Closing Threads

[Walsingham]

I do know what you mean about people desperately trying to right other people's wrongs before righting their own, and all that jazz. But on the other hand if the only people who stood up for an offended minority was the minority itself they might have trouble getting their presence felt.

 

Prime example is myself, who used to get very annoyed with people referring to 'gypsies'. It turns out they call themselves gypsies and worse!

[alanschu]

When the minority wants help defending itself, or even just lets it be known that the a gesture is offensive, the I have zero problem with other people defending them.

 

I hate the crusaders that think the minorities need defending when the minority itself doesn't care about the issue at hand.

[SteveThaiBinh]

All discriminatory behaviour is linked. If the racist abuse isn't directed at my own 'race', it still concerns me, because I might be next.

 

A Jewish stand-up comic can use abusive terms for Jews that no-one else could get away with. The same for Black, Muslim, gay and so on, about themselves. It's different to use these terms about a group that you don't belong to. And on a forum like this, it's probably better to steer clear of it altogether.

[alanschu]

Would you go to the defense of someone that wasn't offended though?

 

 

And if so...why? If that person doesn't care about said comments, then obviously it doesn't affect that person in the slightest. I would consider it elitest for someone to put himself on some sort of moral high ground and champion those that don't require it, nor want it. I consider such acts equally discriminating, because it gives the appearance that that person is incapable of defending himself, or in capable of seeing the "wrong" that was perpetrated against him.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Would you go to the defense of someone that wasn't offended though?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I wouldn't make a public fuss if the other person was trying to avoid it - that would usually just make the situation worse and even more unpleasant for them. But just because someone doesn't show that they're offended doesn't mean they're not offended.

 

If I see someone on these forums posting a clearly racist or discriminatory remark aimed at someone else, I don't usually post a response, but I do 'report' it to the mods.

[Lucius]

I agree, not everyone, in fact I think most people, wouldn't want to start anything by showing that they're offended, especially not if they're all on their own.

[Archmonarch]

I remember recently having seen a show of some sort (perhaps Law & Order) in which derogatory names for various social groups were used as explanations of a crime or some such. The only one not said was "the n word." All others somehow got past the censors, including names for Jews, Latinos, Muslims, etc. I find such a dichotomy strange and somewhat offensive. Yes, some groups have suffered more than others (at least in this country), yet racism is bad in general, and mistreatment of one ethnicity should not outweigh abuse of another.

[Ohma]

I remember recently having seen a show of some sort (perhaps Law & Order) in which derogatory names for various social groups were used as explanations of a crime or some such. The only one not said was "the n word." All others somehow got past the censors, including names for Jews, Latinos, Muslims, etc. I find such a dichotomy strange and somewhat offensive. Yes, some groups have suffered more than others (at least in this country), yet racism is bad in general, and mistreatment of one ethnicity should not outweigh abuse of another.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, but since when have censors been anywhere near that rational?

 

...wait...what was this thread about again?

[Cantousent]

If I perceive an injustice, I'm going to act. It's that simple. On the other hand, it is often prudent to think before acting. Would I make a fuss about alan's 5 minute walk? HELL NO, I'd make him walk 10 minutes! hahahahaha. Okay, okay, I'm back to normal.

 

Seriously, if I thought alan a long walk and it seemed like I could do something to help, I'd talk to alan about it before I said anything. I probably wouldn't use his name as an excuse for anything. That's been my habit for years. Case in point, a co-worker and I were having troubles with the project manager at our office. We discussed various ways in which the project manager made the workplace hostile.

 

Finally, I confronted the project manager and detailed some significant areas of discord, but I never once used my co-workers name, although she was sitting at her desk five feet away. I never even looked at her. Nevertheless, some of those complaints were far more important issues to her than to me. Later she said she was afraid I'd bring up her name. I just told her that I didn't hide behind my co-workers. Later, she brought up the same complaints. It was actually quite gratifying. I ended up leaving to pursue my academic career and my co-worker got a promotion. woo hoo! (for both of us)

 

Crusaders who crusade for their own glory suck. Folks who act in good conscience, after having thought out the issue and discussing it with the folks they intend to help, aren't exactly the same thing as "golden haired saviours," whom I tend to disdain as well.

[alanschu]

One of the biggest issues that I was thinking of was because of Don Cherry's "alleged" racism against Europeans and Quebecers.

 

Don Cherry said "the only people that wear visors are Europeans and the French." Despite many Europeans and French in fact laughing at Cherry's remarks and taking it in good humour, the rest of Canada was up in arms about it and even got CBC to do an investigation into Cherry's allegations. And believe me, if Quebec felt offended, we would never have heard the end of it, and we probably would have sent even more money in their general direction.

 

The funny part is that he was right....most of the people that wear visors in pro Hockey are from Quebec or Europe. Ironically he offended the people that he didn't indicate more than the people that were his topic of discussion, for no better reason than everyone is trying to be PC to the point of silliness, or worse yet they're self-righteous crusaders who feel it's their burden to lift up the rest of humanity.

 

The White Man's Burden hasn't gone away in my opinion, it just changed it's premise.

 

 

I agree, not everyone, in fact I think most people, wouldn't want to start anything by showing that they're offended, especially not if they're all on their own.

