingers hurt from being stepped over. The police said they can't be of great help because I don't know any of them or see them very clearly. This has been my first true discrimination, don't know what they thought I was but they didn't care that I told them I have lived in Mongolia for years notwithstanding that the first insult they yelled was for me to speak Mongolian... One of the boys was white and probably Russian, therefore meaning they weren't Mongolian purists. It does not matter anyways as it near certainly is never going to happen again. If it will, I will fight back...
[ownflag=Guti (mis)]http://i.imgur.com/dZIteeG.png[/ownflag] ★★★★★ - Mongolian (mn) ★★★★★ - Persian (fa) ★★☆☆ - Russian (ru)

User avatar
france-eesti
Posts: 2099
Joined: 2016-01-02, 19:41
Gender: female
Location: France
Country: FR France (France)

Re: Discrimination

Postby france-eesti » 2016-07-06, 10:59

I'm very sad to read that :( Sometimes I don't understand the world we live in, where people are supposed to be civilized and everything...

Luckily I never experienced that kind of situation but one ex bf did (he is Malagasy). I was terribly sorry for that.

In another kind of situation, one colleague didn't have her contract renewed (though all her co-workers had) because she was having chemotherapy. Or we strongly suspected that was the reason why. :roll:
(fr) Native - (en) Fluentish - (pt) Fluentish when I was younger - (hu) My current addiction - crazy about it! (nagy függő vagyok!)

User avatar
IpseDixit
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 9156
Joined: 2013-05-06, 21:06
Gender: male
Location: Bologna / Milan / Florence
Country: IT Italy (Italia)

Re: Discrimination

Postby IpseDixit » 2016-07-06, 11:14

france-eesti wrote:I'm very sad to read that :( Sometimes I don't understand the world we live in, where people are supposed to be civilized and everything...


Nah, don't feel sorry for him/her, s/he likes making shit up and trolling.

User avatar
razlem
Posts: 2238
Joined: 2011-01-10, 3:28
Real Name: Ben
Gender: male
Location: New Orleans
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Discrimination

Postby razlem » 2016-08-04, 6:02

I tried to have a discussion about privilege with a family friend (a straight, white, middle-class, cisgender male). He was so adamant that white privilege simply did not exist, and felt as if I was personally attacking him to claim otherwise. I used examples of straight privilege and able privilege to show that privilege exists in other areas to try and set up a foundation for the rest of the argument, but he still would not accept it. And of course every scientific study I show him on the issue "isn't real science, they just want to push their own agenda" -.-

It simply stuns me. Even when presented with overwhelming contradictory, scientific evidence, people will cling to their beliefs. How in the world can you even operate with that kind of obstinance?
American English (en-us)::German (de)::Standard Spanish (es) Swedish (sv) Mandarin (zh)::Choctaw (cho) Finnish (fi) Irish (ir) Arabic (ar)
Image wia wi nehas-kolwatos lae angos! Check out my IAL Angos
Image Contributor to the Houma Language Project
I have a YouTube channel! I talk about languages and stuff: Ben DuMonde

User avatar
Varislintu
Posts: 15297
Joined: 2004-02-09, 13:32
Real Name: M.
Gender: female
Location: Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Discrimination

Postby Varislintu » 2016-08-04, 6:32

razlem wrote:And of course every scientific study I show him on the issue "isn't real science, they just want to push their own agenda" -.-


It's always everyone else having an agenda except the relevant privileged group, isn't it? :D It probably looks like that to a privileged class because they can continue pushing their agenda without being aware of it, while unprivileged groups have to first become aware of their under-privilege and then push really hard to even make a tiny ripple int he mainstream.

The new Ghostbusters comes to mind. (It's a very trivial example, but on my mind right now.) All the people who oppose it because it's "a political statement" or "has an agenda" seem to never consider that the original Ghostbusters with a male cast that nobody ever really even considered could be female, also was pushing an agenda. It's just that it was the ruling agenda, so they didn't have to push hard at all, just float on their current of privilege.

