Kuro's anti-PC thread (warning: you will probably hate what you read)

[Kuroimaken]

Alright.

So, the other day, I go on Facebook and read a story about how two authors quit DC Comics after they wouldn't okay part of a storyline that had Batwoman actually getting married to another girl (the character has already been established as homosexual from her inception). For me it was pretty obvious DC Comics was covering its own ass: homosexual relationships are more "tolerated" in the media now, but add the word "marriage" and someone's going to lose their shit. In any case, cue a shitstorm as people from both sides start arguing about the whole thing.

Personally, I think both sides of the discussion had something to consider. Was DC Comics asinine (pragmatical, but asinine) in its decision? Yeah, sure. We're talking about an industry that has, in recent history, tried to be taken seriously with more mature storylines, and part of that includes writing touchy subjects in. Moreover, they actually went out of their way to make an established character (the Green Lantern) gay, and established Batwoman as a lesbian from the start, then backpedaled about her getting married because... what, they'd have to determine whether Gotham City allows for gay marriage? Seriously?

On the other hand, lobbyism is a thing. It feels like every goddamn show, comic and movie nowadays has to have a Jew (or "insert any religion other than catholic" here), a black dude (who is a token character but whom at no point anybody calls a black person except as a means to show that X or Y character is racist), a powerful/successful chick (and woe betide if for ANY. GODDAMN. REASON. she turns to a damsel in distress, wears anything sexy at all, or actually acts like anything but a total frigid bitch) and a gay person (whose sexuality is established early and often, and which often has that as his/her only defining trait). In The Avengers, Samuel L. Jackson was cast as Nick Fury, arguably because he's badass, but who played the character exactly SQUAT like he's in the comics. There is a huge push for comics to show heroines who do not dress sexily, or for characters to come out of the damn closet. Power Girl lost her tit-window in the reboot because of it, and it was a running gag that she'd tear the shit out of anybody who underestimated her over her cleavage. And many of these people probably don't realize that back in the 60's, Superman wanted to date his own cousin, and the Green Lantern wanted to bang a 13-year-old alien.

Of course, people are stupid and see the whole thing as binary, and other people who point out lobbyism actually do so in obnoxious fashions, like calling it the "homosexual dictatorship". The worst part is that they're not completely wrong. However, because it would apparently be "wrong" to not support people with different sexual options in EVERY way, form or fashion, one cannot claim that a given character is a form of pandering.

By this point, a lot of people are probably considering that I'm really a hypocritic homophobe. I can't really blame them, it's part of the whole binary attitude I was just talking about. Personally, I couldn't give any LESS of a shit what two, or three, or a half-dozen people do behind closed doors, so long as that does not imply any imposed change on my life or the way I do things. Which, when I'm told I have to moderate the way I talk about a given subject, sounds like exactly that. (I have a friend who actually asked me to tone that shit down. She's the only exception I willingly make to that rule, because I respect her a lot. Otherwise, I'd tell her to shove it.)

Consider the contradiction: the world out there makes this huge shitstorm about freedom of speech, and "censorship is bad". What they leave out, however, is the subordinate clause "as long as you don't support the less majoritarian side of the discussion". Which is exactly the way it has been for several centuries of human history. It's hypocrisy taken to its logical self-absorbed, rationalized extreme. On that discussion I mentioned, there was this gal who went "someone should totally shut up those homophobic comments and shit". Which is the exact same mentality gay people have fought against for years. It is entirely possible to respect a portion of what makes one person and still not go on fucking parades about it.

I make it a point to explain to people every time that I do not subscribe to a PC way of thinking. That when I call a black person "black" for any reason, it's not to remind her that up until a century or so ago, there were a bunch of assholes that likely made his or her great-great-great-granddaddies do forced labor. That using the black/gay/religion/girl card is NOT okay. It comes up every time: a given dude or dudette claims he or she got fired because of religion/gender/ethnicity/sexuality, goes to court. We could be talking about the laziest asshole on the planet, people are still going to take his or her side, because that's ALL THEY SEE. How about those of us who don't get a card to play? We're supposed to get bent over and fucked by life because, and I quote, "we are privileged, white, straight male pigs?" Because someone else in line is a 'minority'? I'm not saying that kind of asshattery doesn't happen. I'm saying that sometimes, when it DOESN'T happen, someone will cry foul and use whatever they've got at their disposal to make their employer or would-be employer the bad guy. If I were black, or gay, or muslim, I'd actually be seriously fucking offended if someone hired me for anything besides my competence.

This goes for EVERYTHING. You do not eliminate a given form of bigotry by coddling the people who are being screwed over by the bigots, or walking over eggshells around them - that's like saying the bigot is right but you're too chickenshit to take his or her side. I cannot claim to have an answer, but I do know the hypocritical way is not the way to go.

I strive to be true about what I think and what I believe. Does that mean that I have my prejudices? Yeah, probably. But I'm not going to say I don't have them and then try to turn around and justify them. I think black people are awesome runners in general. I think sometimes gay people go a little over the top in their PDAs (which 'straight' people do, too, and often). I think some religions follow a bunch of rules that made a lot of sense two thousand years ago, but which today are just on the WTF side. I'm going to eat my goddamn meat, turn on my fucking AC when it's a billion degrees outside, and I'm going to laugh at off-color jokes that are genuinely funny.

