posted
Rakeesh clarified my statement correctly, even though I suspect that he was mixing me up with Boots.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So what do you mean by traditional families. Why "traditional"? What would a non-traditional family be?
It is a all a matter of semantics km, let me rephrase that ( my first language is not English and perhaps that is the case of confusion ).
I think a family based on father and mother was pivotal to the development of our society but I do not think on same sex marriage as bad or evil.
Just inferior?
You are the one implying that although I would say that such logic is devoid of reason because it is impossible to judge families based on concepts like inferior or superior .
One certainly enjoys the family she or he is part of. The mere fact ( Stone Wolf has been saying this more eloquently than me ) we enjoy our families does not mean we hate other families.
What is probably dangerous is to assume hatred comes from those feelings.
But you are not just saying that you enjoy your families. You are saying that you have a preference - a bias toward - families that are like yours. That assumes that you think that families like yours - with opposite sex parents - are better than families with SSM. That doesn't mean that you hate them but it does mean that you think them inferior.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So what do you mean by traditional families. Why "traditional"? What would a non-traditional family be?
It is a all a matter of semantics km, let me rephrase that ( my first language is not English and perhaps that is the case of confusion ).
I think a family based on father and mother was pivotal to the development of our society but I do not think on same sex marriage as bad or evil.
Just inferior?
You are the one implying that although I would say that such logic is devoid of reason because it is impossible to judge families based on concepts like inferior or superior .
One certainly enjoys the family she or he is part of. The mere fact ( Stone Wolf has been saying this more eloquently than me ) we enjoy our families does not mean we hate other families.
What is probably dangerous is to assume hatred comes from those feelings.
But you are not just saying that you enjoy your families. You are saying that you have a preference - a bias toward - families that are like yours. That assumes that you think that families like yours - with opposite sex parents - are better than families with SSM. That doesn't mean that you hate them but it does mean that you think them inferior.
Hmmmm. I don't know that I would go that far. To an extent, personal preference doesn't have to imply that person is also making a value judgment outside their own personal preference. To use a heavy-handed simple example, I prefer steaks more than asparagus. To me, to my tastebuds, asparagus is inferior to steak. But if I were asked, 'Which is better?' I could only reply 'I prefer steaks'. Which wouldn't be quite the same thing in this context as saying 'asparagus is inferior to steak'.
In a similar way, it makes perfect sense for zlog and Stone_Wolf to prefer straight married families to other family units. I mean, they got married and had kids (actually I may be wrong about that, zlog, I can't recall if you've mentioned?). After all, how could anyone have a personal equivalence of preference for a relationship that fits their own native outlook versus one that is entirely outside their own sexuality?
The trouble is, to me anyway, that the conversation doesn't stop there. It doesn't stop at 'I prefer steak to asparagus'. Instead it continues on to 'we need to make sure steak is protected' and 'aren't people who like asparagus actually criticizing steak?' and 'eating steak has a cosmic connection to the universe, a special spiritual significance that eating asparagus just doesn't yield'. Or, zlog, to look back at past discussions*, a third party will say things like 'people who eat asparagus hate steak eaters, they're just playing at being mammals that like food, people that eat asparagus or who stick up for asparagus eaters hate America and want to destroy it, there's a higher concentration of sexual deviants among asparagus eaters, laws that say asparagus eaters ought to be locked up maybe should remain on the books as a symbol of public disapproval of the consumption of asparagus, people that eat asparagus should never have the same access to public resources that steak eaters have' and so on. Every one of those things I just mentioned are statements Card has made. Anyway, to say that you prefer steak to asparagus is fine. I have no interest in objecting to that. But to take a step further, to defend someone who says that sort of thing as some sort of reasonable voice, to state a mystic superiority to eating steak versus eating asparagus, goes further than a simple personal approval.
*Not trying to hit you over the head with this, rather it's an example of going past 'my own taste is for heterosexual coupling'.
------
Heisenberg, I did get you mixed up. My bad.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: So had black Americans not been treated poorly and segregated, there would be no black American culture worth celebrating and to do so would only be to celebrate non-whiteness?
Why are we talking about hypothetical fantasy worlds here?