I try to keep this kind of blind spot in mind and turn the tables on myself in areas where I have privilege, just to mentally check whether I'm aware of the whole picture or not. Often I discover that I've missed the un-privileged point-of-view completely.
Det finns ingen
tröst. Därför
behöver du den inte
(Gösta Ågren)

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 » 2016-08-09, 16:41

Varislintu wrote:It's always everyone else having an agenda except the relevant privileged group, isn't it? :D It probably looks like that to a privileged class because they can continue pushing their agenda without being aware of it, while unprivileged groups have to first become aware of their under-privilege and then push really hard to even make a tiny ripple int he mainstream.

I have the philosopher Richard D. Mohr to thank for pointing out how pervasive this is with heterosexism. Any mention of a same-sex relationship or display of same-sex affection is met with complaints about how we're "forcing our sexuality" on poor straight people from those who never see the reverse for what it is. Our mere existence is politicised in a way that heterosexuals' never is. (Nowadays, the heat's off respectable gay men like me only to be focused with redoubled intensity on trans folk.)
"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
linguoboy
Posts: 20489
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Discrimination

Postby linguoboy » 2016-08-12, 2:43

Oh, and speaking of heterosexism, this happened. So much fail, I don't know where to begin. People could now be killed on account of a sleazy, sex-shaming piece of trash journalism. To its credit, the Daily Beast eventually acknowledged its shocking lack of ethical judgment by removing the piece and published a full apology; to its discredit, it took all day to do so and hasn't disciplined the editor who wrote it in any meaningful way.

But this is where we're still at in 2016: Straight journalists think nothing of invading our privacy and risking our safety on the flimsiest of pretexts in order to entertain homophobes who will never know what it's like to be persecuted for their sexuality. But, hey, RuPaul's Drag Race has a primetime spot, so what's to complain about?
"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

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 17650
Joined: 2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name: Vijay John
Gender: male
Location: Austin
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Discrimination

Postby vijayjohn » 2016-08-12, 4:34

Varislintu wrote:unprivileged groups have to first become aware of their under-privilege

And also become aware that we (and you!) have a right to ask for something beyond that.

For me, it's been hard to be aware of either of these things. It's also been hard to believe that I'm really allowed to just be myself. It still is.

User avatar
Varislintu
Posts: 15297
Joined: 2004-02-09, 13:32
Real Name: M.
Gender: female
Location: Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Discrimination

Postby Varislintu » 2016-08-12, 18:40

linguoboy wrote:Oh, and speaking of heterosexism, this happened.


That's... stunningly ill-willed. And it sounds like this bigoted bully doesn't realise it's ill-willed because he directed it at homosexuals, whom he probably considers fair game.
Det finns ingen
tröst. Därför
behöver du den inte
(Gösta Ågren)

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 » 2016-08-12, 18:53

Varislintu wrote:
linguoboy wrote:Oh, and speaking of heterosexism, this happened.

That's... stunningly ill-willed. And it sounds like this bigoted bully doesn't realise it's ill-willed because he directed it at homosexuals, whom he probably considers fair game.

It's particularly galling for many because (and this was news to me), the Daily Beast claims to "include standing up to bullies and bigots, and specifically being a proudly, steadfastly supportive voice for LGBT people all over the world" as part of their "core mission"--they even include a rainbow flag in the banner for their homepage!--and yet they still had a huge enough blind spot to commission and publish a piece like this.

This is another example why I will never completely trust straight allies to defend queer rights. There have to be some LGBTQ people in the room with the power and opportunity to say, "Yeah no, this is wrong" to keep this sort of thing from happening.
"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
Varislintu
Posts: 15297
Joined: 2004-02-09, 13:32
Real Name: M.
Gender: female
Location: Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Discrimination

Postby Varislintu » 2016-08-12, 19:04

linguoboy wrote:It's particularly galling for many because (and this was news to me), the Daily Beast claims to "include standing up to bullies and bigots, and specifically being a proudly, steadfastly supportive voice for LGBT people all over the world" as part of their "core mission"--they even include a rainbow flag in the banner for their homepage!--and yet they still had a huge enough blind spot to commission and publish a piece like this.


You're kidding...

linguoboy wrote:This is another example why I will never completely trust straight allies to defend queer rights. There have to be some LGBTQ people in the room with the power and opportunity to say, "Yeah no, this is wrong" to keep this sort of thing from happening.