And I will either tell to screw off or pound down whoever says "I can't do that".

[dman11235]

That using the black/gay/religion/girl card is NOT okay. It comes up every time: a given dude or dudette claims he or she got fired because of religion/gender/ethnicity/sexuality, goes to court. We could be talking about the laziest asshole on the planet, people are still going to take his or her side, because that's ALL THEY SEE

I can't go into details for legal reasons (at least I don't think I can, I can ask if it's open for discussion because as far as I know the case is done and over with), but over the past couple years someone I know fired a black lady because she was absolutely horrible (stole cookies from the buffet table while setting up, didn't do the work she was paid to do, etc. etc.), and she sued her employer because she claimed racial bias.  The case was over quickly because she was found to have no case at all for the lawsuit.  She then appealed with the help of someone who wanted to defend her.....for a class.  Yes, a law professor wanted to defend her in front of the supreme court, which they ruled on, in her employer's favor.  Because she had no case.  No one supported her because she actually was fired for poor performance.  And yes, that supreme court (US, for those who don't know where I am).

[Kajhera]

Hon, you have a good heart, but please understand it's just as much freedom of speech to say you hate what someone's saying and it's hurtful for reasons XYZ as it is to say that hurtful thing in the first place. There are those of us who are just honestly ignorant about how much what we're saying might hurt those around us, and we kind of really need the education, even if it makes us feel like shit afterwards. Then there are those of us who are actually trying to hurt people with our rhetoric and in that case we brought it on ourselves.

Agreed that tossing in a stereotyped role into a show for lobbyism/to make the numbers work can be pretty terribly done. I mean, reflecting the world is one (desirable) thing, but ... if the people making the show don't know what they're doing can get some seriously cringe-worthy results. In this particular case I think going for diversity in the hiring process might be called for - get someone who's minored in LGBTQ studies or something on board as a writer before you decide how to portray the gay guy, to make sure you don't fuck it up something bad. (Recent minor now existing at my uni - intersex and asexual persons apparently didn't get in on the acronym on time, unfortunately, or there might just be less anthropology available on them.)

As for playing cards ... ? It's kind of the definition of 'privilege' that there's going to be statistically less getting fucked by life going on. So yeah ... all of the troubles one subset is going through, in all their horror? Multiply by like ... five ... I wouldn't make too many assumptions. If someone doesn't have a case they don't have a case, isn't a case for dismissing people who do.

It's kind of only recently sunk in how horrible the world actually is and how lucky... and sometimes potentially hurtful... I've been... (Just because I'm a bisexual woman doesn't mean I can't be a privileged straight white male pig apparently, if behavior's any indication.)

So yeah I might laugh at an off-color joke if it's genuinely funny ... but if it's one I know better and it's a horrible reality instead of a joke for me, told by someone who seems ignorant of what they're perpetuating rather than someone who knows what they're talking about...? Well I just might cry mate, and feel a lot less comfortable with that person who told it, and maybe even let them know that, and if someone thinks that reaction's censorship or that I'm infringing on their ability to enjoy off-color jokes ...

Well how the fuck does that make any sense? I certainly wouldn't trust that person very much either, if my discomfort makes them defensive rather than supportive.

P.S.: Meat and AC are both delicious. Meat is in many ways unfortunate and I look up to a certain Dr. Temple Grandin for making it somewhat less so without negating ability to eat meat, since I failed at being vegetarian. I don't know if that has anything to do with the religious context but it seemed a slightly relevant tangent.

[Kuroimaken]

Hon, you have a good heart, but please understand it's just as much freedom of speech to say you hate what someone's saying and it's hurtful for reasons XYZ as it is to say that hurtful thing in the first place.

I... actually kinda feel like we're agreeing on a certain level here, but I might be wrong. My point was that freedom of speech shouldn't need to be used as a shield. Freedom of speech is supposed to be a good thing because it assumes people will logically discuss something to reach the best possible outcome. The way it is nowadays, it feels more like "you're free to say anything you want as long as it doesn't fall within any of the following...".

Agreed that tossing in a stereotyped role into a show for lobbyism/to make the numbers work can be pretty terribly done. I mean, reflecting the world is one (desirable) thing, but ... if the people making the show don't know what they're doing can get some seriously cringe-worthy results. In this particular case I think going for diversity in the hiring process might be called for - get someone who's minored in LGBTQ studies or something on board as a writer before you decide how to portray the gay guy, to make sure you don't fuck it up something bad. (Recent minor now existing at my uni - intersex and asexual persons apparently didn't get in on the acronym on time, unfortunately, or there might just be less anthropology available on them.)

Supposedly, the big issue in this case wasn't how Batwoman was portrayed as gay, but rather that she wanted to get married. Gets into uncomfortable territory for people, ergo DC covering their asses. People have, in fact, really liked the character the way she was portrayed. Probably because she was written as a person, not a stereotype. The authors quit because they got some last-minute orders from higher-ups saying "No way, Jose" to things they had planned in advance a looooooooooong time ago.

(That acronym gets longer each time. It's kind of worrying in its own way.)