But lets go with that fantasy. For it to be possible, then it's an alternate universe where slavery never happened, where segregation never happened, where black people were not oppressed, ghettoized, and marginalized to the point where "black" became a cultural group with it's own music, slang, traditions, food, and social norms separate from the rest of American culture.
Well in that fantasy word, then, "black American culture" wouldn't exist as we know it. There might be Nigerian culture and Kenyan culture (or their non-colonial influenced approximation) for sure, who knows. But your question is utter nonsense since you're asking hypothetical questions about "how would a culture that arose from oppression be treated if that oppression didn't exist?" And the answer of course is that culture wouldn't exist as we know it, either.
Meanwhile, in the real world, where all those things we talked about really, truly happened, you have yet to answer the simple question you've been asked many times now. What is "white culture"? How do you "celebrate white culture"? Is there any difference between "white culture" and American culture?
Please answer. Because it's kind of silly for you to keep bemoaning how it's not acceptable to "celebrate white culture" when you keep refusing to define that term.
You decided to talk about race instead of sticking to family dynamics. I didn't demand you stick to my questions. This is what happens in conversations, they drift. Also I'm trying very hard to find time to consider what you are saying when I'm away from Hatrack, and when I have time, responding to people who have addressed me.
I'm sorry if you feel I've ignored things you want addressed, I certainly have done that in the recent past. But please could you stop taking me to task about who I haven't addressed so often? If this conversation is too frustrating then we could just stop. I don't really need to keep being told how I personally argue incorrectly all the time.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh...I'm happy to drop the "-very-"...but I'm sticking to "similar" and here is why...
quote: Irish and blacks often lived side by side in the poorest parts of town in those port cities. While blacks faced racial discrimination from native-born whites, the Irish suffered from anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic attitudes.
Charles L. Blockson, the author of ''Black Genealogy,'' said that because of their skin differences, both blacks and Irish, with features like red hair or freckles, were easily picked out by native-born whites and subject to discrimination. He said that both groups were without property and, because of this, each group built a similar live-for-the-moment culture, commonalities that helped bring them together.
But Irish immigrants and blacks fought over jobs, underbidding one another on wages. The tension reached a fever pitch during the Civil War, when poor Irish could not buy their way out of military service and resented risking their lives fighting for the North for the freedom of blacks who were their economic competitors.
As to the point of white/black is beautiful...I'm not ignoring points made...I don't get em...so they ain't made.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: We Americans. We white people. Do you object when someone says "we won WW II"? Not always so eager to embrace white culture (which you still refuse to define) are you?
This crap.
A. My gandfathers were in WWII...so yea I associate w that.
B. I never used the phrase "white culture" and no one asked me anything about it. So..easy there.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You aren't your grandfathers. So no, it's not 'we' for you by your own standards. Or is the cutoff two generations? In that case, shall we discuss Japanese internment camps? If you get to feel pride for what your grandfathers did you are by your own reasoning also condemned for what other Americans did in the same war. So yeah. The points have been made. And you know, cut it out with the 'easy there' nonsense. This is a discussions. People get to make assertions in a conversation, and that doesn't mean you're somehow being agressed upon.
As for the article you referenced, well, it doesn't quite seem to say what you suggest. 'Some similarities' isn't the same as 'similar'. They talk about military service, for example. In a war which was in major part at least over the right to keep one race of humans as slaves. When they couldn't buy their way out of military service, they were still paid more. And treated better. They weren't, say, shot instead of being taken prisoner. And of course the Irish weren't in the south in their millions as slaves, either.
It's totally kosher to say 'Irish were treated with shameful racism and unfairness in the United States in the 1800s'. That is a completely true and fair statement. But they weren't slaves! They didn't face the risk of being slaves. As they began their struggle out of the constraints the racism in the United States placed on them, they didn't face nearly as much opposition.
But in any event why does it matter to you? You've already claimed that past has nothing for which you should feel personally involved.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: You decided to talk about race instead of sticking to family dynamics.
That is entirely untrue. Stone_Wolf decided to talk about race, and then you replied to kmbboots' conversation with him. I actually continued the conversation about family dynamics here. Which you never responded to. Because you wanted to talk about race. It's pretty hypocritical to claim "you wanted to talk about race instead of sticking to family dynamics" when in fact I did stick to family dynamics, and wrote a pretty in depth and detailed response to your last post about it. How is you ignoring that post - because you wanted to shift to talking about race - my fault now?
quote:I didn't demand you stick to my questions. This is what happens in conversations, they drift.
Nevertheless, I answered them. And would have continued that discussion if you had responded.
quote:I'm sorry if you feel I've ignored things you want addressed, I certainly have done that in the recent past. But please could you stop taking me to task about who I haven't addressed so often? If this conversation is too frustrating then we could just stop. I don't really need to keep being told how I personally argue incorrectly all the time.
Blackblade. I am not "taking you to task" about who you haven't addressed so often. I am asking you to answer a simple but very important question about what you mean by "white culture." I am not the only person who has asked you that question. I am not the only person who has asked you that question multiple times. I am even, you might notice, not the only person who has commented on your continued refusal to answer that question.
I gave an informed, well reasoned response to your hypothetical question about black culture and then asked what you meant by "white culture." As did Rakeesh. As did kmbboots. And you have, once again, chosen to ignore the discussion at hand to complain about me "taking you to task" and then condescendingly suggested that this conversation is just to "frustrating" for me to handle.
The thing is, the question about how you define "white culture" is so important because it's actually the central question underlying this entire discussion. The same logical fallacy exists behind saying "I just think we need to protect and safeguard traditional marriage" as does saying "what's wrong with celebrating white culture?" as does asking things like "why don't we have a White History Month?" And that flaw is evident in your steadfast refusal to describe what you mean by "white culture." This isn't me trying to take you to task for some personal vendetta or because I feel miffed that you ignored a post of mine, this is me trying very hard to get you to get past this weird mental block you have when it comes to race relations, one where you seem to just hit a wall and start "blanking out" as Sam described it when people try to explain it to you.
So can you please, please just answer the question?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Of course I'm not my grandfathers...I claimed an "association" w WWII, not participation. Nor did I ever mention two generations. I grew up, cutting my teeth on their war stories & they died before I was an adult, so they retained the legendary status my parents haven't since I achieved adulthood.
At the end of the day I hold myself to a simple, but, I feel, sane standard; did one of my choices directly cause harm? Indirectly? What can I do differently next time? What did I lean? Did I take appropriate responsibility, apologize & attempt to rectify the situation?
Using that template...I had NOTHING to do with slavery or racial oppression.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure you did. Your parents or grandparents or great-grandparents benefited from systemic biases in their favor. They got to live in better houses, had access to better education, had better jobs. Those advantages have been passed down to you. You live in a society that still bears the imprint of generations of advantage. You did not start at 0.
Now. And this is important. No one is saying that you should be blamed for this. No one is suggesting that you should feel guilt or that it is your fault. All we are saying is that you recognize that this is the world we live in now and, that as a good human being, you have an obligation to remedy bias when you can.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's totally kosher to say 'Irish were treated with shameful racism and unfairness in the United States in the 1800s'. That is a completely true and fair statement. But they weren't slaves! They didn't face the risk of being slaves. As they began their struggle out of the constraints the racism in the United States placed on them, they didn't face nearly as much opposition.
Okay. I can go for all this.
The whole black/irish was just an attempt (as was black/white is beautiful ) to get you guys (Rakeesh,DB,Boots,etc) to see that the brand of racism you guys are advocating against uses inconsistent rules. Rules that require us to look at a "black" human in a different way than a "white" human.
And it's not that there aren't -reasons- that you think that. You all are real quick to tell us -why- the rules need to be not the same to be fair.
But it seems like you guys are refusing to acknowledge that the rules you are enforcing treat people differently because of their race .
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really? Because anytime I've questioned people, they've said flat out that, yes, they should be treated differently because of race, and then went on to give very good reasons for doing so, mostly having to do with past injustices and the effect those injustices have carried into the present.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:At the end of the day I hold myself to a simple, but, I feel, sane standard; did one of my choices directly cause harm? Indirectly? What can I do differently next time? What did I lean? Did I take appropriate responsibility, apologize & attempt to rectify the situation?
Using that template...I had NOTHING to do with slavery or racial oppression.
