| adidasss |
03-26-2021 11:24 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
(Post 2167688)
True dat. It's your racist statements that legitimize my posts.
|
Either put up some solid arguments about that or shut up, ja? You sound like Trump wailing about the election being stolen from him. Something doesn't become true just because you keep repeating it. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie Monday
(Post 2167691)
hold up
About comparing gay discrimination to racism: it's fundamentally invalid, since it's a very different kind of discrimination, so its manifestations and history are also very different. Racism is similar to sexism in that it has directly to do with power structures; black people and women had to serve, and trying to justify that is why both suffer from the stereotype of being intellectually incapable. Homophobia is very different; gays haven't been a serving class, the world just pretended they didn't exist mostly (the origin of homophobia may have to do with power in the sense of the threat of sexual freedom and enjoyment uprooting power structures, but that's very indirect). So for instance the fact that being black doesn't have an explicit death penalty in some countries and being gay does, just means homophobia is a kind of discrimination where a group's existence is attempted to be erased (not the existence of the actual people because people are valuable; just their sexuality. Those capital punishments are meant to shut gay people up); the existence of black people can't be erased because you can't really hide skin colour, so racists try to keep them in a serving position instead, with the accordingly different laws etc. That's the bleak reality, but it doesn't mean gay people are more oppressed.
And even if gay people were discriminated more heavily, that doesn't mean the corresponding slurs are worse than n*****. That depends on the history and connotation of the particular word, which is what makes n***** much worse. And for the record, I don't condone the use of f***** either and I think trying to find excuses for using it is weaksauce
|
The primary reason why I keep making this comparison is because racial discrimination is much better established and understood. It would be wonderful if I didn't have to compare apples and oranges just to make my point across, but here we are. Of course the origin and type of discrimination based on race and sexual orientation is very different, what I argue is that the effect of the discrimination on those groups is comparable.
I disagree that regarding gay people the world "just pretends we don't exist", that would in fact be quite a relief. Having anti-gay legislation means quite the opposite, specifically identifying a certain part of the population for discrimination for who they are. And even outside of legislation, which I would say is a real and palpable way of bringing home just where discrimination against gay people is in this day and age, gay people are subject to all kinds of abuse, physical and verbal, which again, is very much comparable to the abuse suffered by racial minorities.
I also don't understand how you can come to the conclusion that having anti-gay legislation is "just" meant to erase us, like attempting to eliminate an entire group of people is a minor annoyance? The vast majority of anti-gay legislation is not meant to shut people up, it is meant to eradicate us as we are, not to tolerate our existence as long as we keep our business private (which is the point of the anti-"gay propaganda" laws). Very different things but both of course incredibly problematic.
But really, the biggest issue I have in this discussion is the last paragraph, the attempt to assign a relative value of the respective insults by different people. We have a situation where a member of a specific sub-group of people (me, a gay man) is saying a word specifically meant to target people who are members of my sub-group should not be used in any context (which you thankfully agree with). That for me should be the end of the conversation. In my mind it should be very clear that the only people who get to decide the relative strength of a particular insult and how it should be used are exactly the people who it's directed against, directly or indirectly. Nobody asked white people how they feel about the n-word, it was black people who fought and largely succeeded in limiting its use by non-black people. The same should apply with the f-word. But for some reason it doesn't. Just like discrimination and prejudiced statements against gay people are not policed to the same extent racism is. And I think it should be. Discrimination of any sort should be fought against, hopefully one day without having to resort to comparing with other types of discrimination. But right now I think it's the best tool we can use to make people understand what exactly is happening.
I hope that makes sense. |