I recently bought this reedition of Dororo where the editors actually put in a footnote about how people should not condemn Osamu Tezuka's work for some of its racist overtones because of the times he lived in, and the fact there is a complete lack of any actual desire to enact bigotry. This should be implied, not needed. But, oversensitive as the world is now, they needed to cover their asses.

I find it hilarious how much attention this gets in the West. In Japan, characters may have certain traits such as skin color or "alternate" sexuality that only rarely or tangentially plays into who and what they are. And people don't give a shit. It is, at the very least, ironic how a culture of such a level of sexual repression can act the most civilized about it. Hell, they even fool around with their goddamned historical figures, for crying out loud.

As for playing cards ... ? It's kind of the definition of 'privilege' that there's going to be statistically less getting fucked by life going on. So yeah ... all of the troubles one subset is going through, in all their horror? Multiply by like ... five ... I wouldn't make too many assumptions. If someone doesn't have a case they don't have a case, isn't a case for dismissing people who do.

And I'm not condemning the people who do. I'm condemning the people who don't, and raise a stink. Also, the people who believe that someone SHOULD be taken down a peg for a perceived "privilege" that others lack.

On that note: it's great to see that sometimes the law system works as intended. But consider what a gigantic waste of time it was for those involved, and how ashamed someone should be for invoking law that way. And racism isn't even the worst way this can happen - there's a reason falsely reporting a crime is, in itself, a crime.

So yeah I might laugh at an off-color joke if it's genuinely funny ... but if it's one I know better and it's a horrible reality instead of a joke for me, told by someone who seems ignorant of what they're perpetuating rather than someone who knows what they're talking about...? Well I just might cry mate, and feel a lot less comfortable with that person who told it, and maybe even let them know that, and if someone thinks that reaction's censorship or that I'm infringing on their ability to enjoy off-color jokes ...

I wouldn't blame you for it. Though I feel there is a different quantification here. It's one thing to damn an off-color joke FOR BEING an off-color joke. It's another to damn an off-color joke for being something one genuinely should NOT laugh about. Like, say, abortion, or rape. (I don't get dead baby jokes. I just don't find them funny.) If, AFTER you told them how and why the joke makes you uncomfortable, the person in question insists? Then he might just be an ass. And in some cases, people are overreacting to the issue. Both sides exist, people ignore that for convenience's sake, so they don't have to think about it.

P.S.: Meat and AC are both delicious. Meat is in many ways unfortunate and I look up to a certain Dr. Temple Grandin for making it somewhat less so without negating ability to eat meat, since I failed at being vegetarian. I don't know if that has anything to do with the religious context but it seemed a slightly relevant tangent.

Actually it's another tangent on the "people trying to tell me how to live" side. Pushy people who believe that meat should never be consumed in any shape or fashion, and want you to do the same, are just the kind of people that make me wish murder is legal. Where do they get off telling me how to live or what to do, is my point.

It actually gets so that they try to distort omnivorism into some kind of horrible propaganda of the meat industry. And trying to guilt-trip you into changing your habits? Seriously?

[Dkonen]

Actually I think the point being made is that free speech covers everybody. If you can say that you think people play the race card, other people can call you a bigot. It's unnecessary and stupid, but true. What they can't do is threaten you, tell you you're subhuman because of race/sex/religion/etc. They can sure as hell insult and shame you for things, though. That's freedom of speech. People have that right to call you down, you have the right to tell them to shut up, or just to ignore them.

Personally, as a female, I have had a hella time trying to get hired for certain jobs and taken seriously over certain things. Part of it's my size (I'm rather small), my appearance (blonde/blue), so I can get why folks might not hire me for security. That doesn't mean my last prospective boss had the right to steal my security license and mock me (we were in a public area so I couldn't show why I was on security for over a year). It also doesn't mean that some of my other bosses had the right to assume I would sleep with them, permit them to harass me, or whathaveyou. I'm in a fairly whitebread conservative-two-decades-behind city, where most prospective employers laugh off the labour board. Yeah if I thought I had a chance at suing, you damned well bet I would. However, not as many lawyers here willing to take pro bono, even if it is a pretty much obvious win. Yeah, it would be based on my appearance and my gender. That doesn't make it a "card" play. It makes it a fact.

To generalize encouraged awareness as card playing is silly. That's like me claiming all americans are westboro NRA members because a few happen to be, and they hit the media.

Now, I *am* very much against quotas. I would never ever want to be hired for a job I wanted simply because I filled a quota. I would want to be hired because of an employer's confidence in me. However, living where I do, I can see the necessity of it. Some people are patently racist, whether they are aware/admitting it or not. Being white, I guess my problem is with the necessity of it. Some races would never get hired in places where they could do some real good, simply because the dickhead in HR is a bigot. And yeah, I do think that asshole should get hauled into court and shamed for it. Depriving someone of their humanity is a dickhead nasty thing to do, and that's exactly what bigotry is.

Yeah, I hate that every show has to have X cast members to showcase diversity, but at the same, I know why they do. Because some people are bigots and the only way to get them to stop it is to make them so uncomfortable that they have to either change or shut the hell up. It's not a perfect solution, but it seems to be working. Trust me, I wish there were a better way, hate speech rulings help, but only if the marginalized are confident enough already to prosecute, and a lot aren't, some by the very abuse suffered at the defendant.