 

On their own, perhaps. But I'm talking about situations where many people are involved (although my example was just me, so I can understand why it was seen that way). I've seen it at my University like crazy. Someone will mention something along the lines of not agreeing with homosexuality or something (University students are mostly left-wing pinkos), and suddenly the guy is a gay basher, and getting attacked by everybody....except the homosexuals who merely commented that the fella has the right to his own opinion (ironic that it was an "oppressed" person that was defending the original man's right to free speech).

 

At University I find it to be the worst, where it seems everybody wants to be a part of some cause or something, and show that they have done their part for bettering society. Not all that surprising, given the elitist nature of University. I originally went to University in 1999/2000 and failed out (too much Counterstrike). So I eventually went to a local college that would transfer courses back to the University, so I could get back in.

 

Given that I'm working hard at school, my marks are exceptional. I do very well in all of my courses, and most of the familiar faces that are in most of my classes know it (given that there's always the "How'd you do" discussion after a test). You should have seen the look on some of their faces (not all, thankfully) when during casual conversation I mentioned that I went to the local College, which is less competitive and is usually where people go that can't get into University or can't afford University. Unfortunately, the still justified and rationalized my decision for me, commenting that I was forced to go there because I made poor decisions my first year of school

 

 

People put too much meaning in words. The mere fact that words are censored on this forum is rather silly. People have no problems if I say "BS" but if I say bullsh**, then it's more taboo....despite being an abbreviation. Or if I say "fudge" or just flat out make up a word instead of saying "f*ck" because for whatever reason, the f-word is some unholy blight on all existence. Never mind the context it's used in. Why is fughguagu ok, but not f---?

 

I live in a poor neighbourhood, which unfortunately DOES fit the stereotype being non-white. Now I DO understand the systemic and institutional nature of racism and discrimination, and I understand, and even accept the affirmative action initiatives. As a young white male I'm in a tiny, tiny minority in my area. It's from conversations with my neighbours that I initially got the impression that the majority overreacts more than the minority does.

 

 

Having said that, if you talk with your friend or whatever and there IS a problem, then have at it. You're sticking up for your friend AND what you believe in. As long as you don't do it THINKING you KNOW what's best for your friend, I have no problem with it.

[Lucius]

I know this will be even more sidetracked, but how can someone say that they don't 'agree' with homosexuality, though? You can't agree with that anymore than you can agree with a person being black or white, or the sun rising and setting.

[Dark Moth]

Not really. You can't choose if you're black or white (unless you're Michael Jackson " ) but many times you can choose to be homosexual or straight. Race is a physical characteristic, but sexuality is a lifestyle. I know some may be predisposed to being homosexual, but there is no "homosexual gene" as some have claimed, and you see many times gay people going straight and vice-versa. You can disagree with someone being gay as much as you can disagree with someone being a necrophile (not that I'm comparing the two).

 

And just to get on topic so this thread isn't closed (how ironic that would be), these threads are meant to be constuctive, and the mods don't want people abusing these threads to troll or flame or whatever. What I don't like is how they are so deathly scared of it that they'll lock down threads after only a few spam posts. The Family guy thread was on topic from what I could tell, and my romance thread was locked after only about 3 spam posts! :angry: I sense some injustice there.

[alanschu]

I know this will be even more sidetracked, but how can someone say that they don't 'agree' with homosexuality, though? You can't agree with that anymore than you can agree with a person being black or white, or the sun rising and setting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

He's not disagreeing with the fact that someone is a homosexual. He's disagreeing with the legitimacy of the lifestyle. He's very conservative and has a stong religious background, so it's not too surprising really.

[Lucius]

Not really.  You can't choose if you're black or white (unless you're Michael Jackson  " ) but many times you can choose to be homosexual or straight.  Race is a physical characteristic, but sexuality is a lifestyle.  I know some may be predisposed to being homosexual, but there is no "homosexual gene" as some have claimed, and you see many times gay people going straight and vice-versa.  You can disagree with someone being gay as much as you can disagree with someone being a necrophile  (not that I'm comparing the two). 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When did I chose to become straight or gay, then? Please state the time that such a choice is made avaliable, because it seems to have skipped me.

This 'choice' crap pisses me off more than any crusader could piss off Alan, I think. About that conservative religious guy, well I'd just call him a bigot for discriminating against people due to religious values.

[alanschu]

You think people are born gay?

 

Why do you disagree with the "choice" crap?

 

 

About that conservative religious guy, well I'd just call him a bigot for discriminating against people due to religious values.

 

And be defending someone that did not need nor want defending...how self-righteous of you.

[julianw]

Lucius - I guess you never saw some of the 'animals' I've seen. They would experiment with their sexuality and switch back and forth just to have fun.

[Lucius]

You think people are born gay?

 

Why do you disagree with the "choice" crap?

 

 

About that conservative religious guy, well I'd just call him a bigot for discriminating against people due to religious values.

 

And be defending someone that did not need nor want defending...how self-righteous of you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not a freaking choice, when did you 'chose' to be what you are? I wonder, try to switch your sexuality tonight and tell me how it worked out for you tomorrow.

[Fionavar]

I would say that this thread has now travelled beyond its initial intent. Feel free to contact any of the mod/admin team with questions of fora administration. If there is a desire to discuss the continuum of human sexuality, please feel free to continue the discussion in anew thread. As with all topics that contain many opinions, I would merely ask that all people speak with care and civility when addressing one another. Discuss the topic and do not debate the person.