But you've almost certainly benefited from it.
If you're white, you've had options available to you that were at least partially dependent on racial oppression. You've inherited wealth or social capital derived from same. You've elected people (unless your vote has been the kiss of death) to a government that has implemented racist policies. [Aside: I wonder how much of North America consists of land stolen (as opposed to be deliberately ceded) from the First Nations?] You participate in an economy that says it's okay to exploit people based on where they live.
You may nothing to do with slavery or racial oppression, but that doesn't mean it has nothing to do with you.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm asking what part of it you don't understand. I thought I was explaining it in small steps but if they need to be smaller, I can try to do that. Where do you get lost? What don't you get?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sure you did. Your parents or grandparents or great-grandparents benefited from systemic biases in their favor. They got to live in better houses, had access to better education, had better jobs. Those advantages have been passed down to you. You live in a society that still bears the imprint of generations of advantage. You did not start at 0.
You are making the point "you benifited" from this...my claim is I "had NOTHING to do with slavery & oppression." One of these things are not like the other!
quote:Now. And this is important. No one is saying that you should be blamed for this. No one is suggesting that you should feel guilt or that it is your fault. All we are saying is that you recognize that this is the world we live in now and, that as a good human being, you have an obligation to remedy bias when you can.
That is NOT how it seems to me...certainly not how it feels.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
White people have it better. Even in the cases where white people are poor and don't have social connections, a white person starting from zero has a better go of it then a black person starting from zero.
This is because of things like slavery and discrimination. You have it better then blacks, today, because of what was done by white people in the past.
You didn't do anything. But you still have benefited. And it's not an attack against you or any white people to say that most blacks could use a helping hand.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
zlogdanbr
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I mean, they got married and had kids (actually I may be wrong about that, zlog, I can't recall if you've mentioned?).
zlog, to look back at past discussions*, a third party will say things like 'people who eat asparagus hate steak eaters, they're just playing at being mammals that like food, people that eat asparagus or who stick up for asparagus eaters hate America and want to destroy it, there's a higher concentration of sexual deviants among asparagus eaters, laws that say asparagus eaters ought to be locked up maybe should remain on the books as a symbol of public disapproval of the consumption of asparagus, people that eat asparagus should never have the same access to public resources that steak eaters have' and so on. Every one of those things I just mentioned are statements Card has made. Anyway, to say that you prefer steak to asparagus is fine. I have no interest in objecting to that. But to take a step further, to defend someone who says that sort of thing as some sort of reasonable voice, to state a mystic superiority to eating steak versus eating asparagus, goes further than a simple personal approval.
*Not trying to hit you over the head with this, rather it's an example of going past 'my own taste is for heterosexual coupling'.
I have two kids, oldest is 13 and youngest is 10. I hope they become proud nerds and metal heads like me, but ok, I am happy they like super heroes movies, cartoons, star wars and computers. ;-) ( Please this is a comment meant to be humorous, please do not think I want to impose my kids to be like me ).
One thing that is blatant obvious for me now is that OSC was quite inappropriate and unfortunate making those comments -specially the parts where he speaks about jailing gay people.
I'd like to think now that he will one day regret saying things that nasty and offensive and I believe he should have apologized before. On the other hand, although I cannot participate of that opinion I still like his books a lot. I will need to live with that though but SSM defendants and gay readers that felt offended by those unhappy comments are in their rights to stop reading OSC after all I did that myself.
This is not a defense whatsoever, but when you have time please read this link: web page
And skip to a comment made by Janis Ian which although does not make amends with LGBT community at least it shows a more friendly view of OSC.
IP: Logged |
posted
Could people please stop acting like it's only people on the left who are for gay marriage?
Pretty sure there are conservatives who are for it. Pretty sure there are GAY conservatives for it.
No one is banishing Orson Scott Card. People have the right to disagree. He has the right to be against gay marriage. I have the right to point out why that is not completely logical and the fact that human sexuality and gender is a lot more complex and you can find instances of gay marriage in history.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey zlog: I don't think anyone here is calling OSC a villain or talking about boycotting his works. I still buy his new books when they come out, and have been pretty critical at some of the absurd shit that he gets accused of. (Probably most notably the whole "Ender is supposed to be Hitler!" thing which still pops up every now and again) He seems like a pretty great guy, for the most part.
He's also said some terrible, hateful, bigoted things, and said them consistently enough that it would be disingenuous of me to just play them off and not acknowledge hey, yeah, he really believes this stuff. Which puts all of us into the awkward position of being fans of an author who says and believes those things.
How did most of his fans handle it? Well, a lot of them stopped being fans. That's why this forum used to be much, much more active than it is now. Most of them just left. Those of us who remain, such as we are, are kind of stuck with that dichotomy.
It doesn't mean anyone here hates him or thinks he's a villain, though.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hmmmm. I don't know that I would go that far. To an extent, personal preference doesn't have to imply that person is also making a value judgment outside their own personal preference. To use a heavy-handed simple example, I prefer steaks more than asparagus. To me, to my tastebuds, asparagus is inferior to steak. But if I were asked, 'Which is better?' I could only reply 'I prefer steaks'. Which wouldn't be quite the same thing in this context as saying 'asparagus is inferior to steak'.
In a similar way, it makes perfect sense for zlog and Stone_Wolf to prefer straight married families to other family units. I mean, they got married and had kids (actually I may be wrong about that, zlog, I can't recall if you've mentioned?). After all, how could anyone have a personal equivalence of preference for a relationship that fits their own native outlook versus one that is entirely outside their own sexuality?
Credit where credit is due. Thank you for listening to us Rakeesh!
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: You decided to talk about race instead of sticking to family dynamics.
That is entirely untrue. Stone_Wolf decided to talk about race, and then you replied to kmbboots' conversation with him. I actually continued the conversation about family dynamics here. Which you never responded to. Because you wanted to talk about race. It's pretty hypocritical to claim "you wanted to talk about race instead of sticking to family dynamics" when in fact I did stick to family dynamics, and wrote a pretty in depth and detailed response to your last post about it. How is you ignoring that post - because you wanted to shift to talking about race - my fault now?
No. I misremembered how the conversation got to where it was. I genuinely thought you had used "Black Lives Matter" as a comparison to my remarks about heterosexual and homosexual couples. I'm sorry, I was wrong.
quote:Blackblade. I am not "taking you to task" about who you haven't addressed so often. I am asking you to answer a simple but very important question about what you mean by "white culture." I am not the only person who has asked you that question. I am not the only person who has asked you that question multiple times. I am even, you might notice, not the only person who has commented on your continued refusal to answer that question.
Because I don't see what good it will do. I attempt to define white culture, and concept that has become steeped in negative things because of misuse, and because nobody has really made a serious attempt to define it outside of what it "is not". So it's already freaking hard (Which isn't to say I haven't been trying, I've just been unsuccessful), and say I manage to point out some things we then nit pick those things for whether they are or are not anti-other race, and we haven't made any actual progress as to whether it's right to protect heterosexual marriages.
quote: The thing is, the question about how you define "white culture" is so important because it's actually the central question underlying this entire discussion. The same logical fallacy exists behind saying "I just think we need to protect and safeguard traditional marriage" as does saying "what's wrong with celebrating white culture?" as does asking things like "why don't we have a White History Month?" And that flaw is evident in your steadfast refusal to describe what you mean by "white culture." This isn't me trying to take you to task for some personal vendetta or because I feel miffed that you ignored a post of mine, this is me trying very hard to get you to get past this weird mental block you have when it comes to race relations, one where you seem to just hit a wall and start "blanking out" as Sam described it when people try to explain it to you.
So can you please, please just answer the question? [/qb]
I cannot conceive of what white culture here in the United States means. I'm not sure anybody has attempted to do so without it degenerating into white supremacy or hatred for non-whites. It is extremely difficult as you seem to have expected.
I grew up in a place where white culture *was* distinct from Asian culture, and often at times it meant I was given preferential treatment, and at others treated poorly. But I could definitely talk about how I was glad to be a white man, just as the Chinese could say they were glad to be Han Chinese, and there wasn't an assumption I was saying I'm glad I'm *not* Chinese.
Look, it just feel fundamentally wrong that to look at my own skin and feel appreciation or happiness is to automatically say I'm glad I'm not "not white". It feels like something we are imposing rather than something that must be. Anyway, I hope that answers your question.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
A straight person being pro-straight reads to me like being pro-hetero-sex (and its positive consequences). Kinda quaint, too, and adorable if they think it's a political position.
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Could people please stop acting like it's only people on the left who are for gay marriage?
Pretty sure there are conservatives who are for it. Pretty sure there are GAY conservatives for it.
No one is banishing Orson Scott Card. People have the right to disagree. He has the right to be against gay marriage. I have the right to point out why that is not completely logical and the fact that human sexuality and gender is a lot more complex and you can find instances of gay marriage in history.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Hey zlog: I don't think anyone here is calling OSC a villain or talking about boycotting his works. I still buy his new books when they come out, and have been pretty critical at some of the absurd shit that he gets accused of. (Probably most notably the whole "Ender is supposed to be Hitler!" thing which still pops up every now and again) He seems like a pretty great guy, for the most part.
He's also said some terrible, hateful, bigoted things, and said them consistently enough that it would be disingenuous of me to just play them off and not acknowledge hey, yeah, he really believes this stuff. Which puts all of us into the awkward position of being fans of an author who says and believes those things.
How did most of his fans handle it? Well, a lot of them stopped being fans. That's why this forum used to be much, much more active than it is now. Most of them just left. Those of us who remain, such as we are, are kind of stuck with that dichotomy.
It doesn't mean anyone here hates him or thinks he's a villain, though.
Of course I'm not my grandfathers...I claimed an "association" w WWII, not participation. Nor did I ever mention two generations. I grew up, cutting my teeth on their war stories & they died before I was an adult, so they retained the legendary status my parents haven't since I achieved adulthood.
At the end of the day I hold myself to a simple, but, I feel, sane standard; did one of my choices directly cause harm? Indirectly? What can I do differently next time? What did I lean? Did I take appropriate responsibility, apologize & attempt to rectify the situation?
Using that template...I had NOTHING to do with slavery or racial oppression.
This is all perfectly commendable when one is playing the game, so to speak, and the game is fair. When the house doesn't cheat or always win. What happens, however, when you didn't do anything directly or with intent or indirectly to cause harm-and yet the circumstances in which you started were advantaged at the expense of others?
As for two generations, I meant two generations back. Your parents and then your grandparents.
quote:The whole black/irish was just an attempt (as was black/white is beautiful ) to get you guys (Rakeesh,DB,Boots,etc) to see that the brand of racism you guys are advocating against uses inconsistent rules. Rules that require us to look at a "black" human in a different way than a "white" human.
Where is the inconsistency? Because what is happening is that we are pointing out to you 'the system is currently significantly rigged in favor of some at the expense of others, and that in the past it used to be much worse, and that that has an impact on the present. It isn't 'inconsistent' to say +5 support to African Americans, no change to support for white americans-if the African Americans started out at -5 support.
Whereas on the other hand by continually asserting that that -5 support has nothing whatsoever to do with you, and by acting as though you live in a world where African Americans and others actually did have as much support...do you see where I'm going with this? You aren't actually treating races the same when you refuse to acknowledge the status quo is rigged, and that you receive benefits from it even if you don't ask for them. Imagine a pension fund is robbed, and a thousand people have their pensions stolen. The money is kept until they've died and their children have died, and then generations later their among their descendants, 55% of them receive a disproportionate amount of the recovered funds versus the other 45%. This is all done by some racist Batman or something, entirely without your knowledge or consent.
In such a scenario, even your granparents or great grandparents didn't consent to being robbed or to the idea that eventually it would be returned to their descendants in a disprortionate way. And certainly those descendants had nothing at all to do with any of it.
Except that one day out of the blue, they'll all be getting checks in the mail. And some of those checks will be larger than others. As with our current society, you cannot deny that you have enjoyed benefits of a partly unjust society that never asked you, personally, if you wanted them or wanted the policies that allowed those benefits to exist at all. Those descendants generations later didn't ask for their ancestors' money to be stolen, and didn't ask for it to be returned unfairly.