It's a mass solution, which means not particularly good, but good enough for now. If you can find another way to make bigot dickwads stop being bigot dickwads, be our guest, we'd be happy with a better solution, but this is all we've got that works right now. Trying to educate and reason with millions of people at once is a tough job.

[Kuroimaken]

Freedom of speech does not equal freedom to be a dickhead. Otherwise it would be called... freedom to be a dickhead.

I may be oversimplifying the issue, but consider this: my beef is not with people who genuinely have a problem. It's with those who do not, and make use of this fledgling conscience to take advantage of an attempt to right a wrong. In so many words, they're the dickheads at the other end of the spectrum.

I find myself discriminated against because of people who only get the general idea that bigotry is bad, but never stop to consider why.

Personally, I can't relate to the issues you've faced. I'm a guy. The guy response for that kind of bullshit is typically testosterone-based, AKA the Nutcracker. Or the Knuckle Sammich. Though I can't say I don't feel empathy for your situation, there are people who fail to consider that acknowledging our differences and my inability to personally relate does not make me sexist by default. They also fail to consider that, if the aim of feminism is equality, one is supposed to take the good with the bad, or at least trying to keep the bad on BOTH sides to a minimum. That's the problem with a blanket solution: at some point, people end up taking it to the logical extreme, and those who have a more "moderate" stance end up having to either pick a side or being bullshitted by both.

It's not as if I can't see why they go for the quota. It's the simplest, easiest solution to arrange. But by virtue of it being imperfect, that means people should keep on trying to find other solutions, not stagnate with the one they've got.

People should also learn to stand up for each other. You don't have to be a hero every time, you don't have to stand up to everyone each time you find someone who's on the receiving end of a pantsing. Though each time you do, it gets easier. It earns you respect. It teaches you to stand up for yourself as well - and even if you don't, someone you helped along the lines will get your back eventually. It's a tough mentality to teach, and even harder to master, but so is everything worth doing.

I know it's cheap and easy to claim this when the situation is likely never going to come up, but I WOULD have your back if I saw your prospective boss being a dick. It's part of what I consider personal integrity. How I was raised, really. My values may be a little more outdated than most, I admit.

[bhu]

Alright.

So, the other day, I go on Facebook and read a story about how two authors quit DC Comics after they wouldn't okay part of a storyline that had Batwoman actually getting married to another girl (the character has already been established as homosexual from her inception). For me it was pretty obvious DC Comics was covering its own ass: homosexual relationships are more "tolerated" in the media now, but add the word "marriage" and someone's going to lose their shit. In any case, cue a shitstorm as people from both sides start arguing about the whole thing.

In defense of those guys, DC has been jacking them around forever on a lot of stuff and that was just the final straw.  All things considered a lot of the fans of that comic wanted to see it, and now that the creative team has left the book will probably fold.  As in DC purposefully just killed a book  that was making money for them because they were squicked by it's social issues, which they greenlighted and pushed in the first place to increase revenue.

Personally, I think both sides of the discussion had something to consider. Was DC Comics asinine (pragmatical, but asinine) in its decision? Yeah, sure. We're talking about an industry that has, in recent history, tried to be taken seriously with more mature storylines, and part of that includes writing touchy subjects in. Moreover, they actually went out of their way to make an established character (the Green Lantern) gay, and established Batwoman as a lesbian from the start, then backpedaled about her getting married because... what, they'd have to determine whether Gotham City allows for gay marriage? Seriously?

They were anything but pragmatic.  The fans of the book were waiting for that story, and younger comics readers are less homophobic than older ones.  The people the book was geared for didn't object to the storyline they objected to what happened.  COmics is a business largely driven by ego, and if someone at the top hates something, it goes even if it makes the company scads of money because said individual needs to prove how big his dick is inside the industry.

[Kuroimaken]

For what it's worth, that explanation makes more sense.

Note that at no point did I claim this wasn't a dick move on DC's part (which it was), but the discussion that sprang from it was ridiculous. On both sides. 

[Kajhera]

I appreciate your response and clarifications.

[Amechra]

I'm going to go slightly off topic and get mad at something I read a while ago.

Namely, I was checking out a blog, and in the comments, someone made a comment that essentially boiled down to "that book is going to be good because it wasn't written by a white person." And by "essentially boiled down to", I mean "explicitly said that, but I can't remember the wording."

Seriously? How immature. Everything should be taken on its own merits first, before expanding it to the larger social interconnection.

I actually make it a point to not compare anything I read or watch to anything else, unless it is a direct sequel/prequel/adaptation/spinoff of another work, and then only in the context of that other thing.

It boils down to me ignoring stuff that needlessly complicates the situation I'm in; it's unnecessary to give people leeway that they haven't deserved.

And it is counterproductive to then give no-one a chance to earn it.

Eh, what do I know; my dad's affectionate nickname for me when I was a kid was a racial slur against italian-americans, so I might be a corner case. 

[Kuroimaken]

I appreciate your response and clarifications.

As do I.

And if you're mad at anything I wrote, by all means, feel free to speak your mind.

[Dkonen]

Freedom of speech does not equal freedom to be a dickhead. Otherwise it would be called... freedom to be a dickhead.

Actually your freedom of speech very much covers that. It is the right to argue, to ad hominem and strawman to your heart's delight. It's the right to express yourself and those expressions aren't always polite and civilized.

I say "your", because as I've noted, I'm canadian. Our "freedom of speech" parallel adds the important words: "within reasonable distinction." Yours doesn't. It does not require people to be polite or even mature. The only restriction is hate speech which is a fairly recent addition, merely because of the openness of the "freedom of speech" defense. Well, that and sedition and uttering threats. Treason could technically fall under that too, I suppose. But yeah, it includes freedom to be a dickhead, just not a possibly harmful or abusive dickhead, at which point it becomes verbal abuse or hate speech, both of which you can charge someone for, but if you don't, well...... no charge no foul I suppose.

Your freedom of speech protects the rights for someone to say "oh yeah, well I think you're a jerk, and your ideas are moronic!" as much as it does your right to tell others you think their ideas are moronic. It applies to all citizens and both ways. Otherwise your little rant would also be in violation. Some people could take your rant as being a dickhead. I don't, because I see what you're trying to approach and while it may not be entirely constructive, it's a rant thread. Rant on, brother. Freedom of speech is not freedom to play nice and be polite. It's freedom to express an opinion. If that opinion is "you're a douche" well, that's an opinion. You know what they say about opinions and assholes. It's also your right to disagree, and state it as (in) eloquently as you wish.. That's your freedom to state.

I guess to fire back in a similar fashion: It's also not called "freedom to use speech responsibly like and adult and only be pleasant and constructive" either. Otherwise...well..it'd be awful quiet.

Yes, people should you're damned right. They don't though, and we can't force them to. That's why the quotas and the media exposure. It is the easiest  and most effective solution that's available right now. Yes people should (and do) continue searching for better ways. But I can't really think of any beyond educating the next generation and waiting for the racists to die out, by virtue of making racism so repugnant noone wants that tag. Media forcing the issue is one way to do that and it reaches more people than social etiquette classes or even elementary school teachers who tell kids to play nice. It isn't perfect, but for now, it works.

I do hope there's a better option. Mine is simply to discourage it where and when I hear it, to vehemently declaim, and to encourage and foster better behaviour, but as large as my social circle is, it ain't that big. If enough people do the same, maybe media force wouldn't be necessary, but they don't. I have put some thought into this, and have ranted similar to what you have pointed out, but after some time I realized that I simply did not have a better idea on how to reach that many people and have a significant effect beyond what's being done. Well, other than some heavy handed "liberal" dictatorship maneuvers, which bring their own moral questions into it. You can't jail everyone who's a bigot, hell some times you can't even tell who is until that fatal moment something slips out.  And how do you tell the people who are mocking it from the people who mean it? (I know a hilarious absurdist-but at first, I thought he meant everything he said)

Noone said we'd stopped looking for a better solution, we just haven't found one beyond what we're already doing. Awareness campaigns, media extravagances, celebrity sponsors, social ostracism, and it *is* slowly working.

Standing up and leading by example is great. Keep it up and encourage it where you can, but realize that while that's a slow process, some people don't have that time to wait. I'm lucky to be in NA and white, God forbid I was a dalit in rural india. Or a black or hispanic in the worse parts of NY, or really just NYC. How often would *you* like to get frisked based on skin colour? There are people dying based on bigotry while we wait, as much as I'd like to take the slow and steady path to get it done to keep everyone happy, I'm much happier with the fact that so much *is* being done to hasten the process of ostracizing bigotry. It cannot end soon enough-if it ever does.

And thanks hun, I appreciate it. We just have a lot of assholes here who think they can play "big man" to the little girl when they have a job and I need a paycheck. It's the only reason I can stand being unemployed, well that and the thought of the three grand a year (or more) we'd have to pay in so I could work >.<

Stupid tax brackets. Stupid cab fares. Stupid lunch. Stupid uniforms/business casual. Stupid assholes.

[Kuroimaken]

You're kind of forgetting an important part in that, sweetheart (that's right, I said sweetheart, you got a problem with it?  ). It feels a lot like you're assuming I'm from somewhere I'm not. Specifically, the US of A.

More to the point, I'm Brazillian. Which means that our approach to freedom of speech comes from a different bent.

From 1964 until roughly 1981, we were under a military dictatorship. Freedom of press did not in fact exist back then for obvious reasons. People were jailed, beaten, tortured and shipped off to God-knows-where just for possessing a copy of Marx's books. Any book. (Most of the media groups that rose to prominence back then are STILL major newsgroups now. So you can imagine the mess.)

Now, the end of said dictatorship meant that we had free press again. Which was great.

It also meant we now had a generation of journalists to whom "freedom of speech" meant "being free from journalistic ethics". Which is not so great.

Especifically, each time someone is called upon to take responsibility for saying stupid shit or inciting hatred or whatever, they use that horrible past as a flag to defend themselves. The words "we haven't seen that much censorship since 1964" get thrown around like a mantra. Which brings me to my point: freedom must be followed by responsibility. Otherwise, you're just a dickhead. This is why the freedom of speech defense works - even freedom must have clearly defined boundaries, otherwise you get good old "survival of the fittest" style social dynamics.

As far as standing up for the people close to you... let's take a quick approach to bullying, for example. What are people teaching their kids to do when they see a bully? "Do not tolerate." "Tell your teacher." Or, implied: "gang up on the bully with your friends and be a bully yourself."