I would agree with this, I wouldn't trust it all to "us" either. I have so many times noticed blind spots in myself that I want to despair sometimes. Especially with the LGBTQ-umbrella being so wide, and the minorities being smaller as we move down the abbreviation, it feels it takes more consious effort to keep in mind their points of view. But of course, what that article writer did would not have required much in the way of simple human decency/empathy to avoid (from him or the people in charge around him).
Det finns ingen
tröst. Därför
behöver du den inte
(Gösta Ågren)

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 » 2016-08-12, 19:14

Varislintu wrote:But of course, what that article writer did would not have required much in the way of simple human decency/empathy to avoid (from him or the people in charge around him).

Agreed. Simple journalistic ethics should have derailed this story early in the process. But more than that, what decent human being needs to be explicitly told "don't catfish"?
"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

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 17650
Joined: 2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name: Vijay John
Gender: male
Location: Austin
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Discrimination

Postby vijayjohn » 2016-08-18, 4:35

A few days ago, I read another chapter of Randidangazhi to my dad. It's a Malayalam novel about slaves working for a Christian landowner. I also learned that I was wrong about something. It wasn't my great-grandfather that owned slaves; it was my great-great-grandfather (my dad's mom's mom's dad).

Be that as it may, if you want an idea of what it's like for me to read this, imagine that a relative of yours owned slaves - not some bygone ancestor hundreds of years ago but someone who was alive when you were growing up. You've seen these slaves with your own eyes, you've seen and heard about how they were treated, you've witnessed to some degree how the society they live in treats them and their descendants today, you know some of them and their relatives (kids, spouses, etc.), and you know exactly where all the records about them are kept, including advertisements for slave auctions and bills of sale. However embarrassing all this may be to you personally, you've shared some of this with your children and pointed out to them that no matter how financially successful they might be in the future, it will never be entirely through their own efforts. Then one day, one of your children decides to read a novel about what it was like to be one of those slaves. You've tried reading it yourself, but you're so thrown off by the way words in the dialogue are spelled that it's hard for you to follow the story without somebody reading it to you, and you get your child to read it to you. As they do that right in front of you, you remember what you saw when you were growing up.

This particular chapter of this novel was...kind of intense. After I read it to him, my dad said in Malayalam that he remembered my great-great-grandfather hurting his slaves a lot. He also said something about him having to be fed through a tube on his deathbed or something. My grandmother apparently held him in high esteem and was never all that nice to low-caste people herself, and yet, she suggested that this was God's way of punishing him for the cruel things he did to his slaves.

Axi
Posts: 2
Joined: 2016-09-08, 16:12

Re: Discrimination

Postby Axi » 2016-09-08, 17:54

харийн хүн wrote:A group of teen boys beat me and spit on me because I spoke Guti on the phone with my mother. my shoulder dislocated, kicked on the junk and a tooth fell off, and got bruises and bleeding nose. Nothing broke but they said dislocated shoulder arm should not be used much for two weeks to a month, and its fingers hurt from being stepped over. The police said they can't be of great help because I don't know any of them or see them very clearly. This has been my first true discrimination, don't know what they thought I was but they didn't care that I told them I have lived in Mongolia for years notwithstanding that the first insult they yelled was for me to speak Mongolian... One of the boys was white and probably Russian, therefore meaning they weren't Mongolian purists. It does not matter anyways as it near certainly is never going to happen again. If it will, I will fight back...

:roll:

User avatar
Prowler
Posts: 1628
Joined: 2013-07-19, 5:09
Gender: male
Country: PT Portugal (Portugal)

Re: Discrimination

Postby Prowler » 2016-11-07, 3:55

I looked at this thread title and began thinking... but I can't think of any time I might have been discriminated against. I mean, I can't read minds, so maybe some people have discriminated against me before based on nationality, race, etc, but I cant' read minds and never once assumed it was because "that black person was rude to me because I'm white".

I certainly have been looked at oddly before for the way I dress(I like heavy metal and sported long hair and some facial hair until a couple of months ago...) and for liking some "nerdy" and obscure things, but that doesn't really qualify for this topic, I suppose.


Return to “Politics and Religion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests