Transgender Problem

[ralis]

How have I minimised it ? Alternatively you are evading by demanding minority rights, without accepting that the smallest minority is a single individual person. Philosophy and reason would answer your question, if you would only let the light in.

 

Philosophy and reason without empathy and heart are useless armchair activities.

[liminal_luke]

How have I minimised it ?

 

By suggesting that the example of racism I gave was an exaggeration, here.

 

 

not 'everywhere' then ?

[Karl]

Philosophy and reason without empathy and heart are useless armchair activities.

 

You are talking about emotion ? Then that is so.

[Karl]

By suggesting that the example of racism I gave was an exaggeration, here.

 

You did exaggerate, I simply stated a fact. I minimised your argument for violence as a solution to violence. You were acting as a propagandist justifying war by exaggerating the actions and idealism of the enemy. You are promoting conflict instead of applying logic and reason.

[liminal_luke]

It´s no fun bumming with someone whose so invested in being right it´s like arguing with a brick wall.  There comes a point where further engagement in conversation is just an exercise in masochism, a point that I reached some threads ago.  I for one am walking away from the Karl sandbox.  About damn time.

[dust]

Oh boy.  It´s relatively easy to get behind your example because white people are not systematically discriminated against.  Just one shop, right?  Fuck em.  They are only harming their own business.  But now imagine you´re a black person and it´s not just a single mom-and-pop business, it´s Denny´s all across the country.  Imagine that everywhere you go in your town you can´t order breakfast?

 

Oh boy... Have I turned to the dark side?

 

I don't think so. In all honesty, I stand in the middle on this, and my flip-flopping can be seen in this thread. I don't think either side of the argument is wrong. I like the idea of all people being free to take their business where they want, to not be discriminated against based on outward appearance etc; but I also like the idea of all people being free to run their business how they want, as long as they're not doing active harm.

Edited May 11, 2016 by dustybeijing

[dust]

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/25/us/denny-s-restaurants-to-pay-54-million-in-race-bias-suits.html?pagewanted=all

 

Denny´s paying out $54,000,000 in damages for refusing service to blacks in 1994. I asked Dustybeijing to imagine but if you prefer to examine the historical record, be my guest. In 1994 I was a white dude living in relatively liberal Portland, Oregon. I wasn´t particularly attuned or sensitive to racism, and things didn´t seem so bad to me. But for a black family in Mississippi in the 50´s? Different story.

 

Some executives said they feared the publicity had begun to discourage blacks, who represent 10 percent of the chain's customers, from eating at the 1,500 Denny's restaurants.

 

And well it should. The execs' main concern should be promoting a good business, not basing policy on 'race'; doesn't this stuff from 1994 serve to illustrate that?

[liminal_luke]

[Old River]

 

Thanks for that, LL.  In many southern courtrooms they even had separate Bibles (!!!!!!!!) to swear on:

 

http://www.jurisprudence.com.au/juris26/McFarlin.pdf

 

And now in the 2st century, we still can't get over our sick addiction to hierarchical superiority (we can't even admit it as a country).  This is why I find it impossible to feel remotely "patriotic" about the US-- it simply goes against my conscience.  I don't hate the US, but neither do I love it. 

[Old River]

"State's rights" is nothing but a tacit code for "maintaining the hierarchy."

 

This is the real reason for states with their newfound obsession with bathrooms and wedding cakes.  The state can't gas 'em, they can't make them go away, but they can try their best to force them to stay "in their place."  It's a message, the same old message that white straight males have always asserted since the founding of this country. 

 

Freedom...?  lol

[Old River]

(sorry, I've lived in the south for too bloody long, and I've seen too much here)

[liminal_luke]

This is why I find it impossible to feel remotely "patriotic" about the US-- it simply goes against my conscience.  I don't hate the US, but neither do I love it. 

 

I feel the same way.  When some of my friends put up flags after 9/11, I was like..."huh?"  As countries go, we could do a lot worse, but if patriotism means glossing over the darkness in our history (and present), I don´t see how that can be a good thing.