At no point do they tell, "Stand up to the bully. You'll earn a friend for it." In essence, the approach is to turn the social dynamics on the bully by reminding him or her that a bully is constantly outnumbered. Now I don't know about you, but last I checked, bullies typically rise from broken homes, overall shitty lives, or by being in fact outright taught that people need to be brought under their heel. They try to impose their identity through strength, whether social or physical. They are, in effect, a minority - and they're treated like people have always treated minorities in the past, by fucking them up.

See what I did there? 

But back to the point of approaches to dealing with dickheads. Waiting for the racists and bigots to die out will never work because, unfortunately, social ostracism is not enough to keep someone out of the gene pool. Like minds often flock together, and given enough time and booze, they actually reproduce. Which means that even if they turn into a minority, they'll never actually die out. Someone is always going to look back and think "man, those days where white people were slave owners were the days", even if that's a completely appalling notion to most of us. And you can't really teach those who 'know', either. In order to kill an idea, you will basically have to kill anything and anyone that subscribes to that idea, and then kill any written experiences they left behind. Which not only goes against that precious notion of freedom of speech, it's immoral on several other levels as well, including but not limited to the hypocrisy of doing exactly the kinds of things you're condemning them for in order to keep their hatred out.

Again, I don't have an answer. I really wish I did, then I could get to spreading it and making the world a better place. Instead of, y'know, ranting the afternoon away.

It'd help if we could really get to the base of the subject. As in the real reason behind all that shit. If it were fear, it'd just be a matter of giving them something bigger that they needed to stand together against. Something that affected both sides of the equation. Like world hunger, a violent deadly virus outbreak, or invading monstrosities from Hell itself. The closest we've come to is the argument of "fear of the unknown", the notion that people fear that which they cannot understand and/or closely relate to.

I'm going to do my part. Teach my kids to hate people for being liars and assholes, which is something they'll have to give a lot more thought to than "that guy is black, get him!" (I jest, of course, but you get the idea.)

I dunno, maybe I'm just a little underwhelmed by the idea of "kill the haters by hating them". We'd have a better net gain, overall, by teaching people to help indiscriminately instead. Instead of focusing on the bully, focus on the bullied.

Thought experiment. You set up a charity for helping starving people. However, at no point do you specify who these people are. You ensure there is no fraud and the money goes to exactly that purpose. It could be almost literally anyone. Who donates to that charity?

Another thought: you have a company that makes two kinds of products - one that is environmentally friendly and another that is not, by comparison. The profit margin is equal on both, but the manufacturing cost is not (the environmentally friendly variety is likely to be more expensive). Both are clearly stated as being eco or non-eco friendly. Who buys which?

[wotmaniac]

Preach on, Brother Kuroimaken. 

[Dkonen]

charity for starving people? Without specifying who? We have a food bank. You give food and it gets doled out to the hungry-noone knows who but those who pass it out. It's pretty well supplied in the community.

Eco friendly, same profit margin, higher manufacturing cost and labelling honesty. Well, higher manufacturing cost means that the eco friendly one (if it generates the same profits) is more expensive, so I would assume those who can afford it will buy it. Eco friendly-at least here is still trendy, so thingslabelled as such get bought faster.

(in fact green initiatives are so popular that my husband's assisting a specialist in the field in analyzing and verifying their claims right now. You'd be surprised what people will claim is part of a green initiative to get people to buy more of their product. It's a HUGE marketing thing now, internationally and some of the largest corporations are realigning their companies for it-of course, it also means that the products break down faster so you need to buy more of them, so.....)

Anthropologically speaking, there are a few studies on the origin of racism, most very controversial and not necessarily more than possible causes. I don't even think they've gotten as far as probable.

I also have no issue with loathing bigots. It's not an ethnicity or sexual orientation or religion or even a phase in growing up. It's not being a hypocrite to despise people you believe are causing the world untold grief by inflicting harm on other for no (valid) reason whatsoever. So I'm not a bigot against bigots, I just really really dislike them (technically, by my definition of hate, I don't even hate them. I'd like them to mend their ways but I wouldn't be happy if they died-not honestly). To be honest I lump them in with selfish callous folk as well, for the same reason. Destructive assholes. I think that's a reasonable reason to dislike someone/thing.

Be careful about the hating liars and assholes. Everyone lies at some point, and assholes is entirely subjective. You may just end up with kids who hate everyone/thing. Don't laugh, I've heard and seen it, and they even used the words: "I hate fucking liars" or "I hate all the fucking assholes in the world". Some of the most self loathign self destructive people say that. How about just talking to them and showing them the dignity of humanity and encouraging them to encourage and help others find it and spread it?

I'm more likely to talk to a bully to find out why they're doing what they're trying. I have and do stand up to them, trust me when everyone else is bigger than you, you learn to. Coming from a bad home myself, I do understand where they're coming from *BUT* there are some people who are inherently self destructive that have explosive tempers. I've been on the end of that more than a few times too. The only thing you can do is brace yourself. They won't be reasoned with and unless you can beat them (unlikely bullies usually choose victims unable to fight back-well certain types of bullies) they won't stop unless you can get away from them or find some way to restrain them. They will do it again. And again. Those people are mentally unstable and need to be off the streets, but a lot of them function quite well outside of their pre selected victims. So also with those so ingrained in their hatred that no amount of social pressure can pull it away. If they're reasonable, they can be made to see reason, eventually. If they're not reasonable and insist on it, they're a danger to people around them. Unfortunately there are not enough asylums in the world. So, by encouraging social ostracism, it minimizes the effect and the receptive audience of said bigots. It renders them from a mob to a scattering of individuals, outnumbered and afraid to act on their hatred. I'm good with that.

Also serial killers are also a minority, as are pedophiles, yet I'm pretty sure it's okay to hate them. Even though serial killers are usually mentally disturbed and pedophilia has been argued as a sexual orientation. Trust me, I'm pretty sure it's okay to hate bigots without being in danger of becoming one yourself. Hating people for being loathesome asshats is pretty normal.

And no problem with the sweetheart..after all, I started the endearments, fair's fair.

Edit: I always assume those talking about freedom of speech are american since that's what the ammendment explicitly calls it. I don't even know what our is called, I do now it's number and letters. Like we have a nifty right that lets us refuse to answer a question in court on the grounds it may incriminate ourselves (13c I think).

[Kuroimaken]

Mkay, I think some of it got a little lost there, but that's mostly my fault for adding a bit of sarcasm to the mix. (For example, I didn't mean the endearment in any offensive way. Was mostly lightening the mood. Anyhoo!)

Alright, that much reasoning I expected. Now take it a step further. Let's say the product in question is electronic - a smartphone, for example. And for whatever reason, people come to the conclusion that the non-eco-friendly variety performs better. Which variety do people buy?

It's basically human psychology applied on a very, very large scale. Probable is about as good as we're gonna get. Heck, regular psychology often only gets us that much.

My point was that, in order to effectively eliminate bigotry, you'd have to become one of them. Now maybe you can live with that, but I don't. Not really. Something cautionary to be said about the nature of hatred itself. You might not hate HATE them now, but you definitely would end up doing so along the lines if you made it a point to fight them back with everything you've got. Which brings us back to the kind of grognard mentality wherein if you're not in full support of the LGBTQ movement, racial diversity etc. in SOME way, shape or fashion, you're automatically "the enemy". Heck, they might not even actually be all that involved, but the mentality persists.

I was actually being facetious with the whole "teach the kids hate" thing. Y'know, as indicated by the comment in parenthesis.  I can seriously say I strove for a very long time to become more honest. That I'd lie about the smallest, most insignificant things on reflex - sometimes I'll still catch myself doing so, without realizing it. So I teach them honesty instead. Teach the virtue, not to hate the vice. It's more productive.

I'm not good with that because back when I was a kid and the "paladins against bullying" weren't a thing, a bully was basically anything and everything you did not fall in with. I didn't fight back at the time. Not really sure if it's because I didn't want to actually hurt anybody, or if it was because it felt stupid. I took the high road the vast majority of the time - those times I didn't landed me in trouble, so. But one thing I did learn back then: being on the receiving end of that kind of obnoxiousness is a real pain. Something I wouldn't wish on anybody. So fighting a bully by becoming a bully is a disgusting thought to me. Maybe I think this way now because I believe I can beat anything resembling a bully back. I think there is ALWAYS a way to reach somebody. But it takes a lot more effort than simply isolating them - so again, we have "what we gotta do" against "what works". If you do "what you've got to do", it'll take more time but you have better, lasting end results. If you do "what works", you may rebuff the problem for a while, but repression breeds neurosis, so chances are things are just gonna end up twice as bad down the road. Sure there are people who are lost cases. But if you were not one, and people gave up on you early, would you try to soldier on, or just go "fuck this" and become even worse?

I don't care what anybody says, pedophiles are seriously fucking sick. It goes beyond "not being normal". Most pedophiles are unable to actually understand what kind of damage they're inflicting. Why it's really wrong to do what they do. Even serial killers try to develop some kind of mechanism to rationalize the impact of taking a life. They often have some kind of defining moment in their lives that makes them what they are - they pretty much know what they're doing is wrong yet keep going. It's a choice, even if it's one born of a mental defect or trauma. Currently, pedophillia is something "manageable" but not "treatable". And it depends on the patient's willingness to accept their condition for what it is. So yes, pedophiles need to be put in cages and need to have intensive therapy. So do serial killers. Doesn't mean hating either one is going to do anybody any good - just like hating on gays, black people, jews or what have you doesn't.

And no problem. Just figured it was a good idea to point where I was coming from. We have our own right to avoid self-incrimination here, too; it's in the constitution, can't remember which article.

[Dkonen]

No I didn't figure it was offensive, sweetie 

I don't think despising someone for being a bigot makes you one, even if they are a minority. They're not a culture, ethnicity, religious sect or any other such group. Well, except some particularly freaky folk, but we're talking your average bigot, not people who go join weird cults that promote racial supremacy. Yes, that includes places where homosexuals are executed by law (still bigotry and run of the mill for that country), and where skin colour is the difference between being repeatedly raped or being treated with respect, or the difference of religion that mean living or dying-slowly and painfully.