What should they do in the present, after they receive their checks?
quote:You are making the point "you benifited" from this...my claim is I "had NOTHING to do with slavery & oppression." One of these things are not like the other!
You appear to be making the assumption that if you had nothing to do with these things having been done in the past, that then means you have no responsibility at all to address their impact on the present. Am I reading that correctly?
----------
As for banishing Card, well certainly people have tried through boycotts and shunning and such. No arguing that. Which is as a policy generally not something I personally approve of, though in Card's case his leadership even if it was nominal on NOM means that in his case I shed fewer tears.
------- -------
This is just an observation and I might be entirely mistaken about this, but it feels like discussion between you guys, BlackBlade and Dogbreath, has become increasingly personal and antagonistic? While I admit I tend to side with Dogbreath in those disputes, the facts on the ground do also seem to be growing mutually more hostile and unfriendly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hmmmm. I don't know that I would go that far. To an extent, personal preference doesn't have to imply that person is also making a value judgment outside their own personal preference. To use a heavy-handed simple example, I prefer steaks more than asparagus. To me, to my tastebuds, asparagus is inferior to steak. But if I were asked, 'Which is better?' I could only reply 'I prefer steaks'. Which wouldn't be quite the same thing in this context as saying 'asparagus is inferior to steak'.
In a similar way, it makes perfect sense for zlog and Stone_Wolf to prefer straight married families to other family units. I mean, they got married and had kids (actually I may be wrong about that, zlog, I can't recall if you've mentioned?). After all, how could anyone have a personal equivalence of preference for a relationship that fits their own native outlook versus one that is entirely outside their own sexuality?
Credit where credit is due. Thank you for listening to us Rakeesh!
I feel like you skipped over some other relevant parts of that post.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The trouble is, to me anyway, that the conversation doesn't stop there. It doesn't stop at 'I prefer steak to asparagus'. Instead it continues on to 'we need to make sure steak is protected' and 'aren't people who like asparagus actually criticizing steak?' and 'eating steak has a cosmic connection to the universe, a special spiritual significance that eating asparagus just doesn't yield'. Or, zlog, to look back at past discussions*, a third party will say things like 'people who eat asparagus hate steak eaters, they're just playing at being mammals that like food, people that eat asparagus or who stick up for asparagus eaters hate America and want to destroy it, there's a higher concentration of sexual deviants among asparagus eaters, laws that say asparagus eaters ought to be locked up maybe should remain on the books as a symbol of public disapproval of the consumption of asparagus, people that eat asparagus should never have the same access to public resources that steak eaters have' and so on. Every one of those things I just mentioned are statements Card has made. Anyway, to say that you prefer steak to asparagus is fine. I have no interest in objecting to that. But to take a step further, to defend someone who says that sort of thing as some sort of reasonable voice, to state a mystic superiority to eating steak versus eating asparagus, goes further than a simple personal approval.
I couldn't agree more. All the attitudes you have discussed ARE a problem. Also I just LOVE this comparison!
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Hey zlog: I don't think anyone here is calling OSC a villain or talking about boycotting his works. I still buy his new books when they come out, and have been pretty critical at some of the absurd shit that he gets accused of. (Probably most notably the whole "Ender is supposed to be Hitler!" thing which still pops up every now and again) He seems like a pretty great guy, for the most part.
He's also said some terrible, hateful, bigoted things, and said them consistently enough that it would be disingenuous of me to just play them off and not acknowledge hey, yeah, he really believes this stuff. Which puts all of us into the awkward position of being fans of an author who says and believes those things.
How did most of his fans handle it? Well, a lot of them stopped being fans. That's why this forum used to be much, much more active than it is now. Most of them just left. Those of us who remain, such as we are, are kind of stuck with that dichotomy.
It doesn't mean anyone here hates him or thinks he's a villain, though.
I stopped reading him. I think I like John Varley and Octavia Butler a lot better, really. I don't HATE him but he frustrates me. It's silly to be so angry about gay marriage in a world of child abuse.
Also what if some cute girl wanted to marry me? One doesn't, but it would be nice. But I'm scared of weddings.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You were the one stating a mystic superiority of the steak!
Did I? I was just aswering a direct question relating to my life experience.
I can not compare my life experiences to other's usefully having never lived their lives.
If I were to draw this discussion as a cartoon it would be zlog trying to talk about his own intrests at a podium & perky repoter about town Boots keeps interrupting him to ask "What about the gays?!"
posted
Usually it's said by people who probably will not welcome me at the table if I had a girlfriend. It just is. Now if I say pro family I'm like all the family including the family I'm starting of outcasts and general interestingly odd people.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
zlogdanbr
unregistered
posted
Syn, I have just got
DAWN (LILITH’S BROOD – BOOK ONE) from Kobo. ( 5 bucks for it ) Thanks for the tip.
IP: Logged |
quote: My conservative principles are related to giving the proper value and importance to traditional families and not considering them just an evil and old fashioned way of raising children or my absolute respect for safety and rights of regular people having decent lives and my fundamental values against rights of rapists, murderers, child molesters and robbers of public money which the Left and Liberal here in Brazil have defended more often that the rights of the common person and the poorest.
So it is very difficult to me not to feel sympathy for OSC opinions on Liberals and the Left because in my context they are real.
posted
yes it was a matter of semantics in regard of family definitions. I said it already. Still, whenever you hear "traditional family" you seem to assume hatred against gay people which is something extremely out of question in regard to myself.
As for the liberals/leftists here in Brazil...
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You were the one stating a mystic superiority of the steak!
Did I? I was just aswering a direct question relating to my life experience.
No. You were asked what does "pro-straight" means. Additionally, you answered,
quote: Living the "pro-straight" "lifestyle"...quality time w/ wife & kids...nest building...4x4x7x52 meals a year...dishes...laundry...trash...parental contols...vomit clean up...vacuuming...play dates...relating to other parents at kid parties...etc...
Anti Straight...hmmm...I'll bet you could find someone who has strong pro gay feelings & dislikes overpopulation & militantly tells you so? I don't kno...I just made that up.
Which pretty much shows that you have no idea of the kinds of lives gay parents or childless straight people live.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zlogdanbr: yes it was a matter of semantics in regard of family definitions. I said it already. Still, whenever you hear "traditional family" you seem to assume hatred against gay people whih is something extremely out of question.
As for the liberals/leftists here in Brazil...
I don't assume, nor have I accused you of hatred. I am still trying to understand why you have a bias for "traditional" families (and what that means to you) over non-traditional families.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
zlogdanbr
unregistered
posted
Ok, this part was not right.
When I said "regular people" I mean all common people, e.g all of us regardless of sexual orientation who strive to make a living here in this country.
IP: Logged |
quote: ...you have no idea of the kinds of lives gay parents or childless straight people live.
Uhuh. Yup. True. Irrelevant. Pointless. Annoying. But true.
Who cares?
It does kind of matter when you are advocating for a particular lifestyle without knowing what that means.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
zlogdanbr
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by zlogdanbr: yes it was a matter of semantics in regard of family definitions. I said it already. Still, whenever you hear "traditional family" you seem to assume hatred against gay people whih is something extremely out of question.
As for the liberals/leftists here in Brazil...
I don't assume, nor have I accused you of hatred. I am still trying to understand why you have a bias for "traditional" families (and what that means to you) over non-traditional families.
Ok let me rephrase my old statement: I like my family. Father/Mother type of family was important in human history, it is impossible from my part to deny it. I have never considered SSM families as inferiors that is why this concept of superiority is difficult to apply here. Importance does not mean superiority. And ok, I see your point: SSM families can be as relevant as well. However, I still like my family in the way it is. ( my family I mean I my own family. It means I like my life with my wife and kids ).
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: [QUOTE]It does kind of matter when you are advocating for a particular lifestyle without knowing what that means.
I'm not -advocating- anything.
You are.
You care, that I care about gays. And like...a lot.
But other than a generalized supportive attatude...I don't care about gays!
It's not my business what they do in their beds nor who they marry!
And neither is the sacred bond of marrage I share w my beloved soul mate life any of your or their business!
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or to borrow Rakeesh's brilliant alagory...I love steak. I think people should be allowed to eat asparagus...and be given equal rights of steak eaters.
Stating a liking for steak does not effect asparagus eaters. At. All.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