[Old River]

As countries go, we could do a lot worse, but if patriotism means glossing over the darkness in our history (and present), I don´t see how that can be a good thing.

 

Exactly -- the issue isn't the awful deeds that have occurred in the past (what country doesn't have an ugly past?) -- but it's this unwillingness to even admit they occurred, much less admit that the US was founded upon (and prospered from!) these large-scale crimes.  It makes all the talk of freedom hard for me to take. 

[Karl]

It's a message, the same old message that white straight males have always asserted

That's a racist and sexist remark. I would say you are ignorant of world history. The US isn't a very old country, so, rather than disparaging it, you should review European history to get a perspective on the US. You would discover that it was the white races that were oppressed and conquered throughout Southern Europe.

 

It certainly wasn't unusual for white slave trading to take place. The first US slaves were white. Black Africans also took white slaves and blacks alike. The history of oppression does not come with a particular skin colour, sex or, sexual preference. There are many examples of females owning slavery companies.

 

This need to associate white heterosexual males with all the ills of the world is getting beyond a bloody joke. I regard it as violent racism and if you despise it in one race, you must despise it in all and begin with yourself.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Karl

[ralis]

That's a racist and sexist remark. I would say you are ignorant of world history. The US isn't a very old country, so, rather than disparaging it, you should review European history to get a perspective on the US. You would discover that it was the white races that were oppressed and conquered throughout Southern Europe.

 

It certainly wasn't unusual for white slave trading to take place. The first US slaves were white. Black Africans also took white slaves and blacks alike. The history of oppression does not come with a particular skin colour, sex or, sexual preference. There are many examples of females owning slavery companies.

 

This need to associate white heterosexual males with all the ills of the world is getting beyond a bloody joke. I regard it as violent racism and if you despise it in one race, you must despise it in all and begin with yourself.

 

Will you stick to the OP as opposed to wandering around in your own mind. Further, your narrative around US slavery is a revisionist point of view.

[ralis]

"State's rights" is nothing but a tacit code for "maintaining the hierarchy."

 

This is the real reason for states with their newfound obsession with bathrooms and wedding cakes.  The state can't gas 'em, they can't make them go away, but they can try their best to force them to stay "in their place."  It's a message, the same old message that white straight males have always asserted since the founding of this country. 

 

Freedom...?  lol

 

Yes indeed! Puritanical ideology has infested many aspects of US society to its detriment.

[Karl]

Will you stick to the OP as opposed to wandering around in your own mind. Further, your narrative around US slavery is a revisionist point of view.

 

Is this a version of do what I say, not do what I do ;-)

 

It is factual and well documented. Blacks were putting their own people in slavery and selling them to the white slavers. Blacks had been enslaving each other for thousands of years and black Mulslims were Enslaving White Christians in Europe. The revisionist history is to believe that somehow blacks/whites/gays/women are somehow superior or inferior, that they are incapable of barbarism. its horse shit. Blacks today are killing one another in horrific gangland violence just as they have done in ancient tribes. However, this is the reason we should ditch all forms of tribalism and deal with one another as individuals.

 

 

[doc benway]

It´s no fun bumming with someone whose so invested in being right it´s like arguing with a brick wall.  There comes a point where further engagement in conversation is just an exercise in masochism, a point that I reached some threads ago.  I for one am walking away from the Karl sandbox.  About damn time.

 

The ignore option makes this very easy.

Simply not engaging is a bit more challenging sometimes but it's a good practice in self discipline and acceptance.

[dust]

Again, I find myself agreeing with both sides.

 

Slavery has always existed, as far back as humans have had the capacity to think "What if I could get that guy to do my work for me?" or "What if I chained up these women and forced them to bed every night?", etc. It continues to happen, all over the world, and it has never been, and is not currently, something unique to people with white skin. This is known.

 

Presently, the issue is much worse in many countries other than the USA. So-called 'human rights' are being consistently violated throughout the East, the West, and all in between. Among this abuse, things such as racism, homophobia, and other prejudices are a massive, overwhelming, incredibly troubling problem, and in so many countries to a far greater extent than in the USA.

 

We've gotten way off-topic, but considering the subject matter we've covered in this thread, Karl is not wrong to point all this out.

 

At the same time, none of this excuses the racism and other unfounded prejudices that do exist in America. It is true that, though racism has decreased in the West over time, and the vast majority of Americans (of all 'races') are not consciously racist, a large enough number are. It's a bad thing.

 

My questions: What was responsible for white Americans coming to accept non-whites to the point that a man with the blood of Europe and Africa could be elected president? What has changed in the minds of all Americans to the point that nearly 90% approve of 'inter-racial' marriage?

 

Was it legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, outlawing discrimination based on 'race', sex, etc? Was it improved education around these issues? Was it a natural, inevitable change based on the fact that so-called 'races' are actually, objectively, not any different 'where it counts'? Why are some people still racist, still ignorant?

 

The abolition of slavery was necessary. Legislation entitling universal suffrage was necessary. Many important legal changes have been made in the last couple of hundred years, and many more need to be made. Gay marriage should be legally entitled everywhere, and there are surely still disparities in how, for example, black people are treated versus white people in the judicial system.

 

But how far should legislation go? In my opinion, there are always going to be those who cannot accept difference, who base belief on ancient religious nonsense and unexamined tradition, even those who resurrect ancient tradition. Perhaps the best way to deal with them is to make sure we know who and where they are. Maybe it's better not to silence them with anti-discrimination laws, but to make sure that if a person doesn't want blacks or gays or Muslims in his shop, we all know so and can duly deny him business.

 

Maybe. I dunno.

[Karl]

Well said DB.

[liminal_luke]

The ignore option makes this very easy.

 

 

Yes, it does.

[liminal_luke]

My questions: What was responsible for white Americans coming to accept non-whites to the point that a man with the blood of Europe and Africa could be elected president? What has changed in the minds of all Americans to the point that nearly 90% approve of 'inter-racial' marriage?

 

Was it legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, outlawing discrimination based on 'race', sex, etc? Was it improved education around these issues? Was it a natural, inevitable change based on the fact that so-called 'races' are actually, objectively, not any different 'where it counts'? Why are some people still racist, still ignorant?

 

Legislation does nothing to make a person more accepting and loving, nor should it.  People ought to be free to be as they hateful as they like -- within the sacred privacy of their own minds.  Law rightly comes into play when that hate is acted out in ways that interfere with the freedom and dignity of another person.

 

But that´s not to say that legislation like the Civil Rights Act have no influence on societal norms.  Laws both reflect changing societal mores and nudge those changes along.  In most places in the United States it´s no longer socially acceptable to be openly racist, and I think Civil Rights laws have something to do with that.  Legislation preventing business owners from refusing service to blacks, for example, sends the message that racism is not acceptable.  The absense of such laws, on the other hand, give would-be haters a green light.

Edited May 12, 2016 by liminal_luke

[Karl]

People ought to be free to be as they hateful as they like -- within the sacred privacy of their own minds.  Law rightly comes into play when that hate is acted out in ways that interfere with the freedom and dignity of another person.

 

.

 

It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Freedom according to Liminal_luke is the freedom not to be free. An Orwellian concept for sure. Everyone is free, but some are freer than others.

[Bodhicitta]

A gay chap on Transgenderism:

 

http://review.antiochcollege.org/sacred-androgen-transgender-debate-daniel-harris

 

Far more info than I wanted, but Harris is very brave lefty.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Bodhicitta

[liminal_luke]

A gay chap on Transgenderism:

 

http://review.antiochcollege.org/sacred-androgen-transgender-debate-daniel-harris

 

Sad proof that belonging to one minority does not magically protect a person against small-minded and bigoted views towards another minority.