Hating people because they're destructive assholes is not hating the minority it's hating them because they're destructive assholes. They're mean, vicious, dehumanizing dickwads. That's not race, ethnicity, religious or sex. That's not *something they can't change*-unless they're having mental problems. See comment about asylums. Yes, I know some people say you choose a religious path, but those people typically aren't religious. A person's spiritual belief (if they are devout) is often as much a part of them as their sexuality, sometimes more.

Bigotry is simply hating another group for something they haven't got control over. Now, do I think we should treat every person like china until we realize whether they're part of a minority? Hell no, that's as much discrimination as treating them poorly (just not as damaging in most cases). It's patronizing. People are people. I will passionately defend the right of any person to their own humanity. I will also denounce those who try to take it from them. Dehumanizing others is not something that exists in a vaccuum either. Chances are if someone dehumanizes another due to any of the above stated restrictions, they do so as well in other areas. They usually have violence and abuse issues. It is *extremely* rare to find a bigot who, aside from his awful outlook, is actually a nice and kind person.

My father is one of those few. However I can tell you how his bigotry came in. He's over seventy and raised in a rural community that was so bigotted even people who spoke any language but english was considered dehumanizing. He was raised in an environment that considered bigotry to be not only acceptable, but laudable. Still, when he referred to one of his neighbors as a "nigger" and wanted to know "waht a nice white girl was doing marrying a nigger" at a family dinner, I stood up and told him that I never *ever* wanted to hear that from him again, and I wouldn't sit and listen to it. My father is sweet, kind, gentle and grapples with chronic depression. When things got bad, he was there. He taught me about animals and nature and helped me in school and we watched tv together. If I won't take it from him, I sure as hell won't take it from a stranger.

I dislike bigots intensely, that's not becoming a bigot, that's normal. People don't like jerks. Bigot=jerk. They can change their behaviour, they know what is wrong with it, but they persist, contrary to the feelings and wishes of others. That's being an ass, not a minority. Some of these people (a decent percentage) are even violent about it. Hell, there's the whole killing-people-because-they're-different thing. I'd say hating bigots does not in any way make a person equivalent to one, since well, generally we don't go around executing them for being bigots.

A bigot can consciously choose not to be one. They can educate themselves, learn, be aware. They can learn acceptance and tolerance, and if that's too hard they can just not be assholes by constantly spewing forth venomous bile on people based on something they haven't any control over.

No, I don't think that I should get anything from being female. I don't think I'd want any of my trans or bi or gay friends telling me that I have to be nice to them just because they're XXX. That's being a jerk too. They're people. I'll treat them like people. I won't disrespect them or treat them poorly unless they've done something that I think deserves it. But if they have, I'll tell them they're being an idiot and move on. Funny thing is, they do the same thing.

Bigotry is a choice. Hating someone because they're a bigot is not persecution, any more than hating someone's coat. It can be taken off, removed, replaced, altered and changed. In fact, it's really really hard to be bigot these days, since between scientific, technological and social development has proven without a doubt that we are *all* human. 99.9% similar in fact (yes actual statistic on genetic similarity). So bigotry is a choice to be an ass. Hating assholes is perfectly normal.

[Kuroimaken]

Eh, normal is a buzzword for psychiatrists in my book. 

It might not make you one, but really, how much of a difference is there? Perhaps there is a better way to phrase this...

Mkay, how about this? Ignorance can be just as much part of bigotry as upbringing. (Of course, some people may choose to remain ignorant. That old saying about how you can't teach those who "know".) If this is the case, wouldn't hating an 'ignorant bigot' somewhat like hating the illiterate? I admit I am very fidgety around people from certain cultures because I do not know enough about them, and do not want to come across as an asshole. Had I the knowledge, I would always speak to anyone and everyone in their native tongue out of politeness alone. There are, in fact, people who don't know any better and may, in fact, not even know they don't. Hating is an indiscriminate approach, at least as far as I see it.

In any case, I realize there are people who cannot be reasoned with. But before things go that far I will always try to speak first. If I feel that I am getting too upset to conduct proper, civilized conversation, I walk away and distance myself. It's as simple as that.

Though I will always, ALWAYS try and keep my feelings on the matter separate. Nobody benefits from a heated argument.

[Kajhera]

If you can hate what someone does and not who they are that's really good and the more power to you. Especially if it's someone you love who's being ignorant and hurtful. Being able to stand up to them like Dkonen said seems a lot more feasible when it's the wrong you're standing up to, not them...otherwise can be too easy to let slip and fester into hate in the name of peace.

I've been ignorant, I cringe at the idea of hurting someone, I appreciate being successfully educated on when my behavior is hurtful, and as such I am thankful for any approach that acknowledges I'm worth the effort to correct. I try and do what I can to be a good person to pick a battle with at least. And try and educate myself, because it's not just other peoples' responsibility to set me straight.

Certainly wouldn't object to hating someone for unwilling-to-change bigotry...
I think my hate glands are broken though ... they've been tested recently and I apparently can't actually hate someone ... it just breaks off into sadness before I get there.

[Kuroimaken]

All the better, I believe.

Hatred is a real big energy sink. It takes a lot of energy to be angry and to stay angry. Much of that energy is wasted trying to numb the rational response - it's in part of our biology, I think.

Honestly, if I knew then what I do now, I'd have probably done things differently as a kid. But you know what they say... Hindsight is always 20/